### DRAFT

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

**LITERATURE REVIEW**

**PRE-COLLEGE OUTREACH PROGRAMS FOR**

**LOW-INCOME STUDENTS**

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

# ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

# STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

# 

# 

# 

**JULY 2004**

###  DRAFT

### 

### 

### 

### 

**Pre-College Outreach Programs For**

**Low-Income Students: A Literature Review**

**Prepared For The**

#### Advisory Committee On Student Financial Assistance

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

**Prepared By**

**Joie Jager-Hyman**

**Boston, Massachusetts**

### 

### 

### 

### 

**July 2004**

**PRE-COLLEGE OUTREACH PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS: A LITERATURE
REVIEW**

**INTRODUCTION**

In a perfect world, all children would have access to the essential
academic, financial, and information resources necessary to prepare them
for success in higher education and prosperous careers. In our world,
however, not all children are given the same chances to succeed. Despite
public investment in equalizing educational opportunities for
traditionally underserved students, historic patterns of inequality in
educational attainment by race and income persist today. This is
particularly alarming when we consider that the gap in lifetime earnings
by educational attainment continues to grow. Failing to provide all
students with adequate resources to succeed academically will likely
have long-term negative impacts on their lives as adults. Furthermore,
an educated workforce promotes economic growth, higher tax revenues, and
increased participation in civic society. As a result, many educators
and policy makers are turning their attention to pre-college outreach
programs to provide additional academic, financial and informational
support to students in need.

The American public is committed to supporting policies and programs
that are geared at increasing access and retention in higher education
for low-income students. Since the passage of the Higher Education Act
(HEA) of 1965, federal policy makers have provided low-income students
with public assistance for college tuition. However, financial aid is
not enough to truly equalize opportunities for educational advancement.
Students who lack early information about financial aid policies and
support systems to navigate the complex aid application process are less
likely to make the necessary investments required to prepare for
postsecondary education (Kane, 2002). Hence, lawmakers implemented
federal outreach programs, such as Upward Bound and GEAR UP, to provide
students with the additional academic and informational support to
prepare them for success in college.

This report will review the existing literature on pre-college outreach
programs to present a comprehensive overview of what is known about the
effectiveness of these programs on access and persistence in higher
education for low-income students. Churches organized the first outreach
programs over 50 years ago. Today, there are hundreds of programs across
the country with a variety of programmatic offerings. Knowing more about
these programs can help policy makers and practitioners replicate those
that demonstrate success.

**Inequality in America's Schools: Underserved Students Need Additional
Support**

In general, students of color and from low-income backgrounds do not
perform as well as their peers throughout the academic pipeline. On
average, minority students are about three years behind white students
by eighth grade, and four years behind by twelfth grade (Ed Trust,
2004). According to the Pathways to College Network (2004a), of all high
school graduates, students from high-income backgrounds enroll in
college at rates 25 percentage points higher than those from low-income
backgrounds. Inequality in educational attainment is even more
pronounced when we consider that on average, the gap in high school
graduation rates between white students and students of color is as
follows: 25 percent for African Americans, 22 percent for Latinos, and
24 percent for Native Americans (Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2004).

Gaps in academic achievement by race and income can most likely be
explained by the uneven distribution of resources to children from
various backgrounds. Secretary of Education, Roderick Paige, said
recently, "If the goal \[of Brown v. Board of Education\] was equality
in education---to level the educational playing field for all children,
especially children of color---we are yet to achieve that" (Jost, 2004).
After decades of progress in decreasing school segregation, the trend
reversed in 1988. Racial segregation in contemporary American public
schools is comparable to levels of segregation in the late 1960s, though
the population of minority students in all American public schools is
twice as high today as it was during this time (Frankenberry and Lee,
2003). School districts with high percentages of minority student
enrollment typically receive fewer funds compared to districts with high
levels of white students. In 11 states, the funding gap between white
and minority school districts is more than \$1,000 per pupil (Jost,
2004). On average, classes in schools with high percentage of minority
students are more than twice as likely as those in white schools to be
taught by an out-of-field teacher; classes in high-poverty schools are
more than three times as likely (Ed Trust, 2004a). Finally, only 28
percent of low-income students have access to honors classes, compared
with 49 percent of middle-income students and 65 percent of high-income
students (Pathways, 2004a).

National data on educational attainment illustrates that race and family
income continue to be highly correlated with college enrollment and
graduation rates. When students of color and from low-income backgrounds
manage to overcome systemic barriers and enroll in higher education,
they are often burdened by high levels of unmet financial need in the
face of the rising costs of college attendance. Need-based financial aid
is essential to ensure that students from low-income backgrounds have
the opportunity to realize their educational goals.

