Archived Information

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image1.wmf)[Planning and Evaluation Service]{.smallcaps}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[The National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study
Program:]{.smallcaps}

[Summary Findings from the Student and Institutional
Surveys]{.smallcaps}

2000

![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.5152777777777777in"
height="1.632638888888889in"}

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **[U.S. Department of               **[Office of the Under
  Education]{.smallcaps}**            Secretary]{.smallcaps}**

                                      
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

![](media/image1.wmf)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [Planning and Evaluation Service]{.smallcaps}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[The National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study
Program:]{.smallcaps}

[Summary Findings from the Student and Institutional
Surveys]{.smallcaps}

2000

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Planning and Evaluation Service

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Westat

Rockville, MD

![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.5152777777777777in"
height="1.632638888888889in"}

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **[U.S. Department of               **[Office of the Under
  Education]{.smallcaps}**            Secretary]{.smallcaps}**

                                      
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract No. EA95056001. Any opinions, observations, findings,
conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department
of Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Richard W. Riley

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Judith A. Winston

*Acting Under Secretary*

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Postsecondary, Adult, and Vocational Education Division**

David Goodwin

*Director*

December 2000

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation
Service, Postsecondary, Adult, and Vocational Education Division, *The
National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study Program:
Summary Findings from the Student and Institutional Surveys*,
Washington, D.C., 2000.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Editorial Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to:
[www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html](http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html).

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/higher.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such
as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

**Acknowledgments**

Westat's Human Services group conducted the National Study of the
Operation of the Federal Work-Study Program. Patricia Troppe managed the
study and was the primary author of the study\'s reports under the
general supervision of Richard Wabnick. Tom Krenzke developed the sample
design, provided statistical guidance throughout the entire study, and
contributed to the *Technical Appendices* report. Robert Farling
provided research assistance and was a contributing author to the
study\'s reports. Kim Standing managed the student survey data
collection. Dave Wright provided programming support and generated all
data presented in the study reports. Finally, Saunders Freeland provided
graphics and word processing support throughout the entire study.

We want to thank our project monitors, Dan Goldenberg and Andrew Lauland
of the Office of the Under Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education
(ED) for their guidance throughout the study and their comments on the
draft reports. In addition, we want to thank the following additional ED
staff for their comments on the draft reports: Bob Davidson of the
Office of the Chief Financial and Chief Information Officer, Harold
McCullough of the Office of Postsecondary Education, and Frances Bond,
Holly O\'Donnell, and Eve Agee of the Office of the Secretary.

We wish to extend a special thanks to those student financial aid
administrators and higher education analysts who served as technical
advisors on this study. These individuals advised us on the diversity of
the Federal Work-Study Program, survey administration, and data
availability. In addition, these experts reviewed and commented on
drafts of the survey instruments. The experts included: Christina Chang,
American University; Tim Christensen and Beth Felsen, National
Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators; Jay Eglin and
Deborah Edwards, General Accounting Office; Curtis Goode, George
Washington University; Maryln McAdam, McAdam Group; and Julia Sybrant,
University of Maryland-College Park.

Finally, we wish to thank the hundreds of institutions and students who
participated in the National Study of the Operation of the Federal
Work-Study Program. Without their responses, we would not be able to
provide the detailed picture of the Federal Work-Study Program that is
presented in this report.

**Contents**

Acknowledgments iii

Executive Summary vii

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

An Overview of the Federal Work-Study Program 2

Trends in Funding 3

Trends in Awards 4

FWS and Community Service 4

Program Changes Since the Study 6

Study Design 7

Organization of the Report 8

Chapter 2. Findings from the Student Survey 11

> The FWS Job Experience 11
>
> Selection of FWS Jobs 11
>
> Job Activities 13
>
> Hours Worked and Wage Rates 16
>
> FWS Job Training 17
>
> Employment in Other Jobs 18
>
> FWS Jobs and Academic Performance 21
>
> Job Satisfaction 24
>
> Satisfaction with Financial Aspects of Job 24
>
> Satisfaction with General Aspects of Job 25
>
> Job Valuation 27
>
> Satisfaction with the FWS Employer 28
>
> Student Satisfaction with FWS Program Operations 31
>
> Student Satisfaction with Information about the\
> FWS Program 31
>
> Student Satisfaction with Assistance Finding Jobs 32
>
> Student Satisfaction with Types of FWS Jobs 34
>
> Student Satisfaction with Accessibility of FWS\
> Staff 35
>
> Overall Student Satisfaction with the FWS Program 37
>
> Alternative Aid Scenarios 41

**Contents (continued)**

Chapter 3. Findings from the Institutional Survey 43

Job Development and Matching 43

Job Location and Development Programs 45

> Matching FWS Students with FWS Jobs 46
>
> FWS Job Activities 49
>
> Hourly FWS Wages 55
>
> Federal and Nonfederal Contributions toward\
> FWS Wages 56

Awarding Aid 57

> Packaging FWS Funds 57
>
> FWS Awards 58
>
> Acceptance of FWS Aid 59

Post-Award Activities 60

Following-up with FWS Employers 61

Following-up with FWS Students 63

Chapter 4. FWS and Community Service 67

> Student Responses 67
>
> Community Service FWS Students 67
>
> Non-Community Service FWS Students 72
>
> Student Awareness of America Reads 75
>
> Institution Responses 76
>
> FWS Student Participation in Community Service 76
>
> Institutions with High Community Service\
> Participation Rates 78
>
> America Reads Challenge 80
>
> Participation 80
>
> Institution Participation 81
>
> Student Participation 84
>
> Development and Management 85
>
> Training of Reading Tutors 88
>
> Designing Tutor-Training 89
>
> Delivering Tutor-Training 91
>
> Financing Tutor-Training 92
>
> Students Served 93
>
> Satisfaction with America Reads 95

Appendix A. FWS and TANF Work Provisions A-1

**Executive Summary**

The National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study (FWS)
Program was conducted to inform policy makers and the student financial
aid community about the operations of this campus-based program and the
experiences and satisfaction of postsecondary students who receive this
aid. This two-part study involved (1) a survey of FWS administrators at
postsecondary education institutions nationwide to obtain information
about program operations during the 1997-98 award year and (2) a survey
of FWS students regarding their experiences and program satisfaction
during the fall of 1998.

In addition to obtaining information on FWS program operations in
general, the study\'s findings provide insight into the first year
operations of the America Reads Challengeone of several recent
executive initiatives to encourage community service opportunities for
FWS students. Furthermore, findings from the student survey describe
student awareness, interest, and participation in FWS community service
jobs. The key findings from both surveys are:

# Highlights from the Student Survey

-   Nearly all FWS students reported being satisfied with the overall
    FWS program. Forty percent of FWS students were *very satisfied*
    with the FWS program, and another 57 percent were *satisfied*.

-   More than 95 percent of FWS students would participate in the FWS
    program again. In addition, nearly all FWS students would recommend
    the FWS program to a friend who was eligible for it.

-   Most students (80 percent) reported that they gained some job
    skills, such as time management and good work habits, during their
    FWS job experience that could be useful in another job.

-   In general, students were almost evenly divided between those that
    felt that their FWS job had a positive effect on their academic
    performance and those that felt that their job had no academic
    effect. Only 7 percent of students indicated that their FWS job
    negatively affected their academic performance.

-   Clerical and office work were the most common activities for FWS
    students, with nearly four out of ten fall 1998 FWS students
    reporting this type of work as their primary job duty.

-   On average, FWS students worked 11 hours per week and were paid
    \$6.10 per hour. However, students at urban institutions, those with
    off-campus jobs, and those with community service jobs were
    typically paid a higher wage.

-   Most FWS students were not averse to working while in school to
    cover the cost of attendance. If students were unable to receive FWS
    aid, 80 percent would have obtained another job to meet expenses.

-   Approximately one-quarter of FWS students were employed in a second
    job at the same time as their FWS job. The dominant reason for
    taking a second job was to earn more money.

-   If given a choice, more than 90 percent of FWS students would prefer
    an FWS job to additional student loans to meet college expenses.

## Highlights from the Institutional Survey

-   The packaging strategy of an institution determines whether students
    eligible for FWS receive this aid. For 16 percent of the
    institutions surveyed, every eligible FWS student was awarded
    work-study aid. However, 84 percent of the institutions did not
    award aid to all their eligible FWS students. For these
    institutions, three factors influenced their decision to award FWS
    aid to a subset of their eligible studentsthe student\'s financial
    need, the amount of FWS funding available to the institution, and
    whether a student applied for or requested aid.

-   Not all students who were offered an FWS award accepted this aid.
    Across all institutions, 70 percent of students accepted their FWS
    award.

-   The student financial aid and student employment offices were
    largely responsible for developing FWS jobs.

-   Most institutions were unable to determine whether FWS students
    worked in jobs related to their academic program or career
    interests.

-   Three-quarters of administrators reported that they routinely
    contacted FWS employers during the award year. These administrators
    typically had multiple contacts with employers during the award
    year.

-   Administrators who routinely contacted FWS employers were
    particularly interested in the employers\' satisfaction with student
    performance and the number of hours a student worked.

# Highlights Regarding FWS and Community Service

## *Community Service Activities*

-   The two most rewarding aspects of the community service experience,
    according to students, were working with children and helping
    others.

-   More than 80 percent of community service students indicated that
    their FWS experiences would stimulate their future participation in
    community service.

## *America Reads Challenge*

-   During the 1997-98 award year, 40 percent of institutions that
    operated an FWS program also participated in America Reads.[^1]
    Public four-year institutions were most likely to participate in
    America Reads, with 67 percent of these institutions participating
    during its first year of operation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Nearly all America Reads institutions (98 percent) planned on
    continuing this program for a second year.

-   Those institutions that declined to participate in America Reads
    cited administrative reasons, such as lack of time or lack of staff
    to train reading tutors.

-   Approximately half of the institutions that *did not participate* in
    America Reads in 1997-98 planned on participating sometime in the
    future.

-   The typical America Reads institution had 20 FWS students
    participating in the program. Four-year institutions and
    institutions located in urban areas had significantly more FWS
    students participating in America Reads than other institutions.

-   Administrators reported that 95 percent of FWS students involved
    with America Reads served as reading tutors for elementary school
    students.

-   Most America Reads institutions, 85 percent, provided some training
    to tutors.

-   The majority of administrators could not estimate the number of
    children who received tutoring through their program or the amount
    of tutoring that children received.

-   Aside from America Reads participants, most FWS students, 77
    percent, were not aware of this initiative.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Once learning of the America Reads through the student survey, the
    majority of non-America Reads students expressed interest in these
    jobs in the future.

**Introduction**

Since its inception in 1965, the Federal Work-Study (FWS) Program has
provided college and other postsecondary education students with
part-time employment opportunities to help cover the cost of their
education. The federal government disburses money to postsecondary
education institutions, which, in turn, use the funds to subsidize the
wages of FWS students. The FWS program is one of three campus-based
federal financial assistance programs that, based on program regulations
and guidelines, allow postsecondary education institutions some
discretion in providing a mix of financial aid to needy students. The
other two campus-based programs, which are not covered in this report,
are the Perkins Loan and the Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant programs.

Interest in the FWS program has grown considerably in recent years. For
example, federal support increased by more than \$200 million, or 35
percent, for the 1997 fiscal year to expand the number of students
participating in the program. Furthermore, recent legislative
requirements and executive branch initiatives, such as the America Reads
Challenge and America Counts, have increased opportunities for FWS
students to work in community service positions.[^2]

Despite the long history of the FWS program, the additional commitment
of federal money, and recent efforts to expand community service work
opportunities, there were no previous national-level data that described
the operation of the FWS program at postsecondary education institutions
and the experiences of students who receive this assistance.[^3] The
National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study program
attempted to fill this void.

This report presents summary findings from the two surveys conducted for
the national studyan institutional survey of FWS administrators
regarding program operations during the 1997-98 award year[^4] and a
survey of FWS students regarding their experiences and satisfaction
during the fall of 1998. A companion report*, Technical Appendices for
the Institutional and Student Surveys*, presents detailed data
tabulations from the institutional survey. In addition, the *Technical
Appendices* include information about the institutional and student
surveys such as survey methodology, survey instruments, and weighted
estimates for each survey question. For a copy of the *Technical
Appendices*, please call Dan Goldenberg at (202) 401-3562 or e-mail him
at Daniel_Goldenberg@ed.gov.

# An Overview of the Federal Work-Study Program

The Higher Education Act of 1965 established the Federal Work-Study
(FWS) Program "to stimulate and promote the part-time employment of
students, particularly students from low-income families, in
institutions of higher education who are in need of the earnings from
such employment to pursue courses of study at such institutions."[^5] To
achieve this objective, the federal government subsidizes the cost of
employing students by disbursing funds to postsecondary education
institutions to cover a portion of student wages. Institutions or other
eligible employers fund the remaining portion. Usually, the federal
portion of wages is 75 percent.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.495138888888889in"
height="3.9493055555555556in"}

As a campus-based program, postsecondary education institutions
determine how FWS aid is packaged and the size of awards offered to
eligible students. Institutions may offer FWS aid to undergraduate and
graduate students with financial need.

## *Trends in Funding*

The size of the FWS Program has grown substantially since its
introduction in fiscal year (FY) 1965. At that time, the federal
appropriation was \$55.7 million. federal appropriations increased to
\$550 million by FY 1980 and remained in the mid to high \$500 million
range throughout most of 1980s. Appropriations increased to the low
\$600 million range in the early 1990s. In FY 1997, the program received
a substantial increase in funding of more than \$200 million, bringing
it to more than \$800 million. Federal appropriations for FY 2000 are a
record high of \$934 million, and the administration has requested more
than \$1 billion for FWS in the FY 2001 budget.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.4875in" height="3.504166666666667in"}

## *Trends in Awards*

The number of FWS recipients has also experienced considerable growth
during the life of the program. The number of FWS awards grew from
115,000 in the 1965-66 award year to 570,000 10 years later. The number
of awards increased sharply in the late 1970s and reached 926,000 awards
by the 1979-80 award year. This level of participation was not sustained
during the 1980s, with the number of FWS awards declining to 687,000
awards by the 1990-91 award year. Currently, the number of FWS awards is
on the rise again due to the recent increases in federal funding. The
number of FWS awards climbed to approximately 892,000 during the 1998-99
award year and is expected to reach one million awards by the 2000-2001
award year.

