text:
January 31, 1997
Senator John Kaites, Co- chairman
Senator John Huppenthal
Senator Ruth Solomon
Senator Tom Patterson
Tbe Joint Committee on ~ uvenileJu stice ReIorm was created by the cooperative efforts of
both the Speaber of the Arizona House of Representatives ~ a r l ~ z i l l i a na, nd the Arizona
Senate President John Greene. The committee was charged with studying the following
& reas :
1.) To examine ways to implement Proposition 102: An initiative measure
relating to juvenile justice reIorm arhich pssed in the November 1996 General
2.) To examine other juvenile justice reform measures as needed.
The Joint Juvenile Justice ReIorm Committee met on:
Monday, December 9, 1996
Tuesday, December 10, 1996
Thursday, December 12, 1996
Monday, December 20, 1996
Friday, January 17, 1997
The Joint Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform was formed via a mutual agreement
between the Senate President and the Speaker of the Iiouse. The committee's charge was to
examine ways of implementing Proposition 102, as well as other juvenile justice reform measures.
Jim Drake, Legislative Research Analyst
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
Page Patterson, Assistant Research Analyst
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
Rick Pyper, Legislative Research Analyst
Senate Judiciary Committee
Victor Eches, Assistant Research Analyst
Senate Judiciary Committee
The committee heard and discussed a vast amount of testimony from various parties
interested in the juvenile justice reform debate. The testimony can be broken down into kve
general headings: Office of the Governor, County Attorneys and City Prosecutors, Courts,
Public Defenders, and Victims.
Office of the Governor
Dr. Michael Block, Senior Policy Advisor to the Governor, testikied that the foremost
objective of the criminal justice system should be to produce safety. He believes that " bad
actsf' should result in " bad consequences." Therefore, the certainty and severity of punishment
should be increased substantially. Dr. Block further stated that juveniles should be transferred to
adult court upon their third felony olfense.
County Attorneys and City Prosecutors
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant to the Maricopa County Attorney, stated that both early
intervention and dual sentencing are important components of juvenile justice reform. He
indicated that an expansion of detention and funding at the local level would have a positive effect
on the juvenile correction system. Mr. Landau expressed concern that discretion in determining
the proper venue in which to charge a juvenile would be taken Irom county attorneys' control.
Paul Badalucco, Phoenix Deputy City Prosecutor, explained the problems city prosecutors
must conh- ont when dealing with juveniles. He emphasized city court judges have no authority to
enforce court orders. Consequently, juveniles can ignore court orders with little fear of requital.
Therefore, Mr. Badalucco felt that city judges should have the authority to suspend the drivers
licences of juveniles who disregard court orders. He also indicated city prosecutors would be
greatly assisted by allowing juveniles to automatically be charged as adults if they turn 18 in the
middle of the court process.
John Foreman, Presiding Judge of the Maricopa County Juvenile Court, testiked before
the committee. He stressed that he was representing only himself. Judge Foreman generally
agreed with Mr. Landau's assessment, but added that judges should possess the option of
transferring a juvenile back to the juvenile system. He surmised that this would protect the
juvenile against overcharging. Judge Foreman voiced concern, however, over the idea of dual
sentencing, believing it to be nonsensical with regard to lengthy sentences.
public Defenders
Helene ALrams, Juvenile Division Chief in the Maricopa County Public Defender's office,
expressed many concerns over the fashioning of Proposition 102. Ms. ALrams stated a juvenile's
prior conduct should not be considered when deciding whether or not to transfer to adult court.
She expressed further consternation over the idea of a broad definition being applied when
determining automatic liling to adult court. She remarked that, in the interest of fairness, both
county attorneys and defenders should possess the ability to move that a case be returned
to juvenile court. Ms. Abrams was adamantly opposed to the notion of dual sentencing; she
maintained that it was not a component of Proposition 102.
The families of several victims communicated their sentiments regarding Proposition 102.
Elizabeth Rice believed that the parents of a minor should be held responsible for the minor's
delinquent behavior. Mrs. Rice pronounced that, regardless of age, specific sentences should be
imposed for specific criminal acts. She also felt it would be advantageous to have crime victims
speak in schools and to convicted and potential offenders, and for schools to implement
parenting classes.
Connie Richardson also voiced her support of juvenile justice reform. She strongly
emphasized the importance of increasing the beds available to the Department of Corrections.
She opined that a juvenile's second felony conviction should result in incarceration, and that this
type of certainty of consequences would serve as notice to juveniles that there will be severe
repercussions for their dubious acts.
A bill drak of the determinations of the Joint Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform was
prepared by staff and presented to the committee. A proposed bill was not ready, in final form,
for the committee to vote on. A bill is being draked for introduction.
Forty- second Legislature - Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
Monday, December 9, 1996
House Hearing Room 2 - 2: 00 p. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was convened by Cochair Smith at 2: 10 p. m. and attendance was noted by the secretae.
Members Present
Senator Patterson Representative Verkarnp ( ex- officio member)
Representative Jarrett
Representative Marsh
Representative Newman
Representative Smith, Cochair
Senator Kaites, Cochair
Members Absent
Senator Huppenthal
Senator Solomon ( excused)
Speakers Present
Joni Hoffman, Research Analyst, Arizona State Senate
Jim Drake, Research Analyst, House of Representatives
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant, Maricopa County Attorney
John Foreman, Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court, Maricopa County, representing himself
Michael K. Block, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor; Professor of law and economics
Kaja- Anne Jezycki, In- house Counsel, Arizona Boys Ranch
Guest List ( Attachment 1)
Cochair Kaites mentioned that Mr. Verkamp. in his capacity as new House Judiciary Committee
Chairman, will serve as an ex- officio member of the Committee.
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice Refonn
17/ 9/ 96
Cochair Kaites stated that passage of Proposition 102 has left the legislature in the position of
making certain reforms to the juvenile justice system. He said the Committee will receive input
from all parties interested in proposing changes to the juvenile justice reform bill.
Cochair Kaites admitted to being a proponent of Proposition 102 but recognized that opponents of
the measure voiced concern that abused and neglected children would be negatively affected by a
more automated juvenile justice system. He asserted that the Committee will not alter the courts'
jurisdiction over abused and neglected children.
Cochair Smith admitted his opposition to Proposition 102 but acknowledged that the legislature must
implement the measure. He expressed a keen interest in early intervention programs and said some
research indicates that intervention at younger ages increases a juvenile's chances of avoiding
criminal behavior. Further, he suggested that because nearly 60 percent of juveniles in detention
centers are drop outs, the Committee should work with the Arizona Department of Education ( ADE)
in an effort to help children feel more successful in school.
Cochair Smith remarked that if the Committee is interested, a report of a study is available which
provides statistical data on the transfer of juveniles to adult court.
Joni Hoffman, Research Analyst, Arizona State Senate, referred to a fact sheet ( Attachment 2) on
S. B. 1356 which was signed into law in 1994 ( Chapter 201, Laws 1994). She summarized
information pertaining to parental responsibility, kids and guns, secure care, treatment past eighteen
years, and other provisions.
Cochair Smith remarked that judges unanimously indicated that requiring parents to attend court
with their children was a very positive step in improving the juvenile justice system.
Jim Drake, Research Analyst, House of Representatives, mentioned that S. B. 1363 introduced in
1996 was adopted only by the Senate. He reviewed the provisions of the bill as contained in the Fact
Sheet ( Attachment 3). Additionally, he referred to three documents ( Attachments 4. 5 and 6) and
mentioned that Document # 2 ( Attachment 5) represents sections of S. B. 1363 which were affected
by Proposition 102.
Cochair Smith explained that S. B. 1363 was reviewed and categorized into Document # 1
( Attachment 4) which contains noncontroversial items, Document # 2 ( Attachment 5) which requires
further discussion. and Document # 3 ( Attachment 6) which pertains to appropriations.
Mr. Newman mentioned the newspapers have reported that another committee is addressing juvenile
justice reform. Cochair Kaites explained that the other committee is designed to make
recommendations to the governor, and is not in competition with the joint legislative Committee.
Mr. Drake addressed the mandatory tasks of implementing Proposition 102 and mentioned certain
terms which need to be defined.
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice Reform
12/ 9/ 96
Mr. Newman questioned whether the Committee's interpretation will reflect the intent of
Proposition 102. Cochair Kaites replied that Proposition 102 clearly authorizes the legislature to
formulate definitions and set policy on " other matters."
Cochair Smith asked interested parties to submit written definitions to the house or senate research
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant, Maricopa County Attorney, said that S. B. 1356 adopted in 1994
made definite improvements to the juvenile justice system. He suggested the Committee act on
issues pertaining to early intervention and dual sentencing, as proposed by S. B. 1363 ( adopted b!.
the Senate in 1996).
Mr. Landau proclaimed it is time to move into the 2 1 st century, expand detention on the local level.
and review the role of the Department of Juvenile Corrections ( DJC). He mentioned that he. County
Attorney Rick Romley and Judge Foreman worked on a proposal to shape the juvenile justice
system. With regard to Document # I ' ( Attachment 4), he suggested the Committee go beyond the
implementation specifics of Proposition 102 and make necessary changes to definitions, etc.
Mr. Landau stated that Document # 2 ( Attachment 5) must be updated with a focus on making
proposals simple and understandable. He said Document # 3 ( Attachment 6) also requires further
review due to the importance of funding.
Mr. Landau said his office worked from the premise that there should be discretion where available
to the County Attorney in determining which forum a juvenile should be charged in. He emphasized
the need for sentencing options to the adult and juvenile courts, as well as dual sentencing. Further,
he asserted that the nature of an offense, rather than age, should become a primary determining
Mr. Landau referred to a 14- page proposal ( Attachment 7) prepared by himself, County Attorney
Rick Romley, and Judge Foreman, and reviewed the information contained therein.
Cochair Kaites said the problem of where to take a delinquent must be addressed ( e. g., juvenile hall,
county jail). Mr. Landau proposed using the definitions currently in statute.
Cochair Kaites questioned whether a crime which includes use of a deadly weapon should be
automatically transferred to the adult system. Mr. Landau answered affirmatively.
Referring to his handout, Mr. Landau related the definition of " chronic offender" as a person who
has previously been adjudicated on three separate occasions for acts, not committed on thc same
occasion, that if committed by an adult would constitute three or more felony offenses.
I Mr. Landau, at the completion of his presentation, realized he had accidentally switched
references to Document # 1 and Document $ 2 throughout his remarks. At his request, the
minutes have been modified to correct the references.
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice Reform
12/ 9/ 96
In response to Cochair Kaites, Mr. Landau explained that upon a fourth felony conviction. a juvenile
would automatically be transferred to adult court.
Mr. Newman requested figures reflecting the impact of automatically transferring juveniles to adult
court. Mr. Landau suggested the Administrative Office of the Courts may have such information.
Mr. Landau pointed out that his handout contains a typographical error and said that page 1. section
( A)@) should read " 1- 7" instead of " 1 - 6." He explained that because of the current lack of- joinder.
a juvenile who commits armed robbery and burglary can be tried in adult court for armed robbery
and in the juvenile system for burglary.
Cochair Kaites said the Committee could propose that if at least one crime is transferred to adult
court, any lesser crimes committed at the same time would be automatically transferred as well.
Mr. Landau concurred.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Mr. Landau resumed his review of the proposal ( Attachment 7).
In response to Mr. Newman, Mr. Landau said the proposal is based on discussions which County
Attorney Rick Romley held with members of the court community, Judge Foreman and members
of the Administrative Office of the Courts ( AOC), in addition to input fiom legislative hearings and
other county attorneys.
Mr. Landau resumed his review of the proposal ( Attachment 7).
In response to Mr. Newman, Mr. Landau explained there was much discussion about a court's ability
to remand in certain situations. He said there is no support in the prosecutorial community for
allowing an individual convicted by jury in the adult system to be sent back to the juvenile system
by a judge. He resumed his review of the proposal ( Attachment 7).
Mr. Newman pointed out that even though a juvenile's record can be expunged, the fingerprints will
remain on file. Mr. Landau indicated uncertainty.
In answer to Mr. Newman, Cochair Kaites said the state constitution has been changed to grant the
legislature the authority to set procedure in the juvenile justice arena. Mr. Landau concurred that
the legislature can write and adopt judicial rules.
In conclusion, Mr. Landau urged the Committee to move forward with regard to the provisions of
Document # 1 ( Attachment 4).
At 3: 42 p. m., Cochair Smith recessed the meeting.
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice Reform
12/ 9/ 96
At 3: 5 1 p. m., the recessed meeting was reconvened by Cochair Smith. All members were present
except for Senators Huppenthal and Solomon.
Mr. Landau realized he had erroneously referred to Document # 1 as Document # 2, and vice versa.
throughout his presentation. He requested this error be corrected throughout the minutes.
John Foreman, Presiding Judge. Juvenile Court. Maricopa County, representing himself. concurred
with the presentation given by Mr. Landau ( Attachment 7) and submitted for review a drali 0fA. R. S.
13- 608 ( F) ( Attachment 8). He explained that the framework of legislation which failed during the
previous session granted more discretion to the prosecution at the charging end. and more discretion
to the courts at the dispositional end.
