Arizona has grown rapidly over the years and our education system has grown in step with the population. But increasing the total budget for education doesn't mean that we have directed more resources to each student. The numbers show that Arizona has one of the lowest per-pupil funding rates in the country. Parties of one faction or another argue endlessly about which numbers to use in comparing Arizona to other states, or even whether such comparisons are possible. What is indisputable is that Arizona ranks in the bottom tier of states in both education spending and in student achievement and that we have made substantial cuts in our funding of both K-12 and higher education since the beginning of the Great Recession.

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.

As cities seek ways to address emerging urban problems, a growing ractice is to combine the efforts of citizens, local government, and community organizations to revitalize and build strong neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Fight Back Program, administered through the City of Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department (NSD), is viewed as one such practice. The Fight Back program offers designated neighborhoods “specialized support over a limited period of time to assist with resident driven neighborhood improvement efforts. These efforts generally focus on revitalization, sustainability, crime and blight reduction, resident participation, neighborhood leadership, development and community building.” At the request of NSD, an external evaluation of the Fight Back program was conducted by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University. The evaluation involved more than 100 interviews with residents and city staff and an extensive review and analysis of program documentation.

In 1988 and 1995, statewide surveys provided "snapshots" of the status of K-12 arts education in Arizona. These milestone studies showed a continuum of programs and a variety of strengths and challenges across the state. In the years since -- even as landmark education and arts policies were adopted and arts organizations became important sources of enrichment and learning -- Arizona’s educators and arts professionals have had to rely on local anecdotes, personal experience, and partial reports to gauge the status and impact of school- and community-based arts education. To answer today’s questions about arts education in schools and communities, the Arizona Arts Education Research Institute and Maricopa Partnership for Arts and Culture, instead of another snapshot, chose to determine the feasibility of mechanisms to track formal and informal -- or school- and community-based -- arts education over the long term. Morrison Institute for Public Policy (School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs) designed the Beyond Snapshots study to gather input from a selection of state arts education experts, teachers, and representatives from schools, districts, and arts and culture organizations.

For most of the past 50 years, Pinal County hasn't had to think much about its image, choices, or growth. But now, Pinal County is changing faster than anyone ever imagined. Will Pinal become a distinguishable destination or simply a McMega drive through? If Pinal rises to the occasion, the result can be a vibrant, sustainable, and competitive place that takes advantage of its location. If Pinal fails to choose wisely, its bedroom community future is already visible in the East Valley and subdivisions north of Tucson. Which will it be?

When Arizona's economy depended on the 4Cs – copper, cotton, citrus, and cattle – Pinal County was a leader in 2 of them. These historic sources of wealth and touchstones of heritage still play a role in the county's economy, but dramatic population growth and new economic drivers make this a different, distinctive time. This new era demands new vision, new ideas, and new ways of thinking, even as past strengths are kept in mind.

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.

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.