A REPORT
TO THE

ARIZONA LEGISLATURE

Performance Audit Division
Special Report

Arizona Department
of Child Safety
Compared to National Averages, Arizona’s Number of Child Abuse
or Neglect Reports Has Been Similar or Higher and Its
Substantiation Rate Lower, and the Office of Child Welfare
Investigations Is Unique Among States

March • 2015
Report No. 15-101

Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General

The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five
representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political
subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of school districts, state agencies, and
the programs they administer.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Judy Burges, Chair

Representative John Allen, Vice Chair

Senator Nancy Barto
Senator Lupe Contreras
Senator David Farnsworth
Senator Lynne Pancrazi
Senator Andy Biggs (ex officio)

Representative Gina Cobb
Representative Debbie McCune Davis
Representative Rebecca Rios
Representative Kelly Townsend
Representative David Gowan (ex officio)

Audit Staff
Dale Chapman, Director
Marc Owen, Manager and Contact Person
Jeremy Weber, Manager
Deanna Ahmad
Amy Kristensen

The Auditor General’s reports are available at:

www.azauditor.gov
Printed copies of our reports may be requested by contacting us at:

Office of the Auditor General

2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 • Phoenix, AZ 85018 • (602) 553-0333

March 13, 2015

Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Doug Ducey, Governor
Mr. Gregory McKay, Director
Arizona Department of Child Safety
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Special Report of the Arizona
Department of Child Safety—Child Abuse or Neglect Reports, Substantiation Rate, and Office
of Child Welfare Investigations. This report is in response to Laws 2014, Ch. 11, §24, and was
conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes §411279.03. I am also transmitting within this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit
to provide a quick summary for your convenience.
As outlined in its response, the Arizona Department of Child Safety agrees with all of the
findings and plans to implement all of the recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
Sincerely,

Debbie Davenport
Auditor General

Attachment

2910 NORTH 44 th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA

85018 • (602) 553 -0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051

Arizona Department of Child
Safety—Child Abuse or Neglect
Reports, Substantiation Rate, and
Office of Child Welfare Investigations

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
SPECIAL REPORT

Our Conclusion
This report is in response to
2014 legislation that asked the
Office of the Auditor General
to report on the number of
child abuse or neglect reports
and the rate of substantiated
child abuse or neglect cases
in Arizona compared to other
states, as well as the number
of states with an office similar to Arizona’s Office of Child
Welfare Investigations (OCWI).
We found that the number of
child abuse or neglect reports
in Arizona has been similar
to or exceeded the national
average and although Arizona’s substantiation rate
has been increasing, it was
below the national average.
Finally, based on information provided by investigative
agencies from 25 states,
Texas is the only state we
identified with a unit similar
to Arizona’s OCWI that investigates criminal allegations
of child abuse or neglect.
The other states’ investigative agencies indicated that
child abuse investigations
involve two parties—child
safety caseworkers and law
enforcement—but not a third
investigative unit.

2015
March • Report No. 15-101

Arizona’s number of child abuse or neglect reports has
been similar to or exceeded the national average, while its
substantiation rate was below the national average
Child abuse or neglect reports and investigations—The Arizona Department of Child
Safety (Department) receives and investigates allegations of child abuse or neglect. It
receives these allegations through its Child Abuse Hotline, where calls are screened
to determine if the allegation(s) constitutes a report for investigation. Reports Criminal conduct—Conduct by a parent,
involving criminal conduct are jointly guardian, custodian, or adult member of
investigated by a department caseworker, a child’s household that, if true, would
law enforcement, and an OCWI investiga- constitute child abuse, domestic
tor in Maricopa and Pima Counties. OCWI violence, sexual abuse or assault, or any
investigators have different functions other felony abuse.
than department caseworkers, including
Substantiation—Refers to the process of
different response times and documentadetermining whether there are facts to
tion responsibilities. For fiscal year 2015,
support a conclusion that abuse or
the Legislature expanded OCWI from 28
neglect occurred.
to 127 full-time staff, with 65 positions
filled as of February 2015.
Arizona’s number of child abuse or neglect reports has increased and has been
similar to or exceeded the national average—The Department has received an
increasing number of child abuse or neglect reports annually, ranging between 33,000
and 44,000 reports in federal fiscal years 2008 and 2013. Although the number of
Arizona reports compared similarly to the national average in federal fiscal years 2008
through 2010, the number of reports exceeded the national average in federal fiscal
years 2011 through 2013. According to the Department, 2009 legislative changes that
expanded the definitions of abuse and neglect and changes to the Department’s Child
Abuse Hotline screening tool may have contributed to the increased number of reports.
Arizona’s substantiation rate was below the national average, but has been
increasing—Arizona’s annual rate of substantiation grew from 3.2 to 9.2 cases of child
abuse or neglect per 1,000 children between federal fiscal years 2008 to 2013. This was
a lower rate than the national average, which ranged from 10.9 to 11.6 substantiated
cases per 1,000 children for the same time period (see figure on next page). Legislative
changes expanding the definitions of abuse and neglect and requiring substantiation
when a child became a legal dependent of the Department likely contributed to the
increase in Arizona’s substantiation rate.

Arizona’s investigative approach for criminal child abuse
and neglect allegations largely unique among states
surveyed
Texas investigative unit similar to OCWI—Based on the information provided by
child welfare investigative agencies in 25 states, we found that Texas was the only
state with an investigative unit similar to Arizona’s OCWI. The Texas Department of

Family and Protective Services
(Texas Department) employs Number of substantiated Arizona cases of child abuse or
special investigators (SI) with a neglect per 1,000 children compared to the national average
law enforcement background Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013
to assist Texas department 14
caseworkers, focus on forensic
11.6
aspects of an investigation, and 12
11.5
11.5
11.3
11.1
10.9
coordinate with law enforcement.
These responsibilities are similar 10
9.2
to those of an OCWI investiga7.9
tor. However, Texas law does 8
7.1
not require an SI’s involvement
in an investigation, and an SI 6
5.1
only becomes involved in an
3.6
3.2
investigation at the request of 4
a Texas caseworker. Conversely,
2
Arizona law requires an OCWI
investigator’s involvement in an 0
investigation involving criminal
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
conduct. In addition, a Texas
Arizona
National Average
caseworker, not an SI, makes
the final decision on whether to
remove a child from the home, whereas an OCWI investigator makes that decision in Arizona.
Texas reported no redundancy, but took steps to improve collaboration—The Texas Department
indicated that having two staff involved in an investigation—the caseworker and the SI—is not redundant, but
helps to ensure appropriate decision making. To address initial collaboration issues, the Texas Department
housed its SIs and caseworkers at the same location to help reinforce the goal of child protection, SI staff
reported that they conducted brief outreach presentations with caseworkers explaining their role, and SIs and
caseworkers are jointly trained.
Arizona redundancy issues largely addressed, but Department should continue to improve collaboration—Although there were some initial redundancy concerns in the work performed by OCWI investigators
and department caseworkers, these have largely been resolved. However, the Department should continue
to take various actions to improve collaboration. For example, the Department has three co-location units
that may house caseworkers, OCWI investigators, law enforcement, and/or other professionals and should
continue this effort as OCWI expands. The Department should also work with the Maricopa and Pima County
Attorneys to update county investigative protocols to reflect OCWI’s role. These protocols should foster better
coordination between local law enforcement and OCWI staff. Finally, the Department should conduct additional training regarding the roles of the department caseworker and the OCWI investigator.
Recommendations
The Department should:

• Continue its efforts to co-locate OCWI staff, caseworkers, and other staff;
• Work with the Maricopa and Pima County Attorneys to update investigation protocols; and
• Enhance its training related to criminal conduct investigations.

