Department of Economic Security—Division of Children, Youth and Families—Child Protective Services—Child and Family Advocacy Centers

Child and family advocacy centers are non-profit organizations and municipal programs established and operated by local communities where multi-disciplinary teams work collaboratively to investigate, manage, and prosecute cases of child abuse, domestic violence, and/or sexual assault/abuse. As of May 2008, there were 18 child and family advocacy centers located in Arizona. This document answers questions about Arizona’s child and family advocacy centers’ structure and location, funding, number of victims assisted, differences from traditional approaches to investigating assault and abuse cases, Child Protective Services’ participation, and monitoring of the centers.

Questions and Answers

View other Department Economic Security Reports

Arizona's Universities—Information Technology Security

Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University need to improve Web-based application security to ensure that sensitive information and systems are protected, and continue their efforts to develop comprehensive security programs that are in line with IT standards and best practices.

Executive Summary

Full Report (929k)

Report Highlights (162k)

University Responses (687k)

View other Multi-University and System-Wide Reports

Arizona's Universities—Capital Project Financing

Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University generally follow good practices for issuing and managing debt, and they also follow best practices for reducing the risks associated with third-party financing. In addition, limited funding has resulted in the universities’ using some debt to address building renewal needs.

Executive Summary

Full Report (1,354k)

Report Highlights (196k)

University Responses (230k)

View other Multi-University and System-Wide Reports

Somerton Elementary School District

Somerton ESD’s administrative and plant operations and maintenance costs were much higher than comparable districts’.  It also had high student transportation costs.  As a result, the District spent only 50 percent of each dollar in the classroom—8 points below the state average of 58.3 percent.  Although the District spent its Proposition 301 monies in accordance with statute, most of the performance pay was awarded based on activities that employees were already expected to perform.  The District did not identify and separately account for its ELL-related costs in fiscal year 2007 and will need to substantially change its ELL program to meet new statutory requirements. 

Executive Summary

Full Report (1,250k)

Report Highlights (380k)

District Responses (580k)

View other Somerton Elementary School District Reports

7-01-08:
DES—DCYF—CPS—Child and Family Advocacy Centers Questions and Answers Document

6-30-08:
Avondale ESD 18 Month Followup

Oracle ESD Marginal Compliance Letter

Uniform Accounting Manual for AZ Counties Update

6-26-08:
Job Positions Added for Performance Auditor I and Research Librarian

6-25-08:
Dine College, Navajo Nation—Arizona Funding Compact Audit for June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2007

Mohave County CCD 6-30-07 Expenditure Limitation Report and Single Audit Reporting Package

6-20-08:
Arizona's Universities—Information Technology Security Performance Audit

6-18-08:
AZ State Land Department 6 Month Followup

Charter School FY 2009  Annual Budget Forms and USFRCS Memo 75

School District FY 2009 Annual Expenditure Budget Forms and USFR Memo 234

6-13-08:
Dept of Corrections—ACI June 30, 2006 Financial Audit and Highlights

Gila County 6-30-05 Expenditure Limitation Report and Single Audit Reporting Package

6-05-08:
AZ Department of Education—Accountability Programs 24 Month Followup

AZ Dept of Transportation—Oversight and Management of the Maricopa County Regional Freeway System 36 Month Followup

More>>>