The Pima County Board of Supervisors recently endorsed a 3-1 vote to enact the Prosperity Initiative, aiming to alleviate generational poverty. District 4 Supervisor Steve Christy, the sole dissenter, expressed concerns during the Green Valley Council meeting regarding the initiative’s implications.

Extensive Research and Collaboration

A collaborative effort involving representatives from various regions within Pima County, including Sahuarita, Marana, Oro Valley, South Tucson, the Tucson Indian Center, Tucson, and the University of Arizona researchers, conducted a year-long review on generational poverty. This involved over 180 small group meetings engaging more than 800 individuals, including academics, business representatives, and people experiencing poverty.

The initiative stemmed from compelling data analysis, including research by a non-partisan Harvard University organization, revealing that Pima County offers limited economic opportunities for its youth compared to the national average. The New York Times also identified Pima County among the least supportive counties in aiding impoverished children to ascend the income ladder.

Policy Recommendations and Objectives

The policy recommendation report stressed the significance of breaking the cycle of economic disadvantages perpetuating across generations. It emphasized that tackling this issue not only benefits affected families but also contributes to national prosperity while alleviating strains on education, criminal justice, and healthcare systems.

The working group proposed a comprehensive set of 13 policies, spanning areas like housing, health, education, transportation, workforce development, job quality, small business support, financial capability, neighborhood reinvestment, and digital connectivity.

Financial Implications and Strategy

County Administrator Jan Lesher highlighted that implementing the initiative won’t immediately strain the county’s budget. Strategies involve reorganizing existing programs, leveraging external grant opportunities, and implementing low-cost measures such as zoning modifications and reallocating housing resources.

Lesher emphasized the potential high returns on investment these policies could yield, countering the notion that addressing poverty solely represents a moral obligation. She also outlined plans to track expenses and measure progress over time to ensure fiscal responsibility.

Supervisor Christy’s Concerns and Alternate Perspectives

Christy voiced concerns regarding the timing of the vote in the absence of a District 3 supervisor replacement. He expressed apprehensions about potential changes in housing policies affecting neighborhoods and contested governmental involvement in enhancing job quality and financial capability.

Lesher countered Christy’s concerns, highlighting ongoing collaboration with former Supervisor Bronson’s staff during the initiative’s development. She emphasized that the initiative wasn’t about imposing directives on other entities but rather offering a policy perspective to guide budgetary decisions.

The Broader Impact and Future Directions

Lesher stressed the initiative’s broader implications beyond Pima County, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts to address critical issues like healthcare, transportation, childcare, and housing stability. She highlighted the significance of identifying areas where governmental support could facilitate job creation and community development.

The initiative doesn’t mandate specific actions for communities but serves as a guiding framework for strategic budget allocation and support initiatives.

Sources:

• Tucson.com
• The New York Times
• Statements from Pima County Administrator Jan Lesher