**This is some**

+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|                 | #######                                            |
|                 | # [Policy and Program Studies Service]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+

**Implementation of the Talent Search Program, Past and Present**

**Final Report from Phase I of the National Evaluation**

**2004**

######### 

+--------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
|                          |                           | ![           |
|                          |                           | ](media/imag |
|                          |                           | e1.jpeg){wid |
|                          |                           | th="1.475in" |
|                          |                           | heigh        |
|                          |                           | t="1.475in"} |
+--------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
| **[U.S. Department of    | **[Office of the Under    |              |
| Education]{.smallcaps}** | Secretary]{.smallcaps}**  |              |
|                          |                           |              |
| **[Doc \#                |                           |              |
| 2004-4]{.smallcaps}**    |                           |              |
+--------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+

**Implementation of the Talent Search Program, Past and Present**

**Final Report from Phase I of the National Evaluation**

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Contract No. ED-98-CO-0073

Prepared by:

Maggie Cahalan

Tim Silva

Justin Humphrey

Melissa Thomas

Kusuma Cunningham

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Washington, D.C.

2004

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract Number ED-98-CO-0073 with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. The
project officer was Sandra Furey in the Policy and Program Studies
Service. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the
positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official
endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be
inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Rod Paige

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Eugene Hickok

*Under Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies**

David Goodwin

*Director*

January 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies
Service, *Implementation of the Talent Search Program, Past and Present,
Final Report from Phase I of the National Evaluation*, Washington, D.C.,
2004.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to: edpubs@inet.gov.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at
www.ed.gov/about/offices/lists/OUS/PPSS/reports.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at

\(202\) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Every study depends on the cooperation and coordination of many people.
First, we acknowledge with gratitude the Talent Search project staff who
work each day to achieve the goals of the program. They took time from
their busy schedules to provide the information upon which the report is
based. Without their very extensive cooperation, the study could not
have been conducted.

The National Evaluation of Talent Search is being conducted under the
sponsorship and direction of the Policy and Program Studies Service
(formerly the Planning and Evaluation Service) of the U.S. Department of
Education. The study was fortunate to have the technical support of
Sandra Furey, the Project Officer, who gave consistently helpful
technical guidance, and provided encouraging review and oversight
throughout the study. Alan Ginsburg, Director of the Policy and Program
Studies Service, and David Goodwin, Director of the Postsecondary and
Adult Vocational Education Division, provided on-going support for the
study. Robert Belle, Frances Bergeron, and Peggy Whitehead of the Office
of Federal TRIO Programs provided continuing encouragement and support
for the study and critical access to Talent Search records. Arnold
Mitchem, Maureen Hoyler, Julia Tower, Debra Henderson, and Andrea Reeve
of the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) provided access to
information, as well as strong interest and commitment to the study.
Technical Review Panel members---Paul Beasley, Anne Coles, Paula Martin,
and Gary Natriello---gave helpful review of the original study design
and data collection instruments.

The study was performed under contract by Mathematica Policy Research
Inc., and subcontract with Decision Information Resources, Inc., and
Branch Associates. Maggie Cahalan of Mathematica served as project
director through the submission of the first draft of this report. The
rest of the Mathematica project team included Jacqueline Agufa, Kusuma
Cunningham, Mark Dynarski, Justin Humphrey, Julia Kim, Myles Maxfield,
Dan O' Connor, Tim Silva, Melissa Thomas, and Jessica Wilkins. Alvia
Branch of Branch Associates; Russell Jackson, Consuelo Arbona, and Carol
Pistorino of DIR; and Lana Muraskin participated in the design of the
study, conducted site visits, and prepared case study reports. Alfreda
Holmes was responsible for word processing, layout and graphics and
Daryl Hall coordinated editing of the report. Mary Moore, David Myers,
and Jill Constantine provided very helpful and constructive quality
assurance review at Mathematica.

**CONTENTS**

**Chapter Page**

**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS** v

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** xxi

1 Introduction 1

The Congressional Authorization for the Study 1

Talent Search Program Background 2

Project Goals and Services 2

Talent Search in the Context of Other TRIO Programs 4

Study Objectives, Components, and Research Questions 5

Study Components 5

Research Questions 6

IMPLEMENTATION STUDY METHODOLOGY 7

Project Surveys 7

Case Studies 8

Performance Reports 9

U.S. Department of Education Data Sets 9

Structure of the Remainder of the Report 10

2 a Historical overview of the program: 1965--2000 11

Statistics concerning the talent seArch program 12

TRIO and Talent Search Funding History 12

Total Number of Projects and Participants 14

Funding per Project and Number Served per Project 15

Average Number Served per Project and Funding per Student 16

Current Profile of Projects: Funding and Participants 18

LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING TALENT SEARCH: 1965--2000 19

