Matching Items (232)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

41817-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMokwa, Michael (Author) / McIntosh, Daniel (Author) / Eaton, John (Author) / Evans, Anthony (Author) / Hill, Kent (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Contributor)
Created2016-04-13
Description

The 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship Game was held on January 11, 2016, in Glendale, Arizona. The W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University was commissioned to conduct an economic impact assessment of the Game and events surrounding it, including the impact of direct and indirect

The 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship Game was held on January 11, 2016, in Glendale, Arizona. The W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University was commissioned to conduct an economic impact assessment of the Game and events surrounding it, including the impact of direct and indirect visitor and organizational expenditures. This study utilized multiple research, survey and analytical methodologies. This report will outline the methodologies used and the results obtained in the study and the economic impact. 

41818-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsJames, Tim (Timothy Jon) (Author) / Evans, Anthony John (Author) / Madly, Eva (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Contributor)
Created2014-04-04
Description

This study examines the economic impact of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) to the State of Arizona in two aspects: the construction of CAP, 1973‐1993; and the impact of CAP's water supply delivery operations, 1986‐2010. A modified IMPLAN input‐output model for the State of Arizona is used to implement both

This study examines the economic impact of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) to the State of Arizona in two aspects: the construction of CAP, 1973‐1993; and the impact of CAP's water supply delivery operations, 1986‐2010. A modified IMPLAN input‐output model for the State of Arizona is used to implement both analyses. The economic impacts for each analysis are assessed in terms of gross state product (GSP) and employment.

43586-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsHoffman, Dennis L. (Author) / Hogan, Timothy D. (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Publisher)
Created2005-02
Description

For those interested in one of the most extreme state tax and expenditure limitations, TABOR – Colorado’s initiative that limits the funding of most expenditures to annual revenue growth restrained by the sum of annual population growth and inflation rates – would seem to be exactly the right choice. To

For those interested in one of the most extreme state tax and expenditure limitations, TABOR – Colorado’s initiative that limits the funding of most expenditures to annual revenue growth restrained by the sum of annual population growth and inflation rates – would seem to be exactly the right choice. To some, the initiative simply limits government to spend within its means. However, the analysis in this paper reveals that, true to the language in the 1992 Colorado initiative, TABOR limits government growth, and over time the public sector, as a share of the overall economy, declines sharply – crowding out opportunities for investments in strategic initiatives or opportunities for tax reform that may be popular with large voter constituencies or the business community. Advocates point out that provisions in TABOR do allow for voter overrides, but these are costly in both time and money, and until the overrides take place, government is
hamstrung. A simpler, more efficient alternative would be to elect fiscally conservative legislators and hold them accountable for prudent fiscal decisions that strike the right balance between a tax base conductive to economic growth and strategic investments that provide public sector infrastructure, nurturing the business climate and promoting the health and well-being of the citizenry. The paper first outlines the TABOR amendment in Colorado and examines its fiscal consequences for that state. It then examines the potential impact of a TABOR in Arizona.

43588-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Publisher)
Created2005-06
Description

The research for this report was conducted in two phases. The first phase analyzed the change in national job quality using multiple datasets, going back as far as 1970. In addition, the level and change in job quality was estimated for one state (Arizona). Some inconsistencies in the measurement of

The research for this report was conducted in two phases. The first phase analyzed the change in national job quality using multiple datasets, going back as far as 1970. In addition, the level and change in job quality was estimated for one state (Arizona). Some inconsistencies in the measurement of job quality exist across datasets. Complete results of this analysis, with a strong focus on Arizona data, are available in the report "Job Quality in Arizona". The second phase analyzed data for all states but was limited to two datasets, one presenting industrial data, the other occupational data. Because of the limited availability of state data by occupation, the time period analyzed was restricted to the years 2000 and 2003. The level of job quality in 2003 and the change between 2000 and 2003 are presented. The findings of the second phase, initially reported in "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States", are included in the current report, excluding detail provided for Arizona in the original report. Additional national and regional analyses are included in the current report.

43589-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Publisher)
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" 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).

43567-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2008-11
Description

The demand for new workers in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) occupations in Arizona is a function of net job growth in these occupations in the state and the number of workers leaving STEM jobs in Arizona. Employees may leave their position for various reasons, including to retire, to

The demand for new workers in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) occupations in Arizona is a function of net job growth in these occupations in the state and the number of workers leaving STEM jobs in Arizona. Employees may leave their position for various reasons, including to retire, to move out of the state, or to change their profession. The supply of new workers in STEM occupations in Arizona is a function of the number of new college graduates in related majors, the number of workers moving to the state who are qualified to fill STEM jobs, and the number of Arizonans who are qualified to fill STEM jobs moving from a non-STEM to STEM occupation.

68327-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsKoppell, Jonathan (Author) / Daugherty, David B. (Author) / Garcia, Joseph (Author) / Shitsett, Andrea (Author) / Arizona Town Hall (Publisher, Publisher) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Author, Author of afterword, colophon, etc.)
Created2014-04
Description

Arizona’s vulnerable populations are struggling on a daily basis but usually do so in silence, undetected by traditional radar and rankings, often unaware themselves of their high risk for being pushed or pulled into full crisis. Ineligible for financial assistance under strict eligibility guidelines, they don’t qualify as poor because

Arizona’s vulnerable populations are struggling on a daily basis but usually do so in silence, undetected by traditional radar and rankings, often unaware themselves of their high risk for being pushed or pulled into full crisis. Ineligible for financial assistance under strict eligibility guidelines, they don’t qualify as poor because vulnerable populations are not yet in full crisis. To be clear, this report is not about the “poor,” at least not in the limited sense of the word. It is about our underemployed wage earners, our single-parent households, our deployed or returning military members, our under-educated and unskilled workforce, our debt-ridden neighbors, our uninsured friends, our family members with no savings for an emergency, much less retirement.

68328-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsReilly, Thom (Author) / Vitek, Keiran (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created2015-06-03
Description

Arizona's recently adopted budget for fiscal year 2015-16 includes dramatic reductions in assistance to low-income families with children. On July 1, Arizona will become the first and only state to limit lifetime eligibility requirements for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to 12 months (federal law allows for

Arizona's recently adopted budget for fiscal year 2015-16 includes dramatic reductions in assistance to low-income families with children. On July 1, Arizona will become the first and only state to limit lifetime eligibility requirements for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to 12 months (federal law allows for eligibility time limits of 60 months). That means come June 30, 2016, many Arizona families no longer will receive TANF benefits even if they otherwise would be eligible under federal guidelines.

68329-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMcFadden, Erica (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created2015-05
Description

More than one in 10 Arizona public high school students have disabilities. One-third of these youth remain unengaged in work or education following graduation, creating a significant public policy challenge for the state. Why is this so? This report shares findings from 2014 surveys and focus groups conducted with youth

More than one in 10 Arizona public high school students have disabilities. One-third of these youth remain unengaged in work or education following graduation, creating a significant public policy challenge for the state. Why is this so? This report shares findings from 2014 surveys and focus groups conducted with youth and families as well as interviews with education leaders across the state. These responses highlight how Arizona schools and families are preparing these youth, and what the state still needs to do to ensure youth with disabilities have a role to play in Arizona’s job market.