2

This report was prepared for the Southern Arizona’s Regional Steering Committee as an input to the OECD Review of Higher Education in Regional and City Development. It was prepared in response to guidelines provided by the OECD to all participating regions. The guidelines encouraged constructive and critical evaluation of the policies, practices and strategies in HEIs’ regional engagement. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Regional Steering Committee, the OECD or its Member countries.

 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. iii ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES....................................................... ………. vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. ix CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN ARIZONA REGION................................. 1 1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………............................... 1 1.2 The geographical situation............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 History of Southern Arizona…………………………….………………………….................... 3 1.4 The demographic situation………………………………………………………………............ 3 1.5 The regional economy………………………………………………………………………...... 14 1.6 Governance................................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2. OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM........................................................................................................... ...... 20 2.1 Introduction. ........................................................................................................... .................... 20 2.2 Overview of the national system of higher education.................................................................. 20 2.3 National policy for higher education and regional development.................................................. 30 2.4 The higher education system in Southern Arizona...................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 3. THE CONTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH TO REGIONAL INNOVATION………………...………………………………………………………………....... 41 3.1 Introduction………………………………………...................................................................... 41 3.2 Responding to regional needs and demands…………………………........................................ 42 3.3 Framework conditions for promoting research and innovation…………………………........... 49 3.4 Interfaces facilitating knowledge exploitation and exchange...................................................... 53 3.5. Conclusions. SWOT Analysis……………………………………………………………........ 59 CHAPTER 4. THE ROLE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN ACQUIRING SKILLS AND GAINING ENTRY TO THE LABOUR MARKET……………………………....………. 61 4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….......................................... 61 4.2 Localizing the learning process.................................................................................................... 62 4.3 Student recruitment and regional employment…………………………………….................... 65 4.4 Promoting lifelong learning, continuing professional development………………………........ 69 4.5 Changing forms of educational provision……………………………………............................ 71 4.6 Enhancing the regional learning system....................................................................................... 72 4.7 Conclusions. SWOT Analysis………………………………………………………………...... 74 CHAPTER 5. THE CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT…………………………..................................................................................... 76 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 76 5.2 Social development contributions................................................................................................. 78 5.3 Cultural development contributions.............................................................................................. 84 5.4 Environmental sustainability........................................................................................................ 87 5.5 Conclusions. SWOT Analysis...................................................................................................... 89 CHAPTER 6. CAPACITY BUILDING FOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATION………………. 92 6.1 Mechanisms to promote regional engagement of HEIs............................................................... 92 6.2 Promoting regional dialogue & joint marketing initiatives.......................................................... 99

 

ii

6.3 Evaluating and mapping the impact of the regional HEI system................................................. 102 6.4 Institutional capacity building for regional involvement…......................................................... 105 6.5 Human and financial resources management............................................................................... 106 6.6 Creating a new organizational culture.......................................................................................... 107 6.7 Conclusions. SWOT Analysis...................................................................................................... 109 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 112 APPENDICES 1. Arizona: 2009 Almanac of Higher Education………………………………………………........ 120 2. Members of the Regional Steering Committee………………………………………………….. 124 3. About the OECD Higher Education and Regional Development Project in Southern Arizona……………………………………………………………………………………………… 125

 

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Generous support for this Report and for the participation of Southern Arizona in the OECD Project came from Lumina Foundation for Education. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent official policies or positions of Lumina Foundation for Education. GENERAL COORDINATION: Francisco Marmolejo, Assistant Vice President for Western Hemispheric Programs, The University of Arizona. TECHNICAL COORDINATION: John Paul Jones III, Department Head, School of Geography and Development, The University of Arizona. RESEARCH AND WRITING: Conor J. Cash, Jessie H. Clark, Derek Eysenbach, Lawrence A. Hoffman, Susan M. Kaleita, Sean Manley-Casimir, Jennifer E. McCormack, Jeffrey T. McGovern, Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi, and Blanca M. Torres-Olave. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC), The Office of the President, and The School of Geography and Development, The University of Arizona. Pima Community College District. Cochise College. Tohono O’odham Community College. University of Phoenix. This report was completed in collaboration of the following individuals:

• Rosi Andrade, Associate Research Professor, Southwest Institute for Research on Women, The University of Arizona

• Sarah Brown Smallhouse, President of the Thomas R. Brown Foundations

• Robert Carreira, Director for the Center of Economic Research, Cochise College

• Michael Cusanovich, Director of Arizona Research Labs, The University of Arizona

• John DeLalla, Director of Continuing Education, The University of Arizona-South

• Jessica Dilworth, Director of Adult Education, Cochise College (Sierra Vista Campus)

• Judith Doerr, Director of Curriculum, Learning and Assessment, Cochise College

• Bob Fick, Program Manager, Pima County Small Business Development Center

• Jay Gandolfi, Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona

• Roderick Gary, Acting Program Manager, Information Center, Pima Community College

• John Grabo, Director of Marketing and International Programs, The University of Arizona

Science and Technology Park

 

iv

• Rachelle Howell, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Marketing, Pima Community College

• Ann Huber, State Articulation Facilitator, Arizona Transfer Articulation Support Systems

• Patrick Jones, Director, Office of Technology Transfer, The University of Arizona

• Paul Kohn, Director of Admissions, The University of Arizona

• Members of the class of Geog 371, Summer II Session 2009, The University of Arizona: Francisco Alvarado, Travis Barner, David Falk, Erik Faussner, Jason Gleichman, Marcus Introna, Edward Alec Leon, Jaide Miller, Michael Palmer, Adam Saslawsky, Darioush Seyedan, William Utech, Thomas Wolff

• Suzanne Miles, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, Pima Community College

• Robert Morrison, Executive Director, Desert Angels

• Jeanette Mullins, Coordinator of Professional Development, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona

• Rebecca Orozco, Director of the Center for Lifelong Learning, Cochise College

• Nina Ossanna, Director of Business Development, Bio5 Institute, The University of Arizona

• Michael Proctor, Dean of the Outreach College, The University of Arizona

• Nina Rabin, Director of Border Research, Southwest Institute for Research on Women and Co-

Director, Immigration Clinic, James E. Rogers College of Law, The University of Arizona

• Raul Ramirez, Vice Chancellor for Community Relations and Institutional Outreach, PCC

• Laura Shaw, Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO)

• H. Dieter Steklis, Chief Academic Officer, The University of Arizona-South

• Sally Stevens, Executive Director of the Southwest Institute for Research on Women, The University of Arizona.

• Olivia Vanegas-Funcheon, President, Tohono O’odham Community College

• Jonathan Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Metro Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau

• Marie Wesselhoft, Director, Arizona Center for Innovation (AzCI)

• Bruce Wright, Associate VP for Economic Development and COO, The University of Arizona

Science and Technology Park

• James Wyant, Dean, College of Optical Sciences, The University of Arizona

 

v

ACRONYMS AA Associate of Arts AACC American Association of Community Colleges AAEE Associate of Arts Elementary Education AAS Associate of Applied Science ABOR Arizona Board of Regents ABUS Associate of Business ACCA Arizona Community College Association ACE American Council on Education ACTREC Arizona Clinical and Translational Research and Education Consortium AGEC Arizona General Education Curriculum AME University of Arizona Dept. of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering APLU Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act AS Associate of Science ASBPPE Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education ATF Articulation Task Force AzCI Arizona Center for Innovation AZMET Arizona Meteorological Network AzRISE Arizona Research Institute for Solar Energy AZUN Arizona University Networks BARA University of Arizona Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology Bio-SA Bioindustry Association of Southern Arizona BS Bachelor of Science CAE-IAE Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education CALS University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences CC Cochise College CHEA Council for Higher Education Accreditation CLAA Labor Council for Latin American Advancement CONAHEC Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration CPSA Community Partnership of Southern Arizona EBR University of Arizona Economic and Business Research Center ECS Education Commission of the States EFRC Energy Frontier Research Center FSEOG Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants FTE Full-time-equivalent GED General Education Development tests GIS Geographic Information Systems GPA Grade Point Average GTEC Greater Tucson Economic Council HEA Higher Education Act HEI Higher Education Institution HIS Hispanic-Serving Institutions IES University of Arizona Institute for Environment and Society IP intellectual property IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System IPM Integrated Pest Management System IT Information Technology MBA Master of Business Administration MIS University of Arizona Department of Management Information Systems

 

vi

MS Master of Science MSCHE Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Middle States Commission

on Higher Education MSE University of Arizona Department of Materials Science and Engineering NASSGAP National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs NCA-HLC North Central Association of College and Schools, Higher Learning Commission NCES National Center for Education Statistics NEASC-CIHE New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions

of Higher Education NSF National Science Foundation NWCCU Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities OALS Office of Arid Lands Studies OCBR University of Arizona Office of Corporate and Business Relations OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OED University of Arizona Office of Economic Development OEPA University of Arizona Office of Economic and Policy Analysis ORCA University of Arizona Office of Research and Contract Analysis ORU Organized Research Unit OTT University of Arizona Office of Technology Transfer OURP University of Arizona Office of University Research Parks PCC Pima Community College PY Pascua Yaqui QOL Quality of Life RU/VH Research University with "very high research activity" (Carnegie rank) SACS Southern Association of Colleges and Schools SCNPRC Southwest Center for Natural Products Research and Commercialization SHEEO State Higher Education Executive Officers SIROW Southwest Institute for Research on Women SSIG State Student Incentive Grant STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Math SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (analysis) TO Tohono O'odham TOCA Tohono O'odham Community Action TOCC Tohono O’odham Community College TREO Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities TRIF Technology and Research Infrastructure Fund UA The University of Arizona UA-S The University of Arizona-South UASTP University of Arizona Science and Technology Park UMC University Medical Center UOPX University of Phoenix VPR University of Arizona Vice-President of Research, Graduate Studies, and Economic Development WASC-ACCIC Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for

Community and Junior Colleges WASC-ACSCU Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for

Senior Colleges and Universities WRRC University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center WWW World Wide Web

 

vii

FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES

FIGURES 1.1 Map of Southern Arizona study area…………………………………………………………… 2 1.2 Percent change in resident population by state 1990-2000…………………………………….. 4 1.3 Percent population change 1990-2000………………………………………………… ………. 6 1.4 Immigration to Arizona 2005-2007…………………………………………………………….. 8 1.5: Emigration from Southern Arizona…………………………………………………… ……..... 9 1.6 Poverty and median household income in Southern Arizona by census tract 2000……………. 10 1.7 State government expenditures for education per pupil…………………………………………11 1.8 High school graduation rate in Southern Arizona 2000-2006………………………………….. 12 1.9 Educational attainment in Southern Arizona by census tract 2000……………………............. 13 1.10 Southern Arizona population density and higher education institutions………………............ 13 1.11 Southern Arizona population density and higher education institutions. …………………...... 14 1.12 Average earnings per job for Arizona and the United States 1997-2000………………........... 15 1.13 GDP per capita for Arizona and the United State 2000-2007……………………………........ 15 1.14 Unemployment in Southern Arizona 2000-2008………………………………………........... 18 3.1 The Innovation Continuum……………………………………………………………….......... 52 TABLES 1.1 Size and population of Southern Arizona counties……………………………………….......... 1 1.2 Population change in Southern Arizona, Arizona, and the United States………………............ 5 1.3 Population of Southern Arizona towns 2000……………………………………………........... 5 1.4 Demographic changes Southern Arizona region and counties 1990-2000………...................... 7 1.5 Poverty in Southern Arizona………………………………………………………………....... 10 1.6 Percent of Arizona workforce by occupation 2007……………………………………............. 16 1.7 Top employers in Southern Arizona 2009……………………………………………............... 17 2.1 Total enrollment by student status and gender 1997-2007……………………………............... 21 2.2 Total enrollment by institution control 1997-2007………………………………………........... 21 2.3 Percentage distribution of students in U.S. degree-granting institutions by race/ethnicity for

selected years…………………………………………………………………............................... 22 2.4 Regional accrediting organizations in the U.S…………………………………………….......... 25 2.5 Percentage distribution of total revenues of public and private non-profit degree-granting institutions,

by source of funds 2005-2006……………………………......................................................... 26 2.6 Federal obligations for basic and applied research performed at universities and colleges for selected

agencies by field of science and engineering FY 2005-2007 (Dollars in thousands)……………. 30 2.7 Summary of HEIs in Southern Arizona……………………………………………………........ 34 3.1 University of Arizona invention disclosures, recent & projected…………………………......... 51 3.2 University of Arizona licensing revenue………………………………………………….......... 51 3.3 UASTP Jobs 2007…………………………………………………………………………......... 54 3.4 UASTP Wages 2007………………………………………………………………………......... 55 3.5 UASTP Economic Output 2007……………………………………………………………....... 55 3.6 UASTP Tax Revenue 2007……………………………………………………………............... 55 3.7 UASTP Tax Distribution 2007……………………………………………………………......... 55 3.8 UASTP Total Impact 2007………………………………………………………………........... 55 4.1 Strategic clusters addressed by degree programs…………………………………………......... 62 4.2 Awareness of position in educational supply chain………………………………………......... 66 4.3 Workforce training, professional development and adult education programs………................ 68 5.1 Types and examples of partnerships between HEIs and community stakeholders….................. 77

 

viii

5.2 Selected examples of UA social development provision…………………………………......... 80 5.3 Selected examples of PCC social development provision………………………………............ 81 5.4 Selected examples of TOCC social development provisions………………………………....... 83 5.5 Examples of cultural development institutes and programs………………………………......... 86 5.6 Examples of environmental sustainability institutes and programs………………………......... 98 APPENDICES I. Arizona. 2009 Almanac of Higher Education ……………………………………….......... 120 II. Members of the OECD Regional Project Steering Committee………………………......... 124 III. About the OECD Regional Development and Higher Education Project…………………. 125

 

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This self-evaluation report was prepared by the Southern Arizona Regional Steering Committee as part of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Review of Higher Education in Regional and City Development1 and with the support of the Lumina Foundation for Education. Researchers followed the guidelines provided by the OECD to all participating regions in order to evaluate the effects of the policies, practices and strategies in higher education institutions on their regional engagement. This report examines the role of higher education institutions (HEI) in Southern Arizona in regional innovation, employment and human capital development, as well as capacity building. While participating HEIs form part of the larger national and regional education system, their geographic situation facilitates their significant contributions to the social, cultural and environmental development of Southern Arizona. Southern Arizona is generally defined as Pima, Cochise and Santa Cruz counties, and as a region with both a geographic and socio-cultural proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border. This report begins by providing an overview of the regional context, then outlines the U.S. higher education system in terms of the types of its institutions (4-year and 2-year, public and private), enrollment rates, accreditation, financing and legislation. Subsequently the four principal subjects of interest are addressed: the contribution of research to regional innovation; the role of education and training in acquiring skills and gaining entry into the labour market; the contribution to social, cultural and environmental development and capacity building for regional cooperation. Each section contains an analysis of the contributions of HEIs to regional development in terms of their Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT Analysis). The document looks in detail at the contributions of the University of Arizona (UA: a land grant research university), Pima Community College (PCC: the community college system for Pima County), Cochise College (CC: the community college system for the rural areas of Douglas and surrounding communities), Tohono O‘odham Community College (TOCC: a tribally-run two year college serving the Tohono O’odham Nation) and the University of Phoenix (UOPX: a private institution offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in the region). Each of these Southern Arizona HEIs are profiled in terms of the history, mission and key institutional data. The significant impact of research on regional innovation is analyzed. Cutting-edge work in the areas of agriculture, bioscience, environmental technology, aerospace, information technology, optical sciences and advanced composites are innovation priorities and have lead to industry spin-offs. For example, spin-offs in the bioscience industry include Sanofi-Aventis (the world‘s 3rd largest pharmaceutical company), Ventana Medical Systems and HTGenomics, which exemplify the important links between university research, existing businesses and the development of new firms in the region. The region has developed over the years significant economic assets in the form of new research and technologies through research projects at UA and workforce initiatives at PCC, CC, UOPX and TOCC. In addition, a series of strategic industry clusters have been defined by regional stakeholders. Consequently, partnerships between clusters and HEIs have emerged, mostly in the form of ad hoc initiatives which still lack a fixed inter-institutional support structure. In addition to attracting and sustaining economic development via research, HEIs play an even more critical role in advanced human capital formation. Here the region’s community colleges, via their 1 More information about the OECD Project can be found on Appendix III (p. 125) or at http://www.oecd.org/edu/higher/regionaldevelopment

 

x

accessibility to diverse community members, provide critical access and training to socio-economically diverse population segments, as well as specialized programs for language skills, additional education for military personnel, and education outreach programs for first generation college students. Education attainment varies for students based on geographic and socio-economic access; however, many of the two-year institutions in this study have designed programs and policies to increase higher education access for disparate populations which are complemented by aggressive policies established at UA aimed at better serving the needs of the increasingly diverse population of the state of Arizona and, more specifically, the Southern Arizona region. At the same time, UOPX makes a significant contribution by providing flexible higher education programs mostly for working adults. Nevertheless, there still exist significant gaps in access, retention and success in higher education, especially in vulnerable population sectors. The participation of HEIs in the social, cultural and environmental development of Southern Arizona stems from the work of individual faculty research initiatives and community partnerships. Additionally, partnerships formed among the various HEIs with one another as well as with non-profit community based organizations have created a decentralized system consisting of a diverse array of social programs, cultural events and environmental sustainability projects. However, while this decentralized approach results in a great diversity in programming, limited institutional support still persists in terms of both funding and the recognition of faculty outreach work as important. In terms of capacity building, all of the region’s HEIs are committed to regional engagement as evident in their missions and through their departmental programs and research. At the same time, these HEI’s demonstrate disparate levels, areas and modalities of engagement and regional support ranging from formal to informal (ie: consulting, analyses of economic activity, and facilitation of regional collaboration). In parallel, a series of both formal and informal venues for engagement of relevant regional stakeholders have emerged over the years. Nevertheless, substantial work remains to be done in order to more effectively convene them and channel their regional engagement efforts. The need for an effectual response to the aforementioned challenge becomes even more acute in the current difficult economic environment, making the analysis of the relationship between HEIs and regional development especially timely and significant.

 

xi

Summary of SWOT Analysis

The Contribution of Research to Regional Innovation

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats UA‘s strong interdisciplinary tradition Bio5, ARL, cross-college/ cross departmental work UA as a national leader in R&D UA out-performing peer institutions in industry-funded R&D Relationships between UA research and industry

UA struggles to find gap funding to market IP discoveries Many UA faculty don‘t see merit in spin-off development, lack entrepreneurial spirit

Bioscience Park UA Maguire Entrepreneurship Program and Desert Angels

Southern AZ‘s industry clusters are not organized or well-publicized UA research infrastructure is subsidized by sales tax revenue (becoming limited)

The Role of Education and Training in Acquiring Skills and Gaining Entry to the Labor Market

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats UA‘s research partnerships with private industry, public institutions and non-profits Work-based opportunities for students integrated with local needs Flexible training programs at community colleges can easily respond to client needs Competitively priced workforce training programs HEIs offer high-demand degrees and certifications

Programs are under-funded and vulnerable to staff turnover More flexibility to adapt to regional and global changes needed

Specialization of programs at community colleges can be articulated with UA research centers Student recruitment can be improved through evaluation of program redundancies HEI‘s economic and business centers could better position themselves for policy recommendations

AZ legislature has been hostile to education funding, leading to tuition increases and faculty recruitment issues Economic downturn has hurt credit access for low income AZ students

The Contribution to Social, Cultural and Environmental Development

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Faculty driven programs, connections to community, external funding Policy work and green programs on HEI campuses Institutional support for faculty in research/outreach Cross border relationships between researchers, HEIs

Sensitive populations are skeptical about working with HEIs Participation is dependent on fiscal and infrastructure constraints of HEIs Size of region can inhibit participation between HEIs and stakeholders

HEIs can expand community partnerships as conduits not decision makers HEIs can build on ability to promote more cultural events Installation of new communication

State financial support to HEIs is limited Community programs are vulnerable to cuts, cost exceeds revenue stream Continued community distrust of HEI research projects Lack of institutional

 

xii

and agencies

Stronger ties between individual researches in Mexico than with institutions

technologies can bridge physical distance between HEIs and regional stakeholders Enhancing relationship with HEIs in Mexico

support for service-minded faculty Funding vulnerable for cross-border partnerships at institutional level

Capacity Building for Regional Cooperation

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Research in support of regional innovation and knowledge economy, links with local industry History of engagement in regional economic development, regional issue experts Ability to respond to regional needs through decentralized system of work with community

Limited institutional support for regional engagement, research over service at UA HEIS are major sources for economic analyses but on ad hoc basis Weak community support Underutilized impact studies

Slow growth gives region time for infrastructure to catch to past growth State transformation of HEIs gives them push to focus on areas of excellence Consolidation of HEIs Student internships via partnerships

Tax-funded programs in danger of being cut Stiff competition for external funding in service-oriented units

 

1

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN ARIZONA REGION 1.1 Introduction This chapter presents an overview of Southern Arizona’s geography, history, demographics, and governance structure. While Southern Arizona is not a nationally designated region, the area is conventionally understood by many to consist of Pima County, Cochise County, and Santa Cruz County. The three counties we call Southern Arizona have considerable economic, educational, and cultural integration, and the whole region is within the commuting shed of the main city, Tucson. Additionally, the counties are integrated in terms of provision of higher education (Chapter 2 has more information about regional provision of higher education). 1.2 The geographical situation Southern Arizona is located in the Southwest United States (Figure 1.1). The region is comprised of three Arizona counties: Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise. Bordered by the state of New Mexico to the east, central Arizona counties of Maricopa, Pinal, Graham, and Greenlee to the north, Yuma County to the west, and the Mexican state of Sonora to the South, Southern Arizona covers 16,593 square miles. At 9,186 square miles, Pima County comprises 55% of Southern Arizona’s land area. Cochise County’s area is 6,169 square miles, or 37% of the region, and Santa Cruz County, at 1,238 square miles, makes up the remaining 8% of the region. Roughly 23% of Southern Arizona land is accounted for by Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui Nations, both of which are located in Pima County. Southern Arizona has a population of 1,183,947. The city of Tucson, located in Pima County, is the population center of the region. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 population estimate for the city of Tucson is 541,811, but the larger metropolitan area has a population of 1,012,018. This is the second largest metropolitan area in the state; the population of the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale metropolitan area is 4,281,899. Phoenix, the capital of Arizona, is 115 miles northwest of Tucson. Table 1.1 shows the size and populations of the counties of Southern Arizona. Southern Arizona makes up 18% of the total population of the state of Arizona, which has 6,500,180 people, and 0.39% of population of the United States. Table 1.1 Size and population of Southern Arizona counties

County

Area Population

Square feet % of Southern Arizona Total % of Southern

Arizona Pima 9,186 55% 1,012,018 85% Cochise 6,169 37% 129,006 11% Santa Cruz 1,238 8% 42,932 4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

 

2

Figure 1.1 Map of Southern Arizona study area

Source: Map produced by research team using GIS shapefiles from the U.S. Census Bureau, Southern Arizona Data Services Program and www.vdstech.com.

 

3

1.3 History of Southern Arizona Archeological evidence of prehistoric peoples suggests that Southern Arizona is one of the oldest continuously inhabited regions in the United States (Pima County Government, 2009). The Hohokam people were some of the first people to inhabit the area, in the early centuries of the Common Era. More recently, the O’odham, Apache, and Yaqui Native American tribes occupied and farmed the region (today, the Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui live in the area). The first European explorers passed through Southern Arizona in 1539, but contact between Europeans and Native Americans remained minimal until the 1700s when Spaniards, led by the Catholic missionaries, settled the area and expanded agricultural production and began small scale mining for silver and gold. In 1821, the region became part of Mexico when it won its independence from Spain, but in the subsequent decades, the United States took an interest in the area, seeking a southern route for a transcontinental railroad to California. In the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, the United States acquired the area from Mexico through a treaty signed by President Franklin Pierce. By 1900, farming, ranching, and mining, now for copper, had become the base of the region’s economy. Pima County is one of the four original counties in Arizona and was established in 1864. In 1867, the county became the Arizona Territorial capital for ten years. Soon thereafter, the railroad (building east from California) reached Tucson (Bret-Harte, 2001), and in 1885, the University of Arizona was established. Cochise County was founded in 1881 and Santa Cruz County in 1899. Both counties grew with the coming of the railroad and an increase in mining activity. Arizona became a state in 1912. In the early decades of the 1990s, Tucson became a tourist destination known for its warm and dry climate, good for the treatment of tuberculosis, and its guest ranches —more than 115 ranches in Southern Arizona operated with a tourism component in the 1930s (Bret-Harte, 2001). The population of Southern Arizona grew rapidly during this time, and even more rapidly after World War II. The postwar period also saw the blooming of the defense industry in Tucson, both through private employers like Raytheon Missile Systems, which came to Tucson in the 1950s, and the federal government; Davis-Monthan air force base was constructed in the 1940s. Tourism, mining, and defense are still among the important components of the Southern Arizona economy today. Chapter 3 details the growth industries of the contemporary Southern Arizona economy. 1.4 The demographic situation 1.4.1 Population distribution and growth Throughout its rich history, Arizona has been home to an ethnically diverse population, an asset to social and economic development. For example, Arizona has the third largest Native American population in the U.S., numbering over 250,000 people—all members of 21 federally recognized and culturally distinct nations. Important to this report are the Tohono O’odham Nation and Pascua Yaqui Nation in Southern Arizona. The Tohono O’odham Nation is the largest Native American reservation on the U.S.-Mexico border, located in Pima County. The Pascua Yaqui Nation has several dispersed communities predominantly in Pima County, with smaller units in Maricopa County. Residents with Mexican ancestry and individuals who identify as Latino/a with ancestry outside Mexico have lived in the region for longer than Arizona has been a state and even part of the U.S. Currently, Arizona has the fastest growing Hispanic population in the U.S., which according to the 2000 census comprises 25% of state residents and numbers at least 1.8 million. Between the southern counties, Yuma and Santa Cruz both have majority Hispanic populations and at least 39.5% of residents in Tucson claim Hispanic ethnicity in whole or part of their background. White and/or residents with European ancestry (namely Irish, German and English) and residents with African American ancestry form the other main demographic groups in Arizona (not counting individuals who identify with more than one ethnicity).

 

4

From 2006 Census estimates, white individuals constituted 59.7% of the state population, and African-Americans were represented at 3.8%. Since World War II, Arizona has had one of the fastest growing populations in the United States. Population grew most rapidly in recent decades. Between 1990 and 2000, Arizona’s population increased by 40%, exceeding five million people. This is a rate only surpassed by one other state, Nevada (Figure 1.2). The population of Southern Arizona and the counties within has increased as well, though not as significantly as the state as a whole. The 40% increase in statewide population is largely attributable to population growth in Maricopa County, where the state capitol of Phoenix is located. Maricopa County grew to over three million by 2000, a population change of 44.8%. The three counties of Southern Arizona together accounted for only 14.0% of the population change in the state of Arizona, and 0.63% of the entire nation’s population growth. Figure 1.2 Percent change in resident population by state 1990-2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau From 1990 to 2000, Southern Arizona grew by 26%; of this, Pima County’s population growth accounted for 86% of Southern Arizona’s growth, Cochise County accounted for 10%, and Santa Cruz County accounted for 4%. According to 2008 population estimates, growth in Pima County continues to dominate the population change in Southern Arizona. Table 1.2 compares population growth in the United States, Arizona, Southern Arizona, and Pima, Cochise, and Santa Cruz counties. Both population size and rate of population growth varies widely throughout Southern Arizona. Table 1.3 shows populations of the 51 cities, towns, and census designated places (closely settled, named, unincorporated communities that generally resemble incorporated places) in the region.

 

5

Table 1.2 Population change in Southern Arizona, Arizona, and the United States Population Percent change

1990 2000 2008 1990-2000 2000-2008 United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 304,059,724 13.2% 8.0% Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 6,500,180 40.0% 26.7% Southern Arizona 794,180 999,882 1,183,947 26.0% 18.4% Pima County 666,880 843,746 1,012,018 26.5% 19.9% Cochise County 97,629 117,775 129,006 20.6% 9.5% Santa Cruz County 29,676 38,381 42,923 29.3% 11.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 1.3 Population of Southern Arizona towns 2000

Town County Population Tucson Pima 486,699 Ajo Pima 3,705 Casas Adobes Pima 54,011 Summit Pima 3,702 Catalina Foothills Pima 53,794 Rio Rico Northeast Santa Cruz 3,164 Sierra Vista Cochise 37,775 Rio Rico Northwest Santa Cruz 2,882 Oro Valley Pima 29,700 Sells Pima 2,799 Drexel Heights Pima 23,849 Rio Rico Southwest Santa Cruz 2,777 Sahuarita Pima 22,913 Vail Pima 2,484 Nogales Santa Cruz 20,878 Valencia West Pima 2,380 Green Valley Pima 17,283 Whetstone Cochise 2,354 Tanque Verde Pima 16,195 Huachuca City Cochise 1,751 Flowing Wells Pima 15,050 St. David Cochise 1,744 Sierra Vista Southeast Cochise 14,348 Rio Rico Southeast Santa Cruz 1,590 Douglas Cochise 14,312 Pirtleville Cochise 1,550 Marana Pima 13,556 Tombstone Cochise 1,504 Tucson Estates Pima 9,755 East Sahuarita Pima 1,419 Picture Rocks Pima 8,139 Littletown Pima 1,010 Catalina Pima 7,025 Tubac Santa Cruz 949 Bisbee Cochise 6,090 Patagonia Santa Cruz 881 South Tucson Pima 5,490 Naco Cochise 833 Three Points Pima 5,273 Sonoita Santa Cruz 826 Avra Valley Pima 5,038 Corona de Tucson Pima 813 Benson Cochise 4,711 Tumacacori-Carmen Santa Cruz 569 Drexel-Alvernon Pima 4,192 Santa Rosa Pima 438 Tortolita Pima 3,740 Elgin Santa Cruz 309 Willcox Cochise 3,733 Amado Santa Cruz 275 Pisinemo Pima 237

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Only six towns in Southern Arizona experienced population loss from 1990-2000 (Figure 1.3). These were Pisinemo, Valencia West, Santa Rosa, Bisbee, Huachuca City, and Patagonia. Pisinemo and Santa Rosa are both small towns on the Tohono O’Odham reservation. Though Huachuca City reported population loss during that time period, the population actually grew significantly between 2000 and 2008, likely due to its proximity to Fort Huachuca Army Base. Most towns in Southern Arizona,

 

6

however, increased in population, some substantially. Four towns in Southern Arizona experienced population growth rates above 200% from 1990-2000: Tucson Estates, Marana, Oro Valley, and Sahuarita. These are all suburbs of Tucson. Tucson Estates, to the west of Tucson, is composed primarily of a retirement community for people over the age of fifty five. Marana and Oro Valley are suburbs to the north of Tucson, and Sahuarita is to the south. Sahuarita’s population increased over 600% from 1990-2000, and though the town is endeavoring to attract business development, the majority of the population travels to Tucson for work (Skelton, 2008). Figure 1.3 Percent population change 1990-2000

Source: US Census Bureau Population growth in Southern Arizona is not even across demographic groups; growth is especially rapid in the population that is 75 and older, who make up 9% of the population of the region. This is primarily because Southern Arizona is a popular retirement destination. Table 1.4 shows the demographic changes for Southern Arizona and each county. 1.4.2 Migration Immigration to Southern Arizona At 16.6 births per thousand people, Arizona has the third highest birth rate in the United States, behind the states of Utah and Texas. This is compared to a national average of 14.2 (CDC, 2006). The state’s large population growth rate is a factor of high birth rates in addition to high rates of immigration, both domestic and international. During 2007 alone, 834,000 people immigrated to Arizona and only 287,000

 

7

people left; 4.6% of the 2007 population of the state as settled since 2005 (Pew Research Center, 2009). Of domestic migrants from 2005-2007, most (248,576 people) originated from the state of California (Figure 1.4). In addition to California, Texas, Illinois, Washington, and New Mexico were also top states of origin. Southern Arizona is also an area of international migration from Mexico, with a long history of families living on both sides of the border. Table 1.4 Demographic changes Southern Arizona region and counties 1990-2000

Percent change 1990-2000

Southern Arizona Pima County Cochise County Santa Cruz County

Total population 25.90% 26.52% 20.62% 29.33% Male 25.83% 26.66% 19.43% 29.29% Female 25.97% 26.39% 21.85% 29.38% White 19.66% 20.17% 13.30% 30.48% Black 14.01% 17.28% -0.34% 84.85% American Indian 37.66% 36.97% 36.53% 254.29% Asian or Pacific Islander 42.71% 48.09% 4.58% 190.00% Other1 28.43% 28.04% 47.50% 7.47% Age 1 to 4 years 11.25% 11.43% 10.00% 11.08% Age 5 to 9 years 29.62% 30.94% 19.08% 34.91% Age10 to 14 years 28.15% 28.97% 18.86% 40.95% Age 15 to 19 years 25.28% 26.74% 20.36% 13.68% Age 20 to 24 years 14.15% 16.34% 6.96% 6.50% Age 25 to 29 years 0.29% 1.61% -10.07% 2.27% Age 30 to 34 years -5.32% -4.27% -16.00% 6.83% Age 35 to 39 years 21.39% 21.01% 20.25% 34.14% Age 40 to 44 years 40.58% 41.14% 40.36% 29.10% Age 45 to 49 years 66.60% 67.61% 52.54% 94.83% Age 50 to 54 years 79.10% 84.61% 48.29% 76.79% Age 55 to 59 years 47.66% 48.82% 39.27% 55.75% Age 60 and 61 years 26.43% 23.21% 39.88% 55.98% Age 62 to 64 years 13.26% 11.93% 24.63% 4.02% Age 65 to 69 years -57.29% -57.92% -54.22% -52.14% Age 70 to 74 years -17.98% -19.94% -3.87% -19.93% Age 75 to 79 years 78.83% 75.13% 87.10% 171.70% Age 80 to 84 years 140.90% 140.47% 146.10% 133.33%

Age 85 years and over 128.30% 125.92% 160.00% 96.07% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Note: 1 Other Race: “Persons reporting in the ‘Other race’ category and providing write-in entries such as multiracial, multiethnic, mixed, interracial, Wesort, or a Spanish/Hispanic origin group (such as Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican) are included here. Includes all other persons not included in the ‘White,’ ‘Black,’ ‘American Indian,’ and the ‘Asian or Pacific Islander’ race categories” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009) Migration to Southern Arizona is primarily to Pima County. Pima County had a net increase in migration from 2004 to 2005, with 56,537 people moving into the Tucson area and 35,293 moving out. Migrants were most commonly from Maricopa and Cochise Counties in Arizona, as well as Los Angeles and San Diego in California (PAG, 2009). From 2007 to 2008, Southern Arizona experienced a net increase of 6,604 people. This was due primarily to migration into Pima County, which gained 7,021 people. Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties, however, lost 115 and 302 people respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

 

8

Figure 1.4 Immigration to Arizona 2005-2007

Source: Pew Research Center, 2009 Retirees and foreign immigrants make up a significant portion of Arizona’s population growth. From 1995 to 2000, Arizona’s net number of domestic migrants aged 65 and over was 53,241 (U.S Census Bureau, 2009). Retirement communities such as Green Valley in Pima County attract much of this migration; in 2002, 73.3% of its population of 12,662 was aged 65 or over. Southern Arizona, sharing a border with Mexico, also has many immigrants coming from abroad. Between 1995 and 2000, there was a foreign-born migration inflow of 141,602. Between 2006 and 2007, 46,713 immigrants moved to Arizona from abroad (Migration Policy Institute, 2009). Migration from Southern Arizona Between 2005 and 2007, 547,000 people left Arizona for other states, mostly California (Pew Research Center, 2009). California was also the primary out-of-state destination of migrants from Arizona between 1995 to 2000. People who move out of Southern Arizona are primarily of a young, single, and college educated demographic, and many move north to the Phoenix metropolitan area in Maricopa County. Between 2004 and 2005, a total of 4,364 migrants moved from Pima to Maricopa County. Out-migration rates for Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties are higher than Pima County, and much of the migration out from Cochise and Santa Cruz counties goes into Pima County. Between 2004 and 2005, 1,373 people moved from Cochise to Pima County (PAG 2009). The top destinations for out-migration outside of the state from Southern Arizona were the states of California, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Illinois (Figure 1.5).