**The Impact of Financial Aid on College Participation and Persistence**

Rising college tuitions and decreased need-based grant aid often makes
college enrollment and persistence unfeasible, even for highly qualified
low-income students. Those that enroll in college are forced to take out
unprecedented loan burdens and/or work more than part time while in
school. The cost of college continues to rise as state appropriations to
public institutions shrink. According to the U.S. Department of
Education (2003), average increases in tuition in the past decade
outpaced the rate of inflation by three to four times. In addition, a
reduction in need-based grant aid puts an additional financial strain on
low-income students. Over the past quarter century, expenses doubled for
low-income students enrolled at public four-year colleges who received
the maximum Pell Grants (Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance, 2002). Today, the average cost of a public four-year college
is equivalent to 71 percent of the average low-income student's annual
family income (Padroin, 2004). Need-based financial aid is crucial for
low-income students who cannot afford the high cost of college tuition.

Hundreds of thousands of college qualified low- and moderate-level
income students do not have access to higher education because of
financial constraints. According to the Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance (2002), half of qualified low- and moderate-income
students --over 400,000 in total---will be unable to attend a public
four-year institution due to the high cost of tuition. Over 170,000 of
these students will be unable to attend any type of postsecondary
institution. This trend also limits access for potentially qualified
low- and moderate-income students who hope to enroll in a four-year
institution by transferring from a two-year college.

Because of the decline in need-based grant aid and increasing cost of
college, low- and middle-income students are often forced to borrow
large amounts to pay for school. The average student loan debt nearly
doubled between 1994 and 2002, and 39 percent of college graduates
currently face unmanageable education debt, as defined by monthly loan
payments that exceed eight percent of their monthly income (King and
Bannon, 2002). In addition to increasing levels of borrowing, low- and
moderate-income students are also forced to work more hours while in
school to pay for college, which can impede their academic performance
and persistence toward a degree (Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance, 2002). Only 22 percent of low-income students who enroll in
college eventually receive their Bachelors Degree, compared with 78
percent of high-income students (Perna and Swail, 2002). Inadequate
financial aid most likely contributes to the gap in persistence rates by
income.

According to the research on the effect of financial aid policies,
need-based grant aid is positively and significantly associated with
college enrollment. Though all types of financial aid can influence
college-going behavior for low-income students, need-based grant aid is
the biggest single financial variable that is associated with college
enrollment across states (St. John et al, 2004). In addition,
"last-dollar" grants (financial awards that cover the difference between
the cost of college and other sources of financial aid), such as the
Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS) award, significantly effect college
enrollment and persistence. Researchers found that students who received
the GMS award in 2000-1 were 2.74 times more likely to maintain
continuous enrollment compared with a control group of non-recipients
(St. John and Chung, 2001).

Though need-based grants are positively associated with college
enrollment and persistence for low-income students, financial aid alone
is not enough to ensure equal access to higher education for these
students. Multiple variables, such as academic preparation and
availability of information on college admission and financial aid,
influence enrollment and persistence in postsecondary institutions.
According to Beth Macy (2000), peer mentors, college outreach programs,
family encouragement, guidance counselors, and teachers influence access
to higher education for first-generation low-income students. Clifford
Adelman (1999) found that the rigor of high school courses was the
single most important variable in predicting college completion. No
amount of academic, social and informational support can overcome the
barrier imposed on low-income students by unmet financial need. However,
such support could improve the effectiveness of existing financial aid
policies in serving students.

**Lack of Information on Financial Aid Policies**

Approximately two-thirds of federal funds for higher education are
allocated to support students financially (Perna and Swail, 2002).
However, low-income students and their families also need more
*information* about college admissions and financial aid in order to
prepare them for postsecondary success. Research demonstrates that
information about college admissions and financial aid policies is an
important predictor of college access and success. Low-income students
and parents are the most uninformed and fearful group when it comes to
the college application and financial aid processes (Vargas, 2004).
Though a vast majority of low-income students aspire to enroll in higher
education, they often lack the information and resources necessary to
facilitate this process.

After controlling for other factors, some studies have shown that
students are less likely to enroll in higher education when their
parents do not have accurate knowledge about financial aid (Perna and
Swail, 2002). According to Cabrera and La Nasa (2000), students from
low-income backgrounds generally do not receive as much information
about college planning and financial aid from their parents as compared
to their wealthier peers. Low-income parents are less likely to have
graduated from college and are less familiar with the requirements of
the college admissions process. As a result, wealthier students are more
"conditioned" to succeed in the college application process, controlling
for differences in educational aspirations (Orfield and Paul, 1994).

