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.

With so much new school reform activity within the United States centering on charter schools, a fresh appraisal of the situation is in order. This briefing summarizes the history of charter school laws and updates their current status across the country. Although this is not intended to be a comprehensive review, several charter school research projects are described: some that have revealed lessons learned in the implementation of charter school laws, and others, more national in scope, that were designed to systematically describe existing charter schools and document their impacts.

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."

This study was conducted as a progress evaluation of charter schools in Arizona. The study was funded by the Arizona Department of Education and conducted during calendar year 1998 by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

A total of 303 parents of charter school students, 171 students, 123 teachers and 54 directors completed surveys about charter schools. Fourteen focus groups were held around the state with parents, students, teachers and directors. Individual interviews were conducted with 23 persons, most of whom either hold policy-making positions related to charter schools or are employed by professional organizations that interact frequently with the schools.

The Arizona Head Start--Public School Transition Project is 1 of 31 demonstration projects designed to test whether advances by Head Start children could be maintained by continuing Head Start-type services into kindergarten through the third grade, and to identify, develop, and implement transition practices to bridge the gap between Head Start and public schools. This study evaluated the Arizona project in its fourth year of implementation. Participating were two cohorts of students at three transition and three comparison schools in Phoenix. The program components evaluated were: (1) developmentally appropriate practices, curriculum, and materials; (2) physical health, mental health, and dental services; (3) family services; and (4) parent involvement. Findings indicated that all components had been implemented by the time of the 1995-96 evaluation. Both cohorts had similar public assistance participation, and all groups showed dramatic decreases in public assistance since program entry. The vast majority of parents from all groups reported positive interactions with schools; qualitative data confirmed continuing positive impact on teachers, schools, and the Head Start agency. Transition services, especially those of family advocates, were seen as crucial to smooth transitions. There were observable differences between transition and comparison classrooms; however, quantitative data showed few significant differences in gains made by children between transition and comparison classrooms. Confounding variables of high attrition, variations in student English proficiency, and the existence in comparison schools of transition-like services may have influenced the results. Promising practices and further challenges were identified and recommendations were made for improving the collaboration between the Head Start program and the public schools, and improving the evaluation process. (Three appendices include a summary of data collection instruments. Contains 20 references.)

The Phoenix Early Head Start (EHS) program is a family-centered program intended to provide early, continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support services for first-time teen parents and their very young children. This report presents case studies of 12 families, all EHS participants, who agreed to be followed throughout their participation in the program so that their stories could be updated as they unfolded from one year to the next. The case study families were interviewed in August of 1997, 1998, and 1999. Four of the families had participated in the first two interviews but had withdrawn prior to the third interview. Additional information was obtained through conversations with family support specialists in May 2000. Common themes in the families' stories regarding EHS's role include: (1) assistance from caring staff; (2) reassurance from home visits and child development; (3) help in becoming good parents; (4) help with personal goals; (5) help with daily life; and (6) socialization opportunities for children and parents. During the study, most families made progress to widely differing degrees. Although somewhat apprehensive about life without the safety net of EHS, all eight families seemed much more confident than earlier, had some knowledge and understanding of their children and themselves, and had articulated and taken some steps toward achieving personal and family goals.

Amidst the numbers and statistics that comprise a program evaluation, it is easy to lose sight of the program participants themselves. That is one rationale for a case study--to tap into some of the rich background information that only participants can provide. To develop some of this background information for the five-year program evaluation of Phoenix Early Head Start(EHS), a case study was undertaken of 12 families who were representative of all EHS program participants. Each of the 12 families agreed to be followed throughout their participation in the program so that their "stories" can be updated as they unfold from one year to the next.

The Phoenix, Arizona, Early Head Start (EHS) program is for first-time teen parents and their families. The end of 1999-2000 marked the fifth and final year of a research and demonstration grant for EHS and concluded the fourth full year of program implementation. This report provides a five-year perspective on program process and outcomes for children, families, staff, and the community. The report also examines the program's community linkages and efforts to build community capacity to serve very young children and their families. Evaluation findings reveal that at the end of 5 years, Phoenix Early Head Start remains "on track." Program parents and children received support through a wide array of services; a range of community linkages and partnerships have helped expand resources and options for families; and much has been learned about how to train staff who work with children from birth through age 3 and their families.

Recommendations for the program included adopting a child development instrument to determine program effects on children, allocating resources to address employment/training issues for program parents, taking action to retain staff, maintaining an intensive staff training agenda in child development at all program levels, and disseminating information on the program's experiences. The report's four appendices include details on the continuous improvement evaluation plan, evaluation methodology, and a summary of data collection instruments and methodological notes. (Contains 52 references.)