Arizona Department of Child
Safety—Child Abuse or Neglect
Reports, Substantiation Rate, and
Office of Child Welfare Investigations

A copy of the full report is available at:
www.azauditor.gov

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

Contact person:

March 2015 • Report No. 15-101

Marc Owen (602) 553-0333

SPECIAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction

1

Chapter 1: Arizona’s number of child abuse or neglect reports has
been similar to or exceeded the national average, while its
substantiation rate was below the national average

5

Arizona’s increasing number of child abuse or neglect reports was similar to or
exceeded the national average

5

Arizona’s rate of substantiation was below the national average, but has been
increasing

7

Substantiation rates vary among states and several factors may contribute to this
variation

8

Legislative changes likely contributed to the increase in Arizona’s substantiation rate

Chapter 2: Arizona’s investigative approach for criminal child abuse
and neglect allegations largely unique among states surveyed

10
11

Texas is only responding state with an office similar to OCWI

11

Texas reported no redundancy concerns with investigations, but took steps to improve
collaboration

12

Arizona’s Department should continue to take various actions to foster collaboration as
OCWI expands

13

Recommendations

16

Appendix A: Alternative measures of substantiation

a-1

Appendix B: Methodology

b-1

Agency Response

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures
1

Annual number of Arizona child abuse or neglect reports compared to the
national average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013

6

Annual number of Arizona child abuse or neglect reports per 1,000 children
compared to the national average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013

6

Number of substantiated Arizona cases of child abuse or neglect per 1,000
children compared to the national average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013

8

4

Arizona’s substantiation rate per 1,000 children compared to various western states
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013

9

5

Number of Arizona child victims of abuse or neglect per 1,000 children compared
to the national average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013

a-2

Percentage of Arizona reports that were substantiated compared to the national
average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013

a-2

2

3

6

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page ii

INTRODUCTION
Scope and Objectives

As required by Laws 2014,
Ch.11, §24, the Office of the
Auditor General has completed a special report that
addresses:
(1) Arizona’s number of
reports of child abuse or
neglect compared to the average number of reports in other
states (see Chapter 1, pages 5
through 7);
(2) Arizona’s rate of substantiated cases of child abuse or
neglect compared to other
states (see Chapter 1, pages 7
through 10); and
(3) The number of states with a
child safety organization similar to Arizona’s Office of Child
Welfare Investigations (OCWI),
including a description of how
these states avoid redundancies among parties involved
in criminal abuse investigations (see Chapter 2, pages 11
through 16).
This audit was conducted
under the authority vested in
the Auditor General by Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §411279.03.

Investigating reports of child abuse or
neglect
Reporting and investigation process
The Arizona Department of Child Safety (Department) is responsible for
receiving and investigating allegations of child abuse or neglect. As part of this
process, the Department must also determine whether it should substantiate
the allegations it investigates. The Department’s process for receiving,
investigating, and determining the disposition of allegations includes four main
steps. Specifically:

•

Hotline calls received—Allegations of
child abuse or neglect (see textbox)
are reported through a centralized
department telephone line, called the
Child Abuse Hotline. Although anyone
can call the hotline to report suspected
abuse or neglect, state law requires
mandatory reporting by certain
individuals, such as doctors and
teachers.

Abuse—The infliction or allowing
of physical injury, impairment of
bodily function, or disfigurement or
the infliction of or allowing another
person to cause serious emotional
damage, which includes sexual
abuse and unreasonable
confinement.
Neglect—The inability or
unwillingness of a parent, guardian,
or custodian of a child to provide
that child with supervision, food,
clothing, shelter or medical care if
that inability causes unreasonable
risk of harm to the child’s health or
welfare. Neglect includes prenatal
drug exposure as well as exposure
to sexual conduct.

•

Calls screened—Department staff
screen hotline calls to determine
whether or not the allegation(s)
constitutes a report for investigation.
According to department policy, calls
are categorized as reports for
investigation if they allege that (1) a
Source: A.R.S. §8-201
victim under the age of 18 has been
physically, emotionally, or sexually
abused, neglected, abandoned, or exploited by a parent, guardian,
custodian, or adult member of the victim’s household who has or may
have inflicted, permitted another person to inflict, or had reason to know
another person may inflict abuse or neglect on the child, and (2) the victim
is a resident of or present in Arizona or the alleged abuse or neglect
occurred in Arizona. Allegations of abuse or neglect by someone other
than the victim’s parent, guardian, custodian or adult member of the
victim’s household without the knowledge of the child’s parent, guardian,
or custodian are referred to law enforcement.

•

Reports assigned for investigation—Department hotline staff assign a
priority level and response time to each report that requires investigation.
Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 1

Standard response times range from 2 hours to 7
days based on the assigned priority. Reports that
involve allegations of criminal conduct (see textbox)
are assigned for joint investigation to a department
caseworker, law enforcement, and, in Maricopa and
Pima Counties, the Department’s OCWI (see below
for more information about this office).

•

Investigative finding determined—Reports of
abuse or neglect may be substantiated when the
Department or the juvenile court finds probable
cause to believe child abuse or neglect occurred
(see textbox) and after the alleged perpetrator has
been afforded his/her due process rights.1,2 Once an
allegation is substantiated, the Department places
information about the perpetrator into a central
registry.3

Definitions:
Criminal conduct—Conduct by a
parent, guardian, custodian, or adult
member of a child’s household that,
if true, would constitute child abuse,
domestic violence, sexual abuse or
assault, or any other felony abuse.
Substantiation—Refers to the
process of determining whether
there are facts to support a
conclusion that abuse or neglect
occurred.
Source:

A.R.S. §8-201(8) and Auditor General
staff summary of information
contained in the Department’s policy
and procedure manual.

Office of Child Welfare Investigations
The OCWI is a special investigative unit within the Department responsible for investigating
allegations of criminal conduct. The OCWI was established in 2012 based on a recommendation
from the Arizona Child Safety Task Force, with the intention of improving investigations of child
abuse or neglect.4 Although the OCWI is part of the Department and works jointly with
department caseworkers on investigations, OCWI investigators differ from department
caseworkers in the following ways:

•

Specific and distinct job functions—The Department’s policy manual outlines the OCWI
investigators’ and department caseworkers’ different responsibilities. For example, the
manual states that OCWI investigators have different investigative response times than
department caseworkers and different documentation responsibilities. In addition, OCWI
investigators have the primary responsibility to decide when to remove a child from his/her
home, while the department caseworker’s role is more consultative on criminal conduct
investigations.