Representing only himself, Judge Foreman said that if the prosecution is to be granted more
discretion in filing charges, in instances when there is a lesser conviction than the original charge( s),
judges should be given the option of transferring a juvenile back to the juvenile system. He
suggested that such flexibility will offset the subtle incentive for prosecution to overcharge so that
kids are transferred into the adult system.
Judge Foreman stressed the importance of non- controversial support proposals, such as the safe
schools program.
Cochair Kaites proposed that funding be distributed directly to the juvenile court, as opposed to the
AOC. Judge Foreman stated no opposition to the idea and expressed his desire to see more funding
allocated for programming and the courts.
Cochair Kaites opined that directly funding the juvenile courts will ensure that more dollars are made
available to kids, and promote competition among the counties to develop programs to improve the
juvenile system. Cochair Smith envisioned numerous county representatives approaching the
Appropriations Committee to present ideas on facilitating juvenile justice programs.
Referring to a dictionary, Mr. Newman related the definition of " chronic" as " marked by a long
duration." He questioned the logic behind automatically transferring a juvenile to the adult court
after three offenses because some kids commit trivial crimes knowing they will be released. He
stated his preference for a more precise definition of " chronic offender."
Judge Foreman stated that the number ofjuveniles with more than three prior convictions who have
not already been transferred to the adult system is relatively small.
( Tape 2, Side A)
With regard to dual sentencing, Judge Foreman stated that it would not make sense for a 1 7- year old
with a 20- year sentence to serve the first year in DJC. He advocated for a limitation with regard to
long sentences.
in closing, Judge Foreman pledged his willingness to help implement Proposition 102.
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice lieform
12/ 9/ 96
Michael K. Block, Senior Policy Advisor. Office of the Governor: Professor of law and economics.
mentioned his role as Chairman of the Governor's advisory committee on the implementation of
Proposition 1 02.
Professor Block said government should recognize that, with passage of Proposition 102, the public
made a profound statement that the criminal justice system should be oriented toward producing
public safety. He opined that bad acts should carry bad consequences and that the justice system
should be comprehensible to both the ordinary voter and potential criminal.
Professor Block beseeched the Committee not to undermine Proposition 102 by allowing juveniles
who commit adult crimes to go unpunished.
Mr. Newman inquired as to the definition of " chronic." Professor Block stated his personal
preference that a juvenile should be transferred to adult court upon the third felony offense. He
added that the term " chronic" should be operationally defined to make sense within the criminal
justice system.
Cochair Smith requested that a copy of the final report from the Governor's advisory committee be
distributed to each Committee member. Professor Block agreed.
Kaja- Anne Jezycki, In- house Counsel, Arizona Boys Ranch, focused attention on the treatment kids
will receive at the tail end of the juvenile justice system, such as treatment and warehousing. She
said that although voters clearly indicated that youth are out of control, the question must be asked
whether all children over the age of 15 should be abandoned. She stated her belief that voters
probably just want to send a wake- up call to youth because if delinquent behavior is not corrected
between the ages of 15 and 18, a child will likely end up in prison at a high cost to taxpayers.
Ms. Jezycki mentioned an incident which occurred over the weekend in which two mentally retarded
15- year old male residents escaped from a facility along with a female resident. She said that
because the female was allegedly raped, the two boys will automatically be remanded to adult court.
She contemplated whether the boys will receive prison time, adult probation, warehousing, etc., and
mentioned that adult court judges are not thrilled to issue to a juvenile anything more severe than
adult probation.
Cochair Kaites requested recommendations for improving the juvenile justice system. Ms. Jezycki
suggested the following:
b Conduct research and produce a comprehensive idea of the an~ ounto f funding available
through the agencies, and the amount which is actually allocated for juvenile services.
b Form a centralized licensing agency which will license juveniles, contract for services. and
assist individuals who are trying to locate services for children.
b Allow each county to tailor its needs for juveniles ( e. g., paramilitary programs).
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice Reform
1 ?/ 9196
Ms. Jezycki voiced her suspicion that a great deal of money is lost to administrative overhead costs.
and she urged the Committee to act quickly.
Cochair Smith said that with the Committee's approval. arrangements can be made to have Betsy
McNulty give a 30- minute presentation on a study which provides statistical data on the transfer of
juveniles to adult court. Committee members agreed with the suggestion.
Mrs. Jarrett mentioned that some Committee members will be out of state attending the National
Conference of State Legislatures. Cochair Kaites remarked that if members are unable to attend
every meeting, they will still have the opportunity to amend the juvenile justice reform bill in the
Judiciary Committee.
Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 4: 5 1 p. m.
Teresa Alvarez, Committee Secretary
( Original minutes with attachments and tapes on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk. Copy of the
minutes with attachments are on file with Cochair Kaites and Cochair Smith.)
1213 1196
Joint Cornrnittcc on
Juvenile Justice Reform
Minutes of the Meeting
Tuesday, December 10, 1996
2: 00 p. m., House Hearing Room 2
Members Present
Senator Kaites, Co- chair
Representative Smith, Co- chair
Representative Marsh
Representative Verkamp ( ex- officio)
Members Absent
Senator Huppenthal
Senator Patterson
Senator Solomon
Representative Jarrett
Representative Newman
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst
Jim Drake, House Research Analyst
Co- chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 2: 05 p. m. and the attendance was noted.
Carol Kamin, Executive Director, Children's Action Alliance, discussed the following
four points she recommended the Legislature consider in reforming the juvenile justice
system: 1) to win the war on juvenile crime, it is necessary to cut the enemy supply line,
which is its ability to turn kids into criminals, 2) we know what works, 3) to the maximum
extent possible in dealing with kids, discretion is important and 4) it is important to maintain
judicial oversight for abused and neglected children.
Ms. Kamin acknowledged it is important to incarcerate violent criminals, but asserted there
is a need to invest in proven programs which keep kids from becoming criminals in the first
place and not build more prisons to keep up with growing numbers. She emphasized this
concept is supported not only by children's advocates, but an impressive national coalition
of prosecutors, victims of crimes and police chiefs called " Stop Crime- Invest in Kids." Ms.
Kamin indicated a survey implemented by this group found police chiefs nationwide chose
increasing investments in kids as the most effective method of decreasing juvenile crime.
Ms. Kamin noted that in Arizona funding for intervention programs has declined, in inflation
adjusted dollars, 13 percent since 1990.
Ms. Kamin acknowledged that Arizona's crime- fighting arsenal does include programs
which work, such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Tumbleweeds and the Center for Juvenile
Alternatives in Tucson, but emphasized they are serving only a small percentage of the
youth who would benefit from them. She encouraged matching the support for these
December 10,1996
Page 2
successful programs with amounts spent on expensive incarceration. Ms. Kamin indicated
studies have found that children without early childhood education programs were five
times as likely to become multiple offenders. She questioned why 10,700 needy three and
four- year olds in Arizona are not able to access such programs. Ms. Kamin noted that
studies show the peak hours for juvenile crime are between school dismissal and 6: 00
p. m., yet only a fraction of youth have the opportunity to participate in after school
activities, mentoring programs and summer programs. She noted a 1993 study of juveniles
committed to the Arizona Department of Corrections ( ADOC) showed that 36 percent had
substantiated reports of abuse or neglect for themselves or their siblings on file in the
Child Protective Services ( CPS) central registry. Ms. Kamin noted that funding for abused
and neglected children in foster care has declined by 26 percent since FY 1990.
In response to Senator Kaites' request to know if Ms. Kamin recommended specific
appropriations for programs as part of the implementation of Proposition 102, she
emphasized she did, and that it would be impossible to reform juvenile justice without
allocating money for treatment programs. Ms. Kamin emphasized the need to look at
juvenile justice in a holistic way. She stressed that adjudicated children do not have stable
families to lean on and most come from very troubled families.
Ms. Kamin explained the Department of Economic Security ( DES), with the support of the
Governor, is developing a piece of legislation to establish a program, already used by
several states, called " Family Builders," which calls for an alternative community response
by private agencies for lower- risk CPS cases. She recommended including such
legislation in deliberations on juvenile justice reform.
Ms. Kamin emphasized that discretion is an important element to include in implementing
reform and asserted each child's chances for rehabilitation must be considered individually
to avoid unintended consequences.
In response to Senator Kaites' request to know who Ms. Kamin feels should have that
discretion, she indicated the current system of giving this to the prosecutors and juvenile
courts together is the one she prefers.
Ms. Kamin expressed her pleasure that Senator Kaites has agreed to revise language in
Title Vlll to maintain jurisdiction of abused and neglected children with the courts. She
emphasized that legislative leadership to guarantee such protection is critical.
Senator Kaites emphasized the Legislature is not going to do anything to affect the court's
jurisdiction over abused and neglected children, noting this was never an intent of
Proposition 102. He acknowledged that a word or two in current statute may need to be
changed to accomplish this.
December 10,1996
Page 3
Ms. Kamin indicated a recent Arizona Town Hall on crime concluded that, in response to
pressure from the public and the media to be tough on crime, elected public officials have
focused on retribution and incapacitation instead of early intervention and rehabilitation
and that they must create a balance between the two.
In response to Senator Kaites' request to know the price of the Family Builders proposal,
Ms. Kamin indicated two proposed pilot projects would cost $ 1.5 million in the first year
and $ 2 million in the second year.
Representative Smith strongly agreed with the need for successful early intervention
Judge William O'Neil, Presiding Juvenile Court Judge, Pinal County and Chairman,
Committee on Juvenile Court, expressed his willingness to lend his and his Committee's
assistance in drafting legislation to implement Proposition 102 and hopefully reduce
juvenile crime rather than moving it around. He emphasized he supports the legislative
process, and noted it is not his, nor his Committee's, intention to intervene but to offer
" front line" insights gleaned from working with children day- to- day.
Senator Kaites asked Judge O'Neil if he would prefer to see courts funded directly rather
than through the Administrative Office of the Courts ( AOC). Judge O'Neil expressed his
preference that funding go through AOC, emphasizing its management expertise, ability
to provide oversight and accountability for funding is very important.
In response to Senator Kaites' request to know if Judge O'Neil had any recommendations
for diversion programs which Proposition 102 allows the State to set up for the county
prosecutors, Judge O'Neil indicated he would enter into intergovernmental agreements
with the county attorney as he does now.
In response to Senator Kaites' further inquiry, Judge O'Neil indicated his restorative justice
program is remarkably different than Judge Warner's. Judge O'Neil explained that in his
program every single child, with the exception of sex offenders and seriously violent gang
members, go before a neighborhood committee which makes recommendations, rather
than metes out sanctions. As a result, he noted, there has been no difficulty getting
people to volunteer for these five- person panels, explaining there are currently 45 people
who meet weekly in Casa Grande to make recommendations.
Senator Kaites asked if such programs could be implemented across the State through
juvenile court without enabling legislation and Judge O'Neil responded they absolutely
December 10,1996
Page 4
Representative Smith indicated he has attended community hearings in Maricopa County
and has observed that these committees make recommendations for first- time offenders
and a probation officer is always present to offer legal background and technical advice.
Judge O'Neil explained Pinal County utilizes the teen court concept, asserting it is very
educational for students who have committed misdemeanors, as they are strongly affected
by peer pressure.
Representative Smith indicated school administrators have also related their support for
this very effective program.
Representative Smith asked who Judge O'Neil feels should have discretion in the juvenile
justice system. Judge O1Neil emphasized his hope that discretion begins at the front line
with the interceding policeman or sheriff and continues throughout the system. He
expressed his preference to use discretion in making decisions individually rather than in
meting out a set of predetermined sanctions. Judge O'Neil expressed his belief that justice
is dealing with one person at a time and indicated that is what he tries to do. He
acknowledged that advancing age and growth are the best predictors of success in turning
children around.
Representative Verkamp expressed his wish to see an analysis made on the effect and
impact of definitions adopted on the cost of transferring juveniles to counties and asked
for Judge OINeil's help in this.
Judge O'Neil indicated he handles both juveniles and some adults in his county, noting
that in juvenile court the average processing time from advising to disposition is 40 days,
whereas the adult court takes five to nine months. He emphasized the importance of
providing restitution to victims, noted it is a part of Proposition 102 and recommended
funding a staff position to collect this restitution.
Senator Kaites acknowledged that Proposition 102 indicates the decision about funding
rests with the Legislature and stressed that it is up to this body to come to the table with
the funding necessary to accomplish juvenile justice reform goals.
Terry Stewart, Director, ADOC, indicated that of the current 103 juveniles committed to
ADOC, 100 are male and three female. He noted that 97 beds in Tucson are dedicated
for juvenile males, 20 beds in Florence Special Management Two Unit for hard to manage
inmates and three beds for juvenile females in Perryville. Mr. Stewart indicated there are
currently 39 juveniles in adult court and, depending upon sentencing and what rate they
come to ADOC, the number will increase by an average of two per month into the future.
December 10,1996
Page 5
Mr. Stewart indicated ADOC will take possession of a brand new minor's unit at Tucson
with 200 beds built on the Rincon model and noted there are 350 adult male beds
scheduled for completion in March, 1999 in the Arizona State Prison Complex at Lewis.
He noted that the intent has been to shift the Tucson juveniles to the Lewis Complex, but
even without doing so, the State will have the capacity for 550 male juveniles and the
typically small number of female juveniles.
