The purpose of the Arizona Trails 2015 Plan is to gather information and recommendations to guide Arizona State Parks and other land management agencies in the management of motorized and non­‐motorized trails, and guide the distribution and expenditures of the Off‐Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and the Federal Recreational Trails Program. The Arizona Trails Plan is updated every five years.

This planning document details the results of extensive surveys of Arizonans’ thoughts, preferences and priorities regarding trails and off-highway vehicle routes. Throughout the year 2008, staff at Arizona State Parks and faculty at Arizona State University partnered to solicit information from more than 5,500 Arizonans about what types of motorized or non-motorized trails they use, how often they use trails, what they like or don’t like about trails, and what trail managers should focus their time and dollars on to make the trail experience better.

The report states that the State Parks system is in imminent danger of complete collapse as a result of financial starvation during most of this decade. A chronic lack of capital funding has led to the devastation of Parks infrastructure. In addition, budget cuts in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 so far have forced the closure of several parks and reduced hours at 17 other sites. The Task Force's chief recommendation is that the State should implement a Sustainable State Parks Fund, which would be financed by a $14 to $15 annual contribution to be collected from owners of non-commercial vehicles as a part of the vehicle registration process. The proceeds would be dedicated to the operation, maintenance and capital needs of State Parks. In return, private vehicles bearing Arizona license plates would be admitted free to State Parks.

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.

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.)