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 report includes original articles by Arizona policy practitioners and observers, reprints of pertinent articles by experts beyond Arizona, and a list for further reading. Articles of varying lengths and complexities are purposefully included so as to offer something to readers with different levels of interest in and knowledge of the subject matter.

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.

The purpose of this brief report is to present a balanced look at current issues surrounding the education reform know as "academic standards." The information contained in this report is intended for a business audience. It does not advocate any particular stance or make policy recommendations, but rather presents a platform from which the business community might choose a position.

Four major statewide "tools" to help manage growth and preserve open space have been put to work in Arizona over the past five years. These include the Arizona Preserve Initiative and the closely-related Proposition 303, as well as the Growing Smarter Act and its "addendum," Growing Smarter Plus. All four tools are based in large part on a concept known as "smart growth," which is generally considered to be a set of growth management measures that attempt to strike a balance among issues of economics, environment, and quality of life. Taken together, these four growth management tools make significant changes in the way that (a) city and county governments plan and regulate their lands, (b) citizens play a role in land use issues, (c) state trust lands are managed, and (d) open space may be acquired and preserved. Many of these changes will have long-term effects for the state. This paper provides a brief overview of each of the four growth management/open space tools, a preliminary accounting of major activities each one has stimulated, and a perspective on what can be expected for the future as expressed by a selection of growth planners and other leaders of growth management in Arizona.

Almost every state hopes to capitalize on the tremendous wealth and job creation that can be generated by high tech science research-and billions of public dollars are being spent. But everyone is just speculating about the lasting value of these investments. While traditional assessments of return on public investment in science and technology tend to track short-term impacts, such as salaries, patents, and licensing revenues, the main foundations for long-term development of a knowledge economy appear to rely on a number of less tangible accomplishments. For example: Connections - the networks that develop between researchers, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists; Attention - the publicity generated by the research and its networks that attract businesses and talent to locate in a region; and Talent - the highly skilled workers that such research attracts and trains.

These three indicators of economic success-henceforth called the CAT measures-have yet to be quantified and applied in a useful manner. That is the purpose of this study. It will be conducted in three parts, each with a culminating report. The first part will analyze the FY03 science and technology research activities and results for ASU's Proposition 301 initiatives. The second will develop a methodology for quantifying and utilizing the Institute's CAT measures. The third will field test the CAT methodology on a selected aspect of ASU's Proposition 301-funded research, and analyze results to provide Arizona decision-makers with recommendations to guide future policy.

The Phoenix metropolitan area is known worldwide for the rapid and continuous expansion of its population, economy, and development of desert land. Even during recessionary periods, it has continued to grow. Leaders in other metropolitan areas envy this achievement and the many benefits it has created for Valley residents. But some members of our region, both leaders and lay people alike, consider the Valley’s phenomenal growth to be a mixed blessing. Indeed, they would say we are plagued by success. The purpose of this brief paper is to create a framework for discussion of how our region’s future growth can embody quality. It is not intended to be a comprehensive Morrison Institute for Public Policy treatment of the myriad issues of urban growth. Because of this paper’s brevity, some important details about growth are not included. Fortunately, detailed studies of the Valley’s growth have been done before (e.g., by Gruen Associates/Maricopa Association of Governments in 1975 and the Morrison Institute in 1988). Instead, this paper identifies key concepts and suggests questions to be used as a point of departure for steering a future course.

Maricopa County has experienced remarkable population growth for decades, and will continue to do so. But while expanding metro areas tend to pay close attention to physical infrastructure—diligently budgeting for roads, sewers, schools and the like—there is often a relative lack of attention to meeting the future demands for human services. Relying on the expertise from throughout the College of Public Programs, this report analyzes 12 critically important topics, including children and families, poverty, substance abuse, and Latinos.

This report profiles Yavapai County’s senior industries, beginning with a brief overview of senior industries components and a listing of significant findings of the study. In following sections, the report presents more detailed information on the age group characteristics of county residents, the spending patterns of seniors, the economic composition and relative size of senior industries, and the dynamics and requirements for growth of senior industries. In its conclusion, the report presents a menu of options for strengthening senior industries in Yavapai County. All analysis is based on the latest available demographic and economic data at the time of writing, as well as primary and secondary research performed by Morrison Institute for Public Policy in the fall of 2001.