PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE

THE NATIONAL STUDY OF THE OPERATION

OF THE FEDERAL WORK-STUDY PROGRAM:

SUMMARY FINDINGS FROM THE STUDENT

AND INSTITUTIONAL SURVEYS

2000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

PES PES
PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

PES PES

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.
iii

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,
Acknowledgments

iv

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.
v

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................... iii

Executive Summary.........................................................................vii

Chapter 1. Introduction..................................................................... 1

An Overview of the Federal Work-Study Program.................. 2

Trends in Funding..................................................... 3

Trends in Awards..................................................... 4

FWS and Community Service.................................... 4

Program Changes Since the Study.............................. 6

Study Design........................................................................ 7

Organization of the Report.................................................... 8

Chapter 2. Findings from the Student Survey....................................11

The FWS Job Experience.....................................................11

Selection of FWS Jobs.............................................11

Job Activities..........................................................13

Hours Worked and Wage Rates................................16

FWS Job Training....................................................17

Employment in Other Jobs.......................................18

FWS Jobs and Academic Performance..................................21

Job Satisfaction....................................................................24

Satisfaction with Financial Aspects of Job.................24

Satisfaction with General Aspects of Job...................25

Job Valuation ..........................................................27

Satisfaction with the FWS Employer.....................................28

Student Satisfaction with FWS Program Operations...............31

Student Satisfaction with Information about the

FWS Program...................................................31

Student Satisfaction with Assistance Finding Jobs......32

Student Satisfaction with Types of FWS Jobs............34

Student Satisfaction with Accessibility of FWS

Staff .................................................................35

Overall Student Satisfaction with the FWS Program..............37

Alternative Aid Scenarios.........................................41
vi

Contents (continued)

Chapter 3. Findings from the Institutional Survey.............................43

Job Development and Matching............................................43

Job Location and Development Programs..................45

Matching FWS Students with FWS Jobs ...................46

FWS Job Activities..................................................49

Hourly FWS Wages.................................................55

Federal and Nonfederal Contributions toward

FWS Wages......................................................56

Awarding Aid......................................................................57

Packaging FWS Funds.............................................57

FWS Awards...........................................................58

Acceptance of FWS Aid...........................................59

Post-Award Activities..........................................................60

Following-up with FWS Employers..........................61

Following-up with FWS Students.............................63

Chapter 4. FWS and Community Service .........................................67

Student Responses...............................................................67

Community Service FWS Students...........................67

Non-Community Service FWS Students....................72

Student Awareness of America Reads.......................75

Institution Responses...........................................................76

FWS Student Participation in Community Service .....76

Institutions with High Community Service

Participation Rates.............................................78

America Reads Challenge ....................................................80

Participation............................................................80

Institution Participation...................................81

Student Participation.......................................84

Development and Management.................................85

Training of Reading Tutors.......................................88

Designing Tutor-Training................................89

Delivering Tutor-Training ...............................91

Financing Tutor-Training ................................92

Students Served.......................................................93

Satisfaction with America Reads..............................95

Appendix A. FWS and TANF Work Provisions............................. A-1
vii

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.
Executive Summary

viii

• 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.
Executive Summary

ix

• 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.5 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.

 

5 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.
Executive Summary

x

• 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.
1

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.6

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

 

6 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.
Introduction

2

assistance.7 The National Study of the Operation of the Federal WorkStudy 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

8

 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.”9 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.

 

7 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.

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

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

3

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Federal Campus-Based Programs Data Book 

 1998 (Washington, D.C.: 1998), pp. 1-1 to 1-4.

 FY 97-2000 are unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education.

Federal Appropriations for the FWS Program, FY 1965-2000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1965197019751980198519901995

2000 (est.)

Fiscal Year

Appropriation (dollars in millions)

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.
Introduction

4

Number of FWS Awards, 1965-66 to 2000-01 Award Years

Note: Data are missing for the 1971-72 award year.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Federal Campus-Based Programs Data Book 1998 

 (Washington, D.C.: 1998), pp. 1-1 to 1-4.

 1997-98 data and beyond are unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1965-661970-711975-761980-811985-861990-911995-96

2000-01 (est.)

Award Year

Number of Awards (in thousands)

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
Introduction

5

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.10

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

 

10 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).
Introduction

6

served as reading tutors. As of January 2000, nearly 1,300

postsecondary institutions are participating in this program.11

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

 

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

Education.
Introduction

7

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.12

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

 

12 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.
Introduction

8

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. 13

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,

 

13 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.
Introduction

9

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 followup 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
Introduction

10

characteristics. All findings reported are statistically significant at the 95

percent confidence level unless noted otherwise.14

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.

 

14 Specifically, the data were subjected to chi-square tests, t-tests, and analyses of

variance using WesVar, a software package that uses replicate weights to compute

standard errors that account for the survey’s complex sample design.
11

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
Findings from the Student Survey

12

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.

Reasons for Self-Selecting a Particular FWS Job*

*Among students who chose their FWS job. Seventy-two percent of FWS students chose 

 their own job.

30%

25%

13%

6%

6%

3%

17%

Hours accommodated schedule

Job related to academic/career

interests

Job location

Wage rate

Low pressure work activities

Job was community service job 

Other reason

The majority of FWS students (78 percent) were in their first

choice job. Students who selected their own job were more likely to

identify their job as their first choice job than students who were

assigned to or were placed in their FWS job by FWS staff.

Percentage of students

who identified job as

first choice FWS job

All students 78%

FWS job placement status

Student assigned to FWS job 70%

Student selected job 82%

Of the 22 percent of students in a second choice job, the most

frequent response when asked what type of FWS job they would have
Findings from the Student Survey

13

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.

