Pinal County Phase II Jail Population FINAL 12 30 …...PINAL(COUNTYJAIL(POPULATION(ANALYSIS(FINAL&REPORT(|DECEMBER(2015( PAGE(2(((ExecutiveSummary! In!2014,!MGT!of!America,Inc.!(MGT)!completed!a!jail!staffing!studyof!the

FLORIDA | CALIFORNIA | MICHIGAN | TEXAS | WASHINGTON

JAIL POPULATION ANALYSIS Final Findings/Recommendations December 2015

Pinal County, Arizona

PINAL COUNTY JAIL POPULATION ANALYSIS F INAL REPORT | DECEMBER 2015

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ......................................................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 2 Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 7

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 8

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 10

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 11 Document Review ......................................................................................................................... 11

On-‐Site Interviews with Available Stakeholders ........................................................................... 11

Telephonic Interviews with Available Individual Resources ........................................................ 11

Additional Data Secured ............................................................................................................... 12

Overview of Pinal County Adult Detention Center Inmate Population Trend ............................. 13

FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................. 17

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 30


P A G E 1

List of Tables and Figures TABLES

Table 1: Bookings By Year

Table 2: Percent of Cases Adjudicated within 180 days of filing – County Attorney’s Office

Table 3: Adult Probation Violator Admissions

Table 4: Reported Average Daily Jail Population at the ADC

Table 5: Population Trend Comparison

Table 6: Average Length Of Stay At Release

Table 7: Impact Of One Day Increase In ALOS

Table 8: Impact Actual Change in ALOS May Have on Jail Population Level

Table 9: ADC Total Bookings and Releases

Table 10: Pinal County and Statewide Estimated Population Change

Table 11: Percentage of Releases on Own Recognizance

Table 12: Percentage of Releases on Bond (Less than $500)

Table 13: Adult Probation Violators admitted to Jail

Table 14: Pinal County Percent of Cases Adjudicated Within Established Timeframe (per County Attorney’s Office)

Table 15: County Comparison – Percent of Cases Adjudicated within 180 days of Filing

FIGURES

Figure 1: Average Daily Population: PSCO Offenders

Figure 2: Average Length Of Stay -‐ In Days

Figure 3: Number Released On Own Recognizance

Figure 4: Average Jail Population for PCSO inmates only, July 2012 – April 2015

Figure 5: Total Average Daily Population

Figure 6: Average Daily Population – PSCO Offenders

Figure 7: Average Length Of Stay – In Days

Figure 8: Actual vs. Calculated Local ADP

Figure 9: Number Released on Own Recognizance


P A G E 2

Executive Summary In 2014, MGT of America, Inc. (MGT) completed a jail staffing study of the Pinal County Adult Detention Center (ADC) at the request of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. One of the key findings of the study was the average number of local inmates the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) housed at the jail had significantly grown since FY 11/12, increasing the demand for inmate housing. This increase was counter to what was occurring in counties across the country and at the national level. As a result, the Board of Supervisors requested further analysis from MGT to identify what may be driving the population increase. The objective of this project is to provide an analysis of the local (PCSO) jail population and to identify possible contributing factors to its recent growth.

MGT’s ability to complete this project in a timely manner was hindered by apparent issues with data integrity in ADC jail information system. MGT was informed the data requested had to be extracted from two separate jail management software systems. Once extracted, ADC staff had to manually check each record against both systems to ensure its accuracy. This added several additional months onto the project timeline. Additionally, we note that providing conclusive evidence of the causes of the jail population growth was not possible due to the lack of detailed data regarding a number of important factors.

For the purposes of this study and to limit the amount of manual work required by the ADC, MGT received information from three time periods:

w 2012: July 1, 2012 through December 15, 2012.



Throughout this report, when MGT references data for 2012, 2013, or 2014, it reflects the 168 day time periods noted above (July 1 through December 15).

MGT conducted interviews with Pinal County criminal justice stakeholders and evaluated the data provided. In many cases, outcomes of the interviews led us to request data to research what was verbally reported. We note our findings are indicators of the potential causes of the jail population growth. Because of the limited availability of detailed data regarding the County criminal justice system, MGT was not able to definitively pinpoint all the factors that created this increase. In cases where we cannot provide a verified impact, we have done our best to provide an example of the possible impact.

FINDINGS INCREASING PSCO JAIL POPULATION. The average daily population (ADP) of local offenders housed in the jail had decreased from FY 08/09 through FY 11/12, but began rising soon thereafter. The ADP has since increased from approximately 500 in 2012 to over 700 by April 2015. This growth appears to have begun in early 2013 and continued since that time as shown in the following figure.


P A G E 3

FIGURE 1: AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION -‐ LOCAL OFFENDERS

REASONS FOR POPULATION GROWTH. Two general factors determine jail population levels: 1) the number of offenders admitted to the jail, and 2) their average length of stay (ALOS). MGT reviews historical data regarding these factors as well as practices that could contribute to changes in ALOS and admissions.

ADMISSIONS. Changes in the number of admissions (bookings) of local offenders have had little impact on the rise in jail population, as they remained relatively stable over the three years of our review.

TABLE 1: BOOKINGS BY YEAR

YEAR NUMBER OF BOOKINGS (JULY 1 – DECEMBER 15)

2012 4,920

2013 5,079

2014 4,892 Source: Pinal ADC.

Even though admissions have been relatively flat, MGT reviewed the following factors that could impact the number of admissions:

w County Population Levels. Typically, as county populations rise, so do the number of offenders booked into the jail. The Pinal County resident population level was only projected to grow 1.8 percent over the two year period between July 2012 and July 2014. As a result, County resident population changes would have only a minimal impact on the jail ADP.

-‐

200

400

600

800

FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14


P A G E 4

w Crime Rates. There was a slight increase in the number of arrests during 2013 compared to the previous year (no 2014 data were available). This small change in the number of arrests would have only a minimal impact on jail ADP.

AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY. Change in the ALOS appear to explain much of the increase in the jail population as the ALOS has grown significantly. In 2012, an average offender stayed 18.76 days in jail and by 2014 it has risen more than 25 percent to 23.59 days.

