Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

Between May and July of 1996, members of the council were asked to participate in a series of interviews. The primary purpose of the interviews was to elicit council members' views of and expectations for Arizona's STW initiative. A second reason was to clarify the mission of the council itself. This paper highlights salient points from the interviews. Quotes are used verbatim.

Every year some Arizona students drop out of high school with the intention of acquiring a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Find out how many Arizonans receive a GED each year and how this alternative credential impacts their lifetime earning potential. Also visit Morrison Institute’s Web site to read about proposed funding cuts to GED training.

“What about the water?” was one of the questions Morrison Institute for Public Policy asked in its 2008 study, "Megapolitan: Arizona’s Sun Corridor". That report looked at the potential growth of the Sun Corridor as Tucson and Phoenix merge into one continuous area for economic and demographic purposes.

With its brief review of the water situation in urban Arizona, "Megapolitan" left a number of questions unanswered. This report will consider questions like these in more detail in order to examine the Sun Corridor’s water future. This topic has received less sophisticated public discussion than might be expected in a desert state. Arizona’s professional water managers feel they are relatively well prepared for the future and would like to be left alone to do their job. Elected officials and economic-development professionals have sometimes avoided discussing water for fear of reinforcing a negative view of Arizona. This report seeks to contribute to this understanding, and to a more open and informed conversation about the relationship of water and future growth.

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.

This report documents the activities of 18 state-funded partnerships in Arizona's school-to-work (STW) system: 10 regional partnerships, most in their fourth year of implementation, and 8 Maricopa County partnerships, all in their first year of implementation. The report is divided into two sections. The first section highlights the status of each of the 10 regional STW partnerships as of the midpoint of the state's fourth year of STW implementation. Profiles are provided in alphabetical order and provide a brief description of the changes and accomplishments in the past year. The second section profiles each of the 8 Maricopa County STW partnerships approximately three-quarters of the way through their first 13 months of STW implementation. Profiles are provided in alphabetical order and provide a brief description of the status of partnership activities and accomplishments to date. Each profile consists of the following seven components: (1) partnership name; (2) site visit date; (3) school profile; (4) employers/Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development representation; (5) goals 1-6: system governance and partnership development, program coordination and integration, technical assistance, community involvement, public awareness, and system evaluation; (6) discussion (partnership assets, partnership challenges); and (7) summary and suggestions.