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 report includes original articles by Arizona policy practitioners and observers, reprints of pertinent articles by experts beyond Arizona, and a list for further reading. Articles of varying lengths and complexities are purposefully included so as to offer something to readers with different levels of interest in and knowledge of the subject matter.

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.

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 report brings together the results of a survey of 1100 homeless people living in and around downtown Phoenix in 1996 with the results of a similar survey conducted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of the homeless population in Phoenix, the data and comparative information presented in this report also reveal the complex and intractable nature of the homeless problem in general.

This report deals with state-level technical assistance and other activities pertinent to at-risk issues in the current context of educational reform. Specifically, the report discusses state options to support Arizona schools in delivering comprehensive services and implications for Arizona policymakers.

The "fit" of "at-risk" education in Arizona was examined in relation to reform initiatives. Focusing on technical assistance and related issues at the state level, researchers examined literature, interviewed a sample of Arizona Dept. of Education personnel, surveyed Arizona principals statewide, and gathered information from other states.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.

In the Valley, developing viable long-term transit from where we are currently will be very difficult if key
components continue to remain unaligned. Thus, before getting to the primary purpose of this report, it is important to first establish the players and basic considerations relevant to the effectiveness of a transit system.

Few would dispute that the Phoenix metropolitan area is severely lacking in terms of mass-transit compared to other similarly sized and configured cities. The Valley’s fleet of roughly 400 buses is about one-third of the service found in San Diego, Atlanta, and Seattle. In addition, most of Phoenix’ peer regions either already have, or are planning rail systems. Of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., only six -- Phoenix included -- do not currently have or are not planning to add rail to their transit system.