CHAPTER 3: PROGRAM OUTCOMES

This chapter discusses the program outcomes for the 128 participants that we were able to interview and describes the paths they took through the program and the barriers they encountered in completing it.

By the end of the evaluation period, 41 people (32 percent) had completed the program and become program graduates, while 7 (6 percent) were still in the program as continuing participants. However, 80 people (62 percent) had left the program without completing it and are considered program withdrawals.

To arrive at one of these outcomes, program entrants took many different paths (see Chart 1). Of the 128 program entrants who completed at least 2 interviews, 20 never began an education program, choosing instead either to work and stay in the program or to leave the program all together. Many of these 20 people had full-time jobs and did not want to quit work to go back to school, so they did not follow through with their agreed-upon plans.

Of the remaining 108 who began an education program sometime during their tenure in the Gateway Program, almost all attended Central Piedmont Community College. Of those, 47 finished school while 61 did not. As became apparent in focus group interviews, the remedial education often took much longer than the two years that had been allocated, largely because of family responsibilities. Almost all of the program entrants were single parents with AFDC as their only source of income. Many participants left school temporarily because of illness, either their own or their child’s, child care responsibilities, or pregnancy. When they were ready to return, the quarter would have ended, and they would have to wait until the next year to repeat it. Others felt they could not carry a full school load and still care for their families. Some, feeling that AFDC did not provide enough support for their family, tried working and going to school part-time rather than full-time. Furthermore, the same family responsibilities that prevented some from completing schooling within the time allotted prevented others from finishing at all.

Chart 1: Path Through the Gateway Program

Additionally, some people were unhappy with the educational program they first chose and simply dropped out. These included many who had entered training for non-traditional careers for women, such as auto mechanic or welding. Others switched to programs more suited to their needs, but this increased the time they needed for remedial education.

After ending their schooling, some participants left the program while others remained in it and found jobs. We estimate that 101 entrants (79 percent) worked during their tenure in the program. [ We estimate this number because we were able to interview 29 percent of the program’s participants only once. Therefore, for roughly a third of the program’s entrants, we do not know what they did beyond their first two years in the program. Most did not work during these first two years, but instead went to school. Using information from the last two waves of interviews, we estimate that 101 participants worked during the program.] Of those, 60 entrants (59 percent) never had an escrow savings account, because the accounts went into effect only when the participant’s rent (30 percent of adjusted income) rose above the operating cost of the unit. In many cases, incomes did not increase to that level.

Back to Top

Factors Contributing to the Drop-out Rate

The factors that contributed to the drop-out rate are varied. Some are common to public housing programs in general, such as terminations for illegal activities and lease violations. Other factors were unique to the Gateway Program: participants drawn from the public housing waiting list, a small initial staff with high turnover, participants’ dissatisfaction, and family responsibilities.

In the first four years of the program, a number of participants were dropped because of lease violations and criminal behavior, such as involvement with illegal drugs. Of the withdrawals, more than one third were for illegal activity, another third were for lease violations, while the remaining third failed to attend classes or otherwise complete their Employability Development Plans.

The design of the program itself also contributed to the high drop-out rate. In the beginning, the staff had difficulty finding public housing residents who were both interested and qualified for the program. In response, the CHA opened the program to people on the public housing waiting list, and those who applied and qualified for the program were given priority for housing. Unfortunately, many of the early waiting list participants may have feigned interest in the program in order to get into public housing. As stipulated in an addendum to the lease of all program participants, the CHA can move program drop-outs from their units to others but cannot expel them from public housing altogether. Thus, people who left the program were guaranteed housing. As a result of this early experience with participants from the waiting list, Gateway regulations were changed to require a family to be on the waiting list for six months or more before qualifying for the program.

The fact that the program was understaffed in the beginning also contributed to the high rate of withdrawals. The initial plan was to have 100 families enrolled at any one time with one staff member as case manager. It soon became clear, however, that one person could not process applications and oversee the program for 100 families. During the first four years, about 80 people were enrolled in the program, and they were too many for one case manager. In addition, helping families apply for the program and follow through on their commitments was more time consuming than had been anticipated. Program designers had thought that participating families would be highly motivated and fairly stable, but participants needed a great deal of personal support to help them stay with the program. CHA’s housing services director believes the lack of a sufficient full-time staff was the greatest hindrance to the full implementation of the program.

Staff turnover also caused problems. Until 1993, the program was staffed entirely by one full-time program coordinator/case manager. When the first coordinator left in 1992, a replacement was not hired for six months. When the second case manager left in 1994, it took another six months to hire another replacement. Both times, the case managers had established close relationships with the participants, which had to be re-established by their replacements, and both times, participants were largely on their own during the hiring process. Since 1994, however, the City of Charlotte has provided funding for the CHA to adequately staff the program with an administrative coordinator and two and a half full-time case managers.

A number of participants dropped out because they became dissatisfied for various reasons. Some were disenchanted with their chosen curricula, while others were not academically inclined; a community college program was just not for them. Many of those who pursued non-traditional careers became discouraged, because they did not enjoy or feel comfortable in these training programs. They either changed their fields of study or dropped out. Again, the lack of staffing prevented adequate intervention that might have addressed some of the problems and made it possible for some participants to remain in the program.

Some participants withdrew because they became impatient with the length of time required for them to become self-sufficient. Many found that the requirements of supporting a family intensified when they entered the program. In one focus group, many of those who withdrew from the program made it clear they did not wish to depend upon AFDC and Food Stamps while they attended school full-time. They wanted to work, but case workers discouraged their taking jobs; a job could prevent them from completing school. Others especially were unhappy that it would take them five to seven years to finish their training programs, and some of those sought more short-term educational opportunities, such as hospital training programs or the Urban League office training program. Several years into the Gateway Program, when the educational options were expanded, these choices were added to participants’ options.

Lastly, family responsibilities often contributed to participant’s inability to meet their responsibilities under the program, because being a single parent made it difficult for many participants to go to school and take care of their families. Juggling both education and child-rearing sometimes meant that school took a back seat. In focus groups, participants who had withdrawn from the program talked of missing school to care for sick children or to give birth. Others started, stopped, and started programs over and over as they dealt with various family problems.

Back to Top