## *FWS and Community Service*

An intent of the FWS program throughout the 1990s was to increase the
participation of FWS students in community service, which

is designed to improve the quality of life for local communities,
particularly low-income individuals and families. Since July 1, 1994,
postsecondary education institutions have been required to spend at
least 5 percent of their FWS authorization to compensate students in
community service jobs.

Community service opportunities were expanded in 1997 with the beginning
of the America Reads Challenge. America Reads was developed to increase
the reading proficiency of the nation\'s children. In 1994, for example,
40 percent of fourth graders scored below the basic reading level on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress.[^6] Furthermore, research
has shown that children who are not reading independently by the end of
the third grade tend to fall behind the rest of their classmates, become
uninterested and frustrated with school, and drop out before graduating.
In response, the administration launched the America Reads Challenge in
1996 with one major objective: to have all children reading well and
independently by the end of the third grade.

In an effort to increase the America Reads Challenge volunteer
workforce, the administration looked toward colleges and universities
and their FWS programs. When federal funding for the FWS program
increased by 35 percent, in fiscal year 1997, postsecondary institutions
were encouraged to devote a large portion of the increase to fund
community service jobs, especially those that involved tutoring
preschool and elementary school students in reading. In addition, the
U.S. Secretary of Education announced an America Reads FWS waiver where
FWS program funds could be used to pay up to 100 percent of the wages
for any FWS student who tutors preschool or elementary school children
(releasing institutions from the usual 25 percent matching requirement
for FWS jobs). During the first full year of the program in award year
1997-98, more than 1,1,00 postsecondary institutions participated in
America Reads and more than 22,000 FWS students served as reading
tutors. As of January 2000, nearly 1,300 postsecondary institutions are
participating in this program.[^7]

## *Program Changes Since the Study*

Findings from this study paint a picture of FWS program operations
during the 1997-98 award year. Since then, the Higher Education Act
(HEA) amendments of 1998 created new program regulations and new
initiatives have been developed to increase the involvement of FWS
students in community service.

On July 1, 1998, the U.S. Department of Education extended the FWS
waiver of institutional matching requirements to FWS students tutoring
in Family Literacy projects. Specifically, FWS program funds can now be
used to pay 100 percent of the wages for any FWS student who tutors
preschool age and elementary school children, as well as their parents
and caregivers. In October 1999, the Family Literacy activities subject
to the 100 percent waiver were expanded to include training tutors,
performing administrative tasks such as coordinating tutors\' schedules,
working as an instructional aide, or preparing family literacy
materials.

In July 1999, America Counts was initiated by the Administration to
improve the mathematics skills of youth. To support this effort, the
federal government will also cover 100 percent of the wages for FWS
students serving as math tutors for elementary through ninth grade
students.

Finally, the HEA amendments of 1998 enacted two additional program
changes that take effect in the 2000-2001 award year. Institutions will
be required to raise their percentage of FWS funds devoted to
compensating students employed in community service activities to at
least 7 percent. In addition, institutions will be required to have a
reading tutor program.

Readers interested in learning more about America Reads and America
Counts are encouraged to visit the following U.S. Department of
Education Web sites:
[www.ed.gov/americareads](http://www.ed.gov/americareads) and
[www.ed.gov/\
americacounts](http://www.ed.gov/americacounts). Interested readers may
also call (202) 401-8888 or\
1-800-USA-LEARN or send an e-mail message to: <americareads@ed.gov>.

# Study Design

The National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study program
had two components. The first component was a mail survey of FWS
administrators at 1,000 postsecondary education institutions nationwide
that examined the operation of the FWS program during the 1997-98 award
year. The sample of 1,000 institutions was drawn from the approximately
3,400 postsecondary education institutions that applied for FWS funds
for the 1997-98 award year. The institutional survey requested detailed
information on program funding and participant data, packaging and
awarding of FWS aid, FWS job development activities, the matching of FWS
students with FWS jobs, FWS wage information, follow-up with FWS
employers and students, participation in the America Reads Challenge,
and the use of FWS aid to meet welfare work requirements.[^8]

The overall response rate to the institutional survey was 61 percent,
after removing ineligible and closed institutions from consideration. To
reduce nonreponse bias, the sampling weights of responding institutions
were adjusted to represent nonresponding institutions. (Institutions
with similar characteristics were grouped into weighting categories.) As
a result, findings from the survey can be generalized to reflect all
institutions that operated an FWS Program during the 1997-98 award year,
under the assumption that nonrespondents were similar to respondents.

The second component of the study was a telephone survey of a sample of
students who held an FWS job during the fall of 1998. This survey
involved a two-part sample design. Eighty institutions from the 1,000
selected for the institutional survey were subsampled and asked to
provide lists of their fall 1998 FWS students. More than 80 percent of
these institutions responded to the request for a student list. A sample
of 1,459 students was drawn for the survey, which obtained information
about the student\'s FWS job activities, awareness of and experience
with community service and the America Reads Challenge, and satisfaction
with the FWS program. Approximately 1,200 students responded to the
survey, resulting in an 85 percent response rate, after removing
ineligible students. The overall student response rate across the
two-part sample design was 70 percent. Weights were constructed and
adjustments were applied for nonresponse. As a result, the student
survey findings describe the population of FWS students in fall 1998.
[^9]

Note that the institutional survey applies to the 1997-98 award year
while the student survey applies to the fall 1998 time period. As a
result, care must be exercised when comparing similar findings across
the two surveys.

# Organization of the Report

This introductory chapter is followed by three chapters. Chapter two
describes the experiences of FWS students during the fall of 1998 and
their satisfaction with the FWS program. It includes general information
about the job activities of students as well as information on other
aspects of their FWS experience, such as job training, hourly pay, and
student perceptions regarding the effect of their FWS job on their
academic performance. One feature of the study is that student
satisfaction with the FWS program was assessed in several areas as well
overall. The chapter presents FWS student satisfaction with the FWS job,
employer, and program operations. The chapter concludes with students\'
overall assessment of their satisfaction with the FWS program.

The third chapter presents general information on institutions\'
operation of the FWS program during the 1997-98 award year. The
discussion is separated into pre-FWS award activities such as job
development and the process of packaging and awarding FWS aid and
post-FWS award activities including the extent of administrator
follow-up with FWS employers and students.

Given the numerous efforts to expand community service opportunities for
FWS students, the last chapter presents information on the FWS program
and community service activities from both the institutional and student
surveys. Findings from the student survey present the experiences of FWS
students in community service positions including what they enjoyed
about this experience as well as interest in community service
opportunities among students who did not take a community service job.
In addition, the chapter includes a description of the first year of
operation of the America Reads Challenge. This description includes
which institutions were likely to participate in America Reads, the
training of reading tutors, the average number of children who received
tutoring and the amount of tutoring received, and administrators\'
satisfaction with the program and their perceptions of teacher and staff
satisfaction with the contributions of tutors.

All data from the institutional survey were examined by two
institutional characteristics: institutional type and control, and
whether the institution was located in an urban or nonurban location.
The student survey data were examined by various student, job and
institutional characteristics. All findings reported are statistically
significant at the 95 percent confidence level unless noted
otherwise.[^10]

Interested readers can review the *Technical Appendices for the
Institutional and Student Surveys* report for detailed tabulations of
the institutional data by institutional type and control, and
institution location and size. In that report, we provide readers with
guidelines for estimating confidence intervals for each data item but
did not subject each item to a test of significance.

**Findings from the Student Survey**

# The FWS Job Experience

Several federal regulations influence a student's FWS job experience.
First, institutions were required in award year 1997-98 to spend at
least 5 percent of their funds on FWS students in community service
jobs. Second, institutions are encouraged to place FWS students in jobs
that complement their academic program or career interests. Finally,
students must be paid at least the federal minimum wage. Aside from
these requirements, however, a student's FWS job experience may vary
considerably from institution to institution given an institution's job
opportunities and the student's capabilities.

FWS students were asked to describe various aspects of their FWS job
experience including the selection of FWS jobs, primary job activities,
hours worked, wages earned, and job training received. In general, the
findings show that although the FWS job experience is quite diverse,
nearly all FWS students were satisfied with the program. Approximately
40 percent of FWS students reported being *very satisfied* with the
program overall, while an additional 55 percent indicated they were
*satisfied* with the program.

## *Selection of FWS Jobs* 

Most students72 percent\--selected their own FWS job. The remaining
students were assigned to or were placed in their jobs by FWS
administrators.

Common reasons for selecting a particular job included the job's hours,
the complementary nature of the job and the student's academic or career
interests, and the job's location. Thirty percent of students selected a
job primarily because the work hours accommodated their schedule.
Another 25 percent of students selected a job because it was related to
their academic or career interests. Half as many students (13 percent)
selected the job primarily because of its location. Less common reasons
for selecting a job included its wage rate, low pressure work
activities, or community service focus.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="4.4944444444444445in"
height="3.3722222222222222in"}

The majority of FWS students (78 percent) were in their first choice
job. Students who selected their own job were more likely to identify
their job as their first choice job than students who were assigned to
or were placed in their FWS job by FWS staff.

+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
|                                            | Percentage of students  |
|                                            | who identified job as   |
|                                            | first choice FWS job    |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| All students                               | 78%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| FWS job placement status                   |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Student assigned to FWS job              | 70%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Student selected job                     | 82%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

Of the 22 percent of students in a second choice job, the most frequent
response when asked what type of FWS job they would have preferred was a
job that related to their academic or career interests (22 percent), or
that involved office or administrative work (22 percent). A considerably
smaller percentage of students in second choice jobs would have
preferred working with children (6 percent), tutoring jobs (9 percent),
or jobs in the recreation sector such as lifeguarding (8 percent).

## *Job Activities*

Clerical and office work were the most common activities for FWS
students. Nearly four out of ten fall 1998 FWS students worked as an
office assistant or clerk. Other common jobs for FWS students included
lab or research assistant, resident or student life assistant (for
example, campus security or lifeguard), and library worker. Between 10
and 15 percent of FWS students accounted for each of these categories.
Less than 5 percent of FWS students worked as a teacher's assistant, an
America Reads volunteer, or in a position where they were helping other
people such as working with at-risk youth or assisting the elderly. The
other category (16 percent) included an assortment of jobs that each
accounted for a small percentage of students, such as, maintenance
worker, museum guide, campus tour guide, food services worker, cashier,
and stock person.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in" height="3.08125in"}

Women were considerably more likely to have a clerical position, while
men were more likely to work as a lab or research assistant.
Specifically, 44 percent of women had a clerical position compared to 27
percent of men. In contrast, 22 percent of men had a lab or research
position compared to 10 percent of women.

Ten percent of FWS students characterized their jobs as a community
service job. Women were more likely to participate in community service
than men. Twelve percent of women held a community service job. This
figure dropped to 6 percent among men.

Although federal regulations encourage institutions to provide an FWS
student with a job that will complement his or her academic program or
career interests, less than 40 percent of FWS students overall indicated
that they worked in such jobs. It is not possible to tell from our study
whether a student's having a job related to his or her academic program
or career interest is more dependent on institutional actions or student
preferences. As indicated earlier, only 25 percent of students who chose
their own job indicated the most important reason for their job choice
was its relationship to their academic or career interests. On the other
hand, as will be reported later, among the one-third of students who
offered a suggestion regarding types of FWS jobs that should be made
available to students, 42 percent indicated they wanted more career- and
academically-related jobs.

![](media/image6.wmf)

FWS students with community service jobs were most likely to report that
their jobs related to their academic program or career interests. More
than 60 percent of community service students indicated that their FWS
jobs were related to their academic program or career interests. In
addition, students whose FWS job was their first choice job were nearly
twice as likely as other students to report that they were in a related
job. Students at less-than-four-year institutions were considerably more
likely to be in related jobs than four-year students.

  --------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------
                                    Percentage of      Percentage of
                                    students with jobs students with jobs
                                    related to         related to *career
                                    *academic          interests\**
                                    program\**         

  All students                      39%                37%

  FWS job characteristic                               

  Non-community service job         36%                35%

  Community service job             61%                63%

                                                       

  Job was first job choice          43%                42%

  Job was not first job choice      23%                22%

  Institution type                                     

  Students at four-year             36%                36%
  institutions                                         

  Students at less-than-four-year\  52%                46%
  institutions                                         
  --------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------

\* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed that their FWS job
was related to their academic program or career interests.

Finally, the majority of FWS students (95 percent) worked on-campus.
Off-campus students worked primarily in community service jobs. More
than three-quarters (77 percent) of off-campus students worked in
community service jobs compared to just 6 percent of on-campus students.

## *Hours Worked and Wage Rates*

On average, FWS students worked 11 hours per week and were paid \$6.10
per hour. Approximately one-third of students received the minimum wage
of \$5.15 per hour. Another 30 percent earned more than \$6 per hour.

Although there was no significant variation in the average number of
hours worked across students, the mean wage paid to students did vary by
certain job and institutional characteristics. Students who worked
off-campus were paid an average of one dollar more per hour than
students who worked on-campus. In addition, students in community
service positions typically earned \$0.60 more per hour than students
who were not in community service positions. Finally, students who
attended institutions in an urban area earned nearly \$0.84 more per
hour, on average, than students who attended institutions located in
nonurban areas.

  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------
                                                Mean wage

  All students                                  \$6.10

  FWS job characteristic                        

  On-campus job                                 \$6.05

  Off-campus job                                \$7.02

  Non-community service job                     \$6.04

  Community service job                         \$6.66

  Institution location                          

  Urban institution                             \$6.48

  Nonurban institution                          \$5.64
  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------

## *FWS Job Training*

More than 80 percent of FWS students received some kind of training for
their job. The most common training, received by 42 percent of students,
was a combination of training before the job as well as on-going
training or some other kind of training, such as a workshop, during the
job experience.

"Ongoing, or continuing, training only" was the second most common job
training received. A considerably smaller percentage of FWS students
received "pretraining only" or some other kind of training.

