The Arizona Department of Health Services Bureau of Tobacco Education and Prevention began its strategic planning process in August of 2007 and aimed to create a model that focused on effective tobacco control which would engage stakeholders at the local, state and national levels. As such it was critical to ensure that the process was both transparent and participatory, and included input and involvement from the full diversity of populations and regions across Arizona.

The Arizona Department of Health Services initiated the development of this plan with the intent to set priorities by formulating objectives and suggesting strategies to address chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a serious public health issue in Arizona. This plan begins with a detailed description of chronic obstructive lung disease followed by a discussion of proposed objectives and strategies. The overriding goals of this plan are those stated in the Healthy People 2010: Objectives for Improving Health.

Adult tobacco use represents an important and ongoing morbidity, mortality and health care cost problem. The Arizona Department of Health Services Tobacco Education and Prevention Program has been working since 1996 to reduce tobacco use in Arizona. This report presents data from the 2005 Adult Tobacco Surveys in Spanish on adult tobacco use prevalence rates, cessation behaviors, and home smoking bans.

The Arizona Department of Health Services sponsored the development of this plan with the intent to set priorities and suggest strategies to address asthma as a serious chronic disease and public health issue. The plan continues the focus placed on asthma in the Healthy People 2010 report. The plan is meant to serve as an ambitious and comprehensive approach to improving the health and quality of life for those with asthma living in Arizona.

For decades, Arizona was one of the national leaders in aggregate economic growth, as measured by the percent change in measures such as gross product and employment. However, its growth rate always has been highly cyclical. During expansionary periods, Arizona always has been among the top states on the rate of growth. During recessions, the Arizona economy generally slumped at a rate similar to the national average, but would experience a rapid recovery. This pattern continued through the economic expansion of the mid-2000s.

As Arizona’s population continues to grow, so does the need for electricity. Retail sales of electricity in Arizona have increased along with the population, although sales per person have declined since peaking in 2007, a sign of decreased use and increased efficiency. As we progress in the twenty-first century, action must be taken to increase the sustainability of our energy resources by continuing to conserve and by shifting to the greater use of energy from renewable sources. In addition, we must work to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Assesses the health of both ends of the P-20 spectrum: early childcare and education and the high school/postsecondary-to-industry nexus. Both are viewed through the lens of Arizona's current competitive position and its trajectory through the broader economic landscape. How well does Arizona regulate, promote and ensure equitable access to quality early childcare and to programs that help children enter Kindergarten ready to learn? Does Arizona's production of graduates and skilled workers align with current and projected industry needs?

An annual statewide report card that is designed to make data actionable. This year's report homes in on the economy and education. It examines Arizona's economic development landscape, the competitive potential of the Sun Corridor, the economic consequences if the state fails to close the Latino achievement gap, and the role of career and technical education in adding skilled workers to Arizona's workforce pipeline.

Per capita earnings in Arizona has been lower than the national average for decades. The 2011 differential of 19 percent is the largest on record; the typical differential has been between 10 and 15 percent. Thus, for residents who have spent some or all of their working life in the state, the state’s historically low per capita earnings help to explain the state’s below-average per capita property income.