The depiction of a historical-period property on an early map, whether a house, a ranch, a mining prospect, or an irrigation canal, is often the earliest (and sometimes the only) evidence that cultural features once existed in a particular place. Statistical Research used early maps as a regional preservation-planning tool by systematically examining a group of early maps of the county for depictions of cultural features. The typology will be used to plot the sites, distinguished by type, on a single map (or possibly on a series of maps) to be digitized by Pima County and incorporated into its GIS database.

This report is one of several from Statistical Research Inc. written to develop the Cultural and Historic Resources Element of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Divided into four parts, the report summarizes available information that reflects the experience of (1) ancient peoples of Southern Arizona; (2) indigenous peoples; (3) non-indigenous peoples of the historical period; and (4) Pima County today.

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.

Pima County, in partnership with the National Park Service, has been an active participant in the development of a 70 mile segment of the trail. With the preparation of this Master Plan, Pima County has embarked on an active program to acquire the necessary rights-of-way and easements and to construct the Pima County segment of the national historic trail.

This study covers the time period after 1200 A.D. in terms of the domestic landscape, the agricultural landscape, and the social landscape as the residents of southern Arizona adjust to upheaval and change in environmental and social conditions. This memorandum summarizes the study about the Classic Period and provides a comparison of findings and theories about area residents from both before and after 1200 A.D., which is the approximate time frame of the collapse and restructuring of cultural landscapes.

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.

Arizona is one of the states in which the high-wage end of the employment distribution provides a more favorable impression of its job quality than that based on all employment. Thus, Arizona’s subpar job quality is not due to a scarcity of high-wage jobs, but instead results from lesser job quality in the remainder of the employment distribution. In particular, Arizona has an above-average share of very low-paying jobs that serve tourists and seasonal residents. In turn, the low overall average wage in Arizona — 7 percent less than the U.S. average — primarily results from factors other than job quality. The average wage in Arizona is less than the U.S. average in the vast majority of industries and occupations, both high- and low-paying.

Education decisions are among the most important choices people ever make. So we were surprised and disappointed to see an article so loosely reasoned and reckless in its conclusions as “Five Reasons to Skip College” published in Blank Slate at Forbes.com on April 18, 2006. The article never provides a numerical assessment of the costs and benefits of going to college, uses statistics inappropriately and in a way that biases the conclusions against college, contains conceptual errors on how to evaluate the return on a college education, and greatly exaggerates the only substantive criticism of typical evaluations of the financial worth of a college degree.