Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

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.

Arizona Ideas includes notions large and small, homegrown and borrowed, current and historical. From A-Z, every one -- whether originally born here or adapted from elsewhere-- contributes to the state’s competitive position. Arizona Ideas also explores the roots of Arizona’s tradition of self-criticism --some call it a sense of insecurity or inferiority in comparison to other places -- that often surfaces in discussions of public policy. This observation has provoked considerable debate, but few would deny that this perspective exists. It is time to debate this idiosyncrasy out in the open and find better ways of moving the state ahead.

This report deals with state-level technical assistance and other activities pertinent to at-risk issues in the current context of educational reform. Specifically, the report discusses state options to support Arizona schools in delivering comprehensive services and implications for Arizona policymakers.

The "fit" of "at-risk" education in Arizona was examined in relation to reform initiatives. Focusing on technical assistance and related issues at the state level, researchers examined literature, interviewed a sample of Arizona Dept. of Education personnel, surveyed Arizona principals statewide, and gathered information from other states.

This publication updates the January 2004 study, New Returns on Investment in the Knowledge Economy: Proposition 301 at Arizona State University, FY 2003. Both works were launched by the report, Seeds of Prosperity: Public Investment in Science and Technology Research (2003), by Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Morrison Institute will periodically publish new material to keep you informed of the status of Proposition 301 investments at Arizona State University.

During 1993-94, the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University conducted a study on behalf of the Arizona Department of Education. This document presents findings of that study, which examined linkages between health services and schools for a comprehensive service delivery to students. Following the introduction, chapter 1 provides a national overview on children's health and the public schools, presenting national and legislative initiatives and a framework for linking health services and schools. Chapter 2 reviews what is known about the major issues in child health in Arizona and its schools, synthesizing health data from several sources.

Survey results from 531 Arizona school principals about school-based/school-linked health and social services are also analyzed. A discussion of the Arizona perspective follows in chapter 3, which examines the philosophy guiding state initiatives, key players, the processes that support school-based/school-linked health services, and a sample of current state activities. The fourth chapter provides a view of how some Arizona schools are attempting to address these issues through the provision of student health services at or near school sites. The last chapter reviews action necessary to facilitate linkages between schools and health services, and the status of Arizona efforts. It concludes with some considerations for the future. A conclusion is that the state is making significant progress toward promoting and, in some schools, implementing such services. Eight tables and seven figures are included.