This report addresses (1) expenditures for the recruitment, retention, training, licensing, and tracking of homes maintained by foster parents; (2) an assessment of whether the Department’s contract process of home recruitment, study, and supervision is the most appropriate means to provide these services; and (3) best performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of these services. Although contracting appears to be an appropriate method for obtaining foster home recruitment-related services, the Department should improve how it contracts for these services.

The CAPER report represents a collaborative effort between the Arizona Department of Housing and the Arizona Department of Economic Security. This document outlines the State’s affordable housing and community development resources, their methods of distribution, geographic funding objectives, and actions by the State to meet those objectives during the past fiscal year.

In fiscal year 2013, the Department paid at least $14.6 million for transportation services for child protective services clients. However, the Department does not use performance measurement to manage and evaluate these services, including overseeing contracted transportation providers. The Department should develop and implement a performance measurement system to evaluate these services and ensure that this system provides the necessary data to evaluate the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of contracting for these services. In addition, although the Department has implemented some procedures to help ensure proper payments to transportation providers for these services, additional steps would help address internal control deficiencies.

The best setting for abused or neglected children who are removed from their homes is a family-based setting, such as with a relative or in licensed foster care. Because it is not family-based, congregate care, such as emergency shelters, group homes, and residential treatment centers, is the least preferred placement option. However, the number of Arizona children and the length of time they are in congregate care has increased and as a result, the costs for this placement type nearly doubled between fiscal years 2009 and 2013. Contributing to the increase in congregate care use is an inadequate supply of foster care homes; various state practices, including some related to permanency goals and activities; and inadequate access to behavioral health services. Although the Arizona Department of Child Safety has taken some steps to reduce the use of congregate care, it should consider other states’ experiences to identify multiple strategies for reducing its use.

The Division of Children, Youth and Families is the state administered child welfare services agency responsible for developing the Child and Family Services Plan and administering the title IV-B programs under the plan. The Division provides child protective services; services within the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program; family support, preservation, and reunification services; family foster care and kinship care services; services to promote the safety, permanence, and well-being of children with foster and adoptive families; adoption promotion and support services; and health care services for children in out-of-home care.

Housing plays a major role in the United States and Arizona economies. It is estimated that the housing industry accounts for one-fifth of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product. Despite the economic importance of housing, Arizona did not have a comprehensive approach or strategy for dealing with housing policy issues. In 1994, a Housing Summit addressed increasing concerns about the cost of housing. Participants from across the state met to discuss growing housing needs. A major outcome of the summit was the formation of the Affordable Housing Task Force, designed to review the state’s housing market and suggest ways the state could address housing affordability. Its principal recommendation was the creation of a permanent body that would focus attention on workable housing solutions. The Arizona Housing Commission was created by Executive Order in 1996 to serve as an advisory body to the Governor, the Legislature and the Arizona Department of Commerce, which is the primary agency currently responsible for housing programs. In 1997, the passage of House Bill 2011 formally established the Commission in statute.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires all government entities receiving federal low-income housing and community development funds to prepare an Annual Action Plan. This is a one-year plan to address the low-income housing and community development needs in the state of Arizona, with a special focus on serving the small cities and rural areas of the state. It consolidates the planning, application, and funding requirements for several programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Community Development Block Grant; HOME Investment Partnerships Program; Emergency Solutions Grant; and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. The federal and state-funded housing and community development projects and programs described within the Action Plan are administered and implemented by ADOH, the Arizona Department of Economic Security, units of local or regional government, or non-profit agencies.

The quality of jobs in the United States became a national concern in the 1980s after a long period of losses of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs and gains of frequently low-paying service jobs. National job quality remains a concern today, as witnessed by the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign. The overall average wage is a measure of prosperity or well-being, but is not in itself a measure of job quality since job quality is just one of several factors — including cost of living, productivity, and desirability of an area — that affect the overall average wage. Little information on these factors is available by state. Adjusting for job quality reduces the state-by-state variation in wages. However, even after adjusting for job quality, the average wage still varies substantially by state.

The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the three years, causing the U.S. average wage to be 2.5 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Arizona’s job quality fell between 2001 and 2004 at a pace worse than the national average. Relative to the national average, the industrial and occupational job mixes each slipped a bit more than 0.3 percent during the three years, for an overall decline of 0.7 percent. In Arizona, job quality in 2004 was 2.0 percent below the national average, but Arizona ranked 23rd among all states.