This document is intended to give an overview of the Federal-Aid Program and its impacts on Arizona. There are four major sections in the report: (1) Overview of the Federal-Aid Program; (2) Arizona Federal funding highlights for the fiscal year; (3) Federal-aid Highway Program Characteristics; and (4) Federal-Aid Highway Program descriptions. The first section gives a general overview of how the Federal-Aid Program is financed, the authorization process and a discussion of the apportionment, allocation and obligation authority processes. The second section deals with Arizona Federal funding highlights the for fiscal year. The last two sections are devoted to characteristics of the core programs, including eligibility, limitations, apportionment formulas and descriptions of the funding categories.

Since 1986, the Arizona Department of Transportation has used a comprehensive regression-based econometric model to estimate Transportation Excise Tax revenues for Maricopa County. These revenues, which flow into the Regional Area Road Fund (RARF), are the major funding source for the Maricopa County Freeway Program. This document contains the official forecast of expected values for the Maricopa County Transportation Excise Tax as developed by the Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Maricopa Association of Governments, Valley Metro and Valley Metro Rail.

The Maricopa County Transportation Excise Tax, often referred to as the “1/2 cent sales tax” is levied upon business activities in Maricopa County, including retail sales, contracting, utilities, rental of real and personal property, restaurant and bar receipts, and other activities. Transportation excise tax revenues are deposited in the Maricopa County Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) which is administered by the Arizona Department of Transportation. These revenues were the principal source of funding for the Regional Freeway System in Maricopa County and were dedicated by statute to the purchase of right-of-way, design and construction of new freeways, widening of existing freeways and highways, improvements to the arterial street system, regional bus service and high capacity transit services such as light rail.

The State of Arizona taxes motor fuels and collects a variety of fees relating to the registration and operation of motor vehicles in the state. These collections include gasoline and use fuel taxes, motor carrier fees, vehicle license taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, and other miscellaneous fees. These revenues are deposited in the Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund and are then distributed to the cities, towns and counties of the State and to the State Highway Fund, which is administered by the Department. These taxes and fees represent a source of revenues available to the state for highway related expenses.

Arizona has grown rapidly over the years and our education system has grown in step with the population. But increasing the total budget for education doesn't mean that we have directed more resources to each student. The numbers show that Arizona has one of the lowest per-pupil funding rates in the country. Parties of one faction or another argue endlessly about which numbers to use in comparing Arizona to other states, or even whether such comparisons are possible. What is indisputable is that Arizona ranks in the bottom tier of states in both education spending and in student achievement and that we have made substantial cuts in our funding of both K-12 and higher education since the beginning of the Great Recession.

The Division of Adult Education in the Arizona Department of Education and the Arizona Adult Literacy and Technology Resource Center contracted with the Morrison Institute for Public Policy to develop an evaluation system for Arizona's adult education program. During phase I, the institute analyzed existing program data on Arizona's adult education providers. Interviews were conducted in January and February 1997 of 379 current and past program participants; they were done in English or Spanish, as appropriate. Interviewees were asked 10 questions about reasons for entering the program, amount of time spent in the program, and feelings about what the program did or did not help them accomplish. Past participants were asked an additional question about their reasons for leaving the program. Findings indicated that over 90 percent of interviewees felt their adult education experiences had met their needs and been positive overall. The proportions of participants who mentioned having entered with a specific goal, e.g., preparing to take the General Educational Development tests or to get a job, were closely aligned with the proportions who said their participation in the program had helped them reach that particular goal. More than one-quarter of program participants in 1996 showed improvement on three indicators that suggested they were becoming more self-sufficient: moving off public assistance, gaining employment, and maintaining or improving their job situation. (Appendixes contain 10 references, 3 data tables, and interview forms.)

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.

Arizona's Serve-America program, administered by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), began in fiscal year 1992-93 under the auspices of the National and Community Service Act of 1990. Serve-America links community service projects with schools and youths in grades K-12. This second annual report documents the second year of project implementation and updates the policy context in which programs are operating. It focuses on 15 sites--including both schools and community-based organizations--funded to implement community service programs during 1993-94. A pre- and post-test study investigated the relationship between "at-riskness" and "connectedness to the community." Findings indicate that the projects made considerable progress toward accomplishing proposed goals and resulted in positive outcomes for local communities and student volunteers, particularly those at risk. Some projects were more effective than others in positively influencing at-risk participants. The following recommendations are offered: (1) the ADE should continue to support community service programs; (2) the ADE should sponsor more technical assistance and evaluation training; (3) the state should expand training and assistance; and (4) further research about Arizona's effective community service projects is warranted.