Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

The analysis plan and the format of this report are derived from numerous meetings held over more than an eighteen month span with the AARIN project advisory board, Maricopa County leadership, and representatives from MCSO. Following the guidance of the advisory board, the dissemination strategy for the AARIN project shifted from a single, broadly scoped annual summary report supplemented by smaller topic-specific reports into shorter, individual reports tailored to the specific needs and wants of six key county criminal justice agencies. Meetings with MCSO representatives regarding their individualized report indicated they would be most interested in a broad analysis akin to the old annual reports. Given the MCSO’s need for the broadly scoped analysis as opposed to a topically-focused and interpretive report, the report here primarily provides analyses across most of the core instrument elements, presented in tabular form, with a list of key findings and highlights.

The Maricopa County Manager’s Office Report 2012 examines a variety of public and correctional health concerns among the Maricopa County arrestee population. The selection of the report’s focus serves to highlight details of the data collection that can be used for data driven decision making and examination of both medical and behavioral public health concerns relevant to Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, the Maricopa County Public Health Department, and others interested or involved in health-related services delivery. Substance abuse and treatment history and needs are a common issue for arrestees. This report describes substance use among arrestees, and provides self-reported detail, by drug, on whether respondents are currently receiving treatment, have received treatment in the past, feel they could use treatment, and if they feel they needed or were dependent on different drugs. Also examined are mental health assistance and risks, correctional health services concerns, and characteristics of the arrestee sample. Straightforward bivariate analyses comparing male and female arrestees are used throughout the report.

The South Mountain neighborhood is located in the southern part of the City of Phoenix in Maricopa County. The three zip codes of 85040, 85041 and 85042 comprise the bulk of the neighborhood and serve as the target area boundary for this report. South Mountain is a distressed community, with significant need and limited resources. It is an area that differs from most of the city, with a pre- dominantly economically disadvantaged Latino and African-American population. As part of Maricopa County’s efforts to identify the needs, the gaps in services and resources, and to use data to inform the County about making effective and meaningful policy changes, this report uses data collected as part of the ongoing AARIN project and economic measures derived from U.S. Census data to help examine and potentially guide restoration efforts in South Mountain.

In early 2009, an Exploratory Committee was formed to investigate the potential creation of a Veterans Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Committee’s initial efforts have focused on examining existing Veterans Courts and determining the size and scope of the problem (i.e., the number of veterans in the county jail). This report provides an overview of information on veterans in the Maricopa County Jail System, drawing on data collected by the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN). This report is intended to assist the work of the Veterans Court Exploratory Committee.

This special topic report examines the prevalence and characteristics of co-occurring substance abuse and mental health problems among adult arrestees in Maricopa County. The findings suggest that more than 28 percent of adult arrestees in Maricopa County are at risk for a co-occurring disorder, and they face significantly greater difficulties across a number of critical factors, including incarceration, homelessness, and victimization. Understanding the prevalence and particular characteristics of the dual-diagnosed arrestee population in Maricopa County is an important part of assessing demands on behavioral health and substance use treatment resources. Additionally, examining some of the current defining characteristics of this population relative to arrestees not dually diagnosed can serve as an indicator of future demand.

This special topic report examines the prevalence and characteristics of co-occurring substance abuse and mental health problems among juvenile detainees in Maricopa County. The findings come from the Co-occurring Disorder Addendum used during 2007. The findings reveal that almost 30 percent of juvenile detainees were at risk for a co-occurring disorder, and face significantly greater difficulties across a number of critical factors, including incarceration, homelessness, and victimization.

The analysis plan and the format of this report are derived from numerous meetings held over more than an eighteen month span with the AARIN project advisory board, Maricopa County leadership, and representatives from JPD. Following the guidance of the advisory board, the dissemination strategy for the AARIN project shifted from a single, broadly scoped annual summary report supplemented by smaller topic-specific reports into shorter, individual reports tailored to the specific needs and wants of six key county criminal justice agencies. Meetings with JPD representatives regarding their individualized report indicated they would be most interested in a broad analysis akin to the traditional AARIN annual reports. A key modification to this broad traditional analysis strategy, this report compares juvenile detainees in three categories of probation history – never served probation (or not in the past 12 months), served probation in a county other than Maricopa, and served probation in Maricopa County, each defined for either lifetime or the past 12 months, ultimately yielding six analysis categories. Each of the three probation categories are mutually exclusive within a given time period (i.e. lifetime and past 12 months). Given the JPD’s need for the broadly scoped analysis as opposed to a topically-focused and interpretive report, the report here primarily provides analyses across most of the core instrument elements, presented in tabular form, with a list of key findings and highlights.

For those interested in one of the most extreme state tax and expenditure limitations, TABOR – Colorado’s initiative that limits the funding of most expenditures to annual revenue growth restrained by the sum of annual population growth and inflation rates – would seem to be exactly the right choice. To some, the initiative simply limits government to spend within its means. However, the analysis in this paper reveals that, true to the language in the 1992 Colorado initiative, TABOR limits government growth, and over time the public sector, as a share of the overall economy, declines sharply – crowding out opportunities for investments in strategic initiatives or opportunities for tax reform that may be popular with large voter constituencies or the business community. Advocates point out that provisions in TABOR do allow for voter overrides, but these are costly in both time and money, and until the overrides take place, government is
hamstrung. A simpler, more efficient alternative would be to elect fiscally conservative legislators and hold them accountable for prudent fiscal decisions that strike the right balance between a tax base conductive to economic growth and strategic investments that provide public sector infrastructure, nurturing the business climate and promoting the health and well-being of the citizenry. The paper first outlines the TABOR amendment in Colorado and examines its fiscal consequences for that state. It then examines the potential impact of a TABOR in Arizona.

The research for this report was conducted in two phases. The first phase analyzed the change in national job quality using multiple datasets, going back as far as 1970. In addition, the level and change in job quality was estimated for one state (Arizona). Some inconsistencies in the measurement of job quality exist across datasets. Complete results of this analysis, with a strong focus on Arizona data, are available in the report "Job Quality in Arizona". The second phase analyzed data for all states but was limited to two datasets, one presenting industrial data, the other occupational data. Because of the limited availability of state data by occupation, the time period analyzed was restricted to the years 2000 and 2003. The level of job quality in 2003 and the change between 2000 and 2003 are presented. The findings of the second phase, initially reported in "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States", are included in the current report, excluding detail provided for Arizona in the original report. Additional national and regional analyses are included in the current report.

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona", March 2005, presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).