Detailed Information on the
Federal Work-Study Assessment

In 2004, begin to collect data for the Work Study program that is sufficient to measure program performance and reconcile financial data. These data should support the Education Department's new performance measurement approach that tracks program success on improving student persistence and graduation.

In the HEA reauthorization, propose to replace the seven percent community service requirement with a separate set-aside for community service, equal to 20 percent of the Work Study appropriation. Schools would apply for these community service funds separate from their regular allocation.

Propose to correct the funding allocation formula as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) by ensuring that funds reach postsecondary institutions with the highest proportion of neediest students.

In 2004, develop meaningful efficiency measures for this program.

Measure: Persistence: The gap between persistence rates for Federal Work-Study recipients and for the general student population will decrease each year. [Targets under development.]

Explanation:The persistence rate is defined as the percentage of non-graduating students in a given year who return to continue their studies in the following year. A specific methodology to account for transfers and other data anomolies is under development.

Measure: Completion: The gap between completion rates for Federal Work-Study recipients and for the general student population will decrease each year. [Targets under development.]

Explanation:The completion rate is defined as the percentage of full-time degree-seeking students completing within 150 percent of the normal time required.

Measure: Persistence: The gap between persistence rates for Federal Work-Study recipients and for the general student population will decrease each year. [Targets under development.]

Explanation:The persistence rate is defined as the percentage of non-graduating students in a given year who return to continue their studies in the following year. A specific methodology to account for transfers and other data anomolies is under development.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: According to the authorizing statute, the program's purpose is "to stimulate and promote the part-time employment of students who are enrolled in undergraduate, graduate, or professional students and who are in need of earnings to pursue courses of study...", as well as to "encourage students receiving Federal student financial assistance to participate in community service activities...."

Evidence: The program's purpose is clearly expreseed in section 441 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Many needy students qualify for more grant aid than is available under the Pell Grant program. This program offers an additional source for grant aid for some of these students. It also provides a source of grant aid for graduate students, who are ineligible for Pell Grants. Absent this program, it is unlikely that college communities would have jobs available for each student seeking employment to help pay for their postsecondary education.

Evidence: Over half of the nearly 5 million Pell Grant recipients each year have an expected family contribution of zero. Since the average cost of college significantly exceeds the Pell Grant maximum award, many if not most of these students qualify for additional grant assistance.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The program is unique among the Department of Education's student aid programs, as it requires students to work for financial aid, and it encourages postsecondary institutions to place students in community service jobs.

Evidence: See program purpose in 1.1.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Given the program's purpose, there is no evidence of a better way to deliver work-based student aid. However, it is not clear whether the program's current approach is the most effective way to achieve the program's secondary goal of placing students in community service positions. Notably, universities only place a small proportion of work study students in community service positions.

Evidence: In recent years, universities placed an average of about 15% of their Work Study students in community service jobs. A recent study notes that many elite universities place a much smaller percentage of students in community service positions ("Federal Work Study: How America's Colleges Use Federal Funds" by the Center for Higher Education Support Services).

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The program's institutional allocation formula (i.e., how much program funding is given to each school to offer Work Study aid) is designed to heavily benefit postsecondary institutions that have participated in Campus-Based programs for a long time, at the expense of more recent entrants or new applicants. Since these longstanding institutions do not have a higher proportion of needy students, this allocation formula tends to limit the program's ability to target resources to intended beneficiaries.

Evidence: The program's allocation formula is detailed in section 442 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Department has developed common measures for the Campus-Based programs (Work Study, Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, and Perkins Loans). These measures relate to the targeting of Campus-Based aid to low-income students and the impact of such aid on student persistence and graduation rates, benchmarked to the overall population. The Department may also develop a program-specific measure for the Work Study program, related to the percentage of participating students who are placed in community service jobs. Finally, ED is working with OMB on developing an appropriate efficiency measure for this program.

Evidence: See the "Measures" tab for these measures. They will also be included in the Department's annual performance plans.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Targets and timeframes for the new measures are under development. Currently, the available data on the benefits of working while in school is for working students in general; it is limited to those students participating in Work-Study.

Evidence: Specific targets and timeframes are shown in the "Measures" tab. Once completed, they will also be included in the Department's annual performance plans. Targets and timeframes for the new measures are under development. No annual data is currently available to support these goals.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: See answer to 2.1.

Evidence: See answer to 2.1.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: See answer to 2.2

Evidence: See answer to 2.2

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Program partners (i.e., schools) support the goals of the Work-Study program by reporting data through the annual Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP) form, and by meeting program statutory and regulatory requirements, as set out in program participation agreements. Schools also report program data through a variety of Department financial systems, as well as through ongoing surveys such as the Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS). Data from these reports are used in determining program performance.

