CHAPTER 6

TALENT SEARCH SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES

In describing the services and activities provided by Talent Search
projects, this chapter begins at a general level and moves toward
greater detail---from a focus on national statistics to a discussion of
project-level variation in service plans. It provides a general overview
of the many different types of services offered by Talent Search,
addresses services for particular groups such as dropouts and parents,
presents some general observations about the nature of Talent Search
services, and describes and explains service variation between and
within projects.

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# Overview of Services and Activities

Drawing on national data, this section focuses on six categories or
types of services: academic support services, personal and career
development services, financial aid services, fee waivers, use of
computer technology, and summer services. The first two categories
include the 10 major services that projects report on in their annual
performance reports (APRs).

## Academic Support Services

Academic support services are intended to guide students to the
appropriate courses and to help them perform well in courses and on
examinations that are important for successfully pursuing a
postsecondary education. Our project survey asked about the provision of
four such academic services: tutoring, assisted (computer) labs,[^1]
test-taking and study-skills development, and academic advising/course
selection. The results showed that virtually all projects (98 percent)
offered test-taking and study-skills development activities and that an
almost equally large proportion of projects (94 percent) advised
students on academic requirements and course selection (table 6.1).
Large majorities of projects also provided each of the other two types
of academic support services. Furthermore, almost half of all projects
(49 percent) provided all four of the academic support services we asked
about, whereas 13 percent provided two or fewer of the services. The
mean number of academic support services offered by projects was 3.3.
Finally, the percent of projects offering various academic support
services was generally similar for projects operated by different types
of host institutions.[^2]

  ----------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- -----------
  Table 6.1---Provision of                                                  
  academic support services                                                 

                                           Host                             
                                           institution                      

                                All        Public 4-year Private   2-year   Community
                                projects                 4-year             org.

  Percentage of projects                                                    
  providing:                                                                

  Test-taking and study-skills  98%        99%           100%      97%      97%
  development                                                               

  Academic advising/course      94         91            100       94       95
  selection                                                                 

  Tutoring                      82         82            91        78       82

  Assisted (computer) labs      61         61            68        61       58

  Percentage of projects                                                    
  providing:                                                                

  All four of the above         49         44            65        47       50

  Three of the above            39         45            29        38       35

  Two of the above              11         9             6         13       12

  One or none of the above      2          1             0         2        3
  ----------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- -----------

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

Just because the large majority of projects provided some academic
support services does not necessarily mean that the projects considered
those services a high priority compared with other services. In fact,
when asked to rate the priority they currently placed on tutoring, only
34 percent of projects rated it as high. In comparison, many more
projects (51 percent) rated college campus visits a high priority (table
6.2).

  ------------------------------ ---------- -------- ----- -- ------------ -------- ------
  Table 6.2---Projects' ratings                                                     
  of current priorities for                                                         
  working with various                                                              
  participants and providing                                                        
  various services, and how                                                         
  likely they would be to                                                           
  increase their emphasis on                                                        
  these groups and services if                                                      
  they had more resources                                                           

                                 Current                      Likelihood            
                                 priority                     of                    
                                 level                        increasing            
                                                              emphasis if           
                                                              project had           
                                                              more                  
                                                              resources             

                                 High       Medium   Low      High         Medium   Low

  Participants                                                                      

  Senior high component          65%        27%      8%       80%          14%      6%

  Work with dropouts or          22         41       38       52           38       10
  returning students                                                                

  Serving more target schools    16         19       65       52           29       19

  Work with parents              14         45       41       68           28       4

  Work with welfare recipients   9          22       69       29           39       31
  or former welfare recipients                                                      

  Work with veterans             5          8        88       15           21       64

  Services                                                                          

  Workshops                      56         36       8        77           19       4

  Campus visits                  51         43       6        80           14       6

  Time for Talent Search         48         38       14       88           7        5
  counselors to meet one-on-one                                                     
  with participants                                                                 

  Tutoring services              34         29       37       72           22       6

  Use of technology to           28         41       31       78           17       5
  facilitate college admissions                                                     
  and financial aid                                                                 

  Provision of mentors           6          28       66       49           41       10
  ------------------------------ ---------- -------- ----- -- ------------ -------- ------

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

APR data suggest that a greater proportion of Talent Search projects
were providing academic support services at the end of the 1990s than at
the beginning of the decade. A review of APRs for the 1990--91 program
year found that 57 percent of projects provided "tutorial assistance,"
20 percent provided "computer-assisted instruction," and 15 percent
helped students with study skills (Eisner 1992). Mathematica Policy
Research's comparison of 1998--99 APR data with that reported by Eisner
showed that academic support services (particularly tutoring and study
skills) are now provided to a substantially higher percentage of
participants than a decade ago (U.S. Dept. of Education May 2002).

Based on discussions with ED officials and Talent Search project staff
around the country, we concluded that academic support services were a
subject of widespread interest; therefore, we selected some of the case
study sites specifically because of their strong focus on these
services. Even though appendix A discusses academic support services in
detail, we provide some examples below of how the case study projects
were providing these services.[^3]

#### Test-taking and study-skills development

-   Two or three times each year, Project T invited participants to
    attend test-taking workshops held at the host college. High school
    students focused on college entrance examinations (ACT and SAT). The
    workshops were videotaped for the benefit of interested students who
    could not attend.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Project C's curriculum featured a series of workshops at target
    schools for students in different grade levels. In seventh grade,
    students learned how to manage their study time; in ninth grade,
    they learned about general test-taking skills; in 10th grade, they
    focused on critical thinking; and in 11th grade, they focused on
    taking the ACT or SAT.

#### Academic advising/course selection

-   At Project B, we observed a Talent Search counselor providing
    academic advising and course-selection services on a drop-in basis
    during lunch period to three high school seniors. All three students
    needed to register for college courses at the host institution. The
    counselor mentioned the minimum unit requirement for full-time
    enrollment, explained the concepts of subject-area majors and minors
    and the difference between undergraduate and graduate courses,
    pointed them toward appropriate courses in their areas of interest,
    and, for one student, helped make arrangements to take an English
    placement test.

#### Tutoring

-   Project N offered individualized tutoring and homework assistance
    after school four days a week at the host institution. Middle and
    high school students could attend as often as they liked. On a
    typical day, six to eight students showed up. The tutors were
    college students.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Project H provided tutoring services four days a week for one or two
    hours a day at each of its four target high schools. The tutors were
    teachers from the same schools. Students attended on an as-needed
    basis, but those struggling in school were encouraged to participate
    regularly.

#### Assisted (computer) labs

-   At Project M, computer labs were a new but regular part of the
    services (along with tutoring and counseling) offered to middle
    school students after school three days a week. Students wore
    headphones and worked individually on a variety of self-paced
    learning programs to improve their reading, writing, and mathematics
    skills. On the day we observed a session, sixth graders were working
    on onomatopoeia; seventh graders on vocabulary, spelling, and
    reading comprehension; and eighth graders on prefixes and suffixes.

## Personal and Career Development Services

Personal and career development services is a broad, diverse category.
It includes seven types of services that are designed to help move
participants along the path toward a postsecondary education:
counseling, mentoring, cultural activities, college orientation
activities, visits to college campuses, family services, and referrals.
Personal and career development services encompass most of the major
nonacademic services that Talent Search projects offer, with the
exception of financial aid services, as discussed later.

