ERIC ED418319: School to Work Fiscal Agents: Profiles of 20 States. Arizona School to Work Briefing Paper #3.

11 Pages·0.3 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
CE 076 281
ED 418 319
Engmark, Jill; Vandegrift, Judith A.
AUTHOR
School to Work Fiscal Agents: Profiles of 20 States. Arizona
TITLE
School to Work Briefing Paper #3.
Arizona State Univ., Tempe. Morrison Inst. for Public
INSTITUTION
Policy.
Arizona State Dept. of Education, Phoenix. Div. of Adult
SPONS AGENCY
Education.
1997-01-00
PUB DATE
NOTE
10p.
Research (143)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Career Education; *Education Work Relationship; *Educational
DESCRIPTORS
Finance; Educational Research; *Federal Aid; *Financial
Services; Postsecondary Education; Secondary Education;
State Programs; *Statewide Planning; Vocational Education
*Arizona; School to Work Opportunities Act 1994
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
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)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
*
*
*
from the original document.
*
********************************************************************************
School to Work Fiscal Agents: Profiles of 20 States
Arizona School to Work Briefing Paper #3
.8. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
Mc of Educational Research and Improvement
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
ED CADONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it
Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in thus doci
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
ment do not necessarily represent official
OERI position or policy.
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
School To Work Fiscal Agents:
Profiles of 20 States
January 1997
Arizona School To Work Briefing Paper #3
by
Jill Engmarh, Consultant and Judith A. Vandegrift, Research Analyst
whether or not there are unique advantages or
The School-to-Work (STW) Opportunities Act of
disadvantages associated with different types of
1994 provides a national impetus for creating
fiscal agents. Or, whether one type of fiscal agent
statewide systems that combine workforce and
stands a better chance of sustainability than
economic development with changes in the ways
another once federal STW funds are no longer
that students are educated. In FY 1996 alone,
available.
$350 million was channeled through states or
directly from the U.S. Departments of Labor and
In an effort to answer these questions and others,
Education to 818 STW local partnerships to begin
the GDSTW commissioned Morrison Institute for
or continue the process of building statewide STW
Public Policy--the agency coordinating the state's
systems. Given a perception that "whomever
STW research and evaluation activitiesto
controls the purse strings has power," designated
investigate fiscal management practices in other
fiscal agents have the potential to greatly impact
states. This briefing paper summarizes the results
STW system implementation.
of this inquiry.
This paper explores the issue of fiscal agency and
Study methodology
its relationship to planning and implementing
STW systems. It is intended primarily for use by
During FY 1996, 27 states were engaged in STW
Arizona's state and local STW partners, and
activities. Ten additional states began
especially those who are rethinking their
implementation in FY 1997. An initial review of
designation of a fiscal agent. The goal is to inform
information obtained from the STW Internet
stakeholders in Arizona's emerging STW system
Gateway yielded a subset of states that were
about other states' experiences with fiscal agents.
targeted for investigation based on factors such as
their history in implementing STW and
In part, the paper is prompted by Arizona's
similarities to Arizona (e.g., regional; funding
experience with fiscal agency during FY 1996.
structure).
Arizona's STW implementation grant is
administered by the Governor's Division of School
A total of 61 individuals in 20 states responded to
To Work (GDSTW). During FY 1996the state's
requests for information. Of the interviews:
first year of implementation-13 partnerships
received either a capacity building or
22 represented state STW personnel;
implementation grant from the GDSTW. Of the 13
partnerships, 11 designated community colleges
24 were fiscal agents from educational
as fiscal agents, while two were administered by
institutions; and,
school districts. Three of these partnerships
changed fiscal agents for FY 1997, and others are
15 were fiscal agents representing 501(c)(3)s,
considering a change.
workforce development boards, chambers of
commerce, manufacturers' associations,
Local partnerships' experiences with their fiscal
Private Industry Councils (PICs), and "Area
agents provoked a number of questions such as
Development Districts."
