State of Arizona
Fiscal Year 2009 Arizona’s Comprehensive
Three Year State Plan 2009-2011
FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT
Arizona 3 Year Plan Update for FY2009
1
Submitted to:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
March 2009
By:
State of Arizona
Governor Brewer’s Office of Children, Youth & Families
Division for Children
and the
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
Jan Brewer, Governor
David Barnhouse, Interim Director, Office of Children, Youth
& Families
Carisa Dwyer, Assistant Director, Division for Children
Cecil Patterson Jr., Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission Chair
Prepared by Staff
Governor’s Division for Children
FY2009 FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM GMS REGISTRATION
The Governor’s Division for Children registered for solicitation of the OJJDP FY2009 Title II
Formula Grant program on March 2, 2009 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 Division for Children has reviewed and accepted the “Assurances and
Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsible Matters; and
the Drug Free Workplace Requirement” as outline in the Office for Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Formula Grants Program Announcement.
Arizona 3 Year Plan Update for FY2009
2
Program Narrative
Attachment 1
State of Arizona
Three Year State Plan for 2009-2011
FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT
3
1. Structure and Function of the Juvenile Justice System
Arizona’s Juvenile Court System
Arizona’s formal juvenile justice system consists of fifteen 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 12,000 juveniles were detained
in these juvenile detention centers at some point during fiscal year 2008. 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
4
means that the state contributes and 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 Auditor General’s report released the end of 2007, the AOC
created a Detention Standards Task Force that has been working for the past year to
develop clearly defined standards. They have now created those standards and are in the
process of submitting them for adoption by the Supreme Court.
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 communitybased 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).
5
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 four 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 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 four safe schools/facilities are described below.
Adobe Mountain School (AMS)
AMS operates intake and 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. AMS primarily houses youth from Maricopa County.
It is located on Pinnacle Peak Road, just west of I-17 freeway.
Black Canyon School (BCS)
BCS operates intake and secure care programming for all female youth. BCS is located
just south of the Happy Valley Road exit, west of the I-17 freeway.
6
Catalina Mountain School (CMS)
CMS is a secure facility for male juveniles primarily from Pima County. CMS has 5
treatment units and 1 for youth with special behavior problems. It is located north of
Tucson on Highway 89.
Eagle Point School (EMS)
Eagle Point is a secure facility for males that has 6 housing units. Eagle Point houses
youth primarily from the southern and western counties of Arizona. It is located in
Buckeye on Highway 85.
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,
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.
7
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
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 to structure and information decisions 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.
2. Analysis of Juvenile Crime Problems and Juvenile Justice Needs
As described in the Juvenile Justice System Overview, the Juvenile Justice Services
Division of the Arizona Supreme Court works collaboratively with the juvenile courts in
all fifteen counties to administer juvenile justice programs for delinquent and incorrigible
youth. If a juvenile has committed a crime that warrants or requires commitment to a
8
correctional facility, that juvenile is remanded to either the Arizona Department of
Juvenile Corrections and/or the adult court in said county. As the primary state agency
offering oversight to juvenile justice, the Administrative Office of the Courts collects
data in collaboration with all fifteen counties and the Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections. These data are then published each year in the Juveniles Processed in the
Arizona Court System report.
2A. Analysis of Juvenile Crime Problems
Arizona’s juvenile justice system includes a diverse array of services and programming
and in order to adequately address the complex needs of youth in this 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 and needs provides the basic
framework to move forward with developing solutions to address emerging issues and
existing service gaps. This is an effort that is informed by knowledge of the system, the
current trends with regard to the population of youth being targeted for service delivery,
and a comprehensive coordination of resources. The Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission utilizes the Administrative Office of the Courts, Juveniles Processed in
Arizona’s Court System as a major source of data for analysis of juvenile crime and
developing priority areas for funding. The data provided in this report, however, comes
from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commissions Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
2009 Report (Attachment 1) which has compiled both adult and juvenile crime data from
1997 through 2007 offering the most comprehensive historical review of the crime trends
here in Arizona.
Through this report, we are able to examine changes in how youth were processed within
the juvenile justice system over the past ten years. When utilizing this information to
make determinations regarding funding allocation and the direction of juvenile justice
reform for the next three years, we must review the decision points that have the most
direct impact on the four core protections of the JJDP Act that lend themselves to the
opportunity for accountability in reference to the JABG program. Information utilized
include: number and percent of youth referred; number and percent of youth detained;
number and percent of petition as filed; number and percent of adjudications; number and
percent of transfers and direct files to adult court. Additional analysis will be included
regarding the racial and ethnic breakdown within some of these decision-points.
It is important to note that over the last ten years the juvenile population in Arizona has
increased by 42 percent. Within that increase there has been a dramatic shift in the racial
and ethnic breakdown of Arizona residents as well as an increase in the Hispanic and
Latino population. While Caucasians still represent the bulk of the population, Hispanic
9
and Latino population is now over 40% statewide.
i. 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.
Please refer to the next section for information regarding trends in juveniles referred.
ii. Number and Characteristics of Juvenile Referred to Juvenile
Court
Over the past ten years it appears that the number of juveniles referred to the juvenile
court has remained relatively stable and given the fact that the juvenile population has
increased by 42 percent it’s remarkably that the rate of referrals has actually decreased by
32 percent.
Juveniles Referred
FY1997 - FY2007
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Juveniles
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
50,210
51,009
48,246
48,534
51,274
50,399
49,588
49,878
48,436
48,395
48,677
While the number of referrals have remained relatively stable the type of offense class
has changed. Most significantly we have seen an increase in the percentage of youth
being referred for misdemeanor offenses while there has been a decrease in the
percentage of referrals for felony crimes. Additionally, while there has been a decrease
in administrative referrals over the past few years, overall there has been an increase
10
since 1997. This information is cause for discussion regarding the need for more targeted
strategies within delinquency prevention and/or system reform efforts that look at
processing low risk and status offenses outside the court system.
“When looking at the offense class for which the juvenile was referred, from 1997 to
2007 the largest percentage of juveniles was referred were misdemeanors followed by
felonies. During the time period analyzed, the percentage of all referrals that were for
misdemeanor offenses generally increased from 1997 to 2005, before leveling off in 2006
and 2007. The percentage of all referrals that were for felonies decreased from 1997 to
1999 and throughout the rest of the time period remained relatively stable. In 2007, 29.9
percent of all referrals to juvenile court were for a felony offense. Significantly, the third
largest offense class for referrals to juvenile court was for status offenses. Status offenses
are behaviors that are illegal for children, but would not be considered criminal if
committed by an adult (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, running away from home,
truancy, etc.). Generally, throughout this time period approximately one out of every six
referrals to Arizona’s Juvenile Court was for a status offense.”
*Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2009 (page 62)
Percent of Juveniles Referred by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense
FY1997 – FY2007
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
34.2
33.2
30.8
29.6
29.2
29.4
28.6
29.3
29.2
29.4
29.9
43.0
Misdemeanor
Violations of Probation
& Ordinances
43.3
45.4
46.9
46.6
46.6
48.3
48.3
48.6
47.1
47.3
Status
18.7
18.9
18.4
17.7
18.2
17.3
16.5
16.2
15.8
17.8
17.3
Other
0.6
0.5
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
Administrative
3.5
4.1
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.6
5.4
4.9
5.1
4.6
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Felony
Total
4.4
iii. Number of Cases Handled Formally or Informally
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. §8323, these include youth who are chronic felony offenders (i.e., juveniles that have had
two prior and separate adjudications for an offense that would be considered a felony if
they were an adult), violent felony offenders, and those who are alleged to have
committed an offense involving driving under the influence. While a couple counties,
11
primarily Pima County, have made strides to increase the number of youth diverted and
utilize alternatives to detention, the overall diversion rates have steadily decreased since
2002.
Juveniles Diverted
FY1997 - FY2007
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Juveniles
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
17,232
21,552
21,630
21,776
22,305
22,480
21,923
20,877
20,309
20,081
19,222
Percent of Juveniles Diverted by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense
FY1997 – FY2007
Felony
Misdemeanor
Violations of Probation
& Ordinances
Status
Other
Administrative
1997
20.1
56.5
1998
17.7
57.8
1999
15.6
58.7
2000
14.9
57.2
2001
15.2
56.3
2002
13.8
57.2
2003
13.7
59.8
2004
13.3
61.0
2005
15.5
60.7
2006
14.3
59.9
2007
13.6
61.4
21.1
