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.

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.

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."

The purpose of this brief report is to provide information about Arizona’s system of workforce development, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), how the Act has been implemented in the greater Phoenix area and the program’s relevance to business. It is an update of a previous brief on the subject from February 2000. Prepared by Morrison Institute for Public Policy at the request of Greater Phoenix Leadership, the information contained in this report is intended for a business audience.

A study explored performance of the Arizona School-to-Work (STW) system in meeting the six goals established by the state STW Division. Goal 1 was to create a self-sustaining STW system at the state and regional levels. The state developed state policies and goals and provided implementation funding to partnerships, but no continuation funding. Goal 2 was to unite training programs with STW programs. Partnerships implemented STW with some success by expanding career-related programs, but were less successful at coordinating and integrating efforts with other workforce-related organizations. There was no comprehensive effort to implement Goal 3 to identify areas where STW needed support and meet those needs. The state and partnerships addressed Goal 4, community involvement, by recruiting local businesses and industries to STW through public awareness activities, promoting initiatives to businesses at STW conferences, and securing business representation on STW governing boards. Goal 5, to increase public awareness, was achieved through media, brochures, Web sites, and public presentations. Partnerships achieved Goal 6, system evaluation, by maintaining databases to provide information for evaluating the STW system. STW had a modest positive impact on stakeholders' involvement in career-related activities; its implementation varied considerably across partnerships; lack of funding severely limited its statewide potential; and strong leadership at the state level was critical.

This brief provides information about the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, how it will be implemented in the greater Phoenix, Arizona, area, and the program's relevance to business. The brief also discusses the current work force development system, including information on these five areas of interest: (1) what the literature says about work force development; (2) Arizona's current work force development system; (3) an overview of the WIA; (4) what's really new in the new system; and (5) what's in it for Arizona's business community. The report concludes that research and several prominent business organizations suggest that businesses can become involved in WIA in a number of ways that benefit companies as well as society, including participating on Local Workforce Investment Boards; using the one-stop career centers to fill employment needs; opening such centers; becoming approved training providers; suggesting potential board members; providing additional funds to boards; helping design and oversee local work force development programs; and providing information to the local boards and one-stop centers.

The School-to-Work (STW) Opportunities Act of 1994 promotes the development of statewide systems that support workforce and economic development through changes in the ways that students are educated. Jointly funded by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education, the Act emphasizes school-based and work-based learning and activities designed to connect the two. In order to fulfill the Act’s work-based learning component, employers are recruited to work with students. Recruitment efforts have generated questions from employers concerning their obligations and legal responsibilities should they become involved in STW programs. This paper attempts to clarify these issues.

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.

This report addresses one central issue: the nature and extent of the teacher shortage in Arizona. Its purpose is to inform policymakers and help prevent poor policy decisions and wasted resources. The report presents new research along with policy and program recommendations intended to serve as points of departure for understanding and discussing teacher supply and demand in Arizona. Among the research findings are the following: (1) Arizona did not have an overall shortage of teachers when this report was written, but a delicate balance existed between demand and supply; (2) despite an overall surplus, teacher shortages were already occurring in specific regions and subject-matter areas, and these shortfalls were expected to worsen; (3) managing attrition and encouraging the return of inactive certified teachers will be crucial to ensure a sufficient teacher pool; and (4) policy changes are needed to increase and monitor Arizona's supply of teachers, especially in specific areas. The report provides policy and program recommendations in four areas: production and recruitment; compensation; classroom environment; and data tracking. Appended are: Potential Components Not Used in This Study; Measures Used and Their Alternatives; Data Sources; 2009-2010 Enrollment and Teacher Projections table; Arizona Inactive Certified Teacher Survey Methodology; and Current Activity of Inactive Certified Teachers and 5 data-related tables. (Contains 35 references, 11 tables, and 8 figures.)