CHAPTER 4

PROJECT STAFF AND ORGANIZATION

Talent Search staff members are central to the program's success. This
chapter uses information from the project survey and case studies to
examine several topics, including project staff levels, staffing models,
staff characteristics and salaries, project budget allocations, and
relations between projects and target schools.

# PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFF ROLES 

## Project Age 

While TRIO programs have earned recognition as stable federal grant
programs, the required grant award competition that occurs every four
years means that all projects experience some element of uncertainty
concerning their continuation beyond the current grant cycle.
Nonetheless, by design, the program competition procedures foster
stability in project awards by counting the achievement of
self-identified project objectives as prior experience points that
increase scores in the competition. Thus, despite many more applicants
than awards, once a host has been awarded a grant and has launched a
project, it will likely continue operations beyond the initial four- or
five-year award. For example, in the last competition, which was held in
1997, only 14 of the operating projects that reapplied were not funded
again.

Former program officials at two of these grantees told us that the
budget section of their applications had been accidentally left out---an
unfortunate oversight that led to a relatively large point deduction.
Officials at 10 other defunded projects told us that their applications
simply lost a few points in various sections---enough overall to put
them below the cutoff score to receive a grant. Some officials
attributed this to not having submitted as well-written an application
as they could have; the writers may not have had enough experience or
may have been too rushed at the end to smooth out the rough parts.
Others, however, felt they had submitted high-quality applications and
did not understand or agree with the point deductions. (See appendix B
for more information on grantees that did not get renewed funding.)

Data on project age confirm the overall stability of Talent Search
projects. Based on information provided by the project survey on the
first year of operation, Talent Search projects averaged 13 years of
operation by 2001. As shown in figure 4.1, 16 percent of Talent Search
projects began in 1974 or before and were more than 25 years old. Just
over half the projects (54 percent) began between 1975 and 1984.
Projects hosted at public 4-year institutions were the oldest, and
projects hosted at 2-year institutions were the youngest, averaging 15
and 11 years, respectively. The difference in average age reflects the
increase in the number of projects hosted at 2-year colleges (see
chapter 5).

Figure 4.1---Percent distribution of the first year of operation of
Talent Search projects operating in 1999--2000

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.768055555555556in"
height="2.951388888888889in"}

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

## Overview of Staff 

Nationwide, Talent Search projects employed an estimated 2,548 staff in
the 361 projects operating at the time of the project survey (figure 4.2
and table 4.1).[^1] This figure includes full- and part-time staff and
support staff but excludes undergraduate student employees and
volunteers. The count also includes graduate students who might be
employed as tutors or in other capacities.

Projects averaged about 7.1 full- and part-time staff, one staff person
for about every 125 participants. On average, projects hosted by
community organizations were funded to serve larger numbers of
participants and had higher average grant amounts, but they also had a
higher participant-to-staff ratio (166:1) than other Talent Search
projects. As we show later, however, projects hosted by community
organizations that used volunteers tended to obtain more hours from them
than did other projects.

Figure 4.2---Estimated number of staff and number per project, by type
of host institution: 2000

![](media/image2.pct)

[Note]{.smallcaps}: This estimate is based on counts from the 93 percent
of projects returning the survey form, however, the counts were adjusted
upwards to reflect non-response so that the 2,548 estimate represents an
estimate of the total staff from all 361 projects that were operating at
the time.

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

+-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+
| Table             |        |        |        |        |           |
| 4.1---Project     |        |        |        |        |           |
| staff levels and  |        |        |        |        |           |
| participants per  |        |        |        |        |           |
| staff, by type of |        |        |        |        |           |
| host insitution:  |        |        |        |        |           |
| 1999--2000        |        |        |        |        |           |
+-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+
|                   |        | Host   |        |        |           |
|                   |        | insti  |        |        |           |
|                   |        | tution |        |        |           |
+-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+
|                   | All    | Public | P      | 2-year | Community |
|                   | pr     |        | rivate |        | org.      |
|                   | ojects | 4-year | 4-year |        |           |
+-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+
| Total number of   | 2,548  | 857    | 350    | 857    | 484       |
| staff             |        |        |        |        |           |
+-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+
| Average number of | 7.1    | 7.1    | 7.3    | 6.9    | 7.1       |
| staff             |        |        |        |        |           |
+-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+
| FTE staff         | 5.3    | 5.6    | 5.4    | 4.9    | 5.8       |
+-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+
| Average number of | 125    | 127    | 110    | 109    | 166       |
| participants per  |        |        |        |        |           |
| staff member      |        |        |        |        |           |
+-------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000; Analysis of data from Talent Search Performance Reports,
1998--99.

[Note]{.smallcaps}: In reporting these staff, projects were instructed
not to include undergraduate work-study or other part-time student
employees or volunteers. The figures include graduate students who might
have been employed as tutors or in other roles.

Not all staff worked full time for Talent Search. On average, staff
worked 30 hours per week. Using 40 hours per week as the full-time
equivalent (FTE) standard, we found that projects had an average of 5.3
FTE (table 4.1) In addition to using part-time employees, at some Talent
Search projects staff members were full-time employees of the host
institution but only a part of their time was allocated to and paid for
by Talent Search. As noted in chapter 5, 90 percent of the host
organizations operated other programs for disadvantaged students, most
commonly Upward Bound. Indeed, it was not uncommon for a Talent Search
and Upward Bound project located at the same institution to share some
staff. This was especially true for a senior project director role and
for roles such as technology coordinator or tutoring coordinator.
Projects indicated that there were advantages to this model in that the
experience of senior staff could be utilized by both projects, and this
sharing created efficiencies for roles that were not full-time for
either project. Staff sharing can also contribute to coordination and
synergy across projects.