Evidence: IPEDS, Department of Education financial and program management reports

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Private researchers/higher education associations have conducted comprehensive evaluations of work-based student aid programs. These studies have found that work-based student aid has a major impact on persistence in higher education.

Evidence: "College Students Who Work:?? 1980-84, Analysis Findings from High School and Beyond;" CS 87-413, June 1988 "Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1995-96: With an essay on: Undergraduates Who Work"?? NCES Number: 98084???? Release Date: May 14, 1998????

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: ED has not satisfied the first part of the question because program performance changes are not identified with changes in funding levels. The program, at this time, does not have sufficiently valid and reliable performance information to assess (whether directly or indirectly) the impact of the Federal investment. However, ED has satisfied the second part of this question in that ED's budget submissions show the full cost of the program (including S&E). ED's FY 2005 integrated budget and performance plan includes the program's annual and long-term goals. [Note: The measures discussed in 2.1 are new, and will be reflected in future budget requests.]

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department is working to develop effecitive, program-specific performance measures, as discussed under 2.1.

Evidence: See answer to 2.1.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department primarily collects Work-Study information through the FISAP, which participating institutions use to report program data to the Department, and apply for continued program participation. However, the data collected on the FISAP are not sufficient for program management or performance assessment.

Evidence: Work-Study program and financial data. FISAP data is neither timely nor internally consistent. The design of the FISAP, which requests cumulative rather than annual data, makes it almost impossible to reconcile financial information.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: ED's managers are subject to EDPAS, which links employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals and action steps, and is designed to measure the degree to which a manager contributes to improving program performance. The Office of Federal Studnet Aid's (OFSA's) federal managers are also subject to performance agreements developed under its Performance-Based Organization authority. Postsecondary institutions (the program partners) are held accountable through statutory cohort default rate penalties, annual compliance audits, and periodic program reviews, including site visits by ED. In addition, ED requires institutions participating in the Campus-Based programs to sign program participation agreements. To receive a "Yes," ED needs to: (1) identify for OMB the federal managers for this program; and (2) demonstrate the relationship between these managers' performance standards and the program's long-term and annual measures; and (3) demonstrate the relationship between program partners' performance standards and the program's long-term and annual measures.

Evidence:  

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Financial audits and program reviews indicate that funds are obligated in a timely manner and for the intended purpose.

Evidence: Department financial statements and supporting materials and documentation.

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: This program has not yet instituted procedures to measure and improve cost efficiency in program execution. However, as part of the President's Management Agenda, the Department is implementing "One-ED" -- an agency-wide initiative to re-evaluate the efficiency of every significant business function, including the development of unit measures and the consideration of competitive sourcing and IT improvements. A "yes" answer is likely once the One-ED process is applied to this program's relevant business functions. [Note: Although the Department is currently developing a unit cost accounting system to measure cost effectiveness in FSA programs, this system is not yet fully in place.]

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Work-Study program operates effectively within the overall Federal student aid system, taking advantage of shared application and aid disbursement procedures and systems, common institutional and student eligibility regulations, and program reviews.

Evidence: Work-Study application and Federal funds disbursement processes; aid award packaging.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: No financial management deficiencies have been identified for this program; no negative audit reports have been issued. That said, as noted in 3.1, there are problems with the financial data ED collects on the FISAP.

Evidence: Department financial statements and supporting materials and documentation.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department is in the process of developing program-specific unit cost measures to better assess management efficiency, and is finishing a data strategy for the Office of Federal Student Aid (OFSA). The Department also plans to conduct a One-ED strategic investment review for OFSA.

Evidence: The Department of Education's One-ED Strategic Investment Review process. Also, the Student Aid Administration PART includes a performance measure related to management efficiency, and information on OFSA's data strategy.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Program participants are subject to regular oversight, including institutional audits and periodic program reviews. These oversight activities, together with program and financial reports, provide sufficient knoweldge of grantee activities.

Evidence: See FSA oversight procedures for the Campus-Based programs. However, the Department's Inspector General has concluded that ED should improve its monitoring of post-secondary institutions.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Annual data submitted through the FISAP contain compliance information, but not performance data.

Evidence: The Department of Education's FISAP data collection.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: Program performance goals are newly established; no long-term data are available.

Evidence:  

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Program performance goals are newly established; no annual data are available.

Evidence:  

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: The Department has yet to develop and implement efficiency measures to quantitatively assess performance improvements. The Department is working with OMB on developing an appropriate efficiency measure for this program.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Program performance goals are newly established; no long-term data are available.

Evidence:  

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Studies conducted by private researchers/higher education associations have found that work-based student aid has a major impact on persistence in higher education.

Evidence: "College Students Who Work:?? 1980-84, Analysis Findings from High School and Beyond;" CS 87-413, June 1988. "Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1995-96: With an essay on: Undergraduates Who Work"?? NCES Number: 98084??-- Release Date: May 14, 1998.