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.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety enforces state law with primary responsibility in the areas of motor vehicle traffic, narcotics, organized crime/racketeering, and specific regulatory functions. Operational and technical assistance is provided to local and state government agencies and other components of the criminal justice community. Services include scientific analysis, aircraft support, emergency first care, criminal information systems, and statewide communications. The Department also promotes and enhances the quality of public safety through cooperative enforcement operations and by increasing public awareness of criminal activities.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety became operational by the executive order of Governor Jack Williams on July 1, 1969. Governor Williams’ mandate consolidated the functions and responsibilities of the Arizona Highway Patrol, the Enforcement Division of the State Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and the Narcotics Division of the State Department of Law.

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.