## Undergraduate Student and Volunteer Staff

In addition to the staff described above, 70 percent of Talent Search
projects sometimes relied on volunteers, college work-study students, or
other undergraduate part-time student help. Overall, about 68 percent of
projects reported that they used volunteers, 56 percent used work-study
students, and 39 percent used other part-time undergraduate students
(table 4.2).

Projects hosted at community-based organizations were somewhat less
likely to use volunteers than other types of hosts (54 percent of
projects hosted by community-based organizations reported using
volunteers compared with over 70 percent of projects hosted by private
4-year institutions and community colleges). However, the
community-based organizations that reported using volunteers also
reported the highest number of hours worked per week by volunteers (on
average, 46 total hours in a typical week provided by an average of 9
volunteers). Projects hosted at private 4-year institutions that used
volunteers averaged the highest number of volunteers (an average of 28)
but tended to receive few hours per volunteer (an average of 36 total
hours per week).

+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| Table 4.2---Talent       |        |                 |              |
| Search projects' use of  |        |                 |              |
| volunteers, work-study   |        |                 |              |
| students, and other      |        |                 |              |
| part-time undergraduate  |        |                 |              |
| student employees:       |        |                 |              |
| 1998-99                  |        |                 |              |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
|                          | Perc   | Average number  | Average      |
|                          | entage | per project     | total hours  |
|                          | of     | reporting use   | worked per   |
|                          | pr     | of this type of | week, per    |
|                          | ojects | help            | project      |
|                          | using  |                 |              |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| **Volunteers**           |        |                 |              |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Public 4-year          | 67%    | 6               | 15           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Private 4-year         | 72     | 28              | 36           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > 2-year                 | 73     | 8               | 17           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Community org.         | 54     | 9               | 46           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > All                    | 68     | 10              | 27           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| **Work-study student     |        |                 |              |
| staff**                  |        |                 |              |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Public 4-year          | 71     | 3               | 29           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Private 4-year         | 68     | 3               | 28           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > 2-year                 | 60     | 2               | 18           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Community org.         | 13     | 3               | 19           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > All                    | 56     | 3               | 24           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| **Other undergraduate    |        |                 |              |
| student staff**          |        |                 |              |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Public 4-year          | 53     | 7               | 42           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Private 4-year         | 30     | 8               | 38           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > 2-year                 | 33     | 6               | 25           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > Community org.         | 35     | 4               | 29           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+
| > All                    | 39     | 6               | 34           |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------------+

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

## Staff Positions

Table 4.3 provides the total number of staff and FTE staff by position.
Overall, about 26 percent of FTE staff were project directors or
coordinators and associate and assistant directors and coordinators.
Counselors and advisors accounted for just over one-third (36 percent)
of FTE staff. About 18 percent were other professionals, 15 percent
support staff, 4 percent tutors, and 1 percent information specialists.

Projects typically employed one director or one coordinator, although
some projects employed one of each; combined, these positions accounted
for an average of 1.2 FTE per project. Projects averaged two counselors
and one other professional staff member, who for example, might be
responsible for organizing tutoring programs or summer workshops.
Projects typically employed one support staff member. Some also had
non-undergraduate tutoring staff, and a small number of projects
employed an information specialist, though usually on a part-time basis.
Project directors and coordinators averaged about 7.4 years of work with
the project. Counselors averaged 4.2 years experience and other
professionals 3.5 years.

  --------------------- ------------- ----------- ------------ --------------
  Table 4.3---Number of                                        
  staff and number of                                          
  FTE staff per                                                
  project, percent                                             
  distribution of FTE                                          
  staff, and years of                                          
  experience, by                                               
  position: 1999--2000                                         

  Position              Mean number   Mean FTE    Percentage   Mean years of
                        of staff per  staff per   of total     experience in
                        project       project     FTEs         current Talent
                                                               Search project

  Directors and         1.4           1.2         22%          7.4
  coordinators                                                 

  Associate/assistant   0.2           0.2         4            7.6
  directors and                                                
  coordinators                                                 

  Counselors and        2.2           1.9         36           4.2
  advisors                                                     

  Other professionals   1.3           0.9         18           3.5

  Data and information  0.1           \*          1            4.8
  specialists                                                  

  Support staff         1.0           0.8         15           4.8

  Tutors                0.9           0.2         4            3.8
  --------------------- ------------- ----------- ------------ --------------

\*Less than .05.

[Note:]{.smallcaps} Some projects employed both a director and a
coordinator and some had a portion of a director's time plus a full time
coordinator; Hence the number of directors and coordinators is greater
than 1.