Distribution of Fall 1998 FWS Students by FWS Job

38%

15%

12%

10%

4%

3%

2%

16%

Clerical/office assistant

Lab/research assistant

Resident/student life assistant

Library worker

Teacher's assistant/tutor

America Reads volunteer

Helping others

Other
Findings from the Student Survey

14

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

15

Relatedness of FWS Jobs to Academic Program or Career

Interests

20%

22%

19%

15%

0 20 40 60 80 100

FWS job

related to

career

interests

FWS job

related to

academic

program

Percentage of Students Agreeing

Agree

Strongly agree

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

16

Percentage of

students with jobs

related to academic

program*

Percentage of

students with jobs

related to career

interests*

All students 39% 37%

FWS job characteristic

Non-community service job 36% 35%

Community service job 61% 63%

Job was first job choice 43% 42%

Job was not first job choice 23% 22%

Institution type

Students at four-year institutions 36% 36%

Students at less-than-four-year

 institutions 52% 46%

* 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 oncampus. 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 oncampus 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
Findings from the Student Survey

17

hour, on average, than students who attended institutions located in

nonurban areas.

Mean wage

All students $6.10

FWS job characteristic

On-campus job $6.05

Off-campus job $7.02

Non-community service job $6.04

Community service job $6.66

Institution location

Urban institution $6.48

Nonurban institution $5.64

FWS Job Training

More than 80 percent of FWS students received some kind of

training for their job. The most common training, received by 42 percent

of students, was a combination of training before the job as well as ongoing 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.
Findings from the Student Survey

18

Distribution of Students by Type of Job Training Received

42%

31%

7%

4%

16%

Pre- and additional

training

Continuing training only

Pretraining only

Other training

No 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.

Percentage with a

second job

All students 28%

Year in school

Freshman 21%

Other undergraduate 33%

Graduate 13%
Findings from the Student Survey

19

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.

Reasons Why FWS Students Held a Second Job

*Among students who held a 2nd job. Twenty-eight percent of FWS students held a 2nd

 job. Students could provide more than one reason.

13%

5% 4%

29%

75%

0

20

40

60

80

100

To earn

more

money

To gain

work

experience

Had job

prior to

FWS job

Enjoyed

other job

Other

reason

Reason

Percentage of Students Identifying 

Reason*

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

20

Mean hours worked at

2

nd job

All students with a 2nd job* 15

Institution type

Students at four-year institutions 14

Students at less-than-four-year

 institutions 19

* 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-thanfour-year students with a second job reported that they would have

preferred additional FWS hours. This figure declined to 52 percent

among four-year students with a second job. Approximately six in ten

Pell Grant recipients, underclassmen, and students at public institutions

would have preferred more FWS hours to taking a second job.

Percentage who would

have preferred more

hours of FWS job than

taking 2nd job

All students with a 2nd job* 55%

Student characteristic

Pell Grant recipient 60%

Non-Pell Grant recipient 38%

Underclassman (fresh. & soph.) 64%

Upperclassman (junior & senior) 46%

Graduate 16%

Institution type

Students at four-year institution 52%

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

Institution control

Students at public institution 62%

Students at private institution 47%

* Twenty-eight percent of FWS students held a second job.
Findings from the Student Survey

21

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.

Distribution of FWS Students by Job's Effect on Academic 

Performance

48%

45%

7%

Positive effect

No effect

Negative effect

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
Findings from the Student Survey

22

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.

Top Five FWS Job Factors or Experiences That Had a Positive Effect 

on Academic Performance*

*Among students who said that FWS job affected academic performance positively. Forty-eight

 percent of students reported a positive effect. Students could report more than one positive factor 

 or experience.

11%

13%

18%

23%

42%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Gained study

skills

Ability to study

while on the job

Job complemented

studies

Working with

others

Gained general

knowledge

Job Factor or Experience

Percentage of Students

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
Findings from the Student Survey

23

career interests were most likely to report a positive effect.15 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 lessthan-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.

 

15 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.
Findings from the Student Survey

24

Percentage of students

who reported job’s

positive effect on

academic performance

All students 48%

Institution type

Students at four-year institutions 45%

Students at less-than-four-year

 institutions 68%

Additional employment status

Students without a second job 45%

Students with a second job 58%

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction among FWS students was assessed several ways

to determine what students liked or disliked about their FWS job

experience. In addition to assessing student satisfaction regarding

financial and other specific aspects of their jobs, measures of job

satisfaction included the extent to which students would recommend

their job to other FWS students and whether students expected to list

their FWS job on their resume.

Satisfaction with Financial Aspects of Job

The majority of students were content with the amount of their

FWS award and the wage rate they earned. More than 80 percent of

FWS students were satisfied with the amount of their FWS award. A

somewhat smaller percentage of students thought that the wage rate

seemed appropriate for their positions. There were no significant

differences in the mean award amount or wage rate between those who

were satisfied with these amounts and those who were not satisfied.
Findings from the Student Survey

25

Satisfaction with Financial Aspects of FWS Job

62%

56%

21%

13%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Wage rate

seemed

appropriate

for position

Satisfied with

amount of

FWS award

Percentage of Students Agreeing

Agree

Strongly agree

Satisfaction with General Aspects of Job

Nine out of ten FWS students had a good understanding of their

job duties before starting their jobs. This figure rose to 92 percent for

students in their first choice FWS job, and dropped to approximately 80

percent for students in second choice jobs.

Percentage of students

who understood job

duties before starting

job*

All students 89%

FWS job choice status

Job was first choice job 92%

Job was not first choice job 79%

* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed with the following

statement: I had a good understanding of my job duties before beginning them.
Findings from the Student Survey

26

Most students (80 percent) felt that they gained some job skills,

such as time management and good work habits, during their FWS job

experience that could be useful in another job. Students in their first

choice job were more likely to report that they had gained transferable

job skills.

Percentage of students

who felt they gained

transferable job skills*

All students 80%

FWS job choice status

Job was first choice job 82%

Job was not first choice job 71%

* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed with the following

statement: I gained job skills such as time management and good work habits

that will be useful in another job.

FWS students generally felt that they had interesting job

assignments. This was particularly the case among community service

FWS students. Nearly 65 percent of all FWS students and 85 percent of

community service students felt that their FWS job provided them with

interesting assignments. Students in their first choice FWS job were also

more likely to report that they found their job assignments interesting,

although to a lesser extent than community service FWS students.

