Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

Discusses the results of the 2010 decennial census for Arizona, with comparisons to the nation and other states, and for Arizona counties and places. Changes between 2000 and 2010 are included. In addition to the total population, the population living in households, and the population living in group quarters, the following topics are discussed: household type, race and ethnicity, age, housing units and vacancies, and homeownership. The data are available in two accompanying Excel files.

Volume I: Facts
Analyses of Arizona state government finance, using data of the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and of the combined finances of all state and local governments within Arizona, using data of the U.S. Census Bureau. A historical perspective is provided for both datasets. For combined state and local government finance, comparisons are made to other states and to the national average. In addition, other measures of the tax burden by state are examined.

Volume II: Concepts and Issues
Addresses the conceptual and empirical relationships between taxes, government revenue, and economic growth. Also discusses current issues specific to Arizona state government finance. This is a revised version of the report "Tax Reductions, the Economy, and the Deficit in the Arizona State Government General Fund," incorporating new and updated material.

Volume III: Options for Managing the Arizona State General Fund
Presents options and offers recommendations for managing the Arizona state government general fund. The near-term budget deficit is addressed as well as ways to prevent budget deficits from recurring every time economic growth slows.

The purpose of the stabilization fund is to reduce the fluctuations in general fund revenue caused by the economic cycle. These fluctuations result in large budget surpluses in some years and large deficits in other years. Without considering the structural deficit, the budget stabilization fund almost certainly will not have the funding necessary to offset the cyclical reduction in revenue that will occur during the next recession.

In order to carry out the intent of Federal Fair Housing legislation, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity division, requires that Community Development Block Grant entitlement jurisdictions comply with regulations to affirmatively further fair housing. This mandate is carried out by the CDBG jurisdictions, in part, by completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in their jurisdictions. The State of Arizona is a CDBG Entitlement Jurisdiction and has authorized the Arizona Department of Housing to conduct this analysis. HUD grantees are required to do the following:

-- Complete or update an “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice” (AI) pursuant to HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guidebook every three to five years in coordination with the Consolidated Planning Process.
-- Use their comprehensive AI study as the basis to formulate a “Fair Housing Plan” with measurable “actions to be taken to overcome the effects of any impediments” and take those appropriate actions.
-- Maintain records, including their AI study and records to support actions taken and to be taken in regard to implementing the Fair Housing Plan.

This AI is a supporting document to the State of Arizona Consolidated Plan and should be reviewed and evaluated within the context of that plan.

The agency is dedicated to allocating funds in a responsible manner to assist as many Arizona homeowners as possible and through ongoing adjustments to the program we remain optimistic that new avenues will be successful in reducing foreclosures and stabilizing our neighborhoods. Reports highlight the outstanding efforts of the Arizona Department of Housing, Arizona Housing Finance Authority, and the Arizona Home Foreclosure Funding corporation. We are confident that through the tireless efforts of the agency and our dedicated partners we will push through this recession and emerge stronger and better prepared for whatever challenges the future holds.

The primary purpose of this paper is to examine the educational achievement and attainment of Latinos living in Arizona. In short, the educational performance and attainment of Hispanics lags considerably behind that of the state’s non-Hispanic white residents. Moreover, the growth in the number of Hispanics, especially children, has far outpaced that of the non-Hispanic white population, raising the importance of this educational gap. This issue was highlighted in the 2001 Morrison Institute report Five Shoes Waiting to Drop on Arizona’s Future.

The specific goal of this report is to assess the future of Hispanic educational performance and attainment in Arizona, but this outlook is dependent to a very sizable extent on the characteristics of the Hispanics living in Arizona. In particular, the educational achievement and attainment of Hispanic immigrants has been substantially less than that of Hispanics born in the United States. Forecasting Hispanic immigration specifically and the characteristics of the Hispanic population generally is extremely difficult for two reasons: severe data limitations, and recent legal and policy changes related to immigration.

The quality of jobs in the United States became a national concern in the 1980s after a long period of losses of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs and gains of frequently low-paying service jobs. National job quality remains a concern today, as witnessed by the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign. The overall average wage is a measure of prosperity or well-being, but is not in itself a measure of job quality since job quality is just one of several factors — including cost of living, productivity, and desirability of an area — that affect the overall average wage. Little information on these factors is available by state. Adjusting for job quality reduces the state-by-state variation in wages. However, even after adjusting for job quality, the average wage still varies substantially by state.

The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the three years, causing the U.S. average wage to be 2.5 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Arizona’s job quality fell between 2001 and 2004 at a pace worse than the national average. Relative to the national average, the industrial and occupational job mixes each slipped a bit more than 0.3 percent during the three years, for an overall decline of 0.7 percent. In Arizona, job quality in 2004 was 2.0 percent below the national average, but Arizona ranked 23rd among all states.