Matching Items (6)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

89283-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsWhitsett, Andrea (Contributor) / Gupta, Sapna (Contributor) / Hunting, Dan (Contributor) / Morrison Institute of Public Policy (Contributor) / Arizona Community Foundation (Contributor)
Created2013-11-01
Description

This year, Arizona Directions assesses the health of both ends of the P-20 spectrum: early childcare and education and the high school /postsecondary-to-industry nexus. Both are viewed through the lens of Arizona’s current competitive position and its trajectory through the broader economic landscape. How well does Arizona regulate, promote and

This year, Arizona Directions assesses the health of both ends of the P-20 spectrum: early childcare and education and the high school /postsecondary-to-industry nexus. Both are viewed through the lens of Arizona’s current competitive position and its trajectory through the broader economic landscape. How well does Arizona regulate, promote and ensure equitable access to quality early childcare and to programs that help children enter Kindergarten ready to learn? Does Arizona’s production of graduates and skilled workers align with current and projected industry needs? In other words, are we setting our children up to succeed in the new global economy? At the same time, are we creating a talent pool that will help Arizona stand out as the place to start and grow a business? Arizona Directions’ data-driven approach enables Arizonans to step back and examine the evidence without the distraction of clashing political rhetoric. The report is designed to create a common reference point for civil discourse and post-partisan, collaborative approaches to improving Arizona’s competitiveness. Still, the data are merely the kindling. Many minds are needed to stoke the fire and convert its energy into real-world results.

89466-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsManning, Linda (Contributor) / Hunting, Dan (Contributor) / Gupta, Sapna (Contributor) / Morrison Institute of Public Policy (Contributor)
Created2015-08-01
Description

Over 92,000 people between the ages of 16 and 24 in metro Phoenix who are neither working nor in school present a staggering challenge to the area. These Opportunity Youth (OY) have a lifetime taxpayer burden of $27.3 billion and a lifetime social burden of $218.5 billion. Nationally, the 6.7

Over 92,000 people between the ages of 16 and 24 in metro Phoenix who are neither working nor in school present a staggering challenge to the area. These Opportunity Youth (OY) have a lifetime taxpayer burden of $27.3 billion and a lifetime social burden of $218.5 billion. Nationally, the 6.7 million Opportunity Youth have a potential taxpayer burden of $1.56 trillion and an aggregate social burden of $4.75 trillion. Figures like this signal a clear call to action. National and local businesses, along with leading academic institutions have the opportunity to emerge as leaders in decreasing the taxpayer and social costs of OY while simultaneously helping their own bottom line. The opportunity of a collaboration between leading business and leading academic institutions on the issue of OY creates a win-win for the national and state economy as well as the welfare of all citizens.

68352-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsGupta, Sapna (Author)
Created2013-04
Description

This report examines the potential of Career and Technical Education in Arizona in terms of providing employers certified skills need to compete regionally, nationally and internationally and students avenues for higher education, quality of life and job satisfaction.

68478-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsEngmark, Jill (Author) / Vandegrift, Judith A. (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created1997-01
Description

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

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.

68547-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsEngmark, Jill (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created1997-07
Description

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

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.

68546-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsLarson, Elizabeth Hunt (Author) / Engmark, Jill (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created1999-12
Description

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

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.