Adult Probation Services

Program Fund Descriptions

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is granted authority under the Arizona Constitution and state law to administrate and oversee appropriated and fee generating funds designated for adult probation services.  This authority is presented in The Arizona Code of Judicial Administration (ACJA) Sections 6-101 through 6-212.
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 13-913, Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) is a sentencing alternative for high risk offenders which provides surveillance, control and intervention, to probationers who would otherwise have been incarcerated in the Department of Corrections at initial sentencing or as a result of a technical violation of standard probation, or serve as a sentencing alternative for Class 2 and 3 felons.

The program provides intensive supervision through the use of probation officer/surveillance officer teams.  Pursuant to statute, supervision teams of one probation officer and one surveillance officer can supervise a maximum of 25 intensive probationers and a team consisting of one probation officer and two surveillance officers can supervise no more than 40 probationers.  In counties, one probation officer is authorized to supervise up to 15 intensive probationers with populations under 500,000.

 Intensive probationers are required to: 1) maintain employment or full-time student status or perform community service at least six days per week; 2) pay restitution and monthly probation fees; 3) establish residency at a place approved by the probation team; 4) remain at their place of residence except when attending approved activities; 5) allow the administration of drug and alcohol tests; 6) perform at least forty hours (with good cause the court can reduce to 20 hours) of community service work each month except for full-time students, who may be exempted or required to perform fewer hours; and 7) meet any other conditions set by the court.

A.R.S. § 12-261 authorizes the Arizona Supreme Court to administer state funding to aid probation services.  The State Aid Enhancement (SAE) fund provides financial assistance to probation departments to promote public safety by the responsible supervision of probationers in the community.

The program provides funding in an effort to maintain the statutory caseload average of 65 adult probationers per probation officer (65:1) and creates the availability of state funding to supplement county funds in order to achieve or maintain that 65:1 ratio.  The funding must be used primarily for the payment of probation officer salaries to attain the caseload average.

The purpose of standard probation supervision in Arizona is to provide the highest quality service to the court, community and offenders.  This is accomplished by promoting safety through effective community based supervision and enforcement of court orders, offering accurate and reliable information and affording offenders opportunities to be accountable and initiate positive changes through the use of Evidence Based Practices.

House Bill 2533 was introduced and passed during the First Regular Session of the Forty-Sixth Legislature.  In part, this bill prohibits the Administrative Office of the Courts from allocating any state appropriated monies for adult probation services to Maricopa County.  Maricopa County is thus required to fund the operation of its entire standard probation supervision program.

State Aid Enhancement is not the only funding source for standard probation supervision.  In the 14 counties, probation officers are supported by county monies, probation service fees, the Community Punishment Program, Interstate Compact, or other grants/revenues.
Pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-267(A), 13-901, Administrative Order 2004-74 and section 6-206 of the Administrative Code, the adult probation departments shall assess a monthly fee for those individuals sentenced to supervised probation.

A.R.S. § 13-901(A) provides:

   ....Whengranting probation to an adult the court, as a condition of probation, shall assess a monthly fee of not less than sixty five dollars unless, after determining the inability of the probationer to pay the fee, the court assesses a lesser fee.  In justice and municipal courts the fee shall only be assessed when the person is placed on supervised probation.  For persons placed on probation in the superior court, the fee shall be paid to the clerk of the superior court and the clerk of the court shall pay all monies collected from this fee to the county treasurer for deposit in the adult probation services fund established by section 12-267.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-914(E)(2) increased the minimum monthly probation service fee for intensive probationers to $75.

Pursuant to ACJA section 6-206(C) the probation fees account within the adult probation services fund is to be used to pay probation employee salaries and employee related benefits and to otherwise improve, maintain, or expand adult probation services within the county.

Community Punishment Program

The Community Punishment Program (CPP) was established in A.R.S. § 12-299 for the implementation of programs for persons placed on both intensive and standard probation  in an effort to divert offenders from prison or jail and promote public safety through locally designed treatment and control-oriented programming.

The CPP provides funds which augment general probation conditions and community-based programs emphasizing supervision, surveillance, control, public protection, community work service, restitution, victims’ rights, and opportunities for rehabilitation and treatment. 
BYRNE/JAG Grant
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2402 a drug and gang enforcement account was established within the criminal justice enhancement fund consisting of monies appropriated to the account by the Legislature and any other monies available from other sources, public or private, to be used for the purpose of enhancing efforts to deter, investigate, prosecute, adjudicate and punish drug offenders and members of criminal street gangs.