The project survey found that five of the seven personal and career
development services were provided by more than 90 percent of projects
nationwide: college orientation activities, college campus visits,
cultural activities, referrals, and counseling (table 6.3). A
substantial majority of projects also provided the remaining two
services, family activities and mentoring. In addition, 79 percent
provided six or seven personal and career development services, with the
mean at 6.1. Finally, there was no substantial or systematic variation
in the provision of personal and career development services between
projects operated by different types of host institutions.[^4]

  -------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- -----------
  Table 6.3---Provision of                                               
  personal and career                                                    
  development services                                                   

                                        Host                             
                                        institution                      

                             All        Public 4-year Private   2-year   Community
                             projects                 4-year             org.

  Percent of projects                                                    
  providing:                                                             

  College orientation        98%        99%           97%       97%      98%
  activities                                                             

  Visits to college campuses 96         97            91        96       97

  Cultural activities        93         94            91        97       87

  Referrals                  92         93            97        87       95

  Counseling                 91         91            97        88       95

  Family activities          80         84            79        78       78

  Mentoring                  65         63            65        65       68

  Percent of projects                                                    
  providing:                                                             

  All seven of the above     44         43            38        44       48

  Six of the above           35         38            44        33       30

  Five of the above          15         14            15        14       18

  Four of the above          4          3             3         7        2

  Three or fewer of the      1          1             0         2        2
  above                                                                  
  -------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- -----------

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

The project survey also shed a little light on the value and priority
that Talent Search projects placed on two types of personal and career
development services: mentoring and campus visits. Mentoring was a
relatively low-priority function. Six percent of projects reported that
they placed a high priority on providing mentors, whereas 66 percent
indicated that they placed a low priority on providing mentors. Asked
how they would react to having more resources, about half (49 percent)
indicated a high likelihood of increasing their emphasis on mentoring
(table 6.2). It should also be noted that mentoring was not added to the
list of Talent Search services until the most recent legislative
reauthorization.

In contrast, projects assigned a relatively high priority to college
campus visits. About half (51 percent) of all projects placed a high
priority on campus visits, and four-fifths (80 percent) reported that
they would be highly likely to increase their emphasis on visits if more
resources were available. In addition, given an opportunity (in another
survey question) to list up to five program activities that they thought
contributed most to achieving their performance objectives, 38 percent
of responding directors mentioned campus visits---the second-most
frequently listed service. In our case studies, students frequently
described campus visits as a particularly memorable, enjoyable, and
worthwhile experience that not only helped give them a general sense of
what college was like but also helped them narrow their choices of the
institutions they might attend.

Finally, whereas the preceding discussion focused on aggregate data for
groups of Talent Search projects, the case studies illuminated some of
the diverse ways that individual projects provided various personal and
career development services.[^5]

#### College orientation activities and visits to college campuses

-   Project X offered all students opportunities to visit at least two
    college campuses each year. Middle school students visited colleges
    in the metropolitan area where they lived; high school students had
    the chance to visit at least one university located farther away.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Each year, Project O arranged for interested high school students to
    shadow college students (often Talent Search alumni) at the host
    institution for a day. Participants would also sit in on classes,
    eat lunch in a dormitory dining hall, and attend workshops on the
    transition to college.

#### Cultural activities

-   At Project S, a subset of high school students who were
    participating in a more intensive service component could take
    after-school classes in dance, music, or poetry reading at the host
    institution's offices. Staff also arranged opportunities for the
    same students to perform in public.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Project O tried to offer one field trip each year to students at
    each target school. Sometimes the trips involved visits to local
    history or science museums. Space in the passenger vans was limited,
    with spots filled on a first-come, first-served basis. Some of the
    project's more intensive services, including a senior retreat and a
    college study tour, also included cultural experiences such as
    attending a stage play or musical.

#### Counseling

-   At Project A, we observed a workshop held at a target high school
    that focused on the Myers-Briggs personality-type indicator. The
    Talent Search counselor explained the background of the instrument
    and told the 12 participants that the results would increase their
    self-awareness and help them discover normal differences in people
    with respect to energy level, information gathering,
    decision-making, and lifestyle. Students discussed the extent to
    which their personal assessments seemed accurate.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   At Project I, we observed a Talent Search counselor leading a
    pull-out counseling session for six high school students. The
    students spent the first 20 minutes in an exercise on values. The
    students had a chance to bid an imaginary \$2,000 silently on
    various life experiences and outcomes, such as to be a famous rock
    star, to help underprivileged children, to live a long life, to
    travel around the world, and to have a great relationship with their
    parents. The counselor then led a discussion of what the students
    had bid on and why.

#### Mentoring

-   Project T arranged for group mentoring sessions in which individuals
    from the host college and professionals from the community would
    talk about their career choices and experiences with small groups of
    interested participants.

#### Referrals

-   At Project P, we met some alumni who had been referred to an Upward
    Bound Math/Science program for an academically enriching summer
    experience. At Project M, dropouts were usually referred to
    alternative schools or other programs that could help them prepare
    for the GED examination.[^6]

## Financial Aid Services

As described in an earlier chapter, a statutory goal of the Talent
Search program is to provide information and assistance related to
financial aid. Project staff try to ensure that students are aware of
and apply for important sources of aid (grants, scholarships, loans) so
that their access to a postsecondary education is not limited by a lack
of funds. Virtually all Talent Search projects provide financial aid
related services to their participants in one way or another. And
although financial aid information and assistance were an implicit or
explicit part of some of the services discussed in the preceding
section---for example, a college visit might include discussions with
financial aid officials; family activities might include a workshop on
applying for scholarships---we sought more detailed information through
separate items in the project survey.

The results show that virtually all projects (more than 95 percent)
provided individual financial aid counseling, financial aid workshops,
and assistance in completing hard copies of the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) (table 6.4). Furthermore, 56 percent of
projects provided all seven of the financial aid services listed in our
project survey, and 28 percent provided six; the mean was 6.3.

Projects operated by the four types of host institutions showed
relatively little variation in the provision of financial aid services.
One exception was that projects hosted by private 4-year colleges were
distinctly less likely to offer assistance with FAFSA on the Internet
than were each of the other types of projects. The reasons, however, are
unclear.

  --------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- ------------
  Table 6.4---Provision of                                                
  financial aid services:                                                 
  1998--99                                                                

                                         Host                             
                                         institution                      

                              All        Public 4-year Private   2-year   Community
                              projects                 4-year             org.

  Percent of projects                                                     
  providing                                                               

  Individual financial aid    98%        98%           97%       99%      97%
  counseling for participants                                             

  Participant financial aid   97         100           90        95       98
  workshop                                                                

  Assistance with             96         96            90        97       97
  pencil-and-paper FAFSA                                                  

  Scholarship searches        94         98            92        90       98

  Parent financial aid        87         94            74        81       95
  workshop                                                                

  Individual financial aid    84         86            82        80       92
  counseling for parents                                                  

  Assistance with             71         69            54        77       76
  Internet-based FAFSA                                                    

  Percent of projects                                                     
  providing                                                               

  All seven of the above      56         57            36        57       68

  Six of the above            28         31            36        24       25

  Five of the above           9          9             15        10       3

  Four of the above           3          2             5         5        2

  Three or fewer of the above 3          1             8         5        2
  --------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- ------------

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

APR data from 1998--99 showed that, on average, projects nationwide had
a goal of assisting 90 percent of "college ready" students[^7] in
applying for financial aid (U.S. Dept. of Education May 2002).

