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.

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.

A landmark assessment of infrastructure needs in Arizona was produced by the L. William Seidman Research Institute in May 2008 for the Arizona Investment Council (AIC): "Infrastructure Needs and Funding Alternatives for Arizona: 2008-2032", that addressed infrastructure needs in four categories: energy, telecommunications, transportation, and water and wastewater. The information from the AIC report is a major input to the report that follows. Other types of infrastructure — most notably education, health care, and public safety — also are analyzed here to provide a more complete picture of infrastructure needs in Arizona. The goals of this report are to place Arizona’s infrastructure needs into national and historical contexts, to identify the changing conditions in infrastructure provision that make building Arizona’s infrastructure in the future a more problematic proposition than in the past, and to provide projections of the possible costs of providing infrastructure in Arizona over the next quarter century.

Though the Great Recession may be officially over, all is not well in Arizona. Three years after the collapse of a massive real estate “bubble,” the deepest economic downturn in memory exposed and exacerbated one of the nation’s most profound state fiscal crises, with disturbing implications for Arizona citizens and the state’s long-term economic health.

This brief takes a careful look at the Grand Canyon State’s fiscal situation, examining both Arizona’s serious cyclical budget shortfall—the one resulting from a temporary collapse of revenue due to the recession—as well as the chronic, longer-term, and massive structural imbalances that have developed largely due to policy choices made in better times. This primer employs a unique methodology to estimate the size of the state’s structural deficit and then explores the mix of forces, including the large permanent tax reductions, that created them. It also highlights some of the dramatic impacts these fiscal challenges are having on service-delivery as well as on local governments. The brief suggests some of the steps state policymakers must take to close their budget gaps over the short and longer term. First, it urges better policymaking, and prods leaders to broaden, balance, and diversify the state’s revenue base while looking to assure a long-haul balance of taxing and spending. And second, it recommends that Arizona improve the information-sharing and budgeting processes through which fiscal problems are understood—so they may ultimately be averted.

In February of 1998, the Pima County Board of Supervisors launched what has evolved into the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) -- a comprehensive effort to protect the Sonoran Desert, guide growth and rationalize land development in the metropolitan Tucson region. Proponents of this planning process maintained that the project would reconcile conflicts between human activities and conservation, providing benefits for both wildlife and economic development. Critics, however, have increasingly alleged that implementing such an initiative will adversely affect land and housing markets, increase taxes and create problems of housing affordability. Over time a pressing need has consequently grown for objective information about the possible fiscal and economic impacts of the conservation programs being assembled by Pima County. This report addresses that need. It is a tool in the form of an impartial framework for assessment that government officials, environmentalists, business people and the general public can use for debate and decision-making.

A series of 51 individual “stakeholder” interviews and two focus groups conducted with members of the Pima County business community in fall, 2001, documented significantly divided opinion about the likely economic impacts of the county’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). The results of the stakeholder inquiries were striking. Only one major finding reflected consensus, while several others revealed sharp differences of opinion in the business community about the potential economic impacts of the SDCP and associated initiatives.

What do we mean by "shoes waiting to drop?" We mean the trends that are already well under way — but that we can't quite see yet. These trends could overwhelm us if we don't spot them now and aggressively use our knowledge to plot our course for the future. The five "shoes" highlighted in the report are: A Talent Shake Up; Latino Education Dilemma; A Fuzzy Economic Identity; Lost Stewardship; and The Revenue Sieve.