0.5
1.8
22.7
0.3
1.5
23.8
0.8
1.2
26.0
0.5
1.4
27.3
0.2
1.0
27.3
0.2
1.5
24.9
0.3
1.3
24.0
0.5
1.2
22.2
0.4
1.2
24.7
0.4
0.8
0.7
24.0
0.3
0.0
“When looking at the offense class for which youth were diverted from further
involvement in Arizona’s juvenile justice system, the majority of diversions were of
youth charged with a misdemeanor offense. From FY97 to FY07, the percentage of
diversions of misdemeanor offenders ranged from a low of 56.5 percent in FY97 to a
high of 61.4 percent in FY07 (Table 45). Additionally, a significant percentage of
diversions from FY97 to FY07 were also of youth charged with status or felony offenses,
12
although the percentage of diversions of youth charged with a felony offense declined
from 20.1 percent in FY97 to 13.6 percent in FY07.”
*Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2009 (page 74-75)
Juvenile Petitions Filed
FY1997 - FY2007
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Juveniles
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
17,733
18,496
18,186
20,204
19,983
19,036
17,903
18,799
18,329
18,055
17,958
“Although the number of petitions filed in FY07 was approximately equivalent to the
number of petitions filed in FY97, an analysis of the offense class for which those
petitions were filed reveals a significant shift in the types of offenses for which petitions
were filed. The percentage of all petitions filed in FY97 of youth charged with a felony
offense was 57.1 percent, but by FY07 that percentage declined to 45.3 percent of all
petitions filed. Over this same time, there is a somewhat corresponding increasing shift in
the percentage of petitions filed of youth charged with misdemeanor offenses, from 30.1
percent in FY97 to 38.8 percent in FY07.”
13
Percent of Juveniles Petitions Filed by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense
FY1997 – FY2007
1997
57.1
Felony
30.1
Misdemeanor
Violations of Probation
& Ordinances
3.4
Status
0.0
Other
9.4
Administrative
0.0
Unknown
1998
52.0
33.0
1999
48.8
35.7
2000
41.4
39.8
2001
43.4
36.8
2002
43.5
38.1
2003
42.3
39.6
2004
44.0
40.1
2005
44.0
39.8
2006
45.7
39.4
2007
45.3
38.8
3.7
0.0
11.3
0.0
3.6
0.4
11.5
0.0
7.8
0.4
10.6
0.0
7.6
0.1
12.1
0.0
4.9
0.1
13.5
0.0
4.5
0.3
13.4
0.0
4.0
0.3
11.6
0.0
3.5
0.3
12.5
0.0
3.4
0.3
11.1
0.0
11.6
4.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
*Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2009 (page 79-80)
iv. Number of Delinquent and State Offenders Admitted to Detention
“Juvenile detention in Arizona is used for the secure but temporary custody of juvenile
that have been referred to the juvenile justice system.”
*Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2009 (page 67)
Juveniles Detained
FY1997 - FY2007
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Juveniles
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
12,094
13,022
12,639
13,075
13,594
13,660
12,913
12,688
12,079
12,068
12,107
The number of youth detained has also remained stable even with an increase between
fiscal years 1997 and 2002. There has been a continued decline since 2002 bringing
levels in 2007 back to where they were in 1997. Some of the decline can be attributed to
14
the local efforts to implement the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) of the
Annie E. Casey Foundation. Pima County alone has significantly reduced the number of
youth detained from an average daily population of 175 in fiscal year 2003 to 95 in fiscal
year 2008.
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. The broader
allowance for use of detainment might explain why there hasn’t been a reduction in the
number of youth detained in the State even though specific communities are actively
trying to utilize alternatives to detention.
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, 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.
v. Other Social, Economic, Legal, and Organizational Conditions
As with many states across the country, Arizona is in the midst of the most significant
recession it’s seen in years. Funding has been slashed across all systems and these cuts
will invariably impact the juvenile justice system. Substance abuse treatment funding has
been cut nearly in half. Considering a large majority of youth in detention require
treatment services and nearly 80% of the youth entering ADJC have a diagnosable
addiction, this will have a devastating effect on the success of these youth. At the city
county level there are additional cuts. For example, in the city of Phoenix all youth
15
programming has been eliminated. This will certainly lead to an increase in referrals to
the juvenile court.
To compound the impact of budget cuts, there are a number of legislative bills on the
table that can potentially impact both detention numbers and compliance violations.
These include bills that would add new status offenses per federal language and other
bills that add confinement as a consequence for not fulfilling diversion obligations.
2B. State Priority Juvenile Justice Needs/Problem Statements
Priority Area - 1
Delinquency Prevention (Program Area 09)
Problem Statement
The Arizona Juvenile Justice 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 FY08, 46,749 youth between the ages of 8 to 17 were referred to the Arizona Court System.
Based on the FY08 estimated juvenile population for Arizona, the 46,749 referred youth
denote that 1 in 20.8 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 Juveniles Processed in the
Arizona Court System Report for FY2008 (Attachment 2).
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. Additionally, more focus should be given
to the Native American Tribes in Arizona. 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.
16
Also, outlined in the attached reports, data supports the need for better gender specific
programming throughout the state. While the proportion of referrals for girls and boys have
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 the Risk and
Resiliency Model developed by Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Catalano and support best practice
models and research based strategies. Program strategies must be based on sound needs
analysis 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 FY08,
11,674 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.
17
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 is over 46,000
annually. Referrals are made by police, parents, school officials, probation officers,
community agencies and individuals. The amount of youth referred who come into contact
with the 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 -3A
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (Program Area 08)
Problem Statement
The secure holding of accused or adjudicated status offenders continues to be the most
significant compliance issue for the State of Arizona. The violations for adjudicated
status offenders spiked in 2007 and while they have decreased in 2008 they still remain
the largest proportion of violations. As illustrated in Arizona’s 2008 Compliance
Monitoring Report there were 495 DSO violations in FY08, after backing out the Federal
Wards or out-of-state runaways there were still 252 remaining DSO violations.
Priority Area - 4
Native American Programs (Program Area 22)
Problem Statement
The AJJC 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 7% 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. While Arizona is
18
only required to pass-through less than $40,000 in total funding to tribes based on
population, the commission seeks to improve the capacity of tribes to address juvenile
justice issues on the reservations. The commission does this by providing a significant
financial set-aside for tribes.
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 (B.I.A.). 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 – 5
Disproportionate Minority Contact-DMC (Program Area 10)
Problem Statement
Despite long-term efforts over the last ten years, Arizona continues to see an overrepresentation of minority youth within the juvenile justice system. Some degree of this
disproportionate contact with minority youth can be found in most of the decision points
along the juvenile justice continuum from referral to petitions filed to adjudication to
corrections and especially within the juveniles transferred or directly filed with the adult
court. The extent of the disproportionate contact depends on the specific community and
decision point. There are also variations in what minority group is most affected.
19
Priority Area – 6
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 overrepresentation of minority youth at various decision-points across the system and an
increase in low-risk non violent offenders being detained.
Priority Area – 7
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 then 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.
20
3. Plan for Compliance With the First Three Core Requirements of the JJDP Act
and the State’s Compliance Monitoring Plan
a. Plan for Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)
Arizona continues to receive a finding of compliance with de minimis exceptions
regarding the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offender (DSO) requirement [Section
223(a)(11)(A)] of the JJDP Act. Since 2001, the Governor's Division for Children 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 activities have taken place that exhibit the
steps Arizona has taken to address violations of the core requirements. These include
an increased role by Arizona’s State Advisory Group in advocating for compliance and
incorporating the core requirements into the statewide peace officer training programs.
As illustrated in Arizona’s 2008 Compliance Monitoring Report, 429 (87%) of the 495
DSO violations occurred in county juvenile detention facilities. Of the 429 violations in
juvenile detention centers, 243 (57%) of these violations were Federal Wards or out-ofstate runaways. When the Federal Ward and Out-of-State Runaway violations (243) are
removed from the total DSO violation count, there are only 252 remaining DSO
violations, which would give Arizona a revised violation rate of 15.81.
The remaining 13% (65) of Arizona’s total DSO violations resulted from status offenders
secured in adult jails or lockups. Factors that affect adult lockup compliance with the
DSO mandate are primarily officer safety matters and training issues and will be
discussed in the following section as it relates to the State’s Plan for Removal of
Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups.
Strategies, Activities and Timetable for addressing DSO violations
Key approaches designed to reduce Arizona’s DSO violations include:
1. Increase education, technical assistance and training to facilities, with
increasing efforts in localities/agencies that have been identified as having
frequent DSO violations;
2. Maintain prioritization of JJDP Act funding for programs that address DSO
issues; and
21
3. Continued implementation and utilization of the Valid Court Order Exception
(as defined in the Reauthorization of the JJDP Act of 2002) in Arizona’s
juvenile courts (modifying juvenile court procedures when necessary).
The following table describes specific strategies, activities, and time
frames outlined to address training and technical assistance needs for
addressing DSO violations in Arizona:
Strategy
Continue Site Visits
Activity