**CONTENTS** *(continued)*

**Chapter Page**

Shift from Conducting a Talent Search to Focusing on Access and Talent
Development for All 19

Defining Eligibility Criteria 20

Targeting Younger Students 21

Coordinating Services 21

The Grant Selection Process 22

Serving the Under-Represented: The General Education Provisions Act 26

Performance Measurement: Government Performance and Results Act 26

Partnership Agreements 27

continuity and change over time 27

previous studies of talent search 29

3 PROJECT HOSTS and tarGET SCHOOLS 33

CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING GRANTS 34

Area Served 34

Regional Location 35

General characteristics of postsecondary grantee institutions 36

Institution Control 36

Carnegie Classification 37

Grantee Institution Size 39

Minority Enrollment at Grantee Host Institutions 40

Black Enrollment at Host Institutions 41

Hispanic Enrollment at Host Institutions 42

Asian and Pacific Islander, and American Indian and Alaska Native
Enrollment at Host Institutions 44

Presence of Other Programs at the Host INSTITUTION 46

number and CHARACTERISTICS OF TALENT SEARCH TARGET SCHOOLS 47

Describing Target Schools with the Common Core of Data 48

Estimates of Eligible Students Served 56

Unmet Need in Target Area 58

**CONTENTS** *(continued)*

**Chapter Page**

Choosing Target Schools 59

Service Area and Target School Context 60

4 PROJECT STAFF AND ORGANIZATION 63

[PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFF ROLES]{.smallcaps} 64

Project Age 64

Overview of Staff 65

Undergraduate Student and Volunteer Staff 67

Staff Positions 68

STAFF MODELS and responsibilities 69

Staff Characteristics 72

Staff Gender and Race/Ethnicity 72

Staff Education 73

Staff Salaries 75

Use of Language Other than English 75

Project directors' and Coordinators' experience and commitment to
Project 76

Time Allocation of Staff 78

Use of External Review Boards 80

Talent Search Operating Budget 81

Staff Relations, Turnover, and Other Issues 83

Staff Autonomy and Creativity 83

Role Models 83

Staff Turnover 83

Student--Staff Relations 84

Relations Among Staff 85

Relations with Target Schools 85

Talent Search and School Counselors 86

**CONTENTS** *(continued)*

**Chapter Page**

5 ProGrAm PARTICIPANTs 89

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 90

Gender and Race/Ethnicity 90

Participant Age 91

Participant Grade Level 92

Serving Middle School Students 92

Other Groups Served 93

Participants with Limited English Proficiency 93

Participant Eligibility Status 94

PARTICIPANT TARGETING AND RECRUITING 94

Participant Targeting, Application, and Participation 95

Types of Students Targeted and Disqualified 96

Participant Targeting in the Case Study Sites 98

PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT METHODS 100

APPLICATION and participation REQUIREMENTS 102

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES for TARGETED STUDENTS 104

Participants' Educational Aspirations 106

INDIVIDUAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND SERVICE PLANS 107

6 TALENT SEARCH SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES 111

Overview of Services and Activities 111

Overview of Services and Activities 112

Academic Support Services 112

Personal and Career Development Services 115

Financial Aid Services 118

Fee Waivers 120

Summer Services 121

Services for Nonstudents AND Nonparticipants 123

**CONTENTS** *(continued)*

**Chapter Page**

Services for Dropouts and Adults Not Enrolled in a Postsecondary Program
123

Parental Involvement and Family Services 124

Serving Nonparticipants 128

common Service themes and Issues 129

Service Intensity and Extent of Student Involvement 129

Limited Capacity 131

Grade-Level Emphasis 132

Service Setting and Approach 133

Variability of Talent Search Services and Activities 134

Service Variability between Projects 135

Service Variability within Projects 139

Why Such Variability in Student Services? 142

7 PROJECT OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES, AND DATA 145

Talent Search Projects' Outcome Objectives 146

Participant Outcomes 149

Project-Reported Information on Outcomes 149

Subjective Information on Outcomes 153

Project Data, Record Keeping, and Evaluation 159

**REFERENCES 169**

**APPENDIX A:** A FOCUSED LOOK AT THREE TYPES OF SERVICES: PROVIDING
ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE, USING TECHNOLOGY, AND SERVING MIDDLE SCHOOL
STUDENTS. A-1