![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in"
height="3.290277777777778in"}

Nearly all FWS students who received some kind of job training (97
percent) felt that their training adequately prepared them for their job
duties. In addition, of the 16 percent of FWS students who did not
receive training, 92 percent felt that they did not need training for
their jobs.

## *Employment in Other Jobs* 

Approximately one-quarter of FWS students were employed in a second job
at the same time as their FWS job. Undergraduates were more likely to
have a second job than graduate students. However, Pell Grant recipients
were no more likely to take second job than other students.

  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------
                                                Percentage with a second
                                                job

  All students                                  28%

  Year in school                                

  Freshman                                      21%

  Other undergraduate                           33%

  Graduate                                      13%
  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------

FWS students took a second job primarily to earn more money. However,
the opportunity to gain more work experience was also an important
reason reported for taking a second job. A small percentage of students
(5 percent) had the other job before obtaining their FWS job and did not
want to leave it. A similar percentage reported that they simply enjoyed
the other job. A small percentage of students reported some other reason
for taking the job, such as, the opportunity to conduct community
service activities or to work more hours.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in" height="3.83125in"}

FWS students with a second job worked an average of 26 hours per
week---11 hours at their FWS job and 15 hours at their second job. This
is particularly interesting given that 97 percent of these students were
full-time students. Students at less-than-four-year institutions were
more likely to put in longer hours at their second job than other
students. Less-than-four-year students worked nearly 20 hours a week, on
average, at their second job, which was five hours more per week than
four-year students.

  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------
                                                Mean hours worked at
                                                2^nd^ job

  All students with a 2^nd^ job\*               15

  Institution type                              

  Students at four-year institutions            14

  Students at less-than-four-year\              19
  institutions                                  
  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------

\* Twenty-eight percent of FWS students held a second job.

The majority of FWS students with a second job (55 percent) would have
preferred more hours of FWS employment than taking the second job. This
was particularly the case among Pell Grant recipients, freshmen and
sophomores, students at public institutions, and students at
less-than-four-year institutions. For example, three-quarters of
less-than-four-year students with a second job reported that they would
have preferred additional FWS hours. This figure declined to 52 percent
among four-year students with a second job. Approximately six in ten
Pell Grant recipients, underclassmen, and students at public
institutions would have preferred more FWS hours to taking a second job.

  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------
                                                 Percentage who would
                                                 have preferred more
                                                 hours of FWS job than
                                                 taking 2^nd^ job

  All students with a 2^nd^ job\*                55%

  Student characteristic                         

  Pell Grant recipient                           60%

  Non-Pell Grant recipient                       38%

  Underclassman (fresh. & soph.)                 64%

  Upperclassman (junior & senior)                46%

  Graduate                                       16%

  Institution type                               

  Students at four-year institution              52%

  Students at less-than-four-year institution    75%

  Institution control                            

  Students at public institution                 62%

  Students at private institution                47%
  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------

\* Twenty-eight percent of FWS students held a second job.

# FWS Jobs and Academic Performance

A key concern regarding students who work is the effect of work on their
academic performance. In general, students were almost evenly divided
between those that felt that their FWS job had a positive effect on
their academic performance and those that felt that their job had no
effect. Less than 10 percent of FWS students felt that their job had a
negative effect on their academic performance.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="4.496527777777778in"
height="3.4930555555555554in"}

Women were more likely to report that their job had a positive effect on
their academic performance. More than half of women (52 percent)
indicated that their FWS job affected academic performance positively.
This figure dropped to 43 percent among men. Men, in contrast, were more
likely to report that their job had no effect on their academic
performance than women, 52 percent compared to 41 percent, respectively.

Of the 48 percent of students who reported a positive effect, more than
four in ten credited the study and organizational skills they gained on
the job for this effect. These skills included time management skills,
research and library skills, computer skills, and communication skills.
Nearly one in four students cited the ability to study while at their
job as a positive factor. The complementary nature of the FWS job and
the student's field of study was a positive factor for another 18
percent of students. Working with others and gaining general work
experience completed the top five job factors or experiences that
affected academic performance positively.

![](media/image10.wmf){width="4.4944444444444445in"
height="3.8604166666666666in"}

Of the 7 percent of students who reported a negative effect, the
majority (83 percent) felt that their job interfered with their class or
study time. Two other common difficulties identified by students were
that the job (1) made them more worried about earning money than doing
their homework (9 percent) and (2) made them too tired to study (8
percent).

Certain job characteristics influenced whether students were likely to
report that their FWS job had a positive effect on their academic
performance. For example, students in jobs related to their academic or
career interests were most likely to report a positive effect.[^11]
These students were twice as likely to report a positive effect than
students in unrelated jobs. Specifically, 68 percent of students in jobs
related to their academics reported a positive effect. This figure
dropped to 54 percent for students who were neutral regarding the
"relatedness" of their job to their academic program. Just one-third of
students who worked in jobs that were unrelated to their academics
reported a positive effect. These figures were nearly identical for
students in jobs that were related, neutral, or unrelated to academics.

Students who attended less-than-four-year institutions were considerably
more likely to indicate that their job had a positive effect on their
academic performance. More than two-thirds of students at
less-than-four-year institutions reported a positive academic effect
from FWS. This figure was more than 20 percentage points lower among
students who attended a four-year institution. Despite this considerable
difference, students at less-than-four-year institutions were no more
likely to credit one of the top five positive job factors for this
effect than students at four-year institutions.

In addition, the majority of FWS students who held a job in addition to
their FWS job (58 percent) said that their FWS job had a positive effect
on their academic performance. This figure dropped to 45 percent for
students without additional jobs. FWS students with and without a second
job credited most frequently the study and organizational skills they
gained on the job for this positive effect.

+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
|                                            | Percentage of students  |
|                                            | who reported job's      |
|                                            | positive effect on      |
|                                            | academic performance    |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| All students                               | 48%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Institution type                           |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Students at four-year institutions       | 45%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Students at less-than-four-year\         | 68%                     |
| > institutions                             |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Additional employment status               |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Students without a second job            | 45%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Students with a second job               | 58%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

# Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction among FWS students was assessed several ways to
determine what students liked or disliked about their FWS job
experience. In addition to assessing student satisfaction regarding
financial and other specific aspects of their jobs, measures of job
satisfaction included the extent to which students would recommend their
job to other FWS students and whether students expected to list their
FWS job on their resume.

## *Satisfaction with Financial Aspects of Job*

The majority of students were content with the amount of their FWS award
and the wage rate they earned. More than 80 percent of FWS students were
satisfied with the amount of their FWS award. A somewhat smaller
percentage of students thought that the wage rate seemed appropriate for
their positions. There were no significant differences in the mean award
amount or wage rate between those who were satisfied with these amounts
and those who were not satisfied.

![](media/image11.wmf)

## *Satisfaction with General Aspects of Job*

Nine out of ten FWS students had a good understanding of their job
duties before starting their jobs. This figure rose to 92 percent for
students in their first choice FWS job, and dropped to approximately 80
percent for students in second choice jobs.

+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
|                                            | Percentage of students  |
|                                            | who understood job      |
|                                            | duties before starting  |
|                                            | job\*                   |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| All students                               | 89%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| FWS job choice status                      |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was first choice job                 | 92%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was not first choice job             | 79%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

> \* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed with the
> following statement: I had a good understanding of my job duties
> before beginning them.

Most students (80 percent) felt that they gained some job skills, such
as time management and good work habits, during their FWS job experience
that could be useful in another job. Students in their first choice job
were more likely to report that they had gained transferable job skills.

+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
|                                            | Percentage of students  |
|                                            | who felt they gained    |
|                                            | transferable job        |
|                                            | skills\*                |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| All students                               | 80%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| FWS job choice status                      |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was first choice job                 | 82%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was not first choice job             | 71%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

> \* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed with the
> following statement: I gained job skills such as time management and
> good work habits that will be useful in another job.

FWS students generally felt that they had interesting job assignments.
This was particularly the case among community service FWS students.
Nearly 65 percent of all FWS students and 85 percent of community
service students felt that their FWS job provided them with interesting
assignments. Students in their first choice FWS job were also more
likely to report that they found their job assignments interesting,
although to a lesser extent than community service FWS students.

+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
|                                          | Percentage of students    |
|                                          | who found their FWS job   |
|                                          | assignments interesting\* |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| All students                             | 64%                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| FWS job characteristic                   |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| > Community service job                  | 85%                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| > Non-community service job              | 61%                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| FWS job choice status                    |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| > Job was first job choice               | 68%                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| > Job was not first job choice           | 45%                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+

> \* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed with the
> following statement: My work-study job provided me with interesting
> assignments.

## *Job Valuation*

More than 80 percent of students would recommend their job to other FWS
students. Students in community service jobs were more likely to
recommend their job than other students. In addition, nearly all America
Reads students would recommend their job to another FWS student. Close
to 90 percent of students in first choice FWS jobs would recommend their
job to another FWS student. This figure was considerably lower for
students in second choice jobs (68 percent).

+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
|                                            | Percentage of students  |
|                                            | who would recommend     |
|                                            | their job to other FWS  |
|                                            | students\*              |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| All students                               | 84%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| FWS job characteristic                     |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > America Reads job                        | 99%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Non-America Reads job                    | 83%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Community service job                    | 92%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Non-community service job                | 83%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| FWS job choice status                      |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was first job choice                 | 88%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was not first job choice             | 68%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

> \* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed with the
> following statement: I would recommed this specific job to other FWS
> students.

While most students (88 percent) were planning on including their FWS
job experience on their resume, nearly all America Reads students
planned to do so. Just 1 percent of America Reads students did not
expect to include this experience on their resume. Not surprisingly,
more than 95 percent of students who worked in jobs related to their
career interests were planning on including their FWS job on their
resume. This figure dropped slightly for students in jobs related to
their academic program.

+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
|                                            | Percentage of students  |
|                                            | who planned on listing  |
|                                            | their FWS jobs on their |
|                                            | resumes                 |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| All students                               | 88%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| America Reads status                       |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > America Reads student                    | 99%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Non-America Reads student                | 88%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| FWS job characteristic                     |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was related to career interests      | 97%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was not related to career interests  | 82%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was related to academic program      | 94%                     |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| > Job was not related to academic\         | 83%                     |
| > program                                  |                         |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

# Satisfaction with the FWS Employer

Another factor that may influence a student's overall satisfaction with
their FWS experience is the interaction between the student and the FWS
employer. Student satisfaction with the FWS employer was assessed with
two measures. The first measure examines student satisfaction with the
amount of supervision they received from their FWS employer. The second
measure examines student satisfaction with the amount of employer
feedback they received regarding job performance.

More than 90 percent of FWS students were pleased with the amount of
supervision they received from their FWS employer. Approximately one out
of two FWS students were *very satisfied* with the supervision received,
and another 43 percent were *satisfied* with the level of supervision.
Less than 5 percent of students were dissatisfied at all with the
supervision received.

![](media/image12.wmf){width="4.495138888888889in"
height="3.723611111111111in"}

Students in jobs related to their careers were most likely to be *very
satisfied* with the supervision they received. Specifically, 59 percent
of students who worked in jobs related to their career interests were
*very satisfied* with the amount of employer supervision received. This
figure dipped to 51 percent for students who were neutral regarding the
"relatedness" of their job to their career interests. In contrast, 39
percent of students who worked in jobs that were not related to their
career were *very satisfied* with the amount of employer supervision
received.

Students were slightly less satisfied with the amount of employer
feedback received than the amount of supervision received. Overall, four
out of ten FWS students were *very satisfied* with the amount of
employer feedback received regarding job performance. A slightly larger
percentage of students were *satisfied* with the amount of feedback
received. Approximately one-tenth of students were neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied with the amount of employer feedback received.

![](media/image13.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in" height="3.275in"}

Students who worked in jobs related to their academic program or career
interests tended to be more satisfied with the amount of employer
feedback they received than other students. In particular, 53 percent of
students who worked in jobs related to their career interests were *very
satisfied* with the amount of feedback received. This figure dropped
considerably to 30 percent for students who worked in jobs unrelated to
their career. Approximately 40 percent of students who were neutral
regarding the "relatedness" of their job to their career were *very
satisfied* with the amount of feedback received.

A similar relationship was found among students who worked in jobs
related to their academic program. Again, 53 percent of students who
worked in jobs related to their academics were *very satisfied* with the
amount of feedback received. Thirty percent of students who worked in
jobs that were not related to their academics were *very satisfied*.
However, 50 percent of students who were neutral regarding the
"relatedness" of their jobs to their academic program were *very
satisfied* with the amount of feedback received.

# Student Satisfaction with FWS Program Operations

Student satisfaction is reported for four aspects of FWS program
operations. These are: (1) the amount of FWS program information made
available to students, (2) the amount of assistance students receive to
find an FWS job, (3) the different types of FWS jobs made available to
students, and (4) the accessibility of FWS staff to assist students
throughout their job experience. In addition, students were asked to
make suggestions for additional FWS jobs that should be made available.

## *Student Satisfaction with Information about the FWS Program*

The majority of students (60 percent) were *satisfied* or *very*
*satisfied* with the amount of information available to them explaining
the FWS program. In particular, more than 15 percent of students were
*very satisfied* with the amount of information available. Close to 20
percent of students were *dissatisfied* to some extent with the amount
of information available. The remaining students were neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied (neutral) regarding the amount of information
available.

![](media/image14.wmf){width="4.498611111111111in"
height="3.4868055555555557in"}

## *Student Satisfaction with Assistance Finding Jobs*

Students were somewhat more satisfied with the assistance they received
finding an FWS job than with the amount of program information
available. The percentage of *very satisfied* students grew to 23
percent regarding this aspect of program operations. Another 44 percent
were *satisfied* with the amount of help available to locate FWS jobs.
The remaining students were almost equally divided between those feeling
neutral toward this assistance and those feeling dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied toward this assistance.

