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.

Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
Filtering by

Clear all filters

68327-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsKoppell, Jonathan (Author) / Daugherty, David B. (Author) / Garcia, Joseph (Author) / Shitsett, Andrea (Author) / Arizona Town Hall (Publisher, Publisher) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Author, Author of afterword, colophon, etc.)
Created2014-04
Description

Arizona’s vulnerable populations are struggling on a daily basis but usually do so in silence, undetected by traditional radar and rankings, often unaware themselves of their high risk for being pushed or pulled into full crisis. Ineligible for financial assistance under strict eligibility guidelines, they don’t qualify as poor because

Arizona’s vulnerable populations are struggling on a daily basis but usually do so in silence, undetected by traditional radar and rankings, often unaware themselves of their high risk for being pushed or pulled into full crisis. Ineligible for financial assistance under strict eligibility guidelines, they don’t qualify as poor because vulnerable populations are not yet in full crisis. To be clear, this report is not about the “poor,” at least not in the limited sense of the word. It is about our underemployed wage earners, our single-parent households, our deployed or returning military members, our under-educated and unskilled workforce, our debt-ridden neighbors, our uninsured friends, our family members with no savings for an emergency, much less retirement.

68336-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2014-02
Description

This Morrison Institute report, sponsored by the Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, examines the obstacles and daily challenges still facing many Arizonans with developmental disabilities -- especially those who live in small cities and towns.

68363-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsHart, William (Author) / Hager, C.J. Eisenbarth (Author) / Clark-Johnson, Sue (Contributor) / Daugherty, David B. (Contributor) / Rex, Tom R. (Contributor) / Hedberg, Eric (Contributor) / Garcia, Joseph (Contributor) / Edwards, Erica (Contributor) / Whitsett, Andrea (Contributor) / West, Joe (Contributor) / Totura, Christine (Contributor) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created2012-04
Description

This follow-up to the 2001 landmark report, "Five Shoes Waiting to Drop on Arizona's Future," focuses on the projected future of the state if Arizona fails to address its Latino educational attainment gap. The publication is more of an economic impact statement than an education report, with indicators pointing out

This follow-up to the 2001 landmark report, "Five Shoes Waiting to Drop on Arizona's Future," focuses on the projected future of the state if Arizona fails to address its Latino educational attainment gap. The publication is more of an economic impact statement than an education report, with indicators pointing out consequences and contributions, depending on action or inaction in closing the gap of Arizona's future workforce.

68417-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsGammage, Grady Jr. (Author) / Stigler, Monica (Author) / Clark-Johnson, Sue (Author) / Daugherty, David B. (Author) / Hart, William (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created2011-08
Description

“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

“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.

68546-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsLarson, Elizabeth Hunt (Author) / Engmark, Jill (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created1999-12
Description

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

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.

68547-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsEngmark, Jill (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created1997-07
Description

The School-to-Work (STW) Opportunities Act of 1994 is intended to "offer opportunities for all students to participate in a performance-based education and training program." Nevertheless, certain populations remain hard to reach. In particular, out-of-school youth--students aged 16 through 24 who have not completed high school and are not currently enrolled

The School-to-Work (STW) Opportunities Act of 1994 is intended to "offer opportunities for all students to participate in a performance-based education and training program." Nevertheless, certain populations remain hard to reach. In particular, out-of-school youth--students aged 16 through 24 who have not completed high school and are not currently enrolled in school--pose a unique challenge for emerging STW systems. This document explores the manner in which Arizona’s 13 state-funded STW partnerships (for FY 1996-97) are serving out-of-school youth. In addition, new system elements and regional STW plans for service expansion for this population are detailed. Innovative programs within the partnerships are also highlighted.

68478-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsEngmark, Jill (Author) / Vandegrift, Judith A. (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created1997-01
Description

A study explored the issue of fiscal agency and its relationship to planning and implementing school-to-work (STW) systems to inform stakeholders in Arizona's emerging STW system about other states' experiences. A review of the STW Internet Gateway yielded a subset of states based on factors such as their history in

A study explored the issue of fiscal agency and its relationship to planning and implementing school-to-work (STW) systems to inform stakeholders in Arizona's emerging STW system about other states' experiences. A review of the STW Internet Gateway yielded a subset of states based on factors such as their history in implementing STW and similarities to Arizona. Interviews were conducted via telephone, fax, or e-mail with 61 individuals in 20 states. Participants were asked to relate their experiences with and as fiscal agents, how fiscal agents were chosen, and strengths and weaknesses of a particular type of fiscal agency. STW partnerships used four types of fiscal agents: educational institutions; training institutions; business and labor organizations; and "other" organizations. Effective fiscal agents had the following characteristics: existing mechanisms/structures, neutrality, experience in federal grant management, skill in fostering involvement, philosophy, and accessibility/central location. Educational institutions offered the advantages of being accustomed to handing federal monies and familiar with state-level policies and procedures. A major drawback was that their use contributed to "turf" issues. The other three types had geographic and size advantages, were able to coordinate function in multiple school districts, and were able to handle workload and manage cash flow. A disadvantage was a lack of knowledge regarding how schools operate.