The Decision Center for a Desert City at Arizona State University was established in 2004 with funding from the National Science Foundation to advance the scientific understanding of environmental decision making under uncertainty. With additional funding awarded by NSF in 2010, "DCDC II" has expanded its already extensive research agenda, engaged the policy-making community, and built stronger ties between scientific knowledge and decision making enterprises. New DCDC research has developed fundamental knowledge about decision making under uncertainty from three interdisciplinary perspectives: climate impacts, urban dynamics, and adaptation decisions. Simulation modeling and boundary organization studies cut across these themes and are a core component of DCDC activities.

DCDC is focused on developing, implementing, and studying an interdisciplinary decision-support process for environmental decision making based on principles derived from social science research. Through an integrated approach to research, education, and community and institutional outreach, DCDC is training a new generation of scientists who can work successfully at the boundaries of science and policy. Broader impacts are realized as research informs innovative solutions to society’s pressing environmental challenges. To accomplish these goals, DCDC has built a dynamic bridge between ASU and local, regional, and national policy communities to foster local to-global solutions for water sustainability and urban climate adaptation.

The list was compiled by the Department of Water Resources in cooperation with the Landscape Technical committee of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, comprised of experts from the Desert Botanical Garden, the Arizona Department of Transportation and various municipal, nursery and landscape specialists. Individuals wishing to add or delete plants from the list may submit information to the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources for consideration.

The CAPER report represents a collaborative effort between the Arizona Department of Housing and the Arizona Department of Economic Security. This document outlines the State’s affordable housing and community development resources, their methods of distribution, geographic funding objectives, and actions by the State to meet those objectives during the past fiscal year.

The State of Arizona Consolidated Plan represents a collaborative effort between two state agencies, the Arizona Department of Housing and the Arizona Department of Economic Security. This document outlines the state’s affordable housing and community development resources, methods of distribution, geographic funding objectives and other actions to be taken by the state.

The Consolidated Plan is a document required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to be submitted by all jurisdictions that directly receive HUD formula funds. The Arizona Department of Housing is the state agency responsible for developing the Consolidated Plan. The goal of the Plan is to create a five-year strategy that identifies priorities and resources for affordable housing and community development projects and services.

The Consolidated Plan determines priorities, establishes strategic goals, and allocates resources for the HUD funded programs administered by the state of Arizona Department of Housing, namely: the Community Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS and the Emergency Shelter Grant Program administered by the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires all government entities receiving federal low-income housing and community development funds to prepare an Annual Action Plan. This is a one-year plan to address the low-income housing and community development needs in the state of Arizona, with a special focus on serving the small cities and rural areas of the state. It consolidates the planning, application, and funding requirements for several programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Community Development Block Grant; HOME Investment Partnerships Program; Emergency Solutions Grant; and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. The federal and state-funded housing and community development projects and programs described within the Action Plan are administered and implemented by ADOH, the Arizona Department of Economic Security, units of local or regional government, or non-profit agencies.

In fiscal year 2012, Fowler Elementary School District’s student achievement was slightly higher than the peer districts’ averages, and the District operated efficiently. The District’s administrative cost per pupil was similar to the peer districts’ average, and it employed proper accounting and computer controls. The District’s plant operations costs per pupil and per square foot were lower than the peer districts’ averages primarily because of lower energy costs. Additionally, the District’s food service cost per meal was lower than the peer districts’ average, and the program was self-sufficient, in part, because the District paid the vendor that ran its program lower administrative and management fees than peer districts, on average. Further, the District’s transportation program was efficient, with lower costs per mile and per rider and efficient bus routes. However, the District did not accurately report its number of riders transported, which resulted in substantial overfunding for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

In fiscal year 2012, Isaac Elementary School District’s student achievement was similar to peer district averages, and the District’s operational efficiencies were mixed, with much higher administrative and plant operations costs than peer districts’ averages but lower food service costs. Between fiscal years 2007 and 2012, the District decreased its classroom spending while it increased nonclassroom spending, primarily for administration and plant operations. At the end of fiscal year 2011, the District closed two schools to reduce costs, but its administrative and plant operations costs remained high, partly because of higher staffing levels. The District’s transportation program operated efficient bus routes but had much higher costs per mile and per rider than peer districts’, partly because it operated a smaller program but also because it offered more generous benefits. Finally, the District lacked adequate controls over user access to its computer network and systems.

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport completed a comprehensive analysis of the cargo service opportunities of Phoenix metropolitan airports, specifically Phoenix Sky Harbor International, Phoenix Deer Valley, Phoenix Goodyear, and Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airports. The Study researched regional air cargo opportunities, forecasted regional air cargo demand, determined necessary facilities and infrastructure at Phoenix region airports, identified market opportunities and outlined approaches for further development.

This report presents the results of a study of vehicle occupancy conducted in Phoenix, Arizona to determine what factors have the greatest influence on having persons travel together to make trips in private vehicles. Although the data were collected in the Phoenix metropolitan area for the purpose of refining the MAGTPO mode split model for vehicle trips, the conclusions reached in this study of vehicle occupancy are also intended to be checked against data from other metropolitan areas.

In fiscal year 2012, Osborn Elementary School District’s student achievement was slightly higher than peer districts’, and the District’s efficiency in noninstructional areas was mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’. The District’s administrative cost per pupil was slightly lower than the peer districts’ average, and its food service program operated efficiently with a lower cost per meal, on average. However, the District’s transportation program operated less efficiently, and although the District made some improvements to the program in fiscal year 2013, better oversight is still needed. Further, the District’s plant operations costs were much higher than peer districts’, primarily because the District maintained a large amount of excess building space, even after closing a school at the end of fiscal year 2011. Lastly, the District needs to strengthen some of its computer controls.