The case studies offer some sense of how projects may structure their
financial aid services. Until students reached the point of needing to
fill out applications, the information provided on financial aid often
was fairly general. The point was to assure students that sources of
assistance were available and that family income should not be a barrier
to postsecondary education. (A related service objective was to make
sure that students and their parents had an accurate sense of the costs
of attending college; often they believed it was more expensive than it
is.) This type of information was commonly conveyed during one-on-one
meetings between students and staff or in workshops. When students
reached their junior or senior year of high school, they might be
invited to informational workshops held at their schools, with parents
sometimes invited as well if sessions were held in the evening. Project
staff would then make a point of following up with seniors to be sure
that they filled out the necessary forms properly and on time, offering
individual assistance on an as-needed or as-requested basis.

Some projects also assist students in looking for scholarships---need-
or merit-based funds from private and nonfederal public sources. At the
sites we visited, students commonly used computers to perform
scholarship searches.

Project survey results suggest that project staff consider financial aid
services particularly important. An open-ended question in the survey
gave project directors an opportunity to list up to five program
activities that they thought contributed most to achieving their
performance objectives. Over 260 directors listed a total of 1,268
activities or services. Financial aid services were mentioned by more
respondents (39 percent) than any other service.[^8] The importance
placed on financial aid services probably stems from an understanding
that, for many Talent Search participants, especially those from
low-income families, financial assistance to help pay for educational
expenses will be critical if students are to achieve the program's
ultimate goal---enrollment in a postsecondary education program.

## Fee Waivers

One tangible service provided by many Talent Search projects is to
arrange for waivers for college entrance examination fees and college
application fees. The registration fees for the ACT and the SAT are
currently \$24 and \$25, respectively, and college application fees may
range up to \$50 or higher, so waivers can provide meaningful savings to
some economically disadvantaged Talent Search participants.

Roughly 80 percent of projects obtained SAT or ACT registration fee
waivers for at least one participant; a similar percent obtained college
application fee waivers (table 6.5). On average, projects obtained SAT
or ACT registration fee waivers for about 61 participants and college
application fee waivers for about 71 participants. The numbers are
equivalent to about 33 and 39 percent, respectively, of the average
number of high school seniors served by Talent Search projects. The
differences in the number of waivers secured by type of host institution
reflect differences in project size. For example, projects hosted by
community organizations served an average of 1,124 participants, whereas
projects hosted by 2-year colleges served an average of 728
participants.

  ------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- -----------
  Table 6.5---Provision of                                              
  fee waivers                                                           

                                       Host                             
                                       institution                      

                            All        Public 4-year Private   2-year   Community
                            projects                 4-year             org.

  Percent of projects                                                   
  providing waivers for                                                 

  SAT or ACT registration   82%        84%           87%       74%      87%
  fees                                                                  

  College application fees  78         81            75        73       83

  Average number of                                                     
  participants provided                                                 
  with waivers for:                                                     

  ACT or SAT registration   61         63            56        43       90
  fees                                                                  

  College application fees  71         73            50        50       115

  Total number of                                                       
  participants provided                                                 
  with waivers for:                                                     

  ACT or SAT registration   15,476     5,234         1,744     3,727    4,771
  fees                                                                  

  College application fees  16,884     5,884         1,422     4,023    5,555
  ------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- -----------

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

Talent Search projects that responded to our project survey provided ACT
or SAT fee waivers to 15,476 participants and college application fee
waivers to 16,884 participants. Assuming that item and survey
nonrespondents were as likely as respondents to provide waivers and that
they provided the same average number of waivers, then the estimated
total number of participants nationwide who received SAT or ACT
registration fee waivers would be 22,169, and the estimated total number
of participants nationwide who received college application fee waivers
would be 25,822.

## Summer Services

Talent Search services are not limited to the school year. Well over
half (61 percent) of all Talent Search projects offered at least some of
their participants a summer component (table 6.6). The percent was
similar across projects operated by different types of host
institutions. Overall, the group targeted most often for summer services
was middle school students: 89 percent of projects with a summer program
served middle school students, 69 percent served high school students,
and 35 percent served graduating seniors, presumably to help them make
the transition to college. A closer look reveals that 28 percent of
projects served all three groups, 31 percent served just middle and high
school students, and 27 percent served only middle school students.

  ------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- ------------
  Table 6.6---Provision of                                              
  summer services                                                       

                                       Host                             
                                       institution                      

                            All        Public 4-year Private   2-year   Community
                            projects                 4-year             org.

  Percent of projects with  61%        65%           59%       54%      68%
  a summer component                                                    

  Percentage of summer                                                  
  components serving:                                                   

  Middle school students    89         85            96        93       85

  High school students      69         68            70        71       68

  Graduating seniors        35         30            22        38       48

  Percent of summer                                                     
  components serving:                                                   

  Middle school students    27         27            30        25       30
  only                                                                  

  High school students only 6          10            4         2        5

  Graduating seniors only   1          0             0         2        0

  Middle school and high    31         32            43        36       18
  school students                                                       

  Middle school and         2          3             0         2        3
  graduating seniors                                                    

  High school and           5          3             0         4        10
  graduating seniors                                                    

  All three groups          28         23            22        30       35
  ------------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- ------------

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

The case study projects gave some indication of how summer components
may be structured. Project H, for example, ran an enrichment program for
middle school students. It operated half a day, five days a week, for
three weeks on the host college campus. Participants took a variety of
classes ranging from nutrition to computers. Project O offered three
short residential programs: one to help eighth graders make the
transition to high school, one to help rising high school seniors with
the college application process, and one to assist high school graduates
with the transition to college. Officials at these projects saw the
summer as an opportunity to provide more intensive services than during
the school year, and the experiences were well received by the students
who participated in them.

# Services for Nonstudents AND Nonparticipants

In this section, we shift our focus from services for participants as a
whole to services for certain groups---in particular, people who are not
typical participants: dropouts and out-of-school adults, parents,
nonofficial participants. We present data on the types and extent of
services offered to these groups and describe some of the major issues
involved in serving them.[^9]

## Services for Dropouts and Adults Not Enrolled in a Postsecondary Program

Thus far, we have focused on services for middle school and high school
students, but a small percent of Talent Search participants are not
enrolled in school. About 5 percent of participants served in 1998--99
were secondary school dropouts, postsecondary "stopouts," or people who
had received a high school diploma or GED but had never enrolled in a
postsecondary program.

Relatively little national information is available on services to
nonstudent participants. APR data presented in appendix C show that
adults were less likely than enrolled students to have participated in
test-taking and study-skills development services, tutoring, cultural
activities, and mentoring but more likely to have received academic
advising/course-selection services and referrals. APR data also showed
that, for the four academic support services, Talent Search projects
offered far fewer sessions for adults than for either middle or high
school students for the simple reason that students so greatly
outnumbered adults.

