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. 

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.

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.

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.

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).

Arizona has grown rapidly over the years and our education system has grown in step with the population. But increasing the total budget for education doesn't mean that we have directed more resources to each student. The numbers show that Arizona has one of the lowest per-pupil funding rates in the country. Parties of one faction or another argue endlessly about which numbers to use in comparing Arizona to other states, or even whether such comparisons are possible. What is indisputable is that Arizona ranks in the bottom tier of states in both education spending and in student achievement and that we have made substantial cuts in our funding of both K-12 and higher education since the beginning of the Great Recession.

Between May and July of 1996, members of the council were asked to participate in a series of interviews. The primary purpose of the interviews was to elicit council members' views of and expectations for Arizona's STW initiative. A second reason was to clarify the mission of the council itself. This paper highlights salient points from the interviews. Quotes are used verbatim.

In the spring of 1998, the Office of Workforce Development Policy (OWDP) of the Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned a statewide opinion poll to assess public attitudes toward the state’s plan for economic development as implemented through GSPED — the Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The poll was designed to assess both the public’s understanding of GSPED and their reactions to using the concept of industry clusters as a tool for organizing both economic and workforce development efforts.

One question posed by members of the Governors’ Council on Workforce Development Policy pertained
to whether polling results vary by urban versus rural residency. Specifically, the question was raised as to whether the responses of rural residents differ from those who live in urban areas. Therefore, at the request of the Council, results of the polling were analyzed in order to answer the question: Does urban versus rural residency affect respondents' answers? The answer to this question is, in short, No.