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

# STAFF MODELS and responsibilities

The case studies provide in-depth information on how staff were
organized and functioned in different projects. Although faced with
different circumstances in terms of the size of their target areas and
the number of target schools and participants, most projects we visited
for the case studies used variations of similar staffing models. The
basic model centered on a core group of three to five staff
members---typically with job titles such as advisor, counselor, or
tutoring or workshop coordinator---who had similar basic duties: they
worked directly with students in the field and provided the vast share
of program services. They counseled and advised students at the target
schools, led workshops, organized field trips, and assisted with college
admissions and financial aid forms. The core staff reported directly to
the project director or coordinator or, in some cases, to an assistant
director or coordinator. In this model, top project officials, such as
TRIO directors, project directors or coordinators, and assistant
directors, usually did not provide much direct service in the field but
rather oversaw the core staff and handled administrative matters.

With the core-group staffing model, the chief variations between
projects centered around the number and type of both target schools and
students for which core staff members were responsible. As for the
number of schools, core staff typically carried roughly equivalent
workloads. But workloads were a function of several factors, including
the number of participants, the intensity of the services provided, and
the distances to be traveled to the schools. At one project, for
example, two core staff each served seven target schools, and two other
core staff each served 11 schools, but the former had to drive
considerably greater distances than the latter. In addition, each school
was the responsibility of a single staff member. Staff generally did not
work at schools in pairs or groups.[^2]

As for types of schools and students, projects differed in the extent to
which core staff specialized in working with certain types of
participants. We observed three model variations:

-   In the first model, each staff member served only one type of school
    or general grade range of students. At one of the projects, for
    example, four staff served only high schools (ranging from two to
    four schools per staff member), and the remaining staff person
    served only middle schools (three).

-   In the second model, all staff members served a mix of both middle
    school and high school students. At one project, for example, four
    core staff each served three to four middle schools and three to
    four high schools. This approach maximized both convenience (staff
    served clusters of schools generally located close together in a
    particular portion of a large target area) and continuity of service
    (staff served pairs of feeder middle schools and receiving high
    schools so that students might have the same Talent Search advisor
    from grade six to 12).

-   The third model was a blend of the first two, with some staff
    specializing and others not. At one of the projects, for example,
    two staff members each served three high schools and one middle
    school, one staff member served three middle schools and one high
    school, and one served four middle schools. At another project, one
    staff member worked with two middle schools and one high school, a
    second staff member worked with one middle school and one high
    school, and the third staff member served two high schools.

In some cases, Talent Search staff members were based at a location
other than the project's main office, especially when projects served
large areas such that frequent travel between the main office and
distant target schools would have been inefficient or impractical. At
two of the case study projects with the largest target areas, at least
half of the core staff members worked out of field offices or their
homes so that they could be close to their assigned target schools. They
seldom met with their project directors or other headquarters-based
colleagues, relying on e-mail and the telephone to keep in touch.

Staff spent most of their time either planning or providing services,
with core staff typically in the field visiting target schools at least
four days each week during the school year. But staff in some projects
routinely devoted one day a week, usually Friday, to record-keeping and
paperwork to document which services they had provided to which
students.

Most staff worked exclusively for Talent Search. However, as noted, some
project directors divided their time between Talent Search and one or
more other TRIO programs, though in such cases most day-to-day
operational responsibilities fell to an assistant director or
coordinator. Some project secretaries or other administrative assistants
also worked for several TRIO programs or for other TRIO programs on a
part-time basis. One project employed four full-time core staff members.
In addition, this project had four staff members who split their time
between Talent Search and Upward Bound. At two projects hosted by
colleges, part-time office assistants were work-study students.

While over-two thirds of projects reported sometimes relying on some
volunteers (table 4.2), most case study projects made limited regular
use of volunteers. Several projects received occasional assistance from
volunteers, such as parents serving as chaperones or local business
leaders or college officials delivering informational presentations, but
paid staff delivered major, recurring services. An exception was a
project hosted by a community-based organization in a large city. The
project relied on a large number of college student volunteers from a
nearby university to tutor Talent Search students on weeknight evenings.
It also drew on the services of a few participants in the AmeriCorps
program, who, though strictly speaking are not volunteers (they receive
a stipend for their service), were another source of free labor. A
second exception was a university-based project that regularly used
unpaid graduate student interns, such as those working on education or
counseling degrees, to assist the full-time field staff.

Projects also sometimes supplemented their core staff with a group of
short-term hires to help with special program components. For example,
one project offered a three-week enrichment program each summer for
middle school students. The director hired four or five teachers from
local middle schools and high schools to lead the various academic
classes and other activities on a half-time basis.

Two case study projects did not use the typical staffing model discussed
above. Instead, they had implemented a somewhat atypical service plan.
Rather than relying on a core group of three to five full-time staff to
visit assigned target schools one to four times a month for workshops
and other meetings, both projects offered tutoring in certain target
schools on a daily basis. Besides the project director, these grantees
had only one other full-time employee involved in service provision. The
largest share of the projects' labor expenses covered teachers from the
target schools who served as Talent Search tutors and counselors after
school, typically eight hours per week. In addition, at both projects,
the director was heavily involved in providing services to students.

# Staff Characteristics

## Staff Gender and Race/Ethnicity

Given that one of the roles of the Talent Search staff is to act as role
models for participants, grant applicants have paid some attention to
staff demographics, including gender and race and ethnicity. Overall,
three-fourths of Talent Search staff in 2000 were female (figure 4.3).
Among project directors and coordinators, a slightly smaller percentage,
but still over two-thirds (69 percent) were female. Among participants,
60 percent were female (see chapter 7).