FIGURE 2: AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY -‐ IN DAYS

Each single day increase in average length of stay can increase the ADC jail population by 24 offenders. The ALOS increase from 2012 to 2014 of 4.83 days could alone increase the jail ADP by 115 offenders. MGT looked at several factors to determine what, if any would contribute to increases in the ALOS:

w Court Processing. One good metric of the speed at which court cases are processed is the number of cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing. The Arizona Supreme Court Rules set the standard of 180 days for felony cases to be adjudicated if the person is released from custody, or 150 days if the accused is held in custody. According to data from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Pinal County’s case processing has slowed, as the percent of felony cases adjudicated within 180 days of filing has decreased from 70 percent in FY 12 to 58 percent in FY 14. Additionally, Pinal County’s court processing of felony cases in 2014 is significantly slower than other large counties in Arizona as shown in the table below:

18.76 19.85

23.59

0

5

10

15

20

25

2012 2013 2014


P A G E 5

TABLE 2: PERCENT OF CASES ADJUDICATED WITHIN 180 DAYS OF FILING COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

COUNTY PERCENT -‐ FY 14

Pinal County 58%

Maricopa County 85%

Mohave County 77%

Yavapai County 78%

Yuma County 72% Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2014 Gap Report.

Court processing delays could partially explain the longer length of stay of offenders held in custody.

w Releases on Own Recognizance (OR). The number of offenders released on their own recognizance decreased significantly in 2014. This decrease could substantially contribute to a rise in jail population levels.

FIGURE 3: NUMBER RELEASED ON OWN RECOGNIZANCE

The decrease in the number of offenders placed on OR can have a substantial impact on the local jail population; offenders placed on OR get released from prison early, before the disposition of their sentence. Our analysis found the reduction of 534 offenders placed on OR between 2013 and 2014 could increase the jail ADP by as many as 53 offenders.

w Releases on Bond (Less than $500): The County only minimally releases offenders on bonds of less than $500. For the time periods studied, only 87 offenders were released on bond under

2,210

2,431

1,897

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

2,500

2012 2013 2014


P A G E 6

$500 in 2012, 107 in 2013 and 111 in 2014. This represents an increase of 24 over the two year period and this increase could result in the jail ADP decreasing by 2 offenders.

w Probation Violations: the number of offenders admitted to jail for violating their probation has increased from 2012 through 2014.

TABLE 3: ADULT PROBATION VIOLATOR ADMISSIONS

2012 2013 2014

Primary Charge -‐ Probation Violation 511 562 569 Percent Change from Previous Period NA 10% 1.2%

Increases in the number of probation violators returned to jail will have a direct impact on the jail population levels. However, the lack of available data regarding these offenders length of stay after return makes it difficult to fully assess their impact on ADP. If each offender were returned to jail for an average of 30 days, then the increase from 2012 to 2014 (58 returned probation violators) would increase the ADP by nearly five offenders. As a result, the change in probation violation practices can be considered a definite, but minor contributing factor to the jail population growth.

w Early Disposition Court (EDC): Early Disposition Court is a method used in Pinal County to expedite case processing. It would be reasonable that any reduction in the use of EDC would extend case timeframes. If EDC is now used less often, then this might partially explain the fact that cases processing has slowed as indicated in data identified earlier from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Anecdotal information was provided that the use of EDC has decreased, however determining the actual impact of EDC changes is not possible due to the lack of data. The jail management system does not separate traditional court data from EDC session.


P A G E 7

Introduction In 2014, MGT completed a jail staffing study of the Pinal County ADC at the request of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. One of the key findings identified in the staffing study was the average number of local inmates housed at the jail (excludes Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Marshal detainees) had significantly grown since FY 11/12, increasing the demand for inmate housing. As a result, the Board of Supervisors requested MGT conduct further analysis as to what may be driving the population increase. The objective of this project is to provide an analysis of the local jail population and to identify possible contributing factors to the significant growth in the jail population.


P A G E 8

Background The Pinal County ADC operates under the management and supervision of the Pinal County Sheriff. It is the third largest county jail in the State of Arizona and has a capacity of 1,499. (The 1,499 figure does not include the medical infirmary as it is not considered permanent housing.) The older portion of the jail was opened in 1996, then having a bed capacity of 470 inmates. Early in the next decade, as the Pinal County’s inmate population began to increase rapidly, the inmate census grew to over 700. This growth was consistent with national jail population trends and was somewhat expected as a result of the tremendous population growth in the community at that time. In order to accommodate the growing inmate population, decisions were made to double, triple, and quadruple bunk inmates in rooms designed for one or two inmates. On average, over 250 inmates were being housed daily on the floor of a housing unit. These congested housing arrangements and the inadequate physical plant caused the County to consider jail expansion.

During this time, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division determined a need existed for additional detainee housing in this area of the country, and an agreement was reached between the County and ICE to house up to 624 detainees at the ADC. As a result of a combination of factors, a 1,032 expansion was commissioned to provide needed bed space. The project was completed in July 2006 when the new section of the facility became operational and began to house both ICE detainees as well as County inmates1.

In 2013, the Board of Supervisors of the County began to debate the issue of the per diem paid by ICE to house detainees in the County facility. After ongoing discussions between the County and ICE officials, no decision was reached by ICE relating to the per diem increase request. In response, the County Board of Supervisors issued a 100 day notification letter to ICE indicating their desire to cancel the contract, because the funding dispute had not been resolved. On July 25, 2014, ICE decided to terminate the relationship with Pinal County.

Since the termination of the ICE contract in July 2014, the ADC local inmate population has grown from an average daily population of 653 to 743 in April 2015. This growth represents a 13.8 percent increase in the average number of inmates housed at the Pinal County ADC. In the past two and one-‐half years when factoring out ICE and U.S. Marshall’s populations, the monthly average daily population of the local inmate population has increased by approximately 50 percent (495 in October 2012, 743 in April 2015)2.

The recent rate of increase appears to be in direct contrast to national trends.3 According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics report published in June 2015, “The midyear 2014 jail population remained steady at the 2012 level and was significantly lower than the peak of an estimated

1 Pinal County Arizona Sheriff’s Office Website. 2 PCSO Sheriff’s Office. 3 United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2014, page 1.


P A G E 9

785,500 at midyear 2008.” On a national basis, the overall average jail population has increased less than one percent (0.4) during the last three years (2012, 2013, 2014)4.

