Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

Though the Great Recession may be officially over, all is not well in Arizona. Three years after the collapse of a massive real estate “bubble,” the deepest economic downturn in memory exposed and exacerbated one of the nation’s most profound state fiscal crises, with disturbing implications for Arizona citizens and the state’s long-term economic health.

This brief takes a careful look at the Grand Canyon State’s fiscal situation, examining both Arizona’s serious cyclical budget shortfall—the one resulting from a temporary collapse of revenue due to the recession—as well as the chronic, longer-term, and massive structural imbalances that have developed largely due to policy choices made in better times. This primer employs a unique methodology to estimate the size of the state’s structural deficit and then explores the mix of forces, including the large permanent tax reductions, that created them. It also highlights some of the dramatic impacts these fiscal challenges are having on service-delivery as well as on local governments. The brief suggests some of the steps state policymakers must take to close their budget gaps over the short and longer term. First, it urges better policymaking, and prods leaders to broaden, balance, and diversify the state’s revenue base while looking to assure a long-haul balance of taxing and spending. And second, it recommends that Arizona improve the information-sharing and budgeting processes through which fiscal problems are understood—so they may ultimately be averted.

A series of 51 individual “stakeholder” interviews and two focus groups conducted with members of the Pima County business community in fall, 2001, documented significantly divided opinion about the likely economic impacts of the county’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). The results of the stakeholder inquiries were striking. Only one major finding reflected consensus, while several others revealed sharp differences of opinion in the business community about the potential economic impacts of the SDCP and associated initiatives.

What do we mean by "shoes waiting to drop?" We mean the trends that are already well under way — but that we can't quite see yet. These trends could overwhelm us if we don't spot them now and aggressively use our knowledge to plot our course for the future. The five "shoes" highlighted in the report are: A Talent Shake Up; Latino Education Dilemma; A Fuzzy Economic Identity; Lost Stewardship; and The Revenue Sieve.

For most of the past 50 years, Pinal County hasn't had to think much about its image, choices, or growth. But now, Pinal County is changing faster than anyone ever imagined. Will Pinal become a distinguishable destination or simply a McMega drive through? If Pinal rises to the occasion, the result can be a vibrant, sustainable, and competitive place that takes advantage of its location. If Pinal fails to choose wisely, its bedroom community future is already visible in the East Valley and subdivisions north of Tucson. Which will it be?

When Arizona's economy depended on the 4Cs – copper, cotton, citrus, and cattle – Pinal County was a leader in 2 of them. These historic sources of wealth and touchstones of heritage still play a role in the county's economy, but dramatic population growth and new economic drivers make this a different, distinctive time. This new era demands new vision, new ideas, and new ways of thinking, even as past strengths are kept in mind.

Does H20 = Growth in Arizona? That is how many people view the water-growth equation -- any introduction of "new" water supplies inevitably stimulates population growth and economic activity. However, the report by Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Growth on the Coconino Plateau, offers some surprisingly contrary conclusions. Completed on behalf of Arizona Department of Water Resources and the Coconino Plateau Watershed, this document is relevant for all regions of rural Arizona. Among the findings: - Some rural areas in the West have constructed major water supply projects only to see most of their towns languish, not prosper. - New water infrastructure in growing rural counties hasn't affected the size so much as the pattern of new development. - Leapfrog sprawl into unincorporated areas has been discouraged in regions where cities and towns hold control over the distribution of new water supplies. Bottom line, water won't automatically produce population growth. But planning for water - how it is supplied and governed - does offer a useful tool for managing future growth. Moreover, it can provide some measure of protection for the environment. We believe this report has important application well beyond northern Arizona. By providing original research and analysis on the water-growth equation, this report helps resolve one of Arizona's most critical issues. As a result, public policy discussions in the future will be able to focus on the state's most important growth drivers and how they can be managed.

Fast Growth in Metropolitan Phoenix is the first product of a comprehensive effort to describe and analyze the region’s growth. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy in Washington, D.C. presented the opportunity for this project to Morrison Institute for Public Policy. The story of growth in metropolitan Phoenix is a complicated, often surprising, tale. There is much to be proud of in the region. Yet there is also much to worry about, and much that needs to be done. Hits and Misses will have been successful if it becomes a catalyst for getting started.

In 1988 and 1995, statewide surveys provided "snapshots" of the status of K-12 arts education in Arizona. These milestone studies showed a continuum of programs and a variety of strengths and challenges across the state. In the years since -- even as landmark education and arts policies were adopted and arts organizations became important sources of enrichment and learning -- Arizona’s educators and arts professionals have had to rely on local anecdotes, personal experience, and partial reports to gauge the status and impact of school- and community-based arts education. To answer today’s questions about arts education in schools and communities, the Arizona Arts Education Research Institute and Maricopa Partnership for Arts and Culture, instead of another snapshot, chose to determine the feasibility of mechanisms to track formal and informal -- or school- and community-based -- arts education over the long term. Morrison Institute for Public Policy (School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs) designed the Beyond Snapshots study to gather input from a selection of state arts education experts, teachers, and representatives from schools, districts, and arts and culture organizations.

As cities seek ways to address emerging urban problems, a growing ractice is to combine the efforts of citizens, local government, and community organizations to revitalize and build strong neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Fight Back Program, administered through the City of Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department (NSD), is viewed as one such practice. The Fight Back program offers designated neighborhoods “specialized support over a limited period of time to assist with resident driven neighborhood improvement efforts. These efforts generally focus on revitalization, sustainability, crime and blight reduction, resident participation, neighborhood leadership, development and community building.” At the request of NSD, an external evaluation of the Fight Back program was conducted by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University. The evaluation involved more than 100 interviews with residents and city staff and an extensive review and analysis of program documentation.

In February of 1998, the Pima County Board of Supervisors launched what has evolved into the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) -- a comprehensive effort to protect the Sonoran Desert, guide growth and rationalize land development in the metropolitan Tucson region. Proponents of this planning process maintained that the project would reconcile conflicts between human activities and conservation, providing benefits for both wildlife and economic development. Critics, however, have increasingly alleged that implementing such an initiative will adversely affect land and housing markets, increase taxes and create problems of housing affordability. Over time a pressing need has consequently grown for objective information about the possible fiscal and economic impacts of the conservation programs being assembled by Pima County. This report addresses that need. It is a tool in the form of an impartial framework for assessment that government officials, environmentalists, business people and the general public can use for debate and decision-making.