The 50th look-back, in six numbers you can defend.
This card is the evidence spine for the Aug 26 celebration — every stat on stage traces back here, organized by the six focus areas the Commission actually named. Open any tab for its 50-Year Evidence Base: real, sourced figures (women went from 41% to ~49.5% of the Pima workforce; women are now 55% of UArizona; ~15,000 DV calls a year; young women 18–24 are Tucson's largest group in poverty at 12%). Lead with the gaps — Childcare & Housing and Economic Equity — then flip to the win: Girls' Leadership beats state and national peers. That's My Girl Power working. The composite 0–100 scores are still illustrative samples; the Evidence Base numbers are citable today.
The six issues — at a glance
Every issue has its own tab with the full breakdown. Click any card to open it.
What am I comparing against? Read this once — the four benchmarks aren't interchangeable
The trend — interactive
Pick a time range. Click any line in the legend to remove it. Hover a point for its value. The legend is ordered highest to lowest, so it matches what you see.
Use this overlay to ask questions, never to score points. The most useful thing on this chart isn't which party was in office — it's that the line moves slowly under everyone. Childcare didn't collapse in one administration and it won't be fixed in one. That's actually the Commission's strongest argument: this is a structural problem that outlasts terms, which is exactly why a permanent, nonpartisan Commission exists. If a commissioner uses this chart to blame a party, she's handed the other side a reason to ignore us. Bring the gap. Ask for the fix. Stay out of the fight.
Compared to other counties
Same index, other places. Toggle between Arizona counties and a U.S. peer set matched on size, metro character and a major public university — the honest comparison, not a flattering one.
How Pima/Tucson compares — every issue, every peer
Same six issues, four benchmarks. Bars below the Pima/Tucson line are where we lead; bars above it are the gap. Toggle a peer group on or off.
Read the gaps, not the scores. A 44 means nothing on its own. A 44 when Arizona peers are at 47 and the PHIT network is at 66 means we are 22 points behind what's demonstrably achievable — that's the sentence that moves a Supervisor. Always quote the gap to the PHIT network: it proves the number isn't fixed, because somebody else already fixed it.
Gap to the best — where the 22 points are
Distance from Pima/Tucson to the PHIT network best-practice benchmark. This is your priority list, in order.
Childcare is the biggest single gap — and it's the one the Commission has named at every retreat and on the 6/3 list. That's not a coincidence; it's a mandate. If the Commission picks one thing to put in front of the Board of Supervisors this year, the data says childcare. Bring the gap, not the grievance.
Where the data comes from — PHIT Datahub binding
Every indicator on this card is bound to a named feed. This is the wiring list: what's auto-pullable today, what needs a request, and what only the Commission can report.
Most of this is already public — you just have to go get it. The federal layer (Census ACS, CDC, HRSA) is downloadable today with no permission needed. The friction is in the middle layer: court records, the DES subsidy waitlist, and the clerks' board rosters need a request. That's a Letter from the Chair, not a grant. And two indicators are entirely ours — My Girl Power enrollment and the PCTWC roster. We can move those tomorrow.
How these scores are built
The scores currently shown are illustrative sample values to demonstrate the format. They are not measured results, and no commissioner should cite them publicly yet. What is real is the method below: the indicators, the sources, and the weights. Once these are wired to the PHIT Datahub, the same math runs on live public data and the numbers become citable.
Score = Σ ( weighti × normalizedi ) × 100
Each indicator is min–max normalized against a national reference range, so every measure lands on the same 0–100 scale. Indicators where less is better (poverty, uninsured rate, DV incidents) are inverted, so higher is always better. Weights sum to 100% within each issue.
Two of these indicators are ours to move directly. "Girls in leadership programs" is literally My Girl Power enrollment, and "PCTWC seats filled" is the Commission's own roster — 15 of 20 = 75%. Fill the five open seats and the Civic Representation score rises on its own. That is the rarest thing in advocacy: a number you control.
Benchmark Table & Gap-to-Peer
The "gap" column is Pima/Tucson minus U.S. county peers — negative (red) is where the commission should press hardest.
| Issue | Pima/Tucson | AZ Peers | U.S. Peers | PHIT Peers | Gap vs U.S. |
|---|
Sample data for demonstration. Production scoring is computed by the My Girl Power Squad's methodology from public datasets (county health rankings, BLS/pay data, childcare deserts, civic participation) via the PHIT Datahub, refreshed quarterly. Peer sets: AZ = comparable Arizona counties; U.S. = similarly-sized counties nationally; PHIT = counties active in The Force for Health network.