Percentage of students

who found their FWS job

assignments interesting*

All students 64%

FWS job characteristic

Community service job 85%

Non-community service job 61%

FWS job choice status

Job was first job choice 68%

Job was not first job choice 45%

* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed with the following

statement: My work-study job provided me with interesting assignments.
Findings from the Student Survey

27

Job Valuation

More than 80 percent of students would recommend their job to

other FWS students. Students in community service jobs were more

likely to recommend their job than other students. In addition, nearly all

America Reads students would recommend their job to another FWS

student. Close to 90 percent of students in first choice FWS jobs would

recommend their job to another FWS student. This figure was

considerably lower for students in second choice jobs (68 percent).

Percentage of students

who would recommend

their job to other FWS

students*

All students 84%

FWS job characteristic

America Reads job 99%

Non-America Reads job 83%

Community service job 92%

Non-community service job 83%

FWS job choice status

Job was first job choice 88%

Job was not first job choice 68%

* These were students who agreed or strongly agreed with the following

statement: I would recommed this specific job to other FWS students.

While most students (88 percent) were planning on including

their FWS job experience on their resume, nearly all America Reads

students planned to do so. Just 1 percent of America Reads students did

not expect to include this experience on their resume. Not surprisingly,

more than 95 percent of students who worked in jobs related to their

career interests were planning on including their FWS job on their

resume. This figure dropped slightly for students in jobs related to their

academic program.
Findings from the Student Survey

28

Percentage of students

who planned on listing

their FWS jobs on their

resumes

All students 88%

America Reads status

America Reads student 99%

Non-America Reads student 88%

FWS job characteristic

Job was related to career interests 97%

Job was not related to career interests 82%

Job was related to academic program 94%

Job was not related to academic

 program 83%

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

29

Student Satisfaction with Amount of Employer Supervision

48%

43%

6% 3%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied/very

dissatisfied

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

30

Student Satisfaction with Amount of Employer Feedback 

Received Regarding Job Performance

40%

44%

11% 5%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied/very

dissatisfied

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

31

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

32

Student Satisfaction with the Amount of FWS Program 

Information Available

17%

43%

22%

18%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied/very

dissatisfied

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

33

Student Satisfaction with Assistance Finding Jobs

23%

44%

17%

16%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Dissatisfied/very

dissatisfied

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

34

Student Satisfaction with the Amount of Help Available

Finding FWS Jobs by Job Placement Status

18% 13%

18%

14%

44%

43%

20%

30%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Student assigned

to FWS job

Student selected

FWS job

Job Placement Status

Percentage of Students

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied/very

dissatisfied

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

35

Student Satisfaction with Types of FWS Jobs Available

21%

49%

17%

13%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Dissatisfied/very

dissatisfied

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

36

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.

Student Satisfaction with Accessibility of FWS Staff during 

FWS Job Experience

25%

44%

20%

11%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Dissatisfied/very

dissatisfied

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

37

Student Satisfaction with Accessibility of FWS Staff

by Job Placement Status

7%

12%

14%

23%

49%

43%

21%

30%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Student assigned

to FWS job

Student selected

FWS job

Job Placement Status

Percentage of Students

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied/very

dissatisfied

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
Findings from the Student Survey

38

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.

Overall Student Satisfaction with the FWS Program

39%

57%

4%

0.5%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

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
Findings from the Student Survey

39

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.
Findings from the Student Survey

40

Top Five Enjoyable Experiences of Satisfied FWS Students

* Among students who were satisfied or very satisfied with the FWS program overall. 

 Ninety-six percent of students were satisfied or very satisfied overall.

11%

13%

21%

22%

23%

0

5

10

15

20

25

Flexibility of

job hours

Obtained

valuable

job skills

Relationship

with supervisor

and co-workers

Ability to study

while on the job

Earned a

paycheck

Experience

Percentage of Students*

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
Findings from the Student Survey

41

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. Ninetysix 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 Student Survey

42

Actions FWS Students Would Have Taken If They Did Not 

Receive FWS Aid

*Students could identify more than one reason.

14%

8%

52%

56%

81%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Obtained

another job

Took out

student

loans

Reduced

expenses

Left school Other

Percentage of Students Reporting*
43

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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

44

Top Three Methods Used to Recruit On-Campus Employers 

by Type of Job 

*Among institutions offering these jobs. Institutions could identify more than one recruiting 

 method.

90%

83%

48%

44%

29%

46%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Non-community service Community service

Type of On-Campus Job

Percentage of Institutions 

Identifying Method*

Depts. contacted FWS staff Mailing was sent to depts. Phone calls made to depts.

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 oncampus, 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 offcampus, 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
Findings from the Institutional Survey

45

proprietary schools used student involvement to recruit off-campus, noncommunity 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.

Dominant Methods Used to Recruit Off-Campus Employers 

by Type of Job

*Among institutions offering these jobs. Institutions could identify more than one recruiting 

 method.

70%

82%

38%

48%

53%

38% 40%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Non-community service Community service

Type of Off-Campus Job

Percentage of Institutions 

Identifying Method*

Employers contacted FWS staff

Students suggested employers to contact

Phone calls made to employers

Contact made through a partnership with local schools

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
Findings from the Institutional Survey

46

program. However, federal funds may not be used to cover student

wages as part of a JLD program.

During the 1997-98 award year, 15 percent of institutions used a

portion of their FWS allocation to expand off-campus job opportunities

to all students through a JLD program. Urban institutions were more

likely to operate a JLD program than nonurban institutions, perhaps due

to a wider pool of potential off-campus employers. There was no clear

grouping of JLD participation by institution type or institution control.

Instead, public four-year institutions and proprietary schools emerged as

the institutions most likely to participate in JLD.

Percentage of institutions that

operated a JLD program during

1997-98 award year

All institutions 15%

Institution type and control

Public less-than-four-year 9%

Public four-year 39%

Private less-than-four-year 10%

Private four-year 7%

Proprietary 24%

Institution location

Urban 20%

Nonurban 10%

Matching FWS Students with FWS Jobs

In addition to developing FWS jobs, FWS administrators may

match, or assign, students to jobs. Overall, two-thirds of institutions

matched some or all of their FWS students with FWS jobs. Less-thanfour-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
Findings from the Institutional Survey

47

important factors institutions considered were the student’s academic

program, flexibility of hours, and the student’s career goals.

