In fiscal year 2012, Clifton Unified School District’s student AIMS scores were lower than both its peer districts’ and state averages. The District’s instructional program needs improvement. For example, some students were not provided the statutorily required number of instructional hours, and one of its four teachers did not have a teaching certificate. The District’s operational efficiencies were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’. However, the District lacked proper oversight and adequate controls over nearly all of its operations. In particular, the District lacked basic administrative processes such as monitoring budgets and maintaining proper controls over expenditures resulting in it overspending its legal budget limits in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The District also failed to meet several transportation safety requirements. For example, its primary driver was not certified to drive a school bus. Lastly, the District lacked proper supervision of inmate workers on its school campus.

In fiscal year 2011, Chinle Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, and the District’s operational efficiency was mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were much higher than peer districts’, and it lacked adequate controls over its vehicles, accounts payable processing, and computer systems. The District’s plant operations costs were also much higher than peer districts’ because the District maintained more building space per student, which was likely not needed since Chinle USD operated its schools far below their designed capacities. The District’s food service program was reasonably efficient, and its transportation program had similar per mile costs as peer districts’. However, the District did not meet bus driver and bus preventative maintenance requirements.

This plan is an action agenda that avoids the long-term strategic planning platitudes and broad generalizations that sound good but do not achieve a great deal. The steps presented in this document are ones we can take in the near term, over the next two years or so, that will provide the foundation for long-term economic growth and stability.

The purpose of this project is to provide regional managers and the public with updated comprehensive maps and accompanying datasets for GRD members within the TAMA in the context of its impact patterns on AWS. These datasets are available in raw format from PAG and also will be provided on the Pima County Map Guide Web site for interactive viewing. In the past, CAP also has used this report to address boundary reconciliation issues.

In fiscal year 2012, Laveen Elementary School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, and the District operated efficiently overall with lower costs per pupil than peer districts’, on average, in all operational areas. Despite operating efficiently, Laveen ESD spent 21 percent, or $751, less per pupil in the classroom than peer districts, on average, because it received less funding primarily because it had a lower poverty rate and fewer special needs students. In fact, the District had nearly the lowest overall per pupil spending amount in the State. Although the District operated efficiently overall, it needs to better ensure that its bus drivers meet all certification requirements and it may be able to reduce its plant operations costs by further reducing the amount it pays for custodial services.

Provides basic information about the source of surface water in Cienega Creek at the downstream end of the natural preserve, which will contribute to efforts to conceptualize and implement effective land management proposals for the SDCP. Study results indicate that the surface flow or subflow from Agua Verde Creek do not significantly influence the water in the Cienega Creek.

This paper complements a detailed assessment of job quality, based on analysis of industrial and occupational mix, recently completed by the Seidman Institute’s Center for Business Research. The overall conclusions in this report are consistent with those of the more extensive CBR research. Arizona’s economy grows very rapidly, but per person or per worker measures of wages, compensation, incomes, and gross state product are below the national average. No evidence exists that the situation is improving appreciably (or deteriorating). Indeed, the state appears to be creating income, wealth and quality jobs at rates that are similar to those displayed by other states. Arizona is a job-generating marvel and is among the nation’s leaders in aggregate growth. If the state is successful at improving the quality of its labor force and creating higher-quality jobs, its per worker and per person comparisons will improve.

This paper provides a capsule perspective on the lessons economists have learned from investigating growth and income gaps across countries. After providing the lessons for growth and development across countries, the paper asks whether these lessons can be extended to growth and income differentials between regions or states of the United States. It should be stressed that applying to regional growth what is known about country growth is partly untested at this time, and hence merely suggestive.

A landmark assessment of infrastructure needs in Arizona was produced by the L. William Seidman Research Institute in May 2008 for the Arizona Investment Council (AIC): "Infrastructure Needs and Funding Alternatives for Arizona: 2008-2032", that addressed infrastructure needs in four categories: energy, telecommunications, transportation, and water and wastewater. The information from the AIC report is a major input to the report that follows. Other types of infrastructure — most notably education, health care, and public safety — also are analyzed here to provide a more complete picture of infrastructure needs in Arizona. The goals of this report are to place Arizona’s infrastructure needs into national and historical contexts, to identify the changing conditions in infrastructure provision that make building Arizona’s infrastructure in the future a more problematic proposition than in the past, and to provide projections of the possible costs of providing infrastructure in Arizona over the next quarter century.