 

9

Figure 1.5: Emigration from Southern Arizona

Source: Pew Research Center, 2009, and PAG, 2009 1.4.3 Poverty and health Poverty has increased in all three Southern Arizona counties during the past 30 years. Arizona on whole has a poverty rate and average household income comparable to that of the national average. However, the Southern Arizona region lags behind these averages in general. Santa Cruz County in particular has a low income average and high poverty rate at 18.6% (Table 1.5). The maps in Figure 1.6 show the distribution of income and poverty at the census track level throughout Southern Arizona. Table 1.5 Poverty in Southern Arizona Median household income Percent below poverty level

2000 2007 2000 2007 United States 41,994 50,004 12.6% 13.3% Arizona 40,558 50,007 12.4% 13.3% Pima County 36,758 44,386 14.7% 15.1% Cochise County 32,105 40,656 17.7% 16.8% Santa Cruz County 29,710 37,683 12.4% 18.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Southern Arizona has a total of 19 hospitals out of a total 66 in the entire state. 13 of these hospitals are in Pima County, which has specialty facilities such as the Tucson Heart Hospital and the Southern Arizona

 

10

Veterans Administration Medical Center. There are five hospitals in Cochise County, and one in Santa Cruz County. Pima County also has a higher number of physicians in practice, with 300 doctors per 100,000 people. There are 74 physicians per 100,000 people in Cochise County, and 81 doctors per 100,000 people in Santa Cruz County. Figure 1.6 Poverty and median household income in Southern Arizona by census tract 2000

Source: Population data and GIS shapefiles were downloaded from the US Census Bureau’s website (www.census.gov). For scale purposees, the numerous campuses of Cochise College were not included on the map but are noted in the cities of Douglas, Benson and Wilcox. 1.4.4 Education Southern Arizona has many public schools for elementary and secondary education. There are 229 public schools in 18 districts in Pima County that enroll approximately 151,000 students. Cochise County has 24 school districts, and Santa Cruz County has nine school districts. Funding for education from the Arizona state government general fund has declined in recent decades, particularly since the late-1990s (Figure 1.7). The state government general fund is the primary source of funding for elementary and secondary education in Arizona. State funding for universities and community

 

11

colleges has dropped rapidly since 1999. Expenditures per student in Arizona have been considerably lower than the national average for years. Fewer than 5% of the students in Arizona attend school in districts with per-pupil expenditures that are at or above the national average (Sanchez, 2008). Figure 1.7 shows spending per pupil by the state general fund between 1986 and 2007, adjusted for inflation and per capita economic growth. Figure 1.7 State government expenditures for education per pupil

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Spen

ding

per

Pup

il ($

USD

)

Elementary & Secondary Higher Education

Source: Arizona State Legislature, Arizona Indicators Project 2009 Education attainment varies widely throughout Arizona. Figure 1.8 shows high school graduation rates in the counties of Southern Arizona and in the state of Arizona between 2000 and 2006. This data shows the percentage of an incoming cohort of high school students who graduate four years later. Though high school students in Cochise County have higher graduation rates than students in Pima or Santa Cruz county, people with bachelors degrees or higher are concentrated in Pima County, and in particular in the metropolitan center of Tucson and it’s northern suburbs, as well as south central Southern Arizona. There is great disparity across the region in education attainment. The following map, Figure 1.9, shows the percentage of the population with bachelors degree or higher in 2000 by census tract. In the eastern and western portions of the region, including the large Tohono O’odham reservation, less than 10% of the population has bachelors degrees.

 

12

Figure 1.8 High school graduation rate in Southern Arizona 2000-2006

60%

70%

80%

90%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

HS

Gra

duat

ion

Rat

e (%

)

ArizonaCochisePimaSanta Cruz

Source: Arizona Department of Education, Arizona Indicators Project 2009

Educational attainment is related to location of centers of population as well as the location of higher education institutions. Figures 1.10 & 1.11 show the population density of Southern Arizona and its major cities, as well as the locations of higher education institutions. The Tucson area offers the greatest number and variety of higher education institutions, including the University of Arizona (UA), with over 38,000 students, Pima Community College (PCC), with over 70,000 students enrolled, and a number of other schools. For more information on higher education in Southern Arizona, see Chapter 2.

 

13

Figure 1.9 Educational attainment in Southern Arizona by census tract 2000

Source: Population data and GIS shapefiles were downloaded from the US Census Bureau’s website (www.census.gov). Figure 1.10 Southern Arizona population density and higher education institutions

Note: Legend and source for Figure 1.10 are the same as Figure 1.11

 

14

Figure 1.11 Southern Arizona population density and higher education institutions (Cities having HEI’s)

Minorities are represented at varying rates in Southern Arizona’s HEIs. The largest minority population in Southern Arizona is Hispanic and comprises 27% of the total population. Representation of Hispanic students within higher education institutions varies across institution. Approximately 16% of the student body at the University of Arizona is Hispanic. At Pima Community College, 30% of the student body is Hispanic, and at Cochise College this number is 35%. 1.5 The regional economy 1.5.1 Gross domestic product and earnings Arizona’s total growth domestic product has grown from 158,533 in 2000 to 247,028 in 2007 (Arizona Department of Commerce, 2007). However, in terms of the GDP per capita and average earnings per job, the state of Arizona is below that of the average of the United States as a whole (Figures 1.12 and 1.13).

 

15

Figure 1.12 Average earnings per job for Arizona and the United States 1997-2000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Dol

lars

($U

SD)

United StatesArizona

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Figure 1.13 GDP per capita for Arizona and the United State 2000-2007

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Dol

lars

($U

SD)

United StatesArizona

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Census Bureau

 

16

1.5.2 Employment Of the three main economic sectors in the state of Arizona- services, trade, and construction- service jobs provide the greatest source of employment, accounting for 1,000,000 jobs in 2006 (Arizona Department of Commerce, 2009). In that same year, wholesale and retail trade provided 428,000 jobs, many related to the state’s tourism industry. The tourism sector has brought an estimated $12-18 billion dollars annually to the state’s economy in the past few years. However, more recently the tourism sector has experienced important setbacks since the end of 2007 by reductions in total direct travel spending and total employment (Arizona Department of Tourism, 2009). Similarly, in 2006, 242,800 people in Arizona were employed in construction, but that number has gone down rapidly since the recent bust in the housing market. The manufacturing sector accounted for 183,100 jobs in 2006 (Arizona Department of Commerce, 2009). Table 1.6 shows the breakdown of Arizona’s 2007 workforce by occupational classification. Table 1.6 Percent of Arizona workforce by occupation 2007

Standard Occupational Classification Employment Percent Office and Administrative Support Occupations 527,590 18% Sales and Related Occupations 320,615 11% Construction and Extraction Occupations 247,623 8% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 244,054 8% Management Occupations 164,866 6% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 163,136 6% Education, Training, and Library Occupations 144,069 5% Business and Financial Operations Occupations 131,449 4% Production Occupations 129,669 4% Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 127,618 4% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 121,113 4% Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 112,360 4% Personal Care and Service Occupations 94,486 3% Protective Service Occupations 70,698 2% Healthcare Support Occupations 66,584 2% Architecture and Engineering Occupations 62,052 2% Computer and Mathematical Occupations 59,391 2% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 42,957 1% Community and Social Services Occupations 32,696 1% Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 22,173 1% Legal Occupations 20,557 1% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 17,851 1%

Source: Arizona Department of Commerce Though professional, technical, and supporting healthcare occupations only made up 6% of Arizona’s workforce, that number is expected to increase. Between 2006 and 2016, employment in healthcare is projected to increase more rapidly than in other sectors. Employment in healthcare support occupations is projected to increase 33%, and in healthcare practitioner and technical occupations by 30%. At the other end of the spectrum, farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, which employed 24,112 people statewide in 2006, is only expected to add 56 jobs, at a rate of .2%, and production occupations, such as machinists and other manufacturing jobs, is expected to add jobs at a rate of 2.3%. Construction jobs, though they employ the third largest number of people in the state, are only projected to grow by 3.1% (Arizona Department of Commerce, 2009).

 

17

In Southern Arizona, the major employers are public and government organizations such as the University of Arizona, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and the Tucson Unified School District. Seven out of the top 10 employers in the region are public (Table 1.7). In addition, the top private employers are Raytheon Missile Systems, Wal-Mart, and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold whose major source of employment is a copper mine 20 miles southeast of Tucson. Table 1.7 Top employers in Southern Arizona 2009

Name # Employees Raytheon Missile Systems 11,539 University of Arizona 10,575 State of Arizona 9,329 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 7,509 Tucson Unified School District 7,227 Wal-Mart Stores 6,715 Fort Huachuca Army Base 6,463 Pima County 6,235 Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold 5,987 City of Tucson 5,635

Source: TREO 2009 The top three employers in Cochise County are the United States Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, the government of Cochise County, and the Sierra Vista Unified School District. The top employers in Santa Cruz County are located in the border city of Nogales and are: Canchola Foods Company, which operates McDonald’s and other restaurants in Nogales, Carondolet Holy Cross Hospital, and the federal government’s Immigration and Naturalization Services. Unemployment rates in the Southern Arizona region vary by county. While Pima and Cochise Counties’ unemployment rates tend to hover around the national average, Santa Cruz County has levels of unemployment higher than the rest of the region and than the Unites States as a whole (Figure 1.14). The recent economic downturn has greatly increased jobless rates; Figure 1.14 includes the average unemployment rate in 2009 through June. 1.5.3 Higher education institutions and the economy Southern Arizona’s higher education institutions (HEIs) play an important role in the region’s economy not only by preparing students and conducting research, but also by providing employment, attracting students and visitors, and generating tax revenue. The University of Arizona has an enormous impact on the economy of Southern Arizona. In 2004, UA employed 14,484 people. The employees were paid a total of $714.9 million, which in turn created 7,500 local jobs and $171.1 million in earnings. University construction also generated 1,300 jobs and $44.6 million in earnings. Goods and services bought locally by UA generated nearly 2,000 jobs and 168.8 million in earnings, and student spending (excluding tuition) generates 12,600 local jobs, and $279 million in earnings. Visitors attending activities and events at the university create 1,640 jobs and $35.3 million in earnings. In total, in 2004, the University of Arizona generated 41,272 jobs, $1.2 billion in earnings, and $2.3 billion in total dollar impact in Arizona (Pavlakovich-Kochi et al, 2005).

 

18

Figure 1.14 Unemployment in Southern Arizona 2000-2008

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Une

mpl

oym

ent R

ate

(%)

ArizonaCochisePimaSanta Cruz

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Arizona Department of Commerce Some units on campus have an especially large impact on the region. For example, the University of Arizona Health Services Center (which includes UA Colleges of Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy; the Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health; University Medical Center and University Physicians Healthcare) contributes more than $2.5 billion annually to the state’s economy (Humphrey and Guthrie, 2005). The University of Arizona Science and Technology Park (UASTP), which was founded in 1995, created 13,676 jobs in Arizona in 2007, 97% of which were in Pima County. Based on 2007 data, 6,175 of these jobs were created directly through employment with the 32 tenants of the park, 6,850 were indirectly created throughout the region, and 220 construction jobs and 2 visitor-related jobs were created (Lim, 2009). The average salary for UASTP employees was $71,077, compared to Pima County’s average salary of $38,220, and in total, the Tech Park generated $688.1 million in wages in Pima County (Lim, 2009). The tenants of UASTP also generated $11.6 million in tax revenue during 2007. Overall, the Tech Park generated $2.45 billion in Pima County in 2007 (Lim, 2009). The University of Arizona is not the only HEI with a positive economic impact in the region. Pima Community College has 371 full-time instructional and educational support faculty and 995 other employees. In 2001, PCC paid $68.2 million to its employees, which generated $404 in wages and salaries elsewhere in the community (Christopherson and Robison, 2002). Cochise College is the eighth largest employer in Cochise County, with 348 full-time and 464 part-time employees. The college has a large impact the regional economy. In fiscal year 2009, college employees were paid a total of $18.1 million, which in turn created an additional 190 local jobs and $6.8 million in earnings, according to estimates by the college’s Center for Economic Research. College construction from 2008-2010 also generated 626 jobs and $26.7 million in earnings. The aviation department at Cochise College has a training airport, and in 1999, the Arizona Department of Transportation estimated

 

19

that the airport generated $1.12 million in Cochise County. No more recent data regarding the impact of the airport is available. In 2005, Tohono O’odham Community College had 49 full-time employees and four part-time employees. 62% of these employees were O’odham, 6% other Native American, and 32% non-Native American. TOCC generates highly skilled employment on the reservation for qualified Tohono O’odham citizens, where such jobs are often scarce. These positions also create an environment for other TO members to access affordable and local higher education, which builds a highly skilled workforce for their community and region in general (see Chapter 5 for more information). 1.6 Governance Southern Arizona is governed by the United States federal government, the state of Arizona, and local governments. Both the federal and state governments have executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The executive branch of the federal government is headed by the United States president, the legislative by the Congress, and the judicial by the Supreme Court. The governor of Arizona leads the state’s executive branch, and Arizona also has a state-level supreme court. The Arizona State Legislature consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are elected by legislative districts. There are thirty legislative districts in Arizona, six of which are in Southern Arizona. Each district elects one senator and two representatives to the state legislature. Local government is at the county and municipal level. Pima, Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties each provide public works services (such as waste management and road maintenance), police and court services, health and human services (such as workforce development and public health programs), parks and recreation facilities and management, and property assessment and taxing. The counties are financed by property taxes and other local income generation, Arizona state funds, and some federal funding. Pima, Cochise, and Santa Cruz County governments also provide a significant amount of employment in Southern Arizona. Southern Arizona is also governed at the municipal level, by different elected mayors and councils for each municipality. These municipalities are responsible for land use planning and zoning, as well as local public works, police and fire services, parks and recreation, and other duties. Local economic development is addressed by county and municipal governments, but there are also many policies and programs at the federal and state level that are aimed at encouraging economic growth. For example, Tucson’s economic development is promoted through federal, state, county, and city programs. Tucson has a federally funded Empowerment Zone; businesses get tax credits for locating in and hiring employees who live in the area. Tucson also has an Enterprise Zone; this is a state program that offers tax incentives to businesses locating in certain low-income areas of the city. Pima County funds workforce training, and the government of the City of Tucson has programs to support local small businesses and revitalize the downtown. For businesses interested in operating in Southern Arizona, organizations such as TREO, or Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, which is Tucson’s leading economic development agency, offers services that simplify the many layers of economic development provision.

 

20

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

2.1 Introduction The postsecondary system in the United States is unique both in the number and diversity of institutions that comprise it. During the 2007–08 academic year, 4,352 accredited institutions offered degrees at the associate’s degree level or above (NCES, 2009). Institutions cover a wide spectrum, ranging from vocational colleges that lead to a professional or technical certification, to large research universities that offer undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degrees in multiple fields and disciplines. Likewise, a variety of degree-granting institutes and centers may operate as part of a university or independently. Typologies often fail to reflect the wide institutional variation in type, size and function in the system. A simplified yet common categorization distinguishes between three broad types of institution:

• Community, junior, or technical colleges, which confer two-year associate’s degrees. Depending on the discipline, an associate’s degree may be terminal, leading to a professional or technical certification, or the credit may count towards a degree in an upper-level academic institution. Many two-year colleges also offer non-credit courses in arts, crafts, and vocational fields for community members not seeking a degree.

• Four-year colleges, which generally offer either four years of general undergraduate education (liberal arts) or a combination of general and pre-professional education (such as for a medical or law college). Students usually take general education courses during their first two years of study, and their last two or three years are devoted to more specialized study in their chosen major field.

• Comprehensive universities generally offer both undergraduate and graduate education as well as professional degrees.

Higher education in the U.S. is further divided into public and private institutions. Unlike public institutions, which are supported primarily by federal, state or other local government funds, private institutions do not receive public subsidies. However, accredited private institutions are eligible to receive indirect state and federal funds for research, scholarships, and student loans. Private institutions can be non-profit (including institutions run by private foundations or religious organizations) or for-profit, including many proprietary career, trade, or technical schools.

2.2 Overview of the national system of higher education

2.2.1 Size and Growth The higher education system has grown exponentially in recent decades, and enrollment is expected to continue to increase. Between 1987 and 1997, enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 14%, from slightly over 12.7 million to 14.5 million. In the following decade, enrollment increased at a faster rate (26 %), from 14.5 million to 18.2 million (Table 2.1). These increases were affected both by population growth and to rising rates of participation. In the fall of 2007, total enrollment in degree-granting institutions was 18,248,128. Of this total, 38.2% were part-time students and 61.8% were full-time students.

 

21

Table 2.1 Total enrollment by student status and gender 1997-2007

Year Total Enrollment Full-time Part-time %

Part-time Male Female % Female

1997 14,502,334 8,438,062 6,064,272 61.8% 6,396,02 8,106,30 55.9% 2007 18,248,128 11,269,89 6,978,236 38.2% 7,815,91 10,432,2 57.2%

Source: NCES Digest of Education Statistics 2009 Increasing numbers of full-time students and women contributed to much of the growth of the last decade. Between 1997 and 2007, part-time enrollment grew by 15%, and full-time enrollment increased 34%. Similarly, the number of women attending higher education increased 29%, compared to a growth of 22% in the case of male students. In terms of the age of the student body, although between 1995 and 2006 the number of students 18 to 25 years old grew more rapidly than the number of students 25 and over, this trend is expected to change. Enrollments of students under 25 are expected to rise by 10%, whereas enrollment of non-traditional students is expected to increase 19% by 2017.

Enrollment in Public and Private Institutions Attendance is largely concentrated in the public sector, with 73% of total student population enrolled in public institutions, and 24% distributed among private non-profit (19.5%) and for-profit (6.5%) institutions (Table 2.2). In addition to the enrollment in accredited 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and universities, about 447,000 students attended non-degree-granting postsecondary institutions eligible for federal funds in the fall 2006. Table 2.2 Total enrollment by institution control 1997-2007 Institutional

Control 1997 2007

Private Non-profit 2,977,614 3,571,150 For-profit 328,601 1,186,198 Subtotal Private 3,306,215 4,757,348 Public 11,196,119 13,490,780 TOTAL 14,502,334 18,248,128 Source: NCES Digest of Education Statistics 2009

Enrollment of Underrepresented Ethnic/Racial Minorities The percentage of American college students who are minorities has also increased in the last four decades. In 1976, 15% of all enrolled students belonged to underrepresented minorities, compared with 28% in 2000, and 32% in 2007 (Table 2.3). Much of this change can be attributed to the increasing numbers of Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander students enrolling in postsecondary education. Between 1976 and 2007, the percentage of Asian or Pacific Islander students rose from almost 2% to 6.7%, while the percentage of Hispanic students rose from 3.5% to slightly over 11%. In the same period, the percentage of Black students has increased from 9.4% to 13%. The percentage of Native American students increased very slightly, from 0.7% in 1976, to a steady 1.0% over the last four decades (NCES, 2009).

 

22

Table 2.3 Percentage distribution of students in U.S. degree-granting institutions by race/ethnicity for selected years Percentage Distribution of Students

1976 2000 2007 White 82.6% 68.3% 64.4% Total minority 15.4% 28.2% 32.2% Black 9.4% 11.3% 13.1% Hispanic 3.5% 9.5% 11.4% Asian/Pacific Islander 1.8% 6.4% 6.7% American Indian 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% Source: NCES Digest of Education Statistics 2009 Note: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Because of underreporting and non-reporting of racial/ethnic data, some figures are slightly lower than corresponding data in other tables. Data through 1990 are for institutions of higher education, while later data are for degree-granting institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting classification is very similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and excludes a few higher education institutions that did not grant degrees. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. It is important to note that, despite the increases in the percentage of minority students enrolled in degree-granting institutions, their distribution among the different types of postsecondary institutions is very uneven. A large proportion of minority students are concentrated in 2-year colleges, as indicated in the following section.

Enrollment in Community Colleges Within the Carnegie category of associate’s colleges we find community colleges, institutions with a stated mission to provide open access to postsecondary education. As the fastest growing segment in higher education, community colleges enrolled 11.7 million students in 2008, almost half of the undergraduate students in the country. In addition to preparing students for transfer to 4-year institutions, community colleges also provide terminal programs in professional or technical fields, and offer noncredit programs ranging from English as a second language to skills retraining. They often constitute the main access point to higher education in a town as well as the primary workforce development and skills training and training resource. Equally important, community colleges often serve as cultural centers that strive to serve the increasingly diverse and complex communities in the U.S. (AACC, 2009). As of January 2009 there were 1,117 community colleges in the U.S., of which 83% are public, 15% are independent, and 2.6% are tribal institutions. Almost 60% of all students are part-time, and 58% are female. Community Colleges enroll 44% of all U.S. undergraduates, and 41% of all first-time postsecondary students. They also represent one an important entry point to higher education for minorities in the country: 52% of all Native American undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges, as are 45% of all Asian/Pacific islander undergraduates, 43% of all Black undergraduates, and 52% of all Hispanic postsecondary students in the U.S. (idem).

 

23

2.2.2 Governance of Higher Education in the United State

The Role of the Federal Government Unlike countries with national ministries of education which oversee all educational levels, the United States educational system is highly decentralized. Congress and executive agencies of the federal government have the authority to impose a variety of rules and mandates on postsecondary institutions and students as a condition for receiving federal funds. Likewise, U.S. federal tax policy has a direct impact on HEIs, both in the financing of institutions and in family and student financing of the costs of attendance. The Department of Education is the government agency most involved in the regulation, creation and enforcement of policies for higher education. However, its authority is limited to very specific tasks:

• Ensuring that the federal funds granted to higher education institutions directly (e.g., contracts, grants) or indirectly (as in financial aid to students) are used and distributed in a responsible manner.

• Participating in the development of curricular activities and programs related to key areas of national interest, such as foreign language training and area studies programs

• Managing federal funds for research in areas like health, science, international studies, space, and the environment.

• Setting, interpreting, and enforcing civil rights legislation (such as that concerning equal opportunity hiring procedures) in HEIs.

• Supervising special programs designed to help make higher education opportunities available to certain groups, such as underrepresented minorities, people with disabilities, and women (ACE, 2001).

The Role of State Governments The governments of each of the 50 states in the country are primarily responsible for supervising higher education within their borders. The states possess the legal authority to establish, regulate, and approve the continued operations of public colleges and universities. These activities usually fall within the jurisdiction of state departments of education, state boards of higher education, and, in some cases, state universities or special state commissions. State authority over private colleges and universities is generally limited. However, these institutions must receive a charter from the state government in order to operate, and their activities are subject to state laws for non-profit and for-profit organizations (ACE, 2001). The structures set up for the statewide governance of higher education vary widely from state to state. Three basic types of state governing structures are common. First, consolidated governing board states have a single board responsible for a single institution or a cluster of institutions. Some states, like Arizona, have a separate board for community colleges. Second, coordinating board states assign regulatory or advisory authority to a single agency other than a governing board. Some states also have separate community college coordinating boards; these operate under the auspices of the statewide board or as independent state agencies. Finally, planning agency states have no governing structure with authority extending beyond voluntary planning and convening (Bracco et al., 1997). The diversity in governing structures accounts for much of the variation in how institutions deal with issues such as coordinating academic credit transfer from one institution to the other (as from a community college to a university), establishing statewide recruitment strategies, funds allocation, etc.

 

24

In states with consolidated governing boards, the highest level of administration is the governing or policy-making body, usually called a board of regents, board of trustees, or board of governors. This body is responsible for developing short-range and long-range planning, articulating the institution’s vision and mission, appointing the university chief executive and other top leadership, and creating general, fiscal and academic policy decisions policy to ensure the institution’s effective and efficient operation. Board members may also lobby the governor and legislature for funding. In public institutions, boards gain their authority from either state constitutional provisions or statutes, and they are usually composed of leaders from the state’s business and professional communities and, in some cases, a member of the student body. Private institutions have their own governing boards with self-perpetuating trustees, leaving the overall governance of the institution beyond the public realm (ACE, 2001).

Institutional Governance Governance boards typically share power and responsibility with several parties, whose title and capacities may vary from institution to institution, but which typically include administrators and officials, as well as the faculty. The president (chancellor in some institutions) oversees the day-to-day operation of the institution. Through various offices, the president ensures that the policies of the governing board are implemented, and facilitates the academic program of the institution by working with various stakeholders, such as students and faculty. Increasingly, the presidents of HEIs are expected to attract revenue from private sources through fundraising activities. The faculty senate is formed by a representative body comprised of deans, department chairs, and faculty members, who act as the fundamental academic authority in an institution. While the senate usually has primary responsibility for the curriculum and research, its decisions are generally subject to review by the president and governing board. Faculty senates are also often involved in such areas as finance, student discipline, and strategic planning. The curricular content of academic courses is subject to the guidelines of the offering department within an institution and, in general, new courses must also be approved by the faculty senate. However, individual faculty members are generally granted much latitude in deciding how to teach a course, which textbooks to use, and how to structure the syllabus. In some cases, as when different sections of an introductory course is taught to large numbers of students by different faculty members, faculty committees make these decisions collectively (ACE, 2001).

2.2.3 Accreditation and Evaluation of HEIs The decentralized nature of the higher education system means that there is no government authority concerned with the accreditation, quality control, or standards of postsecondary institutions. To preserve institutional autonomy, the accreditation process has developed around voluntary, nongovernmental, self-regulatory structures, and therefore falls under the purview of a plethora of independent associations and NGOs. The American Council on Education cites two basic types of accreditation: institutional and specialized. Institutional accreditation provides recognition for an institution as a whole; specialized accreditation recognizes a program or unit within an institution.

Institutional Accreditation Institutional accreditation is granted by the national and regional accrediting associations, which collectively serve most of the institutions licensed by the states. The national associations accredit many for-profit universities and professional schools, while regional associations accredit most non-profit two-year and four-year degree-granting institutions (ACE, 2001). The regional accreditation process is highly decentralized based on the concept of self-regulation of academic quality through accreditation. On this regard, a relevant advocacy role is played by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), a

 

25

national association of 3,000 degree-granting colleges and universities and 60 specialized accreditation associations, higher education commissions, and specialized groups that accredit specific disciplines and professions. CHEA brings together the perspectives of the seven regional associations that act as the primary authority on educational quality and institutional effectiveness of HEIs within their respective jurisdictions (Table 2.4). Table 2.4 Regional accrediting organizations in the U.S.

Association

Jurisdiction

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE)

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands

New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (NEASC-CIHE)

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Higher Learning Commission (NCA-HLC)

Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming or federally authorized sovereign nations that are authorized (licensed) by the same state or nation to award higher degrees.

Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU)

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Latin America.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC)

California, Hawaii, the Territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (WASC-ACSCU)

California, Hawaii, and the Territory of Guam joint accreditation for community colleges that offer one baccalaureate degree and meet the conditions of the joint policy with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC).

Source: Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) 2009 Despite being voluntary, pre-accreditation and accreditation by their corresponding regional association is vital for institutions. It is a prerequisite to qualify for funds from the federal government and many private foundations, and it plays a key role in an institution’s ability to attract students and recruit qualified faculty. Likewise, graduation from an accredited institution is a minimum requirement for admission to most graduate programs, and employers often do not recognize credentials obtained from a non-accredited institution (ACE, 2001).

 

26

Specialized Accreditation Specialized or programmatic accreditation is granted by commissions set up by national professional organizations in fields like business, medicine, art, dance, journalism, engineering, and law. These organizations are in charge of accrediting field-and discipline-specific academic programs leading to diplomas, certificates or degrees through which professionals are prepared for careers in that field. Many operate as part of academic and professional associations. The Appendix lists the specialized accrediting associations affiliated with CHEA, as well as a number of other associations playing advocacy, research, evaluation and/or coordination roles on higher education issues.

Faculty Evaluation Generally, faculty members are evaluated annually by their students, their peers, and the administration. A Ph.D. typically is a prerequisite for faculty positions, although in some institutions—such as community colleges—a master’s degree may be sufficient. This is also the case in some fields where a master’s degree is the highest degree in its field, such as in visual arts, creative writing, filmmaking, and performing arts. Depending on the institution, factors such as teaching and research performance, credentials, and years of service to the institution are weighed in decisions regarding salary adjustments and tenure. The tenure system grants professors protection from summary dismissal after a probationary period, which may take up to seven years. The system is intended to ensure academic freedom and economic security to encourage the pursuit of scholarly endeavors (ACE, 2001).

2.2.4 Financing Postsecondary Education Revenue generation is characterized by the multiple sources from which institutions draw funds, as well as by considerable financial stratification across them. As Table 2.5 shows, the main sources of revenue among public institutions are state and local appropriations. Tuition and fees cover an increasing proportion of total educational costs, a trend that began in the late 1970s and is expected to continue. Many private institutions generate a sizable proportion of their revenue through investment returns and endowment income, as well as tuition and fees. However, most public institutions (as well as many private ones) cannot rely on endowments and private donations to cover a significant portion of their expenditures. Additional revenue at both types of institution may come from auxiliary enterprises, such as hospitals, dormitories, dining halls, sporting events, patents, among others (College Board, 2008a). Table 2.5 Percentage distribution of total revenues of public and private non-profit degree-granting institutions, by source of funds 2005-2006

Source of Revenue Control Type Private Public

Student Tuition and fees (net of allowances) 29.0 17.0 Federal appropriations, grants and contracts 12.9 14.5 State appropriations, grants and contracts 1.0 29.5 Local appropriations, grants and contracts 0.3 6.5 Investment return, educational activities and others 29.0 16.0 Auxiliary enterprises 7.6 7.6 Hospitals 7.6 9.0 Private sources 12.0 Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2009

 

27

Federal funding represents less than 15% of the revenue in both types of institution, and its distribution is considerably skewed: approximately 100 doctorate-granting institutions receive more than 80% of all federal science and engineering obligations to HEIs. Likewise, at some major research institutions, federal funds may well represent 25% or more of revenues. States finance higher education primarily through direct subsidy of public institutions, although they also support student aid programs. Through the 1980s and late 1990s, overall state funding increased at a rate faster than increases in state appropriations to higher education. That is, state higher education appropriations increased by 13% (in constant dollars per student), even as enrollment increased; however, this was a decreasing share of the expanding pie of total state funding. Furthermore, even as state appropriations increased, state funding did not grow at a rate that could keep pace with escalating college and university costs (McGuinness, 2005). Some states have adopted funding formulas and performance indicators as additional or alternative funding mechanisms to lump sum appropriations. The main three elements in funding formulas are enrollment, space utilization, and benchmark indicators, although the weights and variables used in determining each vary from state to state (Education Commission of the States, 2000). The funding structure of community colleges resembles that of their 4-year counterparts, with the exception that public community colleges are the only institutions that receive revenue from local taxes. The three main sources of revenue in community colleges are tuition and fees, state appropriations, and local tax revenue. As at private universities, in 2005-2006 tuition and fees in independent community colleges constituted the largest percentage of revenue 53.5%, followed by 15% private gifts, grants, contracts, and investment return, 12.7% federal funds, 4.8% state funds, and 9.1% revenue from other educational and auxiliary activities (NCES, 2009). In public community colleges, on the other hand, state funds account for 38% of total revenue, followed by 21% local tax funds, 17% tuition and fees, 15% federal funds, and 9% from other sources (AACC, 2009).

Student Aid Over the last 25 years the responsibility for funding higher education has increasingly been placed on students and their families. In the academic year 2007-2008, total tuition room and board for a full-time student at a public 4-year institution averaged 12,944, and 30,931 in a not-for-profit private 4-year college. These amounts vary greatly from one institution to another, even within control groups. Between 1997–98 and 2007–08, prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public institutions rose by 30%, and prices at private institutions rose by 23%, after adjusting for inflation (NCES, 2009). The high cost of a higher education makes it necessary for most students to seek financial aid from public and private sources.

Federal Student Aid The Pell Grant is the foundation of the federal aid system. Targeted at low- and moderate-income students, it is intended to facilitate access to postsecondary education for those least able to afford it. In 2006-2007, about 31% of all Pell Grants went to the one-third of undergraduate students enrolled in public two-year colleges. In the same period 34% went to public four-year college students (42% of undergraduate enrollment), 16% to private not-for-profit college students (19% of undergraduate enrollment), and 19% to students at for-profit institutions (7% of undergraduate enrollment) (College Board, 2008b). Because of their higher tuition and the concomitant greater financial need of students to cover their expenses, private colleges receive proportionally greater amounts of federal financial aid than do public colleges.

 

28

Institutional and State Aid Institutional grants represent 42% of all grant aid, while federal grants are 31% of the total. Institutional aid to students comprised 21% of student aid to undergraduates and 17% of graduate aid in 2007-08. Students who do not receive institutional grant aid and pay the full published tuition price still receive significant subsidies at most institutions, in the form of state and local appropriations (College Board, 2008a). The majority of state financial aid is in the form of grants. In 2006-2007, state grant aid was approximately $8 billion, 73% of which was need-based and 27% was non-need-based (NASSGAP, 2009).

Student Loans In the past two decades, the federal government has shifted from a roughly equal emphasis on student loans and grants to an approach dominated by loans. In 2007 loans represented 70% of total federal aid, a slight decline from a peak 75% at the beginning of the decade. Federal education tax benefits, introduced in 1998-99, now constitute 7% of federal aid to postsecondary students. In 2007-08, 8.5 million taxpayers benefited from federal education tax credits and deductions and 5.4 million students received Pell Grants. In contrast, 1.3 million undergraduates received Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG) and only 792,000 students received Federal Work-Study support (College Board 2008b). The federal government is the primary source of education loans, of which there are several different types: need-based subsidized loans (on which the federal government pays the interest while the student is in school), unsubsidized loans available without regard to financial need, loans made to the parents of undergraduate students, disadvantaged student loans, and loans for students in specific professional fields, such as the health sciences. The private loan market expanded from 7% to 23% of total loans (in constant 2007 dollars) between 1997 and 2007, and represents an important supplementary source of funds for students (College Board 2008b).

The Financial Crisis and Its Impact on Public Higher Education Funding The fiscal fortunes of public HEIs are closely tied to the economic health of the states and the country as a whole. Higher education is particularly vulnerable to budget cuts in times of recession (Zumeta, 2009). This is partly because higher education is seen as a “balance wheel” in state spending. State legislatures reason that, since HEIs can bring in revenue from non-state sources, including tuition, federal funds, and private gifts and contracts, they are able to withstand cuts more easily than other public sectors such as K-12 education, medical care, and prisons. The situation has been exacerbated by already unstable fiscal climate over the last decade. Despite some relative growth over the last three years, public appropriations per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student were still lower in constant dollars compared to a decade ago (SHEEO, 2008). Nationwide, the postsecondary funding gap has been growing for several years, and in many states reached crisis proportions with the economic collapse of 2008-2009. While there are no comprehensive studies yet available analyzing the impact of the current financial crisis on American colleges and institutions, there are clear signs that higher education has been hit particularly hard. Even though each recession is a unique and unpredictable event with its own causes, impacts and duration, historically the steepest tuition increases in public universities have occurred during recessions as states seek to shift costs to students and their families (Callan, 2002). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), signed into law on February 17, 2009, includes strong directives to promote improvements in K-12 education, but is less specific regarding

 

29

funds for higher education. States applying for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) must use the funds to bring state appropriations for higher education up to a maximum of FY 2008 or 2009 levels (whichever is higher), or a floor of FY 2006 levels. States that cannot reach this floor threshold may apply for a waiver from the Secretary of Education, but they must present evidence of a "precipitous decline" in financial resources (Education Commission of the States, 2009). ARRA funds will be available for three years, and the directives for their initial allocation place stringent requirements on states. States are free to reallocate funds between systems or to different functions within particular institutions. States are also given considerable flexibility to spend resources differently in 2010 and 2011 than in 2009 (Delta project, 2009). Because of these many variables, it may not be possible to estimate the overall impact of ARRA in the immediate future.

2.2.5 Rankings and Competition in HEIs in the United States Rankings have a long history in the United States higher education system, dating back to 1870, when the U.S. Bureau of Education maintained an annual ranking of universities based on statistical information. The number of corporations and agencies that publish their own institutional rankings began to grow in the mid-1980s, largely in response to the popularity of the U.S. News & World Report rankings, introduced in 1983, and continues to grow. In the present, the most profitable rankings in the U.S. include those published by the U.S. News & World Report, the Princeton Review, the Business Week, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. Despite concerns about the validity of these rankings, a great number of colleges and universities continue to strive for a higher position, and virtually none of the most select and highly ranked institutions refuse to participate in the highly cited rankings. From a psychological point of view, rankings help optimize institutional value in the minds of stakeholders—a crucial function in the fiercely competitive higher education environment. High rankings often receive wide coverage in the popular press, and they are touted by politicians, policy-makers, and institutional leaders as indicators of an institution’s quality and competitive position. Furthermore, moving up in the rankings can have an observable effect on the number of applications an institution receives (Ehrenberg, 2003). A higher ranking may steer more per-student state funds towards public institutions (Zhe Jin & Whalley, 2007), as well as greater private donations. However, rankings can also have a negative impact if an institution is not highly rated. The less affluent institutions are often judged on their ability to attract and maintain a high-achieving student body and otherwise emulate the standards set by the elite, wealthy private colleges in terms of class size, research production, course loads, facilities, etcetera (McPherson & Shapiro, 1998). This situation ultimately has consequences for access to higher education. Since restricting admissions is one of the most effective techniques whereby highly selective institutions maintain their elite status, competition for students in the quest for prestige often results in declining allocation of resources for need-based aid in favor of merit-based aid. In the case of community colleges, the American Association of Community Colleges has discouraged the practice of ranking them at a national level, as the Washington Monthly magazine did in 2007 with data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement. Community colleges have the most diverse students, program offerings, locations, and demographics in the entire higher education system. Similarly, the students enrolled in these institutions tend to enroll in the community college that is closest to their home or workplace, unlike the more mobile student body in universities and 4-year colleges. Because of this non-mobile diverse student environment, as well as the noncompetitive admissions that characterize this type of institution, national rankings are deemed unproductive and detrimental to the purpose of community colleges. It is worth noting, however, that most community colleges are ranked annually on various key measures within their own states and/or regions. In-state measures are considered to be more meaningful as instruments for benchmarking and improving institutional accountability (Drumm, 2007).

 

30

2.3 National Policy for Higher Education and Regional Development Historically, the involvement of the federal government in higher education has been largely focused at promoting economic development at the local, state, and national levels. Federal spending on university-based R&D goes back to an 1883 law to support agricultural experiment stations. During the Cold War, the federal funding for research soared in areas deemed crucial for national competitiveness, such as the physical sciences, medicine, and defense. In the 1990s, federal priorities shifted from defense-related research towards investments that promised benefits to the U.S. economy, such as biotechnology, semiconductors, optics, computers, and other areas with potential for technology transfer, commercial application, and job creation. Research universities served as the source of regional technology clusters that generated thousands of high-technology companies and billions of dollars (ASU, 2003). A renewed interest in defense-related projects took place after the events of September 11, 2001, further fueled by the politically charged issue of illegal immigration (Gladieux, King, & Corrigan, 2005). As seen in the section dedicated to financing HEIs, the federal government provides less than 15% of all college and university revenues. However, federal appropriations exceed those of any other source in two types of spending: direct aid to students and funds for research and development (R&D). The federal government remains the major financer of campus-based research, supplying close to $23 billion in 2007 (NSF, 2008). Table 2.6 shows the federal obligations for basic and applied research at American universities and colleges for FY 2005-2007.