*Among institutions that matched some or all of their FWS students with jobs. Two-

 thirds of administrators reported that they matched some or all of their FWS students

 with jobs. Institutions could identify more than one factor.

Dominant Factors Considered in Matching FWS Students 

and Jobs

76%

65%

77%

97%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Student's

employment

skills and

abilities

Student's

academic

program

Student's career

goals

Flexibility of

hours

Factor

Percentage of Matching Institutions 

Identifying Factor*

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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

48

Institutions that provided incentives

for community service jobs

All institutions 30%

Institution type

Four-year 37%

Less-than-four-year 22%

Institution location

Urban 36%

Nonurban 24%

Among the 30 percent of institutions that offered an incentive for

community service work, the most popular incentive was higher wages.

More than 80 percent of institutions that gave incentives offered higher

wages for community service jobs. Eleven percent of institutions that

offered an incentive reported that they used some other incentive such as

placing a notation on the student’s transcript that recognizes his or her

community service work. Few institutions used academic credit as an

incentive for community service jobs.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

49

Incentives Offered for Community Service Jobs

*Among institutions that offered incentives for community service work. Thirty percent of 

 institutions offered students an incentive for community service work. Institutions could 

 identify more than one incentive.

11%

6%

21%

31%

84%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Higher

wages

Higher

FWS

award

Flexible

hours

Academic

credit

Other

incentive

Incentive

Percentage of Institutions

Offering Incentive*

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 fouryear 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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

50

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.16 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).

 

16 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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

51

Mean Percentage of FWS Students by Primary Job Activity

43%

19%

5%

5%

5%

10%

13%

Office/clerical

Community service

Library support

Computer support

Recreation services

Research

Other

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. Offcampus FWS students were also slightly more common at urban

institutions.

Mean percentage of

off-campus FWS students

All institutions 9%

Institution type

Proprietary 20%

Other institution 7%

Institution location

Urban 10%

Nonurban 8%

Federal regulations encourage postsecondary institutions to

provide an FWS student with a job that will complement his or her

academic program or career interests. However, few institutions
Findings from the Institutional Survey

52

maintain data to track this.17 Just 27 percent of institutions were able to

report the percentage of FWS students in jobs related to their academic

program. 

18

Administrators at proprietary schools and private less-than-fouryear institutions, which operate small FWS programs, were more likely

to provide the percentage of FWS students in academically related jobs

than other institutions.

Twenty-four percent of FWS administrators were able to provide

the percentage of FWS students in jobs related to their career interests.

Again, proprietary schools and less-than-four-year institutions were more

likely to provide this information than other institutions. The percentage

of institutions that could determine whether FWS students were in jobs

related to their academic program or career interests did not vary much

by institution location.

Provided percentage

of FWS students in

academically related

jobs

Provided percentage

of FWS students in

career related jobs

All institutions 27% 24%

Institution type and control

Public less-than-four-year 28% 27%

Public four-year 16% 14%

Private less-than-four-year 45% 47%

Private four-year 22% 19%

Proprietary 47% 35%

Of the 27 percent of institutions that could report the percentage

of students in jobs related to their academic program, FWS

administrators estimated that, on average, 51 percent of FWS students

worked in academically related jobs. This figure was considerably

 

17 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.

18 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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

53

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.

Mean Percentage of FWS Students in Jobs Related to Academic 

Program

49%

51%

51%

49%

73% 27%

Students in 

"unrelated"

jobs

Mean Percentage

of Students

Institution did not know

percentage, had no basis for

judgment, or skipped question

Institution provided percentage

Students in

"related"

jobs

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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

54

Mean Percentage of FWS Students in Jobs Related to Career 

Interests

76% 24%

47%

53%

Students in 

"related"

jobs

Students in 

"unrelated" 

jobs

Mean Percentage

of Students

Institution provided percentage

Institution did not provide 

percentage, had no basis for 

judgment, or skipped question

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
Findings from the Institutional Survey

55

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 oncampus—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.

Mean Hourly Wages Paid to FWS Students by Type of Job and 

Institution Location*

*Among institutions with these jobs.

**Mean wages for off-campus private, nonprofit jobs were not significantly different from the mean 

 wages for America Reads jobs.

$5.81

$6.26 $6.59

$6.00

$6.51

$6.98

$5.61 $5.93 $6.23

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

On-campus Off-campus in

private, nonprofit**

America Reads

Challenge**

Type of Job

Mean Wage

All institutions Urban institutions Nonurban institutions

Federal 

Minimum 

Wage 

$5.15
Findings from the Institutional Survey

56

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.19 Institutions may

choose to ‘overmatch’ the nonfederal share of wages by contributing

more than 25 percent toward on-campus wages. During the 1997-98

award year, 19 percent of institutions contributed more than the required

25 percent share toward wages for on-campus FWS jobs.

Among institutions that overmatched, the average institutional

contribution for on-campus wages was 42 percent. Four-year institutions

and urban institutions were more likely to overmatch their required

contribution than other institutions.

Percentage of institutions that

overmatched on-campus wages

All institutions 19%

Institution type

Four-year 26%

Less-than-four-year 10%

Institution location

Urban 21%

Nonurban 16%

During the 1997-98 award year, 40 percent of institutions with

an FWS program also reported participating in America Reads20 (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

 

19 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.

20 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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

57

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 workstudy 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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

58

*Among institutions that did not offer FWS to all Title IV eligible students. Eighty-four percent 

 of institutions did not offer FWS to all Title IV eligible students. Institutions could identify more

 than one factor.

Top Three Factors Considered in Decision to Award FWS Aid

78% 77%

82%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Student's financial

need

Whether student

applied

for/requested FWS

Total FWS funds

available

Factor

Percentage of Institutions

Identifying Factor*

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 fouryear 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
Findings from the Institutional Survey

59

freshman and sophomore students attending nonproprietary schools were

nearly half as much at roughly $700.

The mean maximum FWS award offered students in graduate

programs was $3,819. Proprietary students were offered similar or even

higher maximum awards, depending on their year in school. The mean

maximum awards offered to undergraduates attending nonproprietary

institutions were significantly lower, in the $2,500 range.

