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.

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.

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 best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona," March 2005) presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" (June 2005), is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national
average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).

Available data on the cost of living indicate that living costs in Arizona are close to the national average — thus, the state’s lower-than-average wages are not offset by low living costs. No productivity data exist for Arizona. Worker productivity in Arizona could be below the national average due to lesser investments in physical or human capital, which would result in lower wages. Labor market supply and demand factors are a likely cause of the low wages in Arizona. A substantial number of people seem willing to move to Arizona and accept a substandard wage in exchange for perceived qualitative advantages to living in Arizona, primarily climate.

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.

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.

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.