Table 2.6 Federal obligations for basic and applied research performed at universities and colleges for selected agencies by field of science and engineering FY 2005–2007 (Dollars in thousands)

Preliminary Federal Obligations 2005 2006 2007 Total 22,557,161 22,829,595 22,789,763 Basic Research 13,937,372 13,981,337 14,220,359 Applied Research 8,619,789 8,848,258 8,569,404 Field Environmental sciences 1,018,454 1,016,479 1,030,860 Life sciences 14,947,663 15,090,407 14,928,074 Mathematics and computer sciences 1,141,791 1,161,785 1,215,698 Physical sciences 1,601,257 1,594,232 1,657,281 Psychology 1,075,150 1,077,741 1,083,592 Social sciences 407,149 416,816 416,603 Other sciences, nec1 541,489 545,558 564,204 Engineering 1,824,208 1,926,577 1,893,451 1/ nec = not elsewhere classified. Notes: Data in this table is reported by seven federal agencies: Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and National Science Foundation. Research obligations of these seven agencies represented approximately 97% of total federal research obligations to universities and colleges in FY 2005, 2006, and 2007. Data for only those agencies and subdivisions that had obligations in variables represented by this table appear in table. Source: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development FY 2005, 2006, and 2007

 

31

2.3.1 Federal Legislation and Regional Development In addition to providing funds for R&D, the federal government has played a historical role in enacting legislation directly aimed at improving higher education. Four important pieces of legislation have addressed the role of higher education in promoting regional and economic development.

• The Morrill Act (1862). Also known as the Land-grant College Act, this act was introduced to help finance higher education institutions in each of the states. Each state received 30,000 acres of federal land for each congressional representative from that state. The land would then be sold to provide an endowment fund which would provide support for at least one college offering training in agricultural and mechanical arts, as well as other professional fields like engineering. Inclusion of a liberal arts curriculum was encouraged, as it was seen as an important element in the education of a citizenry able to solve problems beyond academia. The Land-grant Act constituted an effort to meet a rapidly industrializing nation’s need for scientifically trained technicians and professionals, and to promote economic development in each of the states (Christy & Williamson, 1992).

• The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (1944). Popularly known as the G.I. Bill, this act granted

access to education, home and small business loans, among other benefits, to more than 15 million World War II veterans. The program was designed with the expectation that only a small proportion of the veterans would claim the education and training benefits. In the end, close to 7.8 million returning personnel did so, thus ushering the massification of higher education in the U.S. (Serow, 2004).

• The Higher Education Act (1965). The HEA authorized the first large-scale, federally-funded

financial aid programs, introducing need-based educational opportunity grants, student loans, and the college work-study program. Initially the HEA distributed grant funds directly to states, based on student enrollments. After the reauthorization of the HEA in 1972, funds were targeted directly at the students through the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program, later renamed the Pell Grant. The 1972 reauthorization also enacted the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) program, through which the federal government matched funds for state-run, need-based grant programs (NCES, 2009).

• The Bayh-Dole Act (1980). Bayh-Dole introduced a uniform policy for technology-transfer

practices among organizations conducting research under federal grants and contracts. In addition to promoting collaboration between the private sector and universities, the main objective of the Act was to streamline the process of commercializing technological innovations created under federal funds, and thus accelerate the creation of new industries.

• The Carl Perkins Act (1990). This act and subsequent revisions led to the establishment of Tech

Prep, a nationally funded initiative designed to prepare students for high skill, high wage, or high demand occupations in current or emerging professions at the state and regional levels. Programs receiving funding are required to follow a 2 + 2 articulation sequence that begins with at least 2 years of secondary education and continues in seamless transition through at least 2 years of postsecondary education. The legislation requires that funded programs include collaboration between secondary and postsecondary educational providers and business and industry

 

32

Development Legislation and Access to Higher Education for Underrepresented Minorities These four pieces of legislation contributed greatly to shaping the higher education system into its current form. At the same time, it is important to observe that significant revisions were made to some of these acts to address issues of discrimination based on race, gender, and ability. A second Land-grant Act was passed in 1890 which included provisions for the funding of HEIs for the recently emancipated Black population. This measure introduced the official policy of providing “separate but equal” educational services and facilities for Blacks and Whites. As a result, the first Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were created during this period. States whose colleges and universities refused to admit non-white students became ineligible for federal funds, unless they provided institutions where non-white students could pursue an education equivalent to that at a White-only institution (Christy & Williamson, 1992). The G.I. Bill of 1944 was widely perceived as a measure of the country’s progress in providing equal rights and opportunities for the returning troops, regardless of their race. This perception was partly reinforced by the fact that the grants and stipends of Title II were awarded directly to the veterans and not to the institutions, a policy for federal student aid that remains in place. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the separate but equal policy unconstitutional. Though all public institutions were expected to desegregate, de facto segregation continued in many institutions. Finally, the Higher Education Act of 1965 has gone through numerous revisions intended in part to address lingering inequalities in public colleges and universities. In 1992, the reauthorized Higher Education Act made eligible for federal grants a new category of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI), defined as universities with 25% Hispanic full-time students in their undergraduate population. The 1978 Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act provided federal funds for the operation of tribally controlled community colleges for Native American students (NCES, 2009). In 1994, thirty Native American tribal colleges obtained land-grant status under the Improving America’s Schools Act. Improving the access of minorities and low-income students remains one of the main challenges in American higher education.

2.3.2 Impact of Higher Education on Regional Economic Development Although most states have strived to assess the economic impact of higher education institutions within their borders, few studies have been conducted on a national scale. A 2001 survey by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities is one of the most comprehensive reviews on the topic (NASULGC, 2001). The findings of the survey suggest that public universities contribute greatly to regional economic stability and growth. Generation of jobs, additional spending, and increased tax revenues for local and regional economies are some of the most significant measures of the economic benefits fostered by public institutions. The survey found that the average return on every $1 of state money invested in a public land-grant institution was $5. Furthermore, for every $100 spent directly by a public land-grant institution, its employees spent an additional $64 of their personal funds, while students spent an additional $60 and visitors $14. Institutions surveyed also generated a mean tax revenue of $60 million per year through the state and local taxes paid by their employees, students, and visitors. The study also found that public universities attracted a mean amount of $105 million out-of-state revenues through research grants and contracts, although many institutions attracted much more. Finally, 65% of the responding institutions had a research park and/or business incubator. The findings of this survey must be approached cautiously, not only because they report on data from nearly a decade ago, but because they

 

33

are limited to public land-grant universities. The economic impact of community colleges is left out of the findings, as is that of private institutions.

2.4 The Higher Education System in Southern Arizona Arizona is served by three public universities: The University of Arizona (UA), Arizona State University (ASU), and Northern Arizona University (NAU). Governance of these institutions falls under the authority of the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR)2, discussed further in “Public Institutions,” 2.4.1. The state is also served by 21 single- and multi-campus community colleges, distributed among ten districts: Cochise, Coconino, Graham, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Yavapai, Yuma/La Paz. Two tribal community colleges also operate with public and local funds: Diné College and Tohono O'odham Community College. Finally, private postsecondary education in Arizona consists of 192 institutions operating vocational and degree programs. The following public institutions serve the region covered in this document: The University of Arizona, The University of Arizona South, Cochise College, Pima Community College, and Tohono O'odham Community College. The University of Phoenix is a private for-profit institution with several locations in Southern Arizona. The following sections provide a brief overview of these institutions, including aspects of governance, financing, enrollment, staff, and historical links to the region. A summary of HEIs in Southern Arizona is provided in Table 2.7.3

2 The Arizona Board of Regents is the governing body of Arizona’s public university system, including the University of Arizona, Arizona State University (Tempe) and Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff) and their branch campuses. The primary directive is policy guidance to the state university system which includes: “ensuring access to education, promoting knowledge, extending benefits to citizens outside the university and maximizing the state’s investment in education” (ABOR, “Mission”). The board consists of twelve members, eleven voting and one non-voting. Regents are nominated by the AZ Governor and approved by the state Senate. 3 The 2009 Almanac of HEIs in Arizona was included in the August 24, 2009 edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education and is included in Appendix II for further information.

 

34

Table 2.7 Summary of HEIs in Southern Arizona

Institution Location Enrollment1 Programs offered

University of Arizona

Tucson: Main campus, Arizona Materials Laboratory, Science and Technology Park and Santa Rita Experimental Research Station; Boyce Thompson Arboretum in Superior, Arizona; 15 Extension Offices, 6 Indian reservation offices, and 4 satellite offices throughout Apache, Greenlee, Pima, Cochise, La Paz, Pinal, Coconino, Maricopa, Santa Cruz, Gila, Mohave, Yavapai, Graham, Navajo and Yuma counties; Kitt Peak Observatory in the Tohono O'odham reservation.

38,057 123 bachelor’s degree programs, 120 master’s degree programs, 95 doctorate degree programs, 5 education specialist programs, 3 professional degree programs, and 27 graduate certificates

University of Arizona South

Campuses in Sierra Vista and Douglas; other locations include the Douglas Office, the Arizona Folklore Facility, Pima Community College East Campus, Vail School District, and other locations throughout Cochise and Pima counties.

623 11 bachelor’s degree programs, including 3 bachelor’s degree programs and 2 master’s degree programs not offered at the main UA campus

Pima Community College

124 teaching locations throughout Tucson, including Community Campus, Desert Vista Campus, Downtown Campus, East Campus, Northwest Campus, West Campus, as well as the Northeast Education Center, the Southeast Education Center, the Community Learning and Performing Arts Center in Green Valley, and the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Education Center.

73,740 186 transfer and occupational programs

Cochise College

Campuses in Douglas and Sierra Vista; centers in Willcox, Benson, Fort Huachuca, Nogales, the Arizona State Prison Complex near Douglas; local high schools; online

15,137 65 certificate programs and 67 associate degrees, including 40 transfer programs

Tohono O’odham Community College

Main Campus and West Campus in Sells, Arizona; Baboquivari High School, Pisinemo District Learning Center, San Lucy District, San Xavier Education Center, Santa Rosa Boarding School, the Tohono O’odham High School, and Tucson Indian Center.

189 Associate degrees for transfer to four-year universities; degrees, certificates, and apprenticeships for direct employment; developmental education

University of Phoenix

Southern Arizona campus in Tucson; learning centers in Nogales, Tucson, Sierra Vista, and Yuma.

2,200 (campus students);

800 (online/ Flexnet

students)

Over 1,700 courses on campus and online; undergraduate and graduate courses in business, education, and nursing

Note: 1Enrollment data for the University of Arizona and UA South (Fall 2008); Pima Community College (2007-2008); Cochise College (Fall, 2007), Tohono O’odham Community College (Spring 2008); University of Phoenix (Fall 2007).

 

35

2.4.1 Public Institutions The management and financing of public HEIs in the region occurs largely at the state and local level. The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) acts as the primary governing board for the UA and the UA South. Legally, Arizona universities exist as extensions of the Board; each university may adopt internal rules and procedures that are consistent with its particular needs, but only after review and approval from the Board. In addition to fulfilling the tasks of a consolidated state board, ABOR has the authority to expend income of land funds, to expend money for the use and benefit of the institution, to accept grants of money, and to issue bonds and manage money and property, including research parks (ABOR, 2009b). Until 2002, the Arizona community college system was supervised by the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges of Arizona. However, that year, the Arizona Legislature reduced the Board’s powers and duties and transferred most oversight to individual community college districts. On July 1, 2003, the Arizona legislature eliminated the State Board. After that, the Arizona Community College Association (ACCA), a voluntary, dues-paying organization, took over several coordinating functions, including the submission of statutory reports to the legislature, and collecting data requested by the legislature on behalf of the community college system. In 2008, Governor Janet Napolitano announced the creation of the Arizona Community College Council, a new body that would give community colleges a seat during state budget negotiations, as well as coordinate with other agencies to improve coordination and effectiveness at all institutional levels. The Council remained in legal limbo until June 2009, when Governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order reinstituting the council with a stated focus on "accountability, predictability and affordability” (Arizona Governor, 2009). Each of the community colleges included in this review also have institutional board of trustees who belong to the local community, and who serve the institution on terms ranging from four to six years. A statewide agreement between Arizona community colleges and universities guarantees students two ways to transfer: using an associate degree or a general education block of 35 credits called the Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC). Associate degrees transfer as a block of 64 credits to all Arizona public universities programs. They include the Associate of Arts (AA) for liberal arts, social science, and fine art majors; Associate of Arts Elementary Education (AAEE); Associate of Science (AS) for natural, physical and life science majors; and Associate of Business (ABUS) for business administration and computer information systems majors. Completion of the AGEC bloc at any Arizona community college fulfills the lower-division general education requirements to transfer to any public university in the state of Arizona as an upper-division student. While Arizona residents need to have a minimum of a 2.0 grade point average in their AGEC, non-residents are required to have a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.5 for university admission (Cochise College, 2009a).

The University of Arizona (UA) In 1885 the Thirteenth Territorial Legislature founded The University of Arizona with an appropriation of $25,000 conditional on the people of Pima County donating 40 acres to the University. The institution defines itself as a student-centered research institution that embraces the threefold mission teaching, research and public service particular to all land-grant institutions (UA, 2009). As a land-grant institution, the UA is maintained by funds appropriated by the State of Arizona, the federal government, as well as tuition and fees and gifts and grants from many sources. Totaling $589,553,400, state appropriations constituted 29% of the UA total revenue in FY 2008. In the same period, tuition and fees covered 16% of total revenue. Historically, UA’s reliance on tuition and fees is less than the other universities in Arizona due to higher levels of research funding and has remained in the 14-16% range since 2001. The UA also received $496,974,385 in research gifts and grants, constituting approximately 39% of total revenue, while auxiliary enterprises revenues, net investment income, and educational department sales and

 

36

services revenues constitute 15% (ABOR, 2009a). The UA has a $335 million endowment managed by the UA Foundation. The University of Arizona offers 123 bachelor’s degree programs, 120 master’s degree programs, 95 doctorate degree programs, 5 education specialist programs, 3 professional degree programs, and 27 graduate certificates in the newly organized (2009) 17 colleges and 21 schools. The colleges include the College of Letters, Arts and Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, College of Education, College of Engineering, Graduate College/Graduate Interdisciplinary Programs, Honors College, College of Humanities, James E. Rogers College of Law, Eller College of Management, College of Medicine-Tucson, College of Medicine-Phoenix, College of Nursing, College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona Outreach College, College of Pharmacy, and Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health. Schools include Plant Sciences; Natural Resources and the Environment; Earth and Environmental Sciences; Information Sciences, Technology and Art; Mind, Brain and Behavior; Anthropology; Geography and Development; Government and Public Policy; Asian, Classical and European Studies; Architecture; Landscape Architecture and Planning; Art; Dance; Media Arts; Music; Theatre Arts; John and Doris Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences; Information Resources and Library Science; Journalism; Eller Graduate School of Management and Sustainable Engineered Systems (UA Provost, 2009). In the fall 2008, there were 38,057 students enrolled at the UA, undergraduate students numbered 29, 719 and graduates were 8, 338. The majority of students at the UA are Caucasian (64.7%); the second largest ethnic group is Hispanic (16%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (6.8%), non-resident aliens (6.5%), African American (3.3%), and American Indian/Alaskan Native (2.8%). In that same period, UA had a total of 14,663 employees, 65% of which worked on full-time appointments. This includes 1,629 full-time faculty, with a greater number of male faculty (67%) than females (33%). Almost 76% of faculty are Caucasian, 7.9% are Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.7% are Hispanic, 2.9% are non-resident aliens, 1.3% are African American, and 1.2% are American Indian/Alaskan Native (UA, 2009)

The University of Arizona South (UA-S) UA South was established largely through the effort of regional stakeholders to extend the UA’s Land-grant mission in Southern Arizona. The Sierra Vista Campus, established in 1993, was entirely funded with private funds raised by the University South Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. In 1995, the Board designated the Sierra Vista Campus as an official branch campus of the UA. This designation allowed The UA Sierra Vista to request separate funding from the Arizona Legislature to expand the degree programs and services available to students in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. In 2002 the UA South was federally designated as an eligible Hispanic Serving Institution, and the following year UA South received authority to develop and implement curriculum and degree programs unique to UA South, enabling faculty to respond more creatively to community and regional needs (UAS, 2009). Classes are held on the UA South Campus in Sierra Vista, at the Douglas Office, at the Arizona Folklore Facility, Pima Community College East Campus, in the Vail School District, at the UA South Science and Technology Park, and other locations throughout Cochise and Pima counties. The UA South Douglas Campus is co-located with Cochise College's Douglas Campus (UAS, 2009). In conjunction with the UA main campus, UA South offers 11 bachelor’s degree programs, including 3 bachelor’s degree programs and 2 master’s degree programs not offered at the main UA campus: the Bachelor of Applied Science with a major in Applied Science, the Bachelor of Science with a major in Commerce, the Bachelor of Science with a major in elementary education, the Master of Science with a major in Secondary Education, and the Master of Education with a major in Educational Technology (ABOR, 2008). Additionally, UA South offers 3 certification programs, 2 endorsement programs in early childhood education and structured English immersion, and 3certificates in network administration,

 

37

network essentials, and routing and switching. New certificate programs are currently being approved. Finally, UA South offers a continuing education program that offers non-credit classes during the day, evening and weekend in topics ranging from IT certification to workplace training. This program is a self-supporting (no taxpayer funding, excess revenue reinvested in program and South campus operations), not-for-profit outreach of UA South in Sierra Vista, designed to meet the professional development needs of the Southern Arizona community. Customized curriculum, dedicated classes and on-site training are available in addition to regularly scheduled, public classes. Outreach such as company-wide or individual educational assessments are also available (UAS, 2009). A total of 623 students were enrolled at UA South in the fall 2008 (UA, 2009). Approximately 59.5% of UA South students are Caucasian, 4.1% African American, 30.8% Hispanic, 3.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2% are American Indian or Alaskan Native (UA, 2009) Almost half (45%) of all UA South students are 25 years old or older, that is, students returning to school with work and family responsibilities. To meet the needs of these students, most UA South classes are offered in late afternoon or evening sessions, one day per week. At 58%, the proportion of female students is larger than that of male students (42%). UA South faculty, staff, and student demographics, to a large extent, mirror the area's population. That is, 15% of faculty and staff are Hispanic, 5% African-American, and 1.7% Asian-American. Faculty and staff are 58% female, while the Dean's Management Team is over 70% female (UA-S, 2009).

Cochise College As with other community colleges in the region, Cochise College has maintained a close relationship to the local community from its inception. Plans to build the College began in 1961, when Cochise County voters agreed to the establishment of a community college district to serve the rural community of Douglas. As one of the first community colleges in Arizona, its mission is “to provide accessible educational opportunities that are responsive to a diverse population and lead to constructive citizenship, meaningful careers, and lifelong learning” (Cochise College, 2009a). In FY 2007 the College was funded by a conservative local property tax levy (32.43%), state appropriations (30.42%), and student tuition and fees (11.14%). The college also receives government grants and contracts (17.22%) and other revenues (8.79%) (IPEDS, 2009). During the 2008-09 year, Cochise College enrolled 15,137 students through offerings at different sites, including the Douglas Campus, the Sierra Vista Campus, the Willcox Center, the Benson Center, the Fort Huachuca Center, the Nogales Center, the Arizona State Prison Complex near Douglas, and numerous area high schools throughout the County, as well as online. Throughout the institution’s history, college programs have focused on transferable degrees and direct-employment training. Programs include a full-range of offerings including aviation, computer science, education, nursing, welding, pre-engineering and culinary arts along with transfer and general education degrees and courses. Community-directed programs include Adult Education, the Career Services Center, the Center for Economic Research, the Small Business Development Center, and the Center for Lifelong Learning. The college also hosts personal interest classes, cultural and arts programs, conferences, and visitors from both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Cochise College is the third largest community college district and the largest rural district in the state. It is also is the 10th largest employer in Cochise County, with 348 full-time and 464 part-time employees in 2006 (Cochise College, 2009b). Approximately 45% of students are 25 years old and over, and the remaining 55% are traditional 18-24 years old students. In terms of gender, 58% are female and 42% are male. Finally, 49% of students are Caucasian, 35% Hispanic, 5% Black non-Hispanic, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 3% are non-resident aliens and 5% are unknown/unreported (NCES College Navigator, 2009).

 

38

Pima Community College (PCC) In 1966, the citizens of Pima County, Arizona, approved the formation of a junior college district. With help from committees of citizens, the board developed educational goals, created a financial plan, selected a president and chose a campus site. The voters also approved a $5.9 million bond issue for the College. In 1969, construction on the first campus began on 267 acres in the foothills of the Tucson Mountains west of the city. In 2007-2008, PCC had a total revenue of $185,986,410, of which 47% came from county property taxes, 20% from tuition and fees, 12% from state appropriations, 11.5% from federal grants, and 8% from state sales tax, state and local grants, and other sources (PCC, 2009). PCC is among the 10 largest multi-campus community colleges in the U.S. It has 124 teaching locations throughout Tucson, including Community Campus, Desert Vista Campus, Downtown Campus, East Campus, Northwest Campus, West Campus, as well as the Northeast Education Center, the Southeast Education Center, the Community Learning and Performing Arts Center in Green Valley, and the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Education Center. PCC offers a total of 186 transfer and occupational programs, are offered at these locations, in the following areas: aviation technology, business, general studies, health-related, social service, applied arts technologies, applied service and trade technologies, engineering & science technologies, transportation services, information technology, legal and protective service, and education. Students can work towards associate degrees in arts, business, science, fine arts, applied arts, applied science, and general studies, as well as basic and advanced certificates in a variety of occupational and transfer areas. In 2007-2008, a total of 73,740 students were enrolled at PCC. Of these, 84% were in credit programs and 16% in noncredit programs. In the fall 2008, 56% of students were women and 44% men. The majority (71%) of students at PCC are part-time; more than half (53%) are enrolled in transfer programs,4 while 28% are in occupational and workforce programs, 15% in developmental programs, and 4% in special interest courses. Approximately 42% of PCC students belong to ethnic minorities. PCC employs 995 staff members, including 371 full-time instructional and educational support faculty (PCC, 2009). Tohono O’odham Community College (TOCC) TOCC was created thank to the efforts of the Tohono O'odham Legislative Council, which in 1996 approved a resolutions to establish a community college on the Tohono O'odham Nation. In 1998, the same legislative council approved the TOCC Charter, and the following year the College’s first president was elected. TOCC is a Tribal College under the Tribally-Controlled Community Colleges and Universities Act and has been designated a Minority-Serving Institution by the Civil Rights office of the U.S. Department of Education. TOCC has land-grant status as a member of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 1994 Land Grant Institutions (TOCC, 2008a). While appropriations by the Tohono O'odham Legislative Council have been the College's primary source of funding, other revenues have become more important recently. Government grants increased from 41% in 2006 to 44% in 2008. That same year, 37% of total revenue came from appropriations by the Tohono O'odham Legislative Council, 17% from gifts and dividends, and only 2% from tuition and fees (TOCC, 2008b). The College seeks to contribute to the revitalization of the Tohono O’odham language and culture and the sustainability of the local Sonoran environment (TOCC, 2008b). For this reason, all students are required to complete a Tohono O’odham history and culture class and a Tohono O’odham language class. TOCC primarily offers associate degrees for transfer to four-year universities; degrees, certificates, and apprenticeships for direct employment; and developmental education (Adult Basic Education and GED 4 Transfer refers to students enrolled in courses designated as transferable to qualifying universities, not necessarily student intent to transfer.

 

39

classes). Courses are arranged to complement classes at both Pima Community College and the University of Arizona. TOCC offers apprenticeships carpentry, construction painting, electrical facilities maintenance, and plumbing. Similarly, the College offers transfer programs leading to Associate of Arts in the Liberal Arts (AA), Associate of Business Administration (ABUS), and Associate of Science (AS), as well as through AGEC certificates. Non-transfer Associate programs include Agriculture and Natural Resources, Business Administration, Child Development, General Studies, Office & Administrative Professions, Social Services, Elementary Education, Early Childhood Education, and Computer Information Systems. Certificate programs in Child Development, Office & Administrative Professions—OAP Certificate (CRT-OAP) and Early Childhood Education are also available (TOCC, 2008b). The College’s commitment to strengthening families and communities can be found in TOCC’s numerous teacher training, childcare, and social service programs. Projects NATIVE I TOCC and NATIVE II and III are part of a partnership with the UA College of Education, funded with grants from the U.S. Department of Education, to address the extreme shortage of American Indian teachers in Arizona. The projects have supported new teachers on or near the Tohono O’odham Nation, the nearby Pascua Yaqui Tribe and in Tucson schools with high American Indian enrollment. Total enrollment in the spring 2008 was 189 students (109 full-time student equivalency), 68% female and 32% male. Ninety-seven percent of all students are Tohono O’odham, while the average student age is 36. In the spring 2008 TOCC had 49 full-time employees (45% male, 55% female), including 14 full-time faculty and 14 adjunct faculty, and 9 part-time employees. Of these, 61% belong to the Tohono O’odham tribe, 12% to other Native American tribes, and 27% are non Native Americans (TOCC, 2008a, 2008b).

2.4.2 Private Institutions5

University of Phoenix (UOPX) The University of Phoenix (UOPX) was founded in 1976 by Dr. John Sperling, a Cambridge-educated economic historian and professor, on the goal of making higher education accessible for working adults. The institution opened its online campus in 1989, and has since become the nation's largest private university, offering more than 100 degree programs. It is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association. During the quarter ending May 31, 2009, 420,700 students were enrolled at University of Phoenix. The average student age is 34 and 68 percent of the student body are women. Class sizes average 13 people, and the faculty have work ex perience in the fields they teach.

Depending on their course of study, students can pursue a bachelor's or master's degree online, or at a local campus or learning center. Currently, the University of Phoenix offers over 1,700 courses on campus and online (University of Phoenix, 2009a). UOPX has several locations throughout Southern Arizona, including a campus in Tucson, and learning centers in Nogales, Tucson, Sierra Vista, and Yuma. Among the most popular programs in the region are those in business, education, and nursing. The University of Phoenix offers a range of business-degree programs, including a Bachelor of Science in Business/Accounting, Bachelor of Science in Business/Administration, and Bachelor of Science in Business/Marketing programs. At the graduate level, there is a Master of Business Administration, Master of Business Administration/Health Care Management, and Master of Science in Accountancy programs.

5 Two small private higher education institutions operate in Cochise County, Wayland Baptist University and Western International University. Although these two institutions serve a valuable student body and operate as HEIs in the region, they have not been included in depth in this report due to the emphasis on economic development on a regional level and their comparatively small operations.

 

40

The institution also offers a Bachelor of Science in Nursing program for registered nurses, as well as a Master of Health Administration and a Master of Science in Nursing program at the graduate level. Most of these programs are available both online and on-campus at the Southern Arizona locations. Regional enrollment data is only available for the Southern Arizona Campus. In the fall 2007, 2,287 students were enrolled at this campus. Close to 60% of all students were female, and the distribution by race ethnicity was as follows: Caucasian 30%, Hispanic 25%, African American 5%, Asian/Pacific Islander 2%, American Indian/Alaska Native 1%, non-resident alien 8.7%, and 27% unknown (IPEDS, 2009b). Worldwide, 420,700 students were enrolled at UOPX in the spring 2009. UOPX has a core faculty of 1,410 professors, and an associate faculty of 20,507. The gender distribution of faculty is very even, with 50.2% females and 49.8% males. Close to 69% of faculty are Caucasian, while 16.96% are African American, 6.08% Hispanic, 4.15% Asian/Pacific Islander, and only .62% American Indian/Native Alaskan (University of Phoenix, 2009b). The University of Phoenix has a Board of Directors consisting of four internal members and 11 public members. The University must conform to all state and national laws regarding licensed businesses and the regulations of various departments of education and higher education commissions in each distinct locality. Therefore it falls under the purview of the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education. The Board licenses and regulates private universities, colleges, career colleges, and vocational schools in Arizona (ASBPPE, 2008).

 

41

CHAPTER 3: CONTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH TO REGIONAL INNOVATION 3.1 Introduction In Southern Arizona, all of the higher education institutions conduct research towards regional innovation in varying degrees. For the institutions of Pima Community College, Cochise College, Tohono O’odham Community College and the University of Phoenix, research has a localized, practical aspect seen in the tracking and augmenting of regional employment needs, as well as creating local collaborations in social outreach (Chapter 5). Community colleges by their design and definition are created to prioritize teaching over research. For this region, only the University of Arizona is officially mandated to conduct research as its top priority. The UA produces research that is nationally and internationally recognized—seen in the countless grants and contracts acquired by faculty and research units, the wide range of academic publications and UA’s status as a RU/VH (a Research University with a “very high” level of research). Due to this mission of the UA and it wide influence in the area of research, this chapter is a focused analysis of the contributions of UA to regional innovation. The University of Arizona was chartered as a land grant institution, entrusted by the State of Arizona to organize knowledge for the benefit of Arizonans. Until the 1960s, this mission was fulfilled by a traditional combination of education and outreach. When Richard Harvill ascended to the UA’s presidency in 1951, there were only two doctoral degree programs, about $1,000,000 in sponsored research, and no funding for new infrastructure needed to expand facilities. Research revolved on the land grant mission and three “professional schools.” The College of Agriculture was tightly linked with the commercial agriculture industry. Its Experiment Station’s research budget exceeded that of the entire university, easily making the largest college. The College of Mines focused on mineral exploration and extraction, especially in copper-rich Southern Arizona. And the College of Business, which even housed some social science disciplines like Sociology and Economics, emphasized strong contacts with Arizona’s entrepreneur community. Very little “pure,” non-outreach research was being conducted (Geiger 1992). Harvill’s administration nurtured these professional schools, but also oversaw expansion of a research agenda that was symbiotic with regional conditions and needs. The first foray was the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, a privately-funded research center dedicated to studying weather and climatology. The Institute quickly became an incubator or sorts for highly-focused research projects on solar energy, geosciences, arid lands, and water resources. Overtime, these projects were spun-off into separate organized research units (ORUs), and eventually were subsumed by expanding colleges and departments. Harvill also presided over a physical expansion of UA by tirelessly advocating for a larger enrollment and using creative financing to build critical buildings on campus (Geiger 1992, 274-5). Following Harvill, John P. Schaefer took over UA’s presidency and reinforced the research commitment. Schaefer recruited academic stars to the highest performing departments, reformed the faculty tenure process, and expanded the library – all crucial steps toward gaining national prestige. One of Schaefer’s greatest accomplishments, however, was his leadership in front of the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR). Regental concerns were still focused on education and public outreach. Schaefer, though, defended the commitments to research by demonstrating that research generated economic development. Reports from Schaefer’s administration publicized that every $1 million brought in through research grants generated an additional $1.046 million for the state’s economy and created 86 new jobs (Geiger 1992, 275-6). Many of UA’s strongest research foci can trace their roots back to a regional geographic impetus like aridity (water resources) or clear skies (astronomy). Overtime, these strengths have melded with economic impetuses from the growth of industrial niches. University impact reports can no longer focus solely on dollars and jobs they create in the local economy, as there are numerous qualitative relationships

 

42

between regional industry and the research community. Common knowledge suggests that without continued research, regional industry might not be able to compete, much less lead in global economy. Similarly, without continued industrial growth and demand for innovation, research resources may well leave UA for other institutions. This chapter is an assessment of this symbiotic relationship. First, it examines regional industrial strengths/strategic growth opportunities, and reviews the contributions that UA offers these industries with research. Secondly, this chapter explores the institutional framework which transfers innovation from the laboratory to the business community. Finally, this chapter reviews the additional institutional programs that serve in a support capacity to strengthen relationships between the research community and local industry. 3.2 Responding to regional needs and demands This section explores the first phase of research exchange between higher education institutions and industry. It delineates the industry strengths of Southern Arizona, and provides an overview of related research activity at UA, Southern Arizona’s only research institution, which is being exploited to support and strengthen local industries. The College of Agriculture and Life sciences are the two original professional schools dedicated to commercial/industrial oriented research. The Agriculture Experiment Station and the Co-operative Extension Program continue to carry out basic scientific research that benefits the statewide agricultural industry. Although agriculture employment is on a decline, it remains a key sector of the economy and is especially dependent on innovations in crop management. While continuing to innovate within the agricultural sector, it has been critical to define what other industry strengths exist and how they can be cultivated in the region. In 2005, The City of Tucson Office of Economic Development, Pima County Economic Development, and the Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC) came together as Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO), a single quasi-public agency representing strategic economic development interests of Southern Arizona. In 2007, TREO released Securing Our Future Now: An Economic Blueprint for the Tucson Region that analyzed Southern Arizona’s economic strengths and weaknesses, and identified policy strategies to capitalize on growth opportunities. One of the leading strengths of the region is higher education resources, and one of the strategic priorities of TREO is to fortify the interaction and exchange between UA and local industry. TREO identifies seven industry strengths in Southern Arizona: bioindustry, environmental technology, aerospace, information technology, optical sciences, advanced composites, and tourism. Whether these industries are established or emerging, they all represent opportunities to draw in extra-regional revenue and they all require continued innovation to survive and expand. UA is able to address innovation through focused research, collaborations, and other activities that open lines of communication between industry and scientists. Although the University of Arizona conducts research in a wide variety of fields, this section only includes a review of the research effort from UA in connection with the aforementioned seven strengths in Southern Arizona identified by TREO. Because of its historical role and continuing relevance for the region, agriculture-related research is present first. 3.2.1 Agriculture Arizona’s agriculture has historically been organized around cotton, cattle, and citrus (“the 3 C’s”). Over 37% of all land in Arizona is occupied by agricultural activity. Arizona is home to over 7,300 farms and ranches. Their collective output, after factoring value added processing, is worth over $6 billion annually. As Arizona has grown, agriculture has come under increased scrutiny, particularly around land use

 

43

(grazing) and water resource issues (irrigation). While technology and innovation has allowed farms and ranches to increase employee efficiency, the future of agriculture in Arizona will depend on its ability to become more productive from a resource standpoint (Mortensen 2004). UA Research Activity UA’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) has a tremendous economic impact on Arizona’s economy. While agriculture is not typically studied as a high-technology industry, research and innovation at UA improves the efficiency of farming and ranching in the region. CALS is the primary land grant component of UA, and therefore, fully integrates the roles of education, research, and outreach. The education component features 12 departments and schools including Family and Consumer Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and the School of Natural Resources. CALS’ research component is facilitated by the Agricultural Experiment Station, a collection of 9 agricultural research stations across Arizona (to capture varying geographic conditions). The Agricultural Experiment Station has been inexistence since 1887, and can have as many as 200 research projects in process. The outreach component of CALS is coordinated by Arizona Cooperative Extension. Co-Op Extension transfer knowledge from research to local communities through the publication of relevant reports and the facilitation of youth, rural, and minority education programs. As noted, these three roles are fully integrated and faculty often work in multiple capacities. Recent research projects and innovations include:

• Cotton IPM: Reducing Insecticide Use, Maintaining Yields in Arizona. Since 1996, CALS has developed an integrated pest management (IPM) system for Arizona’s cotton crop using insect growth regulators and transgenic cotton. The benefits of the system are increasingly realized every year of application. The IPM saves growers money by reducing the need for toxic, expensive pesticide sprayings. Since inception of the plan in 1996 (revised 2006), cotton growers have seen a 37% reduction in crop damage, and cumulatively saved over $200 million in pesticide costs and crop damage. In 2008, growers reported zero sprays from pink bollworm – the first time since the mid-1960s. This IPM has been exported to California, New Mexico, Texas, Mexico, Australia, and several Latin American countries.

• Maize Microarray Project: A Tool for Crop Research and Improvement: research on the genome of maize for the purpose of more efficient production

• Cotton IPM: A Decade of Reduced Insecticide Use in Arizona: (see above description) • Better Nitrogen Management in Irrigated Cotton: research on improving cotton production • Low Input Barley: development and release of barley seed requiring less water and fertilizer

application, while maintaining or improving yields. • Shrimp Research: Aquaculture Pathology Laboratory: continued research on emerging pathogens

in shrimp aquaculture – identified 3 new pathogen candidates. • New Arid Land Crop Plants with Anticancer Activity: The Southwest Center for Natural Products

Research and Commercialization (SCNPRC) has identified a number of indigenous plants that inhibit cancerous tumor growth. At least one plant protein has been identified as having potential in drug development. Research continues with major funding from several agencies and partnerships with the UA Division of Plant Pathology, the Departments of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Immunology, Pediatric Oncology and Surgery, the Arizona Cancer Center, Arizona State University, Translational Genomics Institute, Josephine Ford Cancer Center, Harvard University, Whitehead Institute, China Pharmaceutical University, South Carolina Oncology Institute and DuPont Crop Protection Division.

• Functional Genomics of Maize Chromatin Proteins: NSF-funded research on maize gene expressions.

