The Phoenix, Arizona Early Head Start (EHS) program is for first-time teen parents and their families. The 1998-99 project year marked the fourth year of a 5-year research and demonstration grant for EHS and concluded the third full year of program implementation. This report analyzes Year Four program services and outcomes for children, families, and staff. The report also examines the program's community linkages and efforts to build community capacity to serve very young children and their families. Evaluation findings suggest that at the end of the 1998-99 project year, EHS continues to be on the right track. An array of direct services are in place to assist program families; an expanded staff training agenda on child development is helping family support specialists in their work with parents and children; and a range of community linkages and partnerships are helping to expand resources and options for families. Some areas continue to warrant attention, however. These include: helping young parents as their children become toddlers; defining and clearly articulating the rules and regulations guiding the transition of families out of the EHS program; developing ways to retain long-term staff members and better orient new employees; and conveying EHS knowledge and experience (and its relevance to public policy) to state and local decision-makers in a way that is both accessible and understandable to them. (Contains 18 references.)

The Phoenix, Arizona, Early Head Start (EHS) program is for first-time teen parents and their families. The end of 1999-2000 marked the fifth and final year of a research and demonstration grant for EHS and concluded the fourth full year of program implementation. This report provides a five-year perspective on program process and outcomes for children, families, staff, and the community. The report also examines the program's community linkages and efforts to build community capacity to serve very young children and their families. Evaluation findings reveal that at the end of 5 years, Phoenix Early Head Start remains "on track." Program parents and children received support through a wide array of services; a range of community linkages and partnerships have helped expand resources and options for families; and much has been learned about how to train staff who work with children from birth through age 3 and their families.

Recommendations for the program included adopting a child development instrument to determine program effects on children, allocating resources to address employment/training issues for program parents, taking action to retain staff, maintaining an intensive staff training agenda in child development at all program levels, and disseminating information on the program's experiences. The report's four appendices include details on the continuous improvement evaluation plan, evaluation methodology, and a summary of data collection instruments and methodological notes. (Contains 52 references.)

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.

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.

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.

Arizona At-Risk Pilot Project results suggest most effective means to involve parents are those that establish personal rapport between someone from the school and a parent and do not initially require high levels of commitment or participation. The "ideal" parent may be hard to find, but getting to know parents individually and assessing their needs are good first steps.

Afterschool youth-development programs (AYDs) have grown significantly during the past 15 years in Arizona and nationally. Many providers have moved beyond simply providing a safe haven to actively promoting young people’s development. However, there is still tremendous opportunity for growth. There is also a continuing need to enhance coordination and collaboration among programs in order to extend their resources and heighten their impact.

Morrison Institute worked with AzCASE and VSUW to construct a 55-question survey using Qualtrics on-line software. While the term “afterschool” was used, the survey was designed to measure all types of out-of-school programs, regardless of whether they operate before or after school, on weekends, or during school and summer breaks. Approximately 1,800 questionnaires were distributed to individual program sites in Maricopa and Pima counties via a list provided by AzCASE. Though the survey did not utilize a random sample, its 38 percent response rate (681 returns) suggests that its findings can help educators, youth-development professionals, policymakers and the business community understand the scope, characteristics and needs of afterschool services in Arizona’s two largest population centers.

Building upon the work of many others who have contributed to quality of life research in Arizona, this report provides a framework for addressing key issues proactively. The data in Arizona Directions are presented in a highly graphic format with must-read information on our competitiveness, individual action steps, opportunities for public-private partnerships, and public policy options – all rooted in a deep understanding that revenue-neutral options are especially important in our current fiscal situation.

Arizona’s public behavioral health care system, which serves some 150,000 mentally ill and vulnerable state residents, is wrestling with a number of urgent challenges. In addition to budget cuts resulting from the current economic crisis, and the demands of a 28-year-old class-action lawsuit, the system has been repeatedly criticized in several areas, including for inadequate staff, data, housing support, and crisis services. On July 22, a panel of professionals who play key roles in the system discussed these and other issues before some 300 behavioral health providers, supervisors, and policymakers at the annual Summer Institute hosted by Arizona State University’s Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy. This paper provides an abbreviated report of that discussion, which was partially designed and moderated by ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.