4 United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2014, page 2.


P A G E 10

Objective of Study The objective of this project is to provide an analysis of the local jail population and to identify possible contributing factors to the significant increase in the jail population. In reviewing the population level, the most recent population trend reflects an overall increase that appears to have begun in in the middle of FY 12/13 and has continued to grow during each fiscal year since.5 In each of the three prior fiscal years (FY 09-‐FY 11), the local population at the Pinal County ADC had declined from the previous year. This decline in population was consistent with national trends.

FIGURE 4: AVERAGE JAIL POPULATION FOR LOCAL INMATES ONLY, JULY 2012 – APRIL 2015

Source: PCSO Sheriff’s Office.

As shown in Figure 4, the PCSO inmate population has steadily grown from a population in the low 500s to an average daily population of 743 in April 2015. The red pillars in Figure 4 show the initial stage of the current growth trend. The recent rate of the increase is inconsistent with both national population trends and local jails selected for comparison purposes, including Maricopa and Pima Counties.

The intent of this report is to focus on identifying possible reasons for the current change in the local population level and is not directed toward the impact any other population previously held at the facility may have had on the facility. National, state, and local incarcerated population trends, Arizona Department of Public Safety, Arizona Department of Corrections, Arizona Crime rates, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission reports, and state mandates were all reviewed and are used as references in this report.

5 PCSO Sheriff’s Office.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


P A G E 11

Methodology DOCUMENT REVIEW Preliminary work involved the gathering of historical and current documents to determine the ADP at the ADC during set time periods, the type of inmate being housed, and average length of stay. Documents reviewed included the following:

w ADC Average Daily Populations by fiscal year from FY 06 through FY 15.

w ADC Average Daily Populations by month, gender, and inmate type from July 2012 to April 2015.

w ADC Average Daily Population by month and gender for local inmates from July 2012 to April 2015.

w Pinal County PCSO admissions and release by date, arrest type, and offense.

w County percentage of releases on OR for the last six months of 2012, 2013, and 2014.

w Total number of county inmate releases for targeted periods in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

w Arizona Department of Public Safety Annual Crime Reports, 2012, 2013.

w Maricopa County Criminal Justice System Monthly Reports for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.

w Pima County 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

w Pinal County Arizona Crime Rates.

w Pinal County community population estimates.

w Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, FY 2014 Fill the Gap Report.

w Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2014 Report.

w Arizona Department of Corrections monthly “Corrections at a Glance” Reports.

ON-‐‑SITE INTERVIEWS WITH AVAILABLE STAKEHOLDERS On-‐site interviews were completed with Pinal County representatives, including: Leo Lew, Assistant County Manager; Honorable Stephen F. McCarville, Superior Court; PCSO Chief Deputy Steve Henry, Deputy Chief James Kimble; James Mannato, Public Defender; and Todd Zweig, Chief Adult Probation Officer. Additional stakeholders were contacted; however, they were reported as unavailable.

TELEPHONIC INTERVIEWS WITH AVAILABLE INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES Telephone interviews were conducted with the following individuals: Rick Lewis, Justice Courts; Himanshu Patel, Community Development; Gilberto Hoyos, PCSO Lieutenant; Dr. Michael Dolny, Research Unit, Arizona Department of Corrections; and Matt Bileski, Research Analyst, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.


P A G E 12

ADDITIONAL DATA SECURED Additional data was secured through the cooperation and efforts made by the PCSO Sheriff’s Office. The data request also was sent to the Pinal County court system and based on the response, the project team was notified the information was not easily accessible and much of the information requested would be available through the jail database. As a result, jail personnel and PCSO Sheriff Department staff assisted in manually collecting booking, release, and arrest data for three separate time periods. The three separate time periods include the following:

w 2012: July 2012 through December 15, 2012.



These time periods were selected for comparison purposes after it was determined the jail population began an upward trend starting in the last few months of 2012.

The data being used to assist in identifying trends was extracted from two separate jail management software systems provided by PCSO Sheriff’s staff. Prior to November 5, 2012, the jail was using the basic Spillman Technologies jail management software, Spillman 4.6, as their primary electronic jail management system to record bookings, releases, and to provide additional jail statistical data. In November, the jail upgraded to a more robust software system provided by Spillman Technologies, which is referenced as Sentryx 6.2. As a result, because two separate electronic database systems were used, two separate reports were required to be generated and reviewed. PCSO staff had to manually check each report to ensure data was not duplicated or eliminated. Although this manual process was warranted due to the changes in software application, it resulted in a significant amount of time to generate the reports provided. Most of the data received was jail related as very little court-‐related information became available.

Note on Data Collection. MGT appreciates the considerable amount of manual effort ADC undertook to collect the requested data. However, it is of significant concern that data extracted from the current system of record (Sentryx 6.2) had to be compared to an old system of record (Spillman 4.6) that was replaced nearly three years ago. This seems to indicate the conversion to the new system may have had significant errors and complications that were never fully resolved. National trends show correctional systems across the country are moving toward data-‐driven decision-‐making, which depends on systems that can provide instantaneous, accurate information. ADC manages a complex jail system and it is imperative ADC command staff have access to management level trend and snapshot information on which they make important decisions. MGT suggests the County conduct a review of problems that exist between the two information systems to determine how they can be corrected.


P A G E 13

OVERVIEW OF PINAL COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER INMATE POPULATION TREND Immediately prior to the completion of the 2006 jail expansion, the Pinal County ADC primarily housed county offenders received from Pinal County jurisdictions. The original portion of the existing jail had a 470 bed capacity and the population had gradually increased to over 700 inmates. Because of this overcrowding, on average over 250 inmates were regularly being housed daily on the floor. The population makeup of the jail changed once the jail expansion project was completed and the County developed an agreement with ICE. After expansion, it had a combination of local county inmates and ICE detainees. In FY 07/08, the average daily population was reported to include (733) local PCSO inmates, (452) ICE detainees, and one U.S. Marshal detainee on hold status. Table 4 displays the average number of inmates housed during the past seven fiscal years by population type.

TABLE 4: REPORTED AVERAGE DAILY JAIL POPULATION AT THE ADC

FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14

Local 733 767 660 571 503 524 600 ICE 452 541 446 448 443 523 500 USM 1 0 71 141 122 59 6 Total 1,186 1,308 1,177 1,160 1,068 1,106 1,106

Source: Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.

As shown in Table 4, the local population increased during FY 08/09, followed by three consecutive years of decline, further followed by two years of increase. The Pinal County trend during FY 07/08, FY 08/09, FY 09/10, and FY 10/11 appeared consistent with reported national jail trends.