n
[phone]
Arizona State University
Morrison Institute for Public Policy
School of Public Affairs
1
3
Interviews were conducted between October and
as fiscal agents in several states and account for
December of 1996 via telephone, fax, or e-mail two percent of the fiscal agents identified in this
study. Wisconsin has the most (5), followed by
with follow-up as necessary to ensure the accuracy
Iowa, Nebraska, and North Carolina with an
of the information reported. Participants were
asked to relate their experiences with and as fiscal
estimated two each.
agents, how fiscal agents were chosen, and the
"Other" organizations: "Other" organizations
strengths and weaknesses of a particular type of
account for 13 percent of known fiscal agents.
fiscal agency. Findings are summarized in the
These include workforce development or
sections that follow.
investment boards, local or regional government
agencies, and nonprofit agencies. One
An overview of fiscal agents
stateMichiganuses workforce development
boards exclusively as fiscal agents. Florida,
Fiscal agents for STW partnerships are discussed
Massachusetts, Nebraska and Ohio also have one
in terms of one of four categories: educational
or two workforce development boards acting as
institutions, training institutions, business and
fiscal agents.
labor organizations, and "other" organizations.
These categories are adopted from the Local
Kentucky's "Area Development Districts" are an
Partnership Surveyan instrument developed by
example of a local or regional government agency
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. as part of the
acting as fiscal agent. These districts encompass
national evaluation of STW implementation.
multiple counties and employ staff to coordinate
local government functions (e.g., transportation,
Educational institutions: In the 20 states
JTPA). Counties as a unit of government also serve
surveyed, 84 percent of STW partnerships use an
as fiscal agents for some local STW partnerships.
educational institution as their fiscal agent.
For example, most fiscal agents in California are
counties. Similarly, Florida's school districts are
Y-12 entitiesespecially local education agencies
county-based in the sense that each county in
or school districtscomprise 70 percent of the
Florida is a school district.
fiscal agents in the category of educational
institutions. Other K-12 fiscal agents include
501(c)(3)s are the primary nonprofit organization
regional vocational districts/ centers and
used as fiscal agents. California, Kentucky,
intermediate/regional "education services districts"
Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin all have at least
(including educational collaboratives).
one 501(c)(3) organization serving as a fiscal agent
for a local partnership.
The remaining 14 percent of educational
institutions serving as fiscal agents are
Table 1 (on pages 4 and 5) summarizes
postsecondary institutions. Of the 51 known
information about states' fiscal agents. A word of
postsecondary fiscal agents, only a few (eight
explanation is warranted on the figures included
percent) are universities while most (92 percent)
in the table. Since this study was conducted at the
are two-year institutions (e.g., community, junior,
end of FY 1996 and beginning of FY 1997, some
or technical colleges).
states reported numbers from 1996 and others
from 1997. Whenever possible, the most recent
Training institutions: Training institutions
partnership statistics were used. Maine and
include entities such as proprietary schools,
Washington, though included in the table, do not
apprenticeship agencies, and PICs. Training
institutionsPICs exclusivelyaccount for only
have data on fiscal agents because both states have
unique STW fiscal structures which are
one percent of fiscal agents included in this study.
highlighted in the text.
California, Ohio and Oregon each have at least
one fiscal agent that is a PIC.
Some notable facts from the table are as follows.
Business and labor organizations (e.g., trade
associations, chambers of commerce) are utilized
ri Morrison institute for Public Policy
Arizona State University
School of Public Affairs
[phone]
2
4
'!8E57,' COT( AVAIILAIS
NeutralityA neutral agent can eliminate
Among state fiscal agents: 65 percent (13 of
perceptions that fiscal management is tied to any
20) are state education agencies; 25 percent
single municipality, school district, community
(five states) are labor-related state agencies
college, region, and so on. An independent party
such as a department of commerce; and 10
can better mediate and resolve "turf" challenges
percent (two states, excluding Arizona)
among participating partners.
channel funds through the Governor's Office.