Mr. Stewart indicated it has been estimated that 400 more juveniles will be sentenced as
adults if parallel definitions of the adult criminal code are developed for juveniles. He
estimated that by January 1, 2000, if parallel definitions are developed, Arizona will have
the capacity to incarcerate 500 to 600 juvenile offenders in 550 total juvenile beds, if the
200 juvenile beds are maintained in Tucson.
Mr. Stewart indicated that the best estimate by the Office of Strategic Planning and
Budgeting for housing juveniles in juvenile corrections is $ 167 per day compared to the
cost of $ 44.70 to house a juvenile in ADOC. In response to Senator Kaites' inquiry, about
how the juvenile cost in ADOC compares to secure care in juvenile corrections, Mr.
Stewart could not say.
Mr. Stewart confirmed Representative Smith's understanding it costs about the same to
keep a juvenile in ADOC as it does an adult. Mr. Stewart acknowledged it may cost a bit
more to house a juvenile in ADOC than it does to house a juvenile in juvenile corrections,
but not a significant amount.
Mr. Stewart indicated the difference in cost is related to the emphasis placed on treatment
in juvenile corrections versus education, work and system- approved programs such as
anger management, parenting and substance abuse programs in adult corrections. He
explained that the General Equivalency Diploma program will become mandatory. Mr.
Stewart explained that typically one- half of the day in ADOC is devoted to programs and
the other to hard labor, i. e. breaking rocks and institutional labor.
Mr. Stewart noted there will be greater opportunity for minor inmates to perform additional
institutional jobs in the new facility after they have earned the position performing hard
labor. He clarified the program will move from somewhat of a punishment orientation to
more meaningful institutional jobs.
Mr. Stewart confirmed Senator Kaites' understanding that the juveniles in ADOC are much
harder to manage and have committed worse crimes than those in juvenile corrections.
Mr. Stewart explained that some of the males are so difficult to manage they are single-celled
in Special Management Unit Two.
December 10,1996
Page 6
Representative Smith also suggested that housing juveniles in cottages with a higher ratio
of supervisors and counselors to juveniles accounts for higher costs. Mr. Stewart
acknowledged the ADOC juvenile program is oriented toward least cost, punishment and
rehabilitation with available resources.
Mr. Stewart encouraged the Legislature to adopt a parallel definition for " chronic offender,"
i. e., a person with three felony convictions, and a good definition for " violent offender." He
suggested that in doing so, Arizona will have an opportunity to move the most dangerous
and violent juvenile offenders to ADOC where they may be maintained in appropriate
settings at a reduced comparative cost. Mr. Stewart opined that one of the failures of the
juvenile justice system is that treatment is supposed to work for all offenders. He
emphasized transferring the appropriate juveniles to ADOC will allow the opportunity to
provide community- based resources and juvenile corrections to those offenders most able
to be redirected by treatment.
Mr. Stewart confirmed Representative Marsh's understanding that the same five security
level classifications according to public risk and institutional risk are used for juveniles as
well as for adults.
Representative Smith suggested that if 97 percent of those incarcerated eventually get out
of jail, there needs to be a system developed for juveniles that will enable them to have a
chance to live as good citizens within the community when they are released.
Mr. Stewart agreed and also acknowledged that age greatly impacts recidivism rates. He
noted that the older offenders get, the lower the recidivism rate becomes. Mr. Stewart
suggested the State could tailor sentencing in this regard, insuring that sentences
incapacitate offenders beyond the critical years and focus on education. He
acknowledged there are programming opportunities that juveniles can benefit from and
clarified that for the small percentage of juvenile offenders coming to ADOC, redirection
may not be possible and maturity may be the only hope.
In response to Representative Verkamp's inquiry about what types of institutional jobs
inmates are required to perform, Mr. Stewart listed cleaning the yard, kitchen duty, facility
maintenance, plumbing, mechanical maintenance and anything else it takes to run the
facility. He acknowledged that since juveniles must be separated by sight and sound, job
opportunities are limited.
Representative Verkamp also emphasized the importance of educating juvenile inmates
and enhancing vocational training so they have a way to make a living when they are
December 10,1996
Page 7
Mr. Stewart asked the Committee to remember that when juveniles turn 18 years of age
they are able to benefit from vocational education and able to work for Arizona
Correctional Industries if their classifications permit.
Representative Verkamp noted that if juveniles are placed in ADOC at 15 to 17 years of
age, they may waste two years' time that could be better used. Mr. Stewart acknowledged
there may exist some limitations if a juvenile does not progress to the adult system and is
released before turning 18 years old.
Representative Smith expressed his intent to check on programs and work with Mr.
In response to Representative Marsh's inquiry about comparing gang activity between
incarcerated juveniles and adults, Mr. Stewart indicated it is difficult to say whether there
is more gang activity among ages I5 through 18 or 1 8 through 24, explaining it appears
to be the same, is a significant problem and has increased astronomically in recent years.
He indicated that formerly inmates would join an established prison gang once
incarcerated, but now inmates enter with a loyal street gang affiliation already established
and are unwilling to join the older established prison gangs. Mr. Stewart noted there is a
dual problem and fractionalization.
Senator Kaites asked for an example of the offenses of one of the 103 juveniles in adult
corrections in order to demonstrate the seriousness of these crimes as compared to the
offenses handled in juvenile corrections. Mr. Stewart listed offenses of three armed
robberies, aggravated assault, facilitation of first degree murder, second degree murder,
escape, manslaughter and burglary with sentences totaling over 20 years for one
Elizabeth McNulty, Ph. D., Senior Research Associate, National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, explained she was formerly with AOC where her study entitled " Arizona
Juvenile Transfer Study: Juveniles Transferred To Adult Court 1994" ( filed with original
minutes) was conducted. She presented an overview of the report and projected slides
illustrating who these juveniles are, their sentences and evidence which shows that
treatment of transferred juveniles can be quite effective, particularly for those on intensive
projections. Dr. McNulty showed slides indicating 70 percent of transferred juveniles in
1994 were 17 years of age and older, were minorities, had five or more prior referrals and
that females represented 5 percent of the group and do not look like males in offense,
background prior referrals or use of prior services. She strongly suggested that the
Legislature pay attention to the different sentencing patterns of females.
Dr. McNulty continued to show slides illustrating that crimes against persons were
committed by younger age groups and that 60 percent of the African- Americans
December 10,1996
Page 8
transferred were convicted on crimes against persons compared to 38 percent of the Anglo
group. Slides showed that minority youth had a much higher prior referral history before
transfer than Anglo youth and Dr. McNulty suggested the new system being implemented
will more likely impact minority youth than it will Anglo. She presented slides which
showed that most transferred juveniles had received at least one court- related service,
such as a diversion program or use of probation, that 13 percent of the full group had
received none and that 30 percent of females had received none. Dr. McNulty noted that
in terms of prior services females come in with a very different history and pattern than
Dr. McNulty indicated that approximately 50 percent of the transferred juveniles received
probation; 33 percent received standard and 16 percent received intensive probation; 32
percent were sent directly to ADOC and the remainder were sent to a variety of other
services such as the shock incarceration which was in place at the time but is now
In terms of the likelihood that a juvenile would be sent to ADOC, Dr. McNulty listed severity
of offense, previous transfer, ethnicity ( African- American males, holding everything else
constant, were three times more likely to receive a prison sentence than Anglo males and
Hispanic males more than twice as likely as Anglo males), number of prior referrals and
young age. She noted that two- thirds of the juveniles received something other than
ADOC sentencing, so a large percentage of this group as is the case with juveniles
nationwide, was sent into the adult system without the idea of receiving an adult court
sentence to ADOC.
Dr. McNulty noted that for juveniles placed on intensive adult probation, a comparatively
high 60 percent were still under supervision eight months later. She emphasized a large
number had some type of treatment ordered at sentencing, with only one- half actually
receiving the treatment for a range of reasons, but noted that the most successful in
probation received treatment along with this sentence. Dr. McNulty showed data indicating
that structured, intensive probation along with treatment produced a dramatic positive
relationship for transferred juveniles.
In response to Representative Smith's request, Dr. McNulty indicated she would make a
copy of the report available to all committee members.
Dave Byers, Director, AOC, noted that the various programs, funds and disposition
alternatives are all statutory and Proposition 102 does not change this, though it provides
impetus to review the entire system.
Mr. Byers explained the system of funding courts in Arizona requires that 117 different
political subdivisions make decisions to assemble the full amount of funding. He
December 10,1996
Page 9
emphasized the need for the Legislature to gain input from the local boards and avoid
leaving AOC in the position of the go- between trying to figure out who is going to pay
Mr. Byers explained the largest amount of money the Legislature allocates to the juvenile
court probation operation is the Juvenile Treatment Services Fund, initially housed in DES
and later taken over by the courts at the request of DES after two or three years of
resistance. He emphasized it has been a good system and has worked efficiently, has
worked without scandal and has not succumbed to political pressures. Mr. Byers noted
that when the courts took the $ 25 million fund over, fraud was discovered and was taken
care of with the help of DES special investigators. He emphasized the Fund needs
diligent management and safeguards or this problem will continue to exist.
Mr. Byers noted that though the Fund pays for treatment such as family and individual
counseling, the largest portion is paid out for consequences, such as drug testing,
electronic monitoring, placement in community service programs and other sanctions
which are meted out by community restorative centers or which judges impose.
Mr. Byers indicated once consensus is reached by the Governor's committee working to
implement Proposition 102, he would be happy to deliver specific projections for
allocations to the Legislature. He noted this is being accomplished with the aid of a good
statewide database. Mr. Byers projected that if laws necessary to implement juvenile
transfer were changed last year and based upon last year's arrest statistics, there would
be 1,331 juveniles being transferred to the adult system.
Mr. Byers confirmed Senator Kaites' understanding the figure is based on the offenses of
rape, murder and armed robbery for juveniles ages 15 and above. In addition, Mr. Byers
noted there would be a group of 689 juveniles under the Pima plan ages 14 and 15 who
would also be transferred, making a total of approximately 2,000 juveniles. He also noted
approximately 1,000 would be under juvenile corrections for second felony adjudications
and that other juveniles may be transferred due to a judge's discretion and parole
Mr. Byers suggested law enforcement changes may need to be monitored as reforms are
made. He explained that if it is determined that three drug buys results in a mandatory
prison sentence, law enforcement will move to make three buys, as this is the way the
system works. He explained that if the system dictates that two arrests warrants a juvenile
going to juvenile corrections, this may skew current arrest and charging patterns and
should be monitored.
Representative Smith asked if there is a national system of evaluating which treatment
programs are effective and which are not. Mr. Byers suggested before money is spent on
December 10,1996
Page 10
evaluations the State must first define " suc~ ess, s'~ ug gesting that a juvenile with a record
of taking drugs, stealing cars and burglarizing may be defined as " successful" because six
months later he is going to school and reads better, although he gets arrested for smoking
marijuana while on probation. He reiterated that the recidivism rate for young males is
over 70 percent and tapers off after they reach 30 years of age. Mr. Byers noted that this
group of juveniles generally do not have traditional families to lean upon for support.
Representative Smith asserted that if a contract is to be let with a treatment organization,
it should be able to tell the State what it considers " success" and show how it can produce
Mr. Byers acknowledged the courts have performance criteria, the police officers on the
street know what works and there is national information available on what generally works
for specific cases.
Representative Smith agreed the people on the front lines know what works and
recommended supporting programs which are proven successful and getting rid of the
ones that are not.
Mr. Byers explained the contracting is very decentralized, that AOC does the contracting
for all the juvenile courts with Boys Ranch, for example, in a cost- efficient way, however
it is the individual court's choice to use the contract or not. He noted that word spreads
quickly among probation officers about which agencies are effective for which types of
Mr. Byers suggested that good residential treatment, which is the most expensive, may be
well- run, but as the juveniles are returned to dysfunctional families, the success rate does
not hold up. He also noted that the military no longer will accept youth with behavior
problems or criminal records. Representative Smith acknowledged the military requires
high school graduation.
Senator Kaites asserted AOC currently has the authority to evaluate programs and not
renew contracts for programs which are not successful. Mr. Byers agreed this is true and
that he would like to perform more evaluations, but asked that the Committee consider
there are hundreds of contracts in the system and there is pressure to keep administrative
expenses low compared to direct services to juveniles. He also noted there is a great deal
of politics surrounding many of the centers, many of which are nonprofit and may have
influential boards which may affect the objectivity of an evaluation. Mr. Byers emphasized
that the courts are determined to protect the children and only to pay for services that are
rendered. He indicated that juveniles have been removed from less than adequate
programs, sometimes resulting in their shutting down.
December 10,1996
Page 11
Representative Verkamp expressed concern about the need to better understand the
funding which flows through the Supreme Court and asked if there was a concise diagram
or flow chart available that would make it clear. He noted there are some funding issues
involved in Proposition 102 and suggested there is concern in the juvenile courts that the
county attorneys may set up a competing program to obtain funding.
Mr. Byers indicated there needs to be a distinction drawn between the Supreme Court,
consisting of five justices who adjudicate cases versus the administrative responsibilities
also vested in the Supreme Court. He related his experience at a national conference for
court administrators and noted there are different mechanisms in different states. Mr.
