The author writes about Arizona's longstanding belief in direct democracy via referendum, initiative and recall. The Legislature continues to grapple with election reform and strike a balance of how much binding authority should remain in the hands of voters in terms of initiative, referendum and recall, but Arizona’s penchant for people power has been demonstrated since before statehood. In the midst of his campaign for Congress in 1911, for example, Arizona’s Carl Hayden noted that everywhere he went he found voters eager to take control. "The people want their own kind of government,” Hayden told reporters. “They want to be the dictators.”

Since statehood in 1912, Arizona has been among the nation’s leaders in using the initiative process to either adopt a statute or amend the state constitution by placing a measure on the ballot. But such efforts are anything but easy. In fact, organizers have found it to be an expensive, time-consuming and exhausting process – and one that is unlikely to end successfully.

This paper, drawing upon historical data and information from surveys and interviews with more than 50 legislators, lobbyists, and knowledgeable observers, finds that the term limits reform adopted by the Arizona voters in 1992 has caused legislators to make some painful adjustments. Because of term limits many legislators have decided to run for another office prior to the expiration of their terms. This has often meant trying to move from the one legislative house to another, most commonly from the House to the Senate. On the plus side, the report finds that term limits have encouraged greater competition for legislative and other seats and have given voters a greater choice among candidates. To some extent, limits have been a force toward a more inclusive governing process. At the same time, they have generally reduced the power of legislative leaders and generally increased the influence of lobbyists and staff, though not all lobbyists and staff have gained equally. Recent newcomers to the Arizona Legislature are probably not any less knowledgeable than previous classes of newcomers, but under term limits there are more newcomers and members have less time to learn their jobs. For many, the limit to four two-year terms (eight years total) provides too little time to learn how to do the job and do it well.

In the spring of 1998, the Office of Workforce Development Policy (OWDP) of the Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned a statewide opinion poll to assess public attitudes toward the state’s plan for economic development as implemented through GSPED — the Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The poll was designed to assess both the public’s understanding of GSPED and their reactions to using the concept of industry clusters as a tool for organizing both economic and workforce development efforts.

One question posed by members of the Governors’ Council on Workforce Development Policy pertained
to whether polling results vary by urban versus rural residency. Specifically, the question was raised as to whether the responses of rural residents differ from those who live in urban areas. Therefore, at the request of the Council, results of the polling were analyzed in order to answer the question: Does urban versus rural residency affect respondents' answers? The answer to this question is, in short, No.

In the spring of 1998, the Office of Workforce Development Policy (OWDP) of the Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned a statewide opinion poll to assess public attitudes toward the state’s plan for economic development as implemented through GSPED — the Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The poll was designed to assess both the public’s understanding of GSPED and their reactions to using the concept of industry clusters as a tool for organizing both economic and workforce development efforts.

Fierce competition for workers is one of the top issues today in Arizona. Many people may be surprised to hear that anything related to the state’s economic situation is on a list of pressing issues. Arizona’s economy is and remains robust, the state is finding it difficult to supply workers in demand by industry. The result is a new but deep threat to our economic future. Businesses’ inability to find and retain the workers they need, where they will need them, may in fact be the spear that unexpectedly pierces the state’s prosperity.

The Phoenix Early Head Start (EHS) program is a family-centered program intended to provide early, continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support services for first-time teen parents and their very young children. This report presents case studies of 12 families, all EHS participants, who agreed to be followed throughout their participation in the program so that their stories could be updated as they unfolded from one year to the next. The case study families were interviewed in August of 1997, 1998, and 1999. Four of the families had participated in the first two interviews but had withdrawn prior to the third interview. Additional information was obtained through conversations with family support specialists in May 2000. Common themes in the families' stories regarding EHS's role include: (1) assistance from caring staff; (2) reassurance from home visits and child development; (3) help in becoming good parents; (4) help with personal goals; (5) help with daily life; and (6) socialization opportunities for children and parents. During the study, most families made progress to widely differing degrees. Although somewhat apprehensive about life without the safety net of EHS, all eight families seemed much more confident than earlier, had some knowledge and understanding of their children and themselves, and had articulated and taken some steps toward achieving personal and family goals.

Amidst the numbers and statistics that comprise a program evaluation, it is easy to lose sight of the program participants themselves. That is one rationale for a case study--to tap into some of the rich background information that only participants can provide. To develop some of this background information for the five-year program evaluation of Phoenix Early Head Start(EHS), a case study was undertaken of 12 families who were representative of all EHS program participants. Each of the 12 families agreed to be followed throughout their participation in the program so that their "stories" can be updated as they unfold from one year to the next.

The Phoenix, Arizona Early Head Start program is a family-centered program providing early, continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support services for low-income pregnant women and families with children ages birth to three. Analyses were conducted of program and participant data and program processes from Year 3, the second full year of implementation. The program components evaluated were: (1) child development, promoted through weekly home visits, site-based socialization activities, and weekly play groups; (2) family development services, provided by family support specialists to develop effective, supportive relationships, especially with fathers; (3) staff development, incorporating a multi-disciplinary approach reinforced by a relationship-based supervision model; and (4) community building and collaboration, including connections with Phoenix's program for young fathers and other family-focused initiatives.

Evaluation findings suggest that the program is on the right track. Among the program's successes are the launch of all planned child development activities, increased services by and access to the child development/disabilities specialists, and progress made through the male involvement component. The program continues to face challenges, including increasing staff skills in child development and parent-child relationships, helping young parents adjust to dealing with toddlers, reducing disruptive effects of staff turnover, and making the program and participants visible and vital to other family-centered community endeavors and to policy makers. Recommendations for future operations were derived from the evaluation findings. (Contains 49 references.)