Enrollment in degree-granting institutions of higher education in Arizona as a percentage of the state’s population was about equal to the national average in 2003. The Arizona figure was higher than the national average at private for-profit institutions, slightly greater than the national average at public institutions, but considerably below average at private not-for-profit institutions. Total revenues and expenditures per student at Arizona institutions of higher education were far below the national averages in 2003, among the least in the nation. Among public institutions, Arizona’s higher education revenues and expenditures were not as far below average, but still ranked among the bottom 10 states in the nation.

The educational attainment in 2000 of the entire 25-or-older population in Arizona was similar to the national average and ranked in the middle of the states. Arizona compared less favorably to two sets of comparison states: “competitor” states defined by the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and “new economy” states identified by the Milken Institute. In 1990, however, Arizona’s educational attainment had exceeded the national average. Arizona ranked among the bottom 10 states in the 1990 to 2000 gain in educational attainment. Among both the entire population and those active in the labor force in 2000, the
educational attainment of Arizona residents 55 or older exceeded that of their peers nationally.

Unlike the rest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, population density in central Phoenix dropped during the 1970s and 1980s. The primary cause was a decrease in the number of housing units. Rising vacancy rates contributed, but the increase in vacancy rates was similar to that of the entire metropolitan area. Between 1990 and 1995, population density rose in central Phoenix. A sharp decline in vacancy rates was a major factor in the turnaround, though the vacancy rate decline only matched that of the entire metro area. Another major factor in the increase in density was the rising number of people residing in prisons, homeless shelters, or on the streets.

Despite all of the spending reductions, fund transfers, and other techniques used to balance the budget in the preceding few years, Arizona’s general fund faces a massive deficit. This issue of Policy Points poses an important question: Are you content with the historically low expenditures being made from the general fund and satisfied that the current low level of public services will be permanent?