Figure 4.3---Percentage of Talent Search project staff by gender:
1999--2000

![](media/image3.wmf)

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

Figure 4.4 provides the distribution of Talent Search staff by race and
ethnicity. As will be seen in chapter 7, the distribution is similar to
that of black participants but differs for Hispanic and white
participants. Thirteen percent of Talent Search staff were Hispanic
while 22 percent of participants were Hispanic. Forty-three percent of
Talent Search staff were white (compared with 32 percent of
participants), and 37 percent were black (compared with 36 percent of
participants). Three percent of Talent Search staff were American
Indian, and 2 percent each were Asian and Pacific Islander. Among
participants, 4 percent each were American Indian and Asian and 1
percent were Pacific Islanders.

Figure 4.4---Percentage of Talent Search staff by race/ethnicity:
1999--2000

![](media/image4.wmf)

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

## Staff Education

Almost three-fourths (71 percent) of Talent Search project directors and
coordinators and over two-thirds (68 percent) of associate or assistant
directors and coordinators have advanced degrees (figure 4.5 and table
4.4). Twelve percent of project directors and coordinators hold a Ph.D.
or other professional degrees beyond the master's level. Among
counselors and advisors, 46 percent hold master's or higher degrees. For
all staff positions, 42 percent of Talent Search staff have advanced
degrees. Talent Search staff employed in private 4-year institutions
were the most highly educated. Overall, 60 percent of Talent Search
staff in private 4-year institutions hold advanced degrees.

Figure 4.5---Percentage of Talent Search staff with advanced degrees, by
selected position: 1999--2000

![](media/image5.wmf)

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| Table 4.4---Percentage   |          |        |        |            |
| of Talent Search staff   |          |        |        |            |
| by highest level of      |          |        |        |            |
| education, by type of    |          |        |        |            |
| host and by position:    |          |        |        |            |
| 1999--2000               |          |        |        |            |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
|                          | Less     | Bache  | Mas    | Ph.D. or   |
|                          | than     | lor\'s | ter\'s | other      |
|                          | bac      |        |        | pr         |
|                          | helor\'s |        |        | ofessional |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| **Type of host**         |          |        |        |            |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Public 4-year          | 15%      | 42%    | 39%    | 4%         |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Private 4-year         | 9        | 32     | 54     | 6          |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > 2-year                 | 19       | 38     | 41     | 2          |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Community org.         | 21       | 48     | 27     | 4          |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > All projects           | 17       | 40     | 40     | 3          |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| **Position**             |          |        |        |            |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Directors and          | \*       | 29     | 59     | 12         |
| > coordinators           |          |        |        |            |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Associate/assistant    | \*       | 32     | 65     | 3          |
| > directors and          |          |        |        |            |
| > coordinators           |          |        |        |            |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Counselors and         | 4        | 50     | 44     | 2          |
| > advisors               |          |        |        |            |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Other professionals    | 8        | 53     | 38     | 1          |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Data and information   | 58       | 37     | 0      | 5          |
| > specialists            |          |        |        |            |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Support staff          | 74       | 20     | 5      | 0          |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+
| > Tutors                 | 24       | 45     | 30     | 1          |
+--------------------------+----------+--------+--------+------------+

\*0 or less than .5 percent.

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

## Staff Salaries

Table 4.5 displays data on staff salaries for 2000---specifically, the
mean, median, and 75th percentile by position categories for staff
working more than 37 hours per week. Directors and coordinators averaged
about \$40,000 and associate and assistant coordinators about \$36,000.
Counselors and advisors averaged about \$27,000. Projects hosted by
private 4-year institutions recorded the lowest average salaries (data
not shown).

  ----------------------- ---------------- -------------- ----------------
  Table 4.5---Talent                                      
  Search mean, median,                                    
  and 75th percentile                                     
  salaries, by position:                                  
  2000                                                    

                          Salary for staff                
                          working 37 or                   
                          more hours                      

  Position                Mean             Median         75th percentile

  Directors and           \$39,919         \$37,926       \$46,488
  coordinators                                            

  Associate/assistant     \$35,782         \$35,124       \$41,839
  directors and                                           
  coordinators                                            

  Counselors and advisors \$27,106         \$26,860       \$30,888

  Other professionals     \$28,747         \$27,376       \$32,025

  Data and information    \$20,049         \$18,285       \$22,727
  specialists                                             

  Support staff           \$21,442         \$20,661       \$24,711

  Tutors^a^               \$27,829         \$27,893       \$29,184
  ----------------------- ---------------- -------------- ----------------

[Note]{.smallcaps}: Staff salaries are reported in 2000 dollars.

^a^Very few staff in this category worked 37 or more hours.

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

## Use of Language Other than English

Almost half (46 percent) of Talent Search projects reported that someone
on their staff sometimes used languages other than English to
communicate with participants (table 4.6). Projects hosted by
community-based organizations were more likely to report the use of
other languages (70 percent) than projects hosted at any other type of
institution.

Spanish was used most frequently; 42 percent of all Talent Search
projects communicated with participants in Spanish. Spanish was also the
language used most frequently by each of the host types considered
individually: 65 percent of projects hosted by community-based
organizations, 44 percent of projects hosted by private 4-year
institutions, 39 percent of projects hosted by public 4-year
institutions, and 30 percent of projects hosted by 2-year institutions.

