As part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Smart Policing Initiative, the Glendale Police Department and the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety at Arizona State University found that convenience stores -- particularly Circle K's -- disproportionately contributed to crime and disorder in the city of Glendale. The Center reached out to other law enforcement agencies in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and in June 2011, they authored a report based on 2010 data from four cities: Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tempe. The 2010 report revealed that, when compared to other convenience stores Circle K’s, were disproportionately responsible for crime and disorder, regardless of their neighborhood or city.

This report seeks to address the knowledge gap in understanding the relationship between combat-related conditions such as PTSD and TBI and involvement in the criminal justice system, through an examination of 1,370 recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County, Arizona. Using interview data from the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN), the report characterizes the problems and prior experiences of military veterans, and compares veteran and nonveteran arrestees along a range of demographic, background and criminal behavior measures. The overall objectives of the report are to provide an ongoing estimate of the prevalence of military veterans in the Maricopa County arrestee population and to assess the extent to which the arrested veterans differ from the larger arrestee population.

Several jurisdictions across the United States have created specialized Veterans Courts, which employ a drug court-adapted therapeutic approach to funnel justice system-involved veterans to counseling and support services that are closely monitored by the court. Despite the emergence of Veterans Courts, little is known regarding the prevalence of military veterans in the criminal justice system, the nature of their cases and prior experiences, as well how combat-related conditions such as PTSD or TBI may have contributed to their involvement in the system. This report seeks to address the knowledge gap in this area through an examination of 2,102 recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County, Arizona. Using interview data from the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN), the report characterizes the problems and prior experiences of military veterans, and to compare veteran and nonveteran arrestees along a range of demographic, background and criminal behavior measures. The overall objectives of the paper are to determine the prevalence of military veterans in the Maricopa County arrestee population and to assess the extent to which the arrested veterans differ from the larger arrestee population.

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.

For the 2008 AARIN study, 2,105 Maricopa County (AZ) arrestees volunteered to complete the survey instrument and to provide a valid urine specimen for testing. In addition, the arrestees responded to a series of questions related to methamphetamine use, including patterns of use, treatment, drug transactions, sales and manufacturing, and awareness of the Arizona Meth Project. Among those participants, 435 (20.7%) admitted to having used methamphetamine in the 30 days prior to arrest.

This report compares arrestees 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 Department’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 Arizona Department of Public Safety enforces state law with primary responsibility in the areas of motor vehicle traffic, narcotics, organized crime/racketeering, and specific regulatory functions. Operational and technical assistance is provided to local and state government agencies and other components of the criminal justice community. Services include scientific analysis, aircraft support, emergency first care, criminal information systems, and statewide communications. The Department also promotes and enhances the quality of public safety through cooperative enforcement operations and by increasing public awareness of criminal activities.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety became operational by the executive order of Governor Jack Williams on July 1, 1969. Governor Williams’ mandate consolidated the functions and responsibilities of the Arizona Highway Patrol, the Enforcement Division of the State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and the Narcotics Division of the State Department of Law.

In August 2001, a resident of New River contacted the Arizona Department of Health Services, Office of Environmental Health to request information on the health risks of arsenic in drinking water. The resident collected two well water samples and submitted them to a private laboratory for arsenic analysis. The analyses detected arsenic at 560 and 600 μg/L. To confirm these very high arsenic results, ADHS staff sampled the well for arsenic and submitted the samples for analysis by the ADHS State Laboratory. Arsenic was detected at 340 μg/L. After that, a large number of people requested health advice on arsenic in their well water. This public health consultation primarily evaluates arsenic levels found in private wells and documents health advice provided to well owners. When other metals were found at levels of concern, health advice was provided to well owners regarding exposure to those metals too.