Byers explained AOC is the only state office which overviews the Legislature out to the
state courts and explained it takes direction from the Legislature, pending statutory
authority and funding, related to the mission of the court system. He emphasized the
court system exists to resolve disputes not to conduct trials, as only four percent of cases
ever go to trial; yet caseload has changed from primarily civil and criminal cases to family
matters and domestic relations. Mr. Byers related that Arizona's position is similar in this
regard to most states in the country.
In response to Senator Kaites' request, Mr. Byers indicated AOC produces many reports
for the Legislature and that he would supply a short summary showing the flow of county,
city and state monies to juvenile courts. He noted approximately one- third of court funding
comes from each source and because of this complexity, AOC tracks and monitors how
it flows. Mr. Byers acknowledged the State has a fairly complicated system, but there has
been no will demonstrated to go to a state- funded system.
Mr. Byers indicated AOC will process 90,000 referrals for juveniles this year, emphasized
that the system works well and asserted that the system should not be changed. He also
indicated, however, that if the Legislature chooses to change the system, his office would
be happy to cooperate in determining the best way to accomplish this.
Representative Verkamp emphasized the importance of being able to understand what the
juvenile courts are going to do with regard to the provision for restorative justice under
Proposition 102 versus what county attorneys plan to do and how the money will flow. Mr.
Byers acknowledged this importance and asserted AOC has more experience with citizen
review boards than any agency in the State, noting it has operated foster care review
boards of 600 citizen- members in every county since 1979. He cautioned there is no way
90,000 juvenile referrals could be processed by citizen review boards.
Representative Marsh asked how much the AOC receives in discretionary funds. Mr.
Byers indicated the AOC receives no discretionary funding; that all funding and surcharges
are appropriated to specific funds with specific purposes for use.
December 10,1996
Page 12
Cheryln Townsend, Director Juvenile Court Services, Maricopa County, discussed
restorative justice centers and a manager's perspective of the AOC. She explained that
restorative justice centers have been operating for the past year and now with the
implementation of Proposition 102 there is some question as to whether the county
attorneys should operate them, whether the juvenile court should operate them or whether
they should be jointly operated by both. Ms. Townsend explained the Maricopa Juvenile
Court Center developed " community justice committees" built upon a partnership between
the juvenile courts, the c~ untyat torney and the community. She explained the concept is
based upon the premise that juveniles who commit misdemeanors in a community must
be held accountable to the people who live in that community.
Ms. Townsend explained there are currently 17 community probation officers in Maricopa
County with four permanent decentralized offices within the county and a fifth projected to
open in January. She noted there are currently 18 community facilities where citizen
panels meet to conduct hearings and that Maricopa County's panels consist of three
people, while Pinal County's consist of five. Ms. Townsend explained the panels are
composed of victims of crimes, elected public officials, teachers, community activists and
concerned parents and many have said their involvement with community justice has given
them hope, a sense of taking back the community from juvenile crime and a sense of
making a difference with youth.
Ms. Townsend indicated over 1,500 youth, who have completed thousands of hours of
community service, have been seen in the past year and this is projected to more than
double in the next year. She noted that an initial evaluation shows juvenile offenders in
the community justice system are committing fewer offenses than those juvenile offenders
who go through the standard process and that restorative justice is working well in seven
out of 10 cases. Ms. Townsend commented it is encouraging to note that the community
justice system is even more successful with minority youth.
Senator Kaites asked if the committees have minority members who review cases for
minority youth. Ms. Townsend explained this is the case, but members are not specifically
assigned based on ethnicity; that the volunteers reflect the ethnicity of their communities.
Ms. Townsend indicated a more thorough evaluation is projected for the coming year,
looking not only at recidivism but also educational progress, school attendance, behavior
within the home, compliance with consequences and completion of community service.
She expressed strong support for community justice and the concept of restorative justice,
noting the method of delivery is a matter of public policy the Legislature will need to
design. Ms. Townsend urged the Legislature to grant flexibility, asserting that by allowing
different methods of delivery there will be an opportunity to respond to unique challenges,
resources and relationships in each county.
December 10,1996
Page 13
With regard to her view of AOC, Ms. Townsend indicated she has benefitted by the
administrative and technical services provided by AOC and emphasized her support for
continuing to have funding administered by it. She expressed opposition to directly
funding courts to avoid duplicating efforts and increasing costs.
There being no further business before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4: 10
p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alice Kloppel,
Committee Secretary
( Tapes and attachments on file in the Office of the Senate Secretary)
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATlVES
Guests Attending Meeting
- 7-
, fd3[- 3. ],- I
NAME AND TITLE ( Please print) REPRESENTING BILL NO.
1 :' A?&=- %= CI%~ C I t% \(? PC, 1
y 7
A I e: i l l ( C7
( ' I ? G ~ - I G icu- i-,- d,~ c- i
L L I , ~ IGinu,
L L f~ l ,/- ' 4 /, 7-:-
/ /-
\ +\-,- L&,- i, h , ~ - - L ,
klal- It cpn cc - Ju c -' Q,-~ h 3 ~
' j < /& bc K / qtlki
- / c . f. 4 , C / O I - dct'
i:) T
Forty- second Legislature - Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, December 12, 1 996
House Hearing Room 3 - 1 : 00 p. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
Cochair Smith called the meeting to order at 1 : 13 p. m., and attendance was noted by
the secretary.
Members Present
Representative Marsh
Representative Smith, Cochair
Senator Huppenthal
Senator Tom Patterson
Senator Ruth Solomon
Senator Kaites, Cochair
Members Absent
Representative Jarrett
Representative Newman
Speakers Present
Dr. Michael Block, Senior Policy Advisor to the Governor and Professor of Law and
Economics at the University of Arizona
Elizabeth Rice, Representing Herself
Patricia Pompa, Representing Herself
Helene Abrams, Lobbyist, Juvenile Division Chief, Maricopa County Public Defender
Paul Badalucco, Deputy City Prosecutor, City of Phoenix
Jerry G. Landau, Lobbyist, Special Assistant Deputy County Attorney
Guest List ( Attachment 7)
Openinq Remarks
Cochair Smith explained that the purpose of meeting on this and previous days has been
to provide opportunity for input from all interested parties regarding juvenile justice reform.
The Committee will meet again on December 20, 1996 at 2: 00 p. m. The Governor's
Advisory Committee will also prepare a report on the juvenile justice system and a
Joint Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform
12/ 12/ 96
In response to query, Ms. Abrams said that the definition has to come from the County
Attorney's Office at the time the juvenile is charged with the crime.
Believes use of the word " chronic" enlarges what was requested by the voters
Opposed to " accomplicesn to crime being automatically transferred; believes the
jury should decide
The County Attorney is the only one who can presently motion that a case be
returned to juvenile court. Ms. Abrams believes it should be a prerogative of either
side on the case to ask for a transfer hearing
Dual sentencing was not included in Proposition 102. She emphasized that the
juvenile who has need for juvenile services should be retained in the juvenile court.
Allowing judges to take a child into temporary custody without a hearing or notice
to counsel needs to be addressed
Criteria is needed for children to receive services from community justice centers,
to avoid the exclusion of minority children
Concerning the provision requiring the parent of a child to pay restitution, if the
parent does not have the money hislher property can be confiscated without a
hearing or due process
Cochair Kaites pointed out that property can be seized only by separate civil court action.
Paul Badalucco, Deputy City Prosecutor, City of Phoenix, testified regarding misdemeanor
prosecution of juveniles. He explained that the City Prosecutor's Office is concerned with
the lack of enforcement of the judge's orders:
Juvenile can fail to appear for hearing
Juvenile who goes through the system is sentenced as provided in juvenile
statues and ignores the court's orders
He explained that city court judges have no authority or power to enforce court orders; they
can only refer the juveniles back to juvenile court. Mr. Badalucco suggested giving the city
judges the authority to suspend drivers' licenses for the juveniles who do not appear for
hearings or who fail to obey the orders of the court.
In response to query, Mr. Badalucco stated that statute requires that parents attend the
juvenile court hearings.
Cochair Kaites asked if juveniles convicted of driving under the influence ( DUI) should be
processed similar to adults convicted of DUI. Mr. Badalucco said he believes that option
should be considered. He added that the treatment process for adults convicted of DUI
does not presently exist in the juvenile justice system.
In response to query, Mr. Badalucco answered that updated technology would assist in
keeping track of juveniles in the system. The City Prosecutors do not have access to the
records in the juvenile system. He related that one of the problems concerns juveniles
entering the system, and through court delays, turn 18- years- old after the case has
Joint Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform
6 1 211 2196
Attachment 4 depicts the effects of the proposed policy of increase in certainty and
severity of punishment in dollars and cents. The table exhibits the benefits and costs of
changes in imprisonment policies by type of crime using the figure of 5 percent for the
longer time served. When the benefits are divided by the costs, the figure needs to be
greater than one. He stated that he believes the message gleaned from the statistics is
that an increase in the risk of imprisonment is more powerful than increasing the length of
sentencing for violent crimes.
Dr. Block explained Attachment 5, which displays benefit costs if all criminals convicted
of violent crimes served time ( simulated figures.) He advised that if a policy change
implements certainty and severity in punishment, statistics show that prison population
will begin to decrease in four years. He added that implementing the policy gives States
some power over the imprisonment process.
In response to query, Dr. Block replied that according to his research, in order to have
power in the juvenile justice system, a policy of certainty and severity in terms of
punishment must be implemented.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Dick Geasland, Chair, Arizona Council of Centers for Children and Adults ( ACCCA) and
Executive Director of Youth Etc., testified from a service provider's perspective. He
emphasized the importance of swift consequences for teens and children convicted of
crime as a must from the provider's point of view. He mentioned concern that realizing
consequences of crime in the adult system is a lengthy process and needs to be
considered when juveniles are transferred to adult court. He explained that the context of
his comments arise from many years in the juvenile justice system, child welfare, and
working with behavioral health children. Mr. Geasland reviewed ACCCA juvenile justice
reform recommendations ( Affachment 6).
Regarding prevention and early- intervention services for children, Cochair Kaites asked
which programs are effective. Mr. Geasland replied that the Supreme Court and juvenile
court judges may have that information.
Mr. Geasland indicated swift consequences within the community for child offenders will
be the most effective in preventing some children from becoming " 1 02" juveniles. He said
he believes ACCCA provides the community with effective and efficient programs where
more pertinent and appropriate services are provided for juveniles. He stated that he
believes the Administrative Office of the Courts ( AOC) is the most accountable
organization that has the best handle on what to do for juveniles and how to do it. Mr.
Geasland favors the centralizing of the juvenile court system to end duplication in
children's services and State contracts with providers.
In response to query, Mr. Geasland explained that there needs to be utilization of the local
uvenile courts already established and placed under AOC and juvenile court supervision.
ie said ACCCA favors dual sentencing so that contributory factors ( poverty,
Joint Commrttee on Juvenile Justice Reform
unemployment, etc.) will be considered in determining punishment. Mr. Geasland pointed
out that there are very specific statistical evaluations showing that prevention and early
intervention are effective in deterring juvenile crime.
Cochair Smith commented that he believes the consequences of crime should be as
immediate as possible and the severity of the punishment needs to be increased if the
initial consequences do not change the behavior.
Cochair Kaites asked the single most important motivating factor in modifying juvenile
criminal behavior. Mr. Geasland stated that he believes that providing the juvenile with an
appropriate role model is an important factor.
Cochair Smith remarked that recognizing an individual's success in at least one area is
important to young juveniles. Mr. Geasland concurred.
( Tape 2, Side A)
Elizabeth Rice, representing herself, testified in favor of Proposition 102. Mrs. Rice related
the incident that took the life of Jennifer Lynn Rice, senselessly murdered by a 14- year- old
boy on September 8, 1996. She stated that she, her husband and friends wrote impact
statements to the judge on this case, in an attempt to influence the judge's decision
whether or not to transfer the juvenile to adult court for this crime. Barbra Miller, the
prosecuting attorney, the boy's parole officer and the boy's psychologist, also
recommended that the juvenile be transferred to adult court. The judge decided to retain
the juvenile in the juvenile system where the maximum sentence is incarceration until the
boy's 18th birthday ( three years) Mrs. Rice stated that she does not believe this is justice.
She pointed out that on November 5, 1996, voters unanimously voted in favor of
Proposition 102 because decent citizens are sick and tired of the rising violent juvenile
crime rate, and seeing them receive only a " slap on the wristn as punishment. She
declared that juveniles today will never learn to be responsible for their actions and learn
to curtail their need for immediate gratification if citizens do not set clear standards for the
behavior of juveniles. Her recommendations included the following:
Parent's held accountable for the criminal acts of minor children
Specific minimum and maximum jail sentences for specific crimes regardless of age
Availability of counseling and services such as education for juveniles sentenced
in adult court until age 18
Victims having an opportunity to speak to convicted offenders and potential
offenders in schools
Schools implementing parenting classes, especially in high- risk populations
Cochair Kaites requested that Mrs. Rice supply staff with her telephone number and
address for notification of upcoming meetings and progress of legislation.
Joint Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform
12/ 12/ 96
already begun to be processed in the system, but before it is concluded. At that point the
juvenile court loses jurisdiction, the original ticket must be dismissed, a new charge is filed
as an adult and the process is repeated. Mr. Badalucco said the City Prosecutors Office
wants a change allowing the case to become an automatic adult charge if the juvenile
turns 18 in the middle of the court process.
