Race and Ethnic Fairness

 

State:  Arizona            Report 1

 

Committee/Report Name: The Arizona Supreme Court Commission On Minorities was established by the Supreme Court of Arizona on June 20, 1990. It became inactive in September 1993 with former chair Paul Bender’s resignation, but was reactivated in May 1994. This Progress Report was published May 15, 1996.

 

Number of Members: 21 task force members

 

Number of Subcommittees: 4 work group subcommittees consisting only of committee members

a. Diversity in the Judiciary

b. Work Force Diversity

c. Juvenile Treatment Services

d. Linking Public and Private Initiatives

 

Chair/Co-Chairs:  Chair: Gerald Richard II, Community Services Division Director, Phoenix Police Department.

 

Methods Used:

1.   The Commission meets bi-monthly and has held seven noticed meetings in both Phoenix and Tucson. The work groups have met more frequently, as often as monthly, depending on their agenda assignments.

2.   Workshops of interested entities were held at the Arizona Supreme Court building on November 16 and December 15, 1995, under the joint auspices of the MYIC and Linking Initiatives Work Group.

3.   A questionnaire was sent to all AOC contractors and a representative sample of referred juveniles.

4.   The Commission examined other states' commissions and committees with purposes similar to ours and researched articles and publications supplied by the National Center for State Courts on these issues.

5.   The Commission presented a panel at the Arizona Statewide Minority Bar Convention: Opportunities For Minorities On The Bench.

 

Topics and Recommendations

 

Juries

 

Findings

 

1.   The Commission should continue to support implementation of the jury reform recommendations reported in Jurors: The Power of Twelve, report of the Arizona Supreme Court, Committee on More Effective Use of Juries, October 1994.

 

Education

 

Findings

 

1.   Many judges feel that they are too sophisticated to need diversity/cultural competency training. Efforts to promote cultural competency through training will not succeed without the support and leadership of the judges.

 

Recommendations

 

1.   Require College of Judicial Education and Training (COJET) participants to take at least 2 hours per year in cultural competency related subjects, and offer such courses in each of the core areas of the COJET curriculum.

 

Court Staff

 

Findings

 

1.   The AOC does not have a position, equivalent to an equal opportunity officer, whose primary responsibility is to address diversity issues.

 

Recommendations

 

1.   Revise budget priorities to establish a full-time diversity manager position in the Administrative Office of the Courts to develop and manage a permanent, comprehensive diversity program that includes a plan for delivery of cultural competency training to all levels of court personnel throughout the state.

2.   Use existing staff to develop and coordinate training programs in the area of cultural diversity for both judicial and non-judicial personnel. The staff in charge of this program would be responsible for developing training courses, and to provide training and support for courts statewide that wish to develop their own programs.

 

Public

 

Findings

 

1.   We must educate the present work force in the issues and dynamics of diversity. Recruitment efforts alone will not be enough to attract and retain minority workers in the current environment.

 

Recommendations

 

1.   The Commission should conduct community forums to educate minority communities regarding juvenile justice issues in Arizona.

 

Court as employer/appointer

           

Hiring/Promotion

 

Recommendations

 

1.   Have the Administrative Office of the Courts continue to gather information on employee ethnicity and disabilities on a routine basis, in order to create a database for future work force diversity evaluation.

2.   Adopt the Statement of Goals For the Retention of Minorities and Women promoted by the State Bar of Arizona, or a similar statement.

 

Appointer

 

Findings

 

1.   The Commissions on Appellate and Trial Court Appointments distribute to their members policy documents entitled "Commissioner Duties" and "Screening and Investigation" which sensitize the members to diversity issues.

 

Recommendations

 

1.   The Commission recommends that all minority bar associations continue to educate their members regarding the rules, application and practical processes which affect the application by lawyers to the Commissions on Appellate and Trial Court Appointments.

2.   Regarding persons selected to serve as judicial officers in courts which are not affected by the Superior and Appellate Court Judicial Appointment Commissions, such as municipal court magistrates, administrative law judges, and court commissioners, the appointing or designating authorities throughout the state should be requested to apply the same values relating to diversity as those observed by the Superior and Appellate Court Judicial Appointment Commissions.

 

Judicial Selection

 

Findings

 

1.   The current Application for Nomination to Judicial Office was specifically amended in April, 1993, to reflect sensitivity to minority issues.

2.   Notwithstanding the foregoing, Arizona is, at the present time, only one of six states which does not have any women, Hispanics or blacks sitting on its court of last resort.

3.   The recent statistics regarding judicial appointments in the Superior Court of Maricopa and Pima Counties reflect substantial emphasis on the appointment of women and minorities to the bench.

4.   The Commissions on Appointments distribute notices of vacancies on the bench to organizations which are likely to recruit minority applicants.