FIGURE 5: TOTAL AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14


P A G E 14

In reviewing the local ADP over the past five years, the first sign of a significant shift in the population trend was during FY 12/13.

FIGURE 6: AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION -‐ PSCO OFFENDERS

Pinal County reflected an overall increase of 4.2 percent in the average number of local inmates housed at the ADC. The initial surge appears to have started in early 2013.

This increase is not consistent with national or local trends. Beginning July 2013 through June 2014, the national jail population levels increased by only one percent, while the local population increased by 14.5 percent. In comparison, the Pima County jail population for the same period increased by only 1.2 percent, and Maricopa County decreased by approximately one percent. The following table compares these jail population trends.

TABLE 5: POPULATION TREND COMPARISON

POPULATION TRENDS

2012 -‐ 2013 YEAR TO YEAR

PERCENT CHANGE

2013 -‐ 2014 YEAR TO YEAR

PERCENT CHANGE

JULY 2014 -‐ APRIL 2015 YEAR TO DATE

PERCENT CHANGE

National -‐0.8 1.0 Unavailable

Pinal 4.2 14.5 16.2

Maricopa 1.8 -‐0.97 -‐1.48

Pima 5.7 1.2 Unavailable Source: PCSO Jail Personnel, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Pima County Sheriff’s Department, Corrections Bureau and Maricopa County Criminal Justice System. National levels: Bureau of Statistics, Annual Survey of Jails.

Table 5 identifies a combined annual increase of approximately 35 percent for the local inmate population housed at the Pinal County ADC since 2012. Pima County and national jail population trends were only available for the first two time periods. The national jail population trends for the last two complete years

-‐

200

400

600

800

FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14


P A G E 15

show little to no growth in the population, and Pima County shows a 6.9 percent growth rate. Maricopa County shows a slight decrease in the overall jail population.

What is somewhat different about the most recent growth rate in the Pinal County local jail population compared to the growth experienced during the previous decade is the rate of growth in the previous decade was supported by two factors: 1) an overall population growth in Pinal County that exceeded 100 percent, and 2) a national jail population trend that was on the rise. The current rate of increase is not supported by either of these factors. As a result, there must be some other factor that explains this recent growth.

The population growth at the Pinal County ADC could be the result of several other factors including: policy changes, new decision-‐makers, enhanced law enforcement efforts, prosecutorial practices, and/or changes in judicial disposition practices resulting in increased admissions and increased length of stays. MGT conducted interviews with key criminal justice system stakeholders in the County and reviewed available documentation. Through this review, several possible contributing factors were identified.

The following factors were mentioned as possible contributing factors:

w A change in the number of admissions into the jail.

w A change in the ALOS.

w Community growth in the County.

w The crime rate in Pinal County.

w The number of violent crimes reported.

w The number of individuals violating probation.

w The number of individuals placed on probation.

w The number of individuals offered the opportunity to be released on their OR.

w The Bond rate set by IA judges.

w The frequency of using EDC.

w The overall time required to process cases.

w Changes in personnel in the courts, County, or city surrounding law enforcement jurisdictions.

Each of these potential contributing factors were mentioned either during the interview process or through documentation provided. The issues will be addressed in various degrees in the following sections of the report.

ADMISSIONS AND LENGTH OF STAY This review is predicated upon existing policies, trends, and practices, and provides a baseline context for analyzing the data made available. The most influential factors in identifying any correctional population are the impact of law enforcement, the courts, recently enacted sentencing laws, and other criminal


P A G E 16

justice policy choices. Any significant changes in these factors can have a material impact upon the size of the County’s jail population.

Jail populations are primarily the result of the number of admissions/bookings into the jail and how long the individuals remain in the jail. The average time an offender is held in jail is commonly referred to as the ALOS. Changes in either or both the ALOS and the number of admissions/bookings can have a significant impact on the daily population. For example, if the number of individuals admitted increases or decreases with no change in the ALOS, the jail population would ultimately increase or decrease, respectively. If the ALOS changed and the number of admissions remained constant the population would also increase or decrease. As such, a careful and comprehensive examination of the complex interplay between the various factors that affect the population level is crucial to understanding correctional population dynamics.

To further describe the impact, data provided by PCSO staff collected from the Spillman/Sentryx electronic databases were analyzed to determine jail statistical information and the average length of stay for the following three time periods:

w 2012: (July 1, 2012 through December 15, 2012).



As a note, reference throughout the report to “2012 data” will include only data applying to July 1 through December 15, 2012. The same time reference should be applied when referencing 2013 and 2014 data.


P A G E 17

Findings AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY To determine the ALOS at release at least three primary variables are required to be established:

1. The time period to be considered.

2. The number of individuals released during the specified time period.

3. The total number of days or hours the released individuals were incarcerated. The data were made available by jail personnel through the Spillman/Sentryx databases.

When calculating an ALOS, statistical approaches are frequently applied to provide a more accurate representation of how long the average individual remains in custody at that facility. Jails hold a wide variety of individuals whose length of stay varies. Some of individuals may be held for a short time and a small percentage may stay in excess of a year. In the statistical analysis, these outlier records can highly skew the findings. This proved to be true in Pinal County. During the 2013 targeted time period, approximately 7.5 percent of all individuals booked were released within three hours. During 2014, 10.2 percent of the individuals booked were released within three hours. In addition, approximately one-‐half of one percent of the total releases in 2014 included individuals who had been incarcerated for more than a year (average 1.48 years.). As a result, the ALOS can often be highly skewed by a small percentage of individuals, and MGT made the following adjustments to address these outliers:

w Individuals who were released within eight hours of booking were not included in the ALOS calculation formula. Most of these individuals were never processed into a housing unit and did not routinely impact bed space utilization at the jail.

w Individuals who had been continuously incarcerated for more than one year were counted as being incarcerated for 365 days. Reducing the length of stay for these few outliers provides a more accurate representation of the ALOS. For example, in the 2012 targeted time period, seven individuals were released who had served more than one year (these seven averaged 1.49 years) and were counted in the formula as having been incarcerated for 365 days. Adding actual hours/days incarcerated for an individual who has been incarcerated for three to five years would skew the ALOS and may provide a false perception of the amount of time the average individual is incarcerated.

Table 6 identifies the method MGT used to calculate the ADP. This calculation was based on the data provided by ADC.