Ms. Abrams addressed her earlier testimony. She stated that according to Proposition
102, the only way a transfer hearing for a juvenile to adult court will take place is if the
State requests it. She recommends that a transfer hearing be automatic.
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant Deputy County Attorney, lobbyist, testified before the
Committee. He urged that proposed legislation transcend Proposition 102 and provide for
the enhanced ability to transfer juveniles to the criminal adult system by the prosecutors.
Mr. Landau recommended reviewing the prior record of a juvenile before sentencing or
transfer to adult court. He expressed agreement with Dr. Block, urging adoption of laws,
if necessary, to provide for immediate consequences for juveniles; more funding for local
detention centers and assurance that the Department of Juvenile Corrections will not
practice early release of juveniles.
Cochair Kaites announced that the next Committee meeting will be held on Friday,
December 20, with a presentation from the Governor's Office from 2: 00 to 500 p. m. He
requested that staff compile a menu of ideas and recommendations from different sources
and testimony for use at the next meeting.
There being no objection, the meeting adjourned at 3: 45 p. m.
( Original minutes with attachments on file in the Chief Clerk's Office. Tapes on file in the
Office of the Chief Clerk.)
1 2/ 18/ 96
Joint Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform
121 2/ 96
Forty- second Legislature - Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
Monday, December 20, 1996
Senate Hearing Room 2 - 2: 00 p. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was convened at 2: 12 p. m. by Cochair Kaites and attendance was noted bj. the
Members Present
Senator John Huppenthal
Senator Ruth Solomon
Representative Marilyn Jarrett
Representative Paul Newman
Representative Tom Smith. Cochair
Senator John Kaites, Cochair
Representative John Verkamp ( ex- officio)
Members Absent
Senator ?' om Patterson
Representative Wes Marsh
Speakers Present
Michael Ijlock, Senior Policy Advisor for Criminal Justice. Office of the Governor
David Quantz. Deputy County Attorne~ fJ. u venile Division, Pima County
Guest List ( Attachment 1 )
Cochair Kaitcs said a letter will be sent to Speaker Killian requesting that the Committee report date
bc estendcd beyond December 3 1. 1996.
Mr. Newman mentioned he recently became aware of a technical assistance program available
through the National Conference of State 1, egislatures ( NCSL) which is designed to assist states in
implementing nlodel juvenile justice programs. Due to the holiday rush, he suggested the
Committee continue meeting after conlmencement of the legislative session. Cochair Kaites
Jolnt Comrn~ tteeo n
Juvenile Justice Reform
11/ 20196
remarked that any juvenile justice reform measure developed by the Committee can be further
studied and modified during the regular legislative process. He encouraged research staff members
to access information available through NCSL for presentation to the House and Senate Judiciary
Michael Block. Senior Policy Advisor for Criminal Justice. Office of the Governor. mentioned his
recent role as Cochair of the Governor's Advisory Committee for lmplenientation of
Proposition 102.
Cochair Kaites clarified that Mr. Block will give a report of the Advisor!, Committee's
recommendations to the Governor.
Mr. Block reported that the Advisory Committee met five times. approved an outline of
recommendations. and is in the process of drafting a final report. With the aid of an overhead
projector, he reviewed the recommendations which were approved by a majority of Advisory
Committee members. ( Mr. Block's presentation is based on the transparencies included as
Attachment 2.)
( Tape 1. Side B)
David Ouantz, Deuutv County Attorney, . Iuvenile Division. Pima Countv, mentioned his role as a
member of the Governor's Advisory Committee for Implementation of Proposition 102. With the
aid of an overhead projector, he reviewed a flowchart entitled " Arrest and Release to Parents"
pertaining to juvenile misdemeanors and subsequent arrests ( Attachment 3).
Mr. Quantz explained that two reasons why misden~ eanoro ffenses carry so little consequence for
juvcnilcs arc thc high cost involved in pursuing such cases and the length of time it takes for these
typcs of cases to proceed through thc court system. He suggested the Committee consider
rc\, olutionizing the juvenile court system b! making it follow the procedure utilized for adult court --
that is. requiring thc parent and child to appear in court ~ lilhin[ e n days and plead guilty or not guilty.
I lc rccomniended that an attorney not bc prcsent at this stage in an effort to reduce court costs. As
a trade off for not allowing legal counscl at this stage. he said the court will not be allowed to impose
incarccration as a sanction.
Mr. Quantz continued his review of the flowchart ( Attachment 3).
Mr. @ ant/ said thc Advisory Comniittcc fclt strongl!- that money should follow children to
cornmunit! - bascd rcstorativc justice ccntcrs.
Mr. t3lock displayed another transparency containing the following information:
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice Reform
Performance audit of existing juvenile programs
Going forward = anal!, ze public safety outcome of all programs
Arizona Criminal Justicc Conimission should be asked to specif!, the t!. pes of
data collection and analysis necessary to anal>. ze the effecti\. eness of criminal
justice programs
Cochair Smith shared his observation that when a juvenile is transferred to adult court. lie or she
often receives a less severe sentence than would have been imposed in the juvenile s!. stem. 1- lc asked
whether the Advisory Committee considered that ajuvenile serving time in adult corrections might
become eligible for parole and be released back into the conimunity. Mr. Block said that in his role
as adi~ isotro the Governor. he will allow that some serious consequence needs to follo\ v iu\, eniles
to adult court.
Cochair Smith remarked that the Committee will need to address funding and learn more about the
impact on bed availability in both the juvenile and adult systems. He asked if the revamped juvenile
justice system will be simplistic enough that a police officer will not be confused about whether to
take a juvenile to jail or a detention center. Mr. Block replied that preliminary inquiries regarding
bed availability indicate that the movement ofjuveniles to the adult system will create vacancies in
the juvenile system. He added that although the juvenile vacancies are expected to be filled as a
result of mandatory adjudication. the influx is not expected to exceed the number ofjuvenile beds
scheduled to become available in 1998 and 1999. On the second point, he mentioned that both
Sheriff Arpaio and Director Albo felt that offenses could be specified clearly enough that law
cnforcenient officers will not be conluscd about where to take an arrested juvenile.
Mr. Block said the ambiguity surrounding the term " chronic offender" may be alleviated by a police
link up to the Juvenile On- line l'racking System ( JOLTS).
Senator Solomon asked if the Advisory Committee will issue a minority report. Mr. Block replied
that the final report will indicate the items on which various members disagreed.
Senator Solomon inquired as to wliicl~ e lected officials should have input into refornling the juvenile
justice system. Mr. I3lock shared his belief that thc legislature and county attorney should be
involvcd with developing reforms.
In rcsponsc to Senator Solomon. Cochair Kaitcs cnvisioned that the legislature will not actually
rcwritc all court rules. Mr. Block asserted that the recommendations were to set transfer criteria.
I Ie said the legislature is fully capable of setting such criteria. and that implementation should be left
to the courts.
Senator Solomon expressed surprise over the assertion that enough prison beds will exist to house
the influx of individuals caused by Proposition 102. Mr. Block explained that the directors of the
I> cpartment ol'Corrcctions ( IIOC) and 1) cpartment of . luvenile Corrections ( DJC) gave assurances
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justicc Reform
12/ 20/ 96
that sufficient bed space presently exists. However. he admitted to not inquiring too deepl! \\. ith
regard to bed availability in jails and detention centers.
Cochair Kaites stated his belief that juvenile justice reform legislation will require an appropriation.
Senator Solomon said the legislature must can?/ out the wishes of the voters. With regard to two 15-
year- old mentally retarded boys who recently committed a serious crime. she pointed out that under
Proposition 102 they will be automatically transferred to the adult system where the!. n. ill receive
eve11 less. if any. services than they received in the juvenile system.
Mr. Verkarnp recalled that the Department of Youth Corrections in Coconino County was a laughing
stock and that there was a common saying that kids taken there " would beat the officers back up the
hill." He related the subsequent bed shortage problems which occurred when juvenile judges
attempted more stringent sentencing.
Mr. Verkamp asserted that any serious attempt at reforming the juvenile justice system must
eliminate all emergency releases. adhere to truth in sentencing, and provide the funding necessary
to ensure tliat offenders fulfill their sentences. Mr. Block concurred wholeheartedly and mentioned
that he already placed a request for an outside expert to conduct a population forecast which can be
used to determine bed needs. Cochair Kaites requested that Mr. Block provide Committee members
with the information.
Mr. Verkamp predicted that Proposition 102 will result in more juveniles entering juvenile
corrections. as compared with the number of juveniles who will enter adult corrections.
( l'apc 2. Side 13)
Mr. Ne\ v~ iian asked if the Advisory Committee. in determining the categories for automatic transfer.
studied the experiences of other states. Mr. I'llock rcplicd that other states' systems were not studied
bccausc thc Advisory Conlniittee's proposal utilizes a different sentencing regime.
With regard to restitution. Mr. Ncwnian questioned whether parents will be concerned over
submitting to a system which does not involve attorneys. Mr. Quantz referred to the flowchart
( Attachment 3) and mentioned the effecti\~ encssi t can have in situations in which a juvenile has a
col lcction of niisdcmeanors. I lc suggested that in cases which involve restitution or unique
circumstances. a mechanism should bc dcvelopcd which will allow a party to opt out of' the
accclcratcd systcni illustrated by the flo\\ chart.
Mr. Ncunian asked whether tlic systcni rcflcctcd on the flowchart has been attempted in any other
statc. Mr. @ ant/ rcplicd in the negative but esprcsscd absolute confidence that it will prove
\ sorl\ ablc in thc arena orjuvcnilc justicc. I 1c mentioned tliat since 1974 lie has attended conferences
and aniasscd a great deal of information on the subject of juvenile justice. Further, he emphasized
that thc systcni proposed by the flowchart is not untried because it is based on Arizona's adult
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice Reform
Mr. Nemnlan asserted that without an attome!,. children and parents may not know hob to ii- nd for
themselves in the court system. Mr. Quantz stated his belief that the presiding judicial officer will
have both the capability and moti~ rationt o ensure that what transpires in his or her courtroom will
be fair.
In response to Mr. Newman. Mr. Block suggested that the Proposition 102 language concerning
openness to the public should be repeated in the interest of clarity.
In answer to Mr. Newman. Cochair Kaites pointed out that drivers. age 16 to 1 S. arc current]!
subject to adult penalties. He explained that the only proposed change for juvenile dri\. crs pertains
to DUI offenses.
Mr. Newman asked if the Advisory Committee included a representative of the federal court
monitors. Mr. Block said no thought was given to placing a representative of the federal judiciary
on the Advisory Committee because the Governor of Arizona structured the Advisory Coninlittee
to address business pertaining strictly to Arizona.
Mr. Block emphasized that the presentation to the Committee is simply conlprised of
recommendations which the Advisory Committee will make to the Governor.
Mrs. Jarrett requested an estimate of the budgetary savings which will be realized by streamlining
the front end of the juvenile justice process. With regard to DUI offenses, she suggested that
juvenile drivers. who should not be drinking at all. be stripped of their drivers license for a long tinie.
Cochair Sniith said it would be a slianie to exhaust funding on additional beds without addressing
special education programs focusing 011 early intervention. Iie suggested that several nlillion dollars
worth of savings can be realized simply through prevention.
With regard to the secondary category, specifically arson of an occupied structure. Mr. Newman
expressed concern over a scenario in which a juvenile might bum a home because a parent who
committed an awful crime was inside. 1-. urther. he asserted that it was probably not the intent of
I'roposition 102 to transfer to thc adult s!, stem a kid who merely steals a bicycle worth $ 250.
Mr. I3lock emphasized that a child has made a conscious choice by the time he or she conimits a
third felon..
Mr. Quantz explained that if an arson casc is transferred to adult court, the prosecutor who reviews
the case and decides to file charges must be convinced the charges will prevail before a jury. He
added that if a case is so ludicrous that there is very little probability of prosecution. the prosecutor
will not issue the casc as a felony.
(- l'ape 3. Sidc A)
. lo~ nCt oniniittec on
Juvenilc Justlcc Reform
12/ 20/ 96
Cochair Kaites remarked that even in the case of the two 15- year- old mentally retarded boys. the
prosecutor will have the option of determining whether the case should be tried in the juvenile or
adult system.
Mr. Newman expressed considerable concern over the possibility of prosecutorial abuse.
Cochair Kaites announced that attempts will be made to have copies of draft legislation a~ railable
at the next meeting of the Committee.
Without objection. the meeting was adjourned at 4: 15 p. m.
Teresa Alvarez, Committee sec(; letary
( Original minutes with attachments and tapes on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk. Copy of
minutes with attachments on file with Cochair Kaites and Cochair Smith.)