State monies are combined with federal funds and distributed by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to the Supreme Court, who in turn allocates funding to local courts and probation departments.
The Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund (JCEF) is a revenue fund consisting of fees for various court services and surcharges on penalty assessments.  Included within this fund is a $5 surcharge which is to be used to supplement monies currently used for salaries of adult and juvenile probation and surveillance officers and for support of programs and services of the superior court adult and juvenile probation departments.

JCEF monies became available for use by the adult probation system in fiscal year 2004.  In order to facilitate the expansion of the IPS program, over $700,000 was provided to seven probation departments.  This allowed for an increased capacity of 120 probationers, bringing the total state funded IPS program capacity to 1,685.

In fiscal year 2004, JCEF monies were also used to assist with a deficit in personnel costs in the State Aid Enhancement fund (nearly $600,000).  Over $130,000 was used to facilitate the statewide roll-out of the Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System (APETS) and $100,000 to expand the Literacy, Education and Reading Network (LEARN).

As a result of House Bill 2819, the surcharge imposed under A.R.S. § 12-114.01 was increased from $5.00 to $10.00, effective September 21, 2006.

For fiscal year 2007, it is anticipated that $1,523,857 will be utilized to assist with personnel costs in the Intensive Probation Services fund; $1,224,857 in the State Aid Enhancement fund; and $32,123 in the Interstate Compact fund.
A.R.S. § 12-261 authorizes the Arizona Supreme Court to administer state funding to aid probation services.  The State Aid Enhancement (SAE) fund provides financial assistance to probation departments to promote public safety by the responsible supervision of probationers in the community.

The program provides funding in an effort to maintain the statutory caseload average of 60 adult probationers per probation officer (60:1) and creates the availability of state funding to supplement county funds in order to achieve or maintain that 60:1 ratio.  The funding must be used primarily for the payment of probation officer salaries to attain the caseload average.

The purpose of standard probation supervision in Arizona is to provide the highest quality service to the court, community and offenders.  This is accomplished by promoting safety through effective community based supervision and enforcement of court orders, offering accurate and reliable information and affording offenders opportunities to be accountable and initiate positive changes.

In fiscal year 2003, the Arizona Legislature appropriated approximately $27.2 million to assist in the supervision of offenders placed on standard probation in each of the fifteen counties.  This funding allowed for a statewide program capacity of 38,628 probationers.  These probationers were supervised by a total of 507.5 state funded probation officers.

However, a Legislative expropriation of approximately $1.46 million (5.36%) forced a reduction of state funded personnel for standard probation supervision.  Statewide, 39 supervising probation officers were eliminated effective January 2003, requiring the removal of over 2,300 probationers from active supervision status and reducing program capacity to 36,288.

House Bill 2533 was introduced and passed during the First Regular Session of the Forty-Sixth Legislature.  In part, this bill prohibits the Administrative Office of the Courts from allocating any state appropriated monies for adult probation services to Maricopa Countyfor fiscal years 2004 and 2005.  Maricopa Countyis thus required to fund the operation of its entire standard probation supervision program.

The fiscal year 2004 appropriation to assist in the supervision of standard probationers in the remaining 14 Arizona counties was $11,110,200.  This funding provided for a program capacity of 10,710 and supported 178.5 probation officers.

State Aid Enhancement is not the only funding source for standard probation supervision.  In the 14 counties, a total of 41.25 probation officers are supported by county monies, probation service fees, the Community Punishment Program, Interstate Compact, or other grants/revenues in fiscal year 2004.  These officers increased supervision capacity by 2,475 probationers.

The fiscal year 2005 appropriation to assist with the supervision of standard probationers was $11,351,800. These amounts provided funding for 178.5 probation officers who were able to supervise a maximum of 10,710 probationers. Standard probation supervision is also supported through county monies, probation service fees, the Community Punishment Program, Interstate Compact and other grants/revenues. These other funding sources support an additional 46.75 probation officers, bringing the total supervision capacity in the 14 counties to 13,275. 
Provided within the Community Punishment Program are Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF) monies.  This is a revenue fund (surcharges on fines and penalty assessments), with expenditure authority granted by the Legislature.  Adult probation departments are allocated CJEF monies for two distinct purposes; the provision of treatment services for sex offenders and drug treatment services (including urinalysis) for adult probationers.

In fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, $300,000 was available statewide for sex offender treatment services and an additional $300,000 was available for substance abuse treatment services.  Due to the passage of House Bill 2533, the Administrative Office of the Courts is prohibited from allocating any state appropriated monies for adult probation services to Maricopa County.  Thus, the statewide allocation of the available CJEF monies included only 14 counties.
 
