Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.

States have always administered federal programs. But, states usually have had very little say in how they carried out programs. All states could generally do was follow the rules laid out by federal agencies. But now, devolution is giving states more power over programs. And, in general, Americans have said that they approve of the idea. A 1998 nationwide poll, funded by The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, showed that a majority of Americans perceive devolution to be a positive development for the country.

Arizona Ideas includes notions large and small, homegrown and borrowed, current and historical. From A-Z, every one -- whether originally born here or adapted from elsewhere-- contributes to the state’s competitive position. Arizona Ideas also explores the roots of Arizona’s tradition of self-criticism --some call it a sense of insecurity or inferiority in comparison to other places -- that often surfaces in discussions of public policy. This observation has provoked considerable debate, but few would deny that this perspective exists. It is time to debate this idiosyncrasy out in the open and find better ways of moving the state ahead.

This report both updates statistics and perceptions and adds new features. Thus, readers may look at quality of life based on how residents feel or on the trend lines revealed in the numbers. What Matters reports what people think about Greater Phoenix, how they view their own lives, and whether they believe the region is on the right or wrong track. The sections are presented in the order of importance assigned to them by the survey rankings (i.e., Education appears first, Public Safety and Crime second, etc).

What Matters is intended to support decision-making on public issues and to provide a reference for policy makers, civic and business leaders, community activists, and other residents. In response to feedback on previous issues, this edition includes additional indicators for healthcare and more information on higher education. Price and income data have been adjusted for inflation, and more information has been added where appropriate for a fuller picture of trends. Different approaches or completely new sources of data were required in some of this issue’s indicators because of changes in data sources. While every effort was made to choose items that would be stable, there is no way to control for how data are collected or reported over the years. On the whole, however, the 1997 baseline remains intact.

In 1996, ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy began asking residents and leaders in Greater Phoenix, “What does quality of life mean to you, and how do you measure it?” After an 18-month process, the first volume of What Matters was published in September 1997, creating a baseline of opinion and data about “quality of life” and what it means to the people who live here. The report was quickly recognized both within the region and nationally among indicator projects for its simple, yet unique presentation of public perception (survey) data and regional statistical, or indicator, data.