+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
| Table 4.6---Percentage  |        |       |       |      |           |
| of Talent Search        |        |       |       |      |           |
| projects where staff    |        |       |       |      |           |
| sometimes use a         |        |       |       |      |           |
| language other than     |        |       |       |      |           |
| English to communicate  |        |       |       |      |           |
| with participants, and  |        |       |       |      |           |
| the languages used, by  |        |       |       |      |           |
| host type: 1999--2000   |        |       |       |      |           |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
|                         |        | Host  |       |      |           |
|                         |        | i     |       |      |           |
|                         |        | nstit |       |      |           |
|                         |        | ution |       |      |           |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
|                         | All    | P     | Pr    | 2-   | Community |
|                         | pr     | ublic | ivate | year | org.      |
|                         | ojects |       | 4     |      |           |
|                         |        | 4     | -year |      |           |
|                         |        | -year |       |      |           |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
| **Use language other    | 46%    | 42%   | 47%   | 36%  | 70%       |
| than English**          |        |       |       |      |           |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
| **Percent of all        |        |       |       |      |           |
| projects that use:**    |        |       |       |      |           |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
| > Spanish               | 42     | 39    | 44    | 30   | 65        |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
| > Other                 | 9      | 9     | 8     | 9    | 8         |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
| > Chinese               | 3      | 2     | 0     | 0    | 12        |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+
| > American Indian       | 3      | 1     | 0     | 4    | \*        |
| > language              |        |       |       |      |           |
+-------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+-----------+

\*0 or less than .5 percent.

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

# Project directors' and Coordinators' experience and commitment to Project

This section presents information concerning Talent Search project
directors and coordinators. Almost half (46 percent) of Talent Search
project directors and coordinators had served in their position for six
years or more (table 4.7). Almost three-fourths (74 percent) had served
in their current position for at least two years. In addition, 35
percent had also served (or were currently serving) as the director or
coordinator of an Upward Bound project, 24 percent had headed or were
simultaneously heading a Student Support Services project.

  --------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Table 4.7---Talent Search                                        
  project directors' and                                           
  coordinators' experience                                         
  directing or coordinating                                        
  Talent Search and similar                                        
  programs, as of 1999--2000                                       

                              Percent                              
                              who had                              
                              served                               

  Director or coordinator of  11 years  6--10    2--5     Fewer    Never
                              or more   years    years    than 2   
                                                          years    

  This Talent Search project  18%       28%      28%      26%      \*%

  Other projects or agencies  10        10       17       10       52
  serving disadvantaged                                            
  persons                                                          

  An Upward Bound project     10        6        9        10       66

  Student Support Services    6         6        6        6        76

  Another Talent Search       3         1        4        4        89
  project                                                          

  An EOC project              2         1        1        2        93
  --------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------

\*0 or less than .5 percent.

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

Many Talent Search project coordinators and directors had also held
other positions in Talent Search and similar programs (table 4.8). For
example, nearly half (46 percent) had served in another capacity at
their current Talent Search projects, and 29 percent had served in
another capacity at an Upward Bound project.

  --------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Table 4.8---Talent Search                                        
  project directors' and                                           
  coordinators' experience                                         
  serving in capacity other                                        
  than director or                                                 
  coordinator for Talent                                           
  Search and similar                                               
  programs, as of 1999--2000                                       

  Project                     11 years  6--10    2--5     Fewer    Never
                              or more   years    years    than 2   
                                                          years    

  This Talent Search project  4%        10%      17%      15%      53%

  Other projects or agencies  6         9        21       10       53
  serving disadvantaged                                            
  persons                                                          

  An Upward Bound project     3         5        12       9        71

  Student Support Services    1         4        8        7        80

  Another Talent Search       1         1        3        4        90
  project                                                          

  An EOC project              \<1       1        3        2        93
  --------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

As discussed in chapter 2, with the expressed intent of fostering
increased cooperation among projects serving economically disadvantaged
students, Congress amended the TRIO legislation in the early 1990s to
allow for less than full-time project directors. This practice also
allows projects to economize and stretch resources. In 2000, just over
one-third of all project directors and coordinators (35 percent)
reported that they also currently served as directors or administrators
of other student programs at their host institution (figure 4.6). In
terms of host type, directors and coordinators of projects hosted by
community-based organizations were the most likely also to serve as the
director of another student program (46 percent). Directors and
coordinators of projects hosted by 2-year institutions were the least
likely to serve (29 percent) in the same capacity for another program at
their host institution.

Figure 4.6---Percentage of Talent Search project directors and
coordinators who also served as directors or administrators for other
student programs at the host institution or organization, by host type:
1999--2000

![](media/image6.wmf)

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

# Time Allocation of Staff

We asked project survey respondents for estimates of the total time
allocation for all staff as well as for project directors and
coordinators. In the question on the project director's time allocation,
we asked for a comparison of the time actually spent versus the time
project directors would ideally like to spend. Figures 4.7 and 4.8
summarize the information.