![](media/image15.wmf){width="4.495833333333334in"
height="3.295138888888889in"}

Although most students (72 percent) chose their own FWS job, students
who were assigned to their job were more likely to be *very satisfied*
with the help they received finding their job. Three out of 10 students
who were assigned to their FWS job were *very satisfied* with the
assistance they received finding a job. In contrast, two out of ten
students who chose their own job were *very satisfied*. A similar
percentage of students were *satisfied* with the help they received,
regardless of their job placement status. Students who self-selected
their job were somewhat more likely to be *dissatisfied* to some extent
with the help received than other students, 18 percent to 13 percent,
respectively.

![](media/image16.wmf)

## *Student Satisfaction with Types of FWS Jobs*

Students were generally pleased with the types of FWS jobs available.
Approximately 70 percent of students were either *very satisfied* or
*satisfied* with the types of FWS jobs available. More than 15 percent
of students were neutral with this aspect of the program. The remaining
13 percent of students were *dissatisfied* to some extent with the types
of jobs available.

![](media/image17.wmf){width="4.498611111111111in"
height="3.3041666666666667in"}

Approximately two-thirds of students did not offer any suggestions
regarding the types of FWS jobs that should be made available to
students. Among the one-third of students who offered a suggestion
regarding types of FWS jobs that should be made available, 42 percent
wanted more career- and academically-related jobs. The second most
common suggestion (suggested by 21 percent of students) was that
institutions provide more social service or community service jobs
including America Reads jobs and jobs working with children. Other
suggested jobs included more tutoring jobs, teacher's assistant
positions, and jobs with clerical and administrative duties. Seven
percent of students with a suggestion were interested in either more
on-campus jobs or more off-campus jobs. Finally, 10 percent of students
with a suggestion wanted more FWS jobs with a particular characteristic
such as higher pay or jobs with more responsibility.

## *Student Satisfaction with Accessibility of FWS Staff*

One-quarter of the students were *very satisfied* with the accessibility
of work-study staff throughout their FWS experience. Another 44 percent
were *satisfied* with the FWS staff\'s accessibility. Approximately 10
percent were *dissatisfied* or *very* *dissatisfied* with the
accessibility of FWS staff. The remaining students were neutral
regarding the accessibility of FWS staff.

![](media/image18.wmf){width="4.495833333333334in"
height="3.5701388888888888in"}

Students who were assigned to their FWS job were more likely to be
*satisfied*, in general, and *very satisfied*, in particular, with the
accessibility of FWS staff than other students. Thirty percent of
students who were placed in FWS jobs were *very satisfied* with the
accessibility of FWS staff to answer questions and handle problems.
Although a relatively small percentage of students were dissatisfied to
some extent with the accessibility of FWS staff, those who self-selected
their job were slightly more likely to be dissatisfied than other
students, 12 percent to 7 percent, respectively.

![](media/image19.wmf)

# Overall Student Satisfaction with the FWS Program

Student satisfaction with the FWS program and with their overall job
experience was assessed using several measures. Students were asked to
report their level of satisfaction on a four-point scale. In addition,
they were asked if they would choose to participate in the program again
and if they would recommend it to a friend. Students were also asked to
specify their likes and dislikes about their FWS experience and offer
suggestions to improve the program.

Students were also asked to react to two hypothetical scenarios. The
first scenario asked students if they would have preferred to take out
loans instead of receiving FWS aid. The second scenario asked students
what they would have done if they did not receive FWS aid during the
fall of 1998. Although these scenarios do not assess student
satisfaction with the FWS program, they provide some insight into
students' preferences for and the perceived value of FWS aid.

Nearly all FWS students reported being satisfied with the program.
Specifically, four in ten FWS students were *very satisfied* with the
FWS program overall. Another 57 percent were *satisfied* with the
program. Less than 5 percent of students indicated dissatisfication with
the program.

![](media/image20.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in"
height="3.229861111111111in"}

Not surprisingly, students who were *very satisfied* with their job,
their FWS employer, or FWS program operations were more likely to be
*very satisfied* with their experience overall. Nearly three-quarters
(74 percent) of students who were *very satisfied* with the amount of
program information available were *very satisfied* with their overall
experience. A similar percentage of students who were *very satisfied*
with the types of jobs available reported that they were *very
satisfied* with their overall experience. In contrast, only slightly
more than a third of students who were *satisfied* with these aspects of
program operation reported that they were *very satisfied* with their
overall experience.

Turning to the connection between student satisfaction with the program
and their satisfaction with their employer, we found that 60 percent of
students who were *very satisfied* with the amount of employer feedback
received were *very satisfied* with their overall experience. This
figure dropped to 27 percent among students who were *satisfied* with
the amount of employer feedback.

Finally, 51 percent of students who felt that their FWS job affected
their academic performance positively said they were *very satisfied*
with their overall FWS experience. This figure dropped considerably to
just 15 percent for students who felt that their FWS job had a negative
effect on their academic performance. In addition, just 28 percent of
students who reported that their FWS job had no effect on their academic
program were *very satisfied* with their overall FWS experience.

Students credited a variety of experiences for creating a satisfying FWS
experience. More than 20 percent of satisfied students enjoyed each of
the following aspects of their FWS experience: the flexibility of the
job's hours, the opportunity to gain valuable job skills and training
including training in a career related job, and the relationships that
developed with their supervisor and other co-workers. More than 10
percent of students enjoyed the low-pressure work activities that
allowed them to study while on the job. A similar percentage of students
enjoyed receiving a paycheck.

![](media/image21.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in"
height="3.6395833333333334in"}

Low pay and a general dislike of job activities were the top reasons why
some students were dissatisfied with their FWS experience. Of the 4.5
percent of students who were *dissatisfied* or *very dissatisfied* with
their FWS experience, 29 percent complained that their job was stressful
or gave them little gratification. Another 26 percent of students were
dissatisfied with their FWS experience because they thought that their
pay was too low. The third most common complaint, reported by 16 percent
of dissatisfied students, was that the job was not related to their
career or major.

The majority of FWS students (60 percent) did not offer any suggestions
to improve it. In general, these were students who were very satisfied
with their FWS experience overall, as well as their job, employer, and
program operations.

Of the 40 percent of students who did offer a suggestion, the most
consistent suggestion, reported by 35 percent of students, was to
increase hourly wages. Nearly one-quarter of students with a suggestion
encouraged schools to offer clearer and more detailed information about
the FWS program. For example, some students wanted more information on
how FWS fits into their financial aid package. Twelve percent of
students suggested that schools should offer more job choices and allow
for more student selection of jobs. Eight percent of students suggested
fewer restrictions on the number of hours a student can work. A similar
percentage encouraged streamlining the operation of the FWS program and
reducing the paperwork students must complete.

In general, students think highly of the FWS program. Ninety-six percent
of FWS students would participate in the FWS program again. In addition,
99 percent of students would recommend this program to a friend who was
eligible for it.

## *Alternative Aid Scenarios*

Turning to the hypothetical scenarios asked, we found that if given a
choice, 92 percent of students would prefer earning money for college
through the FWS program than borrowing money through student loans.

Furthermore, most FWS students were not averse to working while in
school to cover the cost of attendance. If students were unable to
receive FWS aid, 81 percent would have obtained another job to meet
expenses. More than half of students would take out a student loan, and
a slightly smaller percentage would have reduced their expenses. Less
than 10 percent of FWS students would have left school if they did not
receive FWS aid. However, women were more likely to report that they
would have left school than men. Nine percent of women indicated they
would have left school if they did not receive FWS aid compared to 5
percent of men.

![](media/image22.wmf){width="4.499305555555556in"
height="3.8041666666666667in"}

**Findings from the Institutional Survey**

# Job Development and Matching

Unlike the other federal student financial aid programs, in the FWS
program, students must earn their award through part-time employment.
Thus, FWS administrators must find employment opportunities for eligible
studentsmany of whom may have limited prior job experience or skills.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Education encourages institutions to
develop community service jobs and jobs related to students\' academic
program or career interests.

The survey results indicate that the student financial aid and student
employment offices were largely responsible for developing FWS jobs.
More than 80 percent of FWS administrators relied on contacts from
interested employers to develop *on-campus* jobs. Many FWS
administrators also took a more active approach to job development by
phoning or mailing potential on-campus employers to see if they were
interested in having FWS students work there. Telephone calls were more
common for contacting *on-campus, community service* employers than for
*non-community service* employers.

![](media/image23.wmf){width="4.499305555555556in"
height="4.1722222222222225in"}

There was variation in the use of *on-campus* recruitment techniques by
institution type and controlonly 11 percent of administrators at
proprietary schools sent a mailing to potential *on-campus,
non-community service* employers compared to 63 percent of FWS
administrators at public four-year institutions.

In addition to contacts from potential employers and phone calls, FWS
staff relied on student involvement and local partnerships to develop
*off-campus* jobs. Nearly half of the institutions with *off-campus*,
*non-community service* jobs reported that students had suggested
particular off-campus employers to the FWS staff. In developing
*off-campus*, *community-service* jobs, four in ten administrators
indicated that they used partnerships with local public schools for job
development.

Again, there was variation in the use of *off-campus* recruitment
techniques by type and control of institution. Just 20 percent of
proprietary schools used student involvement to recruit *off-campus,
non-community service* jobs, while 72 percent of public four-year
institutions did this. However, administrators at proprietary schools
were most likely to use phone calls to contact *off-campus, community
service* jobs. Seventy-eight percent of administrators at proprietary
schools made these calls compared to 53 percent of all institutions.

![](media/image24.wmf){width="4.499305555555556in"
height="4.179166666666666in"}

## *Job Location and Development Programs*

An institution that participates in the FWS program may also participate
in the Job Location and Development (JLD) Program. The JLD program is
designed to expand off-campus job opportunities, particularly community
service opportunities, for all students regardless of financial need.
Institutions may use the lesser of \$50,000 or 10 percent of their total
FWS allocation to establish and administer a JLD program. However,
federal funds may not be used to cover student wages as part of a JLD
program.

During the 1997-98 award year, 15 percent of institutions used a portion
of their FWS allocation to expand off-campus job opportunities to all
students through a JLD program. Urban institutions were more likely to
operate a JLD program than nonurban institutions, perhaps due to a wider
pool of potential off-campus employers. There was no clear grouping of
JLD participation by institution type or institution control. Instead,
public four-year institutions and proprietary schools emerged as the
institutions most likely to participate in JLD.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|                                    | Percentage of institutions that |
|                                    | operated a JLD program during   |
|                                    | 1997-98 award year              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| All institutions                   | 15%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Institution type and control       |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Public less-than-four-year       | 9%                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Public four-year                 | 39%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Private less-than-four-year      | 10%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Private four-year                | 7%                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Proprietary                      | 24%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Institution location               |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Urban                            | 20%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Nonurban                         | 10%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

## *Matching FWS Students with FWS Jobs*

In addition to developing FWS jobs, FWS administrators may match, or
assign, students to jobs. Overall, two-thirds of institutions matched
some or all of their FWS students with FWS jobs. Less-than-four-year
institutions were more likely to match students with jobs (75 percent)
than were four-year institutions (61 percent matched). Whether an
institution matched some or all of its FWS students did not vary by
institution location.

Nearly all 'matching' institutions considered the student's employment
skills and abilities in their matching process. Other important factors
institutions considered were the student's academic program, flexibility
of hours, and the student's career goals.

![](media/image25.wmf){width="4.499305555555556in"
height="4.897916666666666in"}

Although institutions are not required to place a certain number or
proportion of their FWS students in community service jobs, they are
required to spend at least 5 percent of their FWS authorization to
compensate students in these positions. Yet, across all institutions,
just 30 percent of institutions offered students an incentive to take a
community service FWS job. This suggests that, on the whole, most
institutions do not have a problem getting students to participate in
community service jobs and meeting their spending requirement. However,
this may not be as easy in four-year institutions and institutions
located in urban areas where the percentage of schools offering
incentives was significantly higher.

+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
|                       | >      |                                     |
|                       | Instit |                                     |
|                       | utions |                                     |
|                       | > that |                                     |
|                       | > pr   |                                     |
|                       | ovided |                                     |
|                       | > ince |                                     |
|                       | ntives |                                     |
|                       | > for  |                                     |
|                       | > com  |                                     |
|                       | munity |                                     |
|                       | > s    |                                     |
|                       | ervice |                                     |
|                       | > jobs |                                     |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| All institutions      |        | 30%                                 |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| Institution type      |        |                                     |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| > Four-year           |        | 37%                                 |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| > Less-than-four-year |        | 22%                                 |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| Institution location  |        |                                     |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| > Urban               |        | 36%                                 |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| > Nonurban            |        | 24%                                 |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+

Among the 30 percent of institutions that offered an incentive for
community service work, the most popular incentive was higher wages.
More than 80 percent of institutions that gave incentives offered higher
wages for community service jobs. Eleven percent of institutions that
offered an incentive reported that they used some other incentive such
as placing a notation on the student's transcript that recognizes his or
her community service work. Few institutions used academic credit as an
incentive for community service jobs.

![](media/image26.wmf){width="4.499305555555556in"
height="4.513194444444444in"}

## *FWS Job Activities*

Administrators were asked to identify the percentage of FWS students
involved in different job activities. Although FWS students were
involved in a variety of job activities, office or clerical work was the
primary job activity for more than 40 percent of FWS students. FWS
students at less-than-four-year institutions were more likely to engage
in office or clerical work than other students. On average, 49 percent
of FWS students at less-than-four-year institutions were engaged
primarily in office or clerical work. This figure was significantly
lower at four-year institutions, declining to 39 percent. The mean
percentage of FWS students in office or clerical work was not influenced
by the location of the institution.

Other popular job activities for FWS students included community service
and library support service. On average, one in eight FWS students had
jobs where the primary activity was community service.[^12] Library
support services was the primary job activity for 10 percent of FWS
students on average.

The remaining students were involved in an assortment of job activities
such as computer support services (for example, programming and
technical support), recreation services, and research activities (for
example, scientific lab assistant, library researcher). Nearly 20
percent of FWS students, on average, were involved in some other job
activity. However, none of these activities accounted for a considerable
portion of the total. This category was largely made up of the following
job activities: teaching or tutoring college students (4 percent), food
services (3 percent), maintenance work (3 percent), environmental
services\
(2 percent), and campus security (2 percent).