P A G E 18

TABLE 6: AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY AT RELEASE

TARGETED PERIOD*

2012 2013 2014 Total number individuals released 4,391 4,440 4,280 Total number of hours incarcerated 1,977,481.02 2,115,151.75 2,422,988.81 Divide by 24 hours 24 24 24 Average length of stay in days 18.76 19.85 23.59 Percent change from previous year NA 5.8 18.8

*Targeted period is July 1 through December 15 for each year.

In 2012 for example, from July 1 to December 15 when applying outlier adjustments, there were a total of 4,391 releases processed. Based on the data extracted from Spillman/Sentryx systems, these offenders were held for a total of 1,977,481.02 hours. (The date and time of admissions and release are recorded in the software database.) When dividing the number of hours held by the number of releases and converting those hours to days (24 hours), the average length of stay for the 168 day time period was 18.76 days. Applying this same formula to the 2013 and 2014 data reflects a significant increase in the average length of stay.

FIGURE 7: AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY -‐ IN DAYS

In fact, from 2013 to 2014 alone, the ALOS increased by 3.74 days or 19 percent. Over this entire three year period, the ALOS increased by 4.83 days, from 18.76 to 23.59.

18.76 19.85

23.59

0

5

10

15

20

25

2012 2013 2014


P A G E 19

An increase in the ALOS has a direct and substantial impact on the jail population level. A simple example can demonstrate the impact of a one day change in ALOS. To demonstrate this we can assume the following:

w On average, 9,000 offenders are released during an entire year.

w The ALOS increased by one day over a two year period.

Table 7 displays the impact of a one day increase in ALOS.

TABLE 7: IMPACT OF ONE DAY INCREASE IN ALOS

YEAR 1 YEAR 2

# Released during entire year 9,000 9,000 ALOS 18 19 Average Daily Population 444 468

In our example above, a one-‐day increase in the ADP increases the average daily population by 24 offenders (from 444 to 468). (The ADP is calculated by multiplying the number released by the ALOS, then dividing that product by the number of days in the year – 365.)

Applying this analysis to the data provided by ADC shows an even greater impact caused by their increasing length of stay. Table 8 displays the actual number of offenders released for the 168 day period that data were collected in each of the years. It also provides actual ALOS for each of those years.

TABLE 8: IMPACT ACTUAL CHANGE IN ALOS MAY HAVE ON JAIL POPULATION LEVEL

2012 2013 2014

Individuals Released 4391 4400 4280 Average length of Stay (Days) 18.76 19.85 23.59 Targeted Period (168 days) (July 1 -‐ December 15) 168 168 168 Calculated Average Jail Population (Released x ALOS divided by 168 days)

490 520 601

Source: PCSO database.

As shown in Table 8, the actual increase in ALOS may have had significant impact on the size of the local jail population. In this three year period, the number of individuals released was stable, with a high of 4,400 in 2013, to a low of 4,280 in 2014. This reflects only a 2.7 percent variance. However, during this same time frame, the ALOS increased significantly, rising from 18.76 days in 2012, to 23.59 days in 2014. This increase in ALOS has a profound impact on the ADP. Multiplying the number of releases by the ALOS, then dividing that amount by 168 days (the total number of days for which data were collected in each year), provides a calculated ADP. From 2012 to 2014, the increase in the ALOS resulted in the calculated ADP increasing by 111 offenders, from 490 to 601. Therefore, increases in the ALOS explain a significant portion of the local jail population increase.


P A G E 20

For comparative analysis, we can assume the data collected for each time period are reflective of the entire fiscal year. For example, we could assume the data collected for the 168 day period of July 1 through December 15, 2012 are reflective of the entire FY 12/13. Applying this assumption allows us to compare the actual local PSCO ADP against the calculated ADP derived in Table 8 for each year. The following figure displays this comparison.

FIGURE 8: ACTUAL VS. CALCULATED LOCAL ADP

As the figure shows, the actual ADP and calculated ADP are highly consistent. Because if this, we can speculate the rise in the ALOS is a primary contributing factor to the growing jail population.

ADMISSIONS A county’s pretrial/court and sentencing structure and the flow of inmates to and from the jail provides a wide array of data that have both a direct and indirect impact on inmate population growth. When reviewing potential contributing factors to jail population growth it begins with the number of admissions into the jail and ends with criminal justice officials who, within the context of the court disposition process (for pretrial offenders) and court-‐imposed sentences, have the authority to release, recommit, provide, and restore a wide array of release paths. Jail officials do not determine the number of individuals who are admitted or released, they simply manage the number required to be held.

Individuals primarily enter the jail for four basic reasons: 1) they have been arrested and are awaiting court disposition; 2) they have been directly sentenced by the courts (new court commitments); 3) they have failed to complete their terms of probation/supervision and are now being considered or are considered violators; or 4) they have failed their term of parole (or post-‐release supervision) and are awaiting further court disposition.

As was done with releases, admissions data were collected for the period of July 1 through December 15 of each year.

503524

600

490520

601

400

450

500

550

600

650

FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14

Actual ADP Calculated ADP


P A G E 21

The results based on the data provided reflect a small to moderate change in the total number of bookings occurring at the jail. The data provided identified all reported bookings during the targeted time periods regardless of how long they were held in the jail. In 2012, from July 1 through December 15, there were a total of 4,920 bookings. In 2013, during the same targeted period, the reported bookings were 5,079, and in 2014 the number of bookings reported was 4,892. When comparing 2012 with 2014 the result reflects a small decrease in the percent of bookings by approximately one-‐sixth of one percent (.0057). Table 5 presents the total bookings and release of local offenders over the three year targeted period. The number of individuals released, identified in the table, reflects all releases including those individuals who were released within eight hours of their admission/booking.

TABLE 9: ADC TOTAL BOOKINGS AND RELEASES

TARGETED PERIOD TOTAL BOOKINGS TOTAL RELEASED* DIFFERENCE

2012 4,920 5,041 121 2013 5,079 5,026 -‐53 2014 4,892 4,939 47 Total 14,891 15,006 115

Source: ADC database. *Note: Targeted period is July 1 through December 15. Releases include those released within eight hours of admission/booking.

Comparing the number of bookings to the number of releases can provide a broad understanding of population trends. For example, more bookings than releases occurring in a given time frame can be an indicator of jail population growth. Table 9 reflects there is very little difference between the number of individuals admitted/booked and the number of individuals released during all three years. In total, over the three year period, the number of releases exceeded the number of bookings by 115. When comparing the total number of bookings between 2012 and 2014, the difference is a reduction of approximately one-‐half of one percent. As a result, little population increase can be attributed to any disparity between the number of admissions and releases.

