This report is a result of the "2002 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth" report produced by the Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities in the Judiciary. One of the recommendations issued in that report was to create an annual report card to assess progress on the reduction of over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. The decision has been modified to produce a report card every other year. The first report serves as a baseline for the second, third and fourth report cards. The intent is to illustrate the current situation, provide a basis for future comparison, highlight areas of special concern and compare these results with the prior report card.

This report represent the efforts of the Commission since its reactivation under a new mandate in May of 1994. The goal of this work group is to develop policies and programs that will facilitate the growth of minority applicants seeking appointments as judges, commissioners, judges pro tempore, special masters, clerkships, and internships.

Shortly after selecting Judge Roxanne Song Ong as Commission Chair and reconstituting its membership, Chief Justice McGregor directed the Commission to develop a strategic plan with projects that seek to enhance fairness and equity in the judiciary and present a report at the December 2006 meeting of the Arizona Judicial Council.

The conference looked beyond the juvenile justice system proper to examine the roots and potential solutions to the over representation of minority youth in Arizona’s juvenile justice system. Through this important undertaking and the dedication of the Commission on Minorities, Arizona demonstrated once again its important role as a leader in shaping the future of the juvenile justice system.

What a difference a year makes. In June 2008, AZ Views reported that “Arizonans have a strong sense of job security, despite the national economic slump and the state’s budget crisis.” That is no longer true, as this edition of AZ Views shows, and Arizona’s economic situation arguably is the best example of the worst case.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.

Good jobs and good schools—few would disagree that these are essential elements of a secure and rewarding life. Both are also vital components of a healthy society: Good jobs create revenue to support quality schools, which in turn produce a superior workforce to fill those jobs. Based on survey panelists’ responses, most Arizonans seem to feel that they’re doing well on the employment front, but not quite so well concerning education.