In the allocation of total staff time (figure 4.7), respondents
estimated that staff spent about 46 percent of their time in direct
service, including counseling, and another 14 percent in participant
recruitment. Respondents also reported that staff spent about 16 percent
of their time on record-keeping and on paperwork and reporting
requirements combined and another 8 percent on administration. Five
percent of staff time went to community activity.

Figure 4.7---Estimated average time allocation of total project staff:
1999--2000

![](media/image7.wmf)

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

Figure 4.8 shows that the way Talent Search project directors spend
their time is fairly close to how they would ideally like to spend their
time. Project directors reported spending just under one-fourth of their
time (22 percent) on participant service and the rest on administration,
record-keeping, community work, recruiting staff, and other activities.
Ideally, they would like to spend a little less time on project
administration and reporting requirements and a little more time both on
direct participant services and on community activities that would
improve the quality of educational opportunities. On average, project
directors reported spending slightly more of their time on project
administration and reporting requirements than they would ideally like
to spend on those activities.

Figure 4.8---Project directors' and coordinators' estimated actual and
ideal time allocation among various activities: 1999--2000

![](media/image8.wmf)

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

# Use of External Review Boards

About one-third of all Talent Search projects (34 percent) worked with
an external group that provided support to their project (figure 4.9). A
greater percent of projects hosted by community-based organizations (63
percent) worked with an external board than than was the case for
projects hosted by educational institutions (26-29 percent). The
external groups that support Talent Search projects were composed of a
variety of participants. For projects overall, by far the largest group
was current or former Talent Search participants. Other members included
representatives of the host institution or agency, representatives of
the target community, other educators, businesspersons and
professionals, representatives of other groups, financial aid or
admissions officers, and others (data not shown).

Figure 4.9---Percentage of projects that reported having an external
board providing advice and support to the project: 1999--2000

![](media/image9.wmf)

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

# Talent Search Operating Budget

To assess the degree to which funds from other sources supplement Talent
Search federal funds, the project survey collected information on total
project funding from all sources in a given year. We looked at both
fiscal contributions and in-kind contributions. Based on the 1998--99
reported allocation, table 4.9 provides the estimated average
allocations in 2000 dollars for fiscal contributions and the percent
distribution of funds. On average, Talent Search funds accounted for 96
percent of the total fiscal contributions. Foundation and corporate
support represented the next greatest amount of funds, about 2 percent
of the total, providing an average of about \$17,000 per project.

  ------------------------------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------
  Table 4.10---Estimated total                                          
  costs of Talent Search by                                             
  source of support: 2000 dollars                                       

  Source of funds                 Mean        Total                     Percent of
                                                                        total

  Talent Search funds             \$265,139   \$95,334,329              95.5%

  Foundation or corporate support \$17,272    \$2,676,243               2.7

  Other                           \$6,998     \$969,679                 1.0

  State funds                     \$2,534     \$399,000                 0.4

  Local funds                     \$1,446     \$218,604                 0.2

  Private donations               \$1,041     [\$158,683]{.smallcaps}   0.2

  Other federal funds             \$413       \$60,390                  0.1

  Sum                             \$294,843   \$99,816,928              100.0
  ------------------------------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------

[Note]{.smallcaps}: Data were reported for 1998--99 and are expressed in
the table as 2000 dollars based on consumer price index of ratio of
.968.

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

We also asked projects to estimate in-kind contributions that they might
have received in the form of facilities, personnel time, and other
contributions. On average, projects estimated that they received about
\$25,600 in-kind contributions for facilities, \$12,800 for personnel,
and \$8,700 for other costs (data not shown).

On average, Talent Search projects allocated two-thirds of their budgets
to staff salaries---47 percent to staff salaries and 18 percent to
project director and coordinator salaries. Projects distributed the
remaining one-third among participant and staff travel, supplies,
special events, training, and other costs (figure 4.10).

Figure 4.11---Allocation of Talent Search grant money by budget
category: 1998--99

![](media/image10.wmf)

[Source]{.smallcaps}: National Survey of Talent Search Projects,
1999--2000.

# Staff Relations, Turnover, and Other Issues

Using information from the case studies, the remainder of the chapter
discusses staff relations, turnover, and other issues. Internal
relations are the relationships among and between participants and
project staff. External relations are the relationships between the
projects and outside entities, such as target schools, host
institutions, and other organizations. Both are important for smooth and
effective project operation. During our site visits, we explored the
nature of internal and external relations through interviews and
observations.

## Staff Autonomy and Creativity

Across all the projects, staff involved in service delivery generally
operated with a degree of independence and autonomy. In some cases, they
were allowed to negotiate with target school officials each year to
devise a unique service plan for each grade level, such as the number
and subjects of workshops to be offered. Other projects had developed
fairly specific curricula for various grade levels, but staff were free
to cover the subjects in whatever order they liked and to develop their
own materials. Directors encouraged key staff to be creative in
delivering services and meeting program objectives; they required staff
to track service contacts continuously for end-of-year reporting
purposes, but they seldom visited target schools to monitor staff
performance.

## Role Models

The case study projects often followed a policy of seeking staff whose
backgrounds were similar to those of the students they would be serving
and who had overcome challenges similar to those facing the students. In
addition to seeking out staff who had been first-generation college
students, projects sometimes considered whether their personal
background characteristics would help them to serve as natural role
models, to build comfortable relationships between participants and
staff. Indeed, some staff were motivated to work in Talent Search as a
way to help students like themselves. With similar backgrounds, staff
could go beyond saying, "You can make it," to send the more personal
message, "If I made it, so can you."

