In 1996, ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy began asking residents and leaders in Greater Phoenix, “What does quality of life mean to you, and how do you measure it?” After an 18-month process, the first volume of What Matters was published in September 1997, creating a baseline of opinion and data about “quality of life” and what it means to the people who live here. The report was quickly recognized both within the region and nationally among indicator projects for its simple, yet unique presentation of public perception (survey) data and regional statistical, or indicator, data.

The reality of an aging nation has been discussed so much that the statistics no longer shock us. The figures, though, can still prompt us to marvel at the tremendous effect that more people living longer is having on our communities. Our goal now for metropolitan Phoenix is to implement the ideas behind Life Options in real time with real people. Demonstration sites are the next logical step, and pilot planning builds on the significant accomplishments of the Maricopa County Commission on Productive Aging. Between September 2002 and January 2003, this group of 71 community leaders studied how aging and retirement are changing and how new ideas about service, community spaces, and choices might be put into practice. The Commission’s energy and insights began an exciting process of change in metropolitan Phoenix and set the stage for this Life Options Initiative.

After decades of charitable generosity in the Valley of the Sun, the 1990s have brought new challenges which require a re-assessment of priorities. Facing continued and rapid population growth, and continuing efforts to reform and restrain public spending on many levels, Valley of the Sun United Way initiated a strategic planning process in 1996 to identify guiding principles and key issues for the future.

In late 1997, Valley of the Sun United Way, with funding support from Honeywell, Inc., asked the Morrison Institute for Public Policy to identify the most critical public issues facing the community and to determine where United Way could have the greatest impact with its investments by targeting its funding and support. To do this, the Institute conducted 49 one-on-one interviews with opinion leaders from the business, government, and non-profit sectors in the Phoenix Metro area, held one focus group with a subset of the interviewees, and reviewed a large body of published research and surveys in Arizona and the U.S.

“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.

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 the Valley, developing viable long-term transit from where we are currently will be very difficult if key
components continue to remain unaligned. Thus, before getting to the primary purpose of this report, it is important to first establish the players and basic considerations relevant to the effectiveness of a transit system.

Few would dispute that the Phoenix metropolitan area is severely lacking in terms of mass-transit compared to other similarly sized and configured cities. The Valley’s fleet of roughly 400 buses is about one-third of the service found in San Diego, Atlanta, and Seattle. In addition, most of Phoenix’ peer regions either already have, or are planning rail systems. Of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., only six -- Phoenix included -- do not currently have or are not planning to add rail to their transit system.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.

In spring 1998, 1,057 10th-grade students were surveyed as one component of a statewide evaluation of Arizona's school-to-work system designed by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy. This second survey measured attitudes toward and participation in career activities. Results were compared to baseline data collected from over 2,000 10th-grade students in 1997. Data indicated that, in both years, nearly all students had at least an idea of their career area of interest; gender differences were observed in students' selections of career interests. Student participation in activities increased. Statistically significant differences in participation by sex were evident: more girls reported learning about careers in class and participating in volunteer activities; and more boys participated in internships with pay, worked for pay in a job unrelated to their careers, and had business mentors. The share of students who had selected a career interest increased as participation rose. All 14 activities were at least "somewhat" helpful to students in making career selections. In both years, students ranked family, teachers, and friends most highly as influencing career interests. One-fourth of students in 1998 compared to one-third of students in 1997 indicated they never received career guidance at school. Less than one-half of students were aware of courses related to career interests; even fewer actually took a course related to their interests.

One component of a multi-faceted evaluation of the state's STW initiative involves surveying tenth grade students. Thus, the survey was designed to assess the extent to which Arizona tenth grade students have selected career majors, planned a course of study for high school and beyond, and received adult guidance related to careers. As part of the evaluation, the intent was to look at the extent to which career preparation and work experiences truly are system-wide and impact students. In contrast, the purpose was not to evaluate whether STW program participants are receiving school-based learning components.