 

44

• Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) Aids Crop Decisions: CALS maintains a network of 28 automated weather stations located across Arizona supplies agriculture-specific meteorological data from important agricultural production areas and selected urban locations. This specialized meteorological data has fast become the most reliable weather information source for Arizona’s agricultural producers. (CALS 2009)

3.2.2. Biosciences In 2007, Arizona’s bioscience industry accounted for $12.5 billion and 87,000 jobs. Factoring out the healthcare, the industry still generated $3.6 billion and 13,000 jobs (Batelle 2009). In terms of employment, six of Pima County’s top-30 largest employers are hospitals and health service providers (Arizona Daily Star 2009a). Aside from health care services, the greater-Tucson region is home to over 100 biotech companies that employ an estimated 2,000 workers. The biotech cluster in Oro Valley is home to subsidiaries of pharmaceutical giants like Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Merck. But more importantly, many of the companies in Southern Arizona have links to UA, and bioindustry firms are looking to lay roots in the region because of the proximity to researchers at UA (Alltucker 2008). UA Research Activity Multiple UA colleges and research units have research programs focused on bioscience research. The College of Medicine, the College of Pharmacy, and the Arizona Cancer Center all contribute to the emerging pharmaceutical research cluster in Southern Arizona. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and College of Science both house numerous projects focused on bioscience research including chemistry, biology, animal and plant sciences. Similarly, Arizona Research Labs conduct bioscience research through its Biomedical Engineering Program, Division of Biotechnology, Center for Insect Science, Microcirculation Program, and Neuroscience Program. In 2000, Arizona voters passed the Technology Research Infrastructure Fund (TRIF)/Proposition 301, a sales tax levy that benefited public education. A large portion of UA’s TRIF allocation goes into development of new bioscience research centers. A great deal of bioscience research is now taking place in the confines of the Bio5 Institute at UA. Bio5 was conceived as an interdisciplinary center that would bring research together from five biologically-focused disciplines: agriculture, medicine, pharmaceuticals, basic science, and engineering. Bio5 does not hold any faculty research lines at UA, but uses new, modern laboratory space and focused administrative support, to bring more than 300 researchers from these disciplines together to solve complex problems. Bio5 is particularly focused on developing relationships with industry. For example, HTGenomics, a local gene research company, shares lab space at Bio5 with UA collaborators. Bio5 also organizes and host “Meet Your Neighbor” symposia with researchers and local industry to share ideas and explore collaborative options and has a dedicated Director of Business Development who works as a liaison between Bio5 researchers and the UA Office of Technology Transfer (OTT). Outside of Bio5, TRIF funds have gone into creating the McKnight Brain Institute and the Arizona Clinical and Translational Research and Education Consortium (ACTREC). UA Spin-Offs One measure of industrial relevance is the number of spin-off companies that a university generates in a specific industry. There are three historical spin-offs from UA bioscience industry that have grown into subsidiaries of multinational companies, and remain foundational to Southern Arizona’s bioscience cluster. In 1990, four UA researchers spun-off Selectide Corp., a drug development company. After several mergers and acquisitions, Selectide became a subsidiary of Sanofi-Aventis (Paris) in 2004.

 

45

Sanofi-Aventis is the world’s 3rd largest pharmaceutical company, and has expanded its operation in Southern Arizona around the basic foundation of Selectide. Ventana Medical Systems, a diagnostic medical device company, was spun-off by a researcher from the UA Department of Pathology in 1985. In 2008, Roche Laboratories, a Swiss pharmaceutical firm, acquired Ventana Medical for $3.1 billion. Finally, HTGenomics, a genetic research company with a long history of collaboration at UA, has secured financing agreements with Merck Capital Investments, an investing branch of the pharmaceutical giant, for technological development (Bio-SA 2007). These firms represent a prestigious link between UA research activity and some of the largest bioscience firms in the world. More importantly, they stand as a continued reminder that UA research is an asset which can attract new businesses into the region and strengthen the existing firms. More recent spin-off companies from UA include: Phoenix Biometrics, Inc. (2008, College of Medicine), Luceome, LLC (2009, Chemistry and Bio5), BioVidria (2009, Chemistry and Bio5), and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals (2009, Cell Biology, Anatomy, and Bio5). Other Research/Industry Activity Many of Southern Arizona’s high-tech industries organized “clusters” to support industrial growth through publicity campaigns, industry research, and business support. Of the many clusters, the Bioindustry Association of Southern Arizona (Bio-SA) is the most active. Bio-SA hosts annual conferences and meetings for Southern Arizona’s life science community and works extensively with TREO on attracting new businesses to Southern Arizona and retaining the existing firms. As a way to ensure clear communication between applied industrial and basic research interests, the Director of the Arizona Research Labs serves as the President of Bio-SA, while the Business Development Manager at Bio5 acts as the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. 3.2.3. Environmental Technology Environmental Technology refers to any product or process that can reduce, eliminate, prevent, or mitigate deleterious effects on the natural environment. According to 2001 data, Arizona environmental technology industry generates $2.2 billion in revenue annually, with about 1/3 of an estimated 1,200 environmental-related businesses located in Southern Arizona (TREO 2009). Companies focusing on environmental technologies can range from Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (5,987 employees) and ASARCO Mining (2,575 employees) to small non-profits like the Sonoran Institute (30 employees). One of Southern Arizona’s emerging sub-industries in environmental technology is the solar industry. Regional firms include Solon Corporation, Schletter Inc., Global Solar, and Prism Solar (TREO 2009) UA Research Activity Research on environmental technology is spread across many college and research units. The College of Engineering and Mines is the progeny of the old College of Mines, one of UA’s first professional colleges emphasizing industrial-oriented research. Engineering is home to the majority of applied environmental and technology research and includes the departments of: Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mining and Geological Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Arizona Research Institute for Solar Energy, Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas, and the Institute of Sustainable Minerals. Aside from industry-oriented research, UA is a leader in sustainable development research. The Institute of Environment and Society (IES) and the Water Resources Research Center (WRRC) are interdisciplinary centers of expertise on climate, land use, water consumption, wildfire, and other environmental issues. Research in these centers is not particularly oriented for industry. However, the awareness they raise on local environmental issues helps sell Tucson as an environmentally-conscious community to environmental tech industries (TREO 2009)

 

46

UA Spin-Offs: Recent spin-offs include Renascent Material, LLC (2008, Soil, Water, and Environmental Science), a company which offers an alternative to traditional cement that sequesters carbon dioxide. Collaborators from a number of departments, across several colleges are working on solar technology. Solar Energy As Southern Arizona develops its solar industry, UA is well-positioned to emerge as a leader in technological innovation. UA is home to the Arizona Research Institute for Solar Energy (AzRISE), “a global institute built on multi-disciplinary partnerships that span academia and industry with the goal of driving innovative solar energy solutions, grounded in sound research, economic and public policy that transform the lives of individuals and communities.” AzRISE affiliates work on both material applications of solar energy research and policy research. MSE researchers are collaborating with faculty from other colleges on photovoltaic cell development, including the Department of Chemistry and College of Optical Sciences. In April 2009, UA received $15 million grant from the United States Department of Energy to fund one of only 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). UA EFRC will focus on the development of solar energy storage and transmission through research on photovoltaic innovations. The Center for Interface Science: Hybrid Solar-Electric Materials will be led by a well known scholar whose research is focused on the development of useful products like “solar fabric,” a thin, portable photovoltaic membrane. Collaborations on solar research span dozens of departments at UA, notably Optics, Materials Science Engineering, and Electrical Engineering. 3.2.4. Aerospace Business Facilities ranked metropolitan Tucson at the 6th largest region in the U.S. for aerospace manufacturing (Arizona Daily Star, 2009b). The anchor of the industry is Raytheon Missile Systems. Raytheon employs over 11,500 people and generates over $5 billion in revenue. Other industrial sub-sectors of aerospace include avionics, aircraft maintenance and airframe fabrication. In terms of aerospace products and parts manufacturing, Southern Arizona has a location quotient of 8.35, which means that the industry is 8 times more concentrated in Southern Arizona than other regions, nationally (TREO 2009). UA Research Activity Aerospace research at UA is concentrated in the College of Engineering, primarily within the Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department (AME). AME has 22 full-time faculty, plus 33 adjunct, joint, research, and emeritus professors. Research resources include 19 specialize labs, ranging from wind tunnels to fluid dynamics labs, to rocket laboratories. This lab space is available for collaborations and as a research resource for local industry. 3.2.5. Information Technology The Southern Arizona information technology industry is represented by companies specializing in computers, semi-conductors, teleservices, office products, internet services, web design, ecommerce, telecommunications, and system integration. UA Research Activity Basic UA scientific research in information technology occurs in the Department of Computer Science (College of Science) and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (College of Engineering).

 

47

The Eller College of Management is home to the Department of Management Information Systems (MIS). MIS has been a top-5 ranked department by US News and World Report every year since 1989, and was named a National Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education (CAE-IAE) in April, 2009. The CAE-IAE designation is a prestigious sponsorship by United States National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security. Spin-Offs Recent spin-off companies include: International BioComputing Corp. (2008, MIS), a company based on technology developed at Eller College of Management’s Artificial Intelligence Lab, Avirtec, LLC (2009, Electrical Engineering), an IT management software company, and Zonebee, LLC (pipeline, collaborative development), a software company based on proprietary technology developed for the UA’s Flandrau Science Center. UA Research/Industry Relationships Information technology is a unique industry in two ways. First, many innovations can occur from the work of trained individuals working in a professional capacity, without need for specialized labs or equipment (programming). In this regard, research in this area not necessarily as useful as training and education. Another characteristic is the fact that nearly all companies, especially high-tech companies, have a need for IT professionals. The greatest opportunity for sustained industrial relationship may be around MIS and its new designation as a CAE-IAE. MIS’ recognition of excellence in national security research will draw additional funding and government contracts for security management through information systems. As research is enhanced through this funding, spin-off companies are likely to develop. 3.2.6. Optical Sciences Tucson has been nicknamed “Optics Valley” in reference to its concentration of optical science research and development firms. In a 2006 study by the Arizona Optics Industry Association, the industry consists of 150 companies, 4,573 jobs, and over $650 million in revenue. Prominent companies include: Spectra-Physics Semiconductor Lasers (250 employees), Photometrics (100), and ADE Phase Shift (73). Most of the optical science firms are small companies dedicated to a small niche of research within the field. 60% of Arizona’s optical science employment is in Southern Arizona (TREO 2009). UA Research Activity UA’s College of Optical Sciences (Optics) is the bedrock of this industry sector. The college was founded in 1964 by Dr. Aden Meinel, an astronomer then Director of the Steward Observatory at Kitt Peak to address a growing shortage of trained optical science engineers. At the time, University of Rochester was the US’ only other optical science center (affiliated with Eastman Kodak). Since its founding, the Optics has grown to 60 faculty, 59 adjunct faculty (many of whom work in industry), 18 emeritus faculty, and 250 graduate students. Research is organized into three focus areas. Quantum Optics accounts for about 25% of the College’s activities. Applied Optics, including research on optical communications, remote sensing, and medical imaging accounts for the majority of research activities. Opto-electronics, mainly focused on diode laser research, is sometime grouped within the applied optics research cluster. The third focus area is in optical engineering, primarily through the world-renowned mirror lab. In FY 2006, Optics was awarded $13,767,536 in research grants across 176 projects. Optics frequently collaborates with research faculty

 

48

from the College of Engineering and the College of Science, especially Physics and Mathematics (personal communication, James Wyant, July 2009). Spin-Offs Optics has seen faculty spin-off five “first generation” companies of at least 15 employees. These companies, in turned, have spawned an additional 32 “second generation” companies. Recent stat-up activity features: TIPD, LLC (2008), which is developing photonic devices and Nonlinear Control Strategies (2009) which provides software and services for high-powered vertical cavity emitting lasers and fiber laser systems. Additional companies are in “the pipeline” and negotiating license agreements with OTT. UA Research/Industry Relationships Optics is seen as the best model of research-industry relationships on UA’s campus. Due to the lack of academic expertise in academia, Meinel founded the College with a large number of industry-affiliated experts and placed an emphasis on applied research. Furthermore, Optics was poorly funded by the State of Arizona, and faculty needed to produce revenue to continue research. This tradition has carried on. Many of the 59 adjuncts are affiliated with local industry. Local firms can rent specialized lab space and equipment, for both proprietary and collaborative research. The “Industrial Affiliates” program connects industry partners with education efforts, and provides a channel for local firms to meet, interview, and hire graduates (personal communication, James Wyant, July 2009). In FY 2007, Optics was awarded $20.6 million in research contracts, or industry sponsored research. 3.2.7. Advanced Composites The plastics and advanced composites industry is represented by at least 35 companies employing nearly 1,000 Southern Arizonans. While traditional applications (plastic products and construction materials) are a part of this industry, the greatest opportunity for growth is in solar technology (TREO 2009). UA Research Activity UA’s Materials Science Engineering Department (MSE) in the College of Engineering is the primary unit focusing on composite materials. MSE has 20 faculty members, and offers 49 classes across all levels. The bulk of MSE research takes place in specialized labs and research units. The Arizona Materials Lab provides lab space for faculty, students, and industry to collaborate on the study of glass materials, novel materials chemistry, advanced ceramics and composites. The lab is located off-campus in Central Tucson. MSE also makes use of the University Spectroscopy and Imaging Facilities, a specialized lab offering electron microscopy and x-ray diffraction services. Lab space is available for industry and collaborative research. Spin-Offs Recent spin-offs and collaborations include Solar Technology Research Corp. (2008), which produces solar-grade silicon at a reduced cost and joint research with Energy Materials Corp. on fuel cell technology. Energy Materials Corp.’s agreement with the UA provides up to three years of funding at $1.8 million.

 

49

3.2.8. Tourism While the tourism industry is not statistically identified as a single industry, it includes several economic sectors where spending by visitors generates direct sales and jobs: lodging, food services, recreation, transportation, and retail businesses. Tourism continues to be among the most important export industries, which drive Arizona’s economy (Pavlakovich-Kochi and Charney 2008). It has been estimated that more than 170,000 persons were employed in Arizona’s tourism industry directly; when the multiplier effect is taken into account, a much larger number of people in Arizona depend on out-of-state visitors (Runyan Associates 2008). Tourism is also important in the economy of Southern Arizona, where it accounts for an estimated 39,500 jobs (personal communication, Jonathan Walker, April 2009). Despite the importance of this industry, UA and other higher education institutions do not offer education or research programs on the tourism and hospitality industry. However, Eller College’s Economic and Business Research Center (EBR) conducts studies of economic impacts of tourism on regional and state economy in collaboration with tourism-centered organizations, such as Arizona Office of Tourism and Tucson Metropolitan Convention and Visitor Bureau. In Southern Arizona, Mexican visitors comprise a significant component of the total tourism industry. A recent study estimated that Mexican visitors spend directly more than $1.9 billion in Southern Arizona, of which $976 million in Tucson and its metropolitan area. For Arizona’s border cities, spending by Mexican residents is even more important due to relatively small economies of these border communities, where sales to Mexican visitors account for between 5.3% (in Cochise County) and 48.6% of total taxable sales (in Santa Cruz County) (Pavlakovich-Kochi and Charney 2008). EBR conducts such studies every 5 to 7 years; reports are available on EBR Web site, while a number of published copies are being distributed to state and local economic development organizations. 3.3 Framework conditions for promoting research and innovation The second phase of research-industry relationship concerns the institutional framework that allows innovations to be produced, disclosed, and licensed to industry. The process is a technical one, and relies on staff with expertise in both science and business law. This section provides background context on the legal parameters of intellectual property, UA’s policy regarding ownership of intellectual property, and an overview of the efforts on behalf of UA to identify, license, and spin-off innovations into businesses which bolster regional industrial strengths. 3.3.1. Context In FY 2006, the University of Arizona had nearly $407 million in total sponsored research expenditures across 4,705 accounts. This research leads to new discoveries, technological advances, or innovations in production and service. Collectively, these products are known as intellectual property (IP). The commercialization of IP is coordinated by the Office of Technology Transfer (OTT), which among its many responsibilities, mediates the transfers of IP to industry sectors through various legal mechanisms. In the United States, IP is subject to patent, or the exclusive legal right of ownership of an invention, machine, or innovations in the manufacture and processing of a product. A patent gives the owner of the invention the power to grant other individuals the right to manufacture or use the new creation under an agreement, which typically involves the payment of royalties to the inventor. In the United States, inventors typically disclose their invention to the United States’ Patent and Trademark Office, where it is reviewed by an appropriate scientist and patented (typically for 20 years). Once an inventor holds a patent, it can become lucrative. For example, if a subsequent inventor innovates on an existing patent, the existing patent holder still holds the authority to license (or restrict) the underlying technology, and thus reap some of the rewards of the innovation (OTT 2009).

 

50

Following World War II, the United States government began spending millions of dollars annually on public research through agencies like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, etc. Under the IP law at the time, any patents created with the aid of federal research money were owned by the United States government. This arrangement was problematic on two fronts. First, some inventions may have been funded indirectly by government grants (like lab space, for example), but still owned by a government agency. Secondly, by 1980, the United States government held ownership to roughly 30,000 patents, but had only commercially licensed about 5%. Recognizing the failure of dozens of government agencies to capitalize on these inventions, Congress enacted the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980. Bayh-Dole allows universities and small business to retain control of patents created at their institution using federal money. This landmark law led to the creation of university technology transfer offices, and a developing science of the practice of technology transfer (Council on Government Relations 1999). 3.3.2. Arizona Board of Regent Policies In principle, the Arizona Board of Regents’ (ABOR) retains ownership of all IP created by employees at UA, and is a policy that includes several levels of nuanced explanation. If a UA employee creates an invention while employed in a related field at the UA, the rights to that invention are owned by ABOR. Secondly, the ABOR holds ownership of any IP created under sponsored funding. Finally, if an employee uses significant UA resources (lab space, office space, etc.) in the creation of IP, the ABOR owns the rights to that IP. There are notable exceptions to this rule. Typically, students who have created IP in coursework not related to a sponsored project are allowed to keep their IP. Printed publications and artistic works are usually exempted released from ABOR ownership. Digital publications may be released from ABOR’s ownership provided they published in scholarly applications. However, if digital work is to be commercially published, then ABOR retains ownership. In some cases, ownership of the IP is not immediately clear or an inventor may wish to petition for exemption from ABOR rules. To clarify these exemptions, and indeed begin the process of licensing all IP, university researchers are asked to “disclose” IP (ABOR 2001). ABOR’s ownership of IP from the University of Arizona is managed by the Office of Technology Transfer (OTT). OTT’s mission is to protect, manage, and transfer University of Arizona-owned intellectual property to benefit society, expand public-private relationships, and further the University’s mission of teaching, research, and service to the people of Arizona. In this regard, OTT acts as a bridge between research and innovation; between research at the University and private industry, beginning with disclosure and ending with license agreements and development of spin-off companies. 3.3.3. Technology Transfer: Performance and Goals Disclosure is the first step in technology transfer. Researchers are required to disclose ABOR-owned IP through the OTT. A researcher will first contact OTT for a pre-disclosure counseling session, in which an OTT counselor confidentially discusses the IP with the inventor. Discussions typically include an exchange of information on why the innovation is unique, what commercial prospects it may have, and the innovation’s stage of development. Following this discussion, innovators will submit a full-disclosure packet with detailed information needed to assess, protect, and manage the innovation. The information includes: a description of the innovation and its practical applications, names of all contributors and their roles in the innovation, funding sources for the research project (some sources of support may be entitled to compensation/shared-license), and any information on the future of the innovation (marketing, potential collaborators, potential licensee). In recent years, OTT has garnered approximately 100 disclosures annually, and projects to increase that total to 140 by 2014 (Table 3.1).

 

51

Table 3.1 University of Arizona invention disclosures, recent & projected Fiscal Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # Invention Disclosures 104 100 107 113 120 127 133 140

Source: UA OTT Following disclosure, OTT researches the IP for future development options, including licensing the IP to an existing company or “spinning-off” a new company focused on the IP’s development. If the IP was created under a federally-funded project, the federal government will have a two month privileged option to license the invention. After these two months expire, OTT is able to commercially license the IP. Negotiations of the licensing rate depend on a number of factors including: robustness of patent claims, the degree to which the licensed IP is evolutionary or disruptive to competing technologies, and whether or not the licensed IP is a stand alone invention, or an innovation on an existing invention. OTT will negotiate contracts with private companies on terms including: one-time license issue fees, patent cost reimbursement, milestone payments, and royalties. Figure 3.2 details recent performance in revenue generated from technology licensed by the UA. Table 3.2 University of Arizona licensing revenue Fiscal Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue ($ in thousands) 742.2 993.8 1,600 1,100 583 N/A

% change -5 34 63 -33 -46 Source: UA OTT As previously noted, licensed technology may end up in the hands of an existing company, or become the foundation for a spin-off company. While an existing company may offer less risk in terms of stability and the promise of a steady revenue stream, a spin-off company may ultimately offer greater reward. Spin-offs are generally managed by the very researchers who discovered the invention, thus holding an implicit self-interest in developing the innovation. Spin-offs are most often local and offer the potential of homegrown industrial development should the invention prove commercially viable. In FY 2009, UA spun-off seven new companies, breaking FY 2008’s record of six new companies. Additionally, OTT lists an additional six companies “in the pipeline” or in negotiations over IP licensing. OTT rates this performance as “good” relative to its peer-group (FY 2008 peer median is 4). The back-to-back record years are an indicator of overall improvement in spin-off efforts (personal communication, OTT staff, July 2009). 3.3.4. Discussion of Technology Transfer Metrics The metrics used in evaluation UA’s tech transfer performance should be viewed within a greater context. First, the variation in revenue generated by licenses is dependent on the licensee’s success in developing technology into a marketable product and/or further innovating on the underlying IP to maintain a competitive edge. If a company fails and the license is terminated, a precipitous drop in revenue can occur through no direct fault of the OTT. Peer-group rankings of revenue often mask the fact that some institutions rely on only one or two licenses to generate the bulk of their revenue. Additionally, the revenue metric reflects a significant lag time from the time of disclosure to the point of license. The lag between initial disclosure to ABOR-approved license can range from six months to three

 

52

years. After licensing, it may take several years for a company to establish a marketable prototype and begin manufacturing. In some special cases, like pharmaceuticals, drug development can be up to a decade. Of greater concern to the economic development efforts of the UA is the licensing of technology to Arizona-based businesses. OTT estimates that about 80% of UA start-ups have remained in Arizona following incorporation. In recent years, this number has improved. In FYs 2008 and 2009, all thirteen of the UA start-ups were based in Tucson, AZ. Employment figures and annual sales for these start-ups are not yet available. While these homegrown companies are seen as critical in the sustained growth of local industry, the decision to license to these particular firms is problematic. On the one hand, economic development stakeholders (including ABOR) want to see growth in the Arizona economy. Locally-based spin-offs represent this potential. On the other hand, ABOR also expects OTT to negotiate licenses which generate the greatest amount of revenue for UA. These goals are not necessarily orthogonal. For example, the national pharmaceutical industry is concentrated in Southern California and New England. Companies from these regions may be willing to negotiate a more favorable license for a new drug than a local spin-off. OTT must decide the best course of action, realizing that they will often be criticized as either “selling cheap” or ignoring local industrial growth (personal communication, OTT staff, July 2009). 3.3.5. The Technological Development Gap The greatest barrier to quicker and more lucrative technology transfer is the unavailability of so-called “gap funding.” Technology transfer can be studied as a continuum, with several overlapping stages from the moment of discovery through the return on investment/profit (Figure 3.1). From the moment of discovery through the disclosure of IP, research is typically funded by a sponsor agency (typically a federal agency). While the scope of a research grant may be satisfied following a period of research, the IP generated is far from being commercially viable. As represented in Figure 3.1, the journey of IP to commercial enterprise requires a period of technology development. The typical output of technology development is a prototype of an innovation which can be replicated, and ultimately marketed. This stage in the continuum is woefully underfunded. After IP disclosure, researchers are often under pressure to pursue new sources of funding for new research projects. They may not have the funds, time, or technical ability to pursue further development of the IP. From the other end of the continuum, venture capital is reluctant to gamble on a discovery that is still in early development. Similarly, established firms may be unwilling to license the IP in its current state, or will license the IP at a bargain rate. OTT and other administrators view the closing of this gap as critical to future tech transfer growth (personal communication, OTT, July 2009) Figure 3.1 The Innovation Continuum

Source: Marie Wesselhoft, AzCI

 

53

3.4 Interfaces facilitating knowledge exploitation and exchange The third and final phase of research-industry exchange is the development of institutional interfaces that facilitate beneficial exchange. Aside from collaborations, UA offers access to several unique, structured programs that help educate and inform the public about innovation, connect researchers to investors and mentors, and partner researchers with developable innovations with industry stakeholders that can help the innovation make it to market. This section provides an overview of major interfaces that facilitate the capitalization of innovations and translation of knowledge from UA to the larger community. 3.4.1. UA Economic and Business Research Center (EBR) UA’s EBR is housed with the Eller College of Management, and has been a part of UA since 1949. EBR’s staff includes eight researchers and support staff. Their mission is to provide the citizens of Arizona with economic forecasting and analysis. EBR’s current roles involve research in the areas of:

• regional economic and revenue forecasting • border and regional development • environmental/sustainable economics • renewable energy • economic impact • public finance and taxation • industry studies

These activities provide information and analysis useful to politicians, industry stakeholders, and other researchers. Data, forecasts, and analyses produced through this research are disseminated online and in print publication, and stored in EBR’s publicly-accessible library and database. EBR responds to requests for research from public and private agencies, and operates under research contracts. Recent reports include studies on the economic impact of Mexican tourism in Southern Arizona, the economic impact of optical science industry, and the economic benefits of public investment in research in Arizona. 3.4.2. UA Office of Economic Development / Office of University Research Parks / Office of Corporate and Business Relations The overall involvement of the University of Arizona in economic development is coordinated by an office reporting to the Vice President of Research. In 2008 and 2009, UA began a period of administrative transformation that shook up its primary economic development offices. Prior to December, 2008, economic development activities were spread out across three offices: Office of Economic and Policy Analysis (OEPA), Office of Economic Development (OED), and the UA Science and Technology Park (UASTP). The Vice-President of Research, Graduate Studies, and Economic Development oversaw these programs, in addition to her oversight of the Graduate College and research support (including OTT). OEPA provided research on a variety of economic issues related to international trade, the technology-based economy, and regional economic development. In recent years, OEPA provided reports on UA technology transfer issues, border security initiatives, and economic impact studies of UA. While OED was a stand-alone unit, it performed many of the same functions of OEPA. UASTP was a unique office because its primary duty was the management of an asset. Following a review of these programs, the VPR found notable redundancies and underserved focus areas (Tolbert 2008). In the final transformation, both OEPA and OED were eliminated. Some of the research staff within these units was reorganized into the Office of University Research Parks (OURP). OURP’s new mission is to

 

54

“to create environments that support and promote research and education, technology innovation and commercialization and high technology business development and attraction.” This will be accomplished through the development of the UA Science and Technology Park, the Bio Science Park, and the Arizona Center for Innovation. All programs are now under the oversight of Associate Vice-President for Economic Development. The research and reportage duties of the OEPA and OED have largely been eliminated, due to staff cuts and more limited budget. The VPR also created the Office of Corporate and Business Relations (OCBR) as a unit dedicated to “maximize private investment opportunities and nurture productive, long-term strategic partnerships between companies and various colleges and departments campus wide.” The long-term goal of the OCBR is increase private industry investment in UA research, with the hope that such increase yields more commercially-viable discoveries. OCBR is modeled after Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Industry Liaison Office. OURP and OCBR are expected to work closely with OTT and the Office of Research and Contract Analysis (ORCA). This transformation is aimed at increasing the revenue potential of research at UA (Tolbert 2008). 3.4.3. UA Science and Tech Park The UASTP opened in 1995 on an underutilized research campus originally developed by IBM. The parcel is 1,345 acres, of which, 26% is developed. The campus consists of 13 buildings with a total of 1.89 million square feet of rentable space. The park features a centralized utility system, on-site fire department, 24/7 security force, environmental and safety compliance officers, credit unions, and food service. It is a zero-discharge facility with its own sanitation and industrial waste system, water and test wells, and reclaimed water system. UASTP serves the region in several capacities. First, it provides specialized infrastructure and office space for major regional employers, including high-wage technology firms. Second, it provides a site to host UA-affiliated economic development programs. Finally, it provides an environment for UA researchers to explore technology transfer through specialized lab space and support staff. UASTP currently hosts 32 tenants, including notable Fortune 500 companies like Citigroup, IBM, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Canon. In total (for FY 2007), UASTP created:

• 13,247 jobs in the Southern Arizona regional economy (Table 3.3) • $688.1 million in wages in Pima County (Table 3.4) • $1.7 billion of output in Pima County (Table 3.5) • $63.9 million of tax revenue (Table3.6), with $18.3 million of that revenue staying in Pima

County (Table 3.7) • $2.45 billion in total impact on the regional economy (Table 3.8)

Table 3.3 UASTP Jobs 2007

UASTP Jobs Direct Jobs 6,175 Indirect & Induced Jobs 6,850 Construction-related Jobs 220 Visitor-related Jobs 2 TOTAL 13,247

Source: Lim (2009

 

55

Table 3.4 UASTP Wages 2007 UASTP Wages ($ in millions) Direct Wages $438.9 Indirect & Induced Jobs $239.9 Construction-related Jobs $9.2 Visitor-related Jobs $0.1 TOTAL $688.1

Source: Lim (2009) Table 3.5 UASTP Economic Output 2007 UASTP Econ Output ($ in millions) Direct Wages $987.0 Indirect & Induced Jobs $688.9 Construction-related Jobs $25.1 Visitor-related Jobs $0.2 TOTAL $1,701.2

Source: Lim (2009) Table 3.6 UASTP Tax Revenue 2007 UASTP Tax Revenue ($ in millions) Direct $11.6 Indirect $51.4 Construction-related $0.9 TOTAL $63.9

Source: Lim (2009) Table 3.7 UASTP Tax Distribution 2007 UASTP Tax Distribution ($ in millions) City of Tucson $15.7 Pima County $18.3 State of Arizona $29.9 TOTAL $63.9

Source: Lim (2009) Table 3.8 UASTP Total Impact 2007 UASTP Total Impact ($ in millions) Direct $1,449.1 Induced $968.7 Construction-related $35.1 Visitor-related $0.3 TOTAL $2,453.2

Source: Lim (2009) The average wage of a UASTP employee is $71,077, far surpassing the Pima County average of $38,220. Further expansion plans will focus on building to suit the needs of more high-paying technology firms,

 

56

which may be attracted to the park. In addition to leasing space to private firms, UASTP is also home to Vail High School and UA South (Lim 2009). 3.4.4. Arizona Center for Innovation (AzCI) AzCI, based at UASTP, is Southern Arizona’s business incubator. AzCI was founded in 2003 with the goal to develop innovations created by UA researchers into successful businesses (spin-offs). AzCI operates with a small administrative staff, working with over 40 partners/mentors (about 50% from private industry). Currently, AzCI occupies 10,000 square feet of office space at UASTP, allowing for 15-18 client companies in residence. AzCI follows an interventionist model of business incubation that places their clients into an active stream of business mentorship. The program, Commercial Reality, is broken down into three phases. First, a client will participate in “Mentored Launch,” a 90-day seminar that introduces a client to the planning of a company launch. By the end of “Mentored Launch,” clients will have completed a business plan, met with financial advisors and regional entrepreneurial supporters, and developed several investor slides. The second phase is “Start-Up.” In this six-month phase, new companies will meet regularly with business advisors. The goal of this phase is to secure seed grants from state and federal agencies. Finally, when ready, companies have the opportunity to complete “Expert Panel,” a formal presentation to investors and business experts. By this point, the company will have secured seed money needed to further develop the basic innovation, and have a clear business plan that outlines a path to commercialization. Of the 34 companies that AzCI has worked with, 20 have fully-graduated Commercial Reality. Of those 20 companies, three have been sold, seven remain in development, and the rest have ceased to exist (personal communication, Marie Wesselhoft, July 2009). AzCI offers a wide range of services to participating clients. In addition to the business development assistance, consultation, and mentoring, AzCI can provide office space, receptionist and secretarial services, conference rooms, mail service, and wet or dry lab space. These services provide support that is often taken for granted, and allows researchers to focus on the innovation and business model instead of staffing and secretarial duties. In its seven years, AzCI has grown significantly. Clients in residence have grown from two to 15, with a direct job impact of those clients growing from four to 37. There are now eight patent holding companies affiliated with AzCI (up from one), and over $5 million in funds have been raised. In addition to activities at UASTP, AzCI co-sponsors (with the McGuire Center) Arizona Innovation Day at UA. This annual spring symposium allows UA researchers and students share technological innovations with each other, investors, and industry. Each year, a faculty member who has successfully moved an innovation to the marketplace is recognized with a $10,000 award. UA students present their research in competition for a $1,000 award (personal communication, Marie Wesselhoft, July 2009). 3.4.5. UA Bioscience Park (Bio Park) In April, 2007, UA completed a deal with KB Homes to swap UASTP acreage for a 65 acre parcel of vacant land just 2.5 miles south of UA for the development of a new technology park. This park will be entirely devoted to research in biotechnology fields. The park is located adjacent to “The Bridges” planned-area-development, a retail, housing, and open-space development currently under development. The Bio Park is located minutes from nearly every bio-medical research facility in the region, including UPH Kino Hospital, C-Path, UA Cancer Center, Tucson Veterans Administration Hospital, and University Medical Center. It is also located about 5 miles from Tucson International Airport, and directly off an I-10 interstate exit.

 

57

When complete, the Bio Park will include state-of-the-art, secured lab space, student/faculty housing, K-12 and community college educational facilities, a hotel and conference center, and production/manufacturing facilities. The Master Land Use Plan has been approved by the City of Tucson and ABOR (June 2009). Work is progressing slowly, due to the local economic downturn. Nevertheless, key development partnerships are expected to be announced in late-2009. 3.4.6. The McGuire Center for Entrepreneurship The McGuire Center for Entrepreneurship (McGuire) is located within the Eller College of Management at UA, and is currently ranked as the fourth best entrepreneurship program among public universities, and tenth among all schools, according to US News and World Report. McGuire’s tripartite goals include dedication to teaching the science of entrepreneurship to early-career businesspeople, research into the practice of identifying and transferring technology and innovations to the marketplace, and service to on- and off-campus organization through technical assistance on entrepreneurship activities. On matters of teaching, McGuire offers a limited-enrollment undergraduate degree stream, an entrepreneurship-focused MBA, and a one-year Graduate Associates in Entrepreneurship. McGuire produces about 7-10 start-up businesses annually from student collaborations. These start-ups are not included in the spin-off figures released by OTT, but they have a significant economic impact, particularly in terms of employment. While a spin-off technology firm may employ 2-3 full time equivalent employees, a successful start-up (like Frost Gelato Shoppe, a McGuire start-up with two outlets) may employ dozens of employees. Unfortunately, there are no long-term records of McGuire start-ups, their success rate, or their economic impact. McGuire’s participation in UA’s research community comes primarily through collaborations with OTT. McGuire’s activities include:

• Identifying commercially viable research at UA and funnel technological innovators to entrepreneurship programs.

• Offering workshops for UA faculty to provide tools for assessing potential market and social value for their innovations.

• Hosting science workshops for students and faculty to explore the implications of technologies available for commercialization.

• Consulting with McGuire venture teams on topics such as development, proof of concept, and prototype creation via its on-staff technology mentors.

• Helping to identify opportunities for collaboration in the University setting and beyond via a shared McGuire/OTT knowledge transfer liaison.

3.4.7. Global Advantage Global Advantage is a program based at the UASTP that seeks to connect researchers affiliated with UASTP to researchers at international research parks, and vice versa. The ultimate goal is to create more opportunities for UA researchers to reach international programs and markets, and bring international research and innovation to UASTP, where it may be developed collaboratively with UA scientists. Global Advantage is still in a developmental stage, however technology parks from Ottawa, Manchester, and Berlin have already signed on to begin laying institutional groundwork. 3.4.8. Desert Angels The Desert Angels project is a group of 70 Tucson-based philanthropists, venture capitalists, and angel investors loosely organized as a non-profit. They are not directly affiliated with UA, however, their

 

58

Executive Director is a mentor-in-residence at UA’s McGuire Center, and has particular expertise in the commercialization of technology. The Desert Angels are involved with commercialization of technology on two fronts. First, they facilitate the introduction of highly qualified start-up businesses to venture capitalists and angel investors. This activity is not affiliated with UA, and is organized entirely by the Desert Angels. Their second activity is DesTech, a prototype funding program affiliated with UA’s OTT. DesTech is a partnership between OTT, the Desert Angels, and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation to fund prototype research of UA innovations with a high chance of commercial success. The Desert Angels contributed $300,000 towards the endowment, UA/OTT contributed $100,000, and the Kauffman Foundation contributed the final $100,000. OTT acts as a sentinel for potential innovations, and encourages researchers to apply. After screening, the researcher’s application will be presented to DesTech reviewers for consideration of a grant worth up to $50,000. Successful applicants will receive mentoring assistance from the Desert Angels and, most importantly crucial network contacts with potential investors and acquisition partners. DesTech is a for-profit organization. If an innovation funded through DesTech proves commercially viable, it will have the option to license the innovation and share revenue with UA/OTT and the researcher (personal communication, Bob Morrison, August 2009). 3.4.9. The Critical Path Institute (C-Path) The Critical Path Institute (C-Path) is a non-profit organization created in 2004 by the University of Arizona, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and SRI, a technology development firm. C-Path was formed to address persistent excessive lag times between development, testing, and ultimate regulatory approval for new pharmaceuticals. As a “trusted third party,” C-Path creates a space for collaborations between the FDA and drug development scientists, with the ultimate goal of speeding up the approval process and bringing new, safe drugs to market faster. Like the Desert Angels, C-Path is not officially affiliated with UA. C-Path is a stand-alone non-profit, but its origins lie in the efforts of former UA researchers and the Institute’s home office is in Tucson, where is draws upon the work of UA researchers and local bioscience industry. 3.4.10. Two Year Institutions and Research Although 2-year institutions do not engage primarily in research, they are involved in a wide variety of research activities. A good example of community colleges in research is the case of Cochise College’s Center for Economic Research (CER) that engages extensively in applied business and economic research in Cochise County. The research conducted by the CER is similar in breadth and scope to that conducted by applied business and economic research centers at universities throughout the United States. The CER provides economic and demographic information, analysis, and forecasting to assist community leaders in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. The CER also provides personnel to serve on community projects, committees, and task forces. In these partnerships, the CER provides technical expertise in research methodology and serves as a source of economic and demographic information, analysis, and forecasting. The CER has economic advisory committees, which include representatives from various sectors of the local economy. The CER is a member of the Association for University Business and Economic Research (AUBER), one of only two community college organizations in the nation holding membership. Recent CER projects and innovations include development of a Cochise County Quality of Life Index; the Cochise County Economic Development Asset Inventory; affordable housing studies for rental units and home ownership in Sierra Vista; and several needs assessment studies and economic and fiscal impact studies.