1 Probable cause is established when the information gathered during the investigation would lead a reasonable person to believe that

an incident of abuse or neglect occurred, and that the abuse or neglect was committed by the parent, guardian, or custodian.

2 A.R.S. §8-804(A) requires that a finding made by the juvenile court that a child is dependent based on an allegation of abuse or neglect

be recorded as a substantiated abuse or neglect finding.

3 By state law, the central registry may be used to conduct background checks as one factor to determine the qualifications of persons

applying to become a licensed, certified, or registered child caregiver, such as a foster parent or childcare provider for four or fewer
children, or seeking state employment in a position providing direct services to children or vulnerable adults. The central registry may
also be used to provide state-wide statistical information on the occurrence of child abuse and neglect and for department staff review
of prior reports of abuse and neglect when conducting investigations.

4 The Arizona Child Safety Task Force was established in 2011 by Arizona’s governor, which, according to the Department, was in

response to multiple high-profile child deaths in Arizona. The Task Force included representatives from a variety of disciplines,
including state government, law, medicine, and social work, and was tasked with engaging experts to offer professional advice,
expertise, and testimony in a variety of child welfare areas, including investigations.
Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 2

•

Hiring criteria—In hiring OCWI investigators, the Department looks for candidates who have a
minimum of 3 to 5 years of investigative experience, depending on their education.

•

Training requirements—OCWI staff reported that, although OCWI investigators are required to
complete most of the Department’s new staff training, the OCWI also conducts its own in-house
training for new investigators. This training includes field observations, as well as competency
testing of investigative techniques and joint-investigation policies and procedures.

•

Access to resources—OCWI staff reported that because the OCWI is a certified criminal justice
agency, it has access to Federal Bureau of Investigation databases not accessible to other
department personnel.

OCWI investigators have historically been assigned only to criminal conduct cases in Maricopa and
Pima Counties involving children under the age of 6, which the OCWI reported was due to limited
staff resources. However, the Department reported that the OCWI may periodically conduct
investigations in other counties for high-profile cases or upon request. The OCWI’s initial appropriation
in fiscal year 2013 included funding for 28 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions. For fiscal year
2015, the Legislature appropriated additional monies to expand the OCWI to 127 FTE positions,
which the Department indicated was done in order to investigate criminal conduct allegations in
additional counties across the State. The Department reported that it is hiring new OCWI staff and
had filled 65 FTE positions as of February 2015, but that it has yet to establish OCWI investigative
units outside of Maricopa and Pima Counties. In addition, the OCWI reported that due to a state-wide
hiring freeze, it is not able to hire staff to fill certain positions, but can continue to hire to fill investigator
positions.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 3

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 4

Chapter 1

Although the number of child
abuse or neglect reports
the Arizona Department of
Child Safety (Department)
received has been similar to or
exceeded the national average, Arizona’s substantiation
rate for these reports has been
below the national average.
Specifically, the number of
child abuse or neglect reports
in Arizona has increased in
recent years, ranging from
about 33,000 to 44,000 annual
reports between federal fiscal
years 2008 and 2013, which
was similar to or exceeded the
national average. However,
when accounting for each
state’s child population, Arizona’s report rate was slightly
below the national average,
except for federal fiscal year
2013. Arizona substantiates
cases of abuse or neglect at
a lower rate than the national
average, but the State’s
substantiation rate has nearly
tripled between federal fiscal
years 2008 and 2013. Substantiation rates among states
may vary for several reasons,
including the definitions of
abuse and neglect. Additionally, legislative changes made
in 2009, including expanded
definitions of what constitutes
abuse and neglect, likely contributed to the growth in the
substantiation rate in Arizona.

Arizona’s number of child abuse or neglect
reports has been similar to or exceeded the
national average, while its substantiation
rate was below the national average
Arizona’s increasing number of
child abuse or neglect reports
was similar to or exceeded the
national average

Laws 2014, Ch.11, §24, requires
the Auditor General to report on the
average number of reports of child
abuse or neglect for other states
over the past 5 years compared to
Arizona’s number of reports of
child abuse or neglect over the
same time period.

Although Arizona’s annual number of
reports of child abuse or neglect was similar
to the national average in federal fiscal years 2008 through 2010, the number
of reports exceeded the national average in federal fiscal years 2011 through
2013. Specifically, according to department reports, the Department received
approximately 33,000 to 44,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect
annually between federal fiscal years 2008 and 2013.1,2 According to U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services’ reports, the national average for
this same time period ranged from approximately 35,000 to 40,000 reports
annually (see Figure 1, page 6 ).
The picture changes when the average is adjusted to address population
differences between states. As shown in Figure 2, page 6, when state child
population is included in the measure of annual reports received, Arizona
received fewer annual reports than the national average between federal fiscal
years 2008 and 2012, per 1,000 children. However, in federal fiscal year 2013,
Arizona’s number of reports per 1,000 children slightly exceeded the national
average.
Against either measure—actual number of reported cases, or reports per
1,000 children—the number of reports the Department received has increased
steadily since federal fiscal year 2009. According to the Department, one
reason for the increase in reports may be due to legislative changes in 2009
that expanded the definitions of abuse and neglect (see page 10 for more
detail on these legislative changes). As a result, a larger range of behaviors
and/or situations met the definitions of abuse and neglect, which may have led
to an increase in the number of reports.

1 As of February 2015, national data was only available through federal fiscal year 2013; therefore, the time frame

analyzed in this report represents the most recent period for which nationally comparative data was available.
However, more recent data is available for Arizona. The Department reported receiving 48,032 reports in federal
fiscal year 2014.

2 Auditors extended the reporting time frame to 6 years in order to provide additional comparative information.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 5

Figure 1: Annual number of Arizona child abuse or neglect reports
compared to the national average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0

2008

2009

2010
Arizona

Source:

2011

2012

2013

National average

Auditor General staff analysis of information from the Department’s semi-annual child welfare reports for the periods ended
March 31, 2008 through September 30, 2013, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Maltreatment
reports for federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013.

Figure 2: Annual number of Arizona child abuse or neglect reports per 1,000 children
compared to the national average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2008

2009

2010
Arizona

Source:

2011

2012

2013

National average

Auditor General staff analysis of information from the Department’s semi-annual child welfare reports for the periods ended
March 31, 2008 through September 30, 2013, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Maltreatment
reports for federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013, adjusted for annual state child populations using U.S. Census Bureau
data.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 6

In addition to the legislative changes, changes to the Department’s Child Abuse Hotline screening
tool may have led to an increase in reports. Specifically, according to department hotline management,
the screening tool was changed in July 2010 to reflect a broader understanding of child abuse and
neglect. For example, referrals that contained allegations of domestic violence were more likely to be
screened-in for investigation after the adoption of the new tool, which incorporates the understanding
that domestic violence can lead to child abuse if a child is repeatedly exposed and traumatized by
that behavior. The previous tool would not have screened-in domestic violence referrals unless there
was physical evidence that the child was injured as a result of the domestic violence.

