This report is one of several from Statistical Research Inc. written to develop the Cultural and Historic Resources Element of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Divided into four parts, the report summarizes available information that reflects the experience of (1) ancient peoples of Southern Arizona; (2) indigenous peoples; (3) non-indigenous peoples of the historical period; and (4) Pima County today.

The depiction of a historical-period property on an early map, whether a house, a ranch, a mining prospect, or an irrigation canal, is often the earliest (and sometimes the only) evidence that cultural features once existed in a particular place. Statistical Research used early maps as a regional preservation-planning tool by systematically examining a group of early maps of the county for depictions of cultural features. The typology will be used to plot the sites, distinguished by type, on a single map (or possibly on a series of maps) to be digitized by Pima County and incorporated into its GIS database.

This study covers the time period after 1200 A.D. in terms of the domestic landscape, the agricultural landscape, and the social landscape as the residents of southern Arizona adjust to upheaval and change in environmental and social conditions. This memorandum summarizes the study about the Classic Period and provides a comparison of findings and theories about area residents from both before and after 1200 A.D., which is the approximate time frame of the collapse and restructuring of cultural landscapes.

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.

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, 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.