Since jail systems are heavily impacted by decisions and practices made by county and state criminal justice systems, further analysis was completed to determine whether any external or internal factors may be influencing the increase in length of stay and ultimately the ADP level.

POTENTIAL EXTERNAL FACTORS External factors reflect the interplay of demographic, socio-‐economic, and crime trends that produce arrests and offenders’ initial entry into the criminal justice system. For example, criminologists have long noted certain segments of the population have higher rates or chances of becoming involved in crime, being arrested, and being incarcerated. This is known as the “at-‐risk” population, which generally consists of younger males. In more recent years, the at-‐risk population, to a significantly lesser extent, also includes females. The high crime rate ages generally are between the ages of 15 to 25, while the high adult incarceration rate is between the ages of 18 and 44. When the at-‐risk population is expected to increase in a jurisdiction, one also can expect some additional pressure on criminal justice resources, all things


P A G E 22

being equal. Several external factors were analyzed to determine possible contributing influences to the growing jail population.

County Population Level According to population data presented through the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA), Office of Employment and Population Statistics, in the report entitled State, County, Place Level Population Estimates for July 1, 2014, the reported estimated growth in the County population is expected to increase by 1.8 percent from July 1, 2012 to July 1, 20146. According to the ADOA the growth estimates for the County between July 2010 and July 2012 were expected to be 3.6 percent. This current estimated growth is significantly less than what Pinal County had experienced in the past. According to the most recent completed state census in 2010, Pinal County grew significantly between 2000 and 2010, where the population increased by approximately 109 percent. This percentage increase was the highest for any county in Arizona.7 The rate of growth is not expected to increase at a similar rate during this current decade.

TABLE 10: PINAL COUNTY AND STATEWIDE ESTIMATED POPULATION CHANGE

TIME PERIOD PINAL ARIZONA

2000 – 2010 109% 24.60% July 2010 -‐ July 2012 3.6% 1.67% July 2012 -‐ July 2014 1.80% 2.60%

Source: ADOA-‐EPS.

In addition to reviewing county and state population estimates and projections, an interview was completed with the Pinal County Community Development Director who indicated there has been no significant increase in the County population or significant change in demographics during the past three years. It was reported some unincorporated areas may have resulted in a slight increase in the County population, however not to the extent it would create a significant growth in the jail population.

Crime Data According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), as published in the annual Arizona Crime Reports, the volume and type of crime compiled through the Access Integrity Unit of DPS reflects a moderate change in the number of arrests reported in Pinal County from 2012 to 20138. At the time of this report, the 2014 Annual Report had not been published and 2014 data were unavailable.

The Arizona DPS serves as the coordinating agency for the Arizona Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and provides information regarding the nature and extent of crime throughout the state. The UCR) program first began receiving voluntary crime statistics from local law enforcement agencies in January 1975. Prior to this date, agencies submitted their crime data directly to the Federal Bureau of

6 ADOA-‐EPS State, County, Place Level Population Estimates for July 1, 2014. 7 ADOA-‐EPS Census 2010 – Population Changes from Census 2000 in Arizona Counties and Places. 8 Arizona Department of Public Safety 2013 Crime in Arizona Report.


P A G E 23

Investigation. The Arizona DPS is responsible for administrating the UCR program for the state. In 1992, participation in the UCR program became mandatory.

Arizona Revised Statute 41-‐1750.A.2 directs the Central State Repository of the DPS shall do the following:

"Collect information concerning the number and nature of offenses known to have been committed in this state and of the legal steps taken in connection with these offenses, such other information that is useful in the study of crime and in the administration of criminal justice and all other information deemed necessary to operate the statewide uniform crime reporting program and to cooperate with the federal government uniform crime reporting program."

In addition to the enactment of the Central Repository statute, Arizona Revised Statute 41-‐1750(D) directs the following:

"The chief executive officers of law enforcement agencies of this state or its subdivisions shall provide to the central state repository such information as necessary to operate the statewide uniform crime reporting program and to cooperate with the federal government uniform crime reporting program."

Statistics are received from local police agencies, county sheriff's offices, college and university campus police, and state police agencies, including Pinal County. Federal agencies and tribal police agencies do not report to the Arizona UCR program and are not included. Information is categorized by county, age of arrest, gender, and type of crime. There are two primary groupings of offenses reported in the report, Part I and Part II offenses.

Part I offenses are generally considered more severe. These offenses include Criminal Homicide; Forcible Rape; Robbery; Aggravated Assault; Burglary; Larceny Theft; Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson. Part II offenses include: Simple Assault; Forgery and Counterfeiting; Fraud; Embezzlement; Stolen Property; Vandalism; Weapons; Prostitution and Commercialized Vice; All other Sex offenses; Drug Abuse Violations; Gambling; Offenses Against the Family or Children; Driving Under the Influence; Liquor Laws; Disorderly Conduct; Vagrancy; and all other offenses except those identified as Part I or traffic offenses.

At the time this report was prepared, the 2014 Annual Report had not been published and 2014 data were not available. In reviewing the 2012 and 2013 annual reports, the number of arrests reported in Pinal County reflects a moderate increase. In 2013, there were approximately 5.5 percent more arrests of individuals 18 years of age and older reported in Pinal County than in 2012.9 The largest percentage of increase was in Part II offenses by adult individuals between the ages of 18 and 44.

MGT found the following when comparing data from 2013 with 2012:

w Overall, 5.5 percent more arrests for individuals 18 and over were reported in Pinal County.

9 Arizona DPS 2012 and 2013 Annual Crime Reports


P A G E 24

w Approximately 3.2 percent more jail bookings were completed during the targeted period in 2013.

w Approximately 86.7 percent of the increase in arrests involved Part II offenses.

w Approximately 84 percent of the total arrests for both 2012 and 2013 were for Part II offenses.

w The ALOS at the jail increased by approximately 5.8 percent.

w The ADP increased by 14.5 percent.

Comparing the change that occurred in 2014 was not possible because of the lack of crime rate data.