Arizona’s rate of substantiation was below
the national average, but has been
increasing

Laws 2014, Ch.11, §24, requires
the Auditor General to report on the
rate of substantiated cases of child
abuse or neglect for other states
compared to Arizona’s rate of
substantiated cases of child abuse
or neglect, based on the ratio of
the total number of children in each
state to the substantiated cases of
child abuse or neglect.

Arizona has substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect at a
lower rate than the national average, but the State’s rate has
been increasing. According to data from the National Child
Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), Arizona’s rate of
substantiation grew from 3.2 to 9.2 substantiated cases of
child abuse or neglect per 1,000 children in the State between federal fiscal years 2008 and 2013
(see Figure 3, page 8).1,2 Most of this growth occurred between federal fiscal years 2009 and 2011,
during which time Arizona’s substantiation rate nearly doubled from 3.6 to 7.1 per 1,000 children in
the State. Despite this growth and as shown in Figure 3, Arizona’s substantiation rate remained
below the national average for federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013. Specifically, the national
average ranged from 10.9 to 11.6 substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect per 1,000 children
during this time.
Substantiation rates can be measured in different ways. Appendix A (see pages a-1 through a-2),
describes some alternative methods for measuring substantiation and shows Arizona’s rate
compared to the national average using these alternative measurement methods. Across all of these
methods, however, the result is the same—Arizona’s substantiation rate has been lower than the
national average.
Although this information is helpful to illustrate trends over time, there are limitations in the conclusions
that can be drawn by comparing substantiation rates. Specifically, an expert that auditors contacted
cautioned against using substantiation rates as a measure to assess states’ performance as it
relates to child welfare. In addition, literature indicates that substantiation status may not be effective
1 A case refers to a report of abuse or neglect and a single child who was the subject of the report. Using this measure, an individual child

may be counted more than once if the child was the subject of more than one substantiated report of abuse or neglect. Similarly, a report
may also be counted more than once if more than one child was associated with the substantiated report.

2 NCANDS is a federally sponsored, national data collection effort created for the purpose of tracking the volume and nature of child abuse

and neglect reporting. As of February 2015, NCANDS data was only available through federal fiscal year 2013; therefore, the time frame
analyzed in this report represents the most recent period for which nationally comparative data was available. The NCANDS data used in
this report was provided by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell University, and has been used with
permission. The data was originally collected under the auspices of the Children’s Bureau. Funding was provided by the Children’s Bureau,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The collector of the original data, the funder, NDACAN, Cornell University, and the agents or employees of these institutions bear no
responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here. The information and opinions expressed reflect solely the opinions of the
authors.
Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 7

Figure 3: Number of substantiated Arizona cases of child abuse or neglect per
1,000 children compared to the national average1,2
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013
14

12

11.5

11.6

11.1

10.9

11.3

10

9.2
7.9

8

7.1

6

4

11.5

5.1
3.2

3.6

2

0
2008

2009

2010
Arizona

2011

2012

2013

National Average

1 A case of abuse or neglect refers to a report of abuse or neglect and a single child who was the subject of the report. Using

this measure, an individual child may be counted more than once if the child was the subject of more than one substantiated
report of abuse or neglect. Similarly, a report also may be counted more than once if more than one child was associated with
the substantiated report.

2 Not all states reported substantiation data to NCANDS for each federal fiscal year.

Source:

Auditor General staff analysis of NCANDS data for federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013, adjusted for annual state child
populations using U.S. Census Bureau data.

in measuring the presence or prevalence of actual child abuse or neglect, as children associated
with unsubstantiated reports may also be victims of abuse or neglect and have similar
developmental outcomes as children associated with substantiated reports of abuse and
neglect.1

Substantiation rates vary among states and several factors
may contribute to this variation
Although the national average substantiation rate has been fairly stable, substantiation rates
among individual states show marked variation. As shown in Figure 4, page 9, substantiation
1 Hussey, J.M., Marshal, J.M., English, D.J., Knight, E.D.,Lau, A.S., Dubowitz, H., & Kotch, J.B. (2005). Defining maltreatment according

to substantiation: Distinction without a difference? Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 479-492; and Kohl, P.L., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B.
(2009). Time to leave substantiation behind: Findings from a national probability study. Child Maltreatment, 14(1), 17-26.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 8

Figure 4: Arizona’s substantiation rate per 1,000 children compared to various
western states1
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013
18
16
14
New Mexico

12

Utah

10

Nevada
California

8

Arizona

6

Wyoming

4
2

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

1 The substantiation rate represents the number of substantiated cases of child maltreatment per 1,000 children. A case of

abuse or neglect refers to a report of abuse or neglect and a single child who was the subject of the report. Using this
measure, an individual child may be counted more than once if the child was the subject of more than one substantiated
report of abuse or neglect. Similarly, a report also may be counted more than once if more than one child was associated
with the substantiated report.

Source:

Auditor General staff analysis of NCANDS data for federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013, adjusted for annual state child
populations using U.S. Census Bureau data.

rates for various western states ranged from approximately 3 to 16 substantiated cases of child
abuse or neglect per 1,000 children between federal fiscal years 2008 and 2013. Further, although
Arizona’s rate has increased, some states have experienced decreases in their substantiation rate.
For example, Utah’s substantiation rate decreased from approximately 16 to 12 substantiated cases
of abuse or neglect per 1,000 children over that same time period.
The decision to substantiate an allegation of child abuse or neglect can be influenced by several
factors. Although research on substantiation practices is not entirely definitive, literature indicates that
there are several interacting factors that can influence the decision to substantiate a case of abuse
or neglect, such as the reporting source, the type of allegation, and the caseworker’s perception of
risk.1 In addition, an expert that auditors contacted identified that state definitions of abuse and
neglect may contribute to state-to-state variation in substantiation rates. States are guided by federal
definitions of abuse and neglect, but state definitions may vary. Although state definitions consistently
include physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and emotional abuse, some states also include other
1 Dettlaff, A.J., Rivaux, S.L., Baumann, D.J., Fluke, J.D., Rycraft, J.R., & James, J. (2011). Disentangling substantiation: The influence of race,

income, and risk on the substantiation decision in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1630-1637; Petersen, A., Joseph,
J., & Feit, M. (Eds.) (2013). New directions in child abuse and neglect research: Child abuse and neglect policy (pp. 349-380). Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences.; Tonmyr, L., Ouimet, C., & Ugnat, A. (2012). A review of findings from the Canadian Incidence Study of
Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS). Canadian Journal of Public Health, 103(2), 103-112.; and Zuravin, S.J., Orme, J.G., & Hegar, R.L.
(1995). Disposition of child physical abuse reports: Review of the literature and test of a predictive model. Children and Youth Services
Review, 17(4), 547-566.
Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 9

specific types of abuse and/or include situations in which the child is threatened or at risk of
harm.1 For example, Arizona and several other states include exposure of infants to drugs in their
definitions of abuse or neglect.
Another possible explanatory factor in substantiation rate variation among states is the burden
of proof or level of evidence required to substantiate a report of abuse or neglect, but research
on this factor is inconclusive. Some states employ a more rigorous standard for evidence than
others, and having a lower standard would appear to be a reasonable explanation for higher
substantiation rates, and vice versa.2 The Department makes substantiation decisions using a
“probable cause” burden of proof (see Introduction, page 2), which is a relatively low burden of
proof compared to those employed by other states. However, Arizona’s lower-than-average
substantiation rate suggests that additional factors beyond the burden of proof are influencing
the State’s substantiation rate.

