Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives
Morrison Institute for Public Policy is a leader in examining critical Arizona and regional issues, and is a catalyst for public dialogue. An Arizona State University resource, Morrison Institute is an independent center that uses nonpartisan research and communication outreach to help improve the state's quality of life.
Morrison Institute is part of the College of Public Programs in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. Additional publications are available at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Date range of repository publications is 1992 – 2015.
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Politics and government
- All Subjects: Educational change
- All Subjects: Human services
Illuminates the dynamics that influence how and why parents select schools and to suggest the need for a more critical evaluation of parent choices and their implications for public school reform.
Arizona’s electorate – regardless of political party registration – is dissatisfied with state government and its leadership, according to results of a September 2010 Morrison Institute-Knowledge Networks Poll.
Human services provide an important safety net for Arizonans and help many achieve self-sufficiency. But by the close of the last decade, the infrastructure was severely damaged by the recession – with shrinking resources at all levels of government, and across the entire spectrum of nonprofit organizations including faith communities.
How can we continue to concentrate on such key issues as job creation, education, pollution, the prison system, water management and structural deficits when the incendiary issue of illegal immigration again grabs the headlines?
Focuses on the evolving roles of government by looking at five state and local entities that impact nearly all Arizonans, but are not well-known. The report looks at how these agencies came to be, how their purposes have changed over time, and how the state’s expectations have changed.
In preparation for new federal legislation that promotes unprecedented levels of comprehensive planning and service integration at state and local levels, an analysis of state issues relevant to comprehensive service delivery is necessary. This paper examines such state issues, with a focus on Arizona's at-risk population, and presents a framework for comprehensive service delivery. It provides the rationale for such service delivery, summarizes the literature on research-based practices, illustrates district approaches to comprehensive service delivery, and sets forth guidelines for developing a comprehensive plan. System components of an effective plan are discussed in detail--student education, parent/family involvement, social/economic services, health services, and professional development. Five general principles underlie success: philosophy, people, processes, promising practices, and partners. Recommendations for developing comprehensive service delivery programs include the following: (1) build on existing information; (2) consolidate knowledge; and (3) think long-term. Contains 11 figures and over 250 references. Appendices contain information on Arizona practitioners' views and an illustration of a side-by-side program analysis.
With so much new school reform activity within the United States centering on charter schools, a fresh appraisal of the situation is in order. This briefing summarizes the history of charter school laws and updates their current status across the country. Although this is not intended to be a comprehensive review, several charter school research projects are described: some that have revealed lessons learned in the implementation of charter school laws, and others, more national in scope, that were designed to systematically describe existing charter schools and document their impacts.
As the charter school movement continues to gain momentum, initial impacts and trends are becoming visible. The briefing builds upon previous work by the Morrison Institute, updating activities across the 12 initial charter states and offering observations on some initial trends and impacts.
Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.
States have always administered federal programs. But, states usually have had very little say in how they carried out programs. All states could generally do was follow the rules laid out by federal agencies. But now, devolution is giving states more power over programs. And, in general, Americans have said that they approve of the idea. A 1998 nationwide poll, funded by The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, showed that a majority of Americans perceive devolution to be a positive development for the country.