The conference looked beyond the juvenile justice system proper to examine the roots and potential solutions to the over representation of minority youth in Arizona’s juvenile justice system. Through this important undertaking and the dedication of the Commission on Minorities, Arizona demonstrated once again its important role as a leader in shaping the future of the juvenile justice system.

Shortly after selecting Judge Roxanne Song Ong as Commission Chair and reconstituting its membership, Chief Justice McGregor directed the Commission to develop a strategic plan with projects that seek to enhance fairness and equity in the judiciary and present a report at the December 2006 meeting of the Arizona Judicial Council.

This report represent the efforts of the Commission since its reactivation under a new mandate in May of 1994. The goal of this work group is to develop policies and programs that will facilitate the growth of minority applicants seeking appointments as judges, commissioners, judges pro tempore, special masters, clerkships, and internships.

This report is a result of the "2002 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth" report produced by the Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities in the Judiciary. One of the recommendations issued in that report was to create an annual report card to assess progress on the reduction of over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. The decision has been modified to produce a report card every other year. The first report serves as a baseline for the second, third and fourth report cards. The intent is to illustrate the current situation, provide a basis for future comparison, highlight areas of special concern and compare these results with the prior report card.

Between May and July of 1996, members of the council were asked to participate in a series of interviews. The primary purpose of the interviews was to elicit council members' views of and expectations for Arizona's STW initiative. A second reason was to clarify the mission of the council itself. This paper highlights salient points from the interviews. Quotes are used verbatim.

In the spring of 1998, the Office of Workforce Development Policy (OWDP) of the Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned a statewide opinion poll to assess public attitudes toward the state’s plan for economic development as implemented through GSPED — the Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The poll was designed to assess both the public’s understanding of GSPED and their reactions to using the concept of industry clusters as a tool for organizing both economic and workforce development efforts.

One question posed by members of the Governors’ Council on Workforce Development Policy pertained
to whether polling results vary by urban versus rural residency. Specifically, the question was raised as to whether the responses of rural residents differ from those who live in urban areas. Therefore, at the request of the Council, results of the polling were analyzed in order to answer the question: Does urban versus rural residency affect respondents' answers? The answer to this question is, in short, No.

In the spring of 1998, the Office of Workforce Development Policy (OWDP) of the Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned a statewide opinion poll to assess public attitudes toward the state’s plan for economic development as implemented through GSPED — the Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The poll was designed to assess both the public’s understanding of GSPED and their reactions to using the concept of industry clusters as a tool for organizing both economic and workforce development efforts.

In preparation for new federal legislation that promotes unprecedented levels of comprehensive planning and service integration at state and local levels, an analysis of state issues relevant to comprehensive service delivery is necessary. This paper examines such state issues, with a focus on Arizona's at-risk population, and presents a framework for comprehensive service delivery. It provides the rationale for such service delivery, summarizes the literature on research-based practices, illustrates district approaches to comprehensive service delivery, and sets forth guidelines for developing a comprehensive plan. System components of an effective plan are discussed in detail--student education, parent/family involvement, social/economic services, health services, and professional development. Five general principles underlie success: philosophy, people, processes, promising practices, and partners. Recommendations for developing comprehensive service delivery programs include the following: (1) build on existing information; (2) consolidate knowledge; and (3) think long-term. Contains 11 figures and over 250 references. Appendices contain information on Arizona practitioners' views and an illustration of a side-by-side program analysis.