Legislative changes likely contributed to the increase in
Arizona’s substantiation rate
Although the exact reasons for the differences between Arizona’s and other states’ rates may be
difficult to discern, legislative changes may have contributed to the recent increase in Arizona’s
substantiation rate. In 2009, Arizona passed legislation that affected the substantiation of reports
of abuse or neglect in two ways.3 First, the legislation expanded the definitions of abuse and
neglect. For example, the definition of neglect was expanded to include prenatal exposure to
certain drugs and substances. Second, the legislation changed substantiation policy around
dependency adjudications.4 Specifically, the legislative change required that when a child
became a legal dependent of the Department, the report of abuse or neglect associated with
the approved petition for dependency was automatically substantiated. Because of the nature
and timing of these changes, they are likely explanatory factors for Arizona’s increased
substantiation rate.

1 Petersen, Joseph, & Feit, 2013
2 Provencher, A., Gupta-Kagan, J., & Hansen, M.E. (2014). The standard of proof at adjudication of abuse or neglect: Its influence on

case outcomes at key junctures. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 17(2), 22-56.

3 Laws 2009, Ch. 126, §§1 and 3
4 A dependency adjudication refers to the court’s processes for considering department requests to award custody of a child to the

State.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 10

Chapter 2
Arizona appears to use a
somewhat unique approach
for investigating allegations
of criminal child abuse and
neglect by having a special
investigative unit—the Office
of Child Welfare Investigations (OCWI)—to work with
child safety caseworkers to
investigate these types of
allegations. Auditors contacted every state, and, of
the 25 states that responded,
only Texas reported having
a child safety organization
similar to Arizona’s OCWI.
Redundancy among child
safety caseworkers, child
safety law enforcement, and
local law enforcement was
not cited as an issue in Texas;
however, Texas staff reported
taking steps to address some
initial collaboration issues.
The Arizona Department of
Child Safety (Department)
staff reported some issues
that may have led to redundancy in work between OCWI
investigators and department
caseworkers when the OCWI
was initially formed, but that
these redundancies have
largely been resolved. The
Department should continue
to take actions to foster collaboration as OCWI expands
throughout the State.

Arizona’s investigative approach for criminal
child abuse and neglect allegations largely
unique among states surveyed
Texas is only responding state
with an office similar to OCWI

Laws 2014, Ch.11, §24, requires
the Auditor General to report on the
number of states with a child safety
organization similar to the Office of
Child Welfare Investigations,
including a description of how
other states with state-level child
safety law enforcement
organizations avoid redundancies
among child safety caseworkers,
child safety law enforcement, and
local law enforcement when
investigating allegations of criminal
abuse.

Based on the information states provided
to auditors, only Texas has a child safety
organization similar to Arizona’s OCWI.
Specifically, auditors contacted child
welfare investigative agencies in every
state to determine how many states have a
special investigative unit that works with
child safety caseworkers and law
enforcement to investigate allegations of
criminal child abuse or neglect. Based on
the information provided by the investigative
agencies from 25 states that responded, only the Texas Department of Family
and Protective Services (Texas Department) has an investigative model similar
to Arizona’s (see the next two paragraphs for additional information about
Texas’ model). Most other agencies provided information indicating that child
abuse investigations involve two parties—child safety caseworkers and law
enforcement—but not a third-party investigative unit.
In 2005, the Texas Legislature established Special Investigator (SI) positions
within the Texas Department. The SIs assist Texas department caseworkers in
child abuse or neglect cases that are high-profile or high-risk in nature or
require joint investigation with law enforcement because of alleged criminal
acts. SIs are similar to OCWI investigators in the following several ways:

•

SIs are Texas department employees and assist Texas department
caseworkers in investigations for specific types of cases.

•

SIs focus on the forensic components of an investigation, as well as
coordinating with law enforcement.

•

The Texas Department hires candidates with law enforcement backgrounds
for the SI position, but Texas department staff reported that SIs do not
carry weapons or have arrest powers while on-duty as an SI.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 11

Although SIs are similar to OCWI investigators, there are some important differences between
them. Notably, an SI’s involvement in an investigation is not mandated by Texas law, and Texas
department staff reported that SIs will become involved in an investigation of severe abuse or
neglect only at the request of Texas caseworkers. In contrast, Arizona law mandates that an
OCWI investigator be involved when the allegation involves criminal conduct. Additionally, Texas
department staff indicated that caseworkers, not SIs, are ultimately responsible for making child
safety decisions, such as whether to remove a child from his/her home. In Arizona, OCWI
investigators are responsible for making the final child safety decisions in cases they investigate
(see Introduction, page 2).

Texas reported no redundancy concerns with investigations, but
took steps to improve collaboration
Texas department staff reported no redundancy issues in its investigations, but the Texas
department took several steps to improve collaboration between SIs and caseworkers. Auditors
interviewed seven Texas department staff, including caseworkers and SI staff, to assess how
Texas avoided redundancies among child safety caseworkers, SIs, and local law enforcement.
Although investigations can involve both SI and caseworker staff, staff reported no negative
redundancies in the investigative work. In fact, they indicated that having two persons jointly
investigate cases generally helps ensure appropriate decision making. However, Texas
department staff indicated that there were some initial collaboration issues between SIs and
caseworkers due to caseworkers’ lack of understanding regarding SIs or why the SI position was
created. These issues resulted in caseworkers not always involving SIs in investigations.
According to Texas department staff, the Texas Department took several actions to address
these collaboration issues. Specifically:

•

Co-location—The Texas Department housed SIs and caseworkers together in the same
physical work space, also known as co-location. Texas department staff reported that
co-location was important in fostering collaboration because face-to-face contact allowed
for both parties to better communicate and get to know each other. In turn, this led to staff
developing good personal relationships and better collaboration. Literature on child abuse
investigations cites co-location as a facilitator to collaboration between multiple entities.1
Specifically, the physical closeness that co-location creates may help individuals understand
that each entity is working toward a common goal.2 Further, co-location can help ease the
logistical challenge of staff jointly responding to a case.3

1 Garcia, A., Puckett, A., Ezell, M., Pecora, P.J., Tanoury, T., & Rodriguez, W. (2014). Three models of collaborative child protection: What

is their influence on short stays in foster care? Child & Family Social Work, 19, 125-135; New South Wales Human Services, Community
Services. (2010, March). Interagency collaboration: Making it work [Research to Practice Note]. Retrieved October 30, 2014, from www.
community.nsw.gov.au; Newman, B.S. & Dannenfelser, P.L. (2005). Children’s protective services and law enforcement: Fostering
partnerships in investigations of child abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(2), 97-111; and Winterfeld, A.P. & Sakagawa, T. (2003).
Investigation models for child abuse and neglect: Collaboration with law enforcement. Englewood, CO: American Humane, Children’s
Services.

