This report follows The Coming of Age report produced in 2002 by some of the principals involved in this project, and published by St. Luke’s Health Initiatives. That research showed that Arizona had much to do to get ready for the baby boomer age wave. The results of Unlocking Resilience from new survey data, interviews, and secondary research indicates Arizona still has much to do to prepare for aging and must make concrete policy decisions about aging.

Though the Great Recession may be officially over, all is not well in Arizona. Three years after the collapse of a massive real estate “bubble,” the deepest economic downturn in memory exposed and exacerbated one of the nation’s most profound state fiscal crises, with disturbing implications for Arizona citizens and the state’s long-term economic health.

This brief takes a careful look at the Grand Canyon State’s fiscal situation, examining both Arizona’s serious cyclical budget shortfall—the one resulting from a temporary collapse of revenue due to the recession—as well as the chronic, longer-term, and massive structural imbalances that have developed largely due to policy choices made in better times. This primer employs a unique methodology to estimate the size of the state’s structural deficit and then explores the mix of forces, including the large permanent tax reductions, that created them. It also highlights some of the dramatic impacts these fiscal challenges are having on service-delivery as well as on local governments. The brief suggests some of the steps state policymakers must take to close their budget gaps over the short and longer term. First, it urges better policymaking, and prods leaders to broaden, balance, and diversify the state’s revenue base while looking to assure a long-haul balance of taxing and spending. And second, it recommends that Arizona improve the information-sharing and budgeting processes through which fiscal problems are understood—so they may ultimately be averted.

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.