Year in school Proprietary

All other

institutions

Freshman/1st year

Mean min. award $1,377 $697

Mean max. award $3,861 $2,471

Sophomore/2nd year

Mean min. award $1,360 $721

Mean max. award $4,473 $2,547

Graduate

Mean min. award na $940

Mean max. award na $3,819

na = not applicable.

Acceptance of FWS Aid

Not all students who were offered an FWS award accepted this

aid. Across all institutions, 70 percent of students accepted their FWS

award. However, there was a wide range of acceptance rates across

institutions. At some institutions the acceptance rate was as little as 3

percent, while at other institutions it reached 100 percent.

Although the observed minimum and maximum acceptance rates

were similar by institution control, the mean acceptance rate at

proprietary schools was significantly higher than the rates at public and

other private institutions. Acceptance rates did not vary considerably

between urban and nonurban institutions.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

60

Percentage of students who accepted an FWS award

Mean Minimum Maximum

All institutions 70% 3% 100%

Institution control

Public 62% 5% 100%

Other private 73% 3% 100%

Proprietary 86% 3% 100%

Post-Award Activities

Following-up with FWS Employers

Administrators were asked about the extent of contact between

FWS administrators and employers during the award year with a

particular focus on administrators’ impressions of employer satisfaction

with student performance. Three-quarters of administrators reported that

they routinely contacted FWS employers, both on-campus and offcampus, 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 nonmatching institutions.

Percentage of administrators who

routinely contacted employers

All institutions 76%

Institution matching status

Matched students to jobs 83%

Non-matching 64%

More than 40 percent of administrators contacted on-campus

employers five or more times during the award year, while 21 percent

made a similar number of contacts with off-campus employers.

Administrators at proprietary schools, which typically operated the

smallest FWS programs, had much heavier contact with on-campus
Findings from the Institutional Survey

61

employers than administrators at other institutions. Two-thirds of

administrators at proprietary institutions reported that they contacted oncampus 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.

Percentage of administrators who

contacted on-campus employers at

least five times

All institutions* 42%

Institution type*

Proprietary 67%

Other institution 39%

* Among institutions where administrators routinely contacted on-campus

employers.

Administrators who routinely contacted FWS employers were

particularly interested in the employers’ satisfaction with student

performance and the number of hours a student worked. More than 80

percent of administrators reported that they discussed these topics with

on- and off-campus employers. Many administrators also discussed the

maintenance of required documentation with employers. Administrators

were less likely to discuss the adequacy of student supervision,

consistency between the job description and the student’s actual duties,

or student working conditions.

Administrators were just as likely to discuss all topics except

working conditions with on- and off-campus employers. Administrators

were more likely to discuss working conditions with off-campus

employers than on-campus employers.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

62

Topics Discussed with FWS Employers during Award Year

by Type of Employer*

*Among institutions that routinely contacted FWS employers during the award year. 

 Three-quarters of institutions routinely contacted FWS employers during the award

 year. Institutions could identify more than one topic.

**Statistically significant difference.

49%

83%

48%

50%

89%

71%

45%

86%

39%

46%

85%

68%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Maintenance of required 

documentation

Consistency between job 

description and duties

Number of hours worked

Working conditions**

Adequacy of supervision

Satisfaction with student 

performance

Topic

Percentage of Institutions Identifying Topics

Off-campus employer On-campus employer

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-
Findings from the Institutional Survey

63

campus employers were very satisfied with student performance. There

were no substantive differences in perceived employer satisfaction by

institution type, control, or location.

FWS Staff Impressions of Employer Satisfaction with FWS 

Student Performance by Type of Employer

* Among institutions that routinely contacted FWS employers during award year and 

 discuss employers' satisfaction with student performance.

39%

56%

55%

33%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

On-campus Off-campus

Type of Employer

Percentage of Institutions 

Responding*

Level of satisfaction varies Satisfied Very satisfied

9% 3 %

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.
Findings from the Institutional Survey

64

Percentage of administrators who

contacted students to determine

satisfaction with FWS program

All institutions 27%

Institution matching status

Matched students to jobs 35%

Non-matching 12%

Of the 27 percent of administrators who spoke with students

about program satisfaction, nearly all estimated that FWS students were

either satisfied or very satisfied with the FWS program. Specifically,

nearly 40 percent of administrators perceived that students were very

satisfied with the program. Another 59 percent of administrators

reported that students were satisfied with the program. The remaining

administrators either had no basis to judge student satisfaction or

estimated that students felt neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the FWS

program.

* Among institutions that routinely surveyed FWS students to determine satisfaction with 

 program. Twenty-seven percent of institutions routinely contacted FWS students 

 concerning this matter.

Distribution of Institutions by FWS Staff Impressions of Student 

Satisfaction with the FWS Program*

38%

59%

3%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral or no basis

for judgment
Findings from the Institutional Survey

65

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.

Percentage of administrators who

perceived FWS students as very

satisfied with program

All institutions* 38%

Institution matching status*

Matched students to jobs 40%

Non-matching 29%

* Among institutions where administrators routinely surveyed FWS students to

determine their satisfaction. Twenty-seven percent of administrators routinely

contacted FWS students concerning this matter.



67

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.
FWS and Community Service

68

Top Five Most Enjoyable Experiences of Community 

Service FWS Students*

*Ten percent of fall 1998 FWS students characterized their job as a community service

 job. Students could report more than one experience.

10%

14%

18%

26%

33%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Working with

children

Helping people Meeting/

working

with new people

and co-workers

Working in/

reaching out to

the community

Gaining

experience for

future career

Experience

Percentage

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.
FWS and Community Service

69

Top Five Most Fulfilling Experiences of America Reads 

Students*

*Three percent of fall 1998 FWS students participated in the America Reads program.

 Students could report more than one experience.

70%

19%

9% 7% 5%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Working with

children

Helping people Meeting/

working with

new people

and co-workers

Working in/

reaching out to

the community

Gaining

experience for

future careers

Experience

Percentage of Students

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.
FWS and Community Service

70

Top Four Areas for Improvement Reported by 

Community Service FWS Students*

*Among community service students who offered a suggestion. Thirty percent of 

 community service students offered a suggestion. Students could identify more than

 one area for improvement.