In the years since the EOC program was established, Talent Search
projects have generally decreased their emphasis on serving dropouts.
Indeed, project survey data in table 6.2 show that 22 percent of
directors reported that they placed a high priority on working with
dropouts or returning students, whereas 38 percent reported that they
placed a low priority on working with dropouts. (In contrast, 65 percent
of directors reported that their high school component was a high
priority while 8 percent reported that their high school component was a
low priority.) Furthermore, although about half (52 percent) of all
projects indicated that there was a high likelihood that they would
place greater emphasis on serving dropouts if they had more resources,
they rated several other groups and services as higher priorities. (For
example, 80 percent of projects reported a high likelihood of increasing
their emphasis on the high school component.)

Our case studies reinforced the impression that services for dropouts
and adults were generally a limited, marginal aspect of overall program
operations. At one project we visited, the usual approach was to refer
dropouts to vocational or alternative schools or other programs that
could help them prepare for the GED examination. According to another
project director, dropouts typically receive at most five hours of
service in a program year.[^10]

The minimal emphasis that case study projects placed on working with
dropouts was a result of both practical and philosophical
considerations. From a practical point of view, staff saw project
resources as insufficient to be effective in working with large numbers
of dropouts. Several staff commented that dropouts are a
difficult-to-serve group. They are out in the community, not
conveniently accessible at target schools, and likely to need academic
remediation---a type of assistance many projects cannot afford to
provide. Working with dropouts, one project director explained, requires
a different orientation and level of effort than serving enrolled
students. To serve dropouts properly, she said, would probably require
one staff member to be devoted solely to reaching out and to serving the
dropout population. Philosophically, many project staff were much more
interested in preventing students from dropping out than in working with
dropouts.

## Parental Involvement and Family Services

Some Talent Search projects seek to serve not only school-aged
participants but also their parents. Activities that involve parents in
their children's educations and provide them with information on the
college admission process, according to project staff, are useful ways
to increase the chances that students will ultimately achieve their
educational goals. In this section, we address the level and type of
parental involvement in Talent Search projects as well as some of the
issues related to serving parents.

The project survey found that 80 percent of projects offered some type
of family activity; APR data from 1998--99 showed that 84 percent of
projects offered such services.[^11] Nationally, one common type of
service provided to parents is information on financial aid and
assistance with financial aid forms. In the project survey, 87 percent
of projects reported that they offer workshops for parents on financial
aid, and 84 percent indicated they provide individual financial aid
counseling to parents.[^12]

The case studies further illuminate the various ways that parents are
involved in Talent Search. Common activities targeted specifically to
parents, or jointly to parents and their children, included information
and orientation meetings or open houses at both the start of the school
year and the start of certain other program components, such as summer
sessions; workshops on financial aid and college admissions; and
year-end award ceremonies. Parents were also commonly invited to
participate in regular Talent Search activities, such as serving as
chaperones during college visits and community service activities.

Staff at the case study projects also noted that they tried to keep
parents abreast of their children's project activities and passed along
useful information---ranging from college preparation steps to parenting
tips---via newsletters, other mailings, and, in rare cases, home visits.
(In addition, several parents we interviewed for the case studies said
that they felt free to call project staff with questions or concerns at
any time.) Table 6.7 presents project survey data on projects'
communications with parents. Telephone calls were the most common
method, used by 95 percent of all projects. Home visits were the least
common, used by less than one-third of all projects. There was some
variation between projects operated by different types of host
institutions. For example, projects hosted by community organizations
were less likely than other projects to use newsletters to communicate
with parents. Over three-fourths of the projects used at least three of
the methods listed. In addition, 34 percent of the projects indicated
that they also communicated with parents by some other means, most
commonly in meetings at target schools or project offices or during
activities.

  ----------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- ------------
  Table 6.7---Ways in                                                 
  which Talent Search                                                 
  projects communicated                                               
  with participants'                                                  
  parents: 1998--99                                                   

                                     Host                             
                                     institution                      

                          All        Public\       Private   2-year   Community
                          projects   4-year        4-year             org.

  Percent of projects                                                 
  using various means of                                              
  communication:                                                      

  Telephone calls         95%        93%           95%       96%      95%

  Personal letters        93         94            100       91       90

  Newsletters             80         88            82        79       67

  Home visits             31         28            44        30       33

  Percent of projects                                                 
  using                                                               

  All four of the above   25         24            38        23       21

  Three of the above      52         57            44        54       45

  Two of the above        20         14            18        19       33

  One of the above        3          4             0         4        2
  ----------------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- ------------

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

However, it is important to look beyond the percent of projects that
offer certain services and to consider the extent of project offerings
and the level of involvement among the target groups. APR data indicate
that projects provided an average of 94 family activity sessions in
1998--99. By way of context, the number of family activity sessions was
far below the average number of academic advisement and tutoring
sessions (673 and 547, respectively) but greater than the number of
cultural activity sessions (59). In addition, the number of
opportunities for a given parent to be involved would have been lower
than the total number of sessions offered, because not all events would
have been open to all parents; some would have been designed for parents
at individual target schools or for parents of students in particular
age groups.

The 1998--99 APR data also show that a relatively small proportion of
participants was involved in family services: overall, the average was
30 percent, including 27 percent of high school participants and 36
percent of middle school participants. For comparison, consider that 65
percent of participants were involved in academic
advising/course-selection services and that 77 percent received
counseling. Our project survey found that during 1998--99, projects
served at least one parent or guardian of, on average, 25 percent of
their student participants.

The relatively small number of parents involved in Talent Search
projects reflects two closely related factors. First, Talent Search
projects place less emphasis on parent services than on direct services
to students (table 6.2). According to the project survey, 14 percent of
projects reported that working with parents was a high priority while 41
percent reported that working with parents was a low priority.

Second, project staff seem to find parental involvement a particularly
challenging service area. Among directors who took the opportunity to
list up to three aspects of their projects that they considered
"particularly problematic," 19 percent mentioned parental involvement;
it was the second most frequently cited problem. Some case study project
staff admitted that their efforts to increase parental involvement in
their programs had not been particularly successful. Our impression was
that, in most cases, limited parental involvement did not result from
lack of trying. Rather, projects' efforts simply had not succeeded as
planned. At one project, for example, a staff member recalled that when
a financial aid workshop was offered in the evening at one target
school, no parents came. At another project, a staff member had tried
hosting parent "coffees" in the evening but soon canceled them because
of low attendance. Thus, the difficulty of involving parents can lead to
a reduced emphasis on parental participation.

Project staff cited several reasons for lower-than-desired levels of
parental involvement, although the most common reason was lack of time.
Parents were reportedly too busy working or fulfilling other family
responsibilities to attend program-sponsored activities. According to
two middle school teachers, hard-working but low-income parents were
often so focused on present necessities, such as earning enough money to
provide their families with food, shelter, and clothing, that they did
not always focus closely on their children's educational futures. Other
factors that reportedly affected projects' ability to generate parental
involvement included transportation difficulties, particularly in
projects serving large, rural areas; cultural backgrounds that did not
fully embrace the pursuit of higher education; limited English
proficiency; parental avoidance of situations in which parents might be
embarrassed about their own lack of education; and children from
"dysfunctional families" who did not reside with their parents.

