Wildlife 20/20 provides broad strategic guidance for all department programs. It is intended to be a living document that conveys policy direction that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has provided to the department to guide its work into the future. It will be complemented by additional plans designed to provide more specific direction, as needed.

This is a summary of several reports related to government finance in Arizona that have been produced by the Office of the University Economist since December 2008. Some new information has been added in an attempt to provide a complete picture. The format of this report is a brief summary by issue, sometimes accompanied by a table or chart. References are provided to the report and the page number where additional detail can be found.

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.

This document contains laws related to wildlife in Arizona, from statehood in 1912 through 1962. This is a supplement to “Bringing Back the Game: Arizona Wildlife Management, 1912–1962,” a book of wildlife management history published by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 2012.

Included are those bills passed by the Arizona State Legislature between 1912 and 1962, signed by the governor and incorporated as “Game and Fish Law” under the Arizona Revised Statutes. Other initiatives, referenda, and statutes pertaining to wildlife (including predatory and noxious animals) are also included, thereby providing an accessible resource for those interested in the history of Arizona’s wildlife laws.

This document is neither exhaustive nor complete. Some bills that are arcane or repetitive, or that served a housekeeping purpose, are not included. Some legislation is summarized with annotations by the author and not presented verbatim. The purpose is illustrative only and not intended to either replace the actual laws, or be taken as current law.

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.