Filtering by
- All Subjects: Family violence
- All Subjects: Politics and government
- All Subjects: Finance, Public
- All Subjects: Academic achievement
- Creators: Morrison Institute for Public Policy
Seeks to supply new information on the service needs of Maricopa County victims of domestic violence, a common criminal justice/public health problem that annually injures or kills thousands of Valley residents, shatters families and imposes other serious social costs.
Throughout Arizona and the Southwest, the odds are against high achievement in schools with a mostly Latino, mostly poor student enrollment. Some schools, however, "beat the odds" and achieve consistently high results or show steady gains. Why do these schools succeed where others fail? Using the methodology of business guru Jim Collins from his book "Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...and Others Don't," the authors of this report found 12 elementary and middle schools in Arizona--schools whose students are mostly Latino and mostly poor--that are "beating the odds" on reading and math scores. The authors compared them with similar schools that are performing poorly. The comparisons yielded many insights that are contrary to conventional wisdom. One key result is the unearthing of six elements of success that can translate into broader messages for education policy and strategy. The report recommends the creation of leadership programs for principals and teachers and calls for the creation of a dissemination mechanism to bring "best practices" into every school in Arizona.
Domestic violence is Phoenix’s most commonly reported violent crime, but many suspects’ cases are dismissed almost immediately after arrest, and many others are freed from jail without the supervision recommended by a standard risk-analysis. Risk Management reports these findings among others from analysis of data collected by Phoenix Municipal Court on misdemeanor domestic violence (DV) suspects booked into Maricopa County jails over two years.
Arizona’s electorate – regardless of political party registration – is dissatisfied with state government and its leadership, according to results of a September 2010 Morrison Institute-Knowledge Networks Poll.
Public finance—taxes and other revenues collected by government and the expenditure of those revenues—always has been somewhat controversial because of wide philosophical differences among residents regarding the role that government should play in providing public services and in collecting taxes and fees from its residents. Recently, public finance in Arizona has become a prominent public issue due to the need to resolve the deficits that afflict state government and most county and municipal governments in Arizona.
Numerous tax cuts over the last 15 years have substantially reduced revenue to the Arizona state general fund and greatly narrowed the tax base.
How can we continue to concentrate on such key issues as job creation, education, pollution, the prison system, water management and structural deficits when the incendiary issue of illegal immigration again grabs the headlines?
Focuses on the evolving roles of government by looking at five state and local entities that impact nearly all Arizonans, but are not well-known. The report looks at how these agencies came to be, how their purposes have changed over time, and how the state’s expectations have changed.
A grassroots dialogue-to-action program designed to inspire bottom-up collaboration on issues of domestic violence proved to be a success and several important lessons were learned to help full implementation. This briefing evaluates the pilot program of the Purple Ribbon Study Circles Project, which ran in six cities in Greater Phoenix from September through December 2008.
Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.