![](media/image27.wmf){width="4.496527777777778in"
height="3.595833333333333in"}

The majority of FWS students (91 percent) worked on-campus. Off-campus
FWS students were concentrated in proprietary schools. The mean
percentage of off-campus FWS students at proprietary institutions was
nearly three times as large as the mean at other institutions.
Off-campus FWS students were also slightly more common at urban
institutions.

+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
|                       | > Mean |                                     |
|                       | > perc |                                     |
|                       | entage |                                     |
|                       | > of\  |                                     |
|                       | > off- |                                     |
|                       | campus |                                     |
|                       | > FWS  |                                     |
|                       | > st   |                                     |
|                       | udents |                                     |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| All institutions      |        | 9%                                  |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| Institution type      |        |                                     |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| > Proprietary         |        | 20%                                 |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| > Other institution   |        | 7%                                  |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| Institution location  |        |                                     |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| > Urban               |        | 10%                                 |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+
| > Nonurban            |        | 8%                                  |
+-----------------------+--------+-------------------------------------+

Federal regulations encourage postsecondary institutions to provide an
FWS student with a job that will complement his or her academic program
or career interests. However, few institutions maintain data to track
this.[^13] Just 27 percent of institutions were able to report the
percentage of FWS students in jobs *related to their academic program*.
[^14]

Administrators at proprietary schools and private less-than-four-year
institutions, which operate small FWS programs, were more likely to
provide the percentage of FWS students in academically related jobs than
other institutions.

Twenty-four percent of FWS administrators were able to provide the
percentage of FWS students in jobs *related to their career interests*.
Again, proprietary schools and less-than-four-year institutions were
more likely to provide this information than other institutions. The
percentage of institutions that could determine whether FWS students
were in jobs related to their academic program or career interests did
not vary much by institution location.

+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|                           | Provided           | Provided           |
|                           | percentage of FWS  | percentage of FWS  |
|                           | students in        | students in        |
|                           | *academically      | *career related*   |
|                           | related* jobs      | jobs               |
+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| All institutions          | 27%                | 24%                |
+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Institution type and      |                    |                    |
| control                   |                    |                    |
+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| > Public                  | 28%                | 27%                |
| > less-than-four-year     |                    |                    |
+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| > Public four-year        | 16%                | 14%                |
+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| > Private                 | 45%                | 47%                |
| > less-than-four-year     |                    |                    |
+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| > Private four-year       | 22%                | 19%                |
+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| > Proprietary             | 47%                | 35%                |
+---------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+

Of the 27 percent of institutions that could report the percentage of
students in jobs related to their academic program, FWS administrators
estimated that, on average, 51 percent of FWS students worked in
academically related jobs. This figure was considerably higher at
proprietary institutions. Among the 47 percent of proprietary
institutions that reported the percentage of students in academically
related FWS jobs, administrators estimated that 72 percent of
proprietary students worked in academically related jobs on average. In
contrast, this figure was 45 percent at nonproprietary institutions that
could estimate these data. On average, FWS students at urban
institutions were no more likely to work in an academically related job
than FWS students at nonurban institutions.

![](media/image28.wmf){width="4.495833333333334in" height="3.95625in"}

Of the 24 percent of institutions that estimated the percentage of
students in FWS jobs that complement the student's career interest,
administrators reported that on average, 53 percent of FWS students
worked in jobs that were related to their career interests. The mean
percentage of students working in FWS jobs related to their career
interests did not vary by institution type, control, and location.

![](media/image29.wmf){width="4.495833333333334in"
height="3.963888888888889in"}

The extent to which students were in jobs related to their academic
program or career goals was examined by whether administrators at the
institution matched some or all FWS students with their jobs. Although a
large percentage of matching institutions reported that they considered
a student's academic program and career goals in the process of matching
students and jobs, just 29 percent of administrators at these
institutions could report the percentage of students in jobs related to
their academic program. In addition, only 24 percent of administrators
at matching institutions could report the percentage of students in jobs
related to their career interests. These reporting percentages are
similar to the ones for non-matching institutions.

Furthermore, among those institutions that matched students to jobs (66
percent), the percentage of students working in academically or career
related jobs was the same as that found across all institutions. At
matching institutions, the mean percentage of FWS students working in
academically related jobs was 51 percent and in career related jobs was
52 percent.

## *Hourly FWS Wages*

The mean wage received by FWS students who worked on-campus---that is,
the majority of FWS studentswas \$5.81 per hour. Students who worked
off-campus or in the America Reads Challenge received higher mean wages.
Students who worked off-campus at private, nonprofit organizations
received \$0.45 more per hour, on average. The mean wage for FWS
students in the America Reads Challenge was \$0.78 more per hour than
mean on-campus wages.

FWS students attending urban institutions earned significantly higher
mean hourly wages than FWS students attending nonurban institutions. On
average, FWS students attending urban institutions were paid \$0.40 to
\$0.75 more per hour than other students depending on the type of job.
There were no significant differences in mean wages by institution type
or control.

![](media/image30.wmf){width="4.495833333333334in"
height="3.5756944444444443in"}

## *Federal and Nonfederal Contributions toward FWS Wages*

Wages for FWS jobs are typically covered by a combination of federal and
nonfederal funds. For most institutions, the federal share of wages for
on-campus jobs may not exceed 75 percent.[^15] Institutions may choose
to 'overmatch' the nonfederal share of wages by contributing more than
25 percent toward on-campus wages. During the 1997-98 award year, 19
percent of institutions contributed more than the required 25 percent
share toward wages for on-campus FWS jobs.

Among institutions that overmatched, the average institutional
contribution for on-campus wages was 42 percent. Four-year institutions
and urban institutions were more likely to overmatch their required
contribution than other institutions.

+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+
|                            |   | Percentage of institutions that    |
|                            |   | overmatched on-campus wages        |
+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+
| All institutions           | 1 |                                    |
|                            | 9 |                                    |
|                            | % |                                    |
+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+
| Institution type           |   |                                    |
+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+
| > Four-year                | 2 |                                    |
|                            | 6 |                                    |
|                            | % |                                    |
+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+
| > Less-than-four-year      | 1 |                                    |
|                            | 0 |                                    |
|                            | % |                                    |
+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+
| Institution location       |   |                                    |
+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+
| > Urban                    | 2 |                                    |
|                            | 1 |                                    |
|                            | % |                                    |
+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+
| > Nonurban                 | 1 |                                    |
|                            | 6 |                                    |
|                            | % |                                    |
+----------------------------+---+------------------------------------+

During the 1997-98 award year, 40 percent of institutions with an FWS
program also reported participating in America Reads[^16] (see the next
chapter for a discussion of the first year operations of the America
Reads Challenge). Institutions that operate America Reads as part of
their FWS program may use federal funds to cover up to 100 percent of
the wages for FWS students involved in the America Reads Challenge. Yet,
19 percent of America Reads institutions used a combination of federal
and nonfederal funds to cover the wages of FWS students involved with
America Reads. This figure did not vary considerably by institution
type, control, or location.

At overmatching America Reads institutions, nonfederal funds accounted
for 30 percent of FWS wages for America Reads students, on average. The
mean institution contribution was 28 percent, while the mean off-campus
employer contribution was 2 percent.

# Awarding Aid

A feature of the campus-based federal financial aid programs is that
institutions are given some discretion regarding which students are
offered the aid and how much aid is offered. The FWS program is further
distinguished in that unlike the other two campus-based programsPerkins
loans and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grantsadministrators are not required to give priority to students with
exceptional financial need.

## *Packaging FWS Funds*

The packaging strategy of an institution determines which students
eligible for FWS actually receive this aid. For 16 percent of the
institutions surveyed, every eligible FWS student was awarded work-study
aid. However, 84 percent of the institutions did not make awards to all
their eligible FWS students. For these institutions, three factors
influenced their decision regarding which students to award FWS aid
to---the student's financial need, the amount of FWS funding available
to the institution, and whether a student applied for or requested FWS
aid. Approximately 8 in 10 institutions used each of these factors to
award FWS aid to selected Title IV eligible students.

![](media/image31.wmf){width="4.498611111111111in"
height="3.609027777777778in"}

## *FWS Awards*

Institutions typically varied the size of the FWS award offered to
students. Just 22 percent of all institutions offered students the same
size award. Among institutions that varied the size of the FWS award, 90
percent of administrators relied primarily on the student's financial
need to determine the size of the FWS award. Another 54 percent of
administrators considered the number of hours a student could work in
determining the size of the FWS award. However, the number of hours a
student could work was much less important to administrators at
four-year institutions than other institutions. Thirty-nine percent of
administrators at four-year institutions considered this factor compared
to 71 percent of administrators at less-than-four-year institutions.

Administrators were asked to provide the minimum and maximum FWS awards
for full-time FWS students. The average *minimum* FWS award offered to
graduate students was \$940. Proprietary students were offered the
highest average *minimum* awards of approximately \$1,350. In contrast,
the mean *minimum* awards offered to freshman and sophomore students
attending nonproprietary schools were nearly half as much at roughly
\$700.

The mean *maximum* FWS award offered students in graduate programs was
\$3,819. Proprietary students were offered similar or even higher
*maximum* awards, depending on their year in school. The mean *maximum*
awards offered to undergraduates attending nonproprietary institutions
were significantly lower, in the \$2,500 range.

+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| Year in school               | Proprietary       | A |                  |
|                              |                   | l |                  |
|                              |                   | l |                  |
|                              |                   | o |                  |
|                              |                   | t |                  |
|                              |                   | h |                  |
|                              |                   | e |                  |
|                              |                   | r |                  |
|                              |                   | i |                  |
|                              |                   | n |                  |
|                              |                   | s |                  |
|                              |                   | t |                  |
|                              |                   | i |                  |
|                              |                   | t |                  |
|                              |                   | u |                  |
|                              |                   | t |                  |
|                              |                   | i |                  |
|                              |                   | o |                  |
|                              |                   | n |                  |
|                              |                   | s |                  |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| Freshman/1^st^ year          |                   |   |                  |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| > Mean min. award            | \$1,377           |   | \$697            |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| > Mean max. award            | \$3,861           |   | \$2,471          |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| Sophomore/2^nd^ year         |                   |   |                  |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| > Mean min. award            | \$1,360           |   | \$721            |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| > Mean max. award            | \$4,473           |   | \$2,547          |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| Graduate                     |                   |   |                  |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| > Mean min. award            | na                |   | \$940            |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+
| > Mean max. award            | na                |   | \$3,819          |
+------------------------------+-------------------+---+------------------+

> na = not applicable.

## *Acceptance of FWS Aid*

Not all students who were offered an FWS award accepted this aid. Across
all institutions, 70 percent of students accepted their FWS award.
However, there was a wide range of acceptance rates across institutions.
At some institutions the acceptance rate was as little as 3 percent,
while at other institutions it reached 100 percent.

Although the observed minimum and maximum acceptance rates were similar
by institution control, the mean acceptance rate at proprietary schools
was significantly higher than the rates at public and other private
institutions. Acceptance rates did not vary considerably between urban
and nonurban institutions.

+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|                  | Percentage of  |                |                |
|                  | students who   |                |                |
|                  | accepted an    |                |                |
|                  | FWS award      |                |                |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|                  | Mean           | Minimum        | Maximum        |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|                  |                |                |                |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| All institutions | 70%            | 3%             | 100%           |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|                  |                |                |                |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Institution      |                |                |                |
| control          |                |                |                |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| > Public         | 62%            | 5%             | 100%           |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| > Other private  | 73%            | 3%             | 100%           |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| > Proprietary    | 86%            | 3%             | 100%           |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

# Post-Award Activities

## *Following-up with FWS Employers*

Administrators were asked about the extent of contact between FWS
administrators and employers during the award year with a particular
focus on administrators' impressions of employer satisfaction with
student performance. Three-quarters of administrators reported that they
routinely contacted FWS employers, both on-campus and off-campus, during
the award year. These administrators typically had multiple contacts
with employers during the award year. The percentage of administrators
who routinely contacted FWS employers did not vary considerably by
institution type, control, or location. However, administrators at
institutions that matched some or all of their FWS students to jobs were
much more likely to contact employers than non-matching institutions.

+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
|                              | P |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | g |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | w |                                      |
|                              | h |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | u |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | l |                                      |
|                              | y |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | l |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | y |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| All institutions             |   | 76%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| Institution matching status  |   |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Matched students to jobs   |   | 83%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Non-matching               |   | 64%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+

More than 40 percent of administrators contacted *on-campus* employers
five or more times during the award year, while 21 percent made a
similar number of contacts with off-campus employers. Administrators at
proprietary schools, which typically operated the smallest FWS programs,
had much heavier contact with *on-campus* employers than administrators
at other institutions. Two-thirds of administrators at proprietary
institutions reported that they contacted *on-campus* employers at least
five times during the award year. This figure was 39 percent for
administrators at other institutions. The percentage contacting
off-campus employers five or more times did not vary significantly by
institution type, control, location, or matching status.

+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
|                              | P |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | g |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | w |                                      |
|                              | h |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | * |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | - |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | u |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | * |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | l |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | y |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | l |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | v |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| All institutions\*           |   | 42%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| Institution type\*           |   |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Proprietary                |   | 67%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Other institution          |   | 39%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+

> \* Among institutions where administrators routinely contacted
> on-campus employers.

Administrators who routinely contacted FWS employers were particularly
interested in the employers' satisfaction with student performance and
the number of hours a student worked. More than 80 percent of
administrators reported that they discussed these topics with on- and
off-campus employers. Many administrators also discussed the maintenance
of required documentation with employers. Administrators were less
likely to discuss the adequacy of student supervision, consistency
between the job description and the student's actual duties, or student
working conditions.

Administrators were just as likely to discuss all topics except working
conditions with on- and off-campus employers. Administrators were more
likely to discuss working conditions with off-campus employers than
on-campus employers.

![](media/image32.wmf){width="4.4944444444444445in"
height="5.3180555555555555in"}

FWS administrators were asked to rate the level of employer satisfaction
with student performance. Nearly all administrators perceived that
employers were pleased with FWS student performance. Specifically,
one-third of administrators reported that *on-campus* employers were
*very satisfied* with student performance. Another 56 percent of
administrators estimated that *on-campus* employers were *satisfied*
with student performance. Only 9 percent indicated that the level of
satisfaction varied across *on-campus* employers.