Experience in federal grant managementAn
75 percent (16 of 20) of the states and 84
effective fiscal agent not only has a structure in
percent (298 of 353) of known partnerships
place to handle funds, but also has experience in
employ at least one educational institution as
grant management.
a fiscal agent.
Skill in fostering involvementAn effective
In six statesColorado, Idaho, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Utahall fiscal
fiscal agent is able to effectively involve,
coordinate, and collaborate with all stakeholders.
agents are educational institutions.
PhilosophyAn effective fiscal agent has a strong
Florida is the only state (except Arizona) with
commitment to creating a "true new partnership
more postsecondary than K-12 fiscal agents.
between business and education."
Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin have the
Accessibility/central locationEasy accessibility
highest percentages of non-education fiscal
and central location within a particular region are
agents, but also have labor departments as
viewed as positive characteristics of fiscal agency.
state fiscal agents.
With the exception of Michigan, whose fiscal
agents are all workforce development boards,
Kentucky has the highest percentage of
The downside of fiscal agency
"other organizations" as fiscal agents.
Cash flowLack of up-front cash;
Characteristics of "effective" fiscal agents
reimbursement nature of the grant
The main question of interest was whether or not
Workload"Extra work without resources;"
a particular type of fiscal agent is perceived as
"It's not exactly a windfall to be a fiscal agent."
better or more effective than another in planning
or implementing a local STW system. In short, no
Turf problems/Cooperation from other
one type of agency is uniformly perceived as better or
stakeholdersJealousy from partners over the
more effective than another. Rather, fiscal agents of
status of the fiscal agent; perceptions
all types are perceived as effective in systems-
sometimes warrantedthat fiscal agents have
building efforts to the degree that they also are
more or undue influence than other partners.
perceived as having particular institutional
characteristics or strengths. As derived from the
Personnel policiesEspecially among
interviews, such characteristics or strengths
educational institutions, union salary
include the following:
limitations for hiring staff and college personnel
policies and restrictions pose barriers in getting
Existing mechanisms/structuresExisting
the right person for the job
resources to distribute grant monies means less
time in "gearing up"and establishing new
Liability-The entity that serves as fiscal agent
relationships. Institutional characteristics such as
assumes liability for the entire partnership
established human and policy resources and
who needs it?
accounting systems can facilitate the planning and
implementation processes.
a Morrison Institute for Public Policy
[phone]
Arizona State University
School of Public Affairs
3
Table 1
Local partnership fiscal agents in 20 states
(excluding Arizona)
Type of Fiscal Agent
Educational Institutions
Other
Training
Business
Institutions
& Labor
# of
Yr of
State
State Post-
K-12
Total
data
fiscal
secondary
(Educational
ST W
agent
Institutions)
'97
GO
4
13
AZ
12
8
1
(30%)
(92%)
(8%)
(62%)
'97
DOL
55*
CA
One
Few
Most
V7
65*
Most
Few
GO
CO
All
'96
27
28
FL
SEA
13
14
1
(96%)
(46%)
(50%)
(4%)
Most
iA
Pew
DOL
Seine
150.
MOS
'96
21
ID
16
21
SEA
5
(76%)
(100%)
(24%)
.......
............
.
14
KY
6
,97
22
$EA
p6%)
(6490
(28%)
33
'96
26
28
SEA
MA
2
(79%)
(85%)
(6%)
ME
NA
24*
SEA NA
NA
"97H
NA
26 '97
DOL
26
MI
(100%)
,
NC
'97
66*
Few
Most
SEA
Few
. .
'96
DOL
NE
6
12
2
2
2
(30%)
(17%)
(17%)
(17%)
'96
NH
58
58
SEA
(1M%)
'97
Most
Few
NY
55*
SEA
. ,.,. ,.. ... . .
4
4
NV
V7
SEA
3
1
(75%)
(25%)
(100%)
OH
'97
38
53**
49
SEA
11
3
1
(72%)
(92%)
(20%)
(6%)
(2%)
40
V7
41
41.