2 Newman & Dannenfelser, 2005
3 Newman & Dannenfelser, 2005

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 12

•

Outreach—SI staff also reported that they conducted brief outreach presentations with
caseworkers, and that these presentations played a critical role in fostering collaboration. The
outreach presentations explained the SI role and how SIs could help in an investigation. SI staff
stated that once caseworkers understood how the SIs could help in an investigation, they
became more open to collaborating with SIs on investigations.

•

Joint-training—SIs and caseworkers go through Texas department basic training together and,
in the training, learn about each other’s role. In addition, SI staff reported that SIs offer trainings
to caseworkers and law enforcement on a variety of topics, such as forensic interviewing
techniques. SI staff indicated that these training practices were important in fostering
collaboration between caseworkers, SIs, and local law enforcement. This concept is also
supported by literature, which indicates that training staff from different disciplines on each
other’s roles is important for collaboration.1 Specifically, such training helps staff to understand
other disciplines’ roles and procedures in order to interact effectively with them.2

•

Role definition—Finally, some department regions in Texas developed guidance that clearly
defined the SI responsibilities during an investigation. SI staff reported that this type of guidance
is helpful to ensure better understanding among SIs and caseworkers regarding their individual
roles. SI staff reported that better role-understanding ultimately fostered better collaboration.
Literature indicates that having clear guidance on roles may help foster collaboration in child
welfare investigations because it defines individual responsibilities.3

Arizona’s Department should continue to take various actions to
foster collaboration as OCWI expands
Although some initial concerns regarding redundancies between department caseworkers and
OCWI investigators have largely been resolved, the Department should continue with its efforts to
improve collaboration between these two groups. Specifically, various department staff reported that
negative redundancies existed when OCWI was first created, but that most of these initial concerns
have been addressed. However, there is opportunity for improved collaboration between department
caseworkers, OCWI investigators, and law enforcement that would further address any lingering
concerns regarding negative redundancies or ineffective collaboration. As a result, the Department
should continue its co-location of department staff, including department caseworkers and OCWI
investigators, update protocols for working with local law enforcement, and enhance its investigative
training curriculum.

Initial redundancy concerns have largely been addressed—Although various department staff acknowledged some redundancy concerns when OCWI was initially created, for the
most part, these concerns have been resolved. Auditors interviewed various department staff and
Arizona law enforcement personnel and observed two OCWI investigations in order to assess

1 New South Wales Human Services, 2010; Newman & Dannenfelser, 2005; and Winterfeld & Sakagawa, 2003
2 Newman & Dannenfelser, 2005; and Winterfeld & Sakagawa, 2003
3 Garcia et al., 2014; New South Wales Human Services, 2010; and Winterfeld & Sakagawa 2003

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 13

redundancy and collaboration in OCWI investigations.1 Department staff reported that some
negative redundancies existed when the OCWI was first created, including OCWI investigators
and department caseworkers re-interviewing individuals, and department caseworkers not
actively engaging in some aspects of an investigation. Department staff indicated that these
redundancies resulted from poor collaboration between OCWI investigators and department
caseworkers, which staff attributed to a poor understanding by department caseworkers of
the OCWI’s purpose and role. However, department staff reported that these initial issues have
largely been resolved over time. Additionally, the Department has taken some actions that
may also have helped to address these issues, such as instituting co-location of OCWI staff
and department caseworkers, and creating policies and procedures defining OCWI’s involvement in investigations.
In addition, auditors did not observe any negative redundancies in their two observations of
OCWI investigations. Auditors observed that both the OCWI investigator and department
caseworker worked together on investigative tasks, including interviewing alleged perpetrators
and family members, and visiting the alleged perpetrators’ home. Department staff indicated
that having two persons jointly investigate cases helps to ensure appropriate decision making
by having additional input in the investigative process, which is similar to what Texas
department staff reported.

Department should continue to improve collaboration to address any lingering concerns—Although department staff reported that initial issues between OCWI investigators and department caseworkers have largely been resolved, staff also indicated that
some lingering issues may impede effective collaboration between the two groups. For
example, some department staff reported that there were feelings of animosity toward the
OCWI because they believed OCWI investigators are paid more and have lower caseloads.
Staff reported that lingering issues could potentially lead to inadequate communication
between department caseworkers and OCWI investigators during investigations and ultimately result in redundancies, such as re-interviewing persons. Both OCWI investigators and
local law enforcement also reported some occasional communication issues with each other.
As the OCWI expands its work throughout the State (see the Introduction, page 3, for additional information about the OCWI’s expansion), the Department should continue taking steps
to improve collaboration between OCWI investigators, department caseworkers, and local law
enforcement. Specifically, the Department should do the following:

•

Continue co-location of department staff—The Department should continue its efforts
to co-locate department staff as the OCWI expands. As of February 2015, the Department
reported that it had three co-locate units that can house a mix of department caseworkers,
OCWI investigators, law enforcement, and other professionals. The caseworkers in these
units are primarily assigned to work jointly with the OCWI on criminal abuse or neglect
investigations. Similar to Texas department staff, OCWI and other department staff
identified co-location as critical to fostering collaboration in investigations.

•

Update protocols for working with local law enforcement and other parties—The
Department should also take steps to help ensure that investigative protocols for

1 Auditors interviewed department officials, OCWI staff, and department caseworkers, as well as law enforcement personnel in the

Phoenix and Tucson police departments.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 14

coordinating the involvement of various external entities, such as local law enforcement and
county attorneys, are up-to-date and reflect the OCWI’s role. Specifically, the Department
should work with the Maricopa and Pima County Attorneys to update the multidisciplinary
protocols (see textbox) to include information on the OCWI’s role. As of February 2015, neither
county’s multidisciplinary protocols included guidance
and instruction on the OCWI’s involvement in
County multidisciplinary
investigations. Further, as the OCWI expands, the
protocols—County-level policies
Department should take steps to ensure that other
and procedures for coordinating
counties where the OCWI conducts investigations
the involvement of and interaction
have up-to-date multidisciplinary protocols. Although
between various disciplines
OCWI staff reported generally positive collaboration
involved in child abuse and neglect
with law enforcement, OCWI staff also indicated that
investigations, including the
law enforcement may not always openly communicate
Department, law enforcement,
during the investigative process. Breakdowns in
medical and behavioral health
communication may be aggravated by the out-of-date
personnel, county attorneys, the
courts, and schools.
protocols. Having clearly defined protocols regarding
what information can and should be shared between
Source: Auditor General staff summary of
Pima and Maricopa Counties’
OCWI staff and local law enforcement would help
multidisciplinary protocols.
foster better coordination in the future.

