An update to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30), to bring its Road Network Illustration (Map 25) into compliance with Arizona Revised Statute requirements and to resolve inconsistencies between Map 25 and parts of the Flagstaff City Code. This update does not alter the intent of FRP30; it is only concerned with correcting errors, removing legal vulnerability, and improving the readability of FRP30.

MGT of America, Inc. was retained to conduct a study for the Arizona Department of Transportation to determine whether there was a compelling interest to justify a disadvantaged business enterprise program for ADOT. MGT found that minority, women and disadvantaged business enterprises were substantially underutilized as prime contractors in construction and construction-related professional services. African American, Hispanic American, and Asian-owned firms were under-utilized as construction subcontractors. The study provides factual predicate evidence for the selective use of project goals for African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American construction subcontractors.

There are two distinct components to the economic development activities described in ADOH’s LIHTC program details. The first component is activity that strengthens the economy. This is the quantifiable activity that is the subject of this report. The second component is community building activity which can be both quantitative and qualitative. This is an area that should be considered in the debate but which is not addressed within this report.

In the Valley, developing viable long-term transit from where we are currently will be very difficult if key
components continue to remain unaligned. Thus, before getting to the primary purpose of this report, it is important to first establish the players and basic considerations relevant to the effectiveness of a transit system.

Few would dispute that the Phoenix metropolitan area is severely lacking in terms of mass-transit compared to other similarly sized and configured cities. The Valley’s fleet of roughly 400 buses is about one-third of the service found in San Diego, Atlanta, and Seattle. In addition, most of Phoenix’ peer regions either already have, or are planning rail systems. Of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., only six -- Phoenix included -- do not currently have or are not planning to add rail to their transit system.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.

This report brings together the results of a survey of 1100 homeless people living in and around downtown Phoenix in 1996 with the results of a similar survey conducted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of the homeless population in Phoenix, the data and comparative information presented in this report also reveal the complex and intractable nature of the homeless problem in general.

The Arizona Head Start--Public School Transition Project is 1 of 31 demonstration projects designed to test whether advances by Head Start children could be maintained by continuing Head Start-type services into kindergarten through the third grade, and to identify, develop, and implement transition practices to bridge the gap between Head Start and public schools. This study evaluated the Arizona project in its fourth year of implementation. Participating were two cohorts of students at three transition and three comparison schools in Phoenix. The program components evaluated were: (1) developmentally appropriate practices, curriculum, and materials; (2) physical health, mental health, and dental services; (3) family services; and (4) parent involvement. Findings indicated that all components had been implemented by the time of the 1995-96 evaluation. Both cohorts had similar public assistance participation, and all groups showed dramatic decreases in public assistance since program entry. The vast majority of parents from all groups reported positive interactions with schools; qualitative data confirmed continuing positive impact on teachers, schools, and the Head Start agency. Transition services, especially those of family advocates, were seen as crucial to smooth transitions. There were observable differences between transition and comparison classrooms; however, quantitative data showed few significant differences in gains made by children between transition and comparison classrooms. Confounding variables of high attrition, variations in student English proficiency, and the existence in comparison schools of transition-like services may have influenced the results. Promising practices and further challenges were identified and recommendations were made for improving the collaboration between the Head Start program and the public schools, and improving the evaluation process. (Three appendices include a summary of data collection instruments. Contains 20 references.)

This report presents the second comprehensive look at the conditions of children and families in Arizona. Building upon information presented in the 1992 Factbook, this document presents and analyzes 48 indicators of child well-being. Following the executive summary and tables, chapter 1 provides an overview of the data for the state as a whole, including a summary of key findings and tables depicting raw numbers, rates adjusted for population growth, and rate changes over time. Racial and ethnic breakdowns are presented when such data are available.

Chapters 2-16 offer individual county profiles, following the general format established in the state chapter. These chapters offer insights into regional variations and identify varying conditions for children across the state. The report charts data within the state and county chapters for each of the following six categories: (1) poverty; (2) child health and safety; (3) child abuse, neglect, and out-of-home care; (4) early care and education; (5) children in school; and (6) teens at-risk. Overall, findings reveal significant improvements for a few indicators since 1990, most notably within birth-related items, such as an increase in the percent of women receiving timely prenatal care and a decrease in low birth-weight births. Findings also suggest there has been a worsening for many indicators, including poverty, firearm-related deaths and hospitalizations, alleged child abuse incidents, and births to teens.