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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead agency responsible for recovery of the Mexican wolf, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program essentially is separated into two, interrelated components: 1) Recovery – includes aspects of the program administered primarily by the Service that pertain to the overall goal of Mexican wolf recovery and delisting from the list of threatened and endangered species, and 2) Reintroduction – includes aspects of the program implemented by the Service and cooperating States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies that pertain to management of the reintroduced Mexican wolf population in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which consists of the entire Apache and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. This report details all aspects of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency responsible for recovery of the Mexican wolf, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program essentially is separated into two, interrelated components: 1) Recovery – includes aspects of the program administered primarily by the Service that pertain to the overall goal of Mexican wolf recovery and delisting from the list of threatened and endangered species, and 2) Reintroduction – includes aspects of the program implemented by the Service and cooperating States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies that pertain to management of the reintroduced Mexican wolf population in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which consists of the entire Apache and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. This report details all aspects of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.

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.

Whether reintroduction and recovery should be allowed, and if so where and how, were hotly debated through the 1990s, when reintroduction was formally proposed. They still are. Regardless, the proposal process ended with a nonessential experimental population rule (hereafter Final Rule) approved on January 12, 1998. In keeping with the stated experimental nature of the reintroduction effort, and respectful of the doubts expressed by many, the Final Rule required full evaluations after 3 and 5 years to recommend continuation, modification, or termination of the Reintroduction Project. The 3-Year Review, conducted in 2001, concluded that reintroduction should continue, albeit with important modifications. However, as we discuss elsewhere in this report, for many reasons the 3-Year Review recommendations were not implemented, at least not to the extent that interested parties and stakeholders expected or desired. Regardless of cause, the apparent lack of closure was a significant agency and public concern when the time came for the next review.

By agreement among the primary cooperating agencies, responsibility for the Reintroduction Project’s 5-Year Review fell to the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) that oversees the Project on behalf of six Lead Agencies and various formal and informal Cooperator agencies. AMOC and the Project's Interagency Field Team conducted the 5-Year Review to comply with the Final Rule, but above and beyond that the intent was to identify and implement improvements in the Project. The Review consists of several primary components: Administrative, Technical, Socioeconomic, and Recommendations. Each is detailed in this report. Review and adaptive management of the Reintroduction Project will not stop with this review. Project cooperators will continue to seek internal and public input regarding Mexican wolf reintroduction to help achieve recovery goals and objectives.

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.