School to Work Fiscal Agents [electronic resource] : Profiles of 20 States. Arizona School to Work Briefing Paper #3 / Jill Engmark and Judith A. Vandegrift.

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 facto...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Online Access: Full Text (via ERIC)
Main Author: Engmark, Jill
Corporate Author: Morrison Institute for Public Policy
Other Authors: Vandegrift, Judith A.
Format: Electronic eBook
Language:English
Published: [S.l.] : Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, 1997.
Subjects:

MARC

LEADER 00000nam a22000002u 4500
001 b6410913
003 CoU
005 20080220152204.6
006 m d f
007 cr un
008 970101s1997 xx |||| ot ||| | eng d
035 |a (ERIC)ed418319 
040 |a ericd  |c ericd  |d MvI 
099 |f ERIC DOC #  |a ED418319 
099 |f ERIC DOC #  |a ED418319 
100 1 |a Engmark, Jill. 
245 1 0 |a School to Work Fiscal Agents  |h [electronic resource] :  |b Profiles of 20 States. Arizona School to Work Briefing Paper #3 /  |c Jill Engmark and Judith A. Vandegrift. 
260 |a [S.l.] :  |b Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,  |c 1997. 
300 |a 10 p. 
500 |a ERIC Document Number: ED418319. 
500 |a Sponsoring Agency: Arizona State Dept. of Education, Phoenix. Div. of Adult Education.  |5 ericd. 
520 |a 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. (YLB) 
650 0 7 |a Career Education.  |2 ericd. 
650 1 7 |a Education Work Relationship.  |2 ericd. 
650 1 7 |a Educational Finance.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Educational Research.  |2 ericd. 
650 1 7 |a Federal Aid.  |2 ericd. 
650 1 7 |a Financial Services.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Postsecondary Education.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Secondary Education.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a State Programs.  |2 ericd. 
650 1 7 |a Statewide Planning.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Vocational Education.  |2 ericd. 
700 1 |a Vandegrift, Judith A. 
710 2 |a Morrison Institute for Public Policy. 
856 4 0 |u http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED418319.pdf  |z Full Text (via ERIC) 
907 |a .b64109136  |b 07-06-22  |c 10-16-10 
998 |a web  |b 10-26-12  |c f  |d m   |e -  |f eng  |g xx   |h 0  |i 1 
956 |a ERIC 
999 f f |i b8a24455-1e82-5162-b537-593ea892c459  |s adc6f4a7-a382-5fb7-98e4-7e0b5a4f920c 
952 f f |p Can circulate  |a University of Colorado Boulder  |b Online  |c Online  |d Online  |e ED418319  |h Other scheme  |i web  |n 1