CHAPTER 4: IMPACTS OF THE GATEWAY PROGRAM

While only about 32 percent of program entrants completed the program, those who finished did benefit. Of the 41 graduates, a full 76 percent moved out of subsidized housing and into either their own homes or into privately owned rentals. Compared to the comparison group, program graduates also improved their education, increased their wages, and decreased their reliance on AFDC and Food Stamps. This section presents data on the comparison group and on all program participants (graduates, withdrawals, and continuing participants) based upon the respondent’s status at their last interview. [In examining the impacts of the program, the program status at the last interview, not the final program outcome for the individual, is used in analyzing the data. Thus, if the last time we interviewed an individual, she was a participant, she is presented as a participant in this analysis, even if she eventually graduated from the program.]

• Education
• Work and Employment
• Need-Based Benefits
• Housing Assistance

Education

In surveys of both participants and comparison group members, data was gathered on the education levels attained, the additional months of education received during the time of the program, the proportion entering and completing education programs, and the proportion entering multiple programs from the time of application to the Gateway Program.

Education was the only significant difference between program entrants and the comparison group at the start of the program (see Table 2). On average, comparison group members had less education. When the education levels are broken down by program outcome, program graduates and withdrawals have more education than the comparison group (see Table 3). The continuing participants had the least education when they started. Indicative of the motivation of both program participants and comparison group members, by the last observation, the education levels of all groups went up, with a substantial increase in the proportion of those holding an associates degree. In the comparison group, the proportion holding either an associates degree or a bachelor’s degree increased by 21 percent, while the proportion of graduates holding these degrees increased by 32 percent.

Table 3: Education at First and Last Observation

Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. This table assumes that if an individual did not finish or enter a program, her or his education was unchanged. The table includes only those cases for which we have two or more observations.

Those who entered the program attended more months of school than those who did not (see Table 4), [ The number of months were calculated for every observation that was interviewed once, twice, or three times. Each case was asked the start date of their education or job training program during Gateway and the end date of the program. For those who were currently enrolled in the program, as was the case for many who were interviewed only one time, the date of the interview was taken as the ending date of the program. Thus, these data are truncated somewhat and represent an undercounting of the number of months of education experienced by those interviewed.] while on average, those who graduated received substantially more months of education than those in the comparison group. A member of the comparison group received an additional 12.6 months of education during the time of the Gateway Program, on average, while graduates received 30.1 months, withdrawals 24.2 months, and continuing participants 23.5 months. The median for the comparison group was 4.5 months of additional education but 30 months for graduates.

Table 4: Additional Months of Education (including Job Training) During Time of Gateway Program

Table includes cases interviewed one or more times.

The great majority of both program participants and comparison group members entered education programs, but the greatest rate of entry was among program graduates (90 percent), while the lowest rate (74 percent) was among the comparison group (see Table 5). However, a large majority from each group did not finish. Among those who did complete their education programs, graduates fared best with a 35 percent completion rate, while among comparison group members the completion rate was 28 percent.

Thirty-nine percent of program graduates and 17 percent of comparison group members entered vocational training programs. More than a quarter of graduates (26 percent) completed their vocational training program, while only 7 percent of those in the comparison group did so.

Table 5: Attendance and Completion of Education or Vocational Training Programs

Table includes cases interviewed one or more times.

At least half of those in each group attended only one program during the evaluation time (see Table 6). For those who attended more than one program, one of those was often a GED program in preparation for another degree.

Table 6: Attendance in Multiple Education and/or Vocational Training Programs

Table includes cases interviewed one or more times. Cases interviewed only once may cause the number of people attending more than one program to be under represented.

Back to Top

Work and Employment

The data on work and employment come from two sources, application forms and final interviews. Forms completed by both program participants and comparison group members provided baseline information about work status, monthly wage, and hourly wage at the time of application, while information from respondents’ last interviews was used to calculate mean changes. Wage information is not corrected for inflation, because the comparisons are across groups in the same geographic area during the same period of time.

The most striking employment change among all groups in the time before the program until the last observation was from part-time to full-time work, with the greatest increase among those who graduated from the program. Among the comparison group, program graduates, and program withdrawals, about a third were working full-time, a third part-time, and a third not at all. However, by the last observation, the number of program graduates working full-time had increased from 30 percent to 93 percent, while among the comparison group, the proportion working full-time had risen from 30 percent to 80 percent. Withdrawals experienced a smaller increase from 29 percent to 71 percent. While continuing participants also experienced an increase in full-time employment, 29 percent were in part-time jobs, perhaps reflecting their participation in the program.

Due to Charlotte’s robust economy, overall employment rose for all groups. The greatest change was among the continuing participants, from 51 percent to 84 percent. For both the comparison group and program graduates, overall employment rose by about 20 percent, while for withdrawals, overall employment increased by 10 percent.

Table 7: Rate of Full and Part-time Employment at Application and Last Observation

Rows may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Includes only cases interviewed two or more times.

On average, at last observation, program graduates had larger wage incomes than those in the comparison group. Although everyone’s wages had increased (see table 8), the magnitude of the change for program graduates was greater than that of all other groups. At the time they applied to the program, those who later would become graduates had an average monthly income of $584, while the average income of the comparison group was $477 a month. By the last observation, graduates’ wage incomes had increased by an average of $711, or 121 percent, a month. The average increase among the comparison group was $474, a 99 percent change. Even among those who withdrew from the program, the average increase in income ($673) was considerably greater (203 percent) than that of the comparison group, suggesting that just being in the program, even if one did not finish, may have had a positive impact on wages.

Table 8: Mean and Median Monthly Wage Income at Application and Last Observation

Includes only cases interviewed two or more times. Means include zero values.