Develop Training
Materials


Time Frame
Continue to conduct regular site visits to provide
regular, on-site technical assistance and education
regarding core requirements
Advise regarding new facility plans to assure
compliance with core requirements
Collect policies to ensure consistency
Develop a training manual for law enforcement
agencies/juvenile detention agencies regarding core
requirements
Develop training tools for agencies (signs, manual
supplements, etc.) to assist department with training
efforts

Continuous (2006-2008)

Continuous (2006-2008)

Continuous (2006-2008)
Provide FacilitySpecific Training
Tools

Conduct Immediate
Follow-up on
Violations Reported

Phone/Email follow-up to determine circumstances
of violation and any necessary follow-up activities
(department training, etc.)

Continuous (2006-2008)
Continued
implementation of
the Valid Court
Order.

Education and training on Valid Court Order
Exception procedures delivered to County
Detention Facilities upon site visit and in review of
monthly detention reports.

Continuous (2006-2008)
Role of State Advisory Group in Compliance with DSO
Arizona’s State Advisory Group (SAG) addresses compliance issues on a regular basis
through its Compliance Committee. Along with other SAG committees the Compliance
Committee has increased its role in advocating for compliance. This committee implemented
a Compliance Action Plan in 2008 that included an increased focus on law enforcement
partnerships as well as increasing its use of violation data to target reduction strategies.
Additionally, technical assistance was requested and granted regarding an on-site Valid Court
Order Exception training for judges, court directors and detention staff in October 2008.
As part of its data analysis efforts, the Compliance Committee has implemented a process to
better utilize compliance violation data to target strategies for reductions. The Compliance
22
Committee utilizes data compiled from the monthly violation reports to breakdown the various
violations into categories (type of violations, circumstances behind violations, following up
measures, technical assistance needs). This process has allowed the Compliance Monitor and
Committee members to have a better understanding of particular agencies violations, invite
law enforcement and detention center staff to work with the committee to find resolutions, and
to find appropriate solutions that will work to avoid recurring violations.
Following are two examples of instances where specific violation data allowed the
Compliance Monitor to contact law enforcement and the courts to identify an issue and
develop a solution to avoid further violations. The first was with the Surprise Police
Department. Reports received during a one month period indicated a higher number of
violations than normal. When contacted, the Sgt. indicated the reason for the violations
was due to the growing population and new staff/police officers being hired. Training
was scheduled and conducted for the following week during the monthly sergeant’s
meeting which resulted in immediate reduction in violations. Handouts were provided at
the meeting and information regarding alternatives to detention was discussed. Since the
training officer has now taken on the responsibility of reporting to the Governor’s Office
and due to the on-going training and continuous contact, violations have remained low.
The second example was within the Yavapai Juvenile Detention Center. The Compliance
Monitor discovered a tobacco violation in a report. The Presiding Juvenile Court Judge
was immediately contacted and informed of the violation. The compliance monitor was
informed that the judge who committed the violation was new to the bench and that
training would be provided regarding the violation to ensure the proper procedure would
be followed. To date that has proven to be an isolated incident and there have not been
any other violations for tobacco.
Valid Court Order Exception
Arizona became eligible to begin claiming Valid Court Order Exception cases
on October 1, 2003. Three counties actively utilize the VCO process. Since only three
counties actively utilize the process and do not include the largest counties in Arizona, it
was critical to provide an on-site training statewide. As a result, OJJDP granted a TA
request and training was provided in October in three different counties over the course
of four days. This was the first training since 2004.
23
The Compliance Monitor, Juvenile Justice Specialist and the Compliance Committee are
still working with the courts to establish a statewide process for utilizing the VCO.
Sample forms have been provided to the counties to assist them in documenting their
compliance with all VCO criteria.
Partnership with Arizona’s Peace Officer Training Academy
The Governor’s Division for Children has developed a partnership with Arizona’s peace
officer training oversight board, Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training (AZ
POST). This partnership 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 AZ POST incorporated the Four Core
Requirements and associated procedures in processing juveniles under these protections
in its AZ Peace Officer Standards and Training Board Curriculum. The Compliance
Monitor has been conducting a minimum of one training per year through AZ POST and
in 2008 added a second training.
Participants now receive the training materials on a cd-rom following the training and
receive additional information regarding community resources not previously included in
the training. Each officer receives three-hours of training credit per session through the
partnership with AZ POST which contributes to their annual required training.
Plan for Separation of Juveniles from Adult Offenders
In Arizona’s FY08 Annual Compliance Report, data 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 compliance with this requirement can be attributed to the cooperative relationship
between the Governor’s Division for Children and facilities required to report, to these
facilities maintaining adequate record-keeping systems regarding juveniles temporarily held in
their facilities, and to the numerous local law enforcement agencies that have implemented
department policies and procedures that either reference the JJDP Act or are in accordance
with its core requirements.
24
Activities, strategies, activities to address Separation in Arizona:
Strategy
Continue Site Visits
Activity



Develop Training
Materials

Provide FacilitySpecific Training Tools

Conduct Immediate
Follow-up on
Violations Reported

Time Frame
Continue to conduct regular site visits to provide regular,
on-site technical assistance and education regarding core
requirements
Work with departments regarding new facilities to ensure
compliance with core requirements is considered
Collect policies and to ensure consistency with core
requirements
Develop a training manual that may be distributed to all law
enforcement agencies/juvenile detention agencies regarding
core requirements
Develop training tools for agency (signs, manual
supplements, etc.) to assist department with training efforts


2006-2008
Phone/Email follow-up to determine circumstances of
violation and any necessary follow-up activities (department
training, etc.)

Continuous
Continuous, and on
an as-needed basis

2006-2008
Role of the State Advisory Group in Monitoring Compliance with Separation
As stated in the Plan for Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, the Arizona Juvenile
Justice Commission, Arizona’s State Advisory Group, reviews compliance issues on a regular
basis through the Compliance/Legislative subcommittee. As part of its data analysis efforts,
the Compliance Monitor and members of the SAG’s Compliance Committee implemented 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.).
The SAG plans to continue to use the Community Collaboration Forum and Regional Site
Visit strategy to advise agencies of the sight and sound separation of juveniles from
incarcerated adults requirement, to gain an understanding of agencies violations, and to address
issues facing agencies regarding this requirement. This process has and will continue to allow
the Compliance Monitor and Committee members to have a better understanding of particular
agencies violations, invite law enforcement and detention center staff to work with the
committee to find resolutions, and to find appropriate solutions that will work to avoid
recurring violations.
25
Collocated Facilities/Waived or Transferred Youth
Arizona does not utilize the same staff to serve both adult and juvenile populations.
Furthermore, current policies are in place that provide assurance that juvenile who have been
transferred or waived or are otherwise under the jurisdiction of a criminal court are moved to
an adult facility or separated from other juvenile delinquent offender in secure juvenile
detention centers or correctional facilities within 6 months after the youth reaches the state’s
age of full criminal responsibility.
Partnership with Arizona’s Peace Officer Training Academy
The Governor’s Division for Children, Compliance Monitor has developed a partnership
with Arizona’s peace officer training oversight board, Arizona Peace Officer Standards
and Training (AZ POST). This partnership 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 AZ POST
incorporated the Four Core Requirements and associated procedures in processing
juveniles under these protections in its AZ Peace Officer Standards and Training Board
Curriculum.
In 2008, activities in partnership with the Compliance Monitor and AZPOST included the
addition of a second training to officers regarding juvenile law matters that relate to the
JJDP Act core requirements and assistance with producing, distributing, and the
possibility of funding training materials to all law enforcement agencies, including
training manuals and briefing videos.
Plan for Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups
Arizona continues to report a finding of compliance with the Jail Removal [Section
223(a)(13)] core requirement of the JJDP Act. In review of the overall Compliance
Status for Arizona with regard to holding youth secure in Adult Jail and Locks, Arizona
has reduced its ‘Rate of Jail Removal Violations’. Arizona continues to report a finding
of compliance with the Jail Removal [Section 223(a)(13)] core requirement of the JJDP
Act. In review of the overall Compliance Status for Arizona with regard to holding youth
secure in Adult Jail and Locks, Arizona has reduced its ‘Rate of Jail Removal
Violations’. As shown below, Arizona’s violation rate for Jail Removal has decreased
from 2006 to 2008 and continues to fall within the range for compliance with de minimis
exception. For 2009, 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.
26
The reduction in jail removal violations can be partly attributed to the increased awareness of
the core protections by law enforcement along with the implementation of the Standard
Assurance Forms that provided a signed assurance that a facility has a policy that is
comparable to the requirements of the JJDP Act. This policy was to include assurance that the
department does not have a practice of securing non-offenders or status offenders, including
youth charged with possession or consumption of alcohol.
Arizona Compliance Rate for Jail Removal
Violations:
Year
Rate
2006
12.47
2008
8.77
In 2008, 47% of Arizona’s jail removal violations are instances of status offenders being
held securely in an adult jail or lockup. Factors that affect adult lockup compliance with
the DSO mandate are primarily officer safety matters and training issues. All agencies
that report a violation are requested to submit a supplemental violation report that
provides the circumstances of the violation, primary cause of the violation (i.e., training,
safety, staffing, lengthy investigations, other), as well as the departmental follow up
action taken. This information is used to target specific training and technical assistance
resources to agencies needing additional information regarding the regulations.
A significant portion of jail removal violations in Arizona are instances of status
offenders held securely in an adult jail or lockup. Therefore, programs funded by the
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, as described in Plan for Deinstitutionalization of
Status Offenders, work to assist law enforcement by providing alternatives to secure
holding. It is the intent to increase the alternative options to secure detention of juveniles
for law enforcement personnel.
Six Hour Hold Exception: A portion of Arizona’s jail removal violations are instances in
which the Six Hour Hold Exception has been exceeded. Under Section 220(a)(13)(A), accused
delinquent youth can be detained securely 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,
27
and/or to arrange for transfer or release. Arizona’s FY08 Annual Compliance Report showed
that 28% of violations reported under the Jail Removal category were due to violation of the
Six Hour Hold Exception.
Activities, strategies, and timetable to address Jail Removal violations in Arizona:
Strategy
Continue Site Visits
Activity



Develop Training
Materials

Provide FacilitySpecific Training Tools

Conduct Immediate
Follow-up on
Violations Reported

Continue to conduct regular site visits to provide
regular, on-site technical assistance and education
regarding core requirements
Work with departments regarding new facilities to
ensure compliance with core requirements is
considered
Collect policies and to ensure consistency with core
requirements
Develop a training manual that may be distributed
to all law enforcement agencies/juvenile detention
agencies regarding core requirements
Develop training tools for agency (signs, manual
supplements, etc.) to assist department with training
efforts
Phone/Email follow-up to determine circumstances
of violation and any necessary follow-up activities
(department training, etc.)
Time Frame

Continuous, and on an asneeded basis

2006-2008

2006-2008

Continuous
In situations in which safety or staffing issues was the primary cause of the violation, the
Compliance Monitor, Juvenile Justice Specialist and members of the State Advisory
Group Compliance Committee have initiated a practice in which outreach is made to the
agency supervisor, police officers, and departmental heads. This strategy has proven
successful in fostering positive relationships and communication with departmental heads
to explore alternative strategies that meet the agency’s need to maintain public safety as
well as meet the regulations of the JJDP Act.
Partnership with Arizona’s Peace Officer Training Academy
Arizona continues to maintain a relationship with the Arizona Peace Officer Standards
and Training (AZ POST) Board to enhance law enforcement training regarding juveniles.
This relationship has already resulted in academy training revisions. The AZ POST
incorporated the Four Core Requirements and associated procedures in processing
28
juveniles under these protections in its standard AZ Peace Officer Standards and Training
Board Curriculum.
Initiatives for 2009-2011 include continued trainings twice a year, the development of an
updated training/briefing video and the distribution of the new law enforcement training
field operations guide printed in 2008. Additionally, the Compliance Monitor along with
the Compliance Committee plan to continue efforts to increase coordination between
agencies experiencing violations due to a lack of alternatives and programs funded
specifically to serve as a resource and alternative to detention centers and local law
enforcement. The Compliance Committee’s public awareness and community forum
efforts work to provide continual awareness of these and other alternatives to detention
center and law enforcement personnel.
Role of the State Advisory Group in Monitoring Compliance with Jail Removal
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, Arizona’s State Advisory Group, reviews
compliance issues on a regular basis through the Compliance/Legislative subcommittee.
The Committee is apprised of various issues affecting compliance status around the state,
and advised of completed and pending site visits. The Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission members are also advised of all compliance monitoring site visits and
invited to attend.
As part of its data analysis efforts, the Compliance Committee has implemented 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 process has allowed the Compliance Monitor and Committee members
to have a better understanding of particular agencies violations, invite law enforcement
and detention center staff to work with the committee to find resolutions, and to find
appropriate solutions that will work to avoid recurring violations.
As noted in each of the plans for compliance with the first three core protections, the Arizona’s
State Advisory Group, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, continually recognizes the
importance of compliance monitoring activities and dedicates JJDP Act funding to programs
that will assist in achieving compliance.
29
b. Plan for Compliance Monitoring for the First Three Core Requirements
of the JJDP Act
Policy and Procedures
Please see Attachment 3 for a copy of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and
Families Compliance Monitoring Policies and Procedures Manual.
Monitoring Authority
The Governor’s Division for Children has oversight of monitoring activities conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the JJDP Act.
OJJDP’s recommendations regarding monitoring authority are as follows2:





The agency responsible for monitoring should have the legal
authority to monitor facilities.
The authority should be sufficiently broad to require inspections, to
require admission/release records, and to permit monitors to
review the records.
Basic authority should include the right to inspect for compliance,
to cite facilities for violations, and enforce sanctions.
Authority should allow records review.
Monitors should provide written agreement that information is
confidential.
As of the date of the last review of this policy, Arizona does not have an Executive
Order or State statute that grants monitoring authority regarding monitoring
activities related to the JJDP Act.
However, even in lieu of the absence of formal authority, the Governor’s Division for
Children has had minimal difficulty in obtaining full participation in the compliance
monitoring process for law enforcement and juvenile facilities around the state.
*Please refer to page 16 in the attached Policies and Procedures Manual.
Monitoring Timeline
OJJDP Formula Grants Consolidated Regulation (28 CFR Part 31) provides that the State
shall report annually to the Administrator of OJJDP on the results of monitoring for
compliance with the JJDP Act. This report should cover a period of 12 months, but not
less than 6, and it shall be submitted to the Administrator of OJJDP by December 31 of
each year.3
Arizona compiles compliance monitoring data on a state fiscal year basis (effective with
the 2002 monitoring report). Therefore, annual reports submitted to OJJDP cover data
collected from July 1 through June 30.
2
3
From OJJDP’s State and Tribal Relations Division, August 1999.
OJJDP Formula Grants Consolidated Regulation (28 CFR Part 31), Section 31.303 (f)(4)(v)(5), page 15.
30
Compilation and analysis of data will begin after reports for June have been received
(theoretically by July 15) each year. The annual state compliance monitoring report is
submitted to OJJDP no later than December 31. See section 600.1 for additional
information regarding annual report preparation.
The following table outlines a general timetable for some compliance monitoring
activities:
February
March - April
May
June
September – October
July – June
July-June
July – December
Review the policy and procedure manual, make revisions (if
needed), finalize, and place revisions in the policy and
procedure manual.
Review all entities in the Compliance Monitoring Universe
database and update, if necessary. Review activities include
obtaining the annual Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
(ACJC) Directory, contacting appropriate State agencies for
facility and contact information. Any necessary additions,
modifications, or deletions will be made.
Review all reporting forms and make any necessary revisions.
Send out revised reporting forms (if applicable); send annual
certification forms to appropriate agencies.
Archive compliance monitoring data and annual report
documentation.
Conduct mandatory site visits and provide technical assistance
and training; collect, review, enter, and file data collection
regarding compliance/violations. Conduct any necessary
follow up.
Provide regular compliance updates to the Compliance
Committee of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission.
Complete data collection activities and begin analysis for
compilation of the annual report to OJJDP. The annual report
will be finalized and submitted to OJJDP before December 31.
*Please reference page 19 in the attached Policies and Procedures manual.
Violation Procedures
Facilities reporting data on a monthly basis complete a reporting form and also send a
copy of the tracking log used to determine compliance. Sending of the data log allows
the Governor’s Division for Children to review data to ensure accuracy at regular
intervals, rather than sporadically or even annually at site visits. If a violation occurs in a
law enforcement agency, completed Violation Information Form describing any
violations that have occurred during the reporting period is also submitted to Governor
Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families. (This process was not in place for
juvenile detention centers at the time this policy was last reviewed.) Policy 500.1.4.2
describes the procedure for reviewing and processing reports.
*Please reference page 49 in the attached Policies and Procedures manual.
31
Barriers and Strategies
Barriers to Compliance with DSO
Possible Courses
to Overcome
Barriers


A.R.S. § 4-246 defines
the offense of minor in
possession or
consumption of alcohol
(reference A.R.S. § 244) as a delinquent
offense; JJDPA
regulations classifies
this as a status offense.

Alternatives to detention
are not always readily
available and/or
sustainable in
communities


Implement a VCO
process, as minor in
possession violations
usually present as
violations of probation,
with possession as the
original charge
Continue to reinforce to
law
enforcement/juvenile
court that OJJDP defines
minor in possession
charges as a status
offense and DSO time
restriction apply
Work with communities
to identify needs/best
practice
Resources






Each of the 15 counties
has different resources
to respond to the needs
of status offenders and
delinquency prevention

Work with communities
to define needed
alternatives to detention
(curfew times,
runaways, alcohol, etc.)
and educate them as to
how JJDP funds may be
utilized to initiate these
programs



OJJDP training and technical
assistance on implementation
of the VCO exception
JJDP Title II funds used to
support compliance
monitoring activities, such as
regular site visits and
production/distribution of
training materials
JJDP Title II and V (priority
given to programs for
alternatives to detention in
each Request for Grant
Application)
Explore county resources for
alternatives
OJJDP technical assistance
training regarding
sustainability of programs,
specifically in rural areas
JJDP Title II and V (priority
given to programs to support
compliance with DSO
mandate in Request for Grant
Application
Explore county resources to
address status offenders in
community
OJJDP technical assistance
training regarding best
practices and utilizing existing
resources to address status
offenders
Increased trainings have been made available to law enforcement regarding juvenile law
matters that relate to the JJDPA core protections and assistance with producing,
distributing, and funding of training materials to all law enforcement agencies, including
training manuals and briefing videos.
Barriers to Achieving Full Compliance with Jail Removal
32
Possible Courses
to Overcome
Barriers

Ongoing training and
education is required, as
facility staff turnover
may contribute to
noncompliance of this
core requirement



Department policies may
not address time
restriction for temporary
holding of juveniles

Develop a training
manual that may be
distributed to all law
enforcement agencies
regarding core
requirements
Develop other training
materials to assist
departments in their
compliance training
efforts
Continue conducting
site visits to any
facilities reporting
difficulty in meeting the
six hour removal
requirement to develop
alternative procedures;
recommend changes to
ensure consistency with
core requirements
Resources




JJDP Title II funds used to
support compliance
monitoring activities, such as
regular site visits and
production/distraction of
training materials.
OJJDP technical assistance
training when necessary
JJDP Title II funds used to
support compliance
monitoring activities
Department records/policies
regarding temporary holding
of juveniles; published best
practice policies
Barriers to Achieving Full Compliance with Separation
Possible Courses
to Overcome
Barriers

Ongoing training and
education is required, as
facility staff turnover
may contribute to
noncompliance of this
core requirement



Smaller and rural law
enforcement facilities
often have limited space
and/or staff to facilitate
separation of juveniles
and adult offenders

Develop a training
manual that may be
distributed to all law
enforcement agencies
regarding core
requirements
Develop other training
materials to assist
departments in their
compliance training
efforts
Continue conducting
site visit to any facilities
reporting difficulty in
meeting the separation
requirement to develop
alternative procedures
33
Resources




JJDP Title II funds used to
support compliance monitoring
activities, such as regular site
visits and
production/distribution of
training materials
OJJDP technical assistance
training when necessary
Facility resources to utilize
alternative placements for
juvenile offenders
OJJDP technical assistance
regarding how to maintain
separation requirements if none
can be readily identified
Barriers to Implementing and Maintaining a Monitoring System
Possible Courses
to Overcome
Barriers

The number of facilities
included in the
compliance monitoring
universe continues to
expand dramatically,
paralleling state growth

Continue conducting
regular site visits and
include dialogue
regarding substations and
department policies that
allow temporary holding
at alternate locations
Resources

JJDP Title II funds used to
support compliance
monitoring activities
*Please reference page 13 in the attached Policies and Procedures manual.
Definition of Terms
Adult Jail – a locked facility, administered by State, county or local law enforcement and
correctional agencies, the purpose of which is to detain adults charged with violating
criminal law, pending trial. Also considered as adult jails are those facilities used to hold
convicted adult criminal offenders sentenced for less than 1 year.
Adult lockup – similar to an adult jail except that an adult lockup is generally a
municipal or police facility of a temporary nature that does not hold persons after they
have been formally charged.
Contact – any physical or sustained sight and sound contact between juvenile offenders
in a secure custody status and incarcerated adults, including inmate trustees.
Sight Contact is defined as clear visual contact between incarcerated adults and juveniles
within close proximity to each other.
Sound Contact is defined as direct oral communication between incarcerated adults and
juvenile offenders.
Court Holding Facility – a secure facility, other than an adult jail or lockup, that is used
to temporarily detain persons immediately before or after detention hearings or other
court proceedings.
Delayed Egress Device – a device that precludes the use of exits for a predetermined
period of time.
Delinquent (Criminal-type offender) – a juvenile offender who has been charged with or
adjudicated for conduct that would, under the law of jurisdiction in which the offense was
committed, be a crime if committed by an adult.
Non-offender – a juvenile who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, usually
under abuse, dependency, or neglect statutes for reasons other than legally prohibited
conduct of the juvenile.
34
Non-secure Detention – a juvenile may be in law enforcement custody and, therefore,
not free to leave or depart from the presence of a law enforcement officer or at liberty to
leave the premises of a law enforcement facility, but not be in a secure detention or
confinement status. All of the following must be met for non-secure status to apply:
1. The area(s) where the juvenile is held is an unlocked multipurpose
area,
such as a lobby, office, or interrogation room that is not
designated, set aside, or used primarily as a secure detention area
or is not part of such an area, or, if a secure area, is used only for
processing purposes;
2. The juvenile is not physically secured to a cuffing rail or other
stationary object during the period of custody in the facility;
3. The use of the area(s) is limited to providing nonsecure custody
only long enough and for the purposes of identification,
investigation, processing, release to parents, or arranging transfer
to an appropriate juvenile facility or to court;
4. In no event can the area be designed or intended to be used for
residential purposes; and,
5. The juvenile must be under continuous visual supervision by a law
enforcement officer or facility staff during the period of time that
he or she is in nonsecure custody.
Examples:



