Arizona’s public behavioral health care system, which serves some 150,000 mentally ill and vulnerable state residents, is wrestling with a number of urgent challenges. In addition to budget cuts resulting from the current economic crisis, and the demands of a 28-year-old class-action lawsuit, the system has been repeatedly criticized in several areas, including for inadequate staff, data, housing support, and crisis services. On July 22, a panel of professionals who play key roles in the system discussed these and other issues before some 300 behavioral health providers, supervisors, and policymakers at the annual Summer Institute hosted by Arizona State University’s Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy. This paper provides an abbreviated report of that discussion, which was partially designed and moderated by ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

Severe and widespread budget cuts in behavioral health and substance abuse services for lower-income Arizonans who don’t qualify for AHCCCS have already taken effect across the state. Even before these cuts were implemented, it was clear that the publicly-supported behavioral health system in our state was not adequately serving many Arizonans who needed mental health or substance use disorder treatment. This paper represents an effort by Arizona State University’s Centers for Applied Behavioral Health Policy and the Morrison Institute for Public Policy to promote and enrich Arizona’s public dialogue about these problems and potential solutions.

The purpose of this paper is to provide background information on trends and possible future changes in urban structure and lifestyles important for planning the development of a parcel of Arizona state trust land known as Superstition Vistas (SV). This parcel, which is located just south of the Superstition Mountains in Pinal County, has an area of 275 square miles—enough land to provide housing for 900,000 new Phoenix metro-area residents at current population densities.

The aspects of future urban living discussed in this paper are those important for land-use planning—density, neighborhood design, transportation demand, etc. Very little attention will be given to the interior of homes. Also, since the SV parcel is currently undeveloped, emphasis will be placed on changes in urban structure that can be accomplished in greenfield developments rather than the in-fill of urban cores.

Arizonans have been divided in their feelings about growth and what to do about it, especially during the past two decades. To complicate matters, the debate over the best responses to growth has been drawn along overly simplistic lines—the economy versus the environment. Arizonans who follow the myriad issues related to urban growth closely are becoming convinced that the discussion needs to be recast in a new light.

Scholar Leo Marx coined the phrase “the machine in the garden” in 1964 to describe the relationship between nature and technology. Considering much of the writing about Arizona’s growth, it seemed an apt title for this volume of Arizona Policy Choices. "The Machine in the Garden" presents growth policy choices for Arizona along a continuum: Yesterday’s Growth—the policies that have been used in the past; Today’s Growth—the “smarter” approaches from around the country; and Tomorrow’s Growth—cutting edge thinking about the economy and experiments in urbanism and governance.

This publication offers comparative data and analysis on 10 public policy issues. With its scope and detail, "How Arizona Compares" will be of interest to many throughout Arizona and strives to encourage leaders and residents to discuss and move ahead on the state's most pressing public policy issues. The intent is for this publication to be studied and used for dialogue and action. The following sections are included: (1) Polishing the 48th Star; (2) Inside "How Arizona Compares"; (3) Arizona's Land and People; (4) Crime and Punishment; (5) Health and Health Care; (6) Education; (7) Business Futures; (8) Families and Incomes; (9) Signal Measures on Hot Topics; (10) Government; (11) Arts and Culture; (12) Housing; (13) Transportation; and (14) Environment. A list of selected sources is appended.