Staff in several of the projects we visited for the case studies wanted
to do a better job working with parents and were interested in learning
about effective approaches. They thought that parental involvement was
important because, as one staff member put it, the more people students
have in their lives pushing them toward college, the better. As for
strategies to increase parental involvement, one staff member was
considering the possibility of offering incentives to students---such as
coupons or certificates that could be used toward the purchase of school
supplies, candy, or other items---for bringing their parents to certain
events. At another project, a staff member had found that telephoning
parents to invite them to activities seemed to prompt a higher response
rate. As in the case of other activities, though, efforts devoted to
attracting parents require resources. One project director reported that
she was interested in creating a parent advisory group but figured that
staff and financial resources were insufficient to support such an
initiative. The project survey revealed that 68 percent of projects
indicated a high likelihood that efforts focused on serving parents
would receive increased emphasis if projects had more resources (table
6.2).

## Serving Nonparticipants

Throughout this chapter, we have discussed services provided to official
program participants---students (and dropouts or other adults) who had
completed an application and would be served at least twice during the
year. However, our case studies revealed some instances in which Talent
Search projects provided services on a regular (or irregular) basis to
students who were not counted as official program participants. We are
not referring to initial, introductory sessions used to recruit new
participants but rather to recurring services. Our case studies revealed
various rationales for, and examples of, services provided to
nonparticipants.

A fundamental reason why projects served unofficial participants was
that the number of students in need of services exceeded the number of
students the projects were supposed to serve. One project we visited,
for example, served a large rural area wherein students reportedly had
access to virtually no other precollege programs or services besides
Talent Search. Many of the target schools were small and had limited
resources; guidance counselors were either nonexistent or, by their own
admission, too busy to provide students with much in-depth advice on
preparing for college. Project staff tried to help by sometimes
delivering informational workshops to literally all the students in
certain grade levels, especially high school juniors and seniors, for
whom career and college information was most salient. However, the
project reserved the large share of its services, including
individualized assistance and college visitation trips, for official
program participants.

Staff at other projects explained that the occasional provision of
services to unofficial participants was an important strategy for
maintaining positive relations with target school officials. Providing a
limited amount of service to unofficial participants---whether in a
group, such as a whole classroom or a grade-level assembly, or
individually on a drop-in basis---was a useful way to achieve and
sustain good access to official program participants.[^13]

Regardless of the rationale, however, project personnel felt that they
could provide some degree of services to unofficial participants without
diluting the services designed for official participants and at no
additional cost. If they planned a workshop for 30 official
participants, they reasoned, what could be the harm in expanding the
group to include some unofficial participants as well?

# common Service themes and Issues

Although the next section of this chapter emphasizes diversity and
variability of services between and within Talent Search projects, some
insights that emerged from our case studies seem broadly applicable to
most sites or to the program as a whole. This section therefore
describes a few such issues and practices, particularly those relating
to overall program intensity, projects' responses to limits on service
capacity, the emphasis on serving high school students, and serving
students through a pull-out approach.

## Service Intensity and Extent of Student Involvement

Talent Search is generally a nonintensive program, as reflected in two
major features that were evident in the case study projects. The first
feature is the limited number and types of services offered to any
particular participant or participant group. In view of the average
funding level per participant, projects are able to provide most
participants with what might be termed a "light touch" rather than with
a heavy dose of precollege services. In some projects we visited, for
example, staff scheduled activities with most students once a month or
less often. With the exception of field trips, such as college visits,
the activities that most students participated in seldom lasted longer
than one hour.

Even if staff visited target schools frequently, they did not
necessarily make frequent contact with all participants. Table 6.8
illustrates the point with data on services provided by a Talent Search
advisor from one of the case study projects. Although the advisor
visited his three target schools once a week, he saw a majority of
participants five times or less during the first seven months of the
1998--99 school year. Variation in the number of contacts was a function
of both the number of times the staff member tried to reach the students
(which in turn was a function of the staff member's sense of student
needs and interests) and the students' responsiveness and initiative.

+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Table        |            |            |            |               |
| 6.8          |            |            |            |               |
| ---Frequency |            |            |            |               |
| of contact   |            |            |            |               |
| during       |            |            |            |               |
| 1998--99 (as |            |            |            |               |
| of April 9,  |            |            |            |               |
| 1999), for   |            |            |            |               |
| three target |            |            |            |               |
| high schools |            |            |            |               |
| in one       |            |            |            |               |
| project      |            |            |            |               |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Number of    | By high    |            |            | All high      |
| times        | school     |            |            | schools       |
| students     |            |            |            | combined      |
| were seen    |            |            |            |               |
|              |            |            |            | (180          |
|              |            |            |            | students)     |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
|              | School A   | School B   | School C   |               |
|              |            |            |            |               |
|              | (63        | (42        | (75        |               |
|              | students)  | students)  | students)  |               |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Zero         | 11%        | 24%        | 9%         | 13%           |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| 1 -- 5       | 56         | 48         | 60         | 56            |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| 6 -- 10      | 17         | 21         | 15         | 17            |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| 11 -- 15     | 14         | 2          | 5          | 8             |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| 16 -- 20     | 2          | 5          | 8          | 5             |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| 21 or more   | 0          | 0          | 3          | 1             |
+--------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+

[Source]{.smallcaps}: Project staff.

The second program feature that reflects Talent Search's
characterization as nonintensive is the limited time and commitment
required of participants. While projects encouraged multiyear
participation, most of the case study projects did not require students
to make a multiyear commitment; furthermore, in some cases, students
might not have participated in a project until their senior year of high
school. In addition, across all the projects we visited, participation
in many services was optional. Students were free to decide for
themselves whether to attend a given workshop, sign up for a particular
campus visit, participate in a project-sponsored cultural activity, and
so on. A staff member at one project estimated that he saw perhaps 40
percent of the participants at his assigned schools on a regular basis.
At another project, the attendance level at workshops in the year before
our visit reportedly averaged 60 percent.

Some projects might have strongly encouraged certain students to
participate in certain services---for example, students struggling in
school might be urged to take advantage of project-sponsored tutoring
services---but they did not require such participation and imposed no
consequences if students did not avail themselves of the services.
Rather, the underlying philosophy and message was that students could
involve themselves in as many or few precollege services as they wanted.
Staff in various projects commonly offered comments such as "You can't
force them to come to program activities." Unless they violated certain
project rules (e.g., unacceptable behavior or, in some projects, grades
below a minimum GPA standard) or said explicitly that they did not want
to be involved in the project any longer, even students with a minimal
record of participation would typically be retained on the project roll
from year to year in case they ever decided to increase their
involvement.

National information also supports the depiction of Talent Search as a
low-intensity experience for most participants. The project survey
results show that, on average, 38 percent of middle school students and
48 percent of high school students spent less than 10 hours in program
activities over the course of the 1998--99 program year (table 6.9). On
average, fewer than one in five middle school participants and fewer
than one in seven high school participants received more than 40 hours
of service. Dropouts and out-of-school adults usually accumulated fewer
contact hours than their in-school counterparts.