Administrators perceived that *off-campus* employers were even more
satisfied than on-campus employers with FWS student performance. More
than half of the administrators estimated that *off-campus* employers
were *very satisfied* with student performance. There were no
substantive differences in perceived employer satisfaction by
institution type, control, or location.

![](media/image33.wmf){width="4.499305555555556in"
height="4.602777777777778in"}

## *Following-up with FWS Students*

Most administrators reported that they did not routinely survey or
interview FWS students to determine their satisfaction with the FWS
program. Just 27 percent of administrators routinely contacted FWS
students concerning this matter. There was no discernable pattern of
this activity by institution type, control, or location. However,
administrators at institutions that matched some or all students to jobs
were much more likely to report that they contacted students about their
satisfaction with the program.

+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
|                              | P |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | g |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | w |                                      |
|                              | h |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | u |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | w |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | h |                                      |
|                              | F |                                      |
|                              | W |                                      |
|                              | S |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | g |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| All institutions             |   | 27%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| Institution matching status  |   |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Matched students to jobs   |   | 35%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Non-matching               |   | 12%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+

Of the 27 percent of administrators who spoke with students about
program satisfaction, nearly all estimated that FWS students were either
satisfied or very satisfied with the FWS program. Specifically, nearly
40 percent of administrators perceived that students were *very
satisfied* with the program. Another 59 percent of administrators
reported that students were *satisfied* with the program. The remaining
administrators either had no basis to judge student satisfaction or
estimated that students felt neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the
FWS program.

![](media/image34.wmf){width="4.496527777777778in" height="4.025in"}

Administrators at institutions that matched some or all of their FWS
students to jobs were more likely to estimate that students were *very
satisfied* with the FWS program. However, the percentage of
administrators who perceived FWS students as very satisfied did not vary
significantly by institution type, control, or location.

+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
|                              | P |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | g |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | w |                                      |
|                              | h |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | v |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | F |                                      |
|                              | W |                                      |
|                              | S |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | u |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | * |                                      |
|                              | v |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | y |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | * |                                      |
|                              | w |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | h |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | g |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| All institutions\*           |   | 38%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| Institution matching         |   |                                      |
| status\*                     |   |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Matched students to jobs   |   | 40%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Non-matching               |   | 29%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+

> \* Among institutions where administrators routinely surveyed FWS
> students to determine their satisfaction. Twenty-seven percent of
> administrators routinely contacted FWS students concerning this
> matter.

**FWS and Community Service**

# Student Responses

## *Community Service FWS Students*

As noted earlier with the findings from the student survey, 10 percent
of fall 1998 FWS students characterized their job as a community service
job. The two most rewarding aspects of the community service experience
for these students were working with children and helping others.
One-third of community service students reported that working with
children was what they liked most about their jobs. Approximately 25
percent of the students enjoyed helping and working with other people.
Nearly 20 percent enjoyed meeting new people and their co-workers. Close
to 15 percent liked working in the community and reaching out to the
residents. One in 10 students liked most the ability to gain experience
for their future careers.

![](media/image35.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in"
height="4.103472222222222in"}

Only 3 percent of FWS students participated in America Reads during the
fall 1998. By far, the most rewarding experience for these students was
working with children. Fully 70 percent of America Reads students
reported that working with children was the most enjoyable and
fulfilling aspect of their job. A considerably smaller percentage of
America Reads students reported that helping people in general was the
most enjoyable aspect of their job. Other positive aspects included
meeting new people and their co-workers, working in the community and
reaching out to the residents, and gaining experience for their future
careers.

![](media/image36.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in"
height="3.839583333333333in"}

The majority of community service students (70 percent) reported that
there was nothing that needed to be improved with their FWS community
service experience. Of the remaining students, more than 20 percent
reported that an increase in their wage rate would have improved their
community service jobs. A slightly smaller percentage of students
reported the need for improvement in their supervision and communication
from leadership. More than 15 percent wanted an increase in work hours
or more flexible hours. A similar percentage wanted more training for
their jobs.

![](media/image37.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in"
height="4.679166666666666in"}

The majority of America Reads students, like the rest of the community
service students, reported that there was nothing that needed to be
improved with their jobs. More than 55 percent of America Reads students
believed there was nothing that needed to be changed. Of the remaining
44 percent, more than one-quarter reported a need for better supervision
and communication from leadership. Less than 20 percent of the students
indicated a need for improved training. Close to 10 percent of America
Reads students wanted to see an increase in work hours or more flexible
hours. A slightly smaller percentage wanted an increase in wages.

![](media/image38.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in"
height="4.814583333333333in"}

Most community service students reported that their FWS jobs had a
positive effect on future participation in community service jobs. More
than 80 percent of community service students indicated that their FWS
experience would stimulate future participation in community service.
Approximately 15 percent believed their experience would have no effect
on future consideration of community service jobs.

![](media/image39.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in" height="4.34375in"}

## *Non-Community Service FWS Students*

Nine out of ten FWS students did not have a community service job during
the fall of 1998. Most of these students (73 percent) did not even
consider taking such positions. In addition, nearly 15 percent of FWS
students were unaware that these jobs existed. A similar percentage
reported interest in community service jobs but chose non-community
service jobs instead.

![](media/image40.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in"
height="4.103472222222222in"}

Of the 13 percent of non-community service students who considered a
community service job, the majority declined these job due to scheduling
conflicts or the job's location. More than 40 percent of students
reported scheduling problems as the main reason they were unable to take
community service jobs. Close to 20 percent of students mentioned the
job's location as an obstacle, and more than 10 percent reported that
there were no community service jobs available. Approximately 15 percent
of students enjoyed their present job too much to change to a community
service jobs.

![](media/image41.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in"
height="4.655555555555556in"}

Most non-community service students would consider a community service
job in the future. Students who considered community service jobs in the
past were most likely to consider them in the future. Specifically, 88
percent of students who considered a community service job for fall 1998
would be interested in taking such a job in the future. Of the students
who were unaware of the availability of community service jobs, more
than 80 percent expressed an interest in taking a community service job
in the future once learning about these jobs through the student survey.
Finally, nearly two-thirds of students who did not consider community
service jobs in the pastthe largest group of non-community service
studentsexpressed an interested in future community service work.

![](media/image42.wmf){width="4.4944444444444445in"
height="4.397916666666666in"}

## *Student Awareness of America Reads*

Aside from America Reads students, most FWS students (77 percent) were
not aware of the America Reads Challenge. At schools that participated
in America Reads during the fall of 1998, just more than 70 percent of
non-America Reads students were unaware of this effort. This figure
increased to 80 percent at schools that did not participate in America
Reads.

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
                                                   Percentage of FWS
                                                   students unaware of
                                                   America Reads\*

  All institutions                                 77%

  Institution's America Reads participation status 

  Institution participated in America Reads        72%

  Institution did not participate in America Reads 80%
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------

\*Excludes current America Reads students.

Once learning of America Reads through the student survey, the majority
of non-America Reads students would be interested in participating in
this effort in the future. More than 60 percent of the FWS students who
attended institutions that participated in America Reads were interested
in participating in this effort in the future. Approximately 70 percent
of students at institutions that were not involved with America Reads
also expressed interest in future participation in this effort.

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
                                                  Percentage of FWS
                                                  students interested in
                                                  future participation in
                                                  America Reads\*

  Institution's America Reads participation       
  status                                          

  Institution participated in America Reads       64%

  Institution did not participate in America      71%
  Reads                                           
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

> \* Excludes current America Reads students. Percentage reflects
> student interest in future participation after hearing a brief
> description of the America Reads program.

# Institution Responses

## *FWS Student Participation in Community Service*

According to administrators, on average, 16 percent of FWS students were
involved in community service activities as part of their FWS jobs
during the 1997-98 award year.[^17] Less-than-four-year institutions had
a higher mean percentage of students involved in community service than
four-year institutions. However, because less-than-four-year
institutions operated smaller FWS programs, the mean number of FWS
students in community service was significantly lower than that found at
four-year institutions. Institution location did not influence the mean
percentage or number of FWS students in community service.

+----------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
|                            | FWS student        |                   |
|                            | participation in   |                   |
|                            | community service  |                   |
|                            | during 1997-98     |                   |
+----------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
|                            | Mean percentage of | Mean number of    |
|                            | FWS students       | FWS students      |
+----------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| All institutions           | 16%                | 31                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| Institution type           |                    |                   |
+----------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| > Four-year                | 14%                | 44                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| > Less-than-four-year      | 19%                | 15                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+

Although no single community service activity dominated their work, FWS
students were more likely to be involved in America Reads, other
education, or community improvement than other types of community
service activities. On average, nearly 20 percent of FWS students
involved in community service participated in America Reads. Another 18
percent of community service FWS students were involved in other
education activities. Approximately one in seven community service FWS
students took part in community improvement activities, which included
housing and neighborhood improvement tasks.

The remaining community service FWS students worked in several areas
including health care (12 percent), child care (10 percent), and
cultural activities (6 percent). On average, another 20 percent of
community service FWS students were involved in some other activity.
However, none of these activities accounted for a considerable portion
of the total. This category was largely made up of the following
activities: library services (4 percent), adult literacy training (3
percent), public safety (2 percent), park or recreation work (2
percent), and employment services (2 percent).

![](media/image43.wmf){width="4.498611111111111in"
height="4.136111111111111in"}

## *Institutions with High Community Service Participation Rates*

For purposes of comparing high, moderate, and low community service
institutions, institutions were categorized into quartiles according to
their percentage of community service FWS students. This percentage was
calculated as the total number of FWS students in community service jobs
divided by the total number of FWS students at each institution.
Institutions that fell into the top quartile had more than 20 percent of
their FWS students in community service and were classified as high
community service institutions. Institutions with 8 to 20 percent of
their FWS students in community service had moderate levels of community
service participation. High and moderate community service institutions
were compared to institutions in the bottom quartile, which had 7
percent or less of their FWS students in community service. High,
moderate, and low community service institutions were compared across a
variety of institutional characteristics.

Proprietary and less than-four-year public institutions were more likely
to have a high level of community service participation than other
institutions. Approximately one-third of proprietary institutions and 30
percent of public less-than-four-year institutions had more than 20
percent of their FWS students in community service. Private four-year
institutions, however, were least likely to have high levels of
community service participation. Just 16 percent of private four-year
institutions were classified as high community service institutions.

+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+
|                         | L |              |              |             |
|                         | e |              |              |             |
|                         | v |              |              |             |
|                         | e |              |              |             |
|                         | l |              |              |             |
|                         | o |              |              |             |
|                         | f |              |              |             |
|                         | c |              |              |             |
|                         | o |              |              |             |
|                         | m |              |              |             |
|                         | m |              |              |             |
|                         | u |              |              |             |
|                         | n |              |              |             |
|                         | i |              |              |             |
|                         | t |              |              |             |
|                         | y |              |              |             |
|                         | s |              |              |             |
|                         | e |              |              |             |
|                         | r |              |              |             |
|                         | v |              |              |             |
|                         | i |              |              |             |
|                         | c |              |              |             |
|                         | e |              |              |             |
+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+
|                         |   | High         | Moderate     | Low         |
|                         |   | community    | community    | community   |
|                         |   | service\     | service\     | service\    |
|                         |   | (more than   | (8-20%)      | (7% or      |
|                         |   | 20%)         |              | less)       |
+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+
| Institution type and    |   |              |              |             |
| control                 |   |              |              |             |
+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+
| > Public                |   | 30%          | 48%          | 22%         |
| > less-than-four-year   |   |              |              |             |
+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+
| > Public four-year      |   | 27%          | 54%          | 19%         |
+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+
| > Private               |   | 27%          | 46%          | 27%         |
| > less-than-four-year   |   |              |              |             |
+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+
| > Private four-year     |   | 16%          | 48%          | 36%         |
+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+
| > Proprietary           |   | 34%          | 44%          | 22%         |
+-------------------------+---+--------------+--------------+-------------+

Given that proprietary schools and community colleges were more likely
to be high community service institutions, it is not surprising to learn
that high community service institutions had smaller FWS programs.
Specifically, the average number of FWS students at high community
service institutions was nearly half the average found at low community
service institutions. The median number of FWS students at high
community service institutions was also substantially lower than that at
low community service institutions.

+----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|                                  | Number of FWS  |                |
|                                  | students       |                |
+----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|                                  | Mean           | Median\*       |
+----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| Level of community service       |                |                |
+----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| > High community service         | 170            | 60             |
+----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| > Moderate community service\*\* | 243            | 126            |
+----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| > Low community service          | 300            | 162            |
+----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+

> \* Medians were not subjected to tests of significance.
>
> \*\* Means between low and moderate community service institutions
> were not statistically different.

Not surprisingly, institutions that participated in America Reads in
1997-98 had higher levels of community service participation than other
institutions. For example, just 18 percent of America Reads institutions
were classified as low community service institutions compared to nearly
a third of non-America Reads institutions.

+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                                | Level of  |           |           |
|                                | community |           |           |
|                                | service   |           |           |
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                                | High      | Moderate  | Low       |
|                                | community | community | community |
|                                | service   | service   | service   |
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Participation in America Reads |           |           |           |
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > America Reads institution    | 25%       | 56%       | 18%       |
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Non-America Reads            | 25%       | 43%       | 32%       |
| > institution                  |           |           |           |
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

Off-campus FWS positions were more prevalent at high community service
institutions. On average, nearly one in five FWS jobs was an off-campus
position at high community service institutions. Off-campus FWS
positions were much harder to come by at low community service
institutions where just 1 in 25 FWS positions were off-campus.

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
|                                        | Mean percentage of          |
|                                        | off-campus FWS positions    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Level of community service             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| > High community service               | 18%                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| > Moderate community service           | 7%                          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| > Low community service                | 4%                          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

Level of community service participation did not vary by whether the
institution offered incentives to their FWS students to take community
service jobs, institution location, and matching status.

# America Reads Challenge

## *Participation*

The following reviews the types of institutions participating in America
Reads, reasons why some institutions chose not to participate, and the
extent of student participation.