 

59

3.5 Conclusion The following strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis summarizes the key elements of this chapter and how specific research at the UA contributes to regional innovation. Strengths:

• Since the 1970’s, UA has been a national leader in academic inter-disciplinarity. This tradition continues today with the sustained growth of ARL, the creation of Bio5, and the cross-college and cross-departmental collaborations on hundreds of sponsored projects annually. The melding of different perspectives on the same fundamental research questions leads to stronger research

• UA is a national leader in research and development (R&D) expenditures. In FY 2006, UA ranked 21st among all US research universities in R&D expenditures and 13th among public universities.

• UA is outperforming peer institutions in the critical metrics of industry-funded R&D. 12.5% of all research awards received by UA between FY2001-FY2006 were from private industry. 20% of the top-50 industry sponsors were from Arizona firms. In the same time period, 6.2% of all R&D expenditures were from industry – a performance exceeding the peer average of 5.1%.

• Southern Arizona benefits from “natural” relationships between UA research and industry. For example, the College of Optical Science and the local Optics industry have made Southern Arizona a world center for innovation. The bioscience industry, aided by three spin-offs with international connections and a vibrant cluster, has positioned Southern Arizona as an emerging center for innovation.

Weaknesses:

• UA researchers struggle to find “gap” financing to bring IP discoveries to market. “Gap” funds are typically targeted at prototype development and launch of an innovation-based business. Without this crucial funding, IP is licensed below its potential value and researchers are discouraged from fully-developing innovations.

• According to researchers, UA has not always had industry-friendly leadership. As a result, many established faculty lack an “entrepreneurial spirit,” and do not immediately see merit in IP disclosures, patents, and spin-off development. In recent years, UA administration has made a concerted effort to address this shortcoming.

Opportunities:

• The Bioscience Park is, perhaps, the greatest opportunity to enhance the profile of UA in industry-academia relationships. The Bioscience Park will provide lab space, meeting space, business offices, and a conference hotel on site. Beyond these services, though, the development of a central-city infill parcel has the potential to build stronger links between disconnected institutions (UASTP, UMC, Main Campus, private companies).

• Activity in the McGuire Entrepreneurship Program at UA and the involvement of the non-profit Desert Angels in technology transfer opens exciting possibilities on small business development collaboration beyond discovery.

 

60

Threats:

• Southern Arizona’s industry clusters are, by and large, disorganized and non-functional. As a result, UA and Southern Arizona are often under-publicized and/or overshadowed by other regions (including Phoenix-Arizona State University).

• Much of UA’s research infrastructure (like Bio5) is being subsidized by TRIF/Prop 301 sales tax revenue. In recent years, sales tax revenue has decreased below projections and these funds are becoming limited. Funding critical research infrastructure, with annual needs, from a fluctuating revenue stream threatens the sustainability of many research programs.

 

61

CHAPTER 4: CONTRIBUTION OF TEACHING & LEARNING TO LABOUR MARKET AND SKILLS

4.1 Introduction

Southern Arizona has a number of unique geographical, environmental, demographic and economic characteristics that necessitate learning programs and initiatives specifically tailored to the region. Comprising the northernmost portion of the Sonoran Desert, Southern Arizona’s population center, the Tucson Basin, receives only 12 inches of rain in an average year. Water scarcity is a legitimate concern in questions of development, and agricultural production must take into consideration the relative expense of accessing water. While the region is arid, it is rich in biodiversity, and conservation efforts are required to protect what is both an economic and social asset; the production of knowledge around issues of arid lands management and the desert ecology are vital components of workforce training.

Twenty-seven percent of the population is of Hispanic ancestry, and 13% of Pima Community residents were born n a country other than the United States. The region is home to the Ft. Huachuca US Army Base and Davis Monthan Air force Base and their service members, in addition to the Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yacqui Nations, which contribute 10,787 and 3,315 persons respectively (US Census Bureau, 2000). A retirement destination, many of Arizona residents are “snowbirds” that depart during the summer months. The diversity of the region’s population requires that educational programs consider the unique needs of both students and employers.

The border region is an artery of trade, licit or otherwise, between Mexico and the United States. The locus of a number of contentious debates, a great deal of study has been devoted to the U.S.-Mexico border and its economic, social and cultural impacts. The proximity to this border requires a number of workforce training and adult education initiatives responsive to the realities of an international geography.

Additionally, the needs of employers and governmental entities in Southern Arizona reflect the importance of regionally responsive educational programs and research endeavors. A number of strategic industry clusters have been identified as growth sectors in Southern Arizona. As outlined in Chapter 3 these are: bioindustry, environmental technology, aerospace, information technology, optical sciences, advanced composites, and tourism. Table 4.1 shows the responsiveness of the HEIs under consideration in addressing these strategic clusters. This chapter will discuss educational programs at HEIs that are responsive to regional training needs and serve to build a workforce to address these priorities. As the University of Arizona, Tohono O’odham Community College, Pima Community College, Cochise College and the University of Phoenix have different organizational mandates and structures, as well as varied areas of emphasis, different mechanisms and processes for the formation of partnerships and the provision of training are in place.

 

62

Table 4.1 Strategic clusters addressed by degree programs

University or College

Strategic Clusters Addressed through Degree Programs

Degree Programs Offered

University of Arizona

Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering; Biotechnology; Medicine Information Technology

BS, MS, PhD.

Pima Community College

Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering; Biotechnology; Information Technology;

Certificate, AS, AAS

Cochise College Aerospace, Information Technology

Certificate, AS, AAS

Tohono O’odham Community

College

Information Technology AAS

University of Phoenix

Information Technology AA, BS, MA, PhD.

4.2 Localizing the learning process 4.2.1 Classes and degree programs addressing regional needs

University of Arizona

The University of Arizona and many of its subunits have followed a path of program development that reflects the University’s long-standing land grant mission and its status as a top-tier research institution. This has resulted in the establishment of a number of inter-disciplinary research centers that are responsive to the realities and opportunities present in the region. Teaching faculty engages in research through these centers, and courses tend to incorporate knowledge and methodology from the faculty research. The regional context of research occurring at the University of Arizona is reflected in course offerings. For example, the Office of Arid Lands Studies, an initiative of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences provides research, data and policy recommendations to organizations and initiatives involved in land management, agriculture, conservation and development. The research conducted by OALS creates course offerings in related departments with an emphasis on the natural resource management needs and specific environmental characteristics of the Sonoran Desert and other desert regions.

There are many learning programs and initiatives that draw upon the demographic characteristics of the region and its proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border from political, cultural, historical and economic perspectives.

The University of Arizona offers academic programs in all of the TREO identified growth clusters (excluding tourism):

• The College of Optical Sciences offers a BS, MS, MS w/ MBA and PhD degree, as well as a graduate certificate.

• Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering offers a BS, MS and PhD.

 

63

• The College of Engineering and Mines offers a BS, MS and PhD, encompassing a number of concentrations, including Biomedical Engineering, Materials Sciences and Chemical and Environmental Engineering.

• The University of Arizona offers approximately 40 programs in the Life Sciences, encompassing graduate and undergraduate degrees, as well as certificates. As such, there are many course offerings that provide foundational and graduate education relevant to careers in biotechnology.

Additionally, the University of Arizona has been responsive to an anticipated statewide scarcity of healthcare professionals. Increasing recruitment of nursing and medical students, alternative instructional provision for those pursuing graduate degrees in addition to strong core programs in medicine, pharmacology and nursing are cited as program strengths that will assist in addressing the expected shortfall. These initiatives have yielded results: Over a four year period, the number of nursing degrees awarded jumped from 95 to 164. The number of Pharmacy PhDs awarded grew from 44 to 76 (UA Office of the President, 2009).

Pima Community College

Pima Community College offers degrees and certifications that are responsive to the employment needs of the region. Courses offer training for careers in public safety, K-12 education, health and related professions; a number of trades including aviation technology, and the fulfillment of the AGEC. Course offerings in biotechnology and engineering are emphasized. In addition, PCC has established the Center for Training and Development to provide direct-to-employment training and certification. CDT course offerings are determined based on locally defined economic needs, as well as acknowledged infrastructural necessities such as quality training for emergency services personnel, and safety trainings mandated by federal law.

Cochise College

Cochise College currently operates two comprehensive campuses in Sierra Vista and near Douglas with education centers in Benson, Wilcox, Fort Huachuca, and at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Douglas. In addition, the College contracts with the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to offer educational services in Nogales and throughout that county. Populations served also include the staff and soldiers of Ft. Huachuca U.S. Army Base, students of English as a second language and retirees. Certificates are offered for a wide range of skills. Particularly relevant to this report are Cochise’s certificates in Aerospace Thermal Fusion, Aerospace Welding Technology, and Avionics Technology. Other certificates prepare students for employment in health care settings, education, information technology and IT security, and a number of service industries. In addition to these certificate offerings, the college offers a number of Associate of Applied Science degrees that serve as two year direct-to-employment degrees. Cochise also offers military service-members an AAS degree in Intelligence Operations Studies, with 15 available areas of focus. AAS degrees are also offered in aerospace and IT skills.

Tohono O’odham Community College

Tohono O'odham Community College is the only HEI in the Tohono O’odham Nation. TOCC programs focus on direct employment, apprenticeships and transfer degrees. All students at TOCC are required to complete courses in Tohono O'odham history and language study. Employment training is a direct response to the infrastructural and employment needs of the Tohono O'odham Nation. For example, certifications and direct employment programs not only educate students with professional skills, but include training projects which are real-life construction sites in the nation.

 

64

University of Phoenix and Others

A number of privately run trade schools and employment-focused learning programs, most notably the University of Phoenix, provide workforce development, certifications, associates, and bachelors and masters degrees. These programs are responsive to the employment needs of the region since, and they often emphasize high-demand professional areas programs such as nursing degrees, business administration, MBAs, education credentialing and IT training. Flexible scheduling and alternative methods of delivery are emphasized in marketing materials.

4.2.2 Work-based learning

Work-based learning opportunities at the University of Arizona are administered on a departmental level and are advertised both in targeted department-to-department outreach as well as through Career Services and various research centers. As of 2007, 59% of students had participated in some internship, research or clinical placement (UA Strategic Plan, 2007). Career Services at the University of Arizona communicates with regional employers regarding internships, practicum and recruiting of UA alumni through career fairs.

UA Research Centers provide a myriad of opportunities for work-based learning, with the Bio5 Institute offering research opportunities and internships through partnerships with Ventana Medical Systems, Sanofi Aventis and Breault Research Inc., as well as through faculty research projects (Bio5 Institute, 2009). Some academic departments have included work-based learning as graduation requirement for all undergraduate students. That is the case in the department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering where graduating seniors are required to work in teams to design solutions to problems posed by private industry partners and faculty.

Many of PCC’s professional programs include an internship or work component. Cochise College offers both cooperative education credits for work experience directly related to the student’s field of study, as well as a service learning opportunity that places CC students in area schools as tutors. TOCC is unique in that it offers apprenticeship programs through a separate department with its own administrative staff. Apprenticeship programs operate on a journeyperson/apprentice model, and provide training in the building trades. These programs have open enrollment and are free, although participants must complete an application and meet several basic academic and physical requirements. There is a significant community service aspect to the apprenticeship programs. As these programs involve direct work experience with contractors, apprentices are able to build a basis for future employment in the region. (TOCC, 2009).

4.2.3 Coalitions of Regional Expertise

Higher education institutions are significant players in the region, both economically and politically. Staff, faculty and students from the University of Arizona as well as other higher education institutions, and their respective colleges, departments and administrative units, participate to varying degrees in regional initiatives and networks. To stay within the scope of this study, only HEI coordinated coalitions will be discussed in detail.

The Economic and Business Research Center, a long standing program of the Eller College of Management serves as a clearinghouse for economic data, conducts research and provides analysis of economic conditions in Arizona. Customized research services are offered and partners include Pima County, Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO), numerous state, federal and local agencies, and private sector partners. The Community Outreach Partnership Center of the Drachman Institute

 

65

partners with neighborhood associations and individuals to identify neighborhood assets and concerns, and to formulate requirements for neighborhood improvement or development.

Similar to UA’s Economic and Business Research Center, the Cochise College Center for Economic Research serves as a clearinghouse for economic data, conducts research, and provides analysis of economic conditions in Cochise County. Customized research services are offered and partners include Cochise County, municipalities, regional economic development agencies, and numerous state, federal and local agencies, and private and nonprofit sector partners. The CER prepares four yearly economic outlook publications for the population centers of the county, conducts economic and fiscal impact studies for development initiatives, and holds annual economic outlook luncheons in Benson, Bisbee, Douglas, and Sierra Vista. Leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors attend these luncheons to learn about regional economic conditions and anticipated changes and opportunities. In addition to its community outreach mission, the CER provides research and analytical support to CC for use in internal planning.

4.3 Student Recruitment and Regional Employment

4.3.1 Student Recruitment

Southern Arizona’s HEIs recruit through the K-12 system and through standard marketing procedures. Additionally, due to the remoteness of certain population centers in Southern Arizona, some community college campuses may be “the only game in town” for non-traditional students. Additionally, specialized programs (such as Cochise College’s Intelligence Operations AAS programs) enjoy a captive audience.

The places of origin of UA students are discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. To recap, the UA is active in recruiting students nationally and internationally. The majority of students are Arizona residents, with California contributing the second largest proportion of students. Mechanisms to facilitate student transfers are in place between HEIs in Arizona (section 4.5).

The recruitment and retention of talented graduate students is a concern for the Bio5 Institute, among the University’s most prominent research centers. The UA has approximately 40 programs relevant to Life Sciences. This large number of focused programs has been identified as a weakness in recruiting graduate students, as larger umbrella programs at competing institutions are able to offer a more integrated program with higher numbers of faculty mentors. Bio5 Institute has proposed the formation of a Life Sciences Umbrella Program for the recruitment and retention of graduate students. Approval of this proposal is pending (Bio5 Institute, 2009).

Regional recruitment is encouraged by Cochise College through a technical preparation program offered through Cochise County high schools to articulate skills training provided by Cochise County high schools and Cochise College. High school students pursuing a technical career in designated fields are able to enroll in Cochise College courses for a 50% reduction in tuition

There are a number of de facto recruitment tools utilized by TOCC, including open-enrollment policies and free tuition for apprenticeship programs. Students are heavily integrated in the region through apprenticeship programs, community activities and the cultural requirements (see Chapter 5). Due to the geographical distance from other cities and population centers, TOCC students are generally tribal members who will maintain a relationship with the Tohono O'odham Nation. To address a lack of American Indian schoolteachers on the Tohono O’odham Nation, TOCC has partnered with the University of Arizona in the launching of Project NATIVE, an initiative that trains teachers who are tribal members. One of the main goals of Project NATIVE is to attract and retain American Indian

 

66

schoolteachers on the Tohono O’odham Nation. TOCC, in partnership with the University Of Arizona College of Education, offers scholarships and other financial assistance to students of American Indian ancestry who go on to work on the Tohono O’odham Nation or Tucson schools with high enrollment of American Indians. This program, initiated in 2000, has gone through three funding cycles and continues to be successful (Ruiz-McGgill, 2008).

4.3.2 Recognition of position in regional educational supply chain

HEIs in Southern Arizona have stated their awareness of their position in the regional education supply chain within strategic plans and mission statements, as well as through numerous program offerings., These declarations and efforts position HEIs as providers of regional training and professional development. As discussed above, numerous degree programs and special initiatives position HEIs as a point of articulation between individuals and public and private sector entities. Another indicator of the understanding of HEIs in their position in the regional education supply chain is the extent to which cooperation and communication occurs with private firms and non-profit organizations. Figure 4.2 illustrates the awareness of HEIs of their position in the regional educational supply chain and the mechanisms they utilize to better fill this role. Table 4.2 Awareness of position in educational supply chain

Institution Statements Mechanisms for creating partnerships

Services, programs and benefits to partners

University of Arizona

“We will contribute to the richness and vibrancy of the community and serve as an incubator and magnet for talent. These goals will be achieved by expanding our partnerships with public, private, and non-profit organizations” (UA Strategic Plan, 7).

Advisory Boards (Bio5, College of Engineering), Industrial Affiliates programs (Optical Sciences), Research Centers.

Access to graduates; Voice in program development and research direction; Recruitment of interns

Pima Community

College

“To create partnerships with business and industry, the local schools, government and other constituencies, that enhance the community” (www.pima.edu).

Occupational Program External Advisory Board

Voice in program development; Technical assistance

Cochise College

“Meet the educational and workforce needs of diverse communities within the context of a global economy” (Goal identified in Strategic Plan).

Center for Economic Research, Small Business Development Center

Access to data, economic planning process; technical assistance

Tohono O’odham

Community College

N/A Project NATIVE, Apprenticeship Program

Shared funding w/ UA;

University of Phoenix

N/A N/A N/A

For instance, UA has clearly positioned itself as a provider of policy recommendations and regionally focused innovation through the numerous research centers it maintains. The Outreach College, in particular, has explicitly acknowledged the role of small and medium sized enterprises in job creation and its desire to provide skills training that will meet the requirements of these enterprises. (UA Outreach College, 2009).

 

67

The University of Arizona’s strategic plan also emphasizes its commitment to the formation of these partnerships, stating, “We will contribute to the richness and vibrancy of the community and serve as an incubator and magnet for talent. These goals will be achieved by expanding our partnerships with public, private, and non-profit organizations” (UA Strategic Plan, 2009). This commitment has been realized by a number of initiatives, including advisory boards and affiliates programs:

• The Optics College employs a full-time staff person to coordinate its Industrial Affiliates program. This initiative boasts 40 active private industry partnerships, and provides access to program graduates for recruitment through a searchable resume database. This program also facilitates interviews with students approaching graduation, and hosts ‘mixer’ events for alumni and industrial affiliates (Optics College, 2009)

• As discussed, Bio5 has partnered with a number of private firms to offer internship opportunities to students. Additionally, a business advisory board has been formed. Representatives from Arizona-based firms such as OpticsSearch, Ashley BioPharm LLC, and Matrix Design as well as national firms like IBM, sit on this advisory board, making program recommendations that reflect the needs of these enterprises (Bio5 Institute, 2009).

• Private firms such as Precision Shooting Equipment, Raytheon Missile Systems, Sargent Controls and Ventana Medical Systems have sponsored a number of Senior Projects produced by BS students in the College of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (discussed in 4.3).

• A number of other colleges and departments maintain advisory boards of private partners and industrial affiliates, including the College of Engineering and Mines and many of its sub-units. In addition to the Industrial Advisory Council, CEM boasts an impressive list of donors to the program (Arizona Engineer, 2009).

Pima Community College’s sixth college goal is “To create partnerships with business and industry, the local schools, government and other constituencies, that enhance the community.” (PCC College Mission Statement, 2009). It maintains advisory boards of regional partners in a number of its programs.

 

68

Table 4.3 Workforce training, professional development and adult education programs

Institution Workforce training areas of emphasis

Professional development areas

of emphasis

Adult education areas of emphasis

Methods of course delivery

available

Partnerships generated

University of Arizona

N/AInitiatives offered by academic departments individually, or by specific requests from corporations.

Strategic clusters as identified in 4.1; healthcare; business and entrepreneurship

Professional development, personal interest;

Web-based; Distance; Classroom

Private firms; High-tech sector; Military; Healthcare system

Pima Community

College

Emergency services; Federally mandated safety training; Environmental remediation; Healthcare; Customized

Business and management;

GED preparation; Direct to employment certifications and AAS degrees; English language acquisition; Citizenship; Family literacy

Web-based; Distance; Classroom

Municipal governments; Private firms; Healthcare system; non-profit sector

Cochise College

Military IT; Customized WF training;

Workplace Spanish; Business and management;

GED preparation; ESL; Prison programs; Personal interest; Civil Service exam preparation; Family literacy

Web-based; Distance; Classroom

AZDOC; US Military; Healthcare system; US Border Patrol; Area school districts; Private firms

Tohono O’odham

Community College

N/A N/A GED preparation Classroom N/A

University of Phoenix

Corporate education k-12 Education; business leadership; healthcare

N/A Web-based; Classroom; Prior learning

N/A

4.3.4 Facilitation of Graduate Enterprise

The University of Arizona encourages entrepreneurship through a number of programs that develop business acumen. The Outreach College offers several small business development non-credit courses, and in partnership with the department of Family and Consumer Sciences, credited courses in starting and managing an entrepreneurial business. Eller College of Management houses the McGuire Center for Entrepreneurship, which provides resources and education to encourage entrepreneurship. Discipline specific courses are offered in Agriculture and Resource Economics, Entrepreneurship, Finance, Law, Management, Marketing and Pharmacy. Free consulting, training and referrals are available to small business owners and entrepreneurs through the Small Business Development Center, an organization that is jointly supported by Cochise College and the US Small Business Administration. Pima Community College maintains a Small Business Development Center, as well. Technical assistance is provided to small businesses and entrepreneurs through individualized counseling, as well as through workshops and seminars.

 

69

4.4 Promoting lifelong learning, continuing professional development and training

4.4.1 Organization of Continuing Education, Professional Development and Training

As indicated by a widespread awareness of the importance of HEIs in the regional educational supply chain, programs that offer skills training, certifications, adult learning opportunities and professional development courses are abundant. As these programs frequently target working adults, diverse approaches to recruitment, flexibility in scheduling of classes, and alternative methods of course delivery exist. Workforce development, professional development and adult education programs within Southern Arizona HEI facilities are identified in Table 4.3.

Continuing education, adult education and professional development activities at the UA are administered through the Outreach College, the Eller School of Management, University of Arizona-South and initiatives of individual departments. Within the University of Arizona’s Outreach College small and medium-sized enterprises are emphasized as the ‘client base’ of professional development activities (Outreach College, 2009). Professional development courses offered by the Outreach College provide training in computer applications and managerial practices, certifications in a number of skill sets (such as the use of large office applications), and leadership development. Web-based delivery is available for many courses. In addition to professional development activities, the Outreach College is responsible for the provision of night and weekend classes, credit outreach, distance learning, and seniors’ programs/lifelong learning, including Elder Hostel, a program that offers courses relevant to local issues and fieldtrips to various destinations in the Southern Arizona region. Continuing education programming offered by the University of Arizona South fills the training needs of military service members and personnel at Ft. Huachuca US Army base. Non-credit courses are offered in IT Security, networking applications and numerous programming languages and software suites (Interview, John Delalla). A number of University of Arizona colleges and departments also offer leadership and professional development series. Among the most visible of these programs are:

The Southwest Leadership Program, offered by the Eller College of Management, which provides training to public sector leaders; the Arizona Healthcare Leadership Academy, which organizes seminars and trainings for healthcare providers in leadership roles; and a customizable executive leadership development series.

The Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health’s Southwest Public Health Leadership Institute, which provides training to employees in social services, public sector organizations and private non-profits in public health approaches to health promotion.

The College of Optical Science’s Industrial Affiliates program which offers seminars, colloquia and training to member organizations

In its 2003-2007 Strategic Plan, Cochise College identified “seek(ing) out and foster(ing) contract training opportunities with nonprofit organizations, business and industry, and government entities” as a strategic goal (Cochise College Strategic Plan, 2003-2007). CC offers a number of workforce training and adult education programs, including a “tech-prep” program offered in partnership with area high schools to provide training in occupational skills. Customized workforce training is offered, and key regional partners in the provision of training include area hospitals, the Aegis call-center located in Sierra Vista, and area schools. Through these customized programs, CC has formed relationships with public sector institutions, the military and private firms. Continuing education activity is organized under the Center for Lifelong Learning, with several administrative sub-units responsible for different program areas. Because of Cochise' geographic dispersion, faculty responsible for adult and continuing education are organized into learning communities that meet monthly to troubleshoot programs and discuss teaching strategies (Interview, Jessica Dilworth). Cochise lifelong learning program offers non-credit courses to adult

 

70

learners, and a program for seniors that allow participants to attend any number of classes offered as continuing education at a flat rate (Interview, Rebecca Orozco). Due to staff turnover, over the last year and a half, Cochise has had to re-establish its Extended Learning program. This is cited as one of the chief challenges faced by adult education program staff, as is a lack of funding. Staff identified the flexibility and cost of these programs as strengths.

PCC's workforce training instruction and professional development is organized through the Workforce and Business Development Division and offers customized training to organizations. Short-term intensive certification courses are offered through the Center for Training and Development. These programs develop skills employed in a wide variety of workplaces. The Arizona State Environmental Technology Center provides Wastewater Compliance training, and a number of OSHA training programs while PCC's Public Safety and Emergency Training Institute offers training and certification courses to governmental and private organizations that address issues of law enforcement and emergency response.

4.4.2 Access and Inclusion of Under-represented Populations

Rising tuition costs, a climbing unemployment rate and the collapse of the housing market (and resulting damage to credit availability) has required an increase in the amount of aid made available to students. Traditionally under-served populations in particular have been targeted through special outreach programs.

Issues of access and inclusion for traditionally under-represented populations are addressed through selective enrollment, a financial aid policy that promotes the attendance of target populations and a number of outreach programs that recruit from amongst target populations. In light of the steadily increasing costs of attendance at the University of Arizona, new emphasis has been placed on increasing accessibility through financial aid provision. The Arizona Access Financial Aid program provides significant financial assistance to students whose families make less than $42,000 a year. Eligible students receive full tuition, housing, books and food and a campus work-study position. Recruitment of traditionally underserved students is addressed through the Office of Early Academic Outreach and Minority Student Recruitment and targets both students and parents through partnering K-12 schools. Initiatives and services include:

Mathematics, Science and Engineering Achievement offers academic support to students in over 40 schools in Southern Arizona.

Tucson GEAR UP provides college preparation and academic support activities to over 3,500 7th grade students on an annual basis.

College Academy for Parents is a series of 12 two-hour workshops emphasizing the benefits of college attendance and offering support to parents of college-bound low-income and minority students

Building the Future. College Knowledge for Parents is an annual event at which workshops on applying to the

University of Arizona and financing a college education are offered. PSAT and SAT preparation. Phone banking and school visits, in which staff and student employees of the Minority Student

Recruitment and Early Academic Outreach offices make visits to partner schools and “phone bank” non-partner schools to offer assistance with applying to the University of Arizona (Office Overview, The University of Arizona Early Academic Outreach and Minority Student Recruitment).

 

71

The University of Arizona's Millennium Project is an initiative addressing issues of equity in the University system. However, its focus is largely on the representation of women and minorities as faculty and does not address issues of access in relation to students. The office of Institutional Inclusion and Engagement, intended to serve as a clearinghouse for the University's diversity initiatives, provides a number of printed resources to facilitate more inclusive classrooms, but does not possess any oversight or administrative authority.

In order to increase access to college resources on behalf of traditionally under-represented populations, Pima Community College offers two federally funded college preparation programs, Talent Search and Upward Bound. Both programs target low-income, first generation college students in their final years of high school, offering advising, assistance with admissions and financial aid applications, tutoring and other academic services. As well, PCC has adopted regulations regarding minority education (webpage: RG-3121/A) that require the hiring of minority faculty, selective admissions, equitable assessment and the provision of financial aid.

Cochise College has also identified student recruitment and retention of at-risk and under-prepared students as an institutional priority and has planned and implemented a variety of strategies to promote early intervention and student success, including summer bridge programs, a comprehensive First Year Experience program, and enhanced advising, tutoring and mentoring programs.

4.5 Changing forms of educational provision 4.5.1 Web-based Instruction The Arizona University Network State Universities in Arizona began to offer web-based courses in the mid 1990s (Swedlund, 2005), but in the past decade, online courses have become available at all higher education institutions in the state. Enrollment in online courses throughout Southern Arizona has increased rapidly in recent years; the University of Arizona had 3,477 enrollments in online courses during the 2003-2003 school year, and 5,384 during the 2006-2007 school year. Similarly, Pima Community College, which had 589 student taking online courses during fall of 2001, had 3,739 by fall of 2006 (Everett-Haynes, 2007). The Arizona University Network (AZUN) is one mechanism that has lead to greater accessibility of online courses in the state. Administered by the Arizona Board of Regents, AZUN is an online gateway to courses available from the three public institutions in Arizona (Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and the University of Arizona). Any student registered at one of the public universities, whether or not they are degree seeking, can take online classes at any of Arizona’s state universities through AZUN. All of the courses are transferable to the institution in which the student is enrolled. Students are able to register for courses and pay online on the AZUN website. AZUN allows students to supplement their on-campus course schedule with online courses. One function of the system is to increase course availability, i.e., high demand courses that fill quickly at one institution may be more accessible at another institution. Additionally, for working students who need more flexible delivery of courses, online offerings may increase accessibility. There are also many certificating programs and degree programs at the bachelor and master’s levels that are available from the state universities entirely online. For example, UA offers a graduate gerontology certificate, a graduate professional certificate in optical sciences, a master of science in optical sciences, a

 

72

certificate in digital information management, and engineering classes that can be applied to the Tri-University Master of Engineering degree. The Tri-University Master of Engineering degree is geared towards current members of the workforce and allows students to take engineering classes online and in person at Arizona’s three state universities. The classes may be taken over the course of six years, and students (with their faculty committee) develop their own course of study that is specific to their professional needs. There are seven specialized programs that can be delivered online, many of which are particularly regionally relevant: electrical engineering, systems engineering, embedded systems, quality and reliability, water resources, technical engineering and management, construction engineering and management, and mineral resources. The program has an advisory board that is focused on maintaining training programs that are relevant to today’s engineering needs with representatives from major engineering employers in the state of Arizona, such as Raytheon, Honeywell, and Lockheed Martin. The UA Outreach College also offers a number of professional development courses that are available online. Students can take online courses on information and computer technology, information technology security and networking, programming and web development, healthcare and legal studies, and business applications. Some of these courses lead to certification. The courses are led by instructors and offer free access to computer labs on campus in Tucson. Community Colleges and Other Institutions Pima Community College offers distance learning options as well. Certain courses are offered online and some are complemented with video material available on cable channels or on video that can be checked out at Pima County Public Libraries. During fall of 2009, Pima Community College offered over 500 classes online. A Center for Learning Technology at Pima’s Community Campus offers support for Pima’s distance education programs and works with students and instructors to make sure that internal technological problems do not hinder students’ progress in online courses. Cochise College also uses both television and online technology to support distance learning options. Because of the disparate nature of Cochise College’s campuses, the institution offers about two dozen classes a semester over an interactive television system so that students can take the same class at different campuses. There are classrooms equipped for teleconferencing in the towns of Benson, Douglas, Nogales, Sierra Vista and Willcox. Cochise College also has a wide range of classes available online, offering 120 courses online during fall of 2009. Students can also complete an entire Unix or International Business certificate online, as well as an associate of general studies or associate of business degree. To assist students in successfully completing online courses, the Director of Cochise’s Online Campus has created a website with information for students on how to use the online courses management system and tips for being successful in online classes, as well as a section with tips for faculty developing online courses. The University of Phoenix also has extensive online offerings. At its Southern Arizona campus, the University of Phoenix offers all of its 45 bachelors programs online, as well as 23 associate degrees, 38 master’s degrees and eleven doctoral degrees. Northern Arizona University has a campus in Tucson that offers degrees through a mixture of online and in person classes, particularly graduate degrees in education. 4.6 Enhancing the regional learning system The Arizona Board of Regents is the body that governs the public university system in Arizona. There is no regional association of higher education institutions in Southern Arizona. However, there is a well-

 

73

established system of transfer from community colleges to universities. A guide to course equivalencies, detailing how courses transfer between institutions in the state of Arizona has been available since the 1970s. In the past decade, improvements to this system for student transfers have been made, allowing the institutions to communicate more directly with students and make them aware of each HEI’s policies. 4.6.1 Transfer Articulation Taskforce In 1996, the Transfer Articulation Task Force was established by the Arizona Board of Regents and the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges. The charge of this task force was to create a seamless statewide transfer system with clear and secure transfer pathways from community colleges to universities. Out of this task force, the current transfer model was developed, a position was created to coordinate and oversee the transfer system, and Articulation Task Forces (ATFs) were formed. ATFs are groups of faculty representatives from each university and community college; there are forty discipline groups (such as geography or nursing), as well as groups of advisors and other higher education staff members, that meet annually to discuss curriculum issues. In 2007, the Arizona Academic Program Articulation Steering Committee contracted with outside educational consultants Hezel Associated, LLC, to generate a report evaluating the effectiveness of Arizona’s transfer and articulation system.

The ATFs are also effective venues for planning statewide higher education curriculum. These task forces, organized by discipline, are considered collegial and effective at meeting and discussing long-range plans about developing curriculum. However, there is an opportunity for more research at the departmental level at universities and colleges about the experience of transfer students in their discipline, to see, for example, if more transferable classes are needed by departments or if there are additional obstacles in the transfer process from community colleges to universities. 4.6.2 Arizona General Education Curriculum The aforementioned Hezel evaluation report found that one of the most effective pathways from community colleges to universities is through the Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC). Students who complete the AGEC at a community college complete the lower division, general education requirements for degrees at the universities. The AGEC is made up of between 35-37 credits (community college students may also take additional transferable credits in their major area, leading to an associate’s degree with 60-64 credits). Students at any Arizona community or tribal college can complete an AGEC (in Arts, Business, or Science), which guarantees their admission to any of the three public universities in Arizona, and then an additional 54-60 credits is required at the universities to fulfill baccalaureate degree requirements. Students who complete the AGEC on average have significantly higher grade point average (GPAs) after two or four semesters than student who enter universities just with transfer credits from community colleges, and they also tend to graduate from the baccalaureate program faster and with fewer credits than those who enter with either just transfer credits or an Associate’s degree. Multiple online resources exist to aid students in transferring from community colleges to universities, or between universities. The Arizona Transfer website, geared towards community college students, university students, advisors, and faculty, is a portal to information about transferring. This website was redesigned per Hezel report recommendations to be more informative and user friendly. The website links to the Course Equivalency Guide, an online course planning tool that lists the transferable courses available at each community or tribal college by discipline, and the courses that they correspond to at the state universities. Arizona colleges and universities also participate in “u.select”, a website developed at Miami University of Ohio to “serve as a way students can monitor their progress towards degree transfer online.

 

74

There are effective transfer pathways in place between universities and community colleges in Arizona, particularly the AGEC. The main obstacle to the successful utilization of these pathways is marketing. The new Arizona Transfer webpage is only one year old, and though it has a wealth of useful information on it, the degree to which it is utilized is not clear. In the past year, the Arizona Transfer and Articulation staff have developed marketing materials, such as bookmarks and DVDs that present the website and stress the importance of higher education and the fact that it is easy to transfer from community colleges to universities, for high school students and advisors, as well as material geared towards community colleges. Universities and colleges have also been encouraged to link to the Arizona Transfer website. Lack of information, and misinformation about transferring are the biggest obstacles to successful utilization of the transfer system. 4.6.3 Joint Admission Program Though there is no regional system of higher education integration in Southern Arizona, the University of Arizona is strongly connected to local community colleges, in particular Pima Community College. For example, the PCC-UA Joint Admission program is a collaboration between the two schools that allows students to transfer credits as they work towards a bachelor degree while taking classes at both institutions. This mechanism allows students to simultaneously attend the UA and PCC. Pima Community College offers a course called STU 201: Transfer Strategies, which focuses on the process of transferring from a community college to a four-year and the resources available to assist with that transfer. The course includes meetings at the University of Arizona campus and with representatives from the UA. Advisers from the University of Arizona also visit Pima Community College to assist students who wish to transfer to the UA.

4.7 Conclusions

There is a clear recognition on the part of Southern Arizona’s HEIs of their contribution to the local labor market and their role in serving the education and training needs of its diverse populations. Regional HEIs provide services to the same populations at different points of contact, with community colleges serving the sustained and immediate skill needs particular to the region and facilitating transitions of the workforce into emerging and growth sectors. The UA generates expertise directly responsive to the unique characteristics of the region, with programming relevant to cultural characteristics, geographical situations, economic realities and environmental settings. These programs both shape and are shaped by partnerships with public and private sector partners. Additionally, community colleges train individuals in academic programs relevant to the region.

Regional HEIs have explicitly stated their commitment to forming collaborative partnerships with businesses, public sector organizations, other HEIs and non-profit organizations. Partnerships with private firms, non-profit organizations and other universities are most visible at the UA, but are also apparent at the community colleges, particularly through workforce training programs. Vehicles for the establishment of partnerships have included research initiatives, workforce training programs, advisory boards and the formation of coalitions of regional expertise. HEIs coordinate degree programs and course offerings through the Articulation Task Force and the Arizona General Education Curriculum. The Arizona University Network is another mechanism that facilitates greater integration of regional HEIs.

Strengths:

• UA has strong research components that open up opportunities for partnerships with private industry, public institutions and non-profit organizations.

 

75

• UA research centers provide work-based learning arrangements for students and tighter integration of local needs and educational opportunities.

• Workforce training programs are able to respond to a variety of client needs due to program flexibility, especially at community colleges.

• Workforce training programs are competitively priced. • Regional HEIs provide high-demand degree programs and certifications.

Weaknesses:

• Programs are underfunded at all public HEIs. • Workforce training programs and adult education are vulnerable to staff turnover. • More flexibility in adjusting to rapid changes at global and regional scale is needed, especially at

UA. Opportunities:

• Specialization of workforce training programs and certification programs housed at community colleges can be further articulated with research centers at UA.

• Student recruitment can be improved through an evaluation of degree program redundancies. • Building on strong applied research and data clearinghouse components, HEI’s economic and

business research centers (UA EBR, Cochise College CER) could position themselves more strongly as providers of policy recommendations.

Threats:

• Arizona’s state legislature has been hostile to educational funding initiatives over the last several years, leading to an increase in the cost of tuition and increasing difficulties in recruiting faculty.

• The economic downturn has damaged access to credit for many Arizonans, possibly “pricing out” low income students.

