The Citizens Clean Elections Commission was established by the enactment of the Citizens Clean Elections Act. The Commission’s mission is to fairly, faithfully and fully implement and administer the Citizens Clean Elections Act. All members must be registered to vote in the State of Arizona. No more than two members of the commission may be members of the same political party. No more than two members of the commission may be residents of the same county.

A participating candidate is an individual who has decided to run for a statewide office or the Legislature, agrees not to accept special interest monies and adheres to the Citizens Clean Elections Act and commission rules. In return, the participating candidate will receive funding from the Citizens Clean Elections Fund. In order for a candidate to receive funding, the participating candidate must collect a specified number of $5 Qualifying Contributions from registered voters within his or her district for a legislative candidate or registered voters in Arizona for a statewide candidate.

This Citizens Clean Elections Commission Nonparticipating Candidate Guide was created to provide information to candidates interested in running for legislative or statewide office. Participating candidates for statewide offices and legislative offices are eligible to participate in the public funding program. The system is voluntary; candidates may choose to participate in the system or they may choose to raise funds in the traditional manner. Candidates who choose to raise funds with private campaign contributions are referred to as “nonparticipating candidates.”

Between May and July of 1996, members of the council were asked to participate in a series of interviews. The primary purpose of the interviews was to elicit council members' views of and expectations for Arizona's STW initiative. A second reason was to clarify the mission of the council itself. This paper highlights salient points from the interviews. Quotes are used verbatim.

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.

In preparation for new federal legislation that promotes unprecedented levels of comprehensive planning and service integration at state and local levels, an analysis of state issues relevant to comprehensive service delivery is necessary. This paper examines such state issues, with a focus on Arizona's at-risk population, and presents a framework for comprehensive service delivery. It provides the rationale for such service delivery, summarizes the literature on research-based practices, illustrates district approaches to comprehensive service delivery, and sets forth guidelines for developing a comprehensive plan. System components of an effective plan are discussed in detail--student education, parent/family involvement, social/economic services, health services, and professional development. Five general principles underlie success: philosophy, people, processes, promising practices, and partners. Recommendations for developing comprehensive service delivery programs include the following: (1) build on existing information; (2) consolidate knowledge; and (3) think long-term. Contains 11 figures and over 250 references. Appendices contain information on Arizona practitioners' views and an illustration of a side-by-side program analysis.

The fourth, and final, annual statewide public opinion polling is part of a multifaceted evaluation of Arizona's school to work (STW) initiative. Baseline data were established in spring 1996; comparative data have been collected annually since then. The polling assesses public attitudes toward STW, and determines their level of support or opposition to the initiative. Each year, three constituent groups were polled: parents, businesses, and educators. Sample sizes in 1999 yielded results comparable with those in 1996, 1997, and 1998 results. Findings indicate the following: public awareness of STW has grown significantly during the past 4 years; awareness of involvement in a regional partnership has grown; most Arizonans are satisfied with the overall quality of public schools, but are least satisfied with those aspects of education that relate more closely to STW, and are in favor of changes in public schools that support STW outcomes; and many Arizonans are skeptical that STW "can work." Clear majorities of Arizonans support STW on every indicator of support measured, including the following: willingness to pay taxes to support STW; willingness to vote for pro-STW elected officials; identification of STW participation as "very important" in the lives of students; indication that one would change schools to allow a child to participate in STW; and support to include STW in the state's budget.