**APPENDIX B:** WHAT HAPPENS WHEN TALENT SEARCH PROJECTS SHUT DOWN? B-1

**APPENDIX C:** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON TALENT SEARCH SERVICES AND
ACTIVITIES C-1

> **APPENDIX D:** NATIONAL INFORMATION ON THE
>
> EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY CENTERS

PROGRAM. D-1

**TABLES**

**Table Page**

1.1 TRIO funding, number of grants, average award, amount per person
served, and number funded to serve: 2000--01 4

1.2 Response rates to project survey and performance reports, by host
type 7

2.1 Talent Search summary statistics: 1967--2000 12

2.2 Number of projects, average grant funds, and number of participants,
by type of host insitution: 1999--2000 18

2.3 TRIO program eligibility criteria before October 1981 20

2.4 Talent Search project performance outcomes used for experience
determination 23

2.5 Previous Studies of Talent Search 31

3.1 Distribution of Talent Search projects by primary area served: 2000
35

3.2 Number of Talent Search projects and participants by grantee host
federal region, performance report data: 1999 36

3.3 Number of Talent Search projects hosted at postsecondary educational
institutions and number of IPEDS degree-granting institutions, by type
of institution: 1999 37

3.4 Distribution of Talent Search grantees hosted at educational
institutions by Carnegie Classification: 1999 39

3.5 Median enrollment at Talent Search host institutions and all IPEDS
institutions, by federal region: 1999 40

3.6 Percentage of minority enrollment at Talent Search host institutions
and all IPEDS institutions, by federal region: 1999 41

**TABLES** *(continued)*

**Table Page**

3.7 Percentage of black student enrollment at Talent Search host
institutions and all IPEDS institutions, by federal region: 1999 41

3.8 Number of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
serving as Talent Search hosts and HBCUs as a percent of all Talent
Search hosts and all IPEDS institutions, by federal region: 1999 42

3.9 Percentage of Hispanic and Latino enrollment at Talent Search
grantees and IPEDS institutions, by federal region: 1999 43

3.10 Number of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) serving as Talent
Search hosts and HSIs as a percent of all Talent Search hosts and all
IPEDS institutions, by federal region: 1999 44

3.11 Percentage of Asian and Pacific Islander student enrollment at
Talent Search grantees and IPEDS institutions, by federal region: 1999
45

3.12 Percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native enrollment at
Talent Search grantees and IPEDS institutions, by federal region: 1999
45

3.13 Percentage of Talent Search host institutions that administered
additional programs for disadvantaged persons: 2000 46

3.14 Number of target schools and agencies from which project drew
participants, as reported in project survey: 1999--2000 47

3.15 Distribution of Talent Search target schools and all secondary
schools by geographic location: 1998-99 49

3.16 Minority enrollment in Talent Search target schools, all other
secondary schools, and all secondary schools, by state: 1998--99 50

**TABLES** *(continued)*

**Table Page**

3.17 Percentage of students eligible for the federal free-lunch program
in Talent Search target schools, all other secondary schools, and all
secondary schools, by state: 1998--99 52

3.18 School lunch program eligibility rates at Talent Search target
schools, by type of host institution: 1998-99 53

3.19 Comparison of the distributions of Talent Search target schools and
all secondary schools in terms of the percentage of students eligible
for the school lunch program: 1998-99 53

3.20 Average number of students per teacher in Talent Search target
schools, all other secondary schools, and all secondary schools, by
state: 1998--99 54

3.21 Estimated number and percentage of students eligible for free-lunch
program who are served by Talent Search: 1999 57

3.22 Estimates of the percent of children served by Talent Search 58

3.23 Percent of Talent Search projects that reported other schools in
their area could benefit from the program, but could not be served due
to lack of resources 59

4.1 Project staff levels and participants per staff, by type of host
insitution: 1999--2000 66

4.2 Talent Search projects' use of volunteers, work-study students, and
other part-time undergraduate student employees: 1998-99 68

4.3 Number of staff and number of FTE staff per project, percent
distribution of FTE staff, and years of experience, by position:
1999--2000 69

4.4 Percentage of Talent Search staff by highest level of education, by
type of host and by position: 1999--2000 74

**TABLES** *(continued)*

**Table Page**

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

4.6 Percentage of Talent Search projects where staff sometimes use a
language other than English to communicate with participants, and the
languages used, by host type: 1999--2000 76

4.7 Talent Search project directors' and coordinators' experience
directing or coordinating Talent Search and similar programs, as of
1999--2000 76

4.8 Talent Search project directors' and coordinators' experience
serving in capacity other than director or coordinator for Talent Search
and similar programs, as of 1999--2000 77

4.9 Estimated total costs of Talent Search by source of support: 2000
dollars 82

5.1 Participant race/ethnicity: 1998--99 91

5.2 Participant age, by type of host institution: 1998--99 91

5.3 Participant grade level, by type of host institution: 1998--99 92

5.4 Number of Talent Search projects serving various percentages of
middle school and high school participants: 1998--99 93

5.5 Participant distribution by eligibility status and type of host
institution: 1998--99 94

5.6 Percent of individuals targeted who apply to Talent Search, and
percent of applicants who become participants, by grade level: 1998--99
96