Handcuffing the juvenile to himself or herself or a nonstationary object. Handcuffing techniques that do not involve
cuffing rails or other stationary objects are considered
nonsecure if the five criteria listed above are adhered to.
If certain criteria are met, a juvenile being processed through a
secure booking area. Where a secure booking area is all that is
available, and continuous visual supervision is provided
throughout the booking process, and the juvenile remains in the
booking area only long enough to be photographed and
fingerprinted (consistent with State law and/or judicial rules),
the juvenile is not considered to be in a secure detention status.
Continued nonsecure custody for the purposes of interrogation,
contacting parents, or arranging an alternative placement must
occur outside the booking area.
A juvenile placed in a secure police car for transportation. The
JJDP Act applies to secure detention facilities and secure
correctional facilities; therefore a juvenile placed in a secure
police car for transportation would be in a nonsecure status.
35


A juvenile placed in a nonsecure runaway shelter but prevented
from leaving because of staff restricting access to exits. A
facility may be nonsecure if physical restriction of movement
or activity is provided solely through facility staff.
A juvenile placed in a room that contains doors with delayed
egress devices that have been approved by the authority having
jurisdiction over fire codes and fire inspections.
Residential – pertains to facilities having the capacity to securely detain juveniles
overnight, and may include sleeping, shower and toilet, and day room areas.
Secure Facility – facilities that include construction features designed to physically
restrict the movements and activities of persons in custody. This includes facilities with
cells, rooms that may be locked from the outside and not opened from the inside when the
lock is engaged, secure perimeter devices, cuffing bench or rings within the facility, et
cetera. It does not include facilities where physical restriction of movement or activity is
provided solely through facility staff.
Examples of secure detention within a secure facility:







Placing the juvenile in a holding cell, even if the door
remains unlocked;
A juvenile placed in an unlocked room within the secure perimeter
of an adult jail or lockup or juvenile detention center;
Placing a juvenile in a secure room (a room which has some type
of locking device that does not provide capability for the detainee
to unlock it, i.e. key lock, deadbolt on the outside of the door, etc.);
Handcuffing the juvenile to a stationary object (cuffing
ring, bench, table, etc.);
Placing a juvenile in a room with secure detention devices, such as
a holding cell, cuffing ring, or secure bench;
Remaining in a secure processing area after processing
activities have been completed;
A juvenile placed in a room that contains doors with unapproved
delayed egress devices or, if approved, the delay is greater than 30
seconds.
Staff Secure Facility – a residential facility which does not include construction features
designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of juveniles who are in
custody therein; which may establish reasonable rules restricting entrance to and egress
from the facility; and, in which the movements and activities of individual juvenile
residents may, for treatment purposes, be restricted or subject to control through the use
of intensive staff supervision.
Status Offender – a juvenile offender who has been charged with or adjudicated for
conduct which would not, under the law of the jurisdiction in which the offense was
36
committed, be a crime if committed by an adult. Examples of status offenses include
truancy, curfew, incorrigibility, runaway, underage possession or usage of tobacco
products, underage possession or consumption of alcohol, and violations of probation or
warrants that stem from status offense charges. The state definition is listed as
“Incorrigible”, however the federal definition is utilized in the monitoring process.
Valid Court Order - A juvenile commits a status offense such as truancy, runaway,
curfew, or minor in possession of alcohol. The valid court order provision may not be
used for nonoffenders.
A juvenile court judge gives a valid court order to a juvenile:
 who was brought before the court and made subject to such order, and
 who received, before the issuance of such order, the full due process rights
guaranteed to such juvenile by the Constitution of the United States.
After it issuance, the juvenile violates the valid court order.
The juvenile may be held in a juvenile detention facility or a nonsecure facility.
The juvenile may not be held in an adult jail or lockup for any amount of time.
If a juvenile is taken into custody for violating a valid court order issued for
committing a status offense, the following conditions must be met:





Was an appropriate public agency promptly notified that such juvenile is held
in custody for violating such order?
Was the juvenile interviewed in person, by an appropriate public agency
representative, within 24 hours of the juvenile’s placement in secure
detention, excluding weekends and holidays?
Did the public agency representative submit an assessment to the court, prior
to the 48 hour reasonable cause hearing, regarding the immediate needs of the
juvenile and the most appropriate placement needs of the juvenile pending
disposition of the violation?
Was the reasonable cause hearing held within 48 hours of the juvenile’s
placement in secure detention, excluding weekends and holidays?
Was there a judicial determination that there was reasonable cause to believe
the juvenile violated such order?
If the juvenile is held in a juvenile detention facility, a representative from an
appropriate public agency must interview the juvenile in person within 24 hours
(excluding weekends and holidays) of being placed into detention.
The juvenile can continue to be held in a juvenile detention facility if the juvenile
has a reasonable cause hearing within 48 hours (excluding weekends and
holidays) of being placed in detention. The reasonable cause hearing must include
the following:
37


A judicial determination that there is reasonable cause to believe the juvenile
violated the valid court order, and
A judicial determination that the juvenile is being held in the most appropriate
placement pending disposition of the violation. This determination is based
upon an assessment submitted by an appropriate public agency representative
that reviews the immediate needs of the juvenile.
If all of the items listed above were satisfied during the reasonable cause hearing,
the juvenile may be held in a juvenile detention center but should not be held any
longer than necessary to make an informed disposition. The juvenile cannot be
held in an adult jail or lockup for any length of time.
*Please reference page 8 in the attached Policies and Procedures manual.
Identification of the Monitoring Universe
The Compliance Monitoring Universe (CMU) is maintained in a Microsoft Access
database on the Governor’s Division for Children shared drive. Substantive changes or
revisions to the structural format of the database should be coordinated with the database
manager or the Governor’s Information Technology Division. The Governor’s Division
for Children will conduct all other database maintenance and data entry activities. This
includes an annual update to the master list of the monitoring universe for the purpose of
inclusion or exclusion of facilities pursuant to the OJJDP rules and regulations.
The CMU should include all jails, lockups, detention centers, juvenile correction
facilities, halfway houses, group homes, foster homes, and any other secure or non-secure
public and private facilities in which juveniles might be detained or placed. Depending
on the scope of the jurisdiction and authority of the juvenile court, the list may include
private mental health facilities, chemical dependency programs, and detoxification
centers.
38
During March-April of each year, the CMU will be reviewed and updated. The following
departments are entities that may be used as resources to verify all appropriate agencies
are in the database:
Entity
Information
Contact
Web Address
Administrative Office of the Courts
Juvenile Detention
Facilities
Mark Koch
(602) 452-3529
mkoch@courts.az.gov
http://www.supreme.state.az.us
Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission
All
(602) 346-1146
Fax: (602) 728-0752
acjc@acjc.gov
http://www.acjc.state.az.us
Arizona Association of Chiefs of
Police
Municipal Jails and
Lockups
Jimmy Chavez, President
Fax (602) 223-2917
http://www.azpolicejobs.com/index.ht
m
Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections
Juvenile
Correctional
Facilities
Michael Branham
(602) 542-4302
http://www.juvenile.state.az.us
Arizona Department of Health
Services
Behavioral Health
Facilities, Juvenile
Group Homes
Assurance and Licensure Office
(602) 364-2536
http://www.hs.state.az.us/als/databases
/index.htm
Arizona Department of Economic
Security
Foster Homes,
Shelter Facilities
Office of Licensing, Cert & Reg David L. Matthews
(602) 495-1308
Dmatthews@mail.de.state.az.us
http://www.de.state.az.us
*Please reference page 26 in the attached Policies and Procedures manual.
Classification of Monitoring Universe
Upon verification that all appropriate agencies and facilities are listed in the CMU, they
are classified to determine which facilities require regular monitoring for compliance
with the JJDP Act regulations. This process determines which facilities are secure
detention or correctional facilities, adult correctional institutions, jails, lockups, or other
types of secure or nonsecure facilities.
There are four categories used to determine classification of each facility:
 public or private
 juvenile facility, adult facility, both, or no lock up (non-secure)
 secure or nonsecure
 residential or non-residential
39
The CMU also currently contains 15 categories to clarify facility classification:
1.
County jail
2.
Municipal lockup
3.
Specialized treatment facility
4.
Psychiatric facility
5.
College/University
6.
Native American
7.
Detention Center
8.
Court Holding
9.
Regional Malls
10.
Airport
11.
Sporting Complex
12.
Alternative/Temporary Holding Facility
13.
Correctional facility
14.
Juvenile Group Home
15.
Other
Although there are numerous classification categories, a facility may only be in one
category. For example, a shopping mall that contains a holding cell area that may
temporarily hold both juveniles and adults must be classified in the municipal lockup
category rather than shopping mall. Shopping malls that do not contain any type of
secure holding area may be in the shopping mall category.
Please refer to definitions in Policy 100.2 to review criteria for a secure facility. Any
facility that contains any of the devices outlined in the secure facility definition must be
classified as secure, even if those devices are currently not in use. Facilities that do not
contain these types of devices may be considered non-secure.
A secure law enforcement facility that is not doing any temporary holding is categorized
in the jail or lockup category, dependent on if they are classified as residential (jail) or
non-residential (lock up) facility, and receive the appropriate exemption certificate
(secure, no temporary detention).
Law enforcement facilities that are secure and temporarily holding adult and/or juveniles
will be classified in the “County Jail” or “Municipal Lockup” category. The
determination of the appropriate category is basically that residential holding facilities are
classified as a “County Jail” and secure non-residential holding locations of law
enforcement agencies are classified as a “Municipal Lockup”.
40
Correct facility classification is extremely important, as this classification determines the
appropriate reporting necessary for the facility. Regular contact and site visits to
facilities are the most accurate ways to ensure correct classification is maintained. Often
times agencies move into new facilities, modifications are made to existing facilities, or
miscommunication about what classifies a facility in a certain category takes place;
regular communication and site visits minimize the frequency of misclassification.
If an agency changes classifications during a reporting year the CMU is updated with
new information. This ensures that any data previously entered under the old
classification will still remain in the database.
*Please reference page 27 in the attached Policies and Procedures manual.
Inspection of Facilities
Inspection of facilities is necessary to ensure the following:





the facility is classified accurately;
review the record keeping system and ensure that adequate data are
maintained to determine compliance with the core requirements;
discuss procedure for reviewing juvenile detention data and how to
complete the monthly report;
build and maintain relationships with community establishments to
facilitate continuous education about the JJDP Act regulations;
and,
discuss juvenile issues in the community.
OJJDP requires that 10 percent of each classification that falls under the authority of the
Compliance Monitor must be inspected (i.e. jails, lockups, juvenile detention centers,
juvenile correctional facilities, etc.)
The Governor’s Division for Children strives to uphold the following site visit quantities
during each reporting year (July – June):





On-site visits to a minimum of 33 ½ percent of all secure facilities
(lockups) holding both juveniles and adults;
On-site visits to a minimum of 75 percent of juvenile detention
centers, to include any secure residential treatment facilities for
juveniles that fall under JJDP Act monitoring;
Spot checks on-site visits of non-secure law enforcement agency
facilities;
Spot checks on-site visits to adult jails; and
On-site visits to a minimum of 10 percent of juvenile correctional
facilities.
*Please reference page 29 in the attached Policies and Procedures manual.
41
Data Collection and Verification
The data collection process is crucial to establishing Arizona’s compliance with the core
protections. Therefore, reporting forms and log sheets must collect the necessary
information.
Facilities in the CMU submit reports based upon their classification. Variables that affect
the type of reporting necessary include if the facility is secure or non-secure, whether
temporary detention takes place at the facility, and whether or not the facility policy and
procedures allow for the temporary holding of juveniles within an area classified as
secure.
Described below are the reporting requirements for the various types of facilities within
the Compliance Monitoring Universe.
Type of Facility
Type of Reporting Necessary
Frequency of Reporting
Non-secure
Exemption Certification Form
Annually
Secure Adult Only
Exemption Certification Form
Annually
Secure No Temporary Detention
Exemption Certification Form
Annually
Secure Court Holding
Exemption Certification Form
Annually
Secure Juvenile Correctional Facility
Exemption Certification Form
Annually
Secure Adult Jail or Lockup Holding both
Juveniles and Adults
Reporting Form
Monthly4
Secure Juvenile Detention Facilities
Reporting Form
Monthly
Policy 500.1.4.2 covers the procedure to follow when reports are received.
OJJDP expects a state to receive compliance data from all agencies required to report.
However, if there are a few agencies that do not report, a state is permitted to project
violations for these facilities. The annual report template will calculate the projection,
when identifying the number of facilities required to report and the number actually
submitting data.
However, the process can be completed manually, the process to project data for nonreporting facilities is outlined on the following page.
Two sets of data that may have to be projected manually:
Some facilities may report on a quarterly or annual basis if deemed appropriate by the Governor’s Division for
Children. Notation is made in the compliance monitoring universe for those agencies.
4
42
1.
2.
Facilities not reporting a full 12 months worth of data; and
Facilities not reporting any data
Suggested projection methodology provided by the Federal government for annualizing
data for facilities reporting some data, but not a full 12 months:
Divide the number of months of data actually reported by 12 to obtain the percentage of
the year reported.
Sample: A facility reports 10 months of data and had 6 violations.
10/12= 83%
Divide the number of violations by the percentage reported.
6/.83=7.2
Therefore, we would project this facility would have committed 7.2 violations for the
year.
Suggested projection methodology provided by the Federal government for annualizing
data for facilities not reporting any data for the reporting period:
Sample: 100 total facilities that must report to our office.
75 reported data, 25 did not report any data.
Of the reported data, there were 40 violations.
Divide the number of facilities reporting by the total number required to obtain the
percentage of facilities reporting.
75/100=75%
Divide the number of violations by the percentage of facilities reporting.
40/.75=53.3
Therefore, we would project there would have been a total of 53.3 violations for the
entire reporting year.
*Please reference page 49 in the attached Policies and Procedures manual.
43
4. Plan for Compliance with the Disproportionate Minority Contact
Core Requirement
a. Phase I: Identification
i. Updated DMC Identification Spreadsheets Please (Attachment 4)
Arizona's DMC Identification Spreadsheets indicate the importance of having a plan in place in
order to help guide efforts to reduce DMC through juvenile delinquency prevention and
juvenile justice system improvement. Since the reauthorization of the JJDP Act in November
2002, states that continue to participate in the Formula Grants Program have been working to
address DMC in a much larger context by expanding the review of the DMC rate to all points
of contact along the juvenile justice continuum.
The methodology of calculating DMC by rates allows Arizona to view disproportions from the
perspective of a rate of contact with the juvenile justice system among youth of a specific
minority group that is significantly greater than the rate of contact for whites, or for other
minority groups. While the use of these rates provides an expanded viewpoint of overrepresentation at any one point in the system, the data does not provide solutions. The relative
rates presented in the spreadsheets are intended to provide awareness of potential issues, allow
for further analysis and ultimately identifying strategies to impact DMC.
DMC identification spreadsheets with Relative Rate Indexes (RRIs) have been provided for
three jurisdictions in Arizona that have targeted DMC-reduction efforts underway. The three
jurisdictions include Maricopa County, Pima County, and Yuma County. The data shown by
the RRIs reveal several areas that require continued review and analysis for specific
racial/ethnic groups.
Please refer to Attachment 4 for a copy of the most recent DMC Identification
Spreadsheets for these counties.
ii. DMC Data Discussion
b. Phase II: Assessment/Diagnosis
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 have been identified for a variety of
reasons. The first is due to the location of Arizona as a border state to Mexico. There
continues to be an influx of families and youth into this country across the Arizona and
Mexico border. This change in the population of Arizona combined with strict
immigration laws that have been passed in this 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 often are 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
44
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.
While this assessment has been conducted at the state level, the DMC Committee
believes it is necessary to conduct this same assessment within each of the 15 counties in
Arizona. Please refer to Attachment 5 for a timeline of how this will occur.
c. Phase III: Intervention
i. Progress Made in FY 2008
The Commission's DMC Committee decided to broaden its scope to addressing DMC last
year. Historically only three counties have participated in the DMC activities.
Presentations have been made at a variety of locations sharing both statewide data and the
data from these three counties. Additionally the specific strategies being implemented in
all three counties were discussed. Presiding judges and other juvenile court authorities
were then encouraged to request data for their area. Only one other county requested the
data. As a result the DMC Committee had planned to complete further analysis of the
data for the other counties statewide and then arrange one-on-one meetings with the
presiding judge and juvenile court directors in each county to share their DMC data and
discuss plans to address issues if they are identified. Unfortunately, the Administrative
Office of the Courts would not release the data for each county without their expressed
consent. As a result the planned strategies for last year have now been incorporated into
the DMC Strategic Plan. Please refer to Attachment 5 for a complete timeline for
intended interventions.
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission and the Governor’s Office, Division for
Children will also continue to support local level activities to address DMC through
targeted funding to support local level programs or strategies. Current activities funded
with Title V dollars include both the Maricopa County Superior Court and the Pima
County Juvenile Court, described above. These efforts will continue in FY2009 with a
focus on potentially adapting their successful strategies in other counties statewide.
ii. DMC Reduction Plan for FY 2009-2011
Please refer to Attachment 5 for a complete DMC Strategic Plan for the State of Arizona.
The plan includes goals, objectives and activities utilizing the DMC reduction model. A
timeline has been included along with potential funding sources, however at this time no
funding has been set aside by the commission. Formula grant supported activities are
included in the competitive grant processes for the program areas of Delinquency
Prevention and Alternatives to Detention. Please refer to Section 7 for a the budgeted
amounts for these areas and the performance measures selected to document the output
and outcomes of these activities. In future years the commission will re-evaluate the
available pass-through dollars to determine if a specific amount for DMC should be
included.
d. Phase IV: Evaluation
Not applicable as specific goals, objectives and activities were developed this last year
for implementation during the next three years.
45
e. Phase V: Monitoring
The DMC Committee of the AJJC will be responsible for monitoring DMC reduction
activities statewide. This is in partnership with the Juvenile Justice Specialist who also
acts as the DMC Coordinator. Please refer to Attachment 5 for a timeline of future
monitoring activities.
46
5. Coordination of Child Abuse and Neglect and Delinquency Programs
A. Reducing Probation Officer Caseloads
Pursuant to Section 223(a)(25) of the JJDP Act of 2002, the Governor’s Division of
Children 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.
B. 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.
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.
C. 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.
47
6. Collecting and Sharing Juvenile Justice Information
A. Gathering Juvenile Justice Information and Data
Every justice agency is required to use the same general information flow model
and 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 most 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 Juveniles Processed in
the Arizona Court System, 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.
B. Identification of Barriers to Sharing of Juvenile Information
In reviewing the state’s process for gathering juvenile justice information and
sharing data across state agencies, barriers and limitations have been identified.
Data Limitations include:
 Arizona has very limited data regarding the prevalence of adult substance
abuse.
 Data that can be used to track recidivism on youth beyond their 18th birthday
is not readily accessible.
 Juvenile gun arrest data is not available.
 Juvenile gang arrest data is not available.
 Reported crime and arrest data from law enforcement is not available below
the agency level of reporting (i.e. by city, neighborhood, block, etc.).
 Reliable data regarding victim-related crime is not available (domestic
violence, etc.).
 Prosecution data is limited or not available.
 Data collection, reporting, and dissemination within the Arizona Criminal
History Records Program is lacking in areas of completeness, accuracy,
timeliness and accessibility of data for the purpose of research and evaluation.
48