 

76

CHAPTER 5: CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Introduction The HEIs included in this report: the University of Arizona (UA), Pima Community College (PCC), Cochise College (CC), the University of Arizona-South (UA-S), Tohono O’odham Community College (TOCC) and the University of Phoenix (UOPX) contribute on multiple levels and to varying degrees to the social, cultural and environmental development of the Southern Arizona region. Unlike the data of the previous chapters, many of these contributions fall out of strict quantitative analyses and into categories for creating and enhancing a high quality of life for all inhabitants, as well as supporting human capital. Defining and analyzing quality of life relies on a greater level of subjectivity than other economic questions. Costanza et al. (2008-online version) have written that “quality of life” (QOL) is “elusive” and “subjective,” but they propose a definition of QOL in which “objective human needs are fulfilled in relation to personal or group perceptions of subjective well-being.” In other words, QOL is an interaction between material needs and perceptions of how successfully those needs are met. Both the categorization of needs and perception of fulfillment are dynamic areas of analysis, dependent on cultures, geographies, community values, law and economies. QOL is also integral to economic development in not only enhancing the desirability of an area for inhabitation and investment, but also in creating an environment able to cultivate strong human capital. A 2008 collaborative report between the UA and the Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO) placed “livable communities” as part of a five-part goal in achieving a competitive economy for the region (TREO, 2008). The report cited climate, health care, commute time and crime rates as measurable indicators of QOL. These indicators are useful, but fail to capture all of the aspects of QOL. Those indicators are also subjective themselves in relegating QOL to the limited (albeit quantifiable) factors. The HEIs in this report have utilized their research assets, partnerships and facilities to expand the notion of a high QOL to include aspects like preventive health for at-risk populations, indigenous language preservation and environmentally sustainable living. This chapter will focus on these kinds of contributions as main indicators of social, cultural and environmental development. In addition to QOL, investing in human capital is another critical link between the regional economy and social, cultural and environmental development. Human capital, as discussed in Chapter 4, combines economic expenditures like education, training, and medical care with the internalization of knowledge, skills, values and health by communities and individuals (Becker 2008; Constanza et al. 2008). The way in which these expenditures are linked to the socio-cultural aspects of different communities reveals what types of economic activity regional populations can support. For faculty in the HEIs, human capital and how it coincides with QOL is a research priority. Professor Sally Stevens, executive director of the Southwest Institute for Research on Women (SIROW) at the UA, expressed the relationship between HEIs, the future economy and community in terms of human capital:

“What are our economic generators? Think broadly, we need to focus on where Southern Arizona is going. We must focus on systems, the human capital. Let’s not just think about the year 2015, but the future.”

Professor Stevens, along with many other faculty and HEI administrators, argue that a strong economy is contingent on the actual and perceived QOL of the regional population. They reiterate the need for relevant social, cultural and environmental programs and believe that HEIs are uniquely positioned to facilitate regional demands. The social, cultural and environmental programs, services and facility access

 

77

can be mutually beneficial: for HEIs as research and external funding opportunities; and for community stakeholders as social service, cultural exchange, recreation, environmental resource management and information sharing. The population of the Southern Arizona region is ethnically and economically diverse, as outlined in Chapter 1. These stakeholders render both unique assets and challenges in the economic development of the region. Home to the rich border histories and cultures between the U.S. and Mexico, and the indigenous nations of the Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui peoples, these diverse populations are key to the social and cultural wealth of the area. This socio-cultural diversity is also matched by varying levels of access to programming and facilities. Stakeholders from different ethnic and economic populations often look to HEIs as main partners for outreach services or regional policy development. Collaborations between the HEIs and these stakeholders are multiple and complex. For example, Pima Community College is closely connected to workforce community members in terms of job placement and training, as well as socio-cultural outreach programs (including programs for youth and elder populations) and has formed networks with numerous stakeholders through these projects (Table 5.1). These networks form the pivots for much of the social, cultural and environmental development in the region. Table 5.1 Types and examples of partnerships between HEIs and community stakeholders

The diverse types of collaborations operate on many levels between HEIs, regional community groups and government agencies and share goals as diverse as changing regional health policies to hosting summer camps for children. Mutual interest in developing the region has created a framework for potential and active programming, research and asset sharing. Shared and disparate ideas on QOL are negotiated through these collaborations.

Community stakeholder Example Community-based and non-profit groups Las Artes Youth Arts and Education Center

Tucson Planning Council on Homeless Primavera Foundation Tucson Clean and Beautiful

Governmental agencies (federal, state, county and municipal)

United States Geologic Survey State of Arizona Governor’s Office Pima County Health Department City of South Tucson Planning Department

Faith based organizations Pio Décimo Center Lutheran Social Services

Health care organizations Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) COPE Community Services, Inc. AMISTADES, Inc

Education organizations Tucson Unified School District Labor organizations Labor Council for Latin American Advancement

(LCLAA)

Special interest groups Diversity Coalition Commission on the Status of Women

 

78

The following sections look more closely at specific HEI-stakeholder collaborations in order to analyze how effective they are, how HEIs contribute to a high QOL in this region and how they prioritize investing in local human capital. 5.2 Social development contributions HEIs are uniquely positioned in Southern Arizona to not only operate as the bases for relevant social research, but also as conduits between community members and groups, as well as governmental agencies. The impact of this work is far-reaching. Much work has impacted policies from the local to federal levels, while other projects provide health care, pro-bono legal aid, child and women advocacy and other social services. 5.2.1 Facilities, policy advice, expertise, research To introduce each higher education institution in this subsection, separate profiles on each HEI are featured with specific information on facilities, policy advice, research expertise and community outreach perspectives. This highlights the different capabilities and contributions of each HEI in social development. These indicators come together in subsequent discussions of collaborations, brokerage roles, and in the cultural and environmental development sections University of Arizona The distinction of the University of Arizona as a “land-grant institution” has been a critical part of the mission from 1885. Since then, the economy and population growth have changed dramatically in Southern Arizona. Michael Proctor, Dean of the UA Outreach College, and Sally Stevens, executive director of SIROW, have both argued that a “land-grant institution” can evolve to incorporate the changing demands of a local, regional, and global economy and regional population in terms of ethnicity, age and gender. Professor Stevens said: “We are a land grant and we are supposed to be part of the community. The community

could have more support…agriculture is not the main economy anymore—there have been changes historically. A land grant is made by how the economy is developing and how are we supporting the people in that economy.”

UA faculty like Professors Stevens have designed research and procured grants to support the human capital needs in this region. As the largest HEI in the region in terms of human and economic resources, the University of Arizona has a particular ability to share it facilities and information assets with local communities. SIROW, for example, is one research unit at the University of Arizona that incorporates social development with academic research, and has designed an effective combination of securing outside monies to fund local community needs. SIROW has contributed in terms of public health research and advocacy for homeless, lower income and Latina/o communities. Their projects on STD testing and substance abuse, Mujer Sana and “HerStory to Health,” incorporate federal dollars with faculty-driven research to provide health care for at-risk populations. Both projects also recognize the different cultural and gender needs of participants in their health education, and they have a small off-campus unit based in their service community for accessibility. Mujer Sana alone has cared for 850 women and changed public health policy in Pima County to include hepatitis screenings for sexual health and substance abuse patients. With their cases, SIROW faculty collected data showing high rates of hepatitis and published the

 

79

results, subsequently influencing the Pima County Department of Health to now include the hepatitis screenings. As a RU/VH university (the Carnegie classification signifying an university with very high research activity), the UA has numerous research centers as well as diverse faculty who create such projects in Southern Arizona and on the U.S.-Mexico border. The University Medical Center (UMC) and the Paul and Paula Fasseas Cancer Clinic are two examples of research units that directly impact the health of the local community. As nationally recognized health centers, these units serve the region and simultaneously produce award-wining research. UA facility access and research expertise in social development include not only health care, but also social policy advocacy, legal aid and youth camps. These facilities go beyond the Tucson-based campus to off-campus sites throughout Southern Arizona and even a new center in Guanajuato, Mexico. The Resplandor International Cultural and Education Center provides literacy, technology and health education for children and families who have previously hosted UA students in the Verano en Mexico summer program (Ruiz-McGill, 2009). The facilities and research projects of the University of Arizona are diverse in the types of social development they offer the region (Table 5.2). Service numbers are included where possible to notate how many people have interacted with the service provision, but the figures are not the sole indication for charting effectiveness. For programs like the youth outreach on the Tohono O’odham reservation, the number of possible participants is finite. Success is also measured by program retention and future lifestyle choices of participants, such as employment or higher education, and low substance abuse and crime rates. UA policy and applied research units serve two purposes. Primarily, they are research units in which faculty base their projects (and generate external funding); but these projects and faculty often directly or indirectly involve regional communities in their work. UA research units include: the Drachman Institute, the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, the Mexican American Studies and Research Center, and the Bureau for Applied Research in Anthropology (BARA).

Like SIROW, BARA has developed a model of research and outreach into several critical community projects: the “Southern Paiute Consortium,” the “Nogales Revegetation Project,” the “Hopi Literacy Project,” “Tucson Urban Poverty,” “Somali Bantu” and the “Social Justice Project.” The Social Justice Project is an example of multi-pronged research and outreach. BARA faculty and students work with 50 Tucson-area Latina/o high school students to conduct action research in their schools and communities. BARA is able to procure unique research information from the students (who experience social inequalities) and are simultaneously teaching young people how to do research and participate in their communities.

The James E. Rogers School of Law hosts four pro-bono clinics. The clinics have received national recognition for excellence, and they provide an opportunity for faculty to develop research, for law students to acquire professional skills, and for local clients to acquire top legal aid. For example, Nina Rabin, co-director of Immigration Law Clinic has simultaneously served as an advocate for international immigrants to Southern Arizona, as well as published work to educate local non-immigrant populations, and served as a public figure on immigration issues. She has been recognized by federal agencies for the clinic’s work.

 

80

Table 5.2 Selected examples of UA social development provision

Unit or program Type of social development Service population Service

number Collaborative Partner(s)

Southwest Institute for Research On Women

Health policy and care (AIDS, sexual health and substance abuse); legal aid; youth intervention; education initiatives

Women, adolescents, minority populations (Latino/a & American Indian)

2,000 people

Federal, state & county agencies; rehabilitation groups; local women’s groups

Peter and Paula Fasseas Cancer Clinic

Outpatient treatment center, preventive and rehabilitative care

Cancer patients 30,000 patient visits annually

Arizona Cancer Center

Drachman Institute Neighborhood planning and policy

Regional communities

N/A State, municipal & neighborhood groups

The Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy and the Native Nations Institute

Indigenous policy, research and executive education, local environmental advocacy and resource management

American Indian, southern Arizona rural and urban populations

N/A Native nations, community non-profits, local businesses, federal and state governments, international bodies

James E. Rogers College of Law

Pro-bono legal clinics centered on immigration law, domestic violence, child advocacy, and American Indian

Lower income or populations who cannot afford legal counsel

N/A Community groups, Native nations

Cooperative Extension [in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences]

Youth and American Indian outreach; rural community development; leadership training for working with community

Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui young people, rural populations

N/A Tohono O’odham Nation; Pascua Yaqui Nation, 4-H

Finally, the Cooperate Extension in the UA College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has maintained the outreach aspects of the initial “land-grant” mission. Focusing work in rural and American Indian Communities, Cooperative Extension faculty and graduate students introduce agricultural development, animal sciences, resource management and technology [e.g., Geographic Information Systems (GIS), irrigation systems] to their outreach communities in training sessions and youth camps. This section has highlighted some of the specific examples of social development research and facility provision at the UA. UA has many more programs, which are generated by faculty and graduate student research, as well as ongoing policy projects at the different research centers. The selections have been cited to portray the breadth of social development interests. Pima Community College From its mission “to develop our community through learning” (PCC, 2009) to its six campuses, four community education centers, job training programs and community interfacing, Pima Community College has prioritized social needs in Southern Arizona. In addition to making its libraries and technological services available for public use, PCC also rents its facilities to community groups and public forums.

 

81

PCC has programs for youth and senior populations, as well as college-attending adults. Examples of the children’s programs are “Pima for Kids” and a partnership with the “Reading Seed Children’s Literacy Program,” a local non-profit organization. “Pima for Kids” includes one-day workshops, summer camps and four-to-six week courses in different languages, social sciences and science (as well as the arts and sports). For teenaged youth, PCC offers four different programs to facilitate college preparation: “Aztec Middle College” (program for students to complete high school and college simultaneously); “Upward Bound” (a federally funded college preparation for lower-income and first generation students); “TRiO Talent Search” (mentoring support for low-income, first generation students); and “Tech Prep” (a vocational program). Table 5.3 Selected examples of PCC social development provision

Unit or program Type of social development Service population Collaborative Partner(s)

Civic/Citizenship Program Immigrant support and education

Non-U.S. citizens PCC Student Council

Family Literacy Project GED, job and literacy classes for families

Low-income populations

Head Start (federal program), Pima County school districts

Project RAISE Adult education in basic reading, math, computer skills, art and creative movement classes

Adults with developmental disabilities

AZ Department of Economic Security

Refugee Education Project English and vocational instruction

Refugees AZ Department of Economic Security

Community Learning Centers

Personal enrichment Seniors, non-degree seeking students

Upward Bound College preparation Low-income, first generation college students

Federal agencies

Pima for Kids Children’s education and development

Young children Area social and cultural institutions

The Community Learning Centers (e.g., Green Valley) are accessible to senior populations and offer relevant personal enrichment courses, including health and safety classes, exercise and career management skills, and a free winter lecture series for the seasonal senior population. Other programs that offer socializing opportunities for senior and non-senior family communities are the “Study Tours” which offer excursions around the region. PCC’s focus in social development is three-fold: 1) to provide quality, affordable higher education opportunities for all inhabitants; 2) to facilitate partnerships within the region that enhance the QOL for different populations, especially economically challenged groups; and 3) to augment the human capital of different stakeholders through a series of “special projects.” The special projects at PCC directly interface with various communities and offer expertise to satisfy the needs of different populations. For example, the “Civics/Citizenship Program” prepares immigrants for citizenship exams and civic involvement. The “Family Literacy Project” is a program in which the parents acquire their GED, English language, job and parenting skills, and the children co-participate in educational activities. “Project RAISE” educates students with developmental disabilities, and participants are selected by the Arizona Department of Economic Security. The “Refugee Education Project” offers classes in English and vocational skills for refugee populations in Southern Arizona (including over 12 language groups) (Table 5.3).

 

82

Cochise College Cochise College is located close to the U.S.-Mexico border, and to Fort Huachuca, a U.S. Army installation located 15 miles north of Mexico. These geographical factors influence the social development priorities of CC, including serving the needs of military service men and women and bilingual communities. The Center for Lifelong Learning is the community outreach center for the college and offers several programs to address social needs, including: 1) all-age enrichment courses, 2) border-related research, 3) American Heart Association and America Red Cross health training, 4) workforce training programs, and 5) a free public lecture series at the Sierra Vista and Douglas campuses. CC offers several social programs for specific community populations. A member of the Service Members Opportunity Colleges, CC provides college-level opportunities for military service members and their families. The “Family Literacy Project” is a free program that serves adults seeking GED, English language and civics classes, and also promotes family learning by including activities through which parents and children write, read, and play together. Community members preparing for the citizenship exam can take the CC preparation class. The “Summer Bridge Program” serves high school students who are Latina/o and first generation or lower income, by preparing them for initial college courses at CC and later transfer to University of Arizona-South. This program also highlights additional kinds of collaboration between HEIs in the area. Tohono O’odham Community College Tohono O’odham Community College lies at the heart of the Tohono O’odham Nation and is built on the traditional lifeway principles called the himdag. The himdag directly engages social investment, QOL and human capital needs with knowledge sharing, ancient culture and modern lifestyle choices. Drawing from these ancient principles as the mission for the college, TOCC pursues social development in youth, community enrichment and apprenticeship programs (Table 5.4). TOCC opens their facility to the community on weekends and summers for youth camps, “Land Connections” (a collaboration with UA Cooperative Extension) and the young women’s “Science, Technology, Engineering and Math” (STEM), a college preparation course in the science and cartography laboratory of the college. TOCC also utilizes its facilities within community partnerships through health education, specifically diabetes prevention (a main health threat to the community). Working with the Tohono O’odham Community Action (TOCA) group, TOCC has hosted lectures and a traditional foods curriculum called “Bajidaj Camp.” Social development for the Tohono O’odham nation as a whole is interwoven with student opportunities at TOCC. For example, student apprentices in the “Building Trades” program (a collaboration with the Arizona Department of Commerce) not only learn construction skills but also assist in the building of two new TOCC campus sites, Pisinemo and Schuk Toak. TOCC President Olivia Vanegas-Funcheon explained the relationship between social and economic development for the Tohono O’odham community (TOCC, 2007):

“Our apprentices and their instructors are highly committed individuals who contribute to the community in numerous ways. For example, many on-the-job training assignments involve service projects that help people in need. The apprenticeship faculty do an excellent job of preparing their students for a life of learning and service.”

 

83

Table 5.4 Selected examples of TOCC social development provision

Unit or program Type of social development

Service population Collaborative Partner(s)

Tohono Land Connections

Youth education and outreach

TO youth UA, US Department of Agriculture

Building Trades Apprenticeship

Job training and community development

TO students and communities

University of Massachusetts, Arizona Department of Commerce

Bajidaj Camp Diabetes prevention, traditional foods education

Diabetes and/or health risk participants

Tohono O’odham Community Action, Diabetes Education Program

Project NATIVE Teacher preparation and placement

TO and PY communities

UA College of Education, US Department of Education, Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui Nations

University of Phoenix The University of Phoenix contributes to the social development needs of the region primarily in workforce development (discussed in Chapter 2). UOPX offers extensive adult education and career enhancement classes with flexible scheduling. With a popular nursing program, UP provides methods and human capital to augment regional healthcare demands. In addition to the health care programs, UOPX offers degree programs in criminal justice administration and counseling/therapy to prepare regional students for social development occupations. UP also offers grants to public charities through the University of Phoenix Foundation. 5.2.2 Partnerships with the community The HEIs partner with community groups/individuals and government agencies (federal, state, regional, municipal), as delineated in the previous section. Many of the programs highlighted depend upon those partnerships for funding and community participation. The UA is a major stakeholder in the region in terms of research and facility assets, and actively pursues these connections. PCC builds on relationships with 85 educational and governmental institutions, over 140 industry and business partners, and countless community groups and individuals (PCC, 2009). PCC works directly with municipal and local non-profit groups, and many PCC administrators serve on community boards as members, volunteers and HEI representatives. Collaborations between HEIs are critical for community social development. UA is often a conduit in providing the facilities, credentials (as a four-year institution) and assets, while institutions like PCC, CC and TOCC are connected to direct community demands. An example of this is “Project NATIVE” a joint collaboration between TOCC, UA, the U.S. Department of Education (providing two grants totaling $1.7 million) and the Tohono O’odham (TO) and Pascua Yaqui (PY) Nations (Table 5.4). The program supports TO and PY students to acquire education degrees and work in either reservation schools or schools with high American Indian enrollment. An important caveat to HEI and community partnerships is building and maintaining trust. At-risk populations (lower-income, substance abuse and homeless communities) as well as the Native American nations have experienced negative relationships with HEIs and exploitative research. Social development needs are high in these communities, and HEIs often have to work harder to build trust in service

 

84

allocation and research collaboration. Professor Rosi Andrade of SIROW programs, “Mujer Sana” and “HerStory to Health” explained:

“The university [needs] not to come in as a power player but with humility, you are who you say you are, and vice versa. What you do is what you are. The problem has been that the community has been exploited in past partnerships---the community needs to have a say. The community has to be the first audience. That would really inform the university.”

5.2.3 Brokerage role between stakeholders The HEIs serve as brokers in regional policy-making between communities, non-profit organizations and government agencies. This can be seen in many of the collaborations profiled, such as advocating for at-risk populations in public health policy (brokering between county health departments, federal agencies and community members), preparing new citizens for civic duties (brokering between recent immigrants, established community members, federal agencies and local governments), and prioritizing youth development. Nina Rabin of the UA Immigration Law Clinic has said that part of legal advocacy work involves eliminating fear in immigration issues: 1) fear from immigrants of antagonistic institutions and public opinion, and 2) public fears on border security, employment and xenophobia. Another sphere of brokerage is in regional political and economic policy debates. The HEIs often participate in public debate and articulate research findings on pertinent issues such as immigration, border security and resource allocation (including water). HEIs share information with the public in these policy issues from a research perspective, which can bring a more nuanced dimension to the debates. 5.3. Cultural development contributions The majority of the HEIs in the Southern Arizona Region enable an engagement with regional cultural development through an ongoing fostering of practices that enhance the QOL of the region’s citizens. Due to the large geographical area of the region, the various HEIs contribute in particular to the region’s local population centers, while concomitantly contributing to the cultural development of the region as a whole. In addition to its large geographic size, the region, as stated earlier, is also home to diverse ethnic and linguistic populations. The HEIs provide a valuable cultural link between the HEIs and these communities and among the communities themselves by sponsoring and supporting a broad spectrum of cultural development opportunities for the region’s population as a whole. Examples include language preservation programs and facilities for cultural performances. Through their continuing effort to enable cultural development, the HEIs foster livable communities. In turn, this enhances QOL for Southern Arizona’s citizens and supports economic development. In line with their varying financial and infrastructural capabilities, the HEIs provide cultural development programs and facilities in four focus areas: 1) education; 2) museums; 3) performances; and 4) athletics. Programs in each of these areas enhance the QOL for the region and ensure an active engagement is maintained with cultural legacies and resources from the region. These programs are mutually beneficial for the HEIs and the community stakeholders. They generate revenue for the HEIs and their immediate surrounding communities. Likewise, by providing facilities for events, HEIs offers stakeholders facilities otherwise unavailable. As discussed before, the University of Arizona, whose main campus is located within the city of Tucson, is the largest HEI in the region and provides the greatest range and scope of programs and facilities. While the other HEIs facilitate similar activities, they do so on a smaller scale. The advantage for the smaller HEIs, however, is that they are often better physically situated to reach outlaying populations.

 

85

5.3.1. Education Language Preservation The Southern Arizona Region has at least four distinct language speaking populations: Spanish, English, Tohono O’odham, and Pascua Yaqui. Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui are indigenous languages spoken primarily by citizens of two Native American nations. TOCC requires degree-seeking students to take a series of courses on the Tohono O’odham “way of life,” or himdag, which includes language instruction, in an ongoing effort to preserve their cultural heritage. As part of the regional effort to help maintain, sustain, and preserve these indigenous languages, the UA provides faculty and educational programs in cooperation with both of these nations (and others) through the 30-year-old UA American Indian Language Development Institute. Along with its other social benefits, Project NATIVE trains Native American educators through a joint TOCC and UA effort. This cooperative effort provides a cultural linkage alongside an educational linkage between Native American communities and HEI communities. Alongside the spoken word, the UA, in association with a community coalition, helps sponsor and provides the facilities for a new region-wide Festival of Books. This festival’s goals include highlighting southern Arizona regional authors, subject matter, and literacy issues. Cultural Preservation Before the region became part of the United States in the mid-19th century, it was under the geopolitical control of Mexico and Spain, and before that under the care of a number of Native American nations. The influence of Hispanic and Native American cultures was and continues to be a strong presence alongside that of the United States’ European, non-Hispanic cultural influences. As a part of an effort to maintain, sustain, and preserve these earlier and ongoing traditions of Native American and Hispanic populations and those of European descent, the HEIs of the region provide faculty, coursework, outreach programs, and facilities that encompass all ethnic backgrounds of the region’s population. One example is a joint project between UA South and the state of Arizona’s official balladeer, the Arizona Folklore Preserve. This performing arts and multi-event center provides facilities and sponsors events that focus on Arizona and American Western music, poetry, and folklore, helping to preserve, maintain, and continue the unique spirit of Arizona and of the American West. Communication Media In addition to the language and cultural preservation institutes and programs physically located at the HEIs, broadcast communication media is used for, among other things, fostering cultural exchanges among the Southern Arizona Region’s populations and cultural traditions. The UA is home to Arizona Public Media, which operates multiple television, radio, and WWW content affiliates that are members of two national media organizations: the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Each of the affiliates (radio, television, and WWW) provides unique access to news, educational, and entertainment programming that reflects the particular interests of the Southern Arizona Region as well as national and international interests. This includes locally and nationally produced programming in English, Spanish, and Tohono O’odham languages that would otherwise be unavailable through commercial media outlets. 5.3.2. Museums Museums housed at HEIs cover an array of subject matter ranging from pre-history to regional folklore to contemporary photography. Either through no cost or low cost admission, the region’s citizens have access to permanent and temporary exhibits that highlight the region’s pre-history, such as those at the Arizona State Museum, or to more recent regional history at the Tucson branch of the Arizona Historical Society (located adjacent to, but not as part of the UA). Science and astronomy exhibits (a particularly

 

86

strong focus area of the UA) are available through the UA Science Center. The visual arts are also made readily available to the region’s citizens at the UA Art Museum and UA-located Center for Creative Photography, each highlighting important regional artists as well national and international artists. In addition to its in-house exhibits, the Arizona State Museum sponsors outdoor exhibits and trade shows that highlight the arts and crafts of Arizona Native Americans. Table 5.5 Examples of cultural development institutes and programs HEI Example TOCC Himdag or “Way of Life” degree requirement

Project NATIVE CC Sponsored workshops on local history

Cochise Stronghold Gymnasium

PCC Center for Arts Fitness and Sports Science Centers Outdoor Running Track and Tennis and Basketball Courts

UA-S Arizona Folklore Preserve

UA American Indian Language Development Institute American Indian Studies Chicano/Hispano Student Affairs Arizona Public Media – KUAT-6, KUAZ, KUAT- Classical, and http://azpm.org Arizona State Museum UA Science Center Center for Creative Photography UA Art Museum UA Presents Centennial Hall Crowder Hall Arizona Repertory Theatre UA Poetry Center Campus Recreation Center “A” Sports Camp for pre-teens Teen Summer Camp Andy Lopez Baseball Camp Bear Down Gymnasium Bear Down Field

5.3.3. Performances A number of the Southern Arizona Region HEIs sponsor and host performances through their own arts series that include a wide variety of performances, including dance, music, and spoken word. They also hire out facilities, such as UA’s Centennial Hall and PCC’s Center for the Arts, often to non-profit and/or public service entities. The University of Arizona’s presence in the Southern Arizona region enables its UA Presents program to draw annually a number of national and international performances to the region that enhance the region’s cultural capital. The facilities available for hire also enhance the region’s cultural capital by providing the spaces for professional and semi-professional local performances, such as the annual UA Wildcat Powwow. This event includes participants from a number of regional Native Nations and highlights multiple cultural aspects, such as belief systems, dance, and crafts. Tied to this service to the community is the exchange of the HEIs’ faculty and student performers with the local non-HEI performers and performance venues, creating a strong linkage that maintains and continues the HEIs role in the development of culturally-based economies.

 

87

5.3.4. Athletics As a different type of performance, athletics draws together the HEIs and community in a unique fashion, one that creates a tangible feeling of a type of fictive kinship between the institutions and the local and/or regional community at large. Most of the HEIs of the Southern Arizona Region also foster intramural athletics for students, faculty, and staff as a way of encouraging good health practices and team building among HEI members. As with the facilities made available for hire to non-athletic performances, some of the HEI members also provide facilities and training for athletic clubs from the region at a cost, enabling regional athletic excellence and a continued source of revenue for the HEIs. 5.4. Environmental Sustainability The Southern Arizona Region contains within it a number of greatly differentiated climatic zones, such as the Apache Highlands, which contains the Sky Islands (a series of 2400m-2700m mountain peaks) and acts as a transition zone between the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts. A few of the HEIs in the region, led by the University of Arizona, take advantage of this unique situation to address environmental sustainability, especially water supply, and climate change across a broad spectrum of research and application topics. HEIs and private interest in the region’s climate has a long and rich history that dates to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the establishment of the Carnegie Institution’s Desert Laboratory in Tucson and the UA’s Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, both of which are now operated through the UA. Partly attributable to this long term engagement, the UA has taken a lead, both within the region and the United States’ HEI community at large, in addressing local to global climate change issues and policies, including economic impacts and the development of best practices in urban planning, architecture, transportation, water management, etc. Beyond the research and development aspects of environmental sustainability and climate research, most of the HEIs of the region have adopted campus-specific environmental sustainability programs and goals and attempt to operate as models for their local communities. These range from guidelines for the building of new infrastructure to student-run recycling programs and campus-specific uses of alternative energy sources. In addition to these efforts, the University of Arizona’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences’ Cooperative Extension Service, in accordance with its role as the state’s land-grant college, has maintained nearly a century’s record of mating research and application, which includes sustainable land use practices, across a regional and state-wide venue. 5.4.1. Environmental Sustainability Practices and Development Each of the region’s HEIs has instituted varied environmental sustainability practices into their operating plans. For example, Pima Community College’s “Strategy 5.3,” involves integrating environmentally sustainable design and maintenance practices into their 2008-2011 campus planning initiatives. University of Phoenix is among the top ten national colleges and universities that utilize green power, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). UOPX purchases nearly 47 million kilowatt hours of green energy annually (the equivalent of powering more than 4,000 average American homes per year) and shares environmental responsibility by sustaining the natural resources its local communities share. The UA initiatives include campus-wide and residence-hall specific recycling programs; installation of solar panels for targeted structure energy consumption (e.g. parking garages); storm-water mitigation; and water harvesting demonstration sites, both on- and off-campus.

Beyond fostering campus-specific environmental sustainability practices, the University of Arizona is home to several research centers on aspects of sustainability science (Table 5.6). The mission of UA’s Institute for Environment and Society (IES) is to provide disciplinary and interdisciplinary research relating to the environment of Earth, with a focus on understanding local to global climate and its changes over time. Other UA institutions and programs, often in partnership with the IES, provide timely research

 

88

and practicable applications for advising stakeholders from individual community members to local, regional, and national policy decision-makers. The following examples partially illustrate the range of knowledge and technological innovation centered on the UA: the Water Resources Research Center, whose focus is on assisting Arizona communities with water management; Biosphere 2 with its unique recreation of ecosystems to enable diverse environmental research; the Arizona Research Institute for Solar Energy and its mandate to drive innovation between HEIs and private industry to achieve solar energy solutions; and Campus Sustainability, which acts as an environmental sustainability information gateway for a diverse set stakeholders that includes, students, faculty, staff, and the regional community beyond the university. 5.4.2. Land-Grant Institution – Cooperative Extension Service As cited earlier in this chapter, the UA College of Agriculture and Life Sciences’ Cooperative Extension Service is one of the main outreach arms of the region’s HEIs. Cooperative Extension’s goal is to maintain a statewide non-formal education network by bringing research-based information directly into Arizona agricultural and business communities, so as “to make science useful” and meet community needs. Within the Southern Arizona Region there are three county extension offices, smaller satellite offices, and the main offices of the Service located at the UA. The focus of the Cooperative Extension specialists is on the following areas: family, consumer, and health sciences, water, climate, sustaining agriculture, range management, and youth development. Each of these areas is designed to foster smart practices that will ensure long-term environmental and economic sustainability and growth with in the state. The UA mission as a land-grant college and its Cooperative Extension Service is changing to meet the needs of contemporary regional population with such initiatives as: 4-H youth programs with a focus on urban environmental conservation methods; forestry practices with a focus on tourism rather than harvesting; and education programs on meeting local to global climate changes. Table 5.6 Examples of environmental sustainability institutes and programs HEI Example UOPX Go Green Initiative PCC Strategy 5.3 UA Institute for Environment and Society

Climate Assessment for the Southwest Translational Environment Research Sustainability Under Uncertainty Arizona Research Institute for Solar Energy Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research Campus Sustainability Water Resources Research Center Institute for Environment and Society Biosphere 2 Campus Sustainability Office of Arid Lands Water Quality Center Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy Arizona Master Naturalist Program, UA Cooperative Extension Service Arizona Master Watershed Steward, UA Cooperative Extension Service

 

89

5.5. Conclusions Based on the examples discussed in this chapter, HEIs actively contribute to social, cultural and environmental development in the Southern Arizona region. HEIs enhance the QOL for many inhabitants by contributing to these spheres through facility access, service provision, research expertise and by participating in the extensive network of regional stakeholders. Drawing on the breadth and depth of the regions’ rich cultural and natural environments, HEIs provide and/or facilitate specific forms of support for its diverse communities. Further, HEIs, in collaborations with stakeholders, act as conduits for information and funding between state and federal agencies, Native nations, local school districts, businesses, military personnel, young people and at-risk populations (e.g., homeless communities). To conclude this discussion, the following sections review those collaborations and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT Analysis) to continued HEI social, cultural and environmental development. 5.5.1 Collaborations Southern Arizona region collaborations between HEIs and other stakeholders are critical for regional development, QOL issues, and supporting human capital needs in each of its communities. As discussed, HEIs in this region not only collaborate with its diverse stakeholders, but also partner regularly with each other to build local programs. With an array of assets, the HEIs utilize their differing programs and facilities and community relationships to build an extensive network of partners across southern Arizona. The University of Arizona, as a large RU/VH institution, shares its large facilities and national/international connections as well as its capabilities to generate competitive research projects (via faculty) and correlating external funds. Pima Community College, with its myriad of regional partners, has built an extensive system in the area and is uniquely positioned to support human capital needs by offering affordable career and personal enrichment opportunities. The University of Phoenix also focuses its energies on human capital investment. And University of Arizona-South, Cochise College and Tohono O’odham Community College use their direct community access as a way of discerning, fostering, and facilitating specific community priorities. HEIs form those collaborations to participate in current challenges for regional stakeholders, and simultaneously invest in strategic visions of the future. The Greater Tucson Youth Leadership Program is one such collaborative program between UA, PCC, and three non-profits, the Volunteer Center of Southern Arizona, Every Voice in Action Foundation and Greater Tucson Leadership. David Chandler, assistant director of youth services at the Volunteer Center, expressed how HEI and community partnerships invest in area youth, and thereby the region’s future (Rivera, 2009):

"The idea is that if [young people] become more aware of some of the issues facing our community, they'll find opportunities to help make change in those areas in which they are interested. We want to do skill building, but we also want to expose them to the issues."

Finally, HEIs operate as brokers amongst stakeholders in socio-political (e.g., public health, immigration, border security and resource management) and economic policy debates. In addition to offering expertise and intellectual nuance to these debates, the HEIs operate as stakeholders based on their participation in the regional network. As stakeholders themselves, the HEIs, through their various foci on different aspects of the social, cultural, and environmental sustainability milieu of the region, help maintain a high level of quality of life factors that enables the region to preserve its unique identity, while at the same time make the region a draw for new economic development.

 

90

5.5.2 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis In terms of social, cultural and environmental development for the Southern Arizona region, HEIs have the following strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities for continued involvement. The following assessment is based on interviews, confidential informants, and publicly available strategic planning and self-assessment documents. Strengths:

• Social Programs: Faculty-driven research, personal connections with community and grant-writing to generate external funding.

• Cultural Programs: Facility access, archives and faculty-driven research. • Environmental Sustainability: Research on environmental challenges, policy work and “green”

programs on HEI campuses and as outreach programs. • Institutional support for faculty in research and outreach (also an area of threat, as well). • Youth programs are a priority at the HEIs and introduce potential new student populations to

higher education (e.g., lower-income, first generation, young women in science and technology fields).

• Strong cross-border relationships with individual researchers, HEIs and environmental agencies in Sonora in addressing common issues in a transborder region.

Weaknesses:

• Specific populations are still skeptical of working with HEIs based on a priori negative experiences which have generated mistrust, exploitation and failure to maintain projects and relationships. Sensitive populations include: lower income, homeless, Latino/a, American Indian (Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui), and at-risk adolescents.

• The degree of participation is dependent partly on the varying fiscal and infrastructural constraints of the regions HEIs.

• The physical size of the region can inhibit effective communication and participation of HEI members and other regional stakeholders, limiting and/or preventing effective partnerships.

• There have been stronger ties with individual researchers in Mexico than with institutions, which affect the sustainability of many important cross-border initiatives.

Opportunities:

• HEIs can continue to expand their community partnerships, acting as a conduit rather than decision-maker for many types of programs and services to develop the region.

• HEIs are already recognized for facilitating cultural events and should build on their ability to attract and promote new and continued activities.

• The installation and/or development of newer communication technologies, such as long distance learning capabilities, can bridge the great physical distances between HEIs and community stakeholders in the Southern Arizona region.

• Further enhance relationships with HEIs in Mexico. Threats:

• State financial support to HEIs and service units is currently and potentially will be limited, forcing the HEIs to look to alternative private funding sources.

 

91

• With the current condition of national and state economic forces, community programs are vulnerable to cuts and downsizing, e.g., PCC’s “Study Tours” and “Pima for Kids.” Although supported by community participation, the cost of running such programs usually exceeds this revenue stream, often requiring state or federal assistance.

• Continued community mistrust with HEIs in research projects. • Failure of institutional support due to a lack of system-wide support and a “publish or perish”

academic environment can impede service-minded faculty who devote more of their energies to community outreach.

• Vulnerability of funding for cross-border partnerships at institutional level.