5.7 Percent of Talent Search projects that emphasize targeting persons
with specified characteristics 97

5.8 Percentage of Talent Search projects that disqualify individuals
from participating in the program for various reasons 98

**TABLES** *(continued)*

**Table Page**

5.9 Percent of Talent Search projects using selected recruitment
methods: 1999--2000 101

5.10 Talent Search recruitment strategy with regard to eligibility:
1999--2000 101

5.11 Percent of Talent Search projects that require or consider
specified items when formally admitting participants: 1999--2000 103

5.12 Percent of Talent Search projects that reported various
requirements as a minimum for ongoing participation 104

5.13 Examples of the forms that two Talent Search projects used to
assess students' needs 109

6.1 Provision of academic support services 112

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 113

6.3 Provision of personal and career development services 116

6.4 Provision of financial aid services: 1998--99 119

6.5 Provision of fee waivers 121

6.6 Provision of summer services 122

6.7 Ways in which Talent Search projects communicated with participants'
parents: 1998--99 126

6.8 Frequency of contact during 1998--99 (as of April 9, 1999), for
three target high schools in one project 129

6.9 Hours spent in Talent Search services/activities: 1998--99 131

6.10 Talent Search projects' ability to provide requested services 132

**TABLES** *(continued)*

**Table Page**

6.11 Specific topics of Project C's workshop curriculum, by subject area
and grade level 138

6.12 Number of workshops planned for 1998--99, by grade level, at two
target schools in the same Talent Search project 140

6.13 Service plans for sophomores at two high schools within the same
Talent Search project, but served by different staff members: 1998--99
141

7.1 goals set by Talent Search projects for major participant outcomes:
1998--99 147

7.2 Additional outcome objectives 148

7.3 Talent Search projects' success in meeting goals for major
participant outcomes: 1998--99 150

7.4 Expected fall 1999 status of participants who had graduated from
high school or received a GED by spring 1999 151

7.5 Types of postsecondary institutions that high school graduates and
postsecondary re-entry students planned to attend: 1998--99 152

7.6 GED preparation and outcomes: 1998--99 153

7.7 Participant information that Talent Search projects have attempted
to measure 161

7.8 Information that Talent Search projects tracked or monitored on
program participants 162

7.9 How Talent Search projects maintained data on active participants
163

7.10 Types of evaluations performed for Talent Search projects 165

7.11 Information used to evaluate Talent Search projects' success in
meeting their goals and objectives 166

**FIGURES**

**Figure Page**

2.1 TRIO funding in millions of current dollars:\
1967--2000 13

2.2 TRIO funding in millions of constant 2000 dollars: 1967--2000 14

2.3 Number of Talent Search participants and number of projects:
1967--2000 15

2.4 Funding per project in current and constant 2000 dollars: 1967--2000
16

2.5 Number of participants per project and total number served
nationwide by Talent Search: 1967--2000 17

2.6 Talent Search funding per participant in current and constant 2000
dollars: 1967--2000 18

3.1 Distribution of Talent Search projects by grantee type: 1973--74 and
1999--2000 35

3.2 Percent of institutions with Talent Search grants, by Carnegie
Classification: 1999 38

3.3 Percentage of Talent Search projects reporting that host
institutions administered additional programs for disadvantaged persons:
2000 47

3.4 Median number of target schools per project, by type of host
institution: 1998‑99 48

3.5 Distribution of Talent Search target schools by grade levels in
school: 1998--99 55

4.1 Percent distribution of the first year of operation of Talent Search
projects operating in 1999--2000 65

4.2 Estimated number of staff and number per project, by type of host
institution: 2000 66

4.3 Percentage of Talent Search project staff by gender: 1999--2000 72

4.4 Percentage of Talent Search staff by race and ethnicity: 1999--2000
73

**FIGURES** *(continued)*

**Figure Page**

4.5 Percentage of Talent Search staff with advanced degrees, by selected
position: 1999--2000 74

4.6 Percentage of Talent Search project directors and coordinators who
also served as directors or administrators for other student programs at
the host institution or organization, by host type: 1999--2000 78

4.7 Estimated average time allocation of total project staff: 1999--2000
79

4.8 Project directors' and coordinators' estimated actual and ideal time
allocation among various activities: 1999--2000 80

4.9 Percentage of projects that reported having an external board
providing advice and support to the project: 1999--2000 81

4.10 Allocation of Talent Search grant money by budget category:
1998--99 82

5.1 Distribution of Talent Search participants by gender: 1998--99 90

5.2 Distribution of Talent Search participants between new and
continuing participants: 1998-99 95

7.1 Percentage of Talent Search Projects That Have had an External
Evaluation Conducted 164