The fast population growth within Arizona causes data sources to quickly
become outdated requiring increased resources dedicated to ongoing
maintenance.
Statewide JOLTS data is not readily available in sub-county level formats that
would increase the value of JOLTS as a tool for evaluation and planning (i.e.,
access issues).
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.
To this end, 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 for how and when to share information. The guide is still in
development with the assistance of attorneys representing Arizona’s
Administrative Office of 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 in place which limit
practitioners abilities to understand the unique and often dynamic needs of
juveniles and their families.
49
7. Statement of the Problem/Program Narrative
Based on an extensive review and analysis of the needs and circumstances of Arizona’s youth
and the current Arizona juvenile justice system, the problem statements presented below have
been prioritized as areas to be addressed with FY08 Title II funding. It is important to note,
however, that the sharing of resources and collaboration with other juvenile justice
stakeholders and community providers will be key in addressing many of the areas outlined
below. All budgets are merely projections and do not obligate the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission to future funding.
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.
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (AJJC) 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
the jails, lockups and in juvenile detention centers.
A) Problem Statement: While there has been stability in the number of referrals, there
has been an increase in the percentage of misdemeanor offenses, meaning that youth are
increasingly becoming involved in the justice system for minor non-violent offenses.
Research has shown that once involved in the system, youth are likely to progress further
into the justice system with the potential for continuing on into the adult system. The
Commission has been and will continue to support prevention programs as they provide
the most cost efficient and effective methods of reducing juvenile delinquency.
B) Overall Intent: To increase prevention, intervention and treatment service throughout
the state in ways that meet specific needs identified at the local level. Research and data
shows that better gender specific programming is needed throughout the state. 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 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
50
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.
C) 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 are
coordinated with other juvenile justice stakeholders.
2: To increase interagency coordination, collaboration, and availability of
resources within the juvenile justice system.
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 (i.e. use of the Arizona Youth Survey).
6: To support a system which values a community-based planning process.
D) Activities and Services: The AJJC 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, children, and their families. Through the Title II Formula Grant, the
Commission will allow local communities to apply for prevention and intervention
monies to support a wide variety of best practice model programs and strategies. Each
program will address different community needs based on a thorough community
assessment and focus of the prevention of juvenile delinquency. Programs should address
the whole family, be collaborative, and demonstrate financial stability beyond Title II
funding. Programs must also demonstrate cultural, age and gender competency for youth
and their families.
51
E) Monitoring and Measuring Success: 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
F) Budget: The amount of federal funds to be directed toward Delinquency Prevention is
$551,086.
Priority Area – 2
Alternatives to Detention (Program Area 02): Alternative services provided to a
juvenile offender in the community as an alternative to incarceration. This priority area
will also encompass the program area descriptions within: Deinstitutionalization of
Status Offenders, Disproportionate Minority Contact, Jail Removal, and Juvenile Justice
System Improvement and alternatives that include a specific focus on gender.
Alternatives to Detention is a broad category that could include components from each of
those areas.
A) Problem Statement: While the number of youth in detention has remained relatively
stable the youth being detained and the reasons for their confinement have changed. As
was evident in the needs analysis portion of this plan, an increasing percentage of youth
are being detained for misdemeanor offenses and administrative or probation violation
reasons. Secondly, minority youth are over-represented in detention facilities. The
Commission continues to encourage the use of alternatives to detention as a means to
address DSO, Jail Removal and DMC as well as an effective tool to improve juvenile
justice systems by ensuring that only those youth at risk of flight or at risk to themselves
or others are detained.
52
B) Overall Intent: To increase the use of alternatives to detention statewide when
appropriate. The Commission is committed to working with county courts and tribal
communities to explore alternatives to placing juveniles in detention that can assure
community safety while also offering the most successful opportunities for youth to be
diverted out of the juvenile justice system.
C) 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 to address either
deinstitutionalization of status offenders or jail removal that are gender responsive.
2. Fund diversion programs that divert status offenders from the formal juvenile court
process.
3. Train and educate law enforcement, probation personnel, judges and other juvenile
justice professionals on the DSO, Jail Removal and other core requirement
parameters.
4. Provide community-level reports regarding the facilities that effect compliance and
the community’s current compliance status.
5. Provide funding that will improve the juvenile justice system including the
appropriate use of research based programs.
6. Fund community programs, training and educational forums to reduce the incidence
of disproportionate minority representation in the juvenile justice system.
7. Promote collaboration among the state agencies and organizations directly involved
with the juvenile justice system, including the Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections, Administrative Office of the Courts and the Arizona SAG.
D) Activities and Services: The AJJC will continue to collaborate with juvenile justice
stakeholders to address the above objectives 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 allow
local communities to apply for alternatives to detention monies to support a wide variety
of best practice model programs and strategies. Each program will address different
community needs based on a thorough community assessment and focus on alternatives
to detention.
53
E) Monitoring and Measuring Success: 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
F) Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed toward Alternatives to Detention is
$551,086.
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 of 2002.
A) 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.
B) Overall Intent: The AJJC 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 monthly reports from all adult jail and lockups and juvenile detention facilities
as well as annual site visits and training.
54
C) 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.
D) Activities and Services: The Compliance Monitor will be responsible for collection
and review of monthly reports from all adult jail and lockups and juvenile detention
facilities, 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, providing regular compliance data to the Commission and juvenile
courts and for submitting the annual Compliance Monitoring Report to OJJDP.
E) 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
F) Budget: Total federal funds anticipated to be directed toward Compliance Monitoring
is $96,234. The position of Compliance Monitor is a full time position within the
Governor’s Division for Children. Personnel, operating, materials and travel costs area
included in the budget line item.
Priority Area – 3A________________________________________________________
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 nonoffenders in secure facilities, pursuant to Section 223(a)(11) of the
JJDP Act.
A) Problem Statement: The secure holding of accused or adjudicated status offenders
continues to be the most significant compliance issue for the State of Arizona.
B) Overall Intent: The AJJC has in the past provided funding specifically to address the
55
secure holding of status offenders. This in combination with the funding of a full-time
Compliance Monitor should have a dramatic effect on reducing the number of violations
for this core requirement.
C) Objectives: To provide funding to community and faith based organizations as well
as county courts to explore and offer alternative strategies to processing juveniles accused
and/or adjudicated for status offenses.
D) Activities and Services: The AJJC will continue to collaborate with juvenile justice
stakeholders to develop a common vision and strategy to respond appropriately and
effectively to reduce the number of status offenders being held securely. Through the
Title II Formula Grant, the Commission will allow local communities to apply for monies
that support a wide variety of best practice model programs and strategies that ensure the
appropriate processing of accused and adjudicated status offenders outside of secure
facilities. New strategies will include:
1. Fund status offense specific programs.
E) Monitoring and Measuring Success: 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
F) Budget: At this time, no funding has been allocated to this program area. All funding
has been allocated until Fiscal Year 2010 or later. At that time, the Commission will
explore an amendment to the budget.
Priority Area – 4
Native American Programs (Program Area 22): Programs to address juvenile justice
and delinquency prevention issues for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
A) Problem Statement: The AJJC 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 7% of the juvenile population. While there are a
significant number of tribal communities, there appears to be a lack of understanding of
56
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. While Arizona is only required to pass-through less than $40,000 to
tribes based on population it seeks to improve the capacity of tribes to address juvenile
justices issues on the reservations. The commission does this by providing a significant
financial set-aside for tribes.
B) Overall Intent: To provide funding, training and technical assistance to tribes to
address juvenile justice. This includes opportunities to secure funding for delinquency
prevention and alternatives to detention.
C) Objectives: To provide funding and services to the Tribes of Arizona to:
1. Work with American Indian communities on the importance of the JJDP Act and
the core protections of the Act.
2. 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.
3. Educate the American Indian communities on multiple funding streams, either
state or federal, and provide technical assistance on how to apply for funds.
4. 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.
D) Activities and Services: The AJJC will emphasize its commitment to the increased
collaboration by assisting American Indian communities in Arizona through ongoing
outreach opportunities and more effective communication with other state and local
agencies. The Commission may allow tribal communities to apply for funds specific to
projects on reservation or delivered to American Indian youth.
E) Monitoring and Measuring Success: As required in the OJJDP Performance
Measures, each program will be required to collect:
57
Output
-Number of program youth served
-Two additional output measures
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
-Two additional outcome measures
F) Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed toward Native American Tribes is a
minimum of $36,194.
Priority Area - 5
Disproportionate Minority Contact (Program Area 10)
(#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.
A) Problem Statement: Despite long-term efforts over the last ten years, Arizona
continues to see an over-representation of minority youth within the juvenile justice
system. Some degree of this disproportionate contact with minority youth can be found in
most of the decision points along the juvenile justice continuum from referral to petitions
filed to adjudication to corrections and especially within the juveniles transferred or
directly filed to the adult court. The extent of the disproportionate contact depends on the
specific community and decision point. There are also variations in what minority group
is most affected.
B) Overall Intent: 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 Arizona Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee will partner
with Arizona counties to address issues of DMC and support efforts that will eliminate
the disproportionate representation of and disparate outcomes for minority youth within
58
the juvenile justice system.
C) Objectives: The DMC Committee of the AJJC has developed the following goals and
objectives to address DMC in Arizona:
Goal 1: Identify and monitor DMC for the State of Arizona and all 15 counties.
Objective 1.1: Collect, analyze and review data at the state level annually.
Objective 1.2: Collect county specific data for each county annually.
Objective 1.3: Review and analyze ADJC decision points.
Goal 2: In partnership with each county, assess unique contributing factors to DMC.
Objective 2.1: Provide, review, and analyze county specific data with each county
annually.
Objective 2.2: Provide training to each county in DMC data analysis to appropriately
assess and identify the causal factors unique to that community.
Objective 2.3: Develop a web-based tutorial to follow DMC training session.
Goal 3: Promote and implement intervention strategies to reduce DMC.
Objective 3.1: Research best practices and distribute information throughout Arizona.
Objective 3.2: Develop and distribute DMC information guide to include existing
strategies and contact information within Arizona.
Objective 3.3: Support innovative strategies to reduce DMC.
Goal 4: Evaluate and monitor DMC reduction activities implemented at the state and
local level.
Objective 4.1: Gather individual DMC reduction plans and activities from each county.
Objective 4.2: Coordinate State and local partners to improve and institutionalize data
collection efforts across agencies.
Objective 4.3: Analyze state and county data annually to evaluate trends.
59
D) Activities and Services: Please refer to the attached action plan as developed by the
DMC Committee. The plan details the goals, objectives and action strategies as created
by the committee with modifications made in light of additional information gathered at
the Three Year Strategic Planning Session held in late 2008.
E) Monitoring and Measuring Success: As required in the OJJDP Performance
Measueres, each program will be required to collect:
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
F) Budget: At this time, no funding has been allocated to this program area. All funding
has been allocated until Fiscal Year 2010 or later. At that time, the Commission will
explore an amendment to the budget.
Priority Area – 6
Juvenile Justice Systems Improvement (Program Area 19)
(#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).
A) 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
60
the system and an increase in low-risk non violent offenders being detained.
B) Overall Intent: To improve local and statewide juvenile justice systems to
appropriately ensure the safety of the community, while focusing on diverting youth out
of the justice system whenever possible. Special attention will be paid 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.
C) Objectives: To provide funding, when available to support local efforts to implement
model juvenile justice system improvement strategies such as those named above. To
explore statewide efforts to improve the juvenile justice system with special attention on
cross-system information sharing, data systems improvements and multijurisdictional
collaborative approaches to juvenile justice issues. Additionally, the commission will
explore the support of research efforts to examine the development of policies that will
assist in complying with the four core requirements of the JJDP Act and improve the
success and well-being of youth involved in the juvenile justice system.
D) Activities and Services: The AJJC 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 communities to apply for juvenile justice systems improvement monies when they
become available.
E) Monitoring and Measuring Success: 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
61
-Number and percent of non-program personnel with increased knowledge in program
area 19
F) Budget: At this time, no funding has been allocated to this program area. All funding
has been allocated until Fiscal Year 2010 or later. At that time, the Commission will
explore an amendment to the budget.
Priority Area – 7
Mental Health (Program Area 20)
(#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.
A) 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 tradition 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 release without appropriate medication and/or an effective discharge plan for
continued treatment.
B) Overall Intent: To coordinate with the Arizona Medicaid system to ensure that all
qualifying youth receiving Title 19 benefits. In addition, 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.
C) 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.
62
D) Activities and Services: The AJJC 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 may allow local communities to apply for mental health monies when they
become available.
E) Monitoring and Measuring Success: 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
F) Budget: At this time, no funding has been allocated to this program area. All funding
has been allocated until Fiscal Year 2010 or later.
Standard Program Area 1
Planning and Administration (Program Area 23)
(#23) Activities related to state plan development, other pre-awarded activities, and
administration of the Formula Grants Program.
Monitoring and Measuring Success: 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
Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed toward Planning and Administration is a
minimum of $129,400.
63
Standard Program Area 2
State Advisory Group (Program Area 31)
(#31) Activities related to carrying out the State Advisory Group’s responsibilities under
Section 223(a)(3) of the JJDP Act.
Monitoring and Measuring Success: 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 $30,000.
SMART
Please refer to Attachments 6 and 7 for a copy of the SMART Map and Report queried
off the SMART System.
64
8. Subgrant Award Assurances
Pursuant to Section 223(a)(21)(A) and (B) of the JJDP Act, states shall, to the extent
practicable, give priority in funding to evidence-based programs and activities. Further,
under Section 223(a)(21)©) of the JJDP Act, states shall not continue to fund a program if
the subgrant recipient who carried out that program during the preceding 2-year period fails
to demonstrate that the program achieved substantial success in meeting the goals specified
in the original subgrant application.
Pursuant to Section 223(a)(21)(A) and (B) of the JJDP Act, Arizona shall, to the extent
practicable, give priority in funding to evidence-based programs and activities.
65
9. SAG Membership
AJJC - STATE ADVISORY GROUP – MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS
NAME
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
9
21
22
23
23
Cecil B. Patterson, Jr.
Derrick Johnson-Vice
Chair Branham
Michael
Robert Brutinel
Daniel Council
Paul Cunningham
John Foreman
Argie Gomez
Luis Ibarra
Rob Lubitz
Rep. David Lujan
Margarita Marquez
James Molina
Amber Nelson
Patricia Orozco
Vada Jo Phelps
Dennis Pickering
Angie Rodgers
Beth Rosenberg
Robert Thomas
Garye L. Vasquez
Myrtle Young
Helen Gandara
Total in Category
REPRESENTS
FULL TIME
GOVERNMENT
E, G, H
E, G, H
B
B
E, F
B, F, G
G,H
D
D, F, H
B
A
YOUTH
MEMBER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G
C
B
C, D, H
E, H
C,G, H
D
G, H
B
B, C
B
X
X
X
X
X
(39%)
APPOINTED
2007
2007
2007
2007
Pending
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
Pending
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
RESIDENCE
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Prescott
Glendale
Tucson
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Toltec
Phoenix
Yuma
Phoenix
Sierra Vista
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Tucson
Bisbee
Scottsdale
3 (13%)
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
G
Persons with special experience and competence in addressing problems related to school violence and vandalism and alternatives to suspension and expulsion
H