Likewise, the average hourly wage for all respondents increased between the time of their application and the final observation (see Table 9). All began the program earning nearly the same rate, between $5.11 and $5.50 per hour. By the last observation, however, the mean hourly wage for graduates had jumped by $3.12 to $8.62 an hour, the largest increase in hourly wages among any of the groups. The increase in hourly wage for the comparison group, on the other hand, was roughly half of the graduates’ increase, up an average of $1.55 per hour to $6.94. Again, even those who withdrew from the program experienced greater hourly wage increases of $2.37 to $7.48 an hour, than did those in the comparison group.

Table 9: Mean and Median Wages per Hour at Application and Last Observation

Includes only cases interviewed two or more times. Means include zero values.

To summarize, those who entered the program and either graduated or withdrew were able to increase their incomes at a higher rate than those who had never entered the program at all. At last observation, program graduates were more likely to be working, had a greater average increase in income, and had a greater average increase in their hourly wage than those in the comparison group. Program withdrawals also experienced larger increases in incomes and wage rates than did the comparison group.

Back to Top

Need-Based Benefits

In the first survey or in retrospective questions, respondents were asked how much they had received in AFDC and Food Stamps before their application to the program; in subsequent interviews, they were asked about their current level of need-based benefits. To calculate mean change, information from the first and last interviews was used.

All groups, except continuing participants, experienced a decrease in their reliance on AFDC and Food Stamps. As part of the program’s strategy, continuing participants received AFDC and Food Stamps as long as they were in school. At the time of application, 44 percent of the comparison group and over half of those who later withdrew from the program or continued as participants depended on AFDC (see Table 10). About a third of those who would later graduate received AFDC when they applied to the program; but at last observation, only 10 percent of program graduates still received AFDC, a decrease of 23 percent. At the same time, 37 percent of the comparison group (a drop of 7 percent) still relied on AFDC. Among those who withdrew from the program, the reliance on AFDC decreased by almost as much as it had among program graduates.

Table 10: Dependence on AFDC at Application and Last Observation

Table includes only cases interviewed two or more times.

Food Stamp receipts show a similar pattern. Over half of those in all four groups relied on Food Stamps when they applied to the Gateway Program (see Table 11). At last observation, however, a greater proportion of graduates had left the Food Stamp program than any other group. Only 27 percent of graduates were still receiving Food Stamps, a reduction of 26 percent, whereas 48 percent of comparison group members, a reduction of only 9 percent, were still receiving that benefit. The decrease in Food Stamp benefits among those who withdrew from the program was similar to that among the comparison group.

Table 11: Dependence on Food Stamps at Application and Last Observation

Includes only cases interviewed two or more times.

Dependence on need-based benefits can also be measured in terms of the amount of money each individual receives through AFDC. At the start of the program, those who would later become graduates received on average $84 a month, the smallest amount of AFDC among the four groups (see Table 12). They also experienced the greatest average decrease to $23 a month, a 72 percent reduction. Continuing participants, those who would later withdraw from the program, and the comparison group received on average more than $100 per month at the time of application. By the last observation, the average AFDC monthly payments for the comparison group had fallen to $85, a 20 percent reduction.

Table 12: Mean Monthly AFDC Dollar Amount Received at Application and Last Observation

Includes only cases interviewed two or more times. Means include zero values.

The average Food Stamps payment also declined dramatically among program graduates. On average, those who became program graduates received $119 a month in Food Stamps when they applied for the program, while the comparison group received $108 (see Table 13). By the time the graduates left the program, their average Food Stamp benefits had been reduced to $47 per month, a 72 percent decline. By contrast, the comparison group’s average Food Stamp benefit was $103 per month, a 5 percent decline. The average decline among those who withdrew was only $2 per month.

Table 13: Mean Monthly Food Stamp Dollar Amount Received at Application and Last Observation

Includes only cases interviewed two or more times. Means include zero values.

These data indicate that the program enabled many of its graduates to substantially reduce their dependence on need-based benefits. About one in ten graduates, however, still relied on AFDC; one in four graduates relied on Food Stamp payments at the time of the last observation.

Back to Top

Housing Assistance

From initial interviews with program participants and comparison group members, it was learned that roughly half had been living in public housing when they applied to the program. Those who did not live in public housing were on the waiting list. Information about housing status at last observation comes from the survey as well and shows that the program had considerable success in moving people off housing assistance.

At application, a greater proportion of those who would become graduates (58 percent) were living in public housing, as opposed to the comparison group (47 percent). At last observation, however, the proportion of graduates still receiving housing assistance had decreased 26 percent to 32 percent, while among the comparison group there was a 9 percent increase to 56 percent. Those who withdrew from the program also showed a modest decrease in housing assistance (see Table 14). All continuing participants were living in public housing at last observation because of program requirements.

Table 14: Dependence on Public Housing at Application and on Housing Assistance at Last Observation

Includes only cases interviewed two or more times. At application, the only form of housing assistance received was in the form of public housing. At last observation, housing assistance included public housing or a Section 8 Voucher or Certificate.

A major goal of the Gateway Program was to move public housing residents not only into the private market but into a house of their own, and graduates exceeded all other groups in meeting this goal. Over a third of program graduates owned their own home at last observation, compared to only 9 percent of the comparison group and 11 percent of those who withdrew from the program (see Table 15).

Table 15: Rate of Home Ownership at Last Observation

Includes only cases interviewed two or more times.

Similarly, more program graduates than comparison group members were in private market housing at last observation. More than a third of them had become homeowners, with another third living in private rental housing. Among the comparison group, half were still in public housing; a third were in private rental housing, but only 9 percent were homeowners.