### *Institution Participation*

During the 1997-98 award year, 40 percent of institutions[^18] that
operated an FWS program also participated in the America Reads
Challenge. Public four-year institutions were most likely to participate
in America Reads during its first year of operation. Two out of three of
these institutions participated in this program. Private four-year and
public less-than-four year institutions had similar participation rates
in America Reads, both around 40 percent. Private less-than-four-year
institutions and proprietary schools were least likely to participate in
America Reads.

Institution location did not influence participation in America Reads.
Approximately 40 percent of urban and nonurban institutions participated
in America Reads.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|                                    | Percentage of institutions that |
|                                    | participated in America Reads   |
|                                    | during 1997-98                  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| All institutions                   | 40%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Institution type and control       |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Public less-than-four-year       | 39%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Public four-year                 | 67%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Private less-than-four-year      | 14%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Private four-year                | 42%                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Proprietary                      | 7%                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

In general, administrative difficulties were common reasons why some
institutions declined to participate in America Reads. Lack of time to
develop the effort was the most frequently cited reason why some
institutions did not participate in America Reads. Other administrative
concerns included high administrative burden and lack of staff to train
reading tutors. Low student interest in America Reads and in working
off-campus were also important reasons cited by some institutions.

![](media/image44.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in" height="4.075in"}

Turning to future participation in America Reads, we found that nearly
all America Reads institutions planned on continuing this effort during
the 1998-99 award year. Specifically, 98 percent of current participants
expected to participate again in 1998-99.

In addition, many institutions that *did not participate* in America
Reads in 1997-98 planned on participating some time in the future.
Seventeen percent of non-America Reads institutions planned on
participating in 1998-99. Nearly twice as many institutions (30 percent)
reported that they would participate in America Reads at some point in
the future but not during the 1998-99 award year. However, 50 percent of
nonparticipants did not plan on becoming America Reads institutions in
the future.

![](media/image45.wmf){width="4.499305555555556in" height="3.825in"}

Future participation in America Reads among 1997-98 nonparticipants was
less likely among private institutions. Nearly 60 percent of private
non-America Reads institutions planned on not participating in the
future. This figure was significantly lower for public non-America Reads
institutions.

+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
|                              | P |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | g |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | - |                                      |
|                              | A |                                      |
|                              | m |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | R |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | u |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | s |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | h |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | l |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | d |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | o |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | c |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | p |                                      |
|                              | a |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | g |                                      |
|                              | i |                                      |
|                              | n |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | h |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
|                              | f |                                      |
|                              | u |                                      |
|                              | t |                                      |
|                              | u |                                      |
|                              | r |                                      |
|                              | e |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| All institutions             |   | 50%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| Institution control          |   |                                      |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Public                     |   | 41%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+
| > Private                    |   | 58%                                  |
+------------------------------+---+--------------------------------------+

As noted earlier, lack of time was the most frequently reported reason
why some institutions declined to participate in America Reads during
the 1997-98 award year. However, many of these institutions expected to
participate in the program if given more time. Of the 63 percent of
non-America Reads institutions that lacked time to develop this program,
nearly one out of five expected to participate in 1998-99. Another 35
percent expected to participate in the future but not the following
year.

![](media/image46.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in"
height="4.201388888888889in"}

### *Student Participation*

The typical America Reads institution employed 20 FWS students in this
program during 1997-98. Administrators reported that 95 percent of FWS
students involved with America Reads served as reading tutors for
elementary school students. Four-year institutions and institutions
located in urban areas had significantly more FWS students participating
in America Reads than other institutions. Specifically, four-year
institutions had, on average, nearly three times the number of FWS
students in America Reads than less-than-four-year institutions.
Although the difference between the mean number of students in America
Reads by institution location was smaller, urban institutions still had
significantly more FWS students participating in America Reads.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|                                    | Mean number of FWS students in  |
|                                    | America Reads                   |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| All institutions                   | 20                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Institution type                   |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Four-year                        | 25                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Less-than-four-year              | 9                               |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Institution location               |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Urban                            | 26                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Nonurban                         | 14                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

Students who do not receive FWS aid may also volunteer for America
Reads. On average, an additional nine non-FWS students per institution
participated in America Reads in some capacity. The participation of
these students increased the average America Reads workforce by 45
percent to 29 students per institution. The survey did not ask
administrators to identify where non-FWS students served or in what
capacity.

## *Development and Management*

Approximately 80 percent of America Reads institutions credited their
student financial aid office for launching this program. Other offices
that were important in developing an institution's America Reads effort
included the institution's school or department of education, the
community service office, the student employment office, and the
president's office. However, these offices clearly held a secondary role
to the student financial aid office. Only one-quarter or less of the
institutions identified these as key offices in developing their America
Reads effort.

![](media/image47.wmf){width="4.4944444444444445in" height="4.26875in"}

While the student financial aid office was clearly a key player in
developing America Reads across all institutions, less-than-four-year
institutions relied almost exclusively on this office to develop their
efforts. Nine out of ten less-than-four-year institutions identified the
student financial aid office as a key office in developing America
Reads.

Community service offices and schools or departments of education were
more important to the development of America Reads at four-year
institutions than at other institutions, possibly because these offices
or departments may not be available at many less-than-four-year schools.

+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
|                     |   | Percentage of |               |              |   |
|                     |   | institutions  |               |              |   |
|                     |   | that          |               |              |   |
|                     |   | identified    |               |              |   |
|                     |   | office or     |               |              |   |
|                     |   | department as |               |              |   |
|                     |   | a key office  |               |              |   |
|                     |   | in            |               |              |   |
|                     |   | *developing*  |               |              |   |
|                     |   | America       |               |              |   |
|                     |   | Reads\*       |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
|                     | S |               | Community     | School or    |   |
|                     | t |               | service       | dept. of     |   |
|                     | u |               | office        | education    |   |
|                     | d |               |               |              |   |
|                     | e |               |               |              |   |
|                     | n |               |               |              |   |
|                     | t |               |               |              |   |
|                     | f |               |               |              |   |
|                     | i |               |               |              |   |
|                     | n |               |               |              |   |
|                     | a |               |               |              |   |
|                     | n |               |               |              |   |
|                     | c |               |               |              |   |
|                     | i |               |               |              |   |
|                     | a |               |               |              |   |
|                     | l |               |               |              |   |
|                     | a |               |               |              |   |
|                     | i |               |               |              |   |
|                     | d |               |               |              |   |
|                     | o |               |               |              |   |
|                     | f |               |               |              |   |
|                     | f |               |               |              |   |
|                     | i |               |               |              |   |
|                     | c |               |               |              |   |
|                     | e |               |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
| Institution type    |   |               |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
| > Four-year         | 7 |               | 24%           | 32%          |   |
|                     | 6 |               |               |              |   |
|                     | % |               |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
| >                   | 9 |               | 11%           | 5%           |   |
| Less-than-four-year | 2 |               |               |              |   |
|                     | % |               |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+

\* Institutions could identify more than one office/department.

Few institutions reported that a local school district or individual
school was responsible for developing America Reads. Just 7 percent of
institutions identified these organizations as leaders in launching
their efforts. The location of the institution had no effect on which
offices were involved in the development of America Reads.

In addition to playing a key role in developing America Reads, the
student financial aid office was largely responsible for *administering*
this effort. Nearly three-quarters of institutions identified this
office as responsible for administering America Reads. Fewer
institutions identified the institution's school or department of
education, student employment office, or community service office.

![](media/image48.wmf){width="4.496527777777778in"
height="3.8256944444444443in"}

Less-than-four-year institutions were again most likely to look to their
student financial aid office to administer America Reads, while
four-year institutions were more likely to share this responsibility
with other offices or departments.

+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
|                     |   | Percentage of |               |              |   |
|                     |   | institutions  |               |              |   |
|                     |   | that          |               |              |   |
|                     |   | identified    |               |              |   |
|                     |   | office or     |               |              |   |
|                     |   | department as |               |              |   |
|                     |   | a key office  |               |              |   |
|                     |   | in            |               |              |   |
|                     |   | *a            |               |              |   |
|                     |   | dministering* |               |              |   |
|                     |   | America       |               |              |   |
|                     |   | Reads\*       |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
|                     | S |               | Community     | School or    |   |
|                     | t |               | service       | dept of      |   |
|                     | u |               | office        | education    |   |
|                     | d |               |               |              |   |
|                     | e |               |               |              |   |
|                     | n |               |               |              |   |
|                     | t |               |               |              |   |
|                     | f |               |               |              |   |
|                     | i |               |               |              |   |
|                     | n |               |               |              |   |
|                     | a |               |               |              |   |
|                     | n |               |               |              |   |
|                     | c |               |               |              |   |
|                     | i |               |               |              |   |
|                     | a |               |               |              |   |
|                     | l |               |               |              |   |
|                     | a |               |               |              |   |
|                     | i |               |               |              |   |
|                     | d |               |               |              |   |
|                     | o |               |               |              |   |
|                     | f |               |               |              |   |
|                     | f |               |               |              |   |
|                     | i |               |               |              |   |
|                     | c |               |               |              |   |
|                     | e |               |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
| Institution type    |   |               |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
| > Four-year         | 6 |               | 23%           | 32%          |   |
|                     | 8 |               |               |              |   |
|                     | % |               |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+
| >                   | 8 |               | 8%            | 3%           |   |
| Less-than-four-year | 8 |               |               |              |   |
|                     | % |               |               |              |   |
+---------------------+---+---------------+---------------+--------------+---+

\* Institutions could identify more than one office/department.

## *Training of Reading Tutors*

Most America Reads institutions provided some kind of training to
tutors. Nearly two-thirds of America Reads institutions provided their
FWS students with both pre- and continuing training. Seventeen percent
of the institutions gave their America Reads FWS students pretraining
but no continuing training. A small percentage of institutions provided
only continuing training.

There was some variation in the type of training provided by institution
control. Public institutions were more likely to offer both types of
training than private institutions. Although a considerable percentage
of private schools offered both types of training, private institutions
were more likely to offer no training than public institutions.[^19]

+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                   | Type of   |           |           |           |
|                   | training  |           |           |           |
|                   | provided  |           |           |           |
+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                   | Pr        | C         | Both      | No\       |
|                   | etraining | ontinuing |           | training  |
|                   | only      | training  |           |           |
|                   |           | only      |           |           |
+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| All institutions  | 17%       | > 4%      | 64%       | 15%       |
+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Institution       |           |           |           |           |
| control           |           |           |           |           |
+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Public          | 18%       | > 4%      | 68%       | 10%       |
+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Private         | 14%       | > 4%      | 60%       | 22%       |
+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

Although the student financial aid office was primarily responsible for
administering the America Reads program, institutions relied on other
offices or organizations to develop and deliver tutor-training programs.
These offices were used to design and develop both pre- and continuing
training programs.

### *Designing Tutor-Training*

More than 40 percent of institutions relied on their school or
department of education to *design* pre- or continuing tutor-training. A
smaller percentage of institutions relied on their elementary school or
school district partners to *design* tutor-training.

![](media/image49.wmf){width="4.495833333333334in"
height="4.526388888888889in"}

Four-year institutions were more likely to use their school or
department of education for *designing* tutor-training than other
institutions. For example, more than half of four-year institutions
relied on their school or department of education to *design* pre- or
continuing training. However, less than 15 percent of
less-than-four-year institutions used this office to *design*
tutor-training. Many less-than-four-year institutions probably do not
have a separate school or department of education to draw on for tutor
training.

+---------------------------+---------------+---+---------------------+
|                           | Percentage of |   |                     |
|                           | institutions  |   |                     |
|                           | that used     |   |                     |
|                           | their school  |   |                     |
|                           | or department |   |                     |
|                           | of education  |   |                     |
|                           | for           |   |                     |
|                           | *designing*   |   |                     |
|                           | tut           |   |                     |
|                           | or-training\* |   |                     |
+---------------------------+---------------+---+---------------------+
|                           | Pretraining   | C |                     |
|                           |               | o |                     |
|                           |               | n |                     |
|                           |               | t |                     |
|                           |               | i |                     |
|                           |               | n |                     |
|                           |               | u |                     |
|                           |               | i |                     |
|                           |               | n |                     |
|                           |               | g |                     |
|                           |               | t |                     |
|                           |               | r |                     |
|                           |               | a |                     |
|                           |               | i |                     |
|                           |               | n |                     |
|                           |               | i |                     |
|                           |               | n |                     |
|                           |               | g |                     |
+---------------------------+---------------+---+---------------------+
| Institution type          |               |   |                     |
+---------------------------+---------------+---+---------------------+
| > Four-year               | 57%           | 5 |                     |
|                           |               | 4 |                     |
|                           |               | % |                     |
+---------------------------+---------------+---+---------------------+
| > Less-than-four-year     | 11%           | 1 |                     |
|                           |               | 4 |                     |
|                           |               | % |                     |
+---------------------------+---------------+---+---------------------+

\* Among institutions that offered each type of training.

### *Delivering Tutor-Training*

In general, institutions relied on the same offices and organizations
that designed their tutor-training to *deliver* it. The institution's
school or department of education was the most frequently identified
office responsible for delivering training, followed by elementary
schools and local school districts.

![](media/image50.wmf){width="4.499305555555556in"
height="4.1506944444444445in"}

Again, four-year institutions were far more likely to use their school
or department of education to *deliver* training than other
institutions.

+---------------------------+---------------+--------------------------+
|                           | Percentage of |                          |
|                           | institutions  |                          |
|                           | that used     |                          |
|                           | their school  |                          |
|                           | or department |                          |
|                           | of education  |                          |
|                           | for           |                          |
|                           | *delivering*  |                          |
|                           | tut           |                          |
|                           | or-training\* |                          |
+---------------------------+---------------+--------------------------+
|                           | Pretraining   | Continuing training      |
+---------------------------+---------------+--------------------------+
| Institution type          |               |                          |
+---------------------------+---------------+--------------------------+
| > Four-year               | 56%           | 51%                      |
+---------------------------+---------------+--------------------------+
| > Less-than-four-year     | 11%           | 14%                      |
+---------------------------+---------------+--------------------------+

\* Among institutions that offered each type of training.