$EA,
1
0896)
(100%)
'96
OR
SEA
15
13
13
1
1
(87%)
(87%)
(7%) (7%)
n! Morrison Institute for Public Policy
School of Public Affairs
[phone]
Arizona State University
4
BEST COPY
AVAILABLE
Table 1continued
Type of Fiscal Agent
Other
Educational Institutions
Training
Business
Institutions
# of
Yr of
Post-
State Total
State
K-12
Labor
data
secondary
(Educational
STW
fiscal
Institutions)
agent
.......
.........
............ ............. ...........
...
. .
.
.
8 9
UT 9
SEA *96
1
grow.
806)
(100%)
(11 %)
'97
GO
NA
WA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA*
NA
8
'96
26
18
DOL
31
WI
5
OM
(16%)
(26%)
(84%)
44
768
247
8
298
51
3
Total* * *
(13%)
(84%)
353
(70%)
(2%)
(1%)
(14%)
Notes: Figures may not total 100% due to rounding
DOL = Department of Labor (e.g.,Commerce, Economic Development, Jobs Commission)
GO = Governor's Office
SEA = State Education Agency
# of STW = Number of local/regional partnerships reported
*Specific breakdowns of types of fiscal agents for these states are unavailable or do not apply.
**Ohio has funded a total of 93 partnerships since implementation began in 1996. Fiscal agents for 40 "prototype grants" were
unable to be determined; numbers are based only on the 53 partnerships with known fiscal agency.
*"768 is the total number of partnerships in the states studied. 353 is the number of partnerships in which type of fiscal agency
is known. Percentages are based upon known fiscal agent types.
State profiles
Ohio: Regional alliances and local partnerships
Some states exhibit particularly unique fiscal
agency or funding distribution practices. Some of
are structured around the state's 12 economic
these are described in the profiles that follow.
development regions. Ohio uses a "draw down"
method for distribution of the funds for all
Michigan: During FY 1996, Michigan funded 44 funding recipients. Awards of federal funds are
STW partnerships; roughly 80 percent had
made through a "Request for Proposal" process at
educational institutions as fiscal agents. Michigan
the state level with money provided on a
changed its system of designating fiscal agents for
reimbursement basis.
FY 1997. Monies are now administered through
26 regional workforce development boards who
Oklahoma: There are 41 local partnerships. Fiscal
distribute funds through a competitive bid
agency is driven primarily by state statute, which
process. While several interviewees said that the
requires a streamlined delivery of dollars and a
changeover has been somewhat difficult, they also
standard state financial process. For this reason,
indicated that the state is in a transitional period
the majority of Oklahoma fiscal agents are school
and that it is premature to gauge the advantages
districts or area vocational schools.
and disadvantages of this strategy.
Morrison Institute for Public Policy
[phone]
School of Public Affairs
Arizona State University
I
5
BEST
COPY AVAILABLE
7
Maine: Although Maine has 24 local partnerships,
learning, skills centers, support). The five agents
monies are distributed instead through seven then channel funds directly to local partnerships.
funding streams. Local entities receive funding
Educational consortiums receive the majority of
through these pathways, rather than specific fiscal
STW funds.
agents. The Maine State Department of Education
acts as state fiscal agent, channeling the funds to
the appropriate state agencies administering the
seven areas of emphasis which are: 1) a pre-
How fiscal agents are chosen
apprenticeship program managed by the Maine
Department of Labor, 2) Jobs for Maine's
Asked how partnerships selected their fiscal
Graduates, 3) Tech Prep, 4) pro-prep, 5)
agent, four primary reasons were cited (which
occupational prep, 6) school-based enterprises,
are not necessarily mutually exclusive). In order
and 7) a state-level youth apprenticeship program
of frequency of response, fiscal agents were
named "Career Advantage."
selected
The "Career Advantage" program is the primary
Because they were involved from the outset
pathway for STW funding in Maine. Funds go to
(e.g., they either wrote the planning or
the Center for Career Development, a subsidiary
implementation grant, served as chair of the
of the technical college system. The Center is set
planning committee, or took a lead role early in
up as a 501(c)(3) corporation, and is the employer
the process).
of record for all students enrolled in the program.
