In 1996, ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy began asking residents and leaders in Greater Phoenix, “What does quality of life mean to you, and how do you measure it?” After an 18-month process, the first volume of What Matters was published in September 1997, creating a baseline of opinion and data about “quality of life” and what it means to the people who live here. The report was quickly recognized both within the region and nationally among indicator projects for its simple, yet unique presentation of public perception (survey) data and regional statistical, or indicator, data.

This brief, the third issue in the "Criminal Justice Issues for Arizona" series, reveals that Pinal County's specialized court for domestic-violence cases offers some promising results for dealing with this common and complex offense. This report contains an analysis of data collected in the Pinal County Domestic Violence Database, which as of April 2008 contained 666 case records of domestic-violence offenders who were processed by one of the three courts. The database also contained information on a comparison group of offenders; however, these offenders are not included in this analysis because of insufficient numbers. Court officials are currently developing a more appropriate comparison group for use in a subsequent analysis. Table 3 presents the frequency and percent of offenses by levels of education: 8th grade and below, some high school, high school diploma, some college, college graduate, post-graduate degree, and unknown. Key findings include: (1) Offenders showed a significant increase in their self-reported coping abilities and in their satisfaction with the criminal-justice system during their period of supervision; (2) Offenders showed a significant decrease in their self-reported propensity for abusiveness to an intimate partner during their period of supervision; and (3) Only 9% of offenders committed another offense while in the program.

It is an oversimplification to describe the new economy as a technology revolution, something that is mostly driven by and affects business. Clearly, new technologies and business practices are central to the concept of a new economy. However, that’s the easy part to understand. The bigger challenge is to grasp—and then develop strategies to take advantage of—how public policies in the new economy can most positively affect people and places. This report is meant to help Arizonans do just that.

What a difference a year makes. In June 2008, AZ Views reported that “Arizonans have a strong sense of job security, despite the national economic slump and the state’s budget crisis.” That is no longer true, as this edition of AZ Views shows, and Arizona’s economic situation arguably is the best example of the worst case.

Building upon the work of many others who have contributed to quality of life research in Arizona, this report provides a framework for addressing key issues proactively. The data in Arizona Directions are presented in a highly graphic format with must-read information on our competitiveness, individual action steps, opportunities for public-private partnerships, and public policy options – all rooted in a deep understanding that revenue-neutral options are especially important in our current fiscal situation.

A grassroots dialogue-to-action program designed to inspire bottom-up collaboration on issues of domestic violence proved to be a success and several important lessons were learned to help full implementation. This briefing evaluates the pilot program of the Purple Ribbon Study Circles Project, which ran in six cities in Greater Phoenix from September through December 2008.

Though the Great Recession may be officially over, all is not well in Arizona. Three years after the collapse of a massive real estate “bubble,” the deepest economic downturn in memory exposed and exacerbated one of the nation’s most profound state fiscal crises, with disturbing implications for Arizona citizens and the state’s long-term economic health.

This brief takes a careful look at the Grand Canyon State’s fiscal situation, examining both Arizona’s serious cyclical budget shortfall—the one resulting from a temporary collapse of revenue due to the recession—as well as the chronic, longer-term, and massive structural imbalances that have developed largely due to policy choices made in better times. This primer employs a unique methodology to estimate the size of the state’s structural deficit and then explores the mix of forces, including the large permanent tax reductions, that created them. It also highlights some of the dramatic impacts these fiscal challenges are having on service-delivery as well as on local governments. The brief suggests some of the steps state policymakers must take to close their budget gaps over the short and longer term. First, it urges better policymaking, and prods leaders to broaden, balance, and diversify the state’s revenue base while looking to assure a long-haul balance of taxing and spending. And second, it recommends that Arizona improve the information-sharing and budgeting processes through which fiscal problems are understood—so they may ultimately be averted.

The economic underpinnings in Arizona of housing, employment, and financial services have collapsed, as they have almost everywhere else around the nation, albeit deeper here than in most other states. Arizona again must have the wisdom and willpower to rebound. But it will take more than a bold vision, although one is needed. It will take follow-through and collaboration – neither of which have been Arizona’s strong suit in recent years – as well as informed public policy based on what we’ve learned from the past, melded with what we already know about the future. In short, Arizona must prepare itself for the next economy.

The biggest economic trend in Arizona over the last decade has been the flat line on various measures of prosperity relative to the national average. Arizona always has been below the national average on measures such as the average wage, earnings per employee, and per capita personal income. However, Arizona compares less favorably now than it did in the 1970s and early 1980s.