Persons with special experience and competence in addressing problems related to learning disabilities
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.
66
10. Formula Grants Program Staff
%
JJDP
Name
Title
Vacant
Director of the
Governor's Division for
Children
10%
Naimah
Higgins
Administrative
Coordinator
10%
Christy
Alonzo
Juvenile Justice
Specialist
Program Administrator
JJDP/SDFSC Grants
Vacant
Compliance Monitor
Carisa Dwyer
Funding Source (s)
JJDP P/A; JAIBG P/A;
SDFSC P/A; State
General Funds
JJDP P/A; JAIBG P/A;
SDFSC P/A; State
General Funds
Funding Source
For Match
State General Funds are
used for match
State General Funds are
used for match
State General Funds are
used for match
State General Funds are
used for match
State General Funds are
used for match
100%
JJDP P/A; JABG P/A
75%
JJDP P/A; SDFSC P/A
100%
JJDP P/D
State General Funds are
used for match
State General Funds are
used for match
Sunny
Nguyen
Financial Analyst
15%
JJDP P/A; JAIBG P/A;
SDFSC P/A; State
General Funds
Chris Shipley
Program Administrator
JABG/JIYWC
10%
JJDP P/A; JABG P/A;
State and General Funds
67
BUDGET DETAIL WORKSHEET
Planning and Administration funds allocated by OJJDP will not exceed 10 percent of the
total award. Federal funds will not be used to supplant non-federal funds.
FY2009 Formula Grants Program
State of Arizona
Program
Areas
Program Area
Title
Total
Funds
OJJDP
Federal Share
09
Delinquency Prevention
$551,086
$551,086
02
Alternatives to
Detention
$451,086
$451,086
06
Compliance Monitoring
$96,234
$96,234
22
Native American
Programs –
Pass Through
$36,194
$36,194
23
Planning and
Administration
$258,800
$129,400
31
State Advisory Group
Allocation
$30,000
$30,000
$1,423,400
$1,294,000
68
State
Match
$129,400
$129,400
Standard
Program
Areas
23
STATE PROGRAM
TITLE
Planning and
Administration
Personnel
ERE
Professional and
Outside Services
Travel In State
Travel Out of State
Printing,
Advertisement,
Postage, Delivery
Conference, Training
Non-capital
Equipment
Office Supplies
Telephone
Standard
Program
Areas
31
Standard
Program Title
State Advisory
Group Allocation
Personnel and ERE
Professional and
Outside Services
Travel In State
Travel Out of State
Total Funds
OJJDP
Federal Share
State
Match
$258,800
$129,400
$129,400
$185,200
$56,200
$2,000
$87,700
$26,300
$2,000
$99,500
$29,900
$1,500
$5,000
$1,500
$5,000
$1,500
$1,500
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$1,400
$3,000
$1,400
$258,800
$129,400
Total Funds
OJJDP
Federal Share
$30,000
$30,000
$10,000
$10,000
$2,000
$5,000
$2,000
$5,000
$1,000
$1,000
$5,000
$2,000
$5,000
$2,000
$3,000
$3,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$30,000
$30,000
Printing,
Advertisement,
Postage, Delivery
Dues
Conference,
Training
Non-capital
Equipment
Office Supplies
Telephone
69
$129,400
State
Match
Budget Narrative
The Governor’s Division for Children will utilize funds awarded under the FY2009 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, partial salary for a JJDP Program Administrator. Professional and
Outside Services may be sought as needed for facilitation of trainings related to the
administration and evaluation of grant funded programs. Travel costs may be utilized to
conduct in-state monitoring of programs funded by the Governor’s Office of 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 cost
include administrative expenses such as, but not limited to, supplies, postage, telephone,
non-capital equipment.
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 will be related to carrying out the State Advisory Group’s responsibilities
under Section 223(a)(3) of the JJDP Act. Expenses may be made for Professional and
Outside Services for facilitation of education and/or training events related to the
administration and implementation of the JJDP Act and its core mandates. In-State
Travel costs may be utilized as necessary for State Advisory Group Members and ad-hoc
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.
[End]
70