Matching Items (8)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

43355-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2006
Description

On February 13 & 14, 2006, Governor Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Terry Goddard sponsored
a solution-focused conference: Addressing the Methamphetamine Problem in Arizona- Enforcement,
Prevention and Treatment - A Call to Action. The Conference provided a quality, fact-based array of
public policy and community action solutions for an audience that included law

On February 13 & 14, 2006, Governor Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Terry Goddard sponsored
a solution-focused conference: Addressing the Methamphetamine Problem in Arizona- Enforcement,
Prevention and Treatment - A Call to Action. The Conference provided a quality, fact-based array of
public policy and community action solutions for an audience that included law enforcement, human
services professionals, medical professionals, community-based organizations, educators, Tribal
organizations, the faith community and neighborhood activists.

Nationally recognized speakers provided insight into and recommendations about the impact of
methamphetamine and what is working nationwide in the areas of prevention, treatment and law
enforcement. Arizona experts shared their experiences regarding the impact of methamphetamine on
Arizona children, youth, families and communities, current practices to address the meth crisis in Arizona
and possible future directions. Finally, participants heard the public policy perspectives of some of
Arizona’s policy makers and presented their individual views of the issues and possible solutions.

43584-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2005-06
Description

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona," March 2005) presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" (June 2005), is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national
average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).

43576-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2005-03
Description

Available data on the cost of living indicate that living costs in Arizona are close to the national average — thus, the state’s lower-than-average wages are not offset by low living costs. No productivity data exist for Arizona. Worker productivity in Arizona could be below the national average due to

Available data on the cost of living indicate that living costs in Arizona are close to the national average — thus, the state’s lower-than-average wages are not offset by low living costs. No productivity data exist for Arizona. Worker productivity in Arizona could be below the national average due to lesser investments in physical or human capital, which would result in lower wages. Labor market supply and demand factors are a likely cause of the low wages in Arizona. A substantial number of people seem willing to move to Arizona and accept a substandard wage in exchange for perceived qualitative advantages to living in Arizona, primarily climate.

43574-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2006-03
Description

The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the

The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the three years, causing the U.S. average wage to be 2.5 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Arizona’s job quality fell between 2001 and 2004 at a pace worse than the national average. Relative to the national average, the industrial and occupational job mixes each slipped a bit more than 0.3 percent during the three years, for an overall decline of 0.7 percent. In Arizona, job quality in 2004 was 2.0 percent below the national average, but Arizona ranked 23rd among all states.

43572-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2005-06
Description

The quality of jobs in the United States became a national concern in the 1980s after a long period of losses of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs and gains of frequently low-paying service jobs. National job quality remains a concern today, as witnessed by the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign.

The quality of jobs in the United States became a national concern in the 1980s after a long period of losses of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs and gains of frequently low-paying service jobs. National job quality remains a concern today, as witnessed by the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign. The overall average wage is a measure of prosperity or well-being, but is not in itself a measure of job quality since job quality is just one of several factors — including cost of living, productivity, and desirability of an area — that affect the overall average wage. Little information on these factors is available by state. Adjusting for job quality reduces the state-by-state variation in wages. However, even after adjusting for job quality, the average wage still varies substantially by state.

42807-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2009-01
Description

The purpose of this report is to examine methamphetamine use among adult arrestees and juvenile detainees in Maricopa County, Arizona. We relied on data from the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN) to address the following five questions:
1. What percent of adult arrestees are methamphetamine users and what are their

The purpose of this report is to examine methamphetamine use among adult arrestees and juvenile detainees in Maricopa County, Arizona. We relied on data from the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN) to address the following five questions:
1. What percent of adult arrestees are methamphetamine users and what are their social characteristics?
2. What is the relationship between methamphetamine use and arresting offense?
3. What is the relationship between methamphetamine use by parents and the presence of children in the household?
4. What percent of methamphetamine users are receiving treatment for their drug use?
5. What percent of juvenile detainees are methamphetamine users and what are their social and legal characteristics?

42806-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2009-08
Description

For the 2008 AARIN study, 2,105 Maricopa County (AZ) arrestees volunteered to complete the survey instrument and to provide a valid urine specimen for testing. In addition, the arrestees responded to a series of questions related to methamphetamine use, including patterns of use, treatment, drug transactions, sales and manufacturing, and

For the 2008 AARIN study, 2,105 Maricopa County (AZ) arrestees volunteered to complete the survey instrument and to provide a valid urine specimen for testing. In addition, the arrestees responded to a series of questions related to methamphetamine use, including patterns of use, treatment, drug transactions, sales and manufacturing, and awareness of the Arizona Meth Project. Among those participants, 435 (20.7%) admitted to having used methamphetamine in the 30 days prior to arrest.

43227-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2003-09-30
Description

The Arizona Drug Endangered Children Program (formerly referred to as the Meth and Kids Initiative) was established in 2000 to address problems associated with methamphetamine production in homes with children present. For the past three years the DEC Program has focused primarily on Maricopa County cases and Task Force members

The Arizona Drug Endangered Children Program (formerly referred to as the Meth and Kids Initiative) was established in 2000 to address problems associated with methamphetamine production in homes with children present. For the past three years the DEC Program has focused primarily on Maricopa County cases and Task Force members have provided training and technical assistance to agencies throughout the state. Representatives from the DEC Task Force worked together to formalize the multidisciplinary protocol to address the needs of children and ensure the safety of children who are present at an investigation of a methamphetamine laboratory.