“What about the water?” was one of the questions Morrison Institute for Public Policy asked in its 2008 study, "Megapolitan: Arizona’s Sun Corridor". That report looked at the potential growth of the Sun Corridor as Tucson and Phoenix merge into one continuous area for economic and demographic purposes.

With its brief review of the water situation in urban Arizona, "Megapolitan" left a number of questions unanswered. This report will consider questions like these in more detail in order to examine the Sun Corridor’s water future. This topic has received less sophisticated public discussion than might be expected in a desert state. Arizona’s professional water managers feel they are relatively well prepared for the future and would like to be left alone to do their job. Elected officials and economic-development professionals have sometimes avoided discussing water for fear of reinforcing a negative view of Arizona. This report seeks to contribute to this understanding, and to a more open and informed conversation about the relationship of water and future growth.

In February of 1998, the Pima County Board of Supervisors launched what has evolved into the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) -- a comprehensive effort to protect the Sonoran Desert, guide growth and rationalize land development in the metropolitan Tucson region. Proponents of this planning process maintained that the project would reconcile conflicts between human activities and conservation, providing benefits for both wildlife and economic development. Critics, however, have increasingly alleged that implementing such an initiative will adversely affect land and housing markets, increase taxes and create problems of housing affordability. Over time a pressing need has consequently grown for objective information about the possible fiscal and economic impacts of the conservation programs being assembled by Pima County. This report addresses that need. It is a tool in the form of an impartial framework for assessment that government officials, environmentalists, business people and the general public can use for debate and decision-making.

In the spring of 1998, the Office of Workforce Development Policy (OWDP) of the Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned a statewide opinion poll to assess public attitudes toward the state’s plan for economic development as implemented through GSPED — the Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The poll was designed to assess both the public’s understanding of GSPED and their reactions to using the concept of industry clusters as a tool for organizing both economic and workforce development efforts.

One question posed by members of the Governors’ Council on Workforce Development Policy pertained
to whether polling results vary by urban versus rural residency. Specifically, the question was raised as to whether the responses of rural residents differ from those who live in urban areas. Therefore, at the request of the Council, results of the polling were analyzed in order to answer the question: Does urban versus rural residency affect respondents' answers? The answer to this question is, in short, No.

In the spring of 1998, the Office of Workforce Development Policy (OWDP) of the Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned a statewide opinion poll to assess public attitudes toward the state’s plan for economic development as implemented through GSPED — the Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The poll was designed to assess both the public’s understanding of GSPED and their reactions to using the concept of industry clusters as a tool for organizing both economic and workforce development efforts.

Fierce competition for workers is one of the top issues today in Arizona. Many people may be surprised to hear that anything related to the state’s economic situation is on a list of pressing issues. Arizona’s economy is and remains robust, the state is finding it difficult to supply workers in demand by industry. The result is a new but deep threat to our economic future. Businesses’ inability to find and retain the workers they need, where they will need them, may in fact be the spear that unexpectedly pierces the state’s prosperity.

This document describes first-year outcomes of the Arizona Transition Project, which is part of the National Head Start-Public School Transition Project. The project seeks to maintain the early benefits of Head Start through the primary grades and beyond. Outcomes for 1992-93 relating to children, families, system, and policy for the years K-3 were examined. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from over 100 children and their families enrolled in three Transition schools and three control schools in Phoenix, Arizona. Data were obtained through child assessments, interviews with families and key collaborators, questionnaires of teachers and family advocates, and observation. Findings indicate that the Transition Project has had substantial progress in achieving its objectives: Transition students are outscoring control students on most measures; Transition services are being implemented as planned; staff are enthusiastic about project goals and services; startup problems have been minimal and handled through a well-developed communication network; and people feel included in decision making. A summary of evaluation results is offered. Recommendations are made to use student achievement data to identify gaps in skills development, refine program implementation processes, develop linkages with other programs, and disseminate information to local and state policy makers. Eighteen tables, six figures, and an appendix that summarizes data-collection instruments are included.

The Arizona Head Start--Public School Transition Project is 1 of 31 demonstration projects designed to test whether advances by Head Start children could be maintained by continuing Head Start-type services into kindergarten through the third grade, and to identify, develop, and implement transition practices to bridge the gap between Head Start and public schools. This study evaluated the Arizona project in its fourth year of implementation. Participating were two cohorts of students at three transition and three comparison schools in Phoenix. The program components evaluated were: (1) developmentally appropriate practices, curriculum, and materials; (2) physical health, mental health, and dental services; (3) family services; and (4) parent involvement. Findings indicated that all components had been implemented by the time of the 1995-96 evaluation. Both cohorts had similar public assistance participation, and all groups showed dramatic decreases in public assistance since program entry. The vast majority of parents from all groups reported positive interactions with schools; qualitative data confirmed continuing positive impact on teachers, schools, and the Head Start agency. Transition services, especially those of family advocates, were seen as crucial to smooth transitions. There were observable differences between transition and comparison classrooms; however, quantitative data showed few significant differences in gains made by children between transition and comparison classrooms. Confounding variables of high attrition, variations in student English proficiency, and the existence in comparison schools of transition-like services may have influenced the results. Promising practices and further challenges were identified and recommendations were made for improving the collaboration between the Head Start program and the public schools, and improving the evaluation process. (Three appendices include a summary of data collection instruments. Contains 20 references.)

Four major statewide "tools" to help manage growth and preserve open space have been put to work in Arizona over the past five years. These include the Arizona Preserve Initiative and the closely-related Proposition 303, as well as the Growing Smarter Act and its "addendum," Growing Smarter Plus. All four tools are based in large part on a concept known as "smart growth," which is generally considered to be a set of growth management measures that attempt to strike a balance among issues of economics, environment, and quality of life. Taken together, these four growth management tools make significant changes in the way that (a) city and county governments plan and regulate their lands, (b) citizens play a role in land use issues, (c) state trust lands are managed, and (d) open space may be acquired and preserved. Many of these changes will have long-term effects for the state. This paper provides a brief overview of each of the four growth management/open space tools, a preliminary accounting of major activities each one has stimulated, and a perspective on what can be expected for the future as expressed by a selection of growth planners and other leaders of growth management in Arizona.

For most of the past 50 years, Pinal County hasn't had to think much about its image, choices, or growth. But now, Pinal County is changing faster than anyone ever imagined. Will Pinal become a distinguishable destination or simply a McMega drive through? If Pinal rises to the occasion, the result can be a vibrant, sustainable, and competitive place that takes advantage of its location. If Pinal fails to choose wisely, its bedroom community future is already visible in the East Valley and subdivisions north of Tucson. Which will it be?

When Arizona's economy depended on the 4Cs – copper, cotton, citrus, and cattle – Pinal County was a leader in 2 of them. These historic sources of wealth and touchstones of heritage still play a role in the county's economy, but dramatic population growth and new economic drivers make this a different, distinctive time. This new era demands new vision, new ideas, and new ways of thinking, even as past strengths are kept in mind.