Joint Committee on
Juvenile Justice Reform
12120/ 96
Forty- third Legislature - First Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
Friday, January 17, 1997
Senate Hearing Room 2- 2: 00 p. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
Cochair Kaites called the meeting to order at 2: 15 p. m., and attendance was noted by the
Members Present
Senator Huppenthal
Senator Solomon
Representative Jarrett Representative Smith, Cochair
Representative Marsh Senator Kaites, Cochair
Representative Verkamp ( ex- oficio)
Members Absent
Senator Tom Patterson
Representative Newman
S~ eakersP resent
Rick Pyper, Senate Research Analyst
Barbara Lewall, Pima County Attorney
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant Maricopa County Attorney
John Foreman, Presiding Juvenile Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court
Linda Petit, Lieutenant Commander, U. S. Navy, representing herself
Connie Richardson, representing herself
Dr. Barry Fine, representing himself, Physician 111, Arizona Department of Juvenile Cot- rections
Michael Block, Senior Policy Advisor to the Governor; Professor of Law and Economics, University
of Arizona
Guest List ( Attachment 1 )
Kick Pyper, Senate Research Analyst, presented a brief summary of the proposed legislation (! uvenile
justice; implement proposition 102). Copies of the Fact Sheet on the proposed legislation were made
available to Members and guests ( Attachment 2) Mr. Pvper stated that the purpose of the proposed
Jo~ nCt ornrn~ tteeo n Juven~ leJ ustlce Reform
legislation is to implement the provisions of Proposition 102. The pro~ ositions pecifically provides
that juvenile criminal defendants 15 and older are to be tried as adults when accused of " violent felony
offenses" or if they are " chronic felony offenders." The proposition enumerates some violent felony
offenses but leaves room for more to be provided by the Legislature. It does not define " chronic
felony offenders." Mr. Pyper advised that the proposition requires that convicted juveniles make
prompt restitution to their victims and allows county attorneys to defer prosecution ofjuveniles in
favor of community- based alternatives when the juvenile is not a chronic offender or accused of a
violent offense. It also provides for juvenile criminal proceedings to be made public with exceptions
for the protection and privacy of innocent victims and when there is a clear public interest in
confidentiality, as determined by the courts. Mr. Pyper noted one change in the bill summary, page
2, item 26, strike " first time" and insert " repeat."
( Tape 1, Side B)
Barbara Lewall, Pima County Attorney, testified in support of the proposed legislation. She said she
believes there are two factors responsible for the increase in juvenile crime. 1 ) the growing number
of young children in the communities today, and 2) the growing intensity of violence among juveniles
( guns being more accessible). She opined the public's perception is that there are no real
consequences for juveniles involved in criminal acts. Ms. Lewall explained that the existing juvenile
code was designed to deal with juveniles from a different era ( delinquents), but is inadequate to deal
with violent offenders ( chronic repetitive felony offenders).
Ms. Lewall emphasized that it is time to deal with the serious violent juvenile offenders, to refocus
and reallocate resources to intervene with rehabilitative youth, and to deal with prevention for young
children. She stated her belief that the proposed legislation deals with juveniles in a way that
produces a balance between prevention, intervention and punishment. Ms. Lewall opined that
deterrence of crime will happen when young people are told what type of conduct is expected of
them, requiring conformity to that conduct, and following through with swift and certain
consequences for failure to do so.
Ms. Lewall recommends that prosecutors be given the discretion to proceed against juveniles who
are 14 years and older as adults when deemed appropriate by the prosecutor. The discretion whether
to charge or not is at the heart of the prosecutorial hnction. On the issue of misdemeanor offenses,
she advised that adults are not assigned counsel when charged with a misdemeanor offense, but
juveniles are. As a result, there is a lengthy delay between the time that a young person is cited into
juvenile court and occurrence of consequences, which is very costly for local countv jurisdictions.
Direct expenses attributable to the public defenders office in Pima Countv for last fiscal ycar for
misdemeanor cases is approximately $ 250,000 to $ 300,000 per year.
Cochair Kaites interjected that in the proposed legislation for misdemeanor cases, if the prosecutor
is seeking incarceration for the juvenile, that juvenile will be entitled to legal representation.
hls. Lewall voiced concern with the provision that allows for a young person, once helshe is
transferred to adult court. tried or even pleads guiltv and is sentenced as an adult to utilize adult and
juvenile court services. if juvenile services are utilized, funds are taken away from young people
cligible for rehabilitation.
Jo~ nCt omm~ tteeo n Juven~ leJ ustice Reform
Ms. Lewall expressed concern with the expungement provision. She asserted it is not " in sync" with
current provisions on statute which provide for a period of time to pass prior to being able to petition
the court for expungement. She stated that she believes there needs to be some requirement for
showing that the offender is not going to reoffend prior to expungement taking place.
On the detention issue. Ms. Lewall said that it is critical to the success of the legislation that the
repeat and chronic offender provisions at the juvenile level and the notification and warning that exists
be sure and predictable to ensure deterrence. She emphasized the need for adequate funding to
ensure adequate detention facilities for chronic offenders and for bed space in the Department of
Corrections and the County Jail.
Ms. Lewall requested that the Committee place a provision in the statute to indicate that detention
means incarceration in a secure facility, not release with an ankle bracelet. Further, she indicated the
need for the imposition of a determinate sentence, and asked the Committee to consider some type
of determinate sentence for the second juvenile offense.
( Tape 2, Side A)
Mr. Verkamp asked about the status of available beds in the Pima County Detention Center. Ms.
Lewall stated that they are always full, and funding must be supplied for detention facilities and
adequate beds through legislation.
Mr. Verkamp said he would like to see a provision in the legislation that states if there are mandatory
sentences for juveniles, that any mechanism for early release will be taken to ensure the public that
when a juvenile is sentenced for a time specific, helshe will serve the full sentence. Ms. Lewall
Mr. Verkamp questioned the categorizing of chronic offenders. Ms. Lewall advised that it is difficult
to categorize chronic juvenile ofyenders, because, unlike adults, they commit a wide variety of
offenses. On the third " felony" offense, the juvenile will be transferred to adult court, and depending
on the nature of the offense, helshe will be treated in line with the nature of the offense and will be
sentenced under the proposed legislation to a period of time in the Department of Corrections.
Mr. Verkamp asked if there will be any legal problem with the provision that a juvenile transferred
automatically to adult court will not be eligible for probation, whereas an adult is eligible. Cochair
Kaites clarified that under the proposed legislation juveniles will be eligible for probation. but will
have to serve some time. Ms. Lewall stated that it is legally permissible.
' Lils Lewall added. on the question of categorizing chronic offenders. once juveniles are convicted
of the first adult felony of'fense, there is an opportunity for expungement.
Cochair Kaites clarified that juveniles have committed the third felony offense by the time they get
to adult court
hlr. Verkamp inquired about the written notice provision. if not provided. and how it relates to out-oilstate
juvenile offenders, hfs Lewall explained that out- of- state offenders will not havc been given
Jornt Cornm~ tteeo n Juven~ leJ ustrce Reform
7 0 111 7197
written notice, so thev will be starting at point zero in Arizona until such time as thev receive written
notice. She said she does not believe that the lack of written notice will disqualify the offense.
Judges are required to give a variety of notices. written and otherwise, to of'fenders convicted, pled,
sentenced. etc. She pointed out that this provision does not preclude judges from treating out- of-state
juveniles with lengthv records the same as an individual who has received notice; sentencing is
within the judges discretion.
On the issue of misdemeanors not handled by attorneys but " adjusted out'' in the present system, Mr.
Verkamp asked about the increased workload on hearing officers with the new system. Ms. Lewall
replied that there is a large number of cases in her ofice that have not been adjusted out,
approximately 7,000 per year. Those misdemeanor cases not seen by the county attorney's ofice
should go before a hearing officer. She said that she anticipates that many of these cases will be
diverted to community boards.
Mr. Marsh asked if expungement of felony offenses means all " felonies." Cochair Kaites said it is
his understanding that the felony offenses that are still in the juvenile court will be expunged
immediately upon probation and the adult prosecutions will go through the normal expungement
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant Maricopa County Attorney, representing County Attorney Rick
Romley, testified in support of the proposed juvenile justice reform legislation.
( Tape 2, Side B)
Mr. Landau stated that he believes the areas of intervention and early intervention are as important
as the area of consequence in juvenile crime and go to the heart of public safety. Arizona has an
opportunity to take a juvenile system of the past and bring it into the fbture. He stated that he
believes there is a class of criminal population under the age of 18, who cannot and should not expend
the valuable resources of the juvenile system, and who belong in the adult system. There is also a
class of young people in the population who can be rehabilitated within the juvenile system.
On the issue of charging discretion. he advised that Mr. Komley formallv believes the forum for which
to file as well as the charge to file should be at the discretion of the county attorneys.
In response to query, Mr. Landau explained that if an offender is under the age of 18, in the adult
system: and is convicted of an offense that is probation eligible, the court in its discretion can place
the person on dual probation, where the person can access the adult and juvenile services while being
on adult probation If the person completes probation successfbllv. the court may expunge the record.
or order it expunged if it feels it appropriate. A mandated prison sentence does not fall under these
expungement provisions.
Mr. Landau advised that he concurs with Ms. Lewall that there should not be earlv release for violent
juvenile offenders. The sentence of the judges must be carried out. and funding is required to
accomplish the sentencing provisions.
Jo~ nCt omm~ tteeo n Juven~ leJ ustice Reform
01 11 7/ 97
John Foreman, Presiding Juvenile Judge. Maricopa County Superior Court. testified regarding
proposed juvenile justice reform legislation. He stated that the Maricopa County juvenile judges are
committed to making Proposition 102 work and will contribute to the realistic enactment of the
He shared the f- ollowing concerns from juvenile judges.
The invitation to increase the number of mandatory adult file cases is understood, but
accomplice liability needs to be considered by the Committee.
The expansion of the mandatory transfer provision to the 14- year- old group with a larger
group of offenses that are not necessarily violent offenses is a concern. The judges suggest
the addition of a transfer back provision for cases in which the prosecutor's discretion,
initially exercised to bring the more serious charge, turns out later on the charge for which
there is a finding of guilt is not the larger charge for which the case was originally brought.
If it is a lesser charge that would not have allowed prosecution in adult court in the first place,
the judges believe the Committee should consider the possibility of granting the discretion to
the court to transfer the case back to juvenile court.
If appropriately used, support transferring traffic jurisdiction to adult court except driving
under the influence ( D. U. I.) cases. Judges need an opportunity to review the aggravated
D. U. I. cases, and believe D. U. I.' s indicate a substance abuse problem that can be addressed
more effectively in juvenile court.
Support expediting the misdemeanor jurisdiction of the juvenile court, although Judge
Foreman stressed that is not revenue neutral. ' There will be a savings from removing
attorneys out of the process, but there will be increased time for judges, judges' staff and
Concerned about the syphoning ofjuvenile hnds to adult court through the dual sentencing
provisions to handle the influx of juveniles going to adult court. New resources are needed
to deal with probation and incarceration.
In favor of establishing a revolving restitution hnd that will allow victims to be paid. where
the juvenile offender is not financially able to pay.
Cochair Icaites concurred on the establishment of a revolving restitution funti wit11 the added
component that private entities can contribute to the fund.
Judge Foreman continued:
Opposed to determinant sentencing because when dealing with a juvenile, it is more the
immediacy and ce~ taintv of consequence than the length of the consequence that brings
Judge Foreman urged the Committee to avoid making promises to the public on behalf' of the i~ lvenile
court that cannot be kept due to the of lack of resources. . judge Foreman added that the detention
facilities have been chronically full since 199 1. and many more beds are required. 1 Ie asked that the
legislators provide the juvenile judges the tools to enact Proposition 102.
Joln! Comm~ tteeo n ~ uver;~ Jleus t~ ceR eform
Cochair Kaites pointed out that from a technical aspect. the legislation needs to include language
providing that where the legislature has not spoken, the courts have the authority to create rules of
procedure. Judge Foreman concurred.
Judge Foreman stated that he believes the jurisdictional provision should be indicated bv statute
regarding original jurisdictional for dependency severance, adoption and delinquency.
( Tape 3, Side A)
Linda Petit, Lieutenant Commander, U. S. Navy, representing herself, testified regarding her sister,
Jennifer Rice, who was murdered on September 9, 1996 by a 14- year- old drunken juvenile in a stolen
vehicle. Ms. Petit is in support of the passage of juvenile justice reform legislation. She shared how
juvenile crime has affected her family by initiating a life- time of grief. Ms. Petit advised that the judge
in her sister's case ruled that the juvenile should not be transferred to adult court. The juvenile who
murdered her sister will turn 18 in approximately three years, be released from the juvenile system
and returned to the community. She opined that this juvenile will not be rehabilitated. Proposition
102 will hold the parents accountable and responsible for the actions of juveniles. She stated that she
believes prevention through education has proved to save millions of dollars in the health care field
and can also save millions of dollars in the juvenile justice system.
Connie Richardson, representing herself, testified in support ofjuvenile justice reform legislation. Ms.
Richardson explained that she is as a victim of juvenile crime through the death of her 16- year- old
son at the hands of another juvenile. She stated that she got involved with reform because of the
awareness of the tremendous effect of crime on people in the community. She said it is crucial for
money to be available for detention and DOC beds, and believes the passage of this proposed
legislation with the provision for certainty of consequences will take away juveniles' power from the
communities. Ms. Richardson stated that she believes a juvenile's second felony conviction should
result in some incarceration. Ms. Richardson emphasized her support of the community justice
system and the involvement of victims in the system.