22%

21%

16%

14%

0

5

10

15

20

25

More money Improved

supervision/

communication/

leadership

More hours/

flexible hours

More/

improved

training

Area for Improvement

Percentage of Students

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.
FWS and Community Service

71

Top Four Areas for Improvement Reported by America 

Reads Students*

*Among America Reads students who offered a suggestion. Forty-four percent of

 America Reads students offered a suggestion. Students could identify more than one

 area for improvement.

6%

9%

18%

27%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Improved

supervision/

communication

leadership

Improved

training

More hours/

flexible hours

More money

Area for Improvement

Percentage of Students

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.
FWS and Community Service

72

Distribution of Community Service FWS Students by 

Effect of Job Experience on Future Community Service 

Participation*

*Ten percent of fall 1998 FWS students characterized their job as a community service

 job.

83%

1%

16% Positive effect

Negative effect

No effect/don't know

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 noncommunity service jobs instead.
FWS and Community Service

73

Distribution of Students by Consideration of Community 

Service FWS Job*

*Among students who did not hold a community service job in fall 1998. Ninety 

 percent of FWS students did not hold a community service job.

73%

14%

13%

Did not consider

community service

Unaware of community

service

Considered community

service

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.
FWS and Community Service

74

Main Reasons Why Students Decided Against Community 

Service Jobs*

*Among those who considered but did not take a community service. Thirteen percent 

 of non-community service FWS students considered but did not take a community 

 service job.

11%

13%

17%

42%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Schedule did

not permit

Location of

community

service job

Likes present

job

Community

service job was

unavailable

Reasons

Percentage of Students

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.
FWS and Community Service

75

Future Interest in Community Service FWS Jobs Among 

Non-Community Service Students*

*Ninety percent of FWS students did not hold a community service job.

64%

83%

88%

36%

17%

12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Considered a 

community service

job for Fall 1998

Unaware of 

community service 

jobs

Did not consider a

community service

job for Fall 1998

Interest

Percentage of Students

Interested in community service job in the future

Not interested in community service job in the future

Student Awareness of America Reads

Aside from America Reads students, most FWS students (77

percent) were not aware of the America Reads Challenge. At schools

that participated in America Reads during the fall of 1998, just more than

70 percent of non-America Reads students were unaware of this effort.

This figure increased to 80 percent at schools that did not participate in

America Reads.

Percentage of FWS

students unaware of

America Reads*

All institutions 77%

Institution’s America Reads participation status

Institution participated in America Reads 72%

Institution did not participate in America Reads 80%

*Excludes current America Reads students.
FWS and Community Service

76

Once learning of America Reads through the student survey, the

majority of non-America Reads students would be interested in

participating in this effort in the future. More than 60 percent of the

FWS students who attended institutions that participated in America

Reads were interested in participating in this effort in the future.

Approximately 70 percent of students at institutions that were not

involved with America Reads also expressed interest in future

participation in this effort.

Percentage of FWS

students interested in

future participation in

America Reads*

Institution’s America Reads participation status

Institution participated in America Reads 64%

Institution did not participate in America Reads 71%

* 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.21 Less-than-four-year

institutions had a higher mean percentage of students involved in

community service than four-year institutions. However, because lessthan-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

 

21 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.
FWS and Community Service

77

influence the mean percentage or number of FWS students in community

service.

FWS student participation in community

service during 1997-98

Mean percentage of

FWS students

Mean number of

FWS students

All institutions 16% 31

Institution type

Four-year 14% 44

Less-than-four-year 19% 15

Although no single community service activity dominated their

work, FWS students were more likely to be involved in America Reads,

other education, or community improvement than other types of

community service activities. On average, nearly 20 percent of FWS

students involved in community service participated in America Reads.

Another 18 percent of community service FWS students were involved

in other education activities. Approximately one in seven community

service FWS students took part in community improvement activities,

which included housing and neighborhood improvement tasks.

The remaining community service FWS students worked in

several areas including health care (12 percent), child care (10 percent),

and cultural activities (6 percent). On average, another 20 percent of

community service FWS students were involved in some other activity.

However, none of these activities accounted for a considerable portion of

the total. This category was largely made up of the following activities:

library services (4 percent), adult literacy training (3 percent), public

safety (2 percent), park or recreation work (2 percent), and employment

services (2 percent).
FWS and Community Service

78

Mean Percentage of FWS Students in Community Service by 

Community Service Area*

* On average, 16 percent of FWS students were involved in community service activities

 in 1997-98 according to administrators.

15% 10%

12%

18%

6%

19% 20%

America Reads

Other education

Community improvement

Child care

Health care

Cultural activities

Other

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.
FWS and Community Service

79

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.

Level of community service

High

community

service

(more than 20%)

Moderate

community

service

(8-20%)

Low

community

service

(7% or less)

Institution type and control

Public less-than-four-year 30% 48% 22%

Public four-year 27% 54% 19%

Private less-than-four-year 27% 46% 27%

Private four-year 16% 48% 36%

Proprietary 34% 44% 22%

Given that proprietary schools and community colleges were

more likely to be high community service institutions, it is not surprising

to learn that high community service institutions had smaller FWS

programs. Specifically, the average number of FWS students at high

community service institutions was nearly half the average found at low

community service institutions. The median number of FWS students at

high community service institutions was also substantially lower than

that at low community service institutions.

Number of FWS students

Mean Median*

Level of community service

High community service 170 60

Moderate community service** 243 126

Low community service 300 162

* Medians were not subjected to tests of significance.

** Means between low and moderate community service institutions were not

statistically different.
FWS and Community Service

80

Not surprisingly, institutions that participated in America Reads

in 1997-98 had higher levels of community service participation than

other institutions. For example, just 18 percent of America Reads

institutions were classified as low community service institutions

compared to nearly a third of non-America Reads institutions.

Level of community service

High

community

service

Moderate

community

service

Low

community

service

Participation in America Reads

America Reads institution 25% 56% 18%

Non-America Reads institution 25% 43% 32%

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. Offcampus FWS positions were much harder to come by at low community

service institutions where just 1 in 25 FWS positions were off-campus.

