This report documents the activities of 18 state-funded partnerships in Arizona's school-to-work (STW) system: 10 regional partnerships, most in their fourth year of implementation, and 8 Maricopa County partnerships, all in their first year of implementation. The report is divided into two sections. The first section highlights the status of each of the 10 regional STW partnerships as of the midpoint of the state's fourth year of STW implementation. Profiles are provided in alphabetical order and provide a brief description of the changes and accomplishments in the past year. The second section profiles each of the 8 Maricopa County STW partnerships approximately three-quarters of the way through their first 13 months of STW implementation. Profiles are provided in alphabetical order and provide a brief description of the status of partnership activities and accomplishments to date. Each profile consists of the following seven components: (1) partnership name; (2) site visit date; (3) school profile; (4) employers/Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development representation; (5) goals 1-6: system governance and partnership development, program coordination and integration, technical assistance, community involvement, public awareness, and system evaluation; (6) discussion (partnership assets, partnership challenges); and (7) summary and suggestions.

The School-to-Work (STW) Opportunities Act of 1994 is intended to "offer opportunities for all students to participate in a performance-based education and training program." Nevertheless, certain populations remain hard to reach. In particular, out-of-school youth--students aged 16 through 24 who have not completed high school and are not currently enrolled in school--pose a unique challenge for emerging STW systems. This document explores the manner in which Arizona’s 13 state-funded STW partnerships (for FY 1996-97) are serving out-of-school youth. In addition, new system elements and regional STW plans for service expansion for this population are detailed. Innovative programs within the partnerships are also highlighted.

A study explored the issue of fiscal agency and its relationship to planning and implementing school-to-work (STW) systems to inform stakeholders in Arizona's emerging STW system about other states' experiences. A review of the STW Internet Gateway yielded a subset of states based on factors such as their history in implementing STW and similarities to Arizona. Interviews were conducted via telephone, fax, or e-mail with 61 individuals in 20 states. Participants were asked to relate their experiences with and as fiscal agents, how fiscal agents were chosen, and strengths and weaknesses of a particular type of fiscal agency. STW partnerships used four types of fiscal agents: educational institutions; training institutions; business and labor organizations; and "other" organizations. Effective fiscal agents had the following characteristics: existing mechanisms/structures, neutrality, experience in federal grant management, skill in fostering involvement, philosophy, and accessibility/central location. Educational institutions offered the advantages of being accustomed to handing federal monies and familiar with state-level policies and procedures. A major drawback was that their use contributed to "turf" issues. The other three types had geographic and size advantages, were able to coordinate function in multiple school districts, and were able to handle workload and manage cash flow. A disadvantage was a lack of knowledge regarding how schools operate.

While many potential voters care deeply about local and state issues, 45 percent of Arizona citizens of voting-age population did not vote in the last election, according to a report by Morrison Institute for Public Policy. To address this voter crisis, Arizona Clean Elections commissioned this report, the first in a series, to identify the reasons why only a little more than half of eligible voters actually are casting ballots in Arizona, as well as a first-of-its-kind knowledge bank of information on Arizona government to ensure that voters can vote in an informed manner.

The 2015 State of Our State Conference focused on criminal justice reform and included several white papers from various authors, researchers and legal officials from different perspectives. Here is the latest contribution in the series published by Morrison Institute for Public Policy as part of its ongoing effort to encourage public dialogue on criminal justice issues. America is witnessing a growing national consensus that we should not be incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders, even those with prior drug convictions, who have not committed property crimes. Many other less-serious offenders could receive reduced sentences without threatening public safety. Even when offenders deserve incarceration, they may not have deserved the amount of time imposed – the punishment did not fit the crime. These are among the evidence-based arguments presented by three veteran attorneys in “Fixing Arizona’s Mass Incarceration Dilemma.” The paper’s authors are former Maricopa County Superior Court Judge R.L. Gottsfield, Phoenix attorney Larry A. Hammond, founder and president of the Arizona Justice Project, and former Maricopa County public defender Donna Elm. Touching on all aspects of the justice system, the authors assert that Arizona is behind the curve in addressing its mass incarceration problem. The importance of ignoring the direction the country is going cannot be understated for Arizona, which has one of the highest incarceration rates. It is even more unjustified in light of research indicating that shorter sentences do not jeopardize public safety – with safety being the mainstay basis for Arizona’s heavy sentencing regime.

Mobility is crucial to everyday life in rural and urban settings, and for individuals with disabilities and low-income populations public transportation can be a major obstacle to keeping them socially engaged. For some individuals, public transportation is their sole way to see a doctor, get groceries and maintain employment. A 2015 survey of individuals with developmental disabilities in 28 states found that Arizona is the worst when it comes to reliable transportation. What can Arizona do to increase funding and continually improve its transportation services? This report examines some avenues to mobility.

A recent American Civil Liberties Union report found that Maricopa County elementary and middle school students with disabilities are twice as likely to be suspended compared to kids without disabilities. Another key factor in this discussion is the use of restraints and seclusion on students with disabilities as disciplinary action in schools. In 2016, state lawmakers revised Arizona Revised Statute Title 15-105 on the use of restraints and seclusion, requiring that schools document and report any restraint or seclusion used on students to the parent or guardian within 24 hours. This briefing paper looks at the definition of restraints and seclusion, as well as whether they are overused forms of punishment on students with disabilities.