Dr Barry Fine, representing himself, Physician 111, Department of Juvenile Corrections ( DJC),
informed Members that he has practiced child psychiatry for 26 years in the public sector; 2 1 years
with the State of Arizona. and the past 13 years with the Department of Juvenile Cor- rcctions
Dr. Fine shared what he believes to be the two major weaknesses in the Arizona juvenile justice
Structurallv. the county juvenile court centers require additional detention
beds to adequately provide 1- 4 months short term secure- care rehabilitation.
while also protecting the public safety; and 6- 24 inonths of medium to long-term
secure- care treatment and rehabilitation while also protecting the public
( Tape - 3. Side 13)
Dr. Fine continued.
Jolnt Committee on Juvenile Just~ ceR eform
01/ 17/ 97
Procedurally: the Arizona juvenile justice system cannot provide meaningful
rehabilitation services for a substantial group of 17+ year- old delinquents
because " they are too close to 18." Dr. Fine proposed changing the existing
laws to require all committed juveniles to serve out their full juvenile
corrections' sentence. even beyond the 18th birthday. By requiring all
committed juveniles to serve out their full sentence past 18 years of age in
juvenile corrections as mandated by the juvenile judge, the juvenile courts will
now be able to retain all those youth who truly belong in the juvenile system.
Michael Block, Senior Policy Advisor to the Governor; Professor of Law and Economics at the
University of Arizona, testified on the proposed legislation. Mr. Block voiced concern with items
8 and 9 on the Fact Sheet ( Attachment 2). He said he believes the passage of Proposition 102 and
testimony shows that concerns lie with public safety, the seriousness of the crime, and the state of
mind of the offender in the transfer process. He stated that he believes it is good to have the transfer
provisions in law rather than with court rule, the reasons for transfer, and the provision that judges
be required to write the reasons for transferring or not transferring.
Cochair Kaites pointed out that the juvenile cases being considered for transfer are not the third- time
felony, violent offenders, or class 1, 2 or 3 offenders.
Mr. Block stated that he believes the criteria used by the judges in deciding whether to transfer a
juvenile to adult court is a very important issue. He said he believes item 9 in the Fact Sheet
( Attachment 2) is a " laundry list" and urged its removal. Cochair Kaites agreed to review the
language in items 8 and 9 ( Attachment 2). Regarding the performance audit provision, Mr. Block
suggested the additional auditing of existing juvenile services, both in the juvenile courts and in DJC.
Cochair Kaites announced that the Committee will prepare a final report to include a general
statement of the number of committee meetings and the testimony taken. Staff'will prepare draft
legislation for review. Prior to the issuance of the report on January 3 1, 1997, the report will be
circulated to Members for signature, or they may write a minority opinion if opposed to the report.
Cochair Kaites added that this will be the last meeting of the Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 5: 00 p. m
( Original minutes with attachments on file in the Chief Clerk's Office. Tapes on file in the Office of
the Chief Clerk.)
Jo~ nCt ornrn~ tteeo n Juvenile Just~ ceR eform
0 111 7/ 97
The Joint Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform recommends the development of
implementing language for Proposition 102 to be introduced in the 43rd Legislature.
Table 14 Arreg Conviction, and lmprironrnent Risk
For Thoe Charged with an Index Crime: 1994
Arrest Ria k' 1 ~ onwction 1 lmpnsonment l Probability of lmurisonment
52.00 90.80 0.1 52
Robbery I ::::: I 24.00 I 42- 20 1 59.70
'" Number of felony defendants sent to prison per 100 defendants charged with crime tape i and convicted
Aggravated Assault
, 8 ' , l'o! h I o,, t, at4 cdme
' ~ r o ~ c r t ) . ' ~ r i m e
of some felony
Victimization 1 Reported Crime
n. a. I 64.00
- 1 Table 15 Mean Pnsn Time Sewed
F3st WRPIBjs)"
81 - 30
' Wk'*
Crime of type i cleared by arrest per 100 crimes of type i
Number of all felony conwctlons per 100 defendants charged with crime
I * 2t, 39
i g i ' , ' ,
~ lctimlz& on 1 ~ eported '
n. a. 1 0.372
Robbery 1 35.1 1 43.1
I Auto Then 17.5 30.0 n. a. n. a.
Lanenv / 16.7 1 21.0
Aggrawted Assault
....................... ."".,",..? T".' .. . y.' L,,,. l.
,, , , t, l.: . J.. ,.,, .~, , j ,;, ,~ ; . ; . ; : ~ : ~ 2 ~ ~ i , ~ € ~ ~ ~ E m ~
~ --
@$@ 4; Q'i: j:" ;:.';"$ 2;;<. y':' ' """""""""" '..', A,',. ". V ,. c:<,,:.; I... * ,<,,. 1,,. 1,,- . ..!< a -/ [ ,, . b:,, d, q,,,,, 1 ;;; i::;,; gid: i$; z $$;~$,( 2E$ tq:?$$$ lg: i$; 2::; j; j ;;$ i$; 2$~~~~$;;:~;/ 31.1 44.8 1 24.2 1 321 t I
Source: See Appendix 1
' ,& j? ' * ,.,,
Pdson lime Camiction
i;,;;;: l:. I# r*.!;;,? ;:; .. .!.: ltG.. .,. .!... : ,,.,:,;,;.
4, ; 2g. b' ,) > TiA,,,#. ,, , ' F ,; I , , ',, , & j; Tp' 1 Ir
, sj. 5d I '
S e d
Prison Time - Charge
0 014
To Be Served
S e d
.,;:,:,, y . ";,;" '; &: ,'-&.:':'; (' , m J.> ,.,, ',,. p,
,, b: l.+.....:;, t!.. lf.::. ;:; gl; i;? :; j!!;
8 0.03
: \ fez ' -
21 - 35
To Be Served
0.01 5
+,; 1q5,60 %
i'Ii. 00
',, .!', : ,,:,. ' ....,.. '..',,',.',
,,, j: t;!;; 3F;$$ j;;
n. a.
:, ,, i'(,, ,., 27.2
;~: i: i;: i, i~;. pj;~;~: j~~ j~;;
n. a.
Table 2- 1 Average Mmated Elasticity of Santence length By Type of Crime
-.-.. ,!,.'(.' ,'.'.!~'.'."" a : , . , ..(. r...', 2 ............., ,,,'.,,, . . . .,", , ., .,.., li; :'."'.' !:,; :..,,.,.< ;.', ..............................
, ,,.,,
,, ,,,#, #+ l: i;,!,
, ,, ,,>!.,,, ,,,, ! S$ j,&, y.$ ,,,.,,, ,,:, : q ..... i..,.. J. . :. 1 .~." ; e;.'; I;.;.! ;;,;.; ! ), : ,,..?. ;.;:..:.;:;. .,%.: j .,,; ij,,: ,; ,;,,; . , h,:.,....,.... : j>:.!!.: 4.,. 5. ..;...:.,... t. . .'.;.. . . . . . .;.; ,:.! ";. i' ;. a...;.$.. g... s..:.;.;..:.:.:.,. l.;
Index crime 3 3 - 0.468
Sources: Lewis 1986 ( Table 2) p. 50
;:;; p;,;,.,. ,, ,,",- :.. I,..'.. ...................... . ;: i;::::.:. l. l:. l,: I:;,:: l . ;..,..:.,:. ..;..,..!. ~. . o ~ gnt; l~ nnmmg
It 1
- 0.205
- 0.7
- 0.471
. i:.;(,;, y,'':! :~~~: il:~,.$:: r., I': P~
Table 2- 2 Average Estimated Elasticity Of Likelihood Of Imprisonment By Type of Crime
Number of
Data Sets
Crime Type
.,. ,.. ..., ..... .., ..... . l.............. I. .......,.; l. ... ...... . . . . . . . . .. ..'.!....... .. ,,,,& jfe~,,$~; $ 6
Auto - Then
?.. .......... .... ,... >,.. ' . ... . . ..> a .., ...:,.:. .. ,,;,; p?,:,. . , ..,.;,. s,.. . , , ~. . .;. .3 ~ ; ; ~ g ~ : : I ,! ......... . . . . . . . . .1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... I ,_ ........
index crime
Number of
I; I;! I'I~::! Ijjjj.. I! I)~;&: jjji. IIII, c..'. ;'..
.,:,, ,,,. l I!:! :
It 1
Table 2 3 Comparison of Mean Eladlcitlesof Sentence Length
and Likelihood of imprisnrnent
Sources: Lewis ( 1 986)
- 0.527
Sources: See Appendix 2
';; j;; j;:;;~~ f$<,$$~,:,,;;;~~;:~~;,;;;~;~:
...:. j.. y..;.,.':.,.,. j.:.:.~. j.,: :;,: ~~,~:: j;~: :;~ i,;.. i: l: i~:~ 8 !,,,:,.,., 3 , ..............,... . , ,,,,, :, , ,,,, , I,.",., ...........................
Aut @ Then
!;;;,,;,,;';,;;;,;,,~,~!;,${!:~'"<;.. '. W , t' .... ..
, .,,., ,!,.:! ..,, i,.,:.* ,,, I,.,, ,.,,, . i,. c, i.,.~~.,,... ,:. . . . ,.., i ? ro&. .,..~ ; me
Index Crime
4.604 .............-.. , . . .
- 0.336
Number of
Data Sets
Crime Type
Mean Elasticity of
likelihood of imprisonment
- 0.527
- 1.553
- 1.383
Crime Type
1; ,#, :,.:' l {
,,, ,.,.,,, .
Number of
. . j.?., .:.,.;.;..:.;..:;..; $ 1 . 8,. ;; I.;.!$.. $,..$. ;?!.:$ i ;; l$.; ;
2 '
:, ' i:,;;] j',!:;;~,:;:;:$ jj;;.;~: j ,; ,:. .........,.". .'..':.'. ..;:,.. 1 ..':
Mean Elasticity of
Sentence Length
- 0.205
- 0.700
- 0.471
- 0.604
- 0.283
- 0.244
- 0.353
- 0.476
;#;; f$; fi;); f!;$* gf&~$;,(,;;;;;;;.. .: ..;.... r .....,.,.. ji. ji.,, : .,,,, 1,,., 4. AL, ,* C:,,. .,*':: I
- 0.026
I:?:~]~ p p:~~~@~ d'i; i,;;:;::;::;:: j:; j; j,:;.
2":!. lj::,:'!!.',!<,:. I. I . I) ,....... 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.') ,.,,,,,:;, .,; :,;,, ,,>,,,
- 0.484
. I . . .....,,.. I..'...*..- '.... ,., ll,,.,, .... ""'"".', 8' ' 4" ,' ".,:',. "" a6g,. .'"",, ,, , , , :, , , ,. ., . , , , ':"::.::; :? ~,; ij/$ k~~,~$ i:~ ,.;$;~;;;:;:;~: Y~:~" ~;~~,,,,,,, $,> ,,; i, ji( 3~~~<,~;~ i;(~~, j~~~.~~,~);:, j,~ /,~,~:~~,!~~,~,,,
6.488 - 0.484
:$.;, ;~;,::::;.::!;{.~~+;~~~:;:~:~,,!;::.,;(,'.;.;,' {
.. l,..!.,( i:..,': i~:.:.,:+!?::,> ....:. , ., . . . . . . .
3.1 14
r:$,:;~, i;:,,::::; j':;:::/ i'.; j;: ji~ s~:~ j;~: i; y,
! il. . .1.
,;, , ,. ,, ,, ,,., ,.'.'. ..............,... ....
AND CHANGES IN CRlME RATES
Average Change
In Prlson Population
Per 1000 Violent Crimes
Average Change
in Violent
Crime Rate
Top Ten States - 47% ~ 250% + 231% - 8%
Middle States - 75% + 98% 479% + 26%
Bottom 10 States - 90% + I 5% + 925% + 51%
igarnst Aouse . PC
i , a to iooorlon ct Soecial % as IAASK'
Am,?. 1° C
irczcna aaolis: Cn~ tare- s Sewces
The Casev : ambiu >- qram
Dhcentx C( vtsron
Tucsan 38vlswn
; aino~ lc Scclal Srrv, c? c' Le1t. a
an0 yonnern I Z - c
ten:?. ngalns: Sexbal nouse CIS;
2evereux. Arlzona
: I a - rz, tr Can: er
= an8., i Z ? unsettng iqrpc;
rarriti jewcn ;; e* cl
: so'?- ce C:,:' el: cr Srrvrces a1 A. i 3 r a
Sdtce- :~ wn -? ai! n je- ilces " C
. ew< s? = arr, sr d C - , ~ c t as ~ S eu~ c? - - -?*, j- = 3- 8, i L,>,,?.?- j > Y" K? >;*:- e,- >
- a - a; ewa
2 s = am, ia5
uE'.' C= irlzo- a
-* e kew ; ourcai. c-
- ,- e. - r
Crnoa i' j E-.- av, c. a. -= i.- 3+-'+.
a4C- - zare. 7. j an= :', ere" -<:?..+.