In view of the increase in the number of arrests and number of jail bookings during 2013, an increase in the jail population could be expected. Low to moderate increases in crime rates and jail bookings, without a significant reduction in length of stay, may result in the average daily jail population growing, depending on the type of offense committed. Based strictly on the percentage of increase in these two areas, the jail population may have been impacted by the increase in crime rate, however not at a rate to support a 14.5 percent jail population increase. Other contributing factors may be present.

POTENTIAL INTERNAL FACTORS Internal factors reflect the various decision points within the criminal justice system that cumulatively determine jail bookings/admissions releases and ALOS. For example, releases from jail on OR is a way the system can internally reduce the jail population. As discussed in the report, the number of admissions and/or releases since the ADP of the Pinal County ADC started to increase has not changed significantly. The primary change appears to be in how long the average individual remains in the jail, thus requiring bed space.

Available documentation was reviewed and interviews were conducted with available staff with the intent of better understanding potential contributing factors to the jail population growth. As a result, seven internal factors were shared through interviews and documentation provided. These internal factors are discussed in various degrees below.

Pre-‐trial release Released on Own Recognizance (OR). One of the primary types of release for eligible individuals arrested is to be released on their own recognizance. This requires an initial appearance hearing, signature, and promise to appear when required. There are additional legal ways to be released including completion of sentence, case is resolved, third party release, conditions satisfied, transferred, bond is posted, or the individual is placed on supervision under pre-‐trial services. Release on one’s own recognizance is one of the more frequent pre-‐trial methods of release. This form of release is often referenced as ‘OR’ in the electronic jail management system. Because offenders placed on OR get released from jail custody, OR is an effective method to control jail populations.

The MGT team analyzed the data available to determine comparisons in the frequency of use of OR between the three targeted time periods, and the results reflected a significant change in 2014. In 2012,


P A G E 25

approximately 48 percent of all arrestees released were placed on an OR release. In 2014, approximately 39 percent of all releases resulted in an OR release. The following table identifies the comparisons.

TABLE 11: PERCENTAGE OF RELEASES ON OWN RECOGNIZANCE

2012 2013 2014

# of reported OR Releases* 2210 2431 1897 Total Bookings* 4920 5079 4892 Percent of bookings/OR release 44.9 47.9 38.8 Source: PCSO Jail Management Systems. *2012, 2013, and 2014 data are for July 1 through December 15.

As shown in Table 11 and Figure 9, the number of individuals released on OR during the targeted period of 2014 compared to the total number of bookings was 38.8 percent. In comparison, during the targeted period in 2013, the percentage was approximately 48 percent. This represents a decrease of 22 percent or 534 fewer individuals during the 2014 targeted period being released on OR.

FIGURE 9: NUMBER RELEASED ON OWN RECOGNIZANCE

With some basic assumptions in place, MGT can calculate the impact this reduction in the use of OR has had on the jail population. For the purposes of this analysis, MGT made the following assumptions:

w Assume all offenders released on OR have been booked in the jail.

w Assume length of stay in jail prior to release on OR is seven days.

w Assume the average length of stay in jail once booked is 23.59 days (the 2014 ALOS).

The decrease in the number of arrestees placed on OR between 2013 and 2014 is 534. For those 534, not being released on OR would result in each of them staying another 16.59 days in the jail (23.59 minus

2,210

2,431

1,897

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

2,500

2012 2013 2014


P A G E 26

seven days). As a result, this decrease in the use of OR has the potential to increase the ADP by 53 offenders. Therefore, the reduction in the number released on their OR could significantly impact the jail population. We note similar numbers of individuals may have been released in 2014 through other options, however they were not released on their OR and a small percentage may have remained in jail. Data on other releases were not available.

Posting Bond An additional form of pre-‐trial release, which may be available to eligible individuals, is to post a bond. A bond can be either a Secured Bond or a Cash-‐Only Bond. A secured bond can be posted with either money or property valued at least as much as the bond amount. A cash-‐only bond requires a cashier’s check or money order. A bail bondsman also can be used to post bond for a fee.

Interviews conducted regarding posting bond was discussed including the frequency and impact the bond amount may have on the number of individuals actually released. Limited data were available, however a review of the jail management database for the three targeted time periods was reviewed. Pinal County staff reported Initial Appearance Judges often set a bond amount at $500 or less, though it is their understanding bail bond company representatives generally are not interested in posting a $500 bond or less because of the small fee generated considering the work involved. Bail bond companies generally charge a 10 percent fee. As a result, it is the opinion of some staff that bail bond companies become less an option as a form of pre-‐trial release when the bond amount is set at $500 for select individuals and as a result the individual remains in custody. Data collected found that posting a $500 bond or less is rarely used. This data is reflected in Table 12.

TABLE 12: PERCENTAGE OF RELEASES ON BOND (LESS THAN $500)

2012 2013 2014

# of Releases for Bond (less than $500)

87 107 111

Total Releases* 5,041 5,026 4,939 Bond as % of all Releases 1.7% 2.1% 2.2% *Note: Total Releases include those released within eight hours of admission/booking.

The number of releases on bonds less than $500 represents approximately 2 percent of all releases in the system and the increase in usage from 87 in 2012 to 111 in 2014. The increased usage of this type of bond, would have a minor impact of reducing the jail APD by 2 offenders. (Using OR assumptions identified on page 25)

Probation Violation In an effort to determine whether the recent growth in the jail population was a direct result of a change in the number of individuals admitted to the jail, with a primary charge of probation violation, the jail management databases were reviewed and an interview was conducted with the Chief Adult Probation Officer. In reviewing the PCSO jail management databases for the three targeted time periods, the number


P A G E 27

of individuals admitted into the jail with the primary charge of probation violation has increased moderately from 2012. The increase between 2012 and 2013 was approximately 10 percent and the increase between 2013 and 2014 was approximately 1.2 percent. The overall increase in the number of probation violators between 2012 and 2014 can impact ALOS. A review of the 2014 data reflects the ALOS for probation violators varied widely from a few hours to over 100 days. Approximately 20 percent of the individuals booked for probation violation stayed at the jail for at least 30 days.

TABLE 13: ADULT PROBATION VIOLATORS ADMITTED TO JAIL

2012 2013 2014

Primary Charge -‐ Probation Violation 511 562 569

Percent Change from previous period NA 10 1.2

Source: PCSO Jail Management System. *Targeted time period July 1 – December 2015.

As shown in Table 13, the number of individuals admitted into the jail as probation violators has increased from the 2012 targeted period. Based on their length of stay, the increase returned probation violators may be a minor contributing factor to the growth in the jail population.

