This Citizens Clean Elections Commission Nonparticipating Candidate Guide was created to provide information to candidates interested in running for legislative or statewide office. Participating candidates for statewide offices and legislative offices are eligible to participate in the public funding program. The system is voluntary; candidates may choose to participate in the system or they may choose to raise funds in the traditional manner. Candidates who choose to raise funds with private campaign contributions are referred to as “nonparticipating candidates.”

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.

The Citizens Clean Elections Commission was established by the enactment of the Citizens Clean Elections Act. The Commission’s mission is to fairly, faithfully and fully implement and administer the Citizens Clean Elections Act. All members must be registered to vote in the State of Arizona. No more than two members of the commission may be members of the same political party. No more than two members of the commission may be residents of the same county.

A participating candidate is an individual who has decided to run for a statewide office or the Legislature, agrees not to accept special interest monies and adheres to the Citizens Clean Elections Act and commission rules. In return, the participating candidate will receive funding from the Citizens Clean Elections Fund. In order for a candidate to receive funding, the participating candidate must collect a specified number of $5 Qualifying Contributions from registered voters within his or her district for a legislative candidate or registered voters in Arizona for a statewide candidate.

Based on the premise that school reform efforts must consider the needs of at-risk children, this paper discusses parallel reform efforts that focus on community service. The first part discusses logical linkages between community service and "at-risk" education and describes how Arizona is attempting to formalize these linkages within the state context of school reform. The Serve-America program, which arose from passage of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, allocates funds to states for school-based community-service programs in grades K-12. Through formalized school-community agency and youth organization/community agency partnerships, Arizona's Serve-America project is designed to: (1) encourage school-age and out-of-school youth to volunteer their services for the benefit of others in their communities; (2) increase the number of adult volunteers in Arizona's schools; (3) provide productive, meaningful experiences for participants; and (4) emphasize coordination of community agencies to avoid duplication and maximize utilization of local resources. Together, Arizona's Serve-America programs have involved over 3,300 youth and adult volunteers who provided over 11,500 hours of community service in the ares of education, community improvement, human services, public safety, and conservation. Participants reported positive changes in their attitudes and behaviors as a result of their community service and service learning participation.

During 1993-94, the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University conducted a study on behalf of the Arizona Department of Education. This document presents findings of that study, which examined linkages between health services and schools for a comprehensive service delivery to students. Following the introduction, chapter 1 provides a national overview on children's health and the public schools, presenting national and legislative initiatives and a framework for linking health services and schools. Chapter 2 reviews what is known about the major issues in child health in Arizona and its schools, synthesizing health data from several sources.

Survey results from 531 Arizona school principals about school-based/school-linked health and social services are also analyzed. A discussion of the Arizona perspective follows in chapter 3, which examines the philosophy guiding state initiatives, key players, the processes that support school-based/school-linked health services, and a sample of current state activities. The fourth chapter provides a view of how some Arizona schools are attempting to address these issues through the provision of student health services at or near school sites. The last chapter reviews action necessary to facilitate linkages between schools and health services, and the status of Arizona efforts. It concludes with some considerations for the future. A conclusion is that the state is making significant progress toward promoting and, in some schools, implementing such services. Eight tables and seven figures are included.

Arizona At-Risk Pilot Project results suggest most effective means to involve parents are those that establish personal rapport between someone from the school and a parent and do not initially require high levels of commitment or participation. The "ideal" parent may be hard to find, but getting to know parents individually and assessing their needs are good first steps.

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.