For Fiscal year 2007, $402,500 is available to the 14 counties for SEA offender treatment services and $447,500 for substance abuse treatment services.
The Interstate Compact for Adult Supervision (Compact) (ISC) is the only legal mechanism in the country for the interstate transfer of the parole or probation of an adult offender. It is the purpose of this Compact to promote public safety and protect the rights of victims through the control and regulation of the interstate movement of offenders in the community. In addition, this Compact provides for the effective tracking, supervision and rehabilitation of these offenders by the sending and receiving states. Arizona became a member of the new Compact in May 2002, which is governed by A.R.S. § 31-467.

In fiscal year 2003, the Arizona Legislature appropriated over $1.3 million to fund 16 probation officers in three counties dedicated to the supervision of incoming probationers accepted through the Interstate Compact.  These officers have a capacity of 960 probationers.  The ISC population in the remaining counties is funded through State Aid Enhancement.

The ISC Program was subject to a Legislative expropriation of $28,600 in fiscal year 2003, but no probation officers had to be eliminated and program capacity remained at 960.

The passage of House Bill 2533 during the First Regular Session of the Forty-Sixth Legislature prohibits the Administrative Office of the Courts from allocating any state appropriated monies for adult probation services to Maricopa Countyfor fiscal years 2004 and 2005.  Maricopa Countyis thus required to fund the supervision of incoming interstate compact probationers.

The fiscal year 2004 appropriation for the supervision of ISC probationers was $558,600.  This funding provided for a program capacity of 300 and supported 5 probation officers in two counties.

The fiscal year 2005 appropriation increased slightly to $568,300 yet still provides for a program capacity of 300 and supports 5 probation officers in two counties.
 
Global Positioning System (GPS)

In 2008, the legislature modified A.R.S. §12- 267 (C) and (G) and A.R.S. § 13-902 (G).

A.R.S. §12-267 (C) provides “the state monies in the adult probation services fund, and probation fees collected pursuant to section 13-901 and section 13-902 subsection G, shall be used in accordance with guidelines established by the supreme court or the granting authority”.

 A.R.S. §12- 267 (G) provides “the administrative office of the courts shall periodically charge each local probation fees account an amount established annually by the supreme court to cover a proportional share of the cost of monitoring devices required pursuant section 13-902, subsection G, and consistent with the guidelines established to implement section 13-902, subsection G”.

A.R.S. §13-902 (G) provides “after conviction of a dangerous crime against children as defined in section 13-604.01, if a term of probation is imposed, the court shall require global position system monitoring for the duration of the term of probation. The Court may impose a fee on the probationer to offset the cost of the monitoring device required by this subsection. The fee shall be deposited in the adult probation services fund pursuant to section 12-267 subsection A, paragraph 3”.

Administrative Order No 2008-73 orders the Administrative Director of the Courts to adopt guidelines that are necessary to charge all local probation fees accounts one hundred percent of the cost of the GPS monitoring devices.

On July 1, 2008, the GPS vendor contract was renewed and amended. A new additional unit, the Smart One Wearable Tracking Device (WMTD), was added to the Contract.

In order to comply with legislature changes, Administrative Order No 2008-73 and implement the new Smart One Wearable Tracking Device (WMTD) the policies and procedures for statewide global position system monitoring program as adopted in Administrative Directive No 2007-02 were replaced through Administrative Directive No 2008-01 on September 16, 2008,

The GPS policies and procedures adopted on September 16, 2008 were replaced on November 3, 2008 through Administrative Directive No 2008-02 to afford flexibility for probation departments dealing with offenders who cannot purchase or access a land line telephone by allowing them to place these offenders on a device that uses cell phone communication.

On July 13, 2009, the governor signed legislation modifying A.R.S. § 13-902 (G).
 
A.R.S. §13-902 (G) provides “after conviction of a dangerous crime against children as defined in section 13-705, if a term of probation is imposed, the person is required to register pursuant to section 13-3821 and the person is classified as a level three offender pursuant to sections 13-3825 and 13-3826, the court shall require global position system or electronic monitoring for the duration of the term of probation. The Court may impose a fee on the probationer to offset the cost of the monitoring device required by this subsection. The fee shall be deposited in the adult probation services fund pursuant to section 12-267 subsection A, paragraph 3. This subsection does not preclude global position system or electronic monitoring of any other person who is serving a term of probation”.