Mean percentage of offcampus FWS positions

Level of community service

High community service 18%

Moderate community service 7%

Low community service 4%

Level of community service participation did not vary by

whether the institution offered incentives to their FWS students to take

community service jobs, institution location, and matching status.

America Reads Challenge

Participation

The following reviews the types of institutions participating in

America Reads, reasons why some institutions chose not to participate,

and the extent of student participation.
FWS and Community Service

81

Institution Participation

During the 1997-98 award year, 40 percent of institutions 22 that

operated an FWS program also participated in the America Reads

Challenge. Public four-year institutions were most likely to participate

in America Reads during its first year of operation. Two out of three of

these institutions participated in this program. Private four-year and

public less-than-four year institutions had similar participation rates in

America Reads, both around 40 percent. Private less-than-four-year

institutions and proprietary schools were least likely to participate in

America Reads.

Institution location did not influence participation in America

Reads. Approximately 40 percent of urban and nonurban institutions

participated in America Reads.

Percentage of institutions that

participated in America Reads

during 1997-98

All institutions 40%

Institution type and control

Public less-than-four-year 39%

Public four-year 67%

Private less-than-four-year 14%

Private four-year 42%

Proprietary 7%

In general, administrative difficulties were common reasons why

some institutions declined to participate in America Reads. Lack of time

to develop the effort was the most frequently cited reason why some

institutions did not participate in America Reads. Other administrative

concerns included high administrative burden and lack of staff to train

reading tutors. Low student interest in America Reads and in working

off-campus were also important reasons cited by some institutions.

 

22 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.
FWS and Community Service

82

*Sixty percent of institutions with an FWS program did not participate in America Reads 

 in 1997-98. 

Top Reasons Why Some Institutions Declined to Participate in 

America Reads During 1997-98*

**Institutions could identify more than one reason.

23%

24%

36%

40%

63%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Little student interest in 

working as reading tutors

No one was available to 

train reading tutors

Little student interest in 

working off-campus

Administrative burden for 

effort was too great

Not enough time to develop effort

Reason

Percentage of 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.
FWS and Community Service

83

Future Participation in America Reads among Those 

Institutions That Did Not Participate in 1997-98*

*Sixty percent of institutions with an FWS program did not participate in America Reads 

 in 1997-98.

3%

17%

30%

50%

Will participate in 1998-99

Will participate sometime in

future but not in 1998-99

Will not participate

Don't know/not ascertained

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.

Percentage of non-America Reads

institutions that planned on not

participating in the future

All institutions 50%

Institution control

Public 41%

Private 58%

As noted earlier, lack of time was the most frequently reported

reason why some institutions declined to participate in America Reads

during the 1997-98 award year. However, many of these institutions

expected to participate in the program if given more time. Of the 63

percent of non-America Reads institutions that lacked time to develop

this program, nearly one out of five expected to participate in 1998-99.
FWS and Community Service

84

Another 35 percent expected to participate in the future but not the

following year.

Future Participation in America Reads among Institutions 

That Lacked Time in 1997-98*

*Sixty-three percent of non-America Reads institutions reported lack of time as a reason 

 why they declined to participate in 1997-98. 

3%

43%

35%

19%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Yes, next year Yes, but not

next year

No Don't know

Future Participation

Percentage of Institutions

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.
FWS and Community Service

85

Mean number of FWS students

in America Reads

All institutions 20

Institution type

Four-year 25

Less-than-four-year 9

Institution location

Urban 26

Nonurban 14

Students who do not receive FWS aid may also volunteer for

America Reads. On average, an additional nine non-FWS students per

institution participated in America Reads in some capacity. The

participation of these students increased the average America Reads

workforce by 45 percent to 29 students per institution. The survey did

not ask administrators to identify where non-FWS students served or in

what capacity.

Development and Management

Approximately 80 percent of America Reads institutions credited

their student financial aid office for launching this program. Other

offices that were important in developing an institution’s America Reads

effort included the institution’s school or department of education, the

community service office, the student employment office, and the

president’s office. However, these offices clearly held a secondary role

to the student financial aid office. Only one-quarter or less of the

institutions identified these as key offices in developing their America

Reads effort.
FWS and Community Service

86

Offices or Institutions That Took the Lead in Developing

America Reads

*Institutions could identify more than one office.

16%

7%

17%

19%

20%

24%

81%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other office or institution

Local school district or individual

school

The president's office

Student employment office

Community service office

School or department of education

Student financial aid office

Office or Institution

Percentage of Institutions*

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.
FWS and Community Service

87

Percentage of institutions that identified office or department

as a key office in developing America Reads*

Student financial

aid office

Community

service office

School or dept.

of education

Institution type

Four-year 76% 24% 32%

Less-than-four-year 92% 11% 5%

* 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.
FWS and Community Service

88

Offices Responsible for Administering America Reads

*Institutions could identify more than one office.

13%

18%

22%

23%

74%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other office

Community service office

Student employment office

School or department of education

Student financial aid office

Office

Percentage of Institutions*

Less-than-four-year institutions were again most likely to look to

their student financial aid office to administer America Reads, while

four-year institutions were more likely to share this responsibility with

other offices or departments.

Percentage of institutions that identified office or department

as a key office in administering America Reads*

Student financial

aid office

Community

service office

School or dept

of education

Institution type

Four-year 68% 23% 32%

Less-than-four-year 88% 8% 3%

* 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
FWS and Community Service

89

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.23

Type of training provided

Pretraining

only

Continuing

training only Both

No

training

All institutions 17% 4% 64% 15%

Institution control

Public 18% 4% 68% 10%

Private 14% 4% 60% 22%

Although the student financial aid office was primarily

responsible for administering the America Reads program, institutions

relied on other offices or organizations to develop and deliver tutortraining 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.

 

23 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.
FWS and Community Service

90

Top Three Offices or Organizations Used to Design TutorTraining by Type of Training*

*Among institutions that offered each type of training. Institutions could identify more 

 than one office.

42%

44%

34%

28% 27% 26%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pretraining Continuing training

Type of Training

Percentage of Institutions

Identifying Office or Organization*

School or department of education Elementary school Local school district

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-thanfour-year institutions probably do not have a separate school or

department of education to draw on for tutor training.

