Healthy Families Arizona is a voluntary, home visitation program, aimed at the prevention of child abuse and neglect. This secondary prevention program is targeted to the parents of newborns with risk factors that make them vulnerable to child abuse and neglect, and at risk of parent/child relationship and child development problems. The risk factors that qualify parents for the program include parental history of abuse and neglect; substance abuse; mental health problems; poor coping skills; a lack of social support; unrealistic developmental expectations of infants and toddlers, difficulty with bonding and attachment; attitudes favorable toward harsh discipline; anger management issues; and a lack of resources to meet basic needs. Modeled on the Healthy Families America program, Healthy Families began in Arizona in 1991 with two sites. Administered by the Arizona Department of Economic Security, Healthy Families Arizona has realized considerable growth over the years, and is now available to families statewide. As with any considerable investment in cost and effort, the question of return is central to ongoing support of the Healthy Families Arizona program. Does the Healthy Families Arizona program (a) reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect; (b) lead to better health and development for children, and (c) does it enhance parent/child relationships? The longitudinal evaluation of Healthy Families Arizona was designed to answer these questions.

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.

While the number of new schools under for-profit EMO management has slowed, the enrollments in these schools continue to grow at a more rapid pace. This Profiles report shows that generally large for-profit EMOs are managing fewer schools, and that small and medium for-profit EMOs are growing. Later Profiles reports add new variables on school performance as measured by federal or state rating systems.

An Arizona drug control strategy was initially developed in 1987 with extensive input from local, state, and federal officials and agencies. Through the years, the drug control strategy was updated, refined, and expanded to include gang and violent crime. The first multi-year strategy was released in 2000 and continued for three years, followed by a four-year strategy developed in 2004 and a subsequent strategy in 2008. Drug, gang and violent crime continue to be a persistent threat to the public safety and health of Arizonans. Through granting millions of dollars in federal and state funds to address drug, gang and violent crime, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission serves an integral role in responding to the problem. The Arizona Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control (Strategy) is the Commission’s primary decision-making tool for the allocation of funds and to guide project activity for the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program.

In 1986, the Arizona State Legislature created the Crime Victim Compensation and Assistance Fund and directed the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to administer the fund. The Commission created two programs for distributing the fund monies: 1) the Crime Victim Compensation Program; and 2) the Crime Victim Assistance Program. ACJC staff provides grant monitoring, reporting, and program oversight and conducts financial and program reviews of agencies that receive crime victim funding. This report describes the activity for both these programs.

Education decisions are among the most important choices people ever make. So we were surprised and disappointed to see an article so loosely reasoned and reckless in its conclusions as “Five Reasons to Skip College” published in Blank Slate at Forbes.com on April 18, 2006. The article never provides a numerical assessment of the costs and benefits of going to college, uses statistics inappropriately and in a way that biases the conclusions against college, contains conceptual errors on how to evaluate the return on a college education, and greatly exaggerates the only substantive criticism of typical evaluations of the financial worth of a college degree.