  ----------------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------
  Table 6.9---Hours spent                                  
  in Talent Search                                         
  services/activities:                                     
  1998--99                                                 

  Average percentage of   Middle school    High school     Participants
  participants receiving: participants     participants    not in school

  One hour or less        7%               8%              15%

  Two to four hours       13               16              35

  Five to nine hours      18               24              25

  10 to 19 hours          24               24              12

  20 to 39 hours          19               16              5

  40 hours or more        19               13              8
  ----------------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------

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

Despite the preceding depiction of Talent Search as generally
nonintensive, it is worth noting that several case study projects did
sponsor at least one more-intensive activity for some participants. For
example, one project held a series of week-long "technology camps"
during the summer; a second project offered a three-week summer
enrichment program for middle school students; and a third project
operated an intensive college preparation component during the school
year for high school students, in which participants took structured
academic classes after school.

## Limited Capacity

Resource constraints (for example, funds or even the number of seats in
a passenger van) often prevented case study projects from providing
various services to as many students as desired. When capacity was
limited, projects usually handled participation on a first-come,
first-served basis. In this way, Talent Search projects catered to the
most interested and motivated participants. Sometimes eligibility to
participate in limited-capacity events and activities was based on
student performance in school or other factors. At one project, for
example, high school students interested in a multiday trip to visit
colleges in a distant state had to (1) earn at least a 3.2 GPA in the
fall semester and (2) submit short written reports describing (a) their
main career interest, colleges that would help them prepare for that
career, and high school courses that would help them prepare for the
specified colleges and (b) how they planned to pay for college. The 50
students who did the best job on the reports and met the GPA requirement
were invited on the trip.

The project survey collected information on the ability of Talent Search
projects to provide services to all who requested them. Most of the
projects that offered a given service were able to serve all the
participants who requested the service (table 6.10). For example, 88
percent of the projects that offered counseling were able to provide it
to all who requested it. In some cases, however, it was a slim majority.
For example, 49 percent of projects that offered mentoring were unable
to provide it to all the participants who requested it, and among
projects that offered tutoring, 47 percent were unable to provide it to
all who requested it. Some projects that could not meet the demand for
various services kept waiting lists for interested participants,
although the exception of ever-popular campus visits---most did not
maintain such lists.

  ---------------------- ------------------------- -----------------------
  Table 6.10---Talent                              
  Search projects'                                 
  ability to provide                               
  requested services                               

                         Of the projects that      Of the projects unable
                         offered service, percent  to provide it to all
                         unable to provide it to   who requested it,
                         all who requested it      percent that maintained
                                                   a waiting list for the
                                                   service

  Academic support                                 
  services                                         

  Test-taking and        14%                       41%
  study-skills                                     
  development                                      

  Academic               13                        38
  advising/course                                  
  selection                                        

  Tutoring               47                        42

  Assisted (computer)    37                        24
  labs                                             

  Personal and career                              
  development services                             

  College orientation    18                        37
  activities                                       

  Visits to college      40                        54
  campuses                                         

  Cultural activities    41                        44

  Referrals              13                        20

  Counseling             12                        33

  Family activities      22                        20

  Mentoring              49                        31
  ---------------------- ------------------------- -----------------------

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

It appears that the services for which projects had the most difficulty
meeting demand are the ones that are most resource-intensive. Mentoring
and tutoring, for example, require a low participant-staff ratio and
sustained personal attention. Campus visits and, in some cases, cultural
activities require transportation, which can be expensive.

## Grade-Level Emphasis

Most of the case study projects placed a somewhat greater emphasis on
services for high school students than on services for middle school
students---or at least the emphasis on the two groups was about equal;
certainly no projects did more for middle school students than for high
school students. Data from the project survey support the notion that
high school students were a major focus of the Talent Search program.
First, projects served, on average, more than twice as many high school
students as middle school students. Second, when asked about the
priority they placed on working with various groups and providing
various services, 65 percent of projects rated their senior high
component as a high priority; no other item rated higher (table
6.2).[^14] The project survey did not ask a parallel question about
projects' middle school components.

Interestingly, however, for some projects, the group that apparently
provided the greatest service challenge was high school freshmen and
sophomores. College was not as immediate a concern for them as it was
for juniors and seniors, and, staff said, freshmen and sophomores did
not necessarily respond as well to the types of services commonly
provided to middle school students, such as workshops focused on
personal development issues like self-esteem or interpersonal
relationships.

## Service Setting and Approach

Except for college campus visits and other field trips, most Talent
Search services take place at target middle schools and high schools.
Moreover, our case studies led to the firm impression that the pull-out
approach to service delivery, in which students are temporarily pulled
out of their regular classes to participate in program activities, is
predominant in Talent Search. In fact, most of the case study projects
provided many of their workshops, counseling and advising sessions, and
other activities in the form of pull-out sessions. Depending on the
activity and the school's class schedule, students pulled out of class
might miss anywhere from less than half a class to an entire class
period or more.

But sometimes the pull-out approach was problematic---and by some
accounts was becoming increasingly so. It was not uncommon for some
students to skip Talent Search workshops or other activities in favor of
attending their regular classes. In addition, teachers occasionally
refused to allow participants to leave classes for Talent Search
activities. Some project staff felt that increasing pressure on schools
to ensure that students meet certain academic standards (for example,
passing high-stakes tests) has contributed to teachers' and
administrators' reluctance to release students for extracurricular
activities such as Talent Search and that such pressure would only
continue to mount.

What are the alternatives to the pull-out approach? One strategy is to
provide services during school hours but at times when students are not
committed to specific classes. In some cases, project staff scheduled
services during lunch or other free times such as an activity period or
study hall. A second alternative is to conduct activities outside
regular school hours. One project we visited, for example, made an
effort not to schedule college trips on regular school days, instead
targeting district work days or vacation days. The projects that offered
fairly extensive tutoring services tended to offer their sessions after
school. A third alternative to the pull-out approach is to serve
students in their regular classrooms. The middle school section of
appendix A provides some examples of how projects served students in
their classrooms. Project survey data show that many Talent Search
projects served at least some students in the classroom; 43 percent of
all projects reported that they served entire classrooms once a month or
more often. But, if our case studies are any indication, the in-class
approach is probably limited to a small number of classrooms in a small
number of target schools. It was the exception to the rule, not the main
service method for any of the 14 projects we visited.

Rather than altogether abandoning the pull-out approach, some projects
tried to minimize its potentially negative impact on students. One
project, for example, scheduled workshops at different times during the
school day from month to month so that students would not be repeatedly
pulled out of the same class. At another project, staff timed their
meetings with individual students so that students would not be pulled
from their core academic classes. Finally, some staff members spoke of
trying to design a cohesive set of activities that teachers would see as
educationally credible, thereby increasing the chances that teachers
would willingly release program participants from class.

Unfortunately, staff sometimes felt that they had few, if any, sound
alternatives to the pull-out approach. Staff commonly saw the hours when
classes were being held as the only feasible time to meet with most
participants. Meeting only during lunch period clearly limits the time
available for Talent Search activities at a given target school on a
given day. After-school meetings would be less than ideal for students
who hold part-time jobs, participate in sports or other extracurricular
activities, or rely on a school bus for transportation (especially in
rural areas where the journey home may be long and parents cannot easily
pick up their children). Weekends also would be problematic because of
students' work or personal commitments and project staff's preference
for traditional hours. Furthermore, schools are usually not open on
weekends, raising the question of where meetings would take place; in
addition, distance and a lack of transportation would keep many students
from traveling to the host institution. Serving students in their
regular classes clearly avoids putting participants at a disadvantage
relative to their classmates in terms of learning course material, but
turning over instructional time to an outside group offering precollege
services requires a high level of buy-in from school administrators and
staff. Faced with these issues, one of the case-study projects had
recently dropped a high school (and its two feeder middle schools) from
its set of target schools because project staff felt that school staff
were overly restricting their access to participants through the
pull-out approach.