Percentage of institutions that used their

school or department of education for

designing tutor-training*

Pretraining Continuing training

Institution type

Four-year 57% 54%

Less-than-four-year 11% 14%

* Among institutions that offered each type of training.
FWS and Community Service

91

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.

Top Three Offices or Organizations Used to Deliver TutorTraining by Type of Training*

*Among institutions that offered each type of training. Institutions could identify more than 

 one office.

40%

43%

34%

27%

22%

26%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pretraining Continuing training

Type of Training

Percentage of Institutions 

Identifying Office or 

Organization*

School or department of education Elementary school Local school district

Again, four-year institutions were far more likely to use their

school or department of education to deliver training than other

institutions.
FWS and Community Service

92

Percentage of institutions that used their

school or department of education for

delivering tutor-training*

Pretraining Continuing training

Institution type

Four-year 56% 51%

Less-than-four-year 11% 14%

* Among institutions that offered each type of training.

Financing Tutor-Training

Institutions assumed most of the costs associated with training

reading tutors. The top three sources used to finance training costs were:

institutional funds; in-kind donations from institutions; and school

district funds. Approximately half of America Reads institutions used

institutional funds to cover the costs of training. Another 30 percent

received in-kind donations such as classroom space for training activities

from their institutions to cover these costs. Nearly 20 percent of

America Reads institutions received local school district funds.

Top three sources used to cover

costs of the training*

Pretraining

Continuing

training

Institutional funds 53% 47%

Institutional in-kind donations 30% 27%

Local school district funds 18% 21%

* Institutions could identify more than one source.

The sources used to cover training costs varied by institution

type. For pretraining costs, four-year institutions relied heavily on their

institutional funds and the use of institutional in-kind donations. Lessthan-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.
FWS and Community Service

93

Top three sources used to cover

the cost of pretraining*

Institutional

funds

Institutional

in-kind

donations

Local school

district

funds

Institution type

Four-year 56% 38% 14%

Less-than-four-year 44% 10% 28%

* Institutions could identify more than one source.

Students Served

Administrators were asked to provide preliminary information

regarding the preschool and elementary school children who received

tutoring services including the number of children who received tutoring

and the amount of tutoring received. Administrators were also asked

about institutional plans to evaluate the reading or educational impact of

America Reads tutors on children.

The majority of America Reads administrators could not

estimate the number of children who received tutoring through their

program or the amount of tutoring that children received. Just 43 percent

of America Reads administrators could estimate the number of preschool

and elementary school children served by America Reads tutors.

However, administrators at four-year institutions were more likely to

provide this information than administrators at other institutions. Fortynine 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
FWS and Community Service

94

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.

Institutional Plans to Evaluate the Impact of America Reads 

27%

39%

34%

No plans to evaluate

Plans to evaluate in 1997-98

Plans to evaluate sometime in

future
FWS and Community Service

95

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 fouryear 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-fouryear institutions had no plans to evaluate their program.

Distribution of institutions by plans to

evaluate America Reads

Has plans to

evaluate

Does not

plan to

evaluate

Plans to

evaluate

sometime in

the future

Institution type

Four-year 31% 34% 35%

Less-than-four-year 17% 51% 32%

Satisfaction with America Reads

Three measures of satisfaction with America Reads were

developed. The first measure reports administrators' satisfaction with the

relationship between their institution and local schools or other

organizations where tutors served. The second measure presents

administrators' perceptions of teacher satisfaction with the contributions

of America Reads tutors. The third measure reports administrators'

perceptions of satisfaction among other staff members involved with

America Reads and the contributions of tutors. We also present

suggestions from first year America Reads administrators to future

participants.

Approximately 90 percent of America Reads administrators were

satisfied with their relationship with the school or organization where

FWS students were tutoring. Specifically, 50 percent of administrators

were very satisfied with this relationship and another 38 percent were

satisfied. Eight percent of the administrators were neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied (neutral), while only 4 percent felt it was too early in the
FWS and Community Service

96

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' Impressions of Teacher Satisfaction with 

the Contributions of America Reads Tutors

54%

26%

19%

1%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Unable to determine

Varies from partner to partner

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
FWS and Community Service

97

satisfaction. Administrators detected no dissatisfaction with reading

tutors among other school staff members.

Administrators' Impressions of Other School Staff Satisfaction 

with the Contributions of America Reads Tutors

48%

24%

1%

1%

26%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral

Varies from partner to partner

Unsure

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.
FWS and Community Service

98

Top Five Suggestions to Future America Reads Institutions, 

From Current Participants*

** Institutions could offer more than one suggestion.

*Sixty-nine percent of America Reads institutions offered suggestions to new 

15%

17%

23% 24% 24%

0

5

10

15

20

25

Develop

partnership with

local school

district

Provide training

(pre- and

continuing)

Start program

small and plan

ahead

Monitor and

evaluate tutors

and program

Provide

administrative

support

Suggestion

Percentage of Institutions**
A-1

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.
Appendix A. FWS and TANF Work Provisions

A-2

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.
Appendix A. FWS and TANF Work Provisions

A-3

Institution plans to

place more welfare

recipients in FWS jobs*

Yes 32%

No 23%

Expects to do so in future 15%

Not applicable/too few welfare

 recipients at institution 28%

Don't know/not ascertained 2%

* Among the 40 percent of postsecondary institutions that reported at least one

welfare recipient received any Title IV federal financial aid.

Among the 38 percent of institutions that reported they had at

least one welfare recipient who received FWS aid, three in ten

administrators indicated that their institution has made an attempt, or

plans to, provide more welfare recipients with FWS jobs in which they

may work 20 hours per week. Nearly 40 percent of administrators

reported that their institution had no plans to provide more welfare

recipients with 20-hour per week FWS jobs.

Institution plans to

provide more welfare

recipients with 20-hour

per week FWS jobs*

Yes 30%

No 39%

Expects to do so in future 13%

Not applicable/too few welfare

 recipients at institution 15%

Don't know/not ascertained 3%

* Among the 38 percent of postsecondary institutions that reported at least one

welfare recipient received any Title IV federal financial aid.