For example, projects that served substantial numbers of language
minority students or students whose parents were not native English
speakers typically employed one or more bilingual staff members to
expedite communication with students and their parents. The project that
served a community of Asian immigrants employed a staff member whose
first language was Laotian and who spoke two or three other Southeast
Asian languages. Similarly, three projects with substantial shares of
Hispanic students employed one or more Spanish-speaking staff members.

## Staff Turnover 

Among the mature projects we visited for the case studies (we did not
include projects that were newly funded in the 1998 cycle), staff
turnover was generally not viewed a serious problem. Four of the
directors had worked at their projects for over 20 years. Several
projects had one or two relatively new staff members, but the other
staff commonly counted between four and eight years of experience on the
job.

Only one of the case study projects appeared to have a relatively high
staff turnover rate. At the time of our visit, the director had been
with the program for three years, and none of the four core staff
members had served for longer than two years. Before the current
director's arrival, according to a former long-time staff member, the
project went through three directors in about seven years. Of the
current core staff, one was leaving at the end of the year to attend
graduate school, another was openly looking for a junior college
teaching job, one was about to begin maternity leave, and the fourth
said that he was unlikely to stay longer than one more year.

Two implications of staff turnover, when it does occur, were clear.
First, if students participated in a program for several years, they
would likely have to deal with two or three Talent Search advisors.
(Target school officials, too, would have to deal with new project
staff.) Second, the remaining staff might have to spend more time than
they would like in recruiting and training new staff---time that might
otherwise be spent on program services. But these implications do not
necessarily equate to serious problems or challenges. Services at the
one high-turnover project cited above did not by any means appear to be
less efficient or of lower quality than at other projects we studied.
Although most project directors would probably prefer to have a highly
stable core staff, they realized that, in view of the salaries that
projects could afford to pay, some degree of turnover was inevitable. It
was not uncommon for new hires to be relatively young and to have just
completed their education. They often took a Talent Search job as the
first in their professional career, with plans of moving on after a few
years.

## Student--Staff Relations

Various interviewees---students, alumni, parents, target school staff,
and host institution officials---consistently offered favorable comments
about the Talent Search staff who worked directly with participants.
Staff were described in terms such as caring, dedicated, friendly,
helpful, understanding, and nonjudgmental. Participants viewed Talent
Search staff as a resource they could rely on, whether for homework
assistance, course selection, or many other concerns. A mother whose
three children had gone through Talent Search described the program as
"a big extended family...the counselors really care about what happens
to the kids."

When alumni reflected on their experiences in Talent Search, they often
remembered more about the personal encouragement that Talent Search
staff provided than about the details of particular services; they
remembered the person more than the program. One alumna, for example,
recalled fondly that although she knew nothing about college or
financial aid, her Talent Search advisor helped her through all aspects
of the college preparation, search, and application process. "If it
wasn't for him, I wouldn't be here now. He was my ticket. He opened the
door to a college education." In several projects, we heard about
students and staff who kept in touch with one another after graduation
and well into college---and not just the students who attended the
Talent Search project's host college.

Students consistently felt that Talent Search staff related to them more
closely and on a different level than their teachers and other school
staff. Their comments indicated that program staff were "more like
friends" but also took on some characteristics of a caring parent.
Consider the following remarks drawn from a few different projects:
"He's a great guy. He's really funny. He's like one of us." "He speaks
our language. He's *down* with us." "If you don't have a father, he's
like your father." "She talks to you like your mom, and she never
forgets your name. She's the best tutor and teacher you could have." "He
talked to me almost like I was his daughter."

A certain level of understanding came about because many staff hailed
from similar backgrounds as the participants and had overcome similar
obstacles to educational success. In addition, as some students noted,
Talent Search staff were often considerably closer to their age than
were school staff. And, of course, the ability to connect closely with
students varied somewhat between staff due to interpersonal skills,
longevity, and service schedules---those who had worked in schools
longer and saw students most often got to know the students best and
were able to develop closer relations.

## Relations Among Staff

Almost without exception, the staff members we interviewed exhibited
respect for one another and got along well. They often shared ideas for
workshops or other services. Several project directors had much praise
for their staff. The director of a project that relied heavily on target
school teachers as part-time Talent Search staff referred to them as
"angels." "She's my angel in that school." "They're my two angels in
this school." She felt that they served as the students' guardian
angels, watching over and helping them during the school day.

## Relations with Target Schools 

Relationships between Talent Search projects and their target schools
were generally positive. School staff spoke highly of Talent Search
staff. Guidance counselors, for example, appreciated what the program
did for participants, giving them far more personal attention than the
counselors themselves could have provided. One key to good relations
with target schools was reciprocation. One project, for example,
regularly provided its target schools with a variety of resources,
ranging from computerized and hard-copy educational and instructional
materials to use of a fax machine it had installed for its own staff. In
return, the schools provided Talent Search staff with other resources,
including office space, the use of office machinery, and easy access to
student files. Another important element, according to staff from the
same project, was that Talent Search staff worked to support the
schools' guidance counseling departments rather than providing services
that would show them up or make them appear ineffective. In some target
high schools, the Talent Search staff blended into the schools' guidance
departments, essentially becoming an "extra counselor"---one
specializing in college preparation.