# Variability of Talent Search Services and Activities

The preceding sections of this chapter presented a fairly broad picture
of Talent Search services and activities. The purpose of this section,
based on our 14 case studies, is to convey a more detailed sense of how
projects serve participants. In particular, we describe the high degree
of variability in services not only between projects but also within
projects.

## Service Variability between Projects

Although many of the case study projects provided a broadly similar set
of services relevant to the goals of the program, a close look reveals
some substantial differences in the services that individual Talent
Search projects provided. There was variability in how services were
delivered as well as when, where, to whom, and by whom. In some
respects, when the details are considered, service differences are far
more apparent than service similarities.

### Different Service Plans

One of the characteristics shared by virtually all Talent Search
projects is the great diversity of their offerings. The projects we
visited typically provided a wide variety of activities. Rather than
focusing most of their resources and efforts on just a few types of
services, they leaned toward offering a little of everything. But the
specific mix of services, not to mention the delivery methods and groups
targeted for those services, varied considerably. This variability is
exemplified by the service plans of three of the projects we visited, as
outlined on the following three pages.

### Planning and Timing of Services

The case studies also revealed that projects varied in how they
approached the planning of services and activities. Before the start of
each school year, some projects developed detailed service plans for
each grade level of each target school. The plans listed specific
activities that would take place on specific dates, including workshop
topics and the names of colleges to be visited. At the other end of the
continuum, some projects did not produce a service schedule in advance
of the school year. Instead, staff improvised by reacting to students'
interests and developing service ideas and plans over the course of the
year. Such an approach did not necessarily mean that services and
activities varied dramatically from year to year. Indeed, the basic
framework remained largely unchanged as staff were guided by general
notions of the types of services that students needed at different grade
levels and at different points in the year and, in some cases, by
project-specific guidelines or goals for the number of different types
of activities that would be provided each year. Finally, some projects
used a planning approach that fell somewhere between the two described
above. At one project, for example, staff members consulted with
appropriate target school officials before the year began to agree on
the general number and timing of workshops by grade level as well as on
possible topics, with details to be addressed during the year.

Regardless of the planning approach, many projects' service plans had a
similar rhythm from year to year. For example, projects commonly started
the school year with a parental participation opportunity, such as an
"open house" at the target schools, and many ended the year with a
recognition or awards ceremony to which parents were often also invited.
During the year, the timing of some standard but major services,
particularly for high school students, was a function of the deadlines
for important events in the college admission process, such as the
scheduled dates of college entrance examinations and the deadlines for
filing admissions and financial aid applications.

## Service Variability within Projects

The degree of service variability among projects, highlighted above, was
at least matched by the variability of services within projects. That
projects would design and provide different types and numbers of
services for students in different grade levels is not surprising. After
all, when it comes to preparing for college, the needs and interests of
6th and 7th graders differ markedly from those of 11th and 12th graders.
In fact, given that service variation by grade level within projects is
not particularly noteworthy, we pay little attention to it in this
section. However, people unfamiliar with the Talent Search program may
be somewhat surprised by the extent to which projects may offer
different services even for students in the same grade level but at
different schools.

The variability in service offerings for different students within the
same project is illustrated by a few examples from sites we visited.
First, table 6.12 shows the service plans devised by one staff member
for two target schools of roughly similar size. It reveals considerable
variability by both grade level and school in the *frequency* of major
services. For example, at school B, the project staff member planned to
see sixth graders half as many times as seniors at the same school, but
she would see seniors at school B less than half as many times as
seniors at school A.

  ----------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------
  Table 6.12---Number of                           
  workshops planned for                            
  1998--99, by grade                               
  level, at two target                             
  schools in the same                              
  Talent Search project                            

  Grade Level             School A                 School B

  6                       3                        2

  7                       [3]{.smallcaps}          2

  8                       6                        2

  9                       6                        2

  10                      6                        2

  11                      6                        3

  12                      9                        4
  ----------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------

[Source]{.smallcaps}: Project staff.

Second, table 6.13 illustrates *subject matter or content* variation.
Even within one project, staff members serving different schools may
devise different service plans for students at the same grade level. For
example, the workshops at high school 1 focused more on personal
development (for example, sessions on self-esteem and peer pressure)
than did those at high school 2, and the two groups of students visited
entirely different sets of universities on their respective college
tours.

+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| Table  |                             |                              |
| 6.     |                             |                              |
| 13---S |                             |                              |
| ervice |                             |                              |
| plans  |                             |                              |
| for    |                             |                              |
| soph   |                             |                              |
| omores |                             |                              |
| at two |                             |                              |
| high   |                             |                              |
| s      |                             |                              |
| chools |                             |                              |
| within |                             |                              |
| the    |                             |                              |
| same   |                             |                              |
| Talent |                             |                              |
| Search |                             |                              |
| pr     |                             |                              |
| oject, |                             |                              |
| but    |                             |                              |
| served |                             |                              |
| by     |                             |                              |
| dif    |                             |                              |
| ferent |                             |                              |
| staff  |                             |                              |
| me     |                             |                              |
| mbers: |                             |                              |
| 19     |                             |                              |
| 98--99 |                             |                              |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
|        | High school 1 (Talent       | High school 2 (Talent Search |
|        | Search advisor A)           | advisor B)                   |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| Sep    | Workshop on self-esteem     | Workshop on the PSAT exam    |
| tember |                             |                              |
|        | College tour (University R) | Parent night                 |
|        | and visit to art museum     |                              |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| O      | Parent night                | Workshop on using high       |
| ctober |                             | school to get ready for      |
|        | Workshop on time management | college                      |
|        | and goal setting            |                              |
|        |                             | College Tour (University V)  |
|        |                             |                              |
|        |                             | Parent involvement:          |
|        |                             | scholarship night            |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| No     | Workshop on career          | Workshop on making campus    |
| vember | awareness and major         | visits                       |
|        | selection                   |                              |
|        |                             | College tour (University W)  |
|        | College tour (University S) |                              |
|        | and lecture by a professor  | College tour (University X)  |
|        |                             |                              |
|        | Community service project   | Community service project    |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| De     | Workshop on essay writing   | Workshop on choosing a       |
| cember |                             | college                      |
|        |                             |                              |
|        |                             | Parent involvement: college  |
|        |                             | night                        |
|        |                             |                              |
|        |                             | Community service project    |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| J      | Workshop on note taking     | Workshop on financial aid    |
| anuary |                             |                              |
|        |                             | College tour (University Y   |
|        |                             | and University Z)            |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| Fe     | Workshop on peer pressure   | Workshop on test taking      |
| bruary | and decision making         |                              |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| March  | College tour (University T  | Workshop on careers          |
|        | and University U)           |                              |
|        |                             |                              |
|        | Workshop on upcoming        |                              |
|        | community service project   |                              |
|        |                             |                              |
|        | Community service project   |                              |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| April  | Workshop on the SAT exam    | Workshop on course, major,   |
|        |                             | and career selection         |
|        | Cultural trip to nearby     |                              |
|        | town                        |                              |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| May    | Scholarship walk-a-thon     | Scholarship walk-a-thon      |
|        |                             |                              |
|        | End of year review          | Workshop on military service |
|        |                             |                              |
|        |                             | End of year review (with     |
|        |                             | parents)                     |
+--------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+

[Source]{.smallcaps}: Project staff.

