The conference looked beyond the juvenile justice system proper to examine the roots and potential solutions to the over representation of minority youth in Arizona’s juvenile justice system. Through this important undertaking and the dedication of the Commission on Minorities, Arizona demonstrated once again its important role as a leader in shaping the future of the juvenile justice system.

Shortly after selecting Judge Roxanne Song Ong as Commission Chair and reconstituting its membership, Chief Justice McGregor directed the Commission to develop a strategic plan with projects that seek to enhance fairness and equity in the judiciary and present a report at the December 2006 meeting of the Arizona Judicial Council.

This report represent the efforts of the Commission since its reactivation under a new mandate in May of 1994. The goal of this work group is to develop policies and programs that will facilitate the growth of minority applicants seeking appointments as judges, commissioners, judges pro tempore, special masters, clerkships, and internships.

This report is a result of the "2002 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth" report produced by the Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities in the Judiciary. One of the recommendations issued in that report was to create an annual report card to assess progress on the reduction of over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. The decision has been modified to produce a report card every other year. The first report serves as a baseline for the second, third and fourth report cards. The intent is to illustrate the current situation, provide a basis for future comparison, highlight areas of special concern and compare these results with the prior report card.

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.