The community assessment is the first step in the process that UWTV and its community partners will use to prioritize their work over the next several years. The findings incorporate the results of a rigorous literature review, secondary data or "indicators," survey research, focus groups, and interviews with stakeholders and the affected populations. Note that the survey research was not a random sample survey, and as such, cannot be extrapolated to the general population.

This report was assembled by faculty and graduate students in an effort to produce a fact based report using region wide data. It was also assembled as a starting point for understanding some of the issues and opportunities we face now and in the future.

The Progress Report 2008 is an effort to update many of the indicators presented in the Preliminary Report, and add new indicators based on feedback we received from the community. In the Progress Report, we include all of the original graphs, tables and indicator information, as well as updated graphs, tables and discussion where we found relevant data.¹ More importantly, the Progress Report is designed to present to the readers an opportunity to evaluate the changes the region has made over time, and provide opportunity for dialogue on the effects of these changes.

This report was assembled by faculty and graduate students in an effort to produce a fact based report using region wide data. It was also assembled as a starting point for understanding some of the issues and opportunities we face now and in the future. Undoubtedly the information in this report will grow and evolve as we develop a region wide system of shared data.

Faculty and graduate students in the College of Social Sciences and Public Aff airs and the College of Engineering assembled this report. It consolidates information to provide a deeper understanding of green building issues and opportunities facing Pacific-Northwest communities. The report provides both municipalities and construction professionals information that may foster their green building goals. Members of both groups indicate they want to engage in green building, but in a financially viable way. This report is a starting point for formally identifying the next steps for making green building more likely.

The traditional methods of public participation in government decision making simply do not work. They do not achieve genuine participation in planning or decisions; they do not provide significant information to public officials that makes a difference to their actions; they do not satisfy members of the public that they are being heard; they do not improve the decisions that agencies and public officials make; and they don’t represent a broad spectrum of the public. Worse yet, they often antagonize the members of the public who do try to work through these methods. (p. 2)

This paper examines why those who manage public meetings and public input processes should be concerned about the apparent growth of citizen incivility. Wang (2001) defines traditional public participation processes as including “public hearings, citizen forums, community or neighborhood meetings, community outreaches, citizen advisory groups, and individual citizen representation. Citizen surveys and focus groups, the Internet, and e-mail are also used” (p. 322). Concerns arise about whether incivility is a passing fancy or a threat to democratic processes and government attempts to foster communication/ accountability. After discussing some concerns about rising incivility, the essay will discuss what might be done during public meetings to moderate uncivil behaviors.

In the 18th and 19th Annual Idaho Public Policy Surveys, the survey sample was asked to respond to a number of questions concerning immigration in Idaho. Questions on the survey ranged from economic impacts to the quality of education to indigent medical care. Of the many benefits that the data offers, some of the not inconsequential benefits are an additional outlet through which citizens may express their opinions, and additional information provided for decision makers.

Generally, the information gathered from the survey is used discretely, year by year, to inform policy makers. In this white paper, we have taken a look at the immigration questions in the last two iterations of the survey and summarized the results.

The following is a list of findings:

• Idaho residents feel strongly that undocumented immigrants reduce the quality of education for Idaho children.

• Idahoans have indicated that they feel that counties should deny indigent medical care to undocumented immigrants.

• An English-only policy for the state of Idaho is a very popular concept for Idahoans.

• Stricter immigration policy is not likely to negatively affect the economy.

We offer some concluding thoughts at the end of the survey data presentation. Our sense is that the presentation of the perceptions of the public related to immigration is only part of the story. What is clearly missing is any secondary empirical analysis of, for instance, the measurable effects of illegal immigrants on school performance. What we seem to glean from this analysis is that there is much yet to be learned about immigration and its effects on Idaho and Idahoans.