Archived Information

The National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study Program:

Summary Findings from the Student and Institutional Surveys

2000

The National Study of the Operation of the Federal Work-Study Program:

Summary Findings from the Student and Institutional Surveys

2000

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Planning and Evaluation Service

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Westat

Rockville, MD

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.  

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**

Acknowledgmentsiii

Executive Summaryvii

Chapter 1.  Introduction1

An Overview of the Federal Work-Study Program2

Trends in Funding3

Trends in Awards4

FWS and Community Service4

Program Changes Since the Study6

Study Design7

Organization of the Report8

Chapter 2.  Findings from the Student Survey11

The FWS Job Experience11

Selection of FWS Jobs11

Job Activities13

Hours Worked and Wage Rates16

FWS Job Training17

Employment in Other Jobs18

FWS Jobs and Academic Performance21

Job Satisfaction24

Satisfaction with Financial Aspects of Job24

Satisfaction with General Aspects of Job25

Job Valuation27

Satisfaction with the FWS Employer28

Student Satisfaction with FWS Program Operations31

Student Satisfaction with Information about theFWS Program31

Student Satisfaction with Assistance Finding Jobs32

Student Satisfaction with Types of FWS Jobs34

Student Satisfaction with Accessibility of FWSStaff35

Overall Student Satisfaction with the FWS Program37

Alternative Aid Scenarios41

**Contents (continued)**

Chapter 3.  Findings from the Institutional Survey43

Job Development and Matching43

Job Location and Development Programs45

Matching FWS Students with FWS Jobs46

FWS Job Activities49

Hourly FWS Wages55

Federal and Nonfederal Contributions toward FWS Wages56

Awarding Aid57

Packaging FWS Funds57

FWS Awards58

Acceptance of FWS Aid59

Post-Award Activities60

Following-up with FWS Employers61

Following-up with FWS Students63

Chapter 4.  FWS and Community Service67

Student Responses67

Community Service FWS Students67

Non-Community Service FWS Students72

Student Awareness of America Reads75

Institution Responses76

FWS Student Participation in Community Service76

Institutions with High Community Service Participation Rates78

America Reads Challenge80

Participation80

Institution Participation81

Student Participation84

Development and Management85

Training of Reading Tutors88

Designing Tutor-Training89

Delivering Tutor-Training91

Financing Tutor-Training92

Students Served93

Satisfaction with America Reads95

Appendix A.  FWS and TANF Work ProvisionsA-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. 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.

· 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.

· 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.  

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. 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 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.” 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.

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.

# 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. 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. 

# 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 and 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.  

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.  

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. 

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

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.  

*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.  

# 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.  

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.

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.  

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.  

*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.  

*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.

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.  

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. 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.

# 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.  

# 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.

*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.  

*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.  

*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).

*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.  

# 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.

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.

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.

# 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.

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.

# 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.

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.

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.

# 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.  

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.  

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.

**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.  

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.  

# 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.  

# 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.  

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.  

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.  

# 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. 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).  

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.  

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. Just 27 percent of institutions were able to report the percentage of FWS students in jobs *related to their academic program*.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

# 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. 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.  

During the 1997-98 award year, 40 percent of institutions with an FWS program also reported participating in America Reads (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.

# 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.  

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.

# 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.  

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.

*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.

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.

# 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.  

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.  

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.  

*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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.  

# 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.

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.

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.

# 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.

*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.  

*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. 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.  

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).

# 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.

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.  

*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.

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.  

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 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.

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.  

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.

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.  

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.  

# 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.  

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.  

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.  

* 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.  

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.  

* 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.

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.  

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.  

* 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.  

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

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

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.

# 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.

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.

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.

**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.  

*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.  

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

� EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8  ���

� EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8  ���

� 	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.

� 	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.

�	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.  

� 	An award year begins on July 1st and ends on June 30th of the following year.

� 	The Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part C, (Public Law 89-329).

�	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).

�	Data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education.

� 	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.

� 	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.  

� 	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.

� 	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.

� 	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.

� 	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.

� 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.  

�	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.

� 	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.

�	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.  

�	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.  

� 	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.

Gun-Free Schools Act – 1997-98 ReportPage 3

# _1025086604.doc

# _1025679140.doc

# _1037603680.ppt

# _1025339570.doc

# _1025079948.doc