 

92

CHAPTER VI: CAPACITY BUILDING FOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATION

This chapter summarizes existing interactions between Southern Arizona’s HEIs and regional actors and agencies, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of current cooperation, and identifies the key elements for developing the capacity for a more successful cooperation for the purpose of enhancement of regional development. As presented in Chapter 2, Southern Arizona’s HEIs include five public institutions – The University of Arizona (UA), The University of Arizona South (UA-S), Cochise College, Pima Community College (PCC) and Tohono O’odham Community College (TOCC) – and the private University of Phoenix (UOPX) in addition to small local operations from other private institutions. Each institution has in its mission an explicit statement of the contribution to the region’s wellbeing and enhancement of quality of life of region’s residents. Collective strengths of Southern Arizona’s HEIs include research towards regional innovation; strong links with local industry, especially in strategic areas such as biosciences, environmental technologies, aerospace, optical sciences and advanced composites; creation of spin-off companies; production of a regional education supply chain and skilled labor market; contribution to regional attractiveness for talent; transfer of basic research findings to practical applications; and translation of regional economic expertise in support of informed decision-making. Over the years, a large number of offices and programs were established at UA and other HEIs with specific tasks to better connect with business community, to improve the transfer of knowledge and expertise from HEIs to the real world, and to contribute to more informed decision-making in region’s economic development. While the role of Southern Arizona’s HEIs has been felt in practically all segments of regional economy and residents’ everyday lives, there is much that could be improved in terms of effectiveness, quality and sustainability of HEI’s regional engagement. In the remainder of this chapter six specific aspects will be addressed: mechanisms to promote regional engagement of HEIs; promotion of regional dialogue and joint marketing initiatives; evaluation and mapping of the impact of the regional HEI system; institutional capacity building for regional involvement; human and financial resources management; and the creation of a new organization culture. 6.1 Mechanisms to promote regional engagement of HEIs While economic development has become “everybody’s business,” the number of formal organizations is limited. Tucson-based TREO is the leading economic development agency in the region and serves as a single formal mechanism for identifying regional needs. In a 2007 report, Securing Our Future Now: An Economic Blueprint for the Tucson Region, TREO conducted an analysis of regional needs in economic development and incorporated those in the blueprint for Tucson and Southern Arizona. TREO also conducts assessments of specific needs for businesses looking for expansion or relocation to the region. SALC (Southern Arizona Leadership Council) has also been involved in identifying regional needs in Southern Arizona through the town hall format. Town hall participants represent government, public and private sectors, and address specific topics, such as education, biotechnology, and regional governance. SALC organizes follow-up meetings to assess the implementation of town hall recommendations. Another similar mechanism at the statewide level is the Arizona Town Hall (ATH), a long-standing institution that identifies major topics in regional development, coordinates research analysis and facilitates formulation of recommendations.

 

93

Also at the statewide level, AMC (Arizona-Mexico Commission) is responsible for identifying crossborder regional needs. This is especially relevant for Southern Arizona and its border communities, which have a long history of collaborating with the Mexican side and have become even more interdependent in the post-NAFTA period. Finally, many organizations in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors of the region engage in various sorts of needs assessment on a more confined scale, such SEAGO (Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization) in Cochise County. Southern Arizona’s HEIs are involved in regional assessment mechanisms in different ways, from formal participation of HEI’s top administrators on boards of regional development agencies, to participation on various committees, to direct production of study reports by HEI’s researchers. The University of Arizona UA has a formal association with TREO through its President serving on TREO’s board. This allows direct communication of priorities. UA also collaborates with SALC through representatives on its board and participation in regular meetings. UA recently created the Office of Corporate and Business Relations (OCBR) under the Office of the Vice President for Research (VPR), which was specifically designed to interface with local businesses to identify their needs and match university resources to help solve them. UA has a long-standing formal representation at AMC through Associate VP for Economic Development who serves on the board. A great number of UA faculty and researchers have been members of AMC’s committees on economic development, agriculture, tourism, education, environment, finances and others. This membership, however, reflects individual interests more than any formal institutional policy. There is also a mechanism of partnerships, such as Downtown Community Partnership, and partnership with PAG (Pima Association of Governments). Aside from participation on various boards, the dominant format of participation in the assessment or regional needs occurs through specific projects. For example, the Economic and Business Research Center (EBR) in collaboration with TREO produced a Regional Report Card (Patton et al. 2008). In 2009, EBR and the Office of Economic Development (OED), in collaboration with AMC, produced 7th bi-annual report on Arizona-Sonora Regional Economic Indicators (Pavlakovich-Kochi and Lim 2009), an offspring of a binational strategic visioning process in which UA was very much involved for more than a decade. UA has traditionally participated in the preparation of ATH’s research reports on various topics important for the State and Southern Arizona. Such reports serve as the basis for participants’ discussion and formulation of recommendations. There are also many informal ways. As observed by a Steering Committee member, “Tucson is still a small town in some ways. Leadership congregates often in various venues on a fairly regular basis. The UA President, Provost and VP of Research seem to be quite accessible on an informal basis.” Most of the active regional engagement occurs at college and department level through applied research and outreach services, where regional engagement is seen as an important source of external revenues. For example, EBR has a long-standing economic forecasting project supported by leading businesses in Southern Arizona and state-wide, which serves as one of the most important barometers of the regional economy.

 

94

Although UA has a long history of building partnerships with private and government entities involved in regional development, engagement relationships with the regional community are mostly in form of contracts around specific projects. As mentioned earlier, TREO contracted with EBR to develop assessment measures for the regional economy; similarly, AMC signed an agreement with EBR to develop regional indicators. Those contracts are being reviewed and approved by the Office of the VPR, but it is the principal investigator(s) and department/unit that is responsible for the process and its outcomes. Like regional engagement itself, the implementation responsibility is somewhat decentralized. It largely depends on the nature of the commitment. Some study reports are assessed through town hall format, such as follow-up meetings organized by SALC and ATH. In some cases, such as TREO’s regional Report Card and AMC’s Arizona-Sonora Regional Economic Indicators, UA research teams help evaluate progress between time periods and provide explanations for outcomes. Thus, although UA may not be directly involved in regional decision-making, through a transfer of expertise, UA provides the basis for informed decision-making. In most cases, however, after the reports have been published and publicly released, UA participation in the implementation phase is limited. This is mainly due to non-existent resources for such involvement. The importance of involvement in the implementation phase, however, has been fully acknowledged and strongly proposed as necessary new model in applied regional development, as explained in a recent report prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (Gibson et al. 2008). Historically the catalyst for UA regional engagement has been mostly internal, stemming in part as a result of its Land Grant status (see Chapter 2). In the last 15 years it has shifted to some degree toward more external encouragement (establishment of OED in President’s office, for example), but some are concerned that lately UA has been stepping out of its engagement in regional development. In the midst of the current economic crisis and its resulting budget cuts, UA closed OED, although a number of existing and new programs have increased engagement in specific areas (for example, the corporate relations program in the Office of the VPR and the newly established Office of University Research Parks [OURP]). In the process of producing a blueprint for regional development, TREO has led an audit of the region’s expertise, skills, and learning and research accessibility, but these have not been undertaken in a comprehensive fashion. OURP is currently assessing biosciences and workforce in biotechnology, as well as best practices in incubator practices. Basically such audits are undertaken on as-needed basis, around a specific project/grant. TREO’s blueprint very much acknowledges UA’s education excellence; however, UA representatives argue that the implementation is very rudimentary at best. According to one participant, “there is very little effect on UA and vice versa; engagement in TREO is only through UA President, which cannot be very effective.” Resources provided by government and others to support UA regional engagement are extremely limited. They largely come through contracts and grants. Most in-state funds are for specific projects, some of which are renewable, but not guaranteed. Long term commitments are almost non-existent, although some projects have been conducted over a long period of time and have become UA’s signature (for example, EBR’s forecasting project). A relatively recently initiative, Science Foundation Arizona (SFAZ), has been established as a statewide funding organization, but dollars are distributed for specific projects/studies; moreover, funds are limited.

 

95

Another source of funding comes through the Technology and Research Infrastructure Fund (TRIF). However, since TRIF depends on tax collection, the amount of available funds had decreased during economic downturn. There are no institutional incentives for support of UA’s regional engagement. There are some specific-target incentives, such as money for knowledge dissemination startups. Community support is also very limited; regional government does not provide support for UA. This seems to be in sharp contrast with ASU in metro Phoenix region, where regional government and the private sector provide strong support for regional engagement (one example is the metropolitan-wide support for the Technopolis research park in Phoenix). A systematic comprehensive review of current engagement between UA and the region is non-existent, although some UA units assess their activity on a regular basis. For example, Cooperative Extension has regular assessment of engagement activity. So does EBR in its annual reports, although these reports are not widely publicized. Annual reports on TRIF-supported activity prepared for ABOR provide a very detailed assessment of each program, many of which have regional engagement components. But, according to the dean of Outreach College, it is only recently that the UA has started developing metrics in this area. Although UA is generally perceived as a key asset in regional economy (TREO’s Economic Blueprint plan), primary concern of local government is jobs, and consequently, in words of one participant, “it is too often very short-term focused, and if something does not create jobs, it is not important.” Overall, there is nothing on a regular, systematic basis to identify best practices in the area of regional engagement. Partnerships are built basically on per project basis. However, the fact that government and other regional authorities come back to UA with requests for expertise, testifies that UA resources are acknowledged and appreciated. Occasionally, UA is compared with other universities in cities that compete with metro Tucson for investment and high-tech companies, but nothing has been done on a regular or systematic basis. Much of the collaboration within HEIs occurs on departmental/unit or individual basis, but is mostly specific-project related. This involves exchange of regional information, providing of local/regional expertise, and/or use of other resources. One example of a successful partnership between Arizona universities was the Arizona University Consortium (UA, ASU, NAU and Thunderbird Graduate School) created in mid 1990s for HEIs’ collaboration with AMC on Arizona-Sonora strategic economic development vision. However, the Consortium was dissolved after the project was completed. UA and PCC have a regular engagement processes, but these are not particularly strategic. It is only recently that these two HEIs have embarked on joint strategic planning process.

Finally, UA provides access to its libraries, conference and meeting facilities and some lab spaces. There is a significant use of UA’s facilities by community, but almost non-existent the other way around. The University of Arizona-South At The University of Arizona-South (UA-S), the catalyst for regional engagement has been both internal and external. UA-S’s leadership collaborates with community leaders including military base Ft. Huachuca in Sierra Vista, and Tucson-based Davis Monthan AFB (Air Force Base) and Raytheon Missile Systems Company. The focus has been on identifying needs concerning education, training, and degree programs, but also monitoring of demographic and economic trends in the local economy.

 

96

UA-S’ regional engagement is in part supported by government grants, such as Title V (of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). These funds are distributed on a competitive basis, and therefore do not provide a steady stream of support necessary for longer-term activity. More recently, TRIF funds have been made available to address regional educational/training needs. TRIF funds are distributed through a competitive grants program and administered through UA Outreach College. UA-S collaborates with other Southern Arizona’s HEIs, in particular with the leadership of Cochise College and Pima Community College. The overall relationship is defined by Memoranda of Understanding, while Transfer Articulation Agreements address collaboration on specific academic programs. UA-S’ Strategic Plan and Academic Plan contain specific metrics that address ongoing evaluation of current engagement arrangements with other HEIs and the region with a purpose to build basis for ongoing improvement of these relationships. Results of government supported programs, such as Title V, are separately evaluated. UA-S is also evaluated by regional accreditation agency (NCA). UA-S shares space and resources with local community colleges to deliver academic programs and student support services. Pima Community College Pima Community College’s (PCC) chancellor serves on TREO’s board of directors. PCC is also represented at CCID (Community College for International Development), which provides opportunities for building global relationships that strengthen educational programs and promote regional economic development. PCC is also represented at a number of private sector organizations involved in various aspects of regional economic development including Tucson Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Southern Arizona Black Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce. With its focus on workforce development, PCC participates in a number of programs designed specifically to address region’s workforce needs. These include WIB (Workforce Investment Board), Technical Education District, and partnership with ITCAP to provide credit and non-credit education and training to corporate workers. PCC also consults with local employers in development of new occupational programs and in review of PCC’s existing programs. On a more informal basis, PCC’s participates at job fairs, and organizes outreach activities with regional K-12 school districts. Some of PCC’s engagement relationships are based on signed agreements. For example, WIA (Workforce Investment Act) of 1999 mandates PCC participation in WIB, while inter-governmental agreement between PCC and Pima County addresses education services under WIA. Most of these commitments are monitored and evaluated within annual reports and scheduled meetings for delivery of results. Aside from TREO’s economic blueprint that identified region’s economic strengths, Metropolitan Education Commission addresses issues dealing with strength and weaknesses of regional education systems.

 

97

Cochise College Cochise College has assisted many organizations in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors of the region in identifying needs. The main mechanism is through specific studies conduced by the Cochise College Center for Economic Research (CER). For example, CER supported the City of Sierra Vista’s Housing Task Force in quantifying the supply and demand for affordable housing. CER also worked with the Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization’s (SEAGO’s) Area Agency on Aging to identify the most pressing needs of the elderly populations in Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, and Graham counties, and it worked with the Cochise County United Way to help identify community needs in Cochise County. CER is well known in the community as a valuable resource for information, analysis, and forecasting, and thus is called upon often to participate in the identification and assessment of needs. There does not seem to be a single catalyst for regional engagement in Cochise County, but various entities, including the HEIs, have been an integral part. In Cochise County, Cochise College, through its CER, has played both a leadership and support role. In a leadership capacity, CER has assembled economic advisory committees in Cochise County’s population centers to provide input to the economic outlook publications and presentations, which are an integral component to identifying regional assets and needs. The CER has also served as a leader in engagement through its participation in the development of a Quality of Life (QOL) Index in partnership with the Arizona Community Foundation and the government of Cochise County. In its support role to efforts at the local and state levels, the CER also participates in community task forces, such as the Arizona Council for Technical Solutions (charged with reviewing and revising statewide population estimates and projections); the Covering the Uninsured Task Force, a statewide initiative to identify strategies to expand healthcare coverage in rural communities; and the ATH, which has been addressing the state’s current fiscal crisis. Partnerships have developed as both the result of formal agreements and informal coordination. For example, Cochise College through its CER has prepared economic development asset inventories as part of a formalized agreement with the Cochise County Economic Development Office. It has also conducted economic impact studies in formal agreements with local economic development entities in the public and nonprofit sectors. CER has also provided support informally by working with agencies on established task forces and on ad hoc committees. The ways commitments are implemented, monitored, and evaluated vary depending on their nature. For example, economic asset inventories have been implemented and evaluated based on structured outlines of what such products should include, which are set out in formalized agreements between CER and client agencies. Other commitments become subject to public evaluation due to their very public nature (e.g., the QOL Index, which is well publicized and, as a result, generates comments through a host of media including the local press, comments offered via the index’s website, and word of mouth). Other initiatives, such as the Sierra Vista Housing Task Force, have been discussed in work sessions held by the city’s elected and appointed officials, which are open to the public. In the case of certain grants, evaluation procedures are spelled out in grant applications or program guidelines. The process of auditing the knowledge, expertise, skills and learning/research infrastructure does not seem to be a well established component of research in Cochise County or the other rural areas in Southeastern Arizona. The approach has more been one of spontaneous order, where resources are identified on an as-needed basis within the framework of the particular project or pursuit.

 

98

There does seem to be a degree of separation between strategic planning at the college level and planning at the county or municipal levels. Inclusion of Cochise College in the regional strategic plan does not seem to be a well established component in Cochise County or the other rural areas in Southeastern Arizona, at least not in a practical sense. Cochise College’s CER receives funding from the Cochise County government and municipal governments to help offset costs associated with preparing economic outlook publications and hosting economic outlook events. Public funding is also received for certain projects, such as the development of economic asset inventories and the conduct of special studies. General and specific funding of CER is also received from private sector sponsors, particularly in the finance, real estate, and related industries. Distribution of funding depends on the nature of the funding. General sponsorships of CER’s economic outlook activities are made on a periodic basis by long-established sponsors through informal commitments and subsequent invoicing. Other projects are funded through an agreed-upon price paid upon delivery of a specific product or service. Distribution among agencies, including the HEIs, is typically handled through the political process for government support and the business model for private sector entities. In the case of Cochise College, community colleges are evaluated on their level of community engagement as part of the process of accreditation by regional accrediting authorities. Community college leaders are also well aware of the public perception of their institutions and how this translates into various measures of success, including student enrollment and community financial support beyond the taxes levied by the community college district. CER’s activities are encapsulated in the college’s annual report, which is provided to the college’s elected governing board and made available to the public. The governing board considers annual accomplishments in its decisions to continue the services of the CER and to approve appropriate levels of funding. The same process applies to other college auxiliary departments, such as the Small Business Development Center and the Center for Lifelong Learning. CER is well known as a unique service offered at the community college level. Such centers of applied business and economic research typically exist only at the university level and the efforts of such centers are typically directed toward to information and analytical needs in major metropolitan areas. The Cochise College CER brings these services to rural southeast Arizona. The establishment and activities of the CER are well known at the state and regional levels, evidenced by the CER’s typical inclusion in economic and community development efforts at those levels. In Cochise County the mechanisms for coordination of activities of HEIs within the HE sector and other regional participants in regional engagement have been mostly informal, with ongoing dialogue and occasional partnering between the CER and other HE entities including the UA’s EBR, UA’s Cooperative Extension, and Arizona State University’s “ASU for Arizona” program. Cochise College facilities are made available to all members of the community. For example, the college’s library facilities are available to all, regardless of their affiliation with the college (e.g., status as student, employee). Products developed by the CER are distributed through local libraries. College facilities are used to host community events and college resources are called upon to provide relevant knowledge and expertise on an ad hoc basis.

 

99

6.2 Promoting regional dialogue & joint marketing initiatives TREO and SALC are the primary points of regional dialogue in Southern Arizona, although host of public, private and nonprofit entities participate in regional development. The University of Arizona UA’s top administrators are members of TREO and SALC boards of directors. TREO’s economic blueprint established a mobilization council as a formal mechanism of representation, and since the blueprint was created, the council continues to meet annually. TREO has also established a special communication network encompassing TREO and representatives of external relation offices of UA and PCC. UA is also on AMC’s board of directors which overseas Arizona’s economic relationship with Mexico. A large number of faculty and researchers participate in AMC’s plenary sessions, and are active in various committees on economic development, agriculture, tourism, education, financial services and environment. As AMC members they participate in the formulation of recommendations, and are often called upon to conduct special analyses. UA OED used to provide support, especially in the regional development of the Arizona-Sonora border region, and was actively involved in creation of a binational strategic development vision. There are other opportunities for regional dialogue and joint marketing initiatives, such as ATH and SALC’s Southern Arizona town halls. UA participates in Bioscience Leadership Council (BLC), a joint endeavor between SALC, UA, private industry, and bioindustry association. Based on an assessment of the bioindustry by Battelle Institute, BLC is charged by charting strategy for bioscience in Southern Arizona. UA VPR provides a strong support for this collaboration. UASTP has significant collaborative work with the City and County on specific infrastructure projects (water and sewage infrastructure; working group on annexation; collaboration on a new biopark). Such meetings are open to other stakeholders, including the residents of areas affected by ongoing and proposed projects. Much of the regional dialogue takes place within numerous advisory committees and other ad hoc meetings. Many are issue or project specific; some are initiated by government and other economic development related entities, while others are initiated by UA. One of the most successful partnerships between UA and regional stakeholders in solving environmental issues is the San Pedro Riparian Area project in which UA Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy was able to bring diverse regional interests on both sides of the border together, and furthermore, facilitated the creation of a joint plan for water sharing and conservation. Thus, the regional dialogue with regional stakeholders occurs at two levels; one is formal, where UA President and other high-level administrators are members of advisory committees, such as TREO, SALC, AMC, and BLC. The other is less formal, much decentralized, but probably more effective. Tremendous amount of interaction between regional stakeholders and UA occurs at college, departmental, unit, and individual faculty/researcher level. From the perspective of UA, a main reason for representation on public/private bodies in the region is UA’s way to demonstrate commitment to community. Aside from high-level representation, the sustainability of representation on various public/private bodies depends to large extent upon funding. Particularly affected are applied research/outreach units. In coping with budget cuts they are forced to

 

100

shift their focus on external funding, and as a consequence, many pro bono services, including representation on committees and working groups, face elimination. Despite a significant representation on numerous public/private organizations, UA’s representation is not being monitored in a formal fashion. The most successful partnerships are reported in annual reports (entire UA, individual colleges), or occasionally in media (local TV, newspapers). There is no formal feedback from those organizations back to the UA. Perspectives on the influence of external bodies in UA decision making are mixed. Some think that a lot of powerful people sitting on college advisory committees have profound influence on UA. Others think that even if directly connected with UA, their influence might be limited. One of the strongest outside influences on UA is that of Arizona State Legislature. This year the State Legislature has been particularly influential because there have been very large (unprecedented) reductions in the budget for higher education. Inter-HEI collaboration on joint promotion and marketing to attract national and international talent and investments is limited. Currently at UA, as the most active player in national and international markets is UASTP. The organization is in partnership with the TREO launched Global Advantage program to attract high-tech talent and investment with a focus on university research parks. Big efforts are currently being made at the UA toward restructuring. The transformation process involved extensive internal scrutiny mainly as a response to severe budget cuts which were differentially distributed across colleges and departments. The transformation resulted in significant integration of programs, departments and colleges, and an overall emphasis on enhancing competitive strengths. It is yet to be seen what effect this transformation will have on UA’s regional engagement. (In comparison, as noted by participants in this review, one of ASU’s transformational components is a strong emphasis on regional engagement.) The University of Arizona-South Communication and dialogue between UA-S and regional stakeholders is being promoted through local radio programs, newspaper articles, public lectures involving administration, faculty and staff. The major groups with which UA-S interacts include University South Foundation of Sierra Vista, local high schools, military bases, and community colleges. UA-S administrative leaders participate in board meetings of University South Foundation, and regularly hold joint board meetings with community colleges. In addition, UA-S staff is active on public and private school committees and boards, as well as participates in business associations, including chamber of commerce. A major reason for such representation is to provide information about community needs and promote UA-S’s role in the region. UA-S also participates in joint marketing and promotion of collaborative academic programs with community colleges. Although these representations have not been systematically monitored, potential improvements are being considered in evaluation of strategic goals and annual plans. Pima Community College A major mechanism for promoting communication and dialogue between PCC and regional stakeholders is through participation on community boards, panels, regional boards on transportation, education, and workforce development, and chamber of commerce. State-wide Arizona Town Hall also provides opportunity for regional dialogue.

 

101

The most common groups with which PCC participates in dialogue of regional engagement include UA, industry cluster organizations, county and state authorities, regional economic development organizations, workforce development organizations, as well as faith-based organizations. PCC is guided by a strategic plan that is inclusive of all stakeholders. PCC representation in regional engagement reflects foremost its mission; it also helps PCC to increase community awareness of PCC’s role in the region. Cochise College At the college level, established community advisory groups provide input directly to the college president. The college’s elected governing board also incorporates a call to the public as part of its monthly meetings. The CER also has advisory committees throughout Cochise County and the well established reputation of the CER results in that organization typically being called to the table to participate in community development initiatives. In Cochise County, a host public, private, and nonprofit entities participate in regional engagement. These include the Cochise County government, municipal governments, the Southeastern Arizona Governments Association (SEAGO), public and nonprofit economic development agencies and foundations, Cochise College, UA-S, the Arizona and Cochise Community Foundations, United Way, Catholic Community Services, local healthcare providers, business and industry, and other representatives from across the sectors. Typically the regional interests of various sectors of interest are ad hoc based on the particular project or effort. As committees arise, one of the first objectives is to decide who should be at the table. Although informal, this approach seems to work reasonably well in identifying key players. In Cochise County, the close and ongoing working relationships between entities across sectors tend to lend themselves well to this sort of community organization. In strategic initiatives, such as Cochise County’s Vision 2020, Sierra Vista’s Our Future Vistas, and others, the CER has been invited to serve in a supporting role, typically through the provision of economic and demographic information, analysis, and forecasting. The CER’s well established reputation for civic engagements and proactive measures to stay informed of strategic efforts ensures the integration of the center in major projects. Cochise College has a well established presence in community efforts through the activities of the institution itself (such as the CER and Center for Lifelong Learning) and the individual activities of its employees. From the perspective of Cochise College, the reason for participation in various public and private bodies is community engagement. The college is home to considerable region’s academic talent across fields. In addition to providing direct educational services, college employees apply their education and expertise to assist in community projects. Academicians in the fine arts, for example, serve on or contribute to the activities of local arts commissions. The CER director routinely serves as either a member of particular task forces or in a supporting role, providing expertise in economic and demographic research. Other college administrators serve on local school boards and other local boards, committees, and task forces. Monitoring of representation typically exists in an informal manner through traditional community communications channels (e.g., the local media and word-of-mouth). Formal monitoring exists through the inclusion of the activities of Cochise College departments in the college’s annual report provided to the college’s elected governing board and made available to the public.

 

102

The Cochise College president maintains community advisory boards that provide input. The college assembles special panels of community leaders to provide input to its strategic planning process. The college’s elected governing board includes a call to the public for input at each of its monthly meetings. The CER maintains economic advisory committees to obtain input to economic outlook publications, events, and initiatives. Other partnerships arise as needed, such as joint planning with local school districts for the sharing of resources. The college is also subject to requirements set forth by the state legislature tied to state level funding, as well as similar requirements tied to federal funding. With regard to joint regional promotion and marketing, Cochise College has participated in the Global Undergraduate Exchange Program in Eurasia and Central Asia, sponsored by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State. As part of this program, the CER hosted internships for foreign students to provide them the opportunity to engage in economic research and present their findings in a published article. The CER has served in a support role to local area chamber of commerce ‘buy local’ campaigns. Cochise College implements a strategic planning process whereby the college’s strategic plan is updated at 5-year intervals. The plan outlines goals, which are then incorporated into the college’s annual operation plans, which guide the efforts of the college. The college’s elected governing board reviews the college’s annual report and other documents and provides direction to the college administration. The college president receives input through open forums with faculty and staff and meetings with community advisory groups, and input is incorporated into the college’s activities. 6.3 Evaluating and mapping the impact of the regional HEI system

Because the functions of HEIs are multifaceted – creation of new knowledge through research activity, development and transfer of new technology, enhancement of human capital through education, production and dissemination of art and culture, transfer of expertise through outreach to business and government community – no single comprehensive method exist for quantifying all components of these impacts on a region. Instead, the roles of HEIs are often reduced to simple measures of new jobs, wages and tax revenues. Moreover, in a strict economists’ terminology, “impacts” refer to the ability of generating new money in a regional economy and thus, impact studies are typically conducted only for universities since they draw in the region substantial amounts of federal and other out-of-area funding. Community colleges, in contrast, are largely supported with local taxpayer money, and thus generate only direct contribution in terms of employment, wages and purchases of goods and services, but do not generate new money, i.e., “impacts” in a narrow sense.

The limitations of typical economic impact analyses have been widely recognized. Yet there is a growing need to quantify the roles of universities in the local economy. This trend in part demonstrates an increased public scrutiny of, and demand for, assessment of return on investment in higher education. It also reflects a growing need on the part of universities to better understand their changing roles in the economy at large and to attract additional funding as state support for higher education continues to tighten (Charney et al. 2007, Charney and Pavlakovich-Kochi 2003).

The University of Arizona

UA has measured its contribution to the local and state economies since 1974 in approximately five-year intervals. The last study, conducted for fiscal year 2004 (Pavlakovich-Kochi and Charney 2005), estimated that UA created the following impacts:

• 39,498 jobs in Pima County and an additional 1,774 jobs elsewhere in Arizona;

 

103

• $1.1 billion in earnings in Pima County and additional $60.9 million elsewhere in Arizona; • $34.5 million I tax revenues to local government (City of Tucson and Pima County) and an

additional $63.4 million in tax revenues to the state government and other county governments outside Pima County;

• The total economic impact was $2.1 billion in Pima County and an additional $140.7 million statewide outside Pima County.

These measures of economic activity reflect UA’s role as one of the top employers in the region (14,484 employees in 2004, of which about 3,000 were students involved in research projects and administrative support), a major purchaser of local goods and services, and an important attraction for visitors who attend conferences, participate in national and international research projects, or attend cultural and sport events on campus. The findings are released in a public meeting with representatives from government and business. Copies are widely distributed, including to the state’s legislature. In a separate study, UA has also measured the impact of its research activity on the local economy in fiscal year 2002 (Charney and Pavlakovich-Kochi 2003). The study reported that in 2002 UA attracted $285.1 million in research grants, which represented 76.2% of all grants and gifts. Research-related expenditures generated:

• 8,915 jobs in Pima County and additional 624 jobs in rest of Arizona; • $234.0 million in wages in Pima County and additional $12.4 million in rest of Arizona; • $5.4 million in tax revenues to the local government (City of Tucson and Pima County) and

additional $14.7 million to the state government and other county governments outside Pima County;

• The total impact was $356.1 million in Pima County and additional $28.7 million in the rest of Arizona.

The findings were also released in public meetings and to government officials.

Since 1997, the economic impact of UASTP has been measured separately from standard UA impact studies. UASTP includes a number of high-tech companies, which export their products and services to national and global markets and bring new money in the local economy through export sales. They also pay above average wages, of which a large portion is spent locally on goods and services. The latest study (Lim 2009) estimated the following impacts:

• 13,247 jobs in Pima County; • $688.1 million in wages in Pima County; • $18.3 million in tax revenues to the local government (City of Tucson and Pima County) and

additional $45.6 million in tax revenues to the state government and other county governments outside Pima County;

• The total impact was $2.45 billion in Pima County. These results have been shared with government officials, economic development organizations, industry representatives and the UA administration. Copies are also widely distributed to public and private sector organizations throughout Southern Arizona and statewide. The full report is available on UASTP website. As a part of annual reports to ABOR on TRIF-sponsored initiatives, UA assesses its performance in terms of more than a dozen key metrics. Of particular interest is the measurement of technology transfer and

 

104

industrial collaborations. UA reported that in 2007, TRIF-supported research generated 26 licenses and invention disclosures, accomplished 20 technology transfers and led to an additional 8 technology transfers to start-up companies (ABOR 2007). TRIF is a special investment in HE made possible by the passage of a special ballot proposition (also known as Proposition 301) by Arizona voters in 2000. Since TRIF funding depends on tax revenues, the current economic downturn and reduced tax revenues have already created a huge dent in available funding. Annual reports are mandated and are accessible on ABOR’s website and presented to Arizona’s Legislature. UA College of Fine Arts together with UA Center for Creative Photography, UA Presents and the UA Museum of Art participated with four other major arts organizations in Pima County in an assessment of their impact in regional economy. Even if the contribution of arts organizations was reduced to a standard set of economic measures – jobs, wages, tax revenues and sales – the study titled “Arts in Tucson’s Economy” was one of the first attempts to raise awareness about economic importance of creative industry in Southern Arizona, in which UA plays a significant role. The total impact in the metro Tucson area was over 3,500 jobs, more than $5.5 million in wages, and a total dollar impact of close to $100 million, in 1999-2000 (Pavlakovich-Kochi and Charney 2001). The study findings were primarily used as a promotional tool by the Tucson Arts Odyssey 2001, a regional partnership for arts awareness. In addition, UA participated in a 2006 economic impact study of astronomy, planetary and space sciences research in Arizona (Pavlakovich-Kochi, Charney and Mwaniki-Lyman 2007). It was estimated that total employment impact in Arizona was more than 3,300, with $139 million in wages, $11.9 million in tax revenues, while the total dollar impact was $252.8 million. Although the estimates are not broken down specifically for the UA component, it is well known fact that Southern Arizona has been one of the world’s most important locations of world-renowned observatories, state-of-the-art telescopes, and leading university departments and centers carrying out research in astronomy, planetary and space sciences. The study was widely publicized and specifically presented to the legislature to raise awareness of the importance of research in this area. Most of the economic impact studies were produced through collaboration between EBR and OED based on region-specific input-output and tax revenue models. Such studies are enormously important and valuable. However, there is a sense that they need to be more aggressively promoted not only to justify the existence of UA, but rather to strategically promote the institution. As summed up by one participant about what is known about UA’s contribution to the region, “Much is known by some; little by most.” The University of Arizona-South UA-S has not undertaken an audit of its impacts in terms of direct economic impact. Impact on local economy is generally assessed indirectly via statistics on student recruitment, retentions, and degree production, alongside data on extramural research funding and patents. Raising awareness of UA-S in the region is principally done through marketing and promotion. Pima Community College PCC has not conducted its own assessment of economic impacts on the region. It did, however, participate in a socioeconomic benefits impact study in 2002, which assessed PCC’s benefits to the region (Pima County) and the state as a part of all community colleges. The study has been posted on web site and is assessable to general public. The findings were also presented to various stakeholders in the region.

 

105

Cochise College In 2001, CC was commissioned to conduct socioeconomic impact studies of all community colleges in Arizona, including Cochise College. The report on the impact of Cochise College was released in January 2002. The CER, although it has not prepared a formal report of the economic impact of Cochise College, has produced figures of the direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of the college’s annual spending, as well as spending on construction occurring from 2008 to 2010. Cochise College is the eighth largest employer in Cochise County, with 346 full-time and 447 part-time employees. In fiscal year 2009, college employees were paid a total of $18.1 million. College construction from 2008 to 2010 also generated 626 jobs and $26.7 million in earnings. The college also contributes is less quantitative ways through its involvement in various economic and community development initiatives. The CER is currently evaluating the prospect of preparing a formalized economic impact study of the college. If such study is undertaken, the results will be distributed through local media outlets (e.g., as part of a weekly newspaper column written by the CER director), as well as through the college’s website. Cochise College employs a fulltime director of marketing and a public information director, both of whom actively promote the role of the college. College faculty and staff also self-promote their programs and activities through involvement in community activities at various levels. 6.4 Institutional capacity building for regional involvement The University of Arizona As a Land Grant institution, UA has a long history of outreach services. A more active engagement in regional economic development has been particularly emphasized since the late 1980s. UA was among first universities in the U.S. to formally establish a separate office of economic development as an explicit function of HEIs regional engagement. In response to growing population and increased needs for educated labor force, UA has reorganized its distributed education and branch campus programs. Research emphasis on biosciences has also strengthened region’s needs of developing cutting edge innovative industries. Through OTT, UA has also strengthened the process of technology transfer and is designing new venues for more efficient commercialization of innovation and creation of new companies. The establishment of UASTP has allowed UA to more directly engage with region’s industries by providing lab space and environment for nurturing start-ups. Regional engagement remains a strong component of UA’s mission, but the interaction with regional stakeholders is very much decentralized. There seems to be some degree of disconnect between top leadership engaged in regional discussions and the people implementing programs on the ground. Main channels of communication with regional stakeholders are on personal level; senior leadership is personally engaged, but there are no institutional channels or commitment. OED used to be a central place responsible for regional decisions; with OED’s recent dismantling there is no one entity to take on that role. The new Office of the Vice Provost for Outreach and Global Initiatives was created to improve internal mechanisms for coordinating regional activities. It has developed a self-identified database for regional and statewide impact activities, though metrics available for common evaluation are extremely limited.

 

106

UA employs a significant number of adjunct appointees, but mostly in service, teaching, and research; a limited number are specifically in regional development.UA has also done major technology investments in its operations to keep up with the need for more efficient data management and internal communication. The University of Arizona-South UA-S’s strategic plan includes the relationship with the regional community as a key strategy for enhancing viability. Closer alignment of UA-S under Outreach College and changes in academic leadership and management, are the best reflection of engagement with regional needs. UA-S Management Team is the conduit of communication and locus of decision-making regarding regional engagement and coordination of activities with other HEIs. About 50 percent of UA-S course delivery depends on adjunct appointments. UA-S relies heavily on ITC infrastructure for course delivery and constantly explores new technologies for that purpose and to improve institutional management functions. Pima Community College The relationship with the community is one of key strategies for enhancing PCC’s viability in the region. Specifically, one of seven key goals is to create partnerships with business and industry, the local schools, government, and other constituencies that are interested in community enhancement. Strategies to achieve these goals include: development of external partnerships; creation of facilities partnerships with local municipalities; exploration of areas of regional population growth and the impact on PCC facilities; resource development opportunities from all sources to invest in PCC facilities, and strengthening university partnerships to include occupational/workforce and transfer of students. Cochise College Cochise College’s community involvement remains a key strategy for enhancing its viability in the region. The main channels of communication include well established community advisory committees comprised of leaders in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Community input is received via calls to the public at monthly governing board meetings. At the internal level, the college’s elected governing board provides direction to the college president, who in turn provides direction to subordinate leaders regarding regional decisions of the college. In most cases, decision-making authority is decentralized to vice presidents, deans, and directors, with overall responsibility maintained by the governing board and college president. The institution uses adjunct appointments to add expertise to its capacity. 6.5 Human & financial resources management The University of Arizona Despite its enormous presence, the issue of regional engagement is not incorporated into the human resource policies of UA, or at best it is limited. Beyond cooperative extension and several new incentives for distributed education, training given to staff with regional responsibility is extremely limited. Moreover, there is a widespread perception that there are many contra-incentives for regional engagement. In the words of one participant, “it is difficult to earn tenure if you are running around

 

107

serving people.” No reward system is in place, and community engagement is even considered secondary to teaching. Aside from new incentives on the instructional side, most of UA’s regional role is covered from grants, with limited support for some programs from the president’s or VPR’s office. OED used to generate support for specific projects. A stronger emphasis is being shifted to seek support from regional development organizations. In order to tap into new funding streams for regional engagement, UA needs to establish new mechanisms. All new funding will most likely come all from federal funds such as economic stimulus funds, defense, and in particular from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The University of Arizona-South UA-S makes efforts to align its ethnic and demographic profile with that of the region they serve. However, currently there is no special training or reward system for regional engagement in place. New resources for regional engagement and activity are generated through TRIF funds on a competitive basis. UA-S also will try to tap into new government sources, namely the federal economic stimulus package. Pima Community College Although PCC has a strong regional dimension, there is no special training given to staff with regional responsibilities, nor is staff specifically rewarded for regional engagement.

