This paper, drawing upon historical data and information from surveys and interviews with more than 50 legislators, lobbyists, and knowledgeable observers, finds that the term limits reform adopted by the Arizona voters in 1992 has caused legislators to make some painful adjustments. Because of term limits many legislators have decided to run for another office prior to the expiration of their terms. This has often meant trying to move from the one legislative house to another, most commonly from the House to the Senate. On the plus side, the report finds that term limits have encouraged greater competition for legislative and other seats and have given voters a greater choice among candidates. To some extent, limits have been a force toward a more inclusive governing process. At the same time, they have generally reduced the power of legislative leaders and generally increased the influence of lobbyists and staff, though not all lobbyists and staff have gained equally. Recent newcomers to the Arizona Legislature are probably not any less knowledgeable than previous classes of newcomers, but under term limits there are more newcomers and members have less time to learn their jobs. For many, the limit to four two-year terms (eight years total) provides too little time to learn how to do the job and do it well.

Economic development leaders and public officials throughout the country are tending to the effects of a sour economy and huge state budget deficits when they would rather be creating quality jobs and new economy assets. According to the most prominent thinking on today’s knowledge economy, locally developed and exported technology will be the primary economic differentiator between future winners and losers. Thus, with long-term fiscal and economic health at stake, the 50-state race is on for advantages and leadership in science and technology. This report sheds light on these issues through an overview of Arizona’s standing in science and technology today, short case studies of four competitors in the west, as well as Arizona, and ideas for Arizona’s leaders to consider as they strive to give our state an edge.

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.

One component of a multi-faceted evaluation of the state's STW initiative involves surveying seventh grade students regarding career awareness and career exploration and counseling in order to help students who may be interested to identify, and select or reconsider, their interests, goals and career majors, including those options that may not be traditional for their gender, race, or ethnicity.

One component of a multi-faceted evaluation of the state's STW initiative involves surveying tenth grade students. Thus, the survey was designed to assess the extent to which Arizona tenth grade students have selected career majors, planned a course of study for high school and beyond, and received adult guidance related to careers. As part of the evaluation, the intent was to look at the extent to which career preparation and work experiences truly are system-wide and impact students. In contrast, the purpose was not to evaluate whether STW program participants are receiving school-based learning components.

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.

Artist Wayne Rainey’s Shade magazine is a good sign for the Maricopa region. The bi-monthly publication covers contemporary art and culture, supports downtown redevelopment efforts, and works with many institutions to encourage the arts. However, as promising as Shade and other inventive ventures are, the fact remains that the Maricopa metropolitan region is just waking up to the need to recognize and support arts and culture as a critical contributor to a knowledge economy.

At one time, arts and culture have intrinsic value, economic value, and value as tools to further an all-important “sense of place” as well as to aid in such areas as workforce development, education, and community revitalization. As a result, arts and culture both enrich residents’ lives and give places meaning, identity, and economic opportunity.

This report provides statistics and information that give a sense of local arts and culture resources and challenges in the areas of 1) performing, literary, and visual arts; 2) history and preservation; 3) science and nature; 4) landmarks and events.