? aren! s A? O~)- CGS 3, i r : 3na
Cno, 3- 81cre- s -? sc.; a,
3. e- at :! A,.::- a
jara.,! a- 3ela,,'- at - pa$;- 52- r 3
j q c r ' - t ' - 81' 4'
jcu: iwcs: -, ma- 3ove. c3- e?.
j&:-, es: r, >-??' a-
~ ~ z - s i a n-; e-- L ? '. - C
'. '. 3?- a* tcra -? a- ji*. ces -:
-- c d&.? OC
I s . s c - --- ~ s ' Va!. i, ra -' 7
. V? s's c? jcc a 5-.-, c;. s - -
202 East McDowell R o a d , Suite 160 P h o e n i x , A r i z o n a 85004- 1 630 ( 6 0 2 ) 2 5 2 - 9 3 6 3
PRESENTER: Dick Geasland; Chair, ACCCA AOC Committee
Executive Director, YOUTH ETC
Thursday; December 12, 1996
Joint HouselSenate Committee on Proposition 102
1. Continue to build upon community- based prevention and early- intervention services.
2. Continue to increase community. based diversion and consequence programs. They work!
3. Strong emphasis on community- based consequences for the pre- Proposition 102 juveniles.
4. Through judicial discretion in sentencing, adult courts need access to community. based consequences.
5. Language is needed to allow for the utilization of community- based consequences for the juvenile
offender remanded to adult court.
6. To address fragmentation and duplication issues, pursue and continue at every opportunity
intergovernmental agreements to address such issues as ADA ( American's With Disability Act)
requirements for education ( up to twenty- one years of age), medical care, behavioral health services ( i. e.:
drug, alcohol and mental health).
7. Privatize where prudent and appropriate.
8. Retain all of the treatment and community diversion and consequence services through the AOC.
In short, maintain the financial accountability and contracting systems already in place.
9. Continue with Arizona's efforts to expand to all counties the collaboration among community- based
providers, schools, county attorneys' offices and the juvenile courts under the oversight and management
of the AOC.
10. Give consideration to the system responding to the public safety issues of juveniles not remanded
to adult courts and who have not responded to the juvenile system and in need of additional
consequences beyond their eighteenth birthday.
11. Should the Legislature adopt provisions for the two previous recommendations (# 9 and # lo), then
it makes good public policy to use more flexible definitions of the terms, i. e.: " other violent offenses"
and " chronic offenders."
DOCUMENT ill
8- 201. D e f i n i t i o n s
I n t h i s chapter. unless t h e c o n t e x t o t h e r w i s e r e q u i r e s :
1. " Abandoned" means the f a i l u r e o f the parent t o provide reasonable
support and t o m a i n t a i n r e g u l a r c o n t a c t w i t h the c h i l d , i n c l u d i n g the
p r o v i d i n g o f normal supervision. F a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n a normal parental
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c h i l d without j u s t cause f o r a period o f s i x months
s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e prima f a c i e evidence o f abandonment.
2. " Abuse" means the i n f l i c t i o n or a l l o w i n g o f physical i n j u r y .
impairment o f b o d i l y f u n c t i o n o r disfigurement or the i n f l i c t i o n of or
a l l o w i n g another person t o cause serious emotional damage as evidenced by
severe a n x i e t y , depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior and
which emotional damage i s diagnosed by a medical doctor or p s y c h o l o g i s t
pursuant t o s e c t i o n 8- 223 and which i s caused by the acts or omissions o f an
i n d i v i d u a l having care, custody and c o n t r o l o f a c h i l d . Abuse s h a l l i n c l u d e
i n f l i c t i n g or a l l o w i n g sexual abuse pursuant t o s e c t i o n 13- 1404, sexual
conduct w i t h a minor pursuant t o ' s e c t i o n 13- 1405, sexual assault pursuant t o
s e c t i o n 13- 1406. molestation o f a c h i l d pursuant t o s e c t i o n 13- 1410,
commercial sexual e x p l o i t a t i o n o f a minor pursuant t o section 13- 3552. sexual
e x p l o i t a t i o n o f a minor pursuant t o s e c t i o n 13- 3553. i n c e s t pursuant t o
s e c t i o n 13- 3608 or c h i l d p r o s t i t u t i o n pursuant t o s e c t i o n 13- 3212.
3: 4 . " Adult" means a person eighteen years o f age or o l d e r .
e: 5. " Alcohol offense" means the purchase, possession or consumption
by a j u v e n i l e o f s p i r i t u o u s l i q u o r s i n v i o l a t i o n o f section 4- 244.
S 6. " Award" or " commit" means t o assign l e g a l custody.
6.; 7. " Child", " youth" or " j u v e n i l e " means an i n d i v i d u a l who i s under
the age o f e i g h t e e n y e a r s .
F: 9. " Custodian" means a person. other than a parent or l e g a l
guardian, who stands i n loco p a r e n t i s t o the c h i l d or a person t o whom l e g a l
custody of the c h i l d has been given by order o f the j u v e n i l e c o u r t .
8: 10. " Delinquency hearing" means a proceeding i n the j u v e n i l e c o u r t
t o determine whether a eRi- FB JUVENILE has committed a s p e c i f i c delinquent act
as set f o r t h i n a p e t i t i o n .
4r 11. " Delinquent act" MEANS an act by a elW+ JUVENILE
which if committed by an a d u l t would be a c r i m i n a l offense
A ' I ,- OR A PETTY OFFENSE. a v i o l a t i o n o f any
$ 3o~ f t h i s s t a t e . or of another s t a t e i f the act occurred i n t h a t s t a t e . or a
law of the United S t a t e s , or a v i o l a t i o n of any law which can only be violated
by a minor and which has been designated as a delinquent offense, or any
ordinance of a c i t y , county or p o l i t i c a l subdivision of t h i s s t a t e defining
crime, except that any JUVENILE WHO IS
, PROSECUTED , as an adult , shall not b, e adjudicat ed as a delinquent JUVENILE UNLESS THE OFFENSE IS
4-€ k 12. " Delinquent eGM JUVENILE" means a eb44- d JUVENILE who i s
adjudicated to have committed a delinquent a c t .
13. " Dependent child" means a child who i s adjudicated to be:
( a ) In need of proper and effective parental care and control and has
no parent or guardian. or one who has no parent or guardian willing to
exercise or capable of exercising such care and control.
( b ) Destitute or who i s not provided with the n e c e s s i t i e s of l i f e ,
including adequate food. clothing. s h e l t e r or medical care, or whose home i s
unfit by reason of abuse. n e g l e c t , c r u e l t y or depravity by a parent. A
guardian. or any other person having custody o r care of t h e c h i l d .
( c ) Under the age of eight years AND who i s found to have committed an
act t h a t would result i n adjudication as a delinquent or i n c o r r i g i b l e child i f
commi tted by an 01 der chi 1 d.
14. " Detention" means the temporary care of a H JUVENILE who
requi res secure custody in physical ly r e s t r i c t i n g faci 1 i t i e s for the
protection of the eW- 4 JUVENILE or the community pending court disposition.
15. " Incorrigible child" means a child WHO:
( a ) IS adjudicated as w e A CHILD who refuses to obey the reasonable
and proper orders or directions of a parent. guardian or c u s t o d i a n 7 and who
i s beyond the control of such person-.
( b ) I s habitually truant from school as DEFINED i n section
15- 803, subsect i. o- Cn
( c ) Is a runaway from THE CHILD'S home o r parent, guardian or
( dl Habitually behaves in such a manner as to i n j u r e o r endanger the
morals or health of self or others. :, uh.
( e ) Commits any act c o n s t i t u t i n g an offense which can only be committed
hy a minor and which i s not designated as a delinquent offense-.
( f ) Fails to obey any lawful order of a court of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n
given i n a noncriminal action.
16. " Juvenile court" means the juvenile division of the superior
court when exercising i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over children in any proceeding
relating to delinquency, dependency or i n c o r r i g i b i l i t y .
4 S 1 7 . " Law enforcement officer" means a peace o f f i c e r . s h e r i f f .
deputy s h e r i f f , municipal pol ice o f f i c e r or constable.
18. " Medical director of a mental health agency" means a
p s y c h i a t r i s t , or licensed physician experienced in psychiatric matters. who i s
designated i n writing by the governing body of the agency a s the person in
charge of the medical services of the agency, or a p s y c h i a t r i s t designated by
such governing body to act for the d i r e c t o r . The term includes the
superintendent o f the s t a t e h o s p i t a l .
) Fr 19. " Mental h e a l t h agency" means any p r i v a t e or p u b l i c f a c i l i t y
THAT I S l i c e n s e d by t h i s s t a t e as a mental h e a l t h treatment agency, a
p s y c h i a t r i c h o s p i t a l , a p s y c h i a t r i c u n i t o f a general h o s p i t a l or a
r e s i d e n t i a l treatment center f o r emotionally d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n AND uMe4 THAT
i t i l i z e s secure s e t t i n g s or mechanical r e s t r a i n t s .
3Ak 2 1 . " P r o t e c t i v e s u p e r v i s i o n " means supervision ordered by the
j u v e n i l e c o u r t o f c h i l d r e n found t o be dependent or i n c o r r i g i b l e .
2 4 . " Shelter care" means the temporary care o f a c h i l d i n any
p u b l i c or p r i v a t e f a c i l i t y or home l i c e n s e d by t h i s s t a t e AND o f f e r i n g a
p h y s i c a l l y nonsecure environment. which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the absence o f
p h y s i c a l l y r e s t r i c t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n or hardware and provides the c h i l d access
t o the surrounding community.
8 - 2 0 3 . Court em~ loyees: a D ~ o i n t m e n t : c e r t i f i c a t i o n : aual i f i c a t i o n s : salary;
bond: ~ a r t i c i ~ a t i oi n safe schools Droqramz
A. The p r e s i d i n g judge o f the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l appoint a d i r e c t o r
o f j u v e n i l e c o u r t services who s h a l l serve a t the pleasure o f the p r e s i d i n g
j u v e n i l e judge.
B. The d i r e c t o r o f j u v e n i l e c o u r t services s h a l l recommend the
appointment o f deputy probation o f f i c e r s . d e t e n t i o n personnel. other personnel
and o f f i c e a s s i s t a n t s as the d i r e c t o r deems necessary. Such deputy probation
o f f i c e r s , detention personnel. other personnel and o f f i c e a s s i s t a n t s s h a l l n o t
have a u t h o r i t y t o act or draw a s a l a r y f o r t h e i r services u n t i l t h e i r
appointments have been approved and ordered by t h e p r e s i d i n g judge o f the
j u v e n i l e c o u r t . A j u v e n i l e probation o f f i c e r performing f i e l d supervision
s h a l l n o t supervise more than an average of t h i r t y - f i v e j u v e n i l e s on probation
a t one time.
C. Probation department personnel s h a l l q u a l i f y under minimum standards
of experience and education established by the supreme c o u r t . Notwithstanding
s e c t i o n 1 2 - 2 6 5 . any a d d i t i o n a l s a l a r y costs t h a t might be r e q u i r e d as a r e s u l t
of the adoption o f minimum s a l a r y standards by the supreme c o u r t may be paid
by funds made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p r o b a t i o n department pursuant t o sections
1 2 - 2 6 7 and 1 2 - 2 6 8 or by the supreme c o u r t .
0. The p r e s i d i n g judge of the j u v e n i l e c o u r t may c o n t r a c t w i t h the
j u v e n i l e c o u r t and # te COUNTY board of supervisors i n one or more a d j o i n i n g
- 0unties j o i n t l y t o employ one or more j u v e n i l e probation o f f i c e r s who meet
, ne minimum standards. w i t h the s a l a r i e s and expenses f o r such personnel
d i v i d e d e q u a l l y among t h e counties i n v o l v e d . The p r e s i d i n g judge o f the
j u v e n i l e c o u r t may c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e s t a t e department o f c o r r e c t i o n s f o r the
j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o p r o v i d e p a r o l e s e r v i c e s i n the county.
E. The COUNTY board o f s u p e r v i s o r s , on recommendation o f t h e p r e s i d i n g
judge o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . s h a l l f i x t h e s a l a r y ranges o f a l l j u v e n i l e
p r o b a t i o n department personnel. J u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o n department personnel s h a l l
be h i r e d pursuant t o t h e r u l e s and procedures approved by the supreme c o u r t .
F. Each d i r e c t o r o f j u v e n i l e c o u r t services and deputy j u v e n i l e
p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r r e c e i v i n g an o f f i c i a l s a l a r y s h a l l f u r n i s h a bond i n the sum
o f not l e s s than two thousand d o l l a r s which i s approved by t h e judge o f the
j u v e n i l e c o u r t and c o n d i t i o n e d f o r t h e f a i t h f u l discharge o f the d u t i e s o f M
THE PERSON'S o f f i c e . If & bonds a r e f u r n i s h e d by a s u r e t y company l i c e n s e d
t o t r a n s a c t business i n t h e s t a t e , t h e premiums on M THESE bonds s h a l l be a
county charge. I n t h e event t h e employees are i n c l u d e d i n a master bond
pursuant t o county r e g u l a t i o n s o r covered by s t a t e r i s k management. the
i n d i v i d u a l bonds p r e s c r i b e d s h a l l n o t be r e q u i r e d .
G. I n cooperation w i t h the department o f education and t h e l o c a l
superintendent o f schools, t h e p r e s i d i n g judge o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h a l l ,
w i t h t h e consent o f the school, assign j u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s t o
p a r t i c i p a t e i n the safe schools program in. each j u n i o r and s e n i o r h i g h school
i n the county. The cost o f the j u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o n o f f i
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.