This Protocol, initially developed in 1995, is offered to coordinate the involvement and interaction of each agency in Maricopa County involved with providing care, treatment, and assistance to all children, whether victims or witnesses, where criminal conduct is suspected. This Protocol serves to ensure each child is treated with dignity, fairness, and respect and protected from harassment, intimidation, or abuse, and to minimize the secondary trauma that can accompany investigations of criminal conduct.

For a community to take full advantage of the opportunities provided in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, it must first prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Maricopa County, partner agencies, and participating communities wish to adopt a Plan to better protect their communities from wildfire risk, to better prepare citizens, and to become eligible to apply for and receive federal and other grant monies to implement wildland fire mitigation and programs.

The District's Coordinated, Comprehensive, Collaborative Flood Hazard Mitigation Partnering (C3FHMP) effort addressed Strategic Initiative No.3 of the Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2009 Comprehensive Plan: Increase Collaboration and Partnerships. The District initiated the process to determine how the funding and resources of other entities could be best applied to mitigate flood hazards in Maricopa County, or where mutual benefits would be realized.

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance and detail on implementation of the Flood Control District of Maricopa County Floodplain Regulations and the Maricopa County Drainage Regulations. It presents the County/District philosophy on drainage and floodplain management, and planning for drainage facilities. It contains descriptions of federal, state and county regulations pertaining to such facilities, including links to the various District and County regulations that can be found on the Internet. Most importantly, the policies and minimum standards for implementing the regulations are presented. These policies and standards are based on flood and erosion hazard mitigation strategies that are intended to reduce or eliminate cumulative impacts resulting from development and to enhance public safety.

Over the past several years, Arizona policymakers have debated a number of immigration-related crime control policies. These discussions have ranged from arguments over the wisdom of granting local law enforcement agencies the authority to arrest and prosecute illegal aliens, to enacting legislation that sanctions employers for hiring illegal aliens. The perception that illegal aliens are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and violence in the state is at the root of many of these policy discussions. This report examines the connection between illegal aliens and crime in Maricopa County, Arizona, using data from the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network.

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 purpose of this report is to provide a proof of concept for a different, alternative method for evaluating police agencies. Our method is couched in a comparative approach, which will allow agencies to compare their performance to other police agencies. This report assesses police performance through the perceptions and experiences of recently booked arrestees. By comparing the perceptions and experiences of recently booked arrestees from different jurisdictions we can begin to contextualize results and observe differences that might serve as an early warning of a problem or serve as an indicator of success.

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 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.