It is well known that the lack of care coordination in the healthcare system causes numerous problems including cost inefficiency and inconsistent care, specifically for complex pediatric and adult patients. Many pediatric patients have complex medical and social service needs which can be expensive for both the patient’s parents and the general healthcare system. Therefore, it is difficult for the healthcare system to deliver the highest quality care possible, due to the number of appointments that have to be scheduled (with some being out of state), the large volume of physical health records, and overall lack of time parents have to coordinate this care while also caring for themselves and other family members. It is integral to find a more efficient way to coordinate care for these patients, in order to improve overall care, cost efficiency, and outcomes. <br/>A number of stakeholders in Arizona came together to work on this problem over several years. They were funded through a PCORI Eugene Washington Engagement grant to investigators at ASU. This project, Take Action for Arizona's Children through Care Coordination: A Bridge to Action was developed in order to further develop a research agenda and build the network (PCOR). Regional conferences were conducted in Flagstaff, Yuma, Phoenix, and Tucson, as well as a final capstone conference held in Phoenix. At these conferences, frustrations, suggestions, and opinions regarding Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN) and navigating the healthcare system were shared and testimonials were transcribed.<br/>This study focused on the capstone conference. The study design was a strategic design workshop; results of the design analysis were analyzed qualitatively using descriptive content analysis. Themes described parent’s common experiences navigating the system, impacts resulting from such experiences, and desires for the care coordination system. Quotes were then grouped into major themes and subthemes for the capstone conference. After these themes were determined, the overarching goals of stakeholders could be assessed, and implementation projects could be described.

Today, some modern zoos, aquariums, and similar animal-exhibiting institutions continue to shift their priorities toward a focus on the conservation of wildlife. Conservation challenges span a broad subject area. The focus that any institution chooses can vary greatly in terms of magnitude and measures of significance. Many modern zoos often choose to make global conservation a central institutional priority: conservation of biodiversity, habitat protection, species extinction, and more. Some institutions, however, set conservation priorities on a smaller scale, focusing on contributions that have a more indirect effect on wild species and habitats, such as the welfare of populations in captivity, raising public awareness of conservation missions, and conservation education. By comparing the institutional priorities of two organizations within the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and the Phoenix Zoo, I explore how each institution manages its living collections and works toward its respective conservation mission. I interviewed members of each institution and analyzed the similarities and differences between the organizations based on their management of living collections, and how different mission statements might shape their work. This included investigating the focus each institution has on animal welfare, in situ and ex situ conservation, and maintaining public interest. This also required defining what conservation and welfare mean to each institution and how that affects the management of their living collections. From a literature review and interviews with representatives from each institution, I was able to determine that despite any differences in style or in the language of respective mission statements, each institution prioritizes connecting the public and conservation of biodiversity. While they employ different approaches - one institution takes a regional interest in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem and landscape; the other takes a more global approach to its experiences, exhibits, and collections - the core values and ultimately the vision remain the same. Conservation may serve as the primary motivator for both the Museum and the Zoo, but my thesis is that this rationale could not be realized by itself for these institutions. Rather, conservation as a core value relies upon the support of other critical institutional priorities working together. In this way animal welfare, public engagement, and conservation relate to one another as institutional values and create the impact that the zoo and museum have on their local communities, as well as on conservation as a whole.