### *Financing Tutor-Training*

Institutions assumed most of the costs associated with training reading
tutors. The top three sources used to finance training costs were:
institutional funds; in-kind donations from institutions; and school
district funds. Approximately half of America Reads institutions used
institutional funds to cover the costs of training. Another 30 percent
received in-kind donations such as classroom space for training
activities from their institutions to cover these costs. Nearly 20
percent of America Reads institutions received local school district
funds.

  ------------------------------------ ----------------- -----------------
                                       Top three sources 
                                       used to cover\    
                                       costs of the      
                                       training\*        

                                       Pretraining       Continuing
                                                         training

  Institutional funds                  53%               47%

  Institutional in-kind donations      30%               27%

  Local school district funds          18%               21%
  ------------------------------------ ----------------- -----------------

\* Institutions could identify more than one source.

The sources used to cover training costs varied by institution type. For
pretraining costs, four-year institutions relied heavily on their
institutional funds and the use of institutional in-kind donations.
Less-than-four-year institutions also made use of their institutional
funds, but relied far less on institutional in-kind donations. Instead,
a higher percentage of less-than-four-year institutions received local
school district funds for pretraining compared to four-year
institutions. However, the sources used to cover the costs of continuing
training did not vary by institution type.

+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|                          | Top three   |             |             |
|                          | sources     |             |             |
|                          | used to     |             |             |
|                          | cover\      |             |             |
|                          | the cost of |             |             |
|                          | pr          |             |             |
|                          | etraining\* |             |             |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|                          | In          | In          | Local       |
|                          | stitutional | stitutional | school      |
|                          | funds       | in-kind     | district    |
|                          |             | donations   | funds       |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Institution type         |             |             |             |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Four-year              | > 56%       | 38%         | 14%         |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Less-than-four-year    | > 44%       | 10%         | 28%         |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

\* Institutions could identify more than one source.

## *Students Served*

Administrators were asked to provide *preliminary* information regarding
the preschool and elementary school children who received tutoring
services including the number of children who received tutoring and the
amount of tutoring received. Administrators were also asked about
institutional plans to evaluate the reading or educational impact of
America Reads tutors on children.

The majority of America Reads administrators could not estimate the
number of children who received tutoring through their program or the
amount of tutoring that children received. Just 43 percent of America
Reads administrators could estimate the number of preschool and
elementary school children served by America Reads tutors. However,
administrators at four-year institutions were more likely to provide
this information than administrators at other institutions. Forty-nine
percent of administrators at four-year institutions and 29 percent of
administrators at other institutions could estimate the number of
children served.

Estimates suggest that during its first year of operation, America Reads
served elementary school children primarily. Of the 43 percent of
administrators that provided an estimate of the number of children
served, three-quarters indicated that they provided tutoring services to
elementary school children only. Another 19 percent provided tutoring
services to preschool and elementary school children. The remaining 6
percent served preschool children only. Across institutions that served
elementary school children, the average number of elementary school
children tutored was 165 per institution. However, the median number of
elementary school children tutored was substantially lower at 70
children, which suggests that a small number of institutions tutored a
disproportionately large number of children.

Only 32 percent of administrators surveyed provided estimates of the
amount of tutoring that preschool and elementary school children
received. This figure did not vary by institution type or control.
Across institutions that could provide estimates for elementary school
children (29 percent of America Reads institutions), the average amount
of tutoring elementary school children received was 90 hours during the
course of the award year. However, the median amount of tutoring
received was much lower at 42 hours.

Most institutions (61 percent) planned on evaluating the reading or
educational impact of their America Reads tutors on preschool and
elementary school children. More than one-quarter expected to do so
during the 1997-98 award year, and another third expected to evaluate
the impact sometime in the future.

![](media/image51.wmf){width="4.5in" height="2.946527777777778in"}

Four-year institutions were more likely to plan on evaluating the impact
of their America Reads program during the 1997-98 award year than
less-than-four-year institutions. Approximately 30 percent of four-year
institutions planned on examining the effects of America Reads in
1997-98. This figure dropped to 17 percent among less-than-four-year
institutions. Approximately one-third of both types of institutions
planned to evaluate their program in the future. Half of
less-than-four-year institutions had no plans to evaluate their program.

+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
|                        | Distribution |              |              |
|                        | of           |              |              |
|                        | institutions |              |              |
|                        | by plans to  |              |              |
|                        | evaluate     |              |              |
|                        | America      |              |              |
|                        | Reads        |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
|                        | Has plans to | Does not     | Plans to     |
|                        | evaluate     | plan to      | evaluate     |
|                        |              | evaluate     | sometime in  |
|                        |              |              | the future   |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Institution type       |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| > Four-year            | 31%          | 34%          | 35%          |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| > Less-than-four-year  | 17%          | 51%          | 32%          |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

## *Satisfaction with America Reads*

Three measures of satisfaction with America Reads were developed. The
first measure reports administrators\' satisfaction with the
relationship between their institution and local schools or other
organizations where tutors served. The second measure presents
administrators\' perceptions of teacher satisfaction with the
contributions of America Reads tutors. The third measure reports
administrators\' perceptions of satisfaction among other staff members
involved with America Reads and the contributions of tutors. We also
present suggestions from first year America Reads administrators to
future participants.

Approximately 90 percent of America Reads administrators were satisfied
with their relationship with the school or organization where FWS
students were tutoring. Specifically, 50 percent of administrators were
*very satisfied* with this relationship and another 38 percent were
*satisfied*. Eight percent of the administrators were *neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied* (neutral), while only 4 percent felt it was too early
in the relationship to form an opinion. No administrator reported being
dissatisfied with the relationship between institutions.

Approximately 80 percent of America Reads administrators perceived that
teachers at preschools and elementary schools were satisfied with the
contribution of reading tutors. In particular, more than half of
administrators perceived that teachers were *very satisfied*, and
another 26 percent felt that teachers were *satisfied*. Although no
administrator perceived that teachers were *dissatisfied* with the
contribution of the reading tutors, almost 20 percent of administrators
were unable to determine the level of teacher satisfaction.

![](media/image52.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in"
height="3.3854166666666665in"}

Administrators also perceived a high degree of satisfaction with reading
tutors among other school staff members, such as, school principals.
Forty-eight percent of administrators perceived that other staff members
were *very satisfied* with the contributions of reading tutors. Another
24 percent of administrators perceived that other school staff members
were *satisfied* with the contributions of reading tutors. A similar
percentage was unsure about other staff members' level of satisfaction.
Administrators detected no dissatisfaction with reading tutors among
other school staff members.

![](media/image53.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in"
height="3.3854166666666665in"}

The majority of America Reads administrators (69 percent) offered
suggestions to new participants. Administrators offered several pieces
of advice to new participants regarding program development.
Approximately one-quarter of administrators stressed the importance of
developing a partnership with a local school district before launching
the program. A similar percentage encouraged future participants to
begin with a small program and plan ahead. On the delivery side, a
quarter of administrators recommended that institutions provide
tutor-training programs. Many administrators also encouraged new
participants to monitor and evaluate reading tutors and the program
overall.

![](media/image54.wmf){width="4.497916666666667in" height="3.925in"}

**Appendix A**

**FWS and TANF Work Provisions**

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare
program, which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program. Among the TANF requirements, most recipients must be
engaged in work-related activities. Specifically, at least 20 hours per
week for all families and 30 hours per week for two-parent families must
be spent in one or more of the following activities:

-   unsubsidized employment;

-   subsidized private sector or public sector employment;

-   work experience;

-   on-the-job training;

-   job search and job readiness assistance;

-   community service programs;

-   vocational education training (up to 12 months per individual); and

-   the provision of child care services to an individual participating
    in community service.

States are required to have a specific percentage of families meeting
the work requirement, and that percentage increases over time. In FY
1997, for example, 25 percent of all families and 75 percent of
two-parent families were required to engage in work-related activities.
By FY 2002, these percentages increase to 50 percent for all families
and 90 percent for two-parent families.

TANF recipients who are also postsecondary education students may be
able to meet their work requirements through the FWS program. As part of
the institutional survey, FWS administrators were asked about their
continuing or planned efforts to work with TANF recipients to fulfill
their work requirements.

We found that 46 percent of administrators were unable to report the
number of welfare recipients who received *any Title IV federal
financial aid* during the 1997-98 award year. Another 14 percent of
administrators indicated that they did not have any welfare recipients
who received Title IV federal financial aid. The remaining
administrators (40 percent) reported that they had at least one welfare
recipient who also received Title IV aid in 1997-98.

Many administrators were also unable to report the number of welfare
recipients who received *an FWS award* during the 1997-98 award year.
Forty-two percent of administrators either did not know the number of
welfare recipients who received FWS or left the item missing. Twenty
percent of administrators reported that they did not have any welfare
recipients who received an FWS award. More than one-third of
administrators (38 percent) indicated that at least one welfare
recipient also received an FWS award.

Among the 40 percent of institutions that reported at least one welfare
recipient receiving *any Title IV aid*, nearly a third of administrators
reported that their institution made an attempt, or expects to, place
more welfare recipients in FWS jobs. Approximately three out of ten
administrators reported that there were too few welfare recipients at
their institution to encourage this placement.

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|                                     | > Institution plans to place   |
|                                     | > more welfare recipients in   |
|                                     | > FWS jobs\*                   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Yes                                 | 32%                            |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| No                                  | 23%                            |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Expects to do so in future          | 15%                            |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Not applicable/too few welfare\     | 28%                            |
| recipients at institution           |                                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Don\'t know/not ascertained         | 2%                             |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

> \* Among the 40 percent of postsecondary institutions that reported at
> least one welfare recipient received any Title IV federal financial
> aid.

Among the 38 percent of institutions that reported they had at least one
welfare recipient who received FWS aid, three in ten administrators
indicated that their institution has made an attempt, or plans to,
provide more welfare recipients with FWS jobs in which they may work 20
hours per week. Nearly 40 percent of administrators reported that their
institution had no plans to provide more welfare recipients with 20-hour
per week FWS jobs.

+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|                                     | > Institution plans to provide |
|                                     | > more welfare recipients with |
|                                     | > 20-hour per week FWS jobs\*  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Yes                                 | 30%                            |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| No                                  | 39%                            |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Expects to do so in future          | 13%                            |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Not applicable/too few welfare\     | 15%                            |
| recipients at institution           |                                |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Don\'t know/not ascertained         | 3%                             |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

> \* Among the 38 percent of postsecondary institutions that reported at
> least one welfare recipient received any Title IV federal financial
> aid.

[^1]: The 40 percent participation rate in America Reads Challenge
    obtained from the institutional survey is a slight overestimate. The
    actual participation rate in 1997-98, according to program data, was
    36 percent.

[^2]: Data collection for this study was completed before America Counts
    began in July 1999. As a result, this study does not present
    findings on the operation of or satisfaction with America Counts.

[^3]: The Fiscal Operations Report and Application (FISAP/FISCOP), which
    is completed annually by institutions participating in the
    campus-based programs, while providing detailed data on the
    distribution of FWS awards, does not contain information on how the
    program operates.

[^4]: An award year begins on July 1^st^ and ends on June 30^th^ of the
    following year.

[^5]: The Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part C, (Public Law
    89-329).

[^6]: Campbell, J., et al. (1996). *National Center for Education
    Statistics: National Assessment of National Progress 1994 Reading
    Report Card for the Nation and the States.* Washington D.C.: U.S.
    Department of Education (p.43).

[^7]: Data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of
    Postsecondary Education.

[^8]: Data collection for this study was completed before America Counts
    began in July 1999. As a result, this study does not present
    findings on the operation of or satisfaction with America Counts.

[^9]: See the companion report, *Technical Appendices for the
    Institutional and Student Surveys*, for more detailed information on
    the sample design and response rates for both surveys.

[^10]: Specifically, the data were subjected to chi-square tests,
    t-tests, and analyses of variance using WesVar, a software package
    that uses replicate weights to compute standard errors that account
    for the survey's complex sample design.

[^11]: Note: Students were asked to agree or disagree with the following
    statements: "My FWS job was related to my academic program. My FWS
    job was related to my career interests." Students who agreed or
    strongly agreed with these statements were considered to be in
    related jobs. Students who disagreed or strongly disagreed were
    considered to be in unrelated jobs. Students who neither agreed nor
    disagreed were considered neutral regarding the relatedness of their
    jobs.

[^12]: Institutions were asked about student involvement in community
    service in two different ways on the survey. In the section on job
    activities, institutions were just asked the percentage of students
    involved in community service, and the mean estimate was 13 percent.
    In the section on community service (the following section of the
    report), institutions were asked the actual number of students in
    community service jobs. Dividing this number by the total number of
    FWS students yields an estimate of 16 percent of students involved
    in community service. While we believe the 16 percent estimate is
    probably more accurate, we have to use the 13 percent in this
    section in order to compare the magnitude of community service jobs
    with other job activities.

[^13]: Readers can turn to the *Findings from the Student Survey*
    chapter for FWS students' perspective regarding the complementary
    nature of their FWS job and their academic and career interests.

[^14]: Six percent of institutions inadvertently skipped this question
    and the question regarding the percentage of students in jobs
    related to their career goals due to an error in the survey
    instructions.

[^15]: The U.S. Department of Education may increase the federal share
    to 100 percent for schools eligible for the Strengthening
    Institutions, the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities, or the Strengthening Historically Black Graduate
    Institutions programs.

[^16]: The 40 percent participation rate in America Reads Challenge
    obtained from the institutional survey is a slight overestimate. The
    actual participation rate in 1997-98, according to program data, was
    36 percent.

[^17]: The institutional estimate of 16 percent is higher than the 10
    percent of students who characterized their job as a community
    service job. Some of this difference may be due to sampling and
    timing differences between the student and institutional surveys,
    but it is also possible that students are not aware of what
    constitutes a community service job.

[^18]: The 40 percent participation rate in America Reads Challenge
    obtained from the institutional survey is a slight overestimate. The
    actual participation rate in 1997-98, according to program data, was
    36 percent.

[^19]: Data were collected on the amount of training hours provided for
    students; however, these figures were not published because they
    contained inconsistencies in reporting units that could not be
    resolved.