In order to carry out the intent of Federal Fair Housing legislation, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity division, requires that Community Development Block Grant entitlement jurisdictions comply with regulations to affirmatively further fair housing. This mandate is carried out by the CDBG jurisdictions, in part, by completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in their jurisdictions. The State of Arizona is a CDBG Entitlement Jurisdiction and has authorized the Arizona Department of Housing to conduct this analysis. HUD grantees are required to do the following:

-- Complete or update an “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice” (AI) pursuant to HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guidebook every three to five years in coordination with the Consolidated Planning Process.
-- Use their comprehensive AI study as the basis to formulate a “Fair Housing Plan” with measurable “actions to be taken to overcome the effects of any impediments” and take those appropriate actions.
-- Maintain records, including their AI study and records to support actions taken and to be taken in regard to implementing the Fair Housing Plan.

This AI is a supporting document to the State of Arizona Consolidated Plan and should be reviewed and evaluated within the context of that plan.

The agency is dedicated to allocating funds in a responsible manner to assist as many Arizona homeowners as possible and through ongoing adjustments to the program we remain optimistic that new avenues will be successful in reducing foreclosures and stabilizing our neighborhoods. Reports highlight the outstanding efforts of the Arizona Department of Housing, Arizona Housing Finance Authority, and the Arizona Home Foreclosure Funding corporation. We are confident that through the tireless efforts of the agency and our dedicated partners we will push through this recession and emerge stronger and better prepared for whatever challenges the future holds.

A study explored performance of the Arizona School-to-Work (STW) system in meeting the six goals established by the state STW Division. Goal 1 was to create a self-sustaining STW system at the state and regional levels. The state developed state policies and goals and provided implementation funding to partnerships, but no continuation funding. Goal 2 was to unite training programs with STW programs. Partnerships implemented STW with some success by expanding career-related programs, but were less successful at coordinating and integrating efforts with other workforce-related organizations. There was no comprehensive effort to implement Goal 3 to identify areas where STW needed support and meet those needs. The state and partnerships addressed Goal 4, community involvement, by recruiting local businesses and industries to STW through public awareness activities, promoting initiatives to businesses at STW conferences, and securing business representation on STW governing boards. Goal 5, to increase public awareness, was achieved through media, brochures, Web sites, and public presentations. Partnerships achieved Goal 6, system evaluation, by maintaining databases to provide information for evaluating the STW system. STW had a modest positive impact on stakeholders' involvement in career-related activities; its implementation varied considerably across partnerships; lack of funding severely limited its statewide potential; and strong leadership at the state level was critical.

This report addresses one central issue: the nature and extent of the teacher shortage in Arizona. Its purpose is to inform policymakers and help prevent poor policy decisions and wasted resources. The report presents new research along with policy and program recommendations intended to serve as points of departure for understanding and discussing teacher supply and demand in Arizona. Among the research findings are the following: (1) Arizona did not have an overall shortage of teachers when this report was written, but a delicate balance existed between demand and supply; (2) despite an overall surplus, teacher shortages were already occurring in specific regions and subject-matter areas, and these shortfalls were expected to worsen; (3) managing attrition and encouraging the return of inactive certified teachers will be crucial to ensure a sufficient teacher pool; and (4) policy changes are needed to increase and monitor Arizona's supply of teachers, especially in specific areas. The report provides policy and program recommendations in four areas: production and recruitment; compensation; classroom environment; and data tracking. Appended are: Potential Components Not Used in This Study; Measures Used and Their Alternatives; Data Sources; 2009-2010 Enrollment and Teacher Projections table; Arizona Inactive Certified Teacher Survey Methodology; and Current Activity of Inactive Certified Teachers and 5 data-related tables. (Contains 35 references, 11 tables, and 8 figures.)