The Division of Adult Education in the Arizona Department of Education and the Arizona Adult Literacy and Technology Resource Center contracted with the Morrison Institute for Public Policy to develop an evaluation system for Arizona's adult education program. During phase I, the institute analyzed existing program data on Arizona's adult education providers. Interviews were conducted in January and February 1997 of 379 current and past program participants; they were done in English or Spanish, as appropriate. Interviewees were asked 10 questions about reasons for entering the program, amount of time spent in the program, and feelings about what the program did or did not help them accomplish. Past participants were asked an additional question about their reasons for leaving the program. Findings indicated that over 90 percent of interviewees felt their adult education experiences had met their needs and been positive overall. The proportions of participants who mentioned having entered with a specific goal, e.g., preparing to take the General Educational Development tests or to get a job, were closely aligned with the proportions who said their participation in the program had helped them reach that particular goal. More than one-quarter of program participants in 1996 showed improvement on three indicators that suggested they were becoming more self-sufficient: moving off public assistance, gaining employment, and maintaining or improving their job situation. (Appendixes contain 10 references, 3 data tables, and interview forms.)

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.

Majorities of all panelists statewide named crime/public safety as among the chief indicators of “quality of life” and as among the top issues their officials should address. Nearly half said they thought crime was getting worse. But looking beneath these overall views reveals a pair of seeming paradoxes. The first is that, despite their strong concerns about crime, most respondents also said that their own neighborhoods are relatively safe places, and that they felt safe walking alone at night. The second paradox is that, generally speaking, those Arizonans who are less personally liable to become victims seem more emphatic in their concern about crime than those who seem more likely to be victimized.

When they’re not sleeping, working, or tending to other duties, Arizonans keep busy. From museum tours to farmer’s markets, softball to spiritual quests, they spend their personal time on a wide array of different activities, from high culture to casual pastime. And—little surprise here—they tend to like to do them outside. These findings arise from a survey asking Arizonans about their leisure-time pursuits, leaving it for them to decide what they consider to be “arts and culture” or “leisure activities and pastimes.” In response, 45% of panelists say they regularly attend at least one type of arts and cultural event, and 77% say they say they regularly participate in leisure activities and pastimes.

Good jobs and good schools—few would disagree that these are essential elements of a secure and rewarding life. Both are also vital components of a healthy society: Good jobs create revenue to support quality schools, which in turn produce a superior workforce to fill those jobs. Based on survey panelists’ responses, most Arizonans seem to feel that they’re doing well on the employment front, but not quite so well concerning education.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.

Arizona's Serve-America program, administered by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), began in fiscal year 1992-93 under the auspices of the National and Community Service Act of 1990. Serve-America links community service projects with schools and youths in grades K-12. This second annual report documents the second year of project implementation and updates the policy context in which programs are operating. It focuses on 15 sites--including both schools and community-based organizations--funded to implement community service programs during 1993-94. A pre- and post-test study investigated the relationship between "at-riskness" and "connectedness to the community." Findings indicate that the projects made considerable progress toward accomplishing proposed goals and resulted in positive outcomes for local communities and student volunteers, particularly those at risk. Some projects were more effective than others in positively influencing at-risk participants. The following recommendations are offered: (1) the ADE should continue to support community service programs; (2) the ADE should sponsor more technical assistance and evaluation training; (3) the state should expand training and assistance; and (4) further research about Arizona's effective community service projects is warranted.

What a difference a year makes. In June 2008, AZ Views reported that “Arizonans have a strong sense of job security, despite the national economic slump and the state’s budget crisis.” That is no longer true, as this edition of AZ Views shows, and Arizona’s economic situation arguably is the best example of the worst case.

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.