Businesses accepting students at their work sites
Because they were elected by all stakeholders
pay $5000 a year. Insurance and student stipends
(regardless of their initial role).
are paid out of this fee.
Because they had an existing structure for
Massachusetts: In Massachusetts, where state
handling a federal/state grant which made
fiscal agency resides in the Massachusetts
them a logical choice.
Department of Education (MDE), the majority of
local fiscal agents are schools, school districts and
By default (i.e., no other organization
educational collaboratives, although there are a
expressed interest in serving in this capacity,
few employment boards and community colleges
while the chosen fiscal agent was willing).
serving in this capacity.
What distinguishes Massachusetts is that one of
the community colleges uses a regional
Unique advantages by type of fiscal agent
employment board as a lead fiscal agent. The
employment board passes STW monies directly
Specific advantages were cited relation to different
through to the community college. This
types of fiscal agency. This section highlights pros
mechanism alleviates the necessity of an
and cons by type of fiscal agent.
intergovernmental agreement between the MDE
and the community college.
Educational institutions: Educational institutions
are perceived as advantageous in that they often
Washington: The Governor's Budget Office acts
are accustomed to handling federal monies and
as state fiscal agent for STW funds, but
are familiar with state-level policies and
immediately passes the monies through to five
procedures. However, a major drawback of using
other state-level entities (three state agencies, the
an educational entity as a fiscal agent is the
State Labor Council, and a business organization).
perception that fiscal agency imbues power or
Each subcontractor serves a different role in the
financial advantages to the agency controlling the
system-building process (e.g., work-based
purse strings, contributing to "turf" issues.
ri Morrison Institute for Public Policy
Arizona State University
School of Public Affairs
[phone]
6
a
Conversely, some respondents view postsecondary
Another issue relates to the perception of STW as
institutions as entrenched bureaucracies which
"just another education reform effort."
lack the desire to change business as usual. The
following comments illustrate this sentiment:
Benefits and detriments to using specific types of
educational institutions (e.g. K-12 and
"They are a bureaucracy that can't be
postsecondary institutions) are listed below.
moved."
"Community colleges live in their own world.
K-12: The chief advantage of using a K-12 entity
They don't like to be held accountable. They
as fiscal agent is that they are perceived as closest
like lots of 'wiggle room'."
to the students for whom STW is intended. As one
"STW is seen as just another of the
individual said,
community college initiatives. There is a
perception on the part of local educational
"We have the pulse on what is happening in
administrations of: 'What are they making
schools. The steering committee had thought
me do now?"
about a bank or community college as fiscal
agent, but felt that the K-12 public education
Training institutions, business and labor
system was where STW would be
organizations, and other organizations:
implemented."
Regional entities (e.g., counties, area development
districts) are seen as beneficial to the extent that
On the down side, K-12 institutionsparticularly
they have geographic and size advantages, the
small systemsmay not always have the capacity
ability to serve a coordinating function in areas
to handle large cash flow demands. Additionally,
with multiple school districts and buffer potential
some lack adequate knowledge of U.S.
problems between schools, and the inherent
Department of Labor requirements which are
capacity to help to "preserve unique characteristics
imbedded in STW.
of distinct geographical regions." They also may be
better able to handle workload and manage cash
Postsecondary institutions: Perceived advantages
flow than small districts.
of postsecondary institutions are that they
sometimes have more resources for fiscal
However, not all regional governmental units have
management than K-12 districts and that they may
the capacity or resources to take on the duties of
have established relationships (e.g. Tech Prep)
fiscal agency. Moreover, conflicting boundaries
with schools that serve to streamline the
within a region (e.g., technical college districts
distribution of funds. For example, college fiscal
versus labor market areas) can be problematic.
agency is perceived as "allowing schools some
freedom from the reimbursement process" and
As for organizations such as workforce
"allowing school districts to keep funds separate
development boards, 501(c)(3) corporations,
and avoid money getting diverted."
chambers of commerce, and PICs, their only cited
disadvantage is a lack of knowledge regarding how
Also, the prestige and community linkages of
schools operate. In contrast, they generally are
colleges and universities is felt to be beneficial in
perceived as having a number of advantages
recruiting stakeholders. Said one respondent,
including being more attuned to business needs
"community colleges are community-based
and wants and having a greater capacity for
connecting bridges to the private sector." Finally,
involving businesses, attracting private funding,
since community colleges sometimes are seen as
and finding mentors and work experience sites.