Court Processing In an attempt to better understand the court processing timelines and local operational practices, applicable statutes were reviewed, documentation was analyzed, and interviews were conducted with the Superior Court Presiding Judge, the Public Defender, and a representative of the Justice Courts. Additional court representatives were requested to be interviewed, however they were either unavailable or a follow-‐up response was never received. The data made available and reviewed were primarily the result of these interviews as well as information obtained from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC).

On an annual basis, a report is prepared by the ACJC as required by statute10 to identify how state “Fill the Gap” funds are distributed. Arizona Senate Bill 1013 created three separate funds to be used by three stakeholders in the case disposition process to improve criminal case processing. The three stakeholders included: 1) County attorneys, 2) public/indigent defense, and 3) the courts. The funds distributed are referred to as “Fill the Gap” funds. The distribution of the funds is based according to an established formula, which takes into account a county’s population and three year average of each county’s superior court criminal court filings. The ACJC is responsible for administering the state funds and preparing an annual report. Counties are required to provide case processing data to the ACJC. The ACJC reviews the data provided, makes funding decisions, and prepares an annual report.

In Arizona, case processing standards have been established by the Arizona Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s Rules of Criminal Procedure sets the time limitations for trial cases. According to the A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 8.2, the following case completion timelines are currently the standards:

10 A.R.S. 41-‐2409


P A G E 28

1) A maximum of 150 days from arraignment, if the person is held in custody, with the exception of complex cases.

2) A maximum of 180 days from arraignment, if the person is released from custody, except for complex cases.

3) Complex cases filed after December 1, 2005 are given a maximum of 270 days from arraignment, if the person is charged with any of the following:

a. First degree murder, excluding capital cases.

b. Offenses that will require the court to consider evidence obtained as the result of an order permitting the interception of wire, electronic or oral communication.

c. Any complex cases as determined by a written factual finding by the court.

4) A maximum of 24 months from the date the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty for capital cases.

There are exceptions to these time limitations which include the following:

w Cases with continuances due to extraordinary circumstances and delays resulting from the defendant’s absence or efforts to determine mental competency.

w Disclosure extensions.

w Busy court calendars.

w Trial joinders.

w Transfer hearings.

Many agencies exclude all first degree homicide and complex cases from their case processing statistics submitted for this report. These cases are allowed between 270 and 730 days for case adjudication, thus the cases are not required to fall within the 180 day measurement.

The 2014 ACJC Gap Report provided timeline comparison data by stakeholder over several fiscal years. Table 14 shows the comparisons:

TABLE 14: PINAL COUNTY PERCENT OF CASES ADJUDICATED WITHIN ESTABLISHED TIMEFRAME (PER COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE)

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14

Percent of Felony Cases Adjudicated within 180 days of filing 68% 70% 61% 58% Total Felony Cases Filed 2,469 2.473 2.013 2.672

Source: ACJC 2014 Gap Report.

Data regarding cases adjudicated seem to point to a longer time required for the disposition of felony cases. In 2012, the County Attorney’s office reported 70 percent of felony cases were completed within 180 days, while only 58 percent reached disposition in FY 14. As a result, if the individual involved in the


P A G E 29

felony case has not been released from jail through an approved pre-‐trial release program, those individuals are being housed in the jail.

Additionally, compared to other counties, case processing in Pinal County also seems delayed when compared to other large counties in Arizona (population greater than 200,000 residents).

TABLE 15: COUNTY COMPARISON – PERCENT OF CASES ADJUDICATED WITHIN 180 DAYS OF FILING

COUNTY FY 14

Pinal County 58%

Maricopa County 85%

Mohave County 77%

Yavapai County 78%

Yuma County 72% Source: ACJC 2014 Gap Report.

This increased in the length of time to adjudicate cases would increase the jail ALOS and as a result contribute to the overall jail population.

Early Disposition Court (EDC) Early Disposition Court is a court session separate from traditional court sessions. EDC attempts to bring criminal cases to resolution with the fewest possible court appearances. The goal is to make the criminal justice system more efficient, but still protect the rights of all parties involved.

After the Initial Appearance, the County Attorney decides if a case should go to EDC. If the case is right for EDC, it is set for court at an EDC session. At that EDC session, the defendant is arraigned, and a plea agreement is offered by the County Attorney. If the defendant accepts the plea agreement, sentencing will occur that day or during an EDC session. If the defendant does not accept the offered plea agreement, there are two options: 1) more time is allowed to reach a plea agreement by the next EDC session; or 2) the case is set for a traditional court session. The Spillman/Sentryx electronic jail management systems do not report differentiate between EDC court sessions and traditional court sessions. As a result, due to the lack of data, the extent of the use of EDC during the three different reporting periods was not available.


P A G E 30

Summary It is clear that the number of local inmates held in the jail began to rise in early 2013 and that increase continued through the end of 2014 (the last data set reviewed for this project). Two factors have a direct impact on jail population levels: the number of admissions into the jail and the average length of stay (ALOS) of offenders in the jail.

Admissions: Jail admissions were relatively stable during the three years studied and as a result did not have a significant impact the jail population.

Average Length of Stay: In a jail the size of the ADC, an increase of a single day in the ALOS can cause the jail’s average daily population (ADP) to rise by 24 offenders. We found that the ALOS in the jail increased by 4.83 days between 2012 and 2014. This increase alone would result in an ADP increase of 115 offenders. Two major factors were found that could be contributing to this increase:

• Court Processing Speed: The speed at which cases are adjudicated in Pinal County has slowed significantly. In FY 2012, 70 percent of all felony cases were adjudicated within 180 days. By FY 2014 only 58 percent were adjudicated in this time frame. Longer timeframes to resolve cases will result in longer lengths of stay in jail. Pinal County court processing speed is also slow in comparison to other large counties in Arizona.

• Releases on Own Recognizance: One way to control a jail population is to release offenders on their own recognizance. The number of inmates released on their own recognizance dropped significantly from 2,431 in 2013 to 1,897 in 2014. This 22 percent decrease could increase the jail’s ADP by as many as 53 offenders.

We note other factors could contribute to the jail’s population growth including the frequency and usage of Early Disposition Court. Any decrease in the use of Early Disposition Court would extend case timeframes and increase the ALOS. However, the jail could not provide any metrics regarding the use of Early Disposition Court.