Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

Severe and widespread budget cuts in behavioral health and substance abuse services for lower-income Arizonans who don’t qualify for AHCCCS have already taken effect across the state. Even before these cuts were implemented, it was clear that the publicly-supported behavioral health system in our state was not adequately serving many Arizonans who needed mental health or substance use disorder treatment. This paper represents an effort by Arizona State University’s Centers for Applied Behavioral Health Policy and the Morrison Institute for Public Policy to promote and enrich Arizona’s public dialogue about these problems and potential solutions.

Arizona’s public behavioral health care system, which serves some 150,000 mentally ill and vulnerable state residents, is wrestling with a number of urgent challenges. In addition to budget cuts resulting from the current economic crisis, and the demands of a 28-year-old class-action lawsuit, the system has been repeatedly criticized in several areas, including for inadequate staff, data, housing support, and crisis services. On July 22, a panel of professionals who play key roles in the system discussed these and other issues before some 300 behavioral health providers, supervisors, and policymakers at the annual Summer Institute hosted by Arizona State University’s Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy. This paper provides an abbreviated report of that discussion, which was partially designed and moderated by ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

A study of 55 school districts and a group of opinion leaders examined the status of arts education in Arizona. Information from surveys collected and interviews conducted throughout 1995 and 1996 was analyzed to determine whether or not improvement occurred following the 1988 "Vision 2000" program. Survey responses and interviews suggest: (1) signs of improvement appear along with indications of status quo maintenance; (2) four out of ten respondents thought the overall status of arts education was better now than five years ago, another third thought it was about the same; (3) significant support for arts education exists among school personnel and parents; (4) funding, staffing, and curriculum were identified as the most critical need over the next 3 years; (5) arts education remains vulnerable to funding cuts, neglect, and competition from other educational priorities; (6) local sources of external funds are often used to supplement district funds but the potential for private funding of the arts has not been fully tapped; and (7) Arizona schools compare reasonably well with schools nationally in terms of the provision of visual art, music, and other arts programs. Recommendations are made for continued study, establishment of arts education quality indicators, monitoring, and mechanisms for reporting and sharing statewide data regarding the status of arts education.