Finally, a few projects used different *service delivery methods* for
students in the same grade levels but at different target schools. In
one of these projects, a staff member provided in-class services once a
week to three sixth-grade classes at one school and to one sixth-grade
class at a different school. His colleagues at other middle schools
typically met with participants before or after school rather than in
their regular classes. Similarly, at another project, the director
provided in-class services (for example, games and personal development
exercises) every other week to literally every student in a particular
middle school, whereas staff serving other target middle schools met
with participants after school once or twice a week (primarily for
tutoring).

## Why Such Variability in Student Services?

The variability in Talent Search services, both between and within
projects, reflects several factors. One of the most significant factors
was the size of the target area. Projects that served relatively large
areas, for example, found it impractical to hold many events in a
single, central location, such as the host institution, because of
transportation issues. These projects tended to provide the vast
majority of their services at target schools. In contrast, projects that
served relatively small target areas could, and often did, provide
services in a central location. For example, a project serving a cluster
of inner-city schools provided a wide variety of services after school
every day at its headquarters; another project in a similar setting
offered drop-in tutoring every afternoon as well as Saturday morning
test-preparation courses at its host institution offices.

A related factor was the number of target schools. Projects with a
relatively large number of target schools tended to provide services
less often than projects with relatively few target schools. In the case
study project with the greatest number of target schools (36), staff
seldom visited their assigned schools to meet with students and conduct
workshops more than once a month, whereas, at the other end of the
continuum, staff in two projects with seven target schools visited each
school at least once a week and, in some cases, four days a week.

Target school receptivity also had an important influence on service
variability. Project staff reported spending more time at and working
more closely with target schools that welcomed and supported the Talent
Search program and facilitated student access.

Clearly, some service differences reflected the different needs of
various groups or types of participants as determined by project staff
and school staff. For example, projects serving isolated rural
communities may see a greater need for cultural activities than projects
based in large cities, and a project may identify a greater need for
tutoring among middle school students than among its high school
participants. The service variability highlighted in table 6.12 resulted
primarily from the views of chief school officials on the types of
workshops needed by students at different grade levels and the number of
times that students could and ought to be pulled out of class for such
sessions.

Another factor behind service differences was resources. Federal funding
levels are an issue underlying intraproject service variability. Average
funding levels (about \$300 per participant) can force projects to make
trade-offs. For example, if project staff want to implement a highly
resource-intensive service in one place or for one participant group,
they may have to balance their plans with less resource-intensive
services provided in other places or for other groups. Federal funding
levels, however, are *not* an important issue in service differences
between projects. All projects face generally similar constraints in
terms of grant dollars per participant. Therefore, grant dollars alone
are an unlikely cause of different projects adopting widely different
service strategies. Much more important to explaining between-project
differences is the availability of additional resources such as cash or
in-kind contributions from other sources. In cases where projects
provided uncommon services, the ability to underwrite those services was
often attributable to extra resources. For example, extensive support
from Microsoft® was pivotal to the ability of two case study projects to
make heavy use of computers in serving students.

Yet another factor was flexible federal guidelines for program
operations. Regulations list various categories of services that
projects may provide, but they do not specify any services that projects
*must* provide for any particular types of participants, let alone
details such as service volume or frequency. Thus, Talent Search by
design allows projects great discretion in how, when, where, and how
much they serve participants to meet program objectives.

Finally, the initiative, preferences, and creativity of Talent Search
project staff should not be overlooked. Inter- and intraproject service
variation clearly derived in part from staff members' ideas about how
best to conduct program activities and how best to take advantage of the
discretion accorded projects by program rules. Some projects, for
example, placed a relatively high priority on providing a generally
consistent set of services across schools. At a project that had,
overall, one of the least variable service plans we saw, the director
seemed to think that introducing substantial variations in program
offerings, such as a high-intensity versus a low-intensity component,
would raise equity concerns among major stakeholders. Other projects,
though, were more open to varying the type and amount of services
available to different participants. Even in the absence of external
circumstances that might force them to alter their service mix, such as
unexpected changes in target school policies, some projects experimented
with new ways of helping various students prepare for a postsecondary
education. The scope and range of such efforts had a direct impact on
service variability.

[^1]: This type of service is defined in the APR as academic support or
    tutoring provided through a learning or computer center and can
    include computer-assisted instruction.

[^2]: APR information on academic support services, including the
    percentages of students receiving those services, is presented in
    appendix C.

[^3]: As explained in chapter 1, we do not reveal the identity of the
    projects we studied.

[^4]: APR information on personal and career development services is
    presented in appendix C.

[^5]: ^5^Family services are described in the section entitled "Services
    for Nonstudents and Nonparticipants."

[^6]: Additional information on referrals is presented in appendix C.

[^7]: Participants who are "college ready" include high school seniors
    and individuals who graduated from high school or received a GED but
    have not enrolled in college.

[^8]: Campus visits were a close second, mentioned by 38 percent of
    responding directors. Other results of note: tutoring was cited by
    19 percent, assistance with postsecondary applications by 18
    percent, career counseling services by 17 percent, academic advising
    by 13 percent, and college orientation activities by 12 percent.

[^9]: Appendix C presents survey data on special services for persons
    with disabilities.

[^10]: When asked about working with dropouts, staff in a few projects
    mentioned their connections to alternative high schools. At one
    project, for example, staff described visiting two such schools on
    an as-needed basis to work individually with interested students.
    But youth attending alternative high schools are not dropouts; they
    are enrolled in a secondary education program and working toward a
    high school credential, although some may be former dropouts who
    returned to school for that purpose.

[^11]: This is defined in the APR instructions as "events, workshops,
    meetings, and counseling designed to provide families with
    information on postsecondary educational opportunities and financial
    aid available and to involve them in the educational decisions of
    their children."

[^12]: One reason why these percent are higher than the percent of
    projects that reported providing family services (80 percent) could
    be that the term "family services" was undefined in our survey,
    whereas the APR explicitly mentions providing families with
    financial aid information in its definition of family service. In
    addition, the items about family services and particular financial
    aid services appeared in different questions in different parts of
    the questionnaire.

[^13]: Such reciprocal arrangements were fairly common among the
    projects we visited and appeared to be a basic contextual feature of
    Talent Search program operations. Two of our case study projects,
    for example, routinely shared a substantial amount of computer
    software with their target schools; in turn, school officials were
    willing to host the program and generously provided Talent Search
    staff with office and classroom space, use of office machines and
    supplies, and access to student files.

[^14]: Furthermore, when asked how they would respond to having more
    resources, 80 percent of projects reported a high likelihood of
    increasing their emphasis on the senior high school component. Only
    one item, time for staff to meet individually with participants,
    rated higher.