•

Conduct additional training—The Department should ensure that all department staff
understand the OCWI’s role through outreach and training. Although the Department’s
caseworker training materials provide a brief description of the OCWI, department staff
reported that little outreach and training has been conducted to explain the OCWI’s role to
caseworkers, suggesting additional training is needed. In fact, some department caseworkers
reported they were not aware of the Department’s written policies related to the OCWI’s role
during investigations. This lack of understanding regarding roles and responsibilities can
contribute to confusion and inconsistency in conducting investigations. For example, some
OCWI investigators and department caseworkers reported variation in the tasks that OCWI
investigators will carry out during investigations. Specifically, department staff indicated that
department caseworkers should complete a broad assessment of an alleged victim’s safety
and home environment as part of the investigation. However, department staff indicated that
if a caseworker is not present during an investigation, some OCWI investigators will complete
the assessment, while others will not.
The Department indicated that it has started to take some steps to address the training issues
noted by staff. Specifically, the Department reported that it will pilot a mandatory advanced
joint investigations class by March 2015 for all OCWI investigators and department
investigative caseworkers. This class will be taught by the OCWI and will focus on the
Department’s responsibility in investigating a criminal conduct case with law enforcement.
However, the Department reported that this class will not address the delineation of roles
between the OCWI and department caseworkers in an investigation. Therefore, in addition to
ensuring that all OCWI investigators and department caseworkers attend the new joint
investigations class, the Department should incorporate instruction on the specific roles of
OCWI investigators and department caseworkers into its investigative training curriculum. This
training should also include instruction on the policies, procedures, and protocols governing
criminal conduct investigations.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 15

Recommendations:
1.

The Department should continue its efforts to co-locate OCWI staff, department
caseworkers, and other investigative staff as the OCWI expands.

2.

The Department should work with the Maricopa and Pima County Attorneys to update the
multidisciplinary protocols to include information on the OCWI’s role in child abuse and
neglect investigations, including a description of information to be shared between local
law enforcement and the OCWI. Further, as the OCWI expands, the Department should
take steps to ensure that other counties where the OCWI conducts investigations have
up-to-date multidisciplinary protocols.

3.

The Department should enhance its training related to criminal conduct investigations by:
a.

Ensuring all OCWI investigators and department caseworkers attend the advanced
joint investigations class; and

b.

Adding instruction on the specific roles of OCWI investigators and department
caseworkers during a criminal conduct investigation into its investigative training
curriculum, including instruction specific to the policies, procedures, and protocols
governing these investigations.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page 16

APPENDIX A
This appendix describes other
methods used to measure
substantiation—including the
child victimization rate and
percentage of total reports
substantiated—and shows
how Arizona compares to the
national average for these
measures.

Alternative measures of substantiation
Child victimization rate
The child victimization rate measures the total number of children who were
the subject of one or more substantiated reports of abuse or neglect. Using
this measure, children are counted only once even though they may have
been the subject of more than one substantiated report. In contrast, the
measure used in Chapter 1 (see page 8) counts each child for each
substantiated report. Figure 5, page a-2, compares Arizona’s child
victimization rate to the national average rate adjusted for population. As
shown in Figure 5, Arizona’s child victimization rate was below the national
average rate, but has been increasing.

Percentage of total reports substantiated
This measure divides the total number of substantiated reports by the total
number of reports referred for investigation. Individual children may not be
counted if more than one child victim is associated with a substantiated report,
as is often the case when allegations involve siblings. The Arizona Department
of Child Safety uses this measure to report on its substantiation rate for its
semi-annual child welfare reporting requirements. Figure 6, page a-2,
compares Arizona’s substantiation rate using this measure to the national
average calculated using data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System (NCANDS).1 As with other measures, the percentage of reports
substantiated in Arizona was lower than the national average.

1 NCANDS is a federally sponsored, national data collection effort created for the purpose of tracking the volume

and nature of child abuse and neglect reporting. As of February 2015, NCANDS data was only available
through federal fiscal year 2013; therefore, the time frame analyzed in this report represents the most recent
period for which nationally comparative data was available. The NCANDS data used in this report was provided
by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell University, and has been used
with permission. The data was originally collected under the auspices of the Children’s Bureau. Funding was
provided by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The collector of the original data, the funder,
NDACAN, Cornell University, and the agents or employees of these institutions bear no responsibility for the
analyses or interpretations presented here. The information and opinions expressed reflect solely the opinions
of the authors.
Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page a-1

Figure 5: Number of Arizona child victims of abuse or neglect per 1,000
children compared to the national average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013
12

10
8
6
4
2
0

2008

2009

2010
Arizona

Source:

2011

2012

2013

National average

Auditor General staff analysis of information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child
Maltreatment 2012 and Child Maltreatment 2013 reports.

Figure 6: Percentage of Arizona reports that were substantiated
compared to the national average
Federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2008

2009

2010
Arizona

Source:

2011

2012

2013

National average

Auditor General staff analysis of modified NCANDS data provided by NDACAN staff for federal fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 and information from the Department’s semi-annual child welfare reports for
the periods ended September 30, 2010 and March 31, 2014.
Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page a-2

APPENDIX B
This appendix provides
information on the methods
auditors used to meet the
report objectives. The Auditor General and staff express
appreciation to the Arizona
Department of Child Safety
(Department) Director, and
staff for their cooperation and
assistance throughout the
engagement.

Methodology
Auditors used various methods to study the issues addressed in this report.
These methods included interviewing department officials and staff and
reviewing applicable state laws, applicable department policies and
procedures, other information obtained from the Department, and prior Office
of the Auditor General reports. In addition, auditors used the following specific
methods to meet the audit objectives:

•

•

To compare the number of Arizona child abuse or neglect reports to the
national average, and adjust this comparison for differences in states’
child populations, auditors analyzed information from the following
sources:1

◦

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child
Maltreatment reports for federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013,
which contain the annual number of child abuse and neglect reports
reported nationally;

◦

U.S. Census Bureau data on annual state child populations for the
corresponding time frames; and

◦

The Department’s semi-annual child welfare reports for the periods
ended March 31, 2008 through September 30, 2014, regarding the
annual number of Arizona child abuse or neglect reports reported in
Arizona for federal fiscal years 2008 through 2014.2

To compare Arizona’s rate of substantiated cases of child abuse or
neglect per 1,000 children to the national average, auditors analyzed
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) data for
federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013 and U.S. Census Bureau data on

1 As of February 2015, federal fiscal year 2013 was the most recent year that national data was available;

therefore, auditors compared Arizona to the national average for federal fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
However, the report also provides the number of Arizona child abuse and neglect reports for federal fiscal year
2014.

