The Arizona Tax Expenditure Report is a study prepared for the Governor and the Legislature by the Arizona Department of Revenue's Office of Economic Research and Analysis. The purpose of this report is to provide a better understanding of the costs associated with the existing set of tax exemptions, exclusions, deductions, and credits. There are sections on every tax imposed in Arizona. In each section, provisions dealing with that specific tax type are analyzed.

Arizona Revised Statute § 43-1089.01 provides a non-refundable individual tax credit for fees and cash contributions paid to public schools in Arizona for the support of extracurricular activities or character education programs. This credit is available only to individuals. The credit is equal to the amount of fees paid or amount contributed up to $200 for single or heads of household taxpayers and up to $400 for married taxpayers that file a joint return.

The mission statement of the Department of Revenue is to serve the people of Arizona by administering tax laws with integrity, fairness and efficiency. It is our vision that we set the standard for tax services. Tax laws that fall under the department’s purview are primarily in the areas of income, transaction privilege (sales), use, luxury, withholding, property, estate, fiduciary, bingo, and severance.

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.

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.

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.