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.

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.

Housing plays a major role in the United States and Arizona economies. It is estimated that the housing industry accounts for one-fifth of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product. Despite the economic importance of housing, Arizona did not have a comprehensive approach or strategy for dealing with housing policy issues. In 1994, a Housing Summit addressed increasing concerns about the cost of housing. Participants from across the state met to discuss growing housing needs. A major outcome of the summit was the formation of the Affordable Housing Task Force, designed to review the state’s housing market and suggest ways the state could address housing affordability. Its principal recommendation was the creation of a permanent body that would focus attention on workable housing solutions. The Arizona Housing Commission was created by Executive Order in 1996 to serve as an advisory body to the Governor, the Legislature and the Arizona Department of Commerce, which is the primary agency currently responsible for housing programs. In 1997, the passage of House Bill 2011 formally established the Commission in statute.

Arizona Housing Commission Task Force on Tax‐Exempt Mortgage Financing was established to review and report on 1) the availability of financing for single‐family housing and 2) the role of the private activity bond allocation process in facilitating the availability of housing for low‐to‐moderate income families in all areas of Arizona. The Task Force is required to issue an annual report of its activities, findings, and recommendations, including information reported to it by the four major Industrial Development Authorities and the Arizona Housing Finance Authority. These five entities issue tax‐exempt single‐family mortgage revenue bonds, mortgage credit certificates and other forms of Private Activity Bonds.

This report includes both housing data and policy recommendations which are meant to stimulate debate and provide a menu of options for policy makers and intends to fulfill the following goals:
• Provide information on key socioeconomic trends which affect housing affordability including population
growth, household formation, age distribution and income growth.
• Communicate information on housing market trends including home ownership rates, rent levels and vacancy rates, home sales prices and new construction activity.
• Analyze cost components of typical new single-family housing and multifamily construction in Arizona.
• Identify potential regulatory and policy barriers to housing affordability.
• Recommend leadership and resource policies that will avert a potential housing crisis and improve housing affordability across the state.

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.

This study summarizes and analyzes the findings of a statewide survey conducted last year of samples of homeless individuals in the Phoenix and Tucson areas and across the state. The aim of this report is to join with other, ongoing efforts to develop effective policies concerning such issues as job training, treatment for the mentally ill and Arizona’s critical need for affordable housing. Hopefully, it will help politicians and policymakers talk more openly and productively about a pervasive social problem that is both glaringly obvious and largely invisible.