2 Information in the semi-annual reports is compiled from department data systems. Based on a review of the

Department’s processes for compiling this information, auditors determined that the information auditors
analyzed was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page b-1

annual state child populations for the corresponding time frames.1,2 Auditors also reviewed
literature and interviewed an expert from the University of South Carolina regarding factors
affecting state substantiation rates.3

•

To identify the number of states with a child safety organization similar to the Arizona Office
of Child Welfare Investigations (OCWI), auditors contacted child welfare investigative
agencies in every state and received information from investigative agencies in 25 states.
Based on this information, auditors determined that only 1 of these 25 states, Texas, had a
child safety organization similar to the OCWI. To understand how Texas avoided
redundancies among parties involved in criminal abuse investigations, auditors interviewed
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services staff and reviewed documentation
provided by these staff. Additionally, to assess redundancy and collaboration in OCWI
investigations, auditors interviewed various department staff and Arizona law enforcement
personnel and conducted observations of two OCWI investigations.4 Finally, auditors also
reviewed literature on interagency collaboration in child abuse and neglect investigations,
and reviewed the multidisciplinary protocols for Maricopa and Pima Counties.5,6

•

To compare Arizona to the national average using other report substantiation measures
included in Appendix A, auditors:

◦

Analyzed information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child
Maltreatment 2012 and Child Maltreatment 2013 reports to compare the number of
Arizona child victims of abuse or neglect per 1,000 children to the national average;
and

1 NCANDS is a federally sponsored, national data collection effort created for the purpose of tracking the volume and nature of child

abuse and neglect reporting. As of February 2015, NCANDS data was only available through federal fiscal year 2013; therefore, the
time frame analyzed in this report represents the most recent period for which nationally comparative data was available. The NCANDS
data used in this report was provided by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell University, and
has been used with permission. The data was originally collected under the auspices of the Children’s Bureau. Funding was provided
by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. The collector of the original data, the funder, NDACAN, Cornell University, and the agents or employees
of these institutions bear no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here. The information and opinions expressed
reflect solely the opinions of the authors.

2 Auditors determined that the NCANDS data was sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this audit as it is used widely by child welfare

researchers and government entities.

3 Dettlaff, A.J., Rivaux, S.L., Baumann, D.J., Fluke, J.D., Rycraft, J.R., & James, J. (2011). Disentangling substantiation: The influence of

race, income, and risk on the substantiation decision in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1630-1637; Petersen,
A., Joseph, J., & Feit, M. (Eds.) (2013). New directions in child abuse and neglect research: Child abuse and neglect policy (pp. 349380). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; Provencher, A., Gupta-Kagan, J., & Hansen, M.E. (2014). The standard of proof
at adjudication of abuse or neglect: Its influence on case outcomes at key junctures. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 17(2),
22-56. Tonmyr, L., Ouimet, C., & Ugnat, A. (2012). A review of findings from the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse
and Neglect (CIS). Canadian Journal of Public Health, 103(2), 103-112; and Zuravin, S.J., Orme, J.G., & Hegar, R.L. (1995). Disposition
of child physical abuse reports: Review of the literature and test of a predictive model. Children and Youth Services Review, 17(4),
547-566.

4 Auditors interviewed 14 department staff, including officials, caseworkers, and OCWI investigators, and 3 law enforcement personnel

in the Phoenix and Tucson police departments.

5 Garcia, A., Puckett, A., Ezell, M., Pecora, P.J., Tanoury, T., & Rodriguez, W. (2014). Three models of collaborative child protection: What

is their influence on short stays in foster care? Child & Family Social Work, 19, 125-135; New South Wales Human Services, Community
Services. (2010, March). Interagency collaboration: Making it work [Research to Practice Note]. Retrieved October 30, 2014, from www.
community.nsw.gov.au; Newman, B.S. & Dannenfelser, P.L. (2005). Children’s protective services and law enforcement: Fostering
partnerships in investigations of child abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(2), 97-111; and Winterfeld, A.P. & Sakagawa, T. (2003).
Investigation models for child abuse and neglect: Collaboration with law enforcement. Englewood, CO: American Humane, Children’s
Services.

6 Multidisciplinary protocols are county-level policies and procedures for coordinating the involvement of and interaction between

various disciplines involved in child abuse investigations, including the Department, law enforcement, medical and behavioral health
personnel, county attorneys, the courts, and schools.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page b-2

◦

Analyzed modified NCANDS data provided by NDACAN staff for federal fiscal years 2008
through 2013 and information from the Department’s semi-annual child welfare reports for
the periods ended September 30, 2010 and March 31, 2014, to compare the percentage
of Arizona reports that were substantiated to the national average.

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101
Page b-3

Arizona Department of Child Safety • Report No. 15-101

Arizona Office of the Auditor General

AGENCY RESPONSE

AGENCY RESPONSE

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY'S RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF
THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT ON
CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT REPORT, SUBSTANATIATION RATE and OFFICE
OF CHILD WELFARE INVESTIGATION
The Department’s response to the Auditor General’s recommendations is described below:
RECOMMENDATION 1:
The Department should continue its efforts to co-locate OCWI staff, department caseworkers,
and other investigative staff as the OCWI expands.
DCS Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
The Department should work with the Maricopa and Pima County attorneys to update the
multidisciplinary protocols to include information on the OCWI's role in child abuse and
neglect investigations, including a description of information to be shared between local law
enforcement and the OCWI. Further, as OCWI expands the department should take steps to
ensure that other counties where OCWI conducts investigations have up-to-date multidisciplinary protocols.
DCS Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 3:
The Department should enhance its training related to criminal conduct investigations by:
a. Ensuring all OCWI investigators and department case workers attend the advanced joint
investigations class; and
b. Adding instruction on the specific roles of OCWI investigators and department
caseworkers during a criminal conduct investigation into its investigative training
curriculum, including instruction specific to the policies, procedures, and protocols
governing these investigations.
DCS Response:

The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.

Performance Audit Division reports issued within the last 24 months
13-01

Department of Environmental Quality—Compliance Management

13-02

Arizona Board of Appraisal

13-03

Arizona State Board of Physical Therapy

13-04

Registrar of Contractors

13-05

Arizona Department of Financial Institutions

13-06

Department of Environmental Quality—Underground Storage Tanks Financial
Responsibility

13-07

Arizona State Board of Pharmacy

13-08

Water Infrastructure Finance Authority

13-09

Arizona State Board of Cosmetology

13-10

Department of Environmental Quality—Sunset Factors

13-11

Arizona State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers

13-12

Arizona State Board for Charter Schools

13-13

Arizona Historical Society

CPS-1301

Arizona Department of Economic Security—Children Support Services—Foster Home
Recruitment-Related Services Contracts

13-14

Review of Selected State Practices for Information Technology Procurement

13-15

Arizona Game and Fish Commission, Department, and Director

14-101

Arizona Department of Economic Security—Children Support Services—Transportation
Services

14-102

Gila County Transportation Excise Tax

14-103

Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners

14-104

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

14-105

Arizona Board of Executive Clemency

14-106

State of Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board

14-107

Arizona Department of Child Safety—Children Support Services—Emergency
and Residential Placements

14-108

Arizona Department of Administration—Arizona State Purchasing Cooperative Program

Future Performance Audit Division reports
Arizona Department of Administration—State-wide Procurement
Arizona Department of Transportation—Motor Vehicle Division