Resources for regional engagement and activity are generated mostly on an ad hoc basis through government grants and contracts with industry. PCC continues to explore additional resources particularly in the area of workforce development. Cochise College As a community college, CC is mandated to be community engaged. In addition to providing direct educational services, college employees apply their education and expertise to assist in community projects, from providing expertise in economic and demographic research to participating in local arts commissions. These activities are an important component of the overall evaluation on individual, departmental and college level. CC’s activities in regional engagements are primarily supported by local public and private funding. New mechanisms will need to adopt to tap more into federal funding such as economic stimulus package. 6.6 Creating a new organizational culture In a rapidly changing environment on regional, national and global scale, HEIs need constantly to adjust by nurturing what has worked well and exploring new mechanisms for regional engagement. This has been emphasized particularly in case of universities, where regional engagement is seen as a key component of a 21st century university model.

 

108

The University of Arizona In terms of institutional culture, there seems to be a serious disconnect between words and deeds. UA constantly cites its Land Grant mission, which is intrinsically regional approach, but most of faculty do not see this. UA is primarily involved in national/international research, while its “regional” approach is equated with “applied” and is considered less stellar. In special areas such as agriculture and medicine, regional engagement is part of college mission, but in others is not the case. Units with pronounced regional engagement are not perceived as “mainstream” to faculty; they are, rather, seen as outliners. Until recently, such was the case with UASTP; only recently it has been embraced within UA. This reflects an ongoing (both perceived and real) conflict between aspirations towards world class excellence and regional engagement. Most core incentives for faculty are based on advancing traditional measures of academic excellence, which is not necessarily mutually exclusive, but costly to the efforts of those supporting regional engagement There is an ongoing questioning of the value of research universities (world class excellence) vs. basic education and vocational training. There is perception in the community that the only places where such discussion takes place are newspaper editorials and the Board of Regents conference room. Some efforts to change this culture have been in place – for example the Innovation Day at UA where researchers are rewarded for commercialization of their research discoveries. Every year this event gains more involvement from both faculty and students. In an effort to reconcile and advance integrated mission, new administrative structures are being developed for outreach and related financial incentives, as well as engaged planning effort surrounding those activities. Awareness among regional stakeholders of UA’s ranking among top public research institutions ranges from a very aware to moderately to practically none. It was articulated very forcefully in TREO’s economic blueprint plan, and used as a marketing tool. It seems, however, that in general, the community does not understand what national rankings mean or what they might measure in terms of regional impact. In words of one participant, “if they did, they would better understand UA and provide more support.” To monitor its progress, UA compares itself with its peer institutions, but mainly in terms of research activity (funding, patents, and commercialization). Specific programs within UA also perform various benchmarking against individual institutions. But in terms of regional engagement, there is no comprehensive assessment model. The only organization that assesses engagement in regional development is the University Economic Development Association., a nation-wide organization. The development of a “world class” university is a critical part of the UA strategy. UA is pursuing world class status in a number of defined niches. Faculty quality are the key to this definition, and in a competitive environment, they are mobile in the face of economic down turn and institutional transformation. Excellence is being supported by strategic investments and recruitment of key faculty, and to some extent areas of excellence have been protected from budget cuts. Investments are being strategically made in facilities and equipment as well. The University of Arizona-South As mentioned earlier, regional engagement is part of UA-S’s mission. Much of teaching and research and service relates to community needs and interests. Promotion and tenure criteria at UA-S take account of heavy teaching and service contributions.

 

109

It does not seem that there are any significant cultural obstacles to UA-S to adopt greater regional engagement. Much of it, however, depends upon funding, which is obtained on a competitive basis. Although UA-S is not a part of a systematic ranking, it does seem that regional stakeholders value the UA brand over other degree-granting institutions in the region. The development of a “world class‟ institution is part of the UA-S’s Strategic Plan, which is linked to that of UA. Attraction and retention of “world-class” faculty and innovative academic programs are key components of this strategy. Strategic Plan metrics serves to monitor progress in this area. Attention to and resources for opportunities for faculty professional development is critical. Pima Community College Regional engagement is part of PCC’s mission and there are no major obstacles to more involvement besides the nonexistence of continuous of resources. Typically benchmarking is done in comparison with other large multi-campus institutions across the country including Portland Community College in Oregon, Oakland and Macomb Community Colleges in Michigan, Austin and Tarrant in Texas, Tulsa Community College in Oklahoma, Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, Brevard and Hillsborough Colleges in Florida and St Louis Community College in Missouri. PCC frequently benchmarks its activity against other Arizona community colleges and districts. Cochise College Cochise College, through its CER, has played both a leadership and support role in the community and has been widely acknowledged for its engagement. Since applied research is the emphasis, faculty are rewarded (if not always in financial terms) for their community service. Because Cochise College, and in particular it’s CER, depend upon regional support, this itself provides the main incentive to stay engaged and excel at it. 6.7 Conclusions Southern Arizona HEIs are actively involved in regional development. Regional engagement is part of every HEIs’ mission, as well as specific missions of various departments and units. The multifaceted regional engagement occurs at various levels and different mechanisms. In a formal way, HEIs are represented by their presidents/chancellors on boards of the leading regional development organizations, TREO and SALC. Deans of colleges, department heads and other top-ranking administrators are members of numerous advisory committees of public and private organizations. Leaders in public and private industry sectors also serve on HEIs advisory boards. These are venues for direct communication at the highest level. Most of the activity occurs at departmental, unit and individual faculty level, both in formal and informal ways, ranging from consultations, to preparation of specific research studies, to regular assessments and forecasts of economic activity, to facilitation of collaboration of various stakeholders on common issues. While some partnerships with regional stakeholders have a long history, ad hoc collaboration around specific problems or regional goals is a more prevalent mechanism. There are pronounced differences between Southern Arizona HEIs in regards to regional engagement mechanisms, regional support and overall perception of its value. At UA, regional engagement has a long history, but is much decentralized, partly as a result of its successful growth. In its current transformation

 

110

process, which is largely in response to drastic cuts in state funding, UA has shifted its focus on research in areas of national and international importance in order to tap into external funding. In that process, once central unit for economic development, OED, has been eliminated. A number of other entities have been either newly formed, or refocused, such as OCBR and OURP. An overarching strategy for UA engagement in regional development is yet to be redefined. In contrast, given its mission, funding formula, and size, Cochise College’s regional engagement is a key component of its existence and strategy. In particular, CER has established itself in leadership, advisory and research resource position within Cochise County. Strengths:

• Strong research in support of regional innovation and knowledge economy; increasing links with local industry (especially in biosciences); process of knowledge transfer and commercialization has been improving;

• Long history of engagement in regional economic development; expertise in region-specific issues (border economy, desert environment, crossborder collaboration);

• Ability to respond to ad hoc needs for regional collaboration through decentralized system of working with outside community, both public and private.

Weaknesses:

• Limited institutional support for regional engagement; UA’s focus on research, much less on service;

• Although HEIs are major resources for economic analyses, forecasts, and other assessments, these activities are mostly funded on ad hoc basis, without long-term commitments (with few exceptions);

• Generally, weak community support (especially in case of UA); • Impact studies are underutilized in promotion of HEI’s role.

Opportunities:

• Slow or negative growth gives the region time for infrastructure to catch up to past population growth; opportunities exist for implemented better planned and more sustainable strategies of regional development;

• Transformation of higher education in the state – precipitated by economic decline, lowered tax revenues, and an aggressively budget cutting legislature – gives the institutions the push they need to focus on what they can do and cannot do, with an eye toward developing long term institutional areas of excellence;

• Some consolidation of HEI units across the state of Arizona may be possible, particularly among those units that (a) do not serve local constituencies and (b) are weak relative to units found in HEIs elsewhere in the state;

• Higher tuition costs spell new opportunities for private-public partnerships with students in the form of internships that will help support their educational aspirations.

Threats:

• Programs that depend on public money (i.e., taxes) are always in danger of being either significantly underfunded or eliminated;

 

111

• Stiff competition for external funding in support of service-oriented units limits what HEIs can offer in support of regional economic development through advising, consulting and other involvement. In case of UA, for example, community expects free service based on UA’s Land-Grant mission, although those services are neither internally nor externally funded.

 

112

REFERENCES

ABOR/Arizona Board of Regents. (2001) Intellectual Property Policy/ Policy 6-908. Revised March, 2001.

Alltucker, K. (2008, August 31) Biotech Firms Plant Roots in Tucson Area to Lure Top Talent. The

Arizona Republic, pp. M1. American Association of Community Colleges (2009). Community College Facts at a Glance. Retrieved

online on July 22, 2009, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/fastfacts2009.pdf. American Community Survey (ACS). 2005-2007. ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2005-2007.

Tucson city, Arizona. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved online on August 23, 2009, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-tree_id=3307&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=16000US0477000&-format=&-_lang=en

American Council on Education. (2001). A Brief Guide to U.S. Higher Education. Washington, D.C.:

American Council of Education. Arizona Board of Regents. (2008). Arizona University System FY 2008 Annual Report. Retrieved online

on August 1, 2009, from http://www.azregents.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/fb_files/2008%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%2012-16-08.pdf

Arizona Board of Regents. (2009a). FY 2008 Assessment of Financial Strength of Arizona State

University, Northern Arizona University and The University Of Arizona. Retrieved online on August 1, 2009, from www.azregents.edu.

Arizona Board of Regents. (2009b). What is the Arizona Board of Regents? Retrieved online on August

1, 2009, from http://www.azregents.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/fb_files/whatisabor_brochure.pdf

Arizona Cooperative Extension. Official Website: http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/index.html Arizona Daily Star (2009a) Star 200. Retrieved online on August 23, 2009. from:

http://www.azstarnet.com/star200/main.php Arizona Daily Star (2009b, August 13) Tucson ranked 6th for aerospace, defense. Arizona Daily Star, pp.

B2. Arizona Department of Commerce, (2009). Workforce and labor market information. Retrieved online on

August 14, 2009, from Arizona Department of Commerce: The center for economic advancement Web site: http://www.azcommerce.com/EconInfo/Labor/

Arizona Department of Economic Security Research Administration, (2009). Arizona Workforce

Informer, labor market info. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from Arizona Workforce Informer Web site: http://www.workforce.az.gov/cgi/databrowsing/?PAGEID=4&SUBID=142

 

113

Arizona Department of Tourism, (2009). Arizona Travel Impacts 1998-2008p. Retrieved online on August 28, 2009, from Arizona Department of Transportation’s Web site: http://www.azot.gov/documents/AZ_Travel_Impacts_2008p_final.pdf Arizona Department of Transportation. (1999). Cochise College Airport: Economic Impact and Aviation

Services (1st ed.) [Brochure]. Phoenix, AZ. Arizona Folklore Preserve. Official Website: http://arizonafolklore.com Arizona Governor. (2009). Executive Order 2009-05. Retrieved online on August 4, 2009, at

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_2009-05.pdf Arizona Public Media. Official Website: http://azpm.org Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education (2008). Fact Sheet. Retrieved online on August

7, 2009, at http://azppse.state.az.us/UserFiles/PDF/fact_sheet_063008.pdf Arizona State University. (2003). The economic benefits from investment in university based research,

development and education. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved online on July 20, 2009, from http://president.asu.edu/node/313.

Battelle Technology Partnership Practice (2009) The Economic Impact of the Arizona Biosciences Sector.

Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute for the Flinn Foundation. Becker, Gary S (2008) Human Capital. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html Bio-SA (2007) BIOSAN Quarterly, 4Q 2007. Tucson, AZ: Bioindustry Oranization of Southern Arizona. Bracco, Kathy Reeves, Richard C. Richardson, Patrick M. Callan, and Joni E. Finney. (1999). Policy

Environments and System Design: Understanding State Governance Structures. The Review of Higher Education 23(1), pp. 23-44.

Bret-Harte, J. (2001). Tucson: Portrait of a Desert Pueblo. Sun Valley, CA: American Historical Press. Bureau of Economic Analysis, (2009). Regional Economic Accounts. Retrieved online on August 14,

2009, from U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis Web site: http://www.bea.gov/regional/REMDchart/default.cfm#chart_top

Callan, P. (2002) Coping with Recession: Public policy, economic downturns, and higher education.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. CALS/College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (2009) Impact Reports – Science and Education.

Retrieved online on August 23, 2009 from http://cals.arizona.edu/impacts/ Centers for Disease Control, (2009). VitalStates births. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from

National Center for Health Statistics Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/vitalstats/VitalStatsbirths.htm

 

114

Christopherson, K. A., Robison, M. H. (2002 February 1). The socioeconomic benefits generated by Pima Community College. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, Web site: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/29/d6/f8.pdf

Christy, R., & Williamson, L. (Eds.). (1992). A Century of Service: Land-Grant Colleges and

Universities, 1890-1990. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Cochise College. (2009a). Building for Tomorrow: Cochise College Strategic Plan for 2009-2014.

Retrieved online on June 20, 2009, from www.cochise.edu/.../strategic_plan/CollegeStrategicPlan2009-14.pdf.

Cochise College. (2009b). About Cochise College. Retrieved online on August 4, 2009, at

http://www.cochise.edu/information/visitors/aboutus/index.asp. Cochise College. Official Website: http://www.cochise.edu/ College Board. (2008a). College and University Finances. Retrieved online on June 30, 2009, from

www.collegeboard.com/trends. College Board. (2008b). Trends in Student Aid. Retrieved online on June 30, 2009, from

www.collegeboard.com/trends. Costanza, R., B. Fisher, S. Ali, C. Beer, L. Bond, R.. Boumans, N.L. Danigelis, J. Dickinson, C. Elliott, J.

Farley, D.E. Gayer, L.M. Glenn, T.R. Hudspeth, D.F. Mahoney, L. McCahill, B. McIntosh, B. Reed, A.T. Rizvi, D.M. Rizzo, T. Simpatico and R. Snapp. (2008) An Integrative Approach to Quality of Life Measurement, Research, and Policy. SAPIENS 1:1. Retrieved online on July 3, 2009, from http://sapiens.revues.org/index169.html

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2009). Directory of CHEA Recognized Organizations 2009-

2010. Retrieved online on June 30, 2009, from http://www.chea.org/Directories/index.asp Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2009). Directory of CHEA Recognized Organizations 2009-

2010. Retrieved online on June 30, 2009, from http://www.chea.org/Directories/index.asp Council on Government Relations (1999) The Bayh-Dole Act: A guide to the law and implementing

regulations. Washington DC: Council on Government Relations. Delta Project (2009). Postsecondary Education Spending Priorities for the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009: Policy Advisory to State Fiscal Policymakers. Retrieved online on July 20, 2009, from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/ARRA/ARRA_Statement.pdf.

Drumm, K. (2007). Rankled by Rankings. Community College Week,20(7), p7-8. Education Commission of the States. (2000). State Funding for Community Colleges: A 50 State Survey.

Center for Community College Policy: Denver, CO. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 449 863).

Education Commission of the States. (2009). State Budget Shortfalls: Postsecondary Education Impacts.

Retrieved online on July 23, 2009, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/80/47/8047.pdf

 

115

Ehrenberg, R. (2003). Reaching for the brass ring: The U.S. News and World report rankings and competition. The Review of Higher Education, 26(2), pp. 145-162.

Everett-Haynes, LM. (2009) New Project Intends to Empower Impoverished Women.” UA News. July 7,

2009. Retrieved online on July 23, 2009, from http://uanews.org/node/26293 ——(2009) SIROW Earns National Honor for its Diversity, Inclusion.” UA News. June 10, 2009.

Retrieved online July 23, 2009, from http://uanews.org/node/25903 Geiger, R.L. (1993) Research and Relevant Knowledge: American research universities since WWII.

New York and Oxford: Oxford University. Gladieux, L., King, J., & Corrigan, M. (2005). The federal government and higher education. In Phillip G.

Altbach, Robert Berdahl and Patricia Gumport (eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, 2nd. Edition (pp. 163-197). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gonzales, Angela. (2009). Catering to the Hispanic Market. Phoenix Business Journal. April 24, 2009.

Retrieved August 23, 2009 from http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/04/27/story5.html?q=hispanic%20population%20arizona

Humphrey, G., and Guthrie, S. (2005 December 14). Tripp Umbach Economic Impact Study: Phoenix

Biomedical Campus Has Potential to Generate Billions Annually for State of Arizona. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from AHSC Office of Public Affairs Web site: 2005 http://www.opa.medicine.arizona.edu/news/dec05/umbach.htm

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2009b). University of Phoenix Southern Arizona Fall

2007. Retrieved online on August 6, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/ Lim, J. (2009 January). UA Science and Technology Park: Economic Impact 2007. Retrieved online on

August 14, 2009, from The University of Arizona Office of University Research Parks Web site: http://www.oed.arizona.edu/Lib/Media/Docs/UASTP%20Impact%20Study%202007.pdf

Lim, J. (2009) UA Science and Technology Park: Economic impact 2007. Tucson, AZ: University of

Arizona. McGuinness, A. (2005). The states and higher education. In Phillip G. Altbach, Robert Berdahl and

Patricia Gumport (eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, 2nd. Edition (pp. 198-225). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

McPherson, M. & Shapiro, M. (1998). The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in

American Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Migration Policy Institute, (2009). Arizona fact sheet. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from MPI

data hub Web site: http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state.cfm?ID=AZ Mortensen, J. (2004) Economic Impacts from Agricultural Production in Arizona (Department of

Agricultural and Resource Economics). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.

 

116

Nannini, L. (2009) Groups goal is eradication of illiteracy. Arizona Daily Star. July 25, 2009. NASULGC (2001). Shaping the Future. The Economic Impact of Public Universities. National

Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Association of Public and Land-Grant Institutions. Washington, DC. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 466 ).

National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (2008). 38th Annual Survey Report on

State-Sponsored Student Financial Aid 2007-2008 Academic Year. Retrieved online on July 15, 2009, from http://www.nassgap.org/viewrepository.aspx#.

National Center for Education Statistics College Navigator. (2009a). Cochise College. Retrieved online

on August 6, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?id=104425. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of Education Statistics 2008 (NCES 2009-020).

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. National Science Foundation. (2008). Federal obligations for research performed at universities and

colleges for selected agencies, by detailed field of science and engineering: FY 2005–07. Retrieved online on July 17, 2009, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf09300/pdf/tab56.pdf.

OTT/University of Arizona Office of Technology Transfer (2009) Intellectual Property, from:

http://ott.web.arizona.edu/about_IP.php. PAG, (2009). Migration. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from Pima Association of Governments

Web site: http://www.pagnet.org/RegionalData/Population/Migration/tabid/594/Default.aspx Pavlakovich-Kochi, V., Charney, A. H., Mwaniki-Lyman, L., Umashankar, S. (2005). The University of

Arizona economic and tax revenue impacts FY 2004. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from The University of Arizona Office of Economic and Policy Analysis Web site: http://www.oepa.arizona.edu/Lib/Media/Docs/UAEconImpactFY04.pdf

Pavlakovich-Kochi, V. and Charney, A.H. (2008). Mexican Visitors to Arizona: Visitor

Characteristics and Economic Impacts, 2007-08. Prepared for the Arizona Office of Tourism. Retrieved online on September 13, 2009, from Economic and Business Research Center

Web site: http://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research&publications Pew Research Center, (2009). Migration flows in the United States. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from The

Pew Research Center social and demographic trends Web site: http://pewsocialtrends.org/maps/migration/

Pima Community College Center for the Arts. Official Website: http://www.pima.edu/cfa//index.shtml Pima Community College Initiatives. Official Website: http://www.pima.edu/collegeplan/planningin

/0811Initiative5.html Pima Community College. (2009). About Pima Community College. Retrieved online on August 7, 2009,

at http://www.pima.edu/aboutpima/. Pima Community College. Official Website: http://www.pima.edu/

 

117

Pima County Government, (2009). Pima County History. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from Pima County, AZ Web site: http://www.pima.gov/areainfo/history.html

Pollack, B. (2009) Popular PCC Study Tours program to be scaled back. Arizona Daily Star. July 30,

2009. Retrieved online on July 23, 2009, from http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/mailstory-clickthru/302923.php

Rivera, A. (2009) Helping youth grow into Tucson’s next leaders. Arizona Daily Star. July 19, 2009.

Retrieved online on July 23, 2009, from http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/mailstory-clickthru/301456.php

Ruiz-McGill, R. (2008) College of Education Helps Meet Need for American Indian Education.” UA

News. December 23, 2008. Retrieved online on July 23, 2009, from http://uanews.org/node/23197 ——(2009) Literacy, Technology and Health Training Community Center Opens in Mexico. UA News.

June 15, 2009. Retrieved online onJuly 23, 2009, from http://uanews.org/node/26061

Runyan Associates (2008). Arizona Travel Impacts 1998-2007p, prepared for the Arizona Office of Tourism. Retrieved online September 13, 2009 from http://www.azot.gov/documents/AZ_Travel_Impacts_2008p_final.pdf

Sanchez, G (2008 January 10). State next to bottom nationally in per-pupil spending, report says. Arizona

Daily Star Serow, R. C. (2004). Policy as symbol: Title II of the 1944 G.I. Bill. The Review of Higher Education,

27(4), pp. 481-500. Skelton, L (2008). State of the Town. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from Town of Sahuarita, AZ

Web site: http://www.ci.sahuarita.az.us/images/PDFs/sahnews/State_of_the_Town_2008.pdf State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2008).State Higher Education Finance Early Release FY

2008. Retrieved online on June 15, 2009, from http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef/SHEF%20FY08%20Early%20Release%202.pdf

Stiles, L. (2009) Camp Aims to Spark Girls’ Visions of Career in Science, Math. UA News. July 24,

2009. Retrieved online on July 13, 2009, from http://uanews.org/node/26546 Swendlund, E. (2005, October 8) Arizona Universities Expand Online Courses. Arizona Daily Star.

Retrieved online on August 13, 2009, from: http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/264995/arizona_universities_expand_online_courses/index.html

Tohono O’odham Community College. “Project NATIVE.” Official Website.

http://www.tocc.cc.az.us/project_native.htm Tohono O’odham Community College. (2007) Building a Future: Tohono O’odham Community

College’s Award-Winning Program Prepares Apprentices For the Building Trades and Other Careers. Office of the President. Press Release. March 27, 2007. Retrieved online on July 29, 2009, from http://www.tocc.cc.az.us/PDF/TOCC%20Apprenticeship%20Program%20PR%203%202007%20FINAL.pdf

 

118

Tohono O’odham Community College. Official Website: http://www.tocc.cc.az.us/ Tohono O'odham Community College. (2008a). Tohono O'odham Community College Catalog 2008-

2010. Retrieved online on June 20, 2009, from http://www.tocc.cc.az.us/college_catalog.htm. Tohono O'odham Community College. (2008b). Tohono O'odham Community College Annual Report

2008. Retrieved online on June 20, 2009, from http://www.tocc.cc.az.us/publications.htm Tolbert, L. (2008) “UA Transformation – VPR Reorganization and Consolidation.” Tucson, AZ:

University of Arizona Office of the Vice President for Research, Graduate Studies, and Economic Development.

TREO/Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (2009) Industry Strengths, Retrieved online on August

14, 2009, from http://www.treoaz.org/Industry-Strengths.aspx Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities. (2008.) Community Report Card. Retrieved online on August

28, 2009, from http://www.treoaz.org/TREO/media/docs/Report%20Card/134414_TRE_CRC_Brch.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau, (2009). Census Bureau home page. Retrieved online on August 14, 2009, from U.S.

Census Bureau Web site: http://www.census.gov The University of Arizona Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering. Official Website:

http://www.ame.arizona.edu/ The University of Arizona Bio5. Official Website http://bio5.arizona.edu/

The University of Arizona. (2009). Factbook 2008-2009. Retrieved online on July 2, 2009, from http://oirps.arizona.edu/UAFactBook.asp.

The University of Arizona, Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. 2009. The University of

Arizona Reorganization Plan. Retrieved online on August 28, 2009, from http://provost.arizona.edu/files/Visio-UAReorganization_ProvostWeb_061209_0.pdf

The University of Arizona. Official Website: http://www.arizona.edu/ The University of Arizona, Office of the President. 2009. Expanding Our Vision, Deepening Our Roots:

The University of Arizona Strategic Plan, 2010-2014. Retrieved online on August 28, 2009, from http://www.president.arizona.edu/university_5year.cfm

The University of Arizona-South. Official Website: http://www.uas.arizona.edu

The University of Arizona South. (2009). About the University of Arizona South. Retrieved online on August 4, 2009, from http://www.uas.arizona.edu/index.php?q=aboutUAS.

The University of Arizona Sustainability. Official Website: http://www.sustainability.arizona.edu University of Phoenix Green Initiative. Official Website: http://www.phoenix.edu/about-

us/green_initiative.html

 

119

University of Phoenix. (2009). Facts about the University of Phoenix. Retrieved online on August 7,

2009, from http://www.upxnewsroom.com/facts/ University of Phoenix. (2009a). About the University of Phoenix. Retrieved online on August 7, 2009,

from http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/about_university_of_phoenix. University of Phoenix. Official Website: http://www.phoenix.edu/ Zhe Jin, Ginger & Whalley, Alex. (2007). The Power of Attention: Do Rankings Affect the Financial

Resources of Public Colleges? NBER Working Paper No. 12941. Retrieved online on July 16, 2009, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12941

Zumeta, W. (2009). Higher Education Funding: On the Way Up, But for How Long? Retrieved online on

July 10, 2009, from http://www2.nea.org/he/healma2k8/images/a08p85.pdf

 

120

APPENDIX I ARIZONA: 2009 Almanac of Higher Education

Demographics

State Nation Population: State rank: 14 6,500,180 304,059,724 Age distribution: Up to 4 7.9% 6.9% 5 to 13 12.7% 11.8% 14 to 17 5.6% 5.6% 18 to 24 9.3% 9.8% 25 to 44 27.8% 27.4% 45 to 64 23.4% 25.7% 65 and older 13.3% 12.8% Racial and ethnic distribution: American Indian 4.9% 1.0% Asian 2.5% 4.5% Black 4.2% 12.8% Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.2% White 86.5% 79.8% More than one race 1.8% 1.7% Hispanic (may be any race) 30.1% 15.4% Educational attainment of adults (highest level): 8th grade or less 7.6% 6.4% Some high school, no diploma 8.9% 9.1% High-school diploma 26.8% 30.1% Some college, no degree 23.4% 19.5% Associate degree 7.9% 7.4% Bachelor's degree 16.1% 17.4% Master's degree 6.6% 7.1% Doctoral degree 1.6% 1.9% Professional degree 1.1% 1.1% 25 to 44 27.8% 27.4% 45 to 64 23.4% 25.7% 65 and older 13.3% 12.8% Racial and ethnic distribution: American Indian 4.9% 1.0% Asian 2.5% 4.5% Black 4.2% 12.8% Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.2% White 86.5% 79.8% More than one race 1.8% 1.7% Hispanic (may be any race) 30.1% 15.4% Educational attainment of adults (highest level): 8th grade or less 7.6% 6.4% Some high school, no diploma 8.9% 9.1% High-school diploma 26.8% 30.1% Some college, no degree 23.4% 19.5% Associate degree 7.9% 7.4% Bachelor's degree 16.1% 17.4% Master's degree 6.6% 7.1% Doctoral degree 1.6% 1.9% Professional degree 1.1% 1.1% Proportion who speak a language other than English at home: 28.5% 19.7% Per capita personal income: $32,953 $39,751 Poverty rate: 14.4% 12.4% New high-school graduates in: 2009-10 (estimate) 81,853 3,310,631 2019-20 (estimate) 107,706 3,311,763 New GED diploma recipients: 12,235 429,149 High-school dropout rate: 10% 7%

 

121

Colleges and Universities State Nation Public 4-year institutions 6 654 Public 2-year institutions 21 1,132 Private 4-year institutions, nonprofit 10 1,547 Private 4-year institutions, for-profit 25 490 Private 2-year institutions, nonprofit 0 181 Private 2-year institutions, for-profit 15 857 Total 77 4,861 Faculty Members State NationAverage pay of full-time professors Public doctoral institutions: Professor $110,412 $108,727 Associate professor $76,340 $75,823 Assistant professor $66,744 $64,545 All $82,310 $79,165 Public master's institutions: Professor $102,185 $84,110 Associate professor $78,302 $67,116 Assistant professor $64,587 $56,727 All $68,750 $64,908 Private nonprofit doctoral institutions: Professor n/a $131,417 Associate professor n/a $84,164 Assistant professor n/a $70,023 All n/a $93,742 Private nonprofit master's institutions: Professor n/a $82,946 Associate professor n/a $65,075 Assistant professor n/a $53,942 All $38,430 $64,760 Other 4-year institutions: Public n/a $59,515 Private nonprofit $60,053 $62,909 2-year colleges: Public $65,589 $59,646 Private nonprofit n/a $44,318

 

122

Students State Nation Enrollment: At public 4-year institutions 134,056 7,166,661 At public 2-year institutions 198,098 6,324,119 At private 4-year institutions 279,928 4,463,537 At private 2-year institutions 12,065 293,811 Undergraduate 530,074 15,603,771 Graduate 90,703 2,293,593 Professional 3,370 350,764 American Indian 19,166 189,344 Asian 23,807 1,216,761 Black 73,240 2,318,928 Hispanic 95,162 2,074,937 White 390,606 11,756,236 Foreign 21,699 624,280 Total 624,147 18,248,128 Enrollment highlights: Women 61.1% 57.2% Full-time 78.8% 75.5% Minority 33.9% 31.8% Foreign 3.5% 3.4% Proportion of enrollment made up of minority students: At public 4-year institutions 26.2% 28.5% At public 2-year institutions 36.5% 38.0% At private 4-year institutions 35.2% 28.6% At private 2-year institutions 48.5% 48.8% Degrees awarded: Associate 25,780 728,114 Bachelor's 36,605 60,616 Master's 27,831 604,607 Doctorate 1,098 60,616 Professional 906 90,064 Enrollment: State: State residents made up 71% of all freshmen enrolled in Arizona in the fall of 2006 who had graduated from high school in the previous year; 87% of all Arizona residents who were freshmen attended college in their home state. Nation: 81% of all freshmen in the fall of 2006 who had graduated from high school in the previous year attended colleges in their home states. Test scores: State: Students averaged 1538 on the SAT, which was taken by an estimated 26% of Arizona's high-school seniors. Nation: Students averaged 21.1 on the ACT and 1511 on the SAT.Graduation rates at 4-year institutions: All 38.3% 57.3% Men 37.2% 54.2% Women 39.3% 60.0%

 

123

Money State Nation Average tuition and fees: At public 4-year institutions $4,954 $5,950 At public 2-year institutions $1,478 $2,063 At private 4-year institutions $13,186 $21,588 State funds for higher-education operating expenses: $1,227,594,000 $78,527,989,000 One-year change: 0% Up 0.9% State spending on student aid: Need-based grants: $12,204,000 $5,836,806,000 Non-need-based grants: $19,000 $2,210,593,000 Nongrant aid: $4,045,000 $1,974,896,000 Total: $16,267,000 $10,022,294,000 Total spending on research and development by colleges and universities:

$782,671,000 $49,430,767,000 One-year change: Up 2.3% Up 2.3% Sources of financing: Federal government 50.7% 61.6% State and local governments 4.7% 6.4% Industry 5.9% 5.4% The institution itself 33.3% 19.5% Other 5.4% 7.1% Total federal spending on college- and university-based research and development:

$396,982,000 $30,440,745,000 Share for specific research fields: Engineering 18.5% 15.2% Environmental sciences 4.0% 5.5% Life science 44.3% 60.2% Math and computer sciences 3.2% 4.0% Physical sciences 21.7% 7.8% Psychology 2.2% 1.7% Social sciences 5.3% 3.6% Other sciences 0.7% 1.9% Largest endowment: University of Arizona and Foundation $518,709,000 Top fund raisers: University of Arizona $153,960,235 Arizona State University Foundation $120,468,531 Northern Arizona University $13,818,667 Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009). Retrieved on August 29, 2009. http://chronicle.com/article/Arizona-Almanac-2009/48091/

 

124

APPENDIX II MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE

• Roy Flores, Chancellor, Pima Community College.

• Jaime Gutiérrez, Associate Vice President of Community Relations, The University of Arizona.

• Gregg Johnson, Director, University of Phoenix, Southern Arizona Campuses.

• Suzanne Miles, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, Pima Community College.

• Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi, School of Geography and Development, The University of Arizona.

• Michael Proctor, Dean, Outreach College, The University of Arizona.

• J.D. (James Dale) Rottweiler, President, Cochise College.

• Laura Shaw, Senior Vice President, Corporate and Community Affairs, Tucson Regional

Economic Opportunities (TREO).

• Robert N. Shelton, President, The University of Arizona.

• Ron Shoopman, President, Southern Arizona Leadership Council.

• Sarah Brown Smallhouse, President, Brown Family Foundations.

• Joe Snell, President and CEO, Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities.

• Olivia Vanegas-Funcheon, President, Tohono O’odham Community College

• Alfredo Velásquez, School Superintendent, Santa Cruz County.

• Mark Vitale, Director of Academic Affairs, University of Phoenix, Southern Arizona Campuses.

• Bruce Wright, Associate Vice President for Economic Development, The University of Arizona.

TECHNICAL COORDINATION: John Paul Jones III, Director, School of Geography and Development, The University of Arizona. GENERAL COORDINATION: Francisco Marmolejo, Assistant Vice President for Western Hemispheric Programs, The University of Arizona.

 

125

APPENDIX III. ABOUT THE PROJECT

OECD International Project on the Role of Higher Education in Fostering Regional Development

About OECD: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development is a unique forum where the governments of 30 market democracies work together to address the economic, social and governance challenges of globalization as well as to exploit its opportunities. Based in Paris, France, OECD was founded in 1961 in the aftermath of the Marshall Plan. For more than 40 years, OECD has been one of the world's largest and most reliable sources of comparable statistics, and economic and social data. In addition to collecting data, OECD monitors trends, analyses and forecasts economic developments and researches social changes or evolving patterns in trade, environment, agriculture, technology, taxation and more. The Organization provides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies. About the OECD Regional Development and Higher Education project: Between 2005 and 2007 OECD conducted an intensive review project of the interplay between higher education institutions and the regions. The study, conducted in 14 regions in 12 countries, resulted in a coherent body of policy and practice which included concrete recommendations to the national and regional authorities and to higher education institutions on how to mobilize higher education for the economic, social and cultural development in each of the participating regions. Based on the success of the first round of reviews, OECD is conducting a Second Phase of the same study involving a new set of regions. The reviews are being carried out in a way that is sensitive to the varying national and regional contexts within which higher education institutions operate, and will result in recommendations for policy measures, practical measures and institutional reforms. The reviews will also facilitate a learning and developmental process for higher education institutions and their regional stakeholders and will seek to enhance the connection of them to regional communities. The main objective of the OECD project is to strengthen the contributions of higher education institutions by devising steps to be taken to improve the interplay and mutual capacity building between them and their regional stakeholders and partners at different regional levels. A brief rationale for the project: In the globalizing knowledge economy, countries face competition in a number of markets. They are turning to knowledge-intensive products and services, which increases dependency on access to new technologies, research results and knowledge and skills. At the same time, the comparative advantage of regions that can create the best conditions for growth and development is increasing. High technology companies, once tied on their specific locations, can now move their production to anywhere in the world. Still, in order to be competitive, key parts of their operations need to be based in knowledge and innovation-intensive regions with concentration of research, skilled and creative workforce and infrastructure to innovation. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are among the most important sources of knowledge and innovation, contributing to the economic, social and cultural development of their societies. They build human capital, and enhance the social and cultural fabric that ensures that innovation can thrive. They also provide global gateways to local companies. This mission has often been characterized as a “third task” or social obligation of HEIs. There is, however, a growing recognition that this task must be integrated with teaching and research functions if higher education’s contribution to student learning, to knowledge exploitation by business and to civil society is to be maximized. There is also growing understanding that this role can be best mobilized in the context of regions, whether big or small, peripheral or metropolitan. There are tangible advantages for HEIs through stronger engagement with their regional communities. HEIs can benefit through increased enrollments from the local

 

126

population, improved local funding and partnership opportunities for both research and teaching, additional income from services provided to local businesses through consultancy and professional training, greater social capital support, and resource-sharing opportunities (e.g. infrastructure and knowledge workers). For many HEIs regional engagement strategies can be as important as their international and business-partnership strategies. In addition, for cities and regions higher education institutions are major businesses generating tax and other revenues, as well as global gateways to attract inward investments. They also generate new businesses and are sources of advice and expertise. They enhance local human capital through graduate retention, professional continuing education and lifelong learning and provide content and audience for local cultural programs. Participating regions: 2008-2010  2005-2007Australia (State of Victoria)  Australia (Sunshine-Fraser Coast)  Brazil (State of Paraná)   Brazil (Northern Paraná)Chile (Región del Bío Bío)  Canada (Atlantic Canada)Germany (City of Berlin)  Denmark (Jutland-Funen)Israel (The Galilee)  Denmark-Sweden (Öresund) Italy (Region of Lombardy)  Finland (Jyväskylä region) Malaysia (State of Penang)  Mexico (State of Nuevo León) Mexico (State of Sonora)  Netherlands (Twente)Mexico (State of Veracruz)  Norway (Trøndelag, Mid-Norway) Spain (Autonomous Region of Andalucía) South Korea (Busan)Netherlands (City-Region of Amsterdam) Spain (Autonomous region of Valencia) Netherlands (City-Region of Rotterdam) Spain (Autonomous region of Canarias) U.S.A. (Southern Arizona)  Sweden (Värmland)U.S.A.-Mexico (El Paso/Juarez)  UK (the North East of England)  More information: Official Site of OECD: http://www.oecd.org Official Site of the project: http://www.oecd.org/edu/higher/regionaldevelopment General Coordination: Francisco Marmolejo, Assistant Vice President for Western Hemispheric Programs University of Arizona 888 N. Euclid Ave. / University Services Bldg. Tucson, AZ 85721 USA Tel. +1 (520) 621-9080 Email: fmarmole@email.arizona.edu http://www.whp.arizona.edu Technical Coordination: John Paul Jones, Director School of Geography and Development P.O. Box 210076 Tucson, AZ 85721 USA Tel. +1 (520) 621-1652 Email: jpjones@email.arizona.edu http://www.geog.arizona.edu

 

127