## Talent Search and School Counselors 

Much of what Talent Search does for students---such as provide
information on college admissions requirements and financial aid---could
theoretically fall under the purview of school guidance counselors. What
did students and others say about assistance provided by counselors?
First, across all the projects we studied, accessibility of
school-employed counselors was a major issue.

-   At one suburban high school we visited, the regular full-time
    counselors were each responsible for over 500 students, whereas the
    two Talent Search advisors who worked in the school almost full time
    each had a caseload of about 150 students.

-   At a project based in the heart of a large city, counselors'
    positions at local schools had been reduced for budget reasons,
    often to the point where students could not realistically expect to
    receive any precollege assistance from them. For example, one target
    high school, with an enrollment of 3,000, had just one college
    counselor, and he worked there only on a half-time basis.

-   A liaison to the program at one target high school said that
    students might receive some information and assistance from guidance
    counselors, but with only two counselors for the school's 550
    students, "Getting in to see one \[takes\] an act of God." Moreover,
    one of them was about to retire and the district did not plan to
    replace him.[^3]

A second issue related to school-provided counseling services was that
counselors were perceived as doing little outreach, instead serving
primarily those students who stopped in to see them or just those who
seemed to show the most potential for college. At one project, a former
staff member said that the types of students served by Talent
Search---low-income and first-generation college students, many of them
minorities---typically are not pushed by their parents to see their
school counselors. As a result, they often "fall through the cracks,"
and counselors end up serving the most motivated students and those seen
as the brightest and with the greatest potential. At another project,
parents and Talent Search participants perceived school counselors as
making time only for the students with the highest GPAs; average
students, they felt, were on their own.

A third issue related to school counseling services pertained to comfort
and familiarity. One alumnus said that he had four guidance counselors
in four years and felt that he never knew them, nor they him. Program
participants from one target high school said that they were a lot
closer to their Talent Search advisor than to their guidance counselors.
They found him easy to relate to; he was younger and "more like a
friend" and could "speak their language." They also perceived their
Talent Search advisors as having more credibility; as one student said,
with them "it's more than just talk."

Finally, some students and program alumni commented on receiving better
advice and assistance from Talent Search than from their school
counselors.

-   Participants at one project said that when it came to information
    about scholarships, they relied exclusively on their Talent Search
    advisor, who had developed expertise in that area.

-   At another project, an alumna said that counselors were focused on
    high school issues, not college and the future, and that her Talent
    Search advisor knew more about college than the counselors. An
    alumnus recalled that a school counselor had told him that he needed
    only two years of mathematics---but the two years of mathematics
    turned out to be the requirement for high school graduation, not for
    admission to a university.

Occasionally, counselors themselves described some of these same
concerns. In a small rural high school where the counselors also worked
as teachers, the counselors told us that they were overwhelmed with
paperwork---registration, schedules, record-keeping, and so on---and did
not have the time to provide students with substantive advising. A
counselor from a target high school at another project said that his
school was down to 3.5 FTE counselors from six as a result of budget
cuts but that school enrollment had not dropped. As a consequence, he
and his colleagues could not do as much as they could in past or would
have liked to do at the time of the case study. He went on to say that
Talent Search staff are able to provide more "follow-through" than
counselors and that the school certainly could not provide the type of
field trips to colleges that Talent Search provided.

One counselor, though, in trying to assure us that he and his colleagues
would continue to play an important role at the school even in the
absence of Talent Search, unintentionally highlighted a potentially
important difference between the program and school counselors. "If
Talent Search went away," he said, "we \[the counseling staff\] would
still be here. We would still go out to classes and make contact with
every senior in the first quarter of that year." But Talent Search staff
operated under the belief that contacting students at the start of 12th
grade would be far too late for most of their target program
participants.

It was clear, especially from students' comments, that Talent Search
staff had largely---and in some cases entirely---supplanted school
counselors as a source of precollege assistance. When we asked high
school students at one project about getting help and information from
their counselors, one girl responded sardonically, "We have counselors?"
An alumnus of a different Talent Search project said, "I didn't even
know who my high school counselor was." At a third project, a
participant told her mother, "We don't need a senior counselor, we have
our Talent Search advisor." Finally, the alumnus who received incorrect
information on required mathematics credits said of his counselors,
"Eventually, I just stopped talking to them."

[^1]: This estimate is based on counts from the 93 percent of projects
    returning the survey form, however, the counts were adjusted upwards
    to reflect non-response so that the figure represents an estimate of
    the total staff from 361 projects.

[^2]: We found two exceptions to this practice. One project served three
    high schools with atypically broad grade ranges: one had grades
    6-12, the second had grades 7-12, and the third had grades 8-12. At
    these schools, one staff member worked exclusively with the students
    in grades 11 and 12 while another worked with the younger students.
    The second project had assigned two core staff to work virtually
    full time at a four-year high school. Each followed cohorts from
    ninth through 12th grade, working with freshman and juniors one
    year, sophomores and seniors the next.

[^3]: It is not surprising that target school counselors were very busy,
    because "a high ratio of students to school counselors in the target
    schools" is one of five specific criteria that applicants must
    address in the "need for the project" section of the Talent Search
    grant application.