Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

This paper, drawing upon historical data and information from surveys and interviews with more than 50 legislators, lobbyists, and knowledgeable observers, finds that the term limits reform adopted by the Arizona voters in 1992 has caused legislators to make some painful adjustments. Because of term limits many legislators have decided to run for another office prior to the expiration of their terms. This has often meant trying to move from the one legislative house to another, most commonly from the House to the Senate. On the plus side, the report finds that term limits have encouraged greater competition for legislative and other seats and have given voters a greater choice among candidates. To some extent, limits have been a force toward a more inclusive governing process. At the same time, they have generally reduced the power of legislative leaders and generally increased the influence of lobbyists and staff, though not all lobbyists and staff have gained equally. Recent newcomers to the Arizona Legislature are probably not any less knowledgeable than previous classes of newcomers, but under term limits there are more newcomers and members have less time to learn their jobs. For many, the limit to four two-year terms (eight years total) provides too little time to learn how to do the job and do it well.

Economic development leaders and public officials throughout the country are tending to the effects of a sour economy and huge state budget deficits when they would rather be creating quality jobs and new economy assets. According to the most prominent thinking on today’s knowledge economy, locally developed and exported technology will be the primary economic differentiator between future winners and losers. Thus, with long-term fiscal and economic health at stake, the 50-state race is on for advantages and leadership in science and technology. This report sheds light on these issues through an overview of Arizona’s standing in science and technology today, short case studies of four competitors in the west, as well as Arizona, and ideas for Arizona’s leaders to consider as they strive to give our state an edge.

Because of the urgency of workforce issues and the desire to begin a statewide discussion about workforce goals and choices, the Governor’s Council on Workforce Policy wanted to understand if, and how, program governance and organization are hampering progress and what changes might be beneficial. The council asked Morrison Institute for Public Policy (School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs, Arizona State University) to: (1) Explore the strengths and weaknesses of the organization of Arizona’s workforce system, particularly at the state level (2) Review how other states have revamped their systems and connected workforce and economic development (3) Recommend options for improving Arizona’s system During the second half of 2003, Morrison Institute for Public Policy talked with more than 60 workforce professionals, business people, and workforce board members across Arizona either individually or in small groups, researched other states’ approaches through interviews with officials in other states and national organizations, analyzed responses to an online survey of selected local workforce investment board members, and reviewed a wide variety of materials on economic, workforce, and community development. This report is the first of many steps for Arizona to reflect and act on workforce development governance and its system, because as Thurgood Marshall said, "You can’t stand still. You must move, and if you don’t move, they will run over you."

Maricopa County has experienced remarkable population growth for decades, and will continue to do so. But while expanding metro areas tend to pay close attention to physical infrastructure—diligently budgeting for roads, sewers, schools and the like—there is often a relative lack of attention to meeting the future demands for human services. Relying on the expertise from throughout the College of Public Programs, this report analyzes 12 critically important topics, including children and families, poverty, substance abuse, and Latinos.

Afterschool youth-development programs (AYDs) have grown significantly during the past 15 years in Arizona and nationally. Many providers have moved beyond simply providing a safe haven to actively promoting young people’s development. However, there is still tremendous opportunity for growth. There is also a continuing need to enhance coordination and collaboration among programs in order to extend their resources and heighten their impact.

Morrison Institute worked with AzCASE and VSUW to construct a 55-question survey using Qualtrics on-line software. While the term “afterschool” was used, the survey was designed to measure all types of out-of-school programs, regardless of whether they operate before or after school, on weekends, or during school and summer breaks. Approximately 1,800 questionnaires were distributed to individual program sites in Maricopa and Pima counties via a list provided by AzCASE. Though the survey did not utilize a random sample, its 38 percent response rate (681 returns) suggests that its findings can help educators, youth-development professionals, policymakers and the business community understand the scope, characteristics and needs of afterschool services in Arizona’s two largest population centers.