This inventory includes emissions of coarse particulate matter <10 µm in diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and ammonia. Emissions are calculated for both Maricopa County and the PM10 nonattaiment area. Annual totals as well as typical daily emissions are provided for all source categories.

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 2011, Chino Valley Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer district and state averages, and its operational efficiencies were mixed with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s per-pupil administrative costs were slightly higher than peer districts’ because the District employed more administrative positions per pupil. The District’s plant operations, food service, and transportation programs operated reasonably efficiently, with cost measures such as cost per square foot, cost per meal, and cost per mile that were similar to or lower than peer districts’ averages. However, the District needs to improve controls over access to critical information systems and strengthen controls over its fuel purchase cards.

In fiscal year 2011, Patagonia ESD’s student AIMS scores in math and reading were lower than peer districts’ averages, and its writing scores were higher. Patagonia UHSD’s scores were higher in all three subject areas than peer districts’, on average. Because the two districts operate essentially as one district, auditors considered their operations combined when determining operational efficiency. The districts saved money by operating together but could do more to further reduce costs. The combined District’s cost-efficiency in noninstructional areas was mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’, on average. However, the District needs to strengthen controls over multiple operational areas, including payroll and accounts payable processing and computer system access and security. The District also needs to improve bus preventative maintenance, ensure bus driver certification requirements are met, and better control fuel inventory.

In fiscal year 2011, Double Adobe Elementary School District’s student AIMS scores for math and reading were lower than the peer districts’ averages and no writing scores were reported. These scores do not include 5th and 6th grade students’ scores, which were invalidated because a teacher violated test security requirements. The District operated relatively efficiently overall. Double Adobe ESD’s administration, plant operations, and transportation program operated with lower per pupil costs and other costs, such as cost per square foot and cost per mile, than peer district averages. The District did not have any food-service related costs because it has not operated a food service program for at least the past 30 years. Although relatively efficient, the District needs to strengthen its accounting and computer controls as well as controls over its fuel inventory. Further, the District misreported its transportation route mileage and was overfunded by a combined $263,705 for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

In fiscal year 2011, Pearce Elementary School District’s student AIMS scores were similar to peer districts’ averages. Although per pupil costs were high in some operational areas, the District was reasonably efficient overall. Pearce ESD’s per pupil administration costs were similar to the peer districts’ average, and although its plant operations, food service, and transportation program operated with higher per pupil costs than peer districts, these areas operated in a reasonably efficient manner considering factors such as the age of the District’s buildings, number of meals served, and transportation miles driven. Although relatively efficient, the District should strengthen some of its accounting controls, including ensuring proper separation of duties for its payroll and purchasing processes and ensuring purchases are properly approved before they are made. The District should also strengthen some of its computer controls, such as the requirements for network passwords.

In fiscal year 2011, Kingman Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer district averages, and it operated efficiently with lower costs than peer districts’, on average. The District operated its administration with lower per pupil costs because it employed fewer administrative staff per pupil than peer districts, on average. In addition, the District’s plant operations cost per square foot and food service cost per meal were lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s transportation program cost per pupil was higher than the peer districts’ average, but the program was efficient, with lower per mile costs. However, the District should improve some of its administrative practices. In particular, the District should strengthen controls over its cash handling, culinary arts program, and computer network and systems.

Arizona public school districts' dollars spent in the classroom. In November 2000, voters approved Proposition 301, which increased the State’s sales tax from 5 percent to 5.6 percent to provide additional money for educational programs. The enabling legislation for Proposition 301 requires the Auditor General to “. . . monitor school districts to determine the percentage of every dollar spent in the classroom by a school district.” This report presents our analysis of the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom for the most recently completed school year.

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.