"the last ones to get on board," assigning fiscal
They also are viewed as having the potential to
agency to a postsecondary institution is viewed as
streamline their structures and avoid the problems
a strategic way to obtain commitment from them
to build a STW system.
of an educational bureaucracy. PICS, specifically,
Morrison Institute for Public Policy
[phone]
Arizona State University
School of Public Affairs
7
O
direction taken by a partnership at any level of
also are seen as having greater familiarity with
systems-building.
Department of Labor programs/requirements.
Although not a focus of this study, it is worth
Particularly in relation to creating a "new"
commenting on the already apparent turnover
institution [e.g. 501(c)(3)sl to administer STW
among fiscal agentsat both state and local levels.
funds, advantages are perceived in terms of an
One can hypothesize that the "advantages" of
organization able to maintain a neutral stance
between competing business and education
serving in this capacity may be outweighed by
agendas. However, these entities are seen as
factors such as cash flow or workload constraints,
having problems inherent in starting any new
particularly in the cases of small or new
organizations. Or , that charged with the
venture (e.g., hiring personnel, locating office
space, start-up funding). responsibility and authority of the grant (e.g.,
assuming liability for all partners)barring a
significant, meaningful leadership rolethe
Discussion
administrative duties of cash management are
simply not worth the effort.
Each state studied has a unique system of fiscal
agency, undoubtedly influenced by factors such as
The challenge facing a partnership is to choose a
state and local governance, federal funding source
fiscal agent who is reflective of the partnership
(i.e., Labor versus Education) and state
itself. Bias towards any particular organization is
legal requirements or restrictions. Overall, state
detrimental. A fiscal agent who is able to balance
administrative duties reside in either state
regional, educational, and business concerns
education or labor departments or governors'
without the perception that it is tied to any one
offices. Most state fiscal agents directly fund local
stakeholder is optimal. Said one respondent, "By
STW partnerships and regional technical
the second or third year, [there should be] a more
assistance or coordinating bodies, although a few
equitable fiscal agent partnership, so that the
states fund programmatic or functional strands.
perception of dominance will fade. Fiscal agents
The question that prompted this studywhether
should manage expectations through an
independent intermediary." This individual
there is an overall "best type" of fiscal agent to
administer STW systemshas been answered:
recommended a 501(c)(3) structure. Given that
STW systems are eventually to be self-sustaining,
No. However, the question itself may be
this is a fiscal agent structure worth examining
premature or even fallacious. Perhaps a more
important question has to do with how a
further.
partnership should select a fiscal agent.
Findings reveal that while some fiscal agents
might have been selected strategically for their
Arizona's
leadership abilities or fiscal management history,
SCHOOLTOWORK SYSTEM
most appear to have been selected for other
For additional information about Arizona's School To
reasons (e.g., no one else would do it). The study
Work initiative, contact:
also suggests that an effective fiscal agent is more
than a cash managerthey also are cast in a
The Governor's Division of School To Work
leadership role with the corresponding authority
and responsibility for implementing a STW
[phone]
system. As such, they have the potential to "set the
Gary Abraham, Director
stage" for systems-building efforts. Therefore, it is
Mimi Bull, Marketing & Technical Assistance
important to consider the ability of the entity
Coordinator
controlling STW finances to influence the
Cynthia Yorks, Administrative Assistant
rt Morrison Institute for Public Policy
[phone]
Arizona State University
School of Public Affairs
8
10