5.   In 1974, Arizona’s citizen voters made sweeping constitutional reforms in the method of selecting appellate judges statewide and superior court judges in Maricopa and Pima Counties. Instead of direct election, these judges have been, for the last twenty years, selected through a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation process, which includes citizen involvement in the screening process, sensitivity to political diversity and final appointment by the governor of the state.  In 1992, the voters again, by Constitutional amendment, substantially modified the process of selecting the state's appellate and superior court judges in Maricopa and Pima Counties. These changes included the mandate that the composition of both the screening panels and the selection of final candidates for gubernatorial appointment "reflect the diversity of the county's population." In 1996, the legislature vigorously debated a series of bills which, if adopted, would have essentially reverted the process of the selection of judges (appellate and superior court in the two largest counties) to its pre-1974 status. During the legislative debate there was little evidence that the process has not been effective or that there was a need to radically reform the judicial selection or retention processes.

Recommendations

1.   The Commission recommends that the Legislature maintain the current Constitutional process for the selection and retention of judges. The proposal to abolish the Judicial Nominating Commissions and allow the Governor to appoint judges with Senate approval will negatively impact the quality of the judges appointed and the opportunity to increase the diversity in the bench.

2. Because the Commission recognizes that diversity on the bench promotes a strong and independent judiciary, the Commission should continue to research the subject of diversity in the judiciary in order to seek innovative methods to encourage and promote opportunities for diversity on the bench.
3. The Commission should continue to encourage the legal and judicial communities to: be sensitive to issues which affect diversity in the judiciary; encourage members of the minority legal communities to participate in bar and civic activities, serve on and seek leadership positions in the bar and community civic committees; and apply for judicial positions and run for the office of judge.

 

 

Juvenile Justice

 

Findings

 

1.   Multi-ethnic youth were referred to the system at higher rates than their representation in the population, and were less likely to complete various probation programs. Further, multi-ethnic youth now comprise 42% of the youth population in the state.

 

2.   While multi-ethnic youth are disproportionately represented in referral rates, they are also less likely to either enter or successfully complete counseling/treatment. It would appear there are several possible factors affecting this situation including lack of financial resources, lack of acceptance by treating agencies, and the lack of culturally sensitive programs.

 

3.   Based upon reports from participating therapists/contractors who spoke only on condition of anonymity, agencies are more hesitant to accept multi-cultural clients than white clients, particularly for residential care. The providers stated multi-cultural youth are usually the most difficult and resistant clients to treat. They stated they had liability concerns about treating such clients and a couple said they would prefer not to treat multi-cultural clients due to these difficulties.

 

4.   Minimal communication and cooperation exists among the manifold levels of bureaucracy, both governmental and private, related to the delivery of youth treatment services.

 

5.   While there are contractual clauses for the delivery of appropriate multi-cultural treatment services by contractors, there are no mechanisms to insure such treatment. It is further understood that governmental organizations involved with youth adjudication and disposition do not have any specific requirements to be trained in cultural diversity or competency.

 

6.   There is a lack of apparent public awareness, understanding or concern regarding multi-ethnic issues generally and multi-ethnic juvenile treatment specifically.

Recommendations

 

1.   Develop curricula for and implement ongoing statewide diversity training for the executive, administrative and direct service staff of contract providers; the judicial, administrative and probation service staff of the juvenile court and the Administrative Office of the Courts Juvenile Justice Services Division staff; and the executive, administrative and direct service staff of the Department of Juvenile Corrections.

2.   Establish a task force composed of court officials, the Department of Juvenile Corrections, law enforcement, contracted service providers, clients, and interested community members to develop culturally appropriate treatment strategies for involved multi-cultural youth, and assist in recruitment of bi-lingual, multi-cultural individuals for direct care positions within provider agencies.

3.   Require contracted providers to provide information via annual reporting regarding the ethnic/gender mix of clients as well as staff.

4.   Continue and increase financial and other support for innovative and/or experimental programs addressing multi-cultural needs.

5.   Provide support directly through the Administrative Office of the Court or via contract to recruit qualified multi-ethnic applicants for direct care positions with treatment service providers.

6.   The Court should continue to support the efforts of state and local government agencies and private organizations to reduce the numbers of minority youths in the juvenile justice system and secure confinement facilities, by maintaining a liaison with the activities of the Minority Youth Issues Committee (MYIC), and by linking with similarly directed entities of which it may become aware.

7.   The Juvenile Justice Service Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts should continue to provide technical assistance and financial support to the working groups under MYIC.

8.   The Commission should conduct community forums to educate minority communities regarding juvenile justice issues in Arizona.

9.   The Commission should continue the Linking Initiatives Work Group's efforts with the MYIC to develop a working relationship (link) with the Arizona legislature.

10.  The Commission should review the issue of over-representation of minorities in dependency cases as a natural extension of over-representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system.

 

National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Phone (800)616-6109 Fax (757)564-2022
Questions or Comments - email research@ncsc.dni.us
Copyright © 2004 The National Center for State Courts. All Rights Reserved.