Immigrant children and their parents are especially vulnerable to lack
of information about college planning. In late 2003 and early 2004, the
Thomas Rivera Policy Institute (TRPI) conducted a telephone survey to
1,222 Latino parents of college-age students and 1,204 Latino students
ages 18-24 to ascertain their awareness of financial aid policies and
resources. They found significant differences in knowledge levels among
immigrant generations, with first generation immigrants having the least
knowledge about higher education policies. They also found that the more
Latino young adults know about financial aid, the more likely they are
to attend college. However, two-thirds of Latino parents surveyed did
not receive any information about financial aid before their children
left high school (TRPI, 2004).

Research demonstrates that one of the most effective ways to convey
information to students and parents is through increased mentoring. The
support of a mentor can potentially guide them through the academic
pipeline. Levine and Nidiffer (1996) conducted in-depth case studies
with 24 low-income students who overcame substantial obstacles and
enrolled in higher education. In each case, the student cited the
positive effect of a mentor on their academic success. Mentors generally
provided these students with motivation and information on resources,
course-taking, test-taking, college applications, and financial aid.
Researchers found that students who engage with a mentor for a sustained
period of time are more likely to enroll in higher education (Gandara,
2001).

Participation in pre-college outreach programs is significantly and
positively linked with college access and persistence for low-income
students (Gandara et al., 1998; Horn and Chen, 1998; Vargas, 2004).
According to researchers at the Institute for Higher Education Policy,
these programs generally contain some type of awareness and counseling
component designed to provide students with information about college
planning (Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis, 2003). Though there are few
rigorous evaluations of outreach programs, evidence suggests that these
programs can provide the additional support that low-income students
need to facilitate access and persistence in higher education.

**Early Outreach Programs: What Are They and How Do They Serve
Students?**

Pre-college outreach programs were first introduced in the 1950s and
1960s by religious entities and private foundations to offer support for
underserved students. They provide a range of services including, but
not limited to, academic support, mentoring, college planning, financial
aid information, and opportunities for parental involvement. The federal
government and state governments, as well as nonprofit organizations and
individual donors, now finance hundreds of programs. These programs
exist because the system of public education in America does not
effectively meet the needs of all students. According to researchers for
the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), "This fundamental
problem \[inequality in the education system\] may be ameliorated with
"add-on" efforts, but it cannot ultimately be solved without systematic
change" (SHEEO, 2003; p. 10). While evidence suggests that pre-college
outreach programs can be effective in increasing access and success in
higher education for low-income students, they are poor replacements for
in-school systemic reform that equalizes educational opportunities for
all students. Need-based grant aid is an essential component of such
systematic reform, as it decreases the financial barriers to higher
education.

Pre-college outreach programs vary a great deal across the country. Most
programs commonly target students from low-income backgrounds in middle
and/or high school (Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis, 2003). Gullatt
and Jan (2003) identified several common features of outreach programs
from a review of the relevant literature: high standards for program
students and staff; personalized attention for students, adult role
models; peer support, K-12/program integration and strategically timed
interventions; long-term investment in students; a school/society bridge
for students; scholarship assistance; and evaluation designs that
contribute results to interventions. Counseling and academic enrichment
are the most common services provided by outreach programs, followed by
parental involvement activities, mentoring and personal/social
integration activities (Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis, 2003).

The federal government has been a major sponsor of early intervention
programs since the Johnson administration. The HEA of 1965 helped
establish the federal TRIO programs, which are comprised of several
programs, including Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support
Services programs. These programs provide support to students by
providing a range of services including information about financial aid,
opportunities for college visits, and academic services to students
already enrolled in college. In 1992, Congress expanded its commitment
to outreach programs by establishing the National Early Intervention
Scholarship Program (NEISP), which was superceded by the Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) in 1998.
Administrators at the GEAR UP program award competitive grants to local
high school, college and community-based organizations that work
collaboratively to increase college access and success for low-income
students in the form of both state and partnership grants. The GEAR UP
legislation also included the High Hopes program, which is designed to
provide eligible low-income sixth to twelfth graders with information
about their expected federal financial aid awards, should they pursue a
college degree (Perna and Swail, 2002).

State and local governments administer many pre-college outreach
programs as well. In general, these programs encourage underserved
students to take the necessary steps to enter the postsecondary
pipeline. Programs often differ in their approach, the types of students
targeted, and how they are administered. However, they also provide many
of the same services, such as: counseling; academic enrichment; parental
involvement; mentoring; personal enrichment/social integration;
scholarships; and program activities (Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis,
2003). Researchers commonly identify Indiana, Washington, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, California, and Florida as states with particularly strong
pre-college outreach programs (Gandara, 2001; Pathways, 2004a; Jones,
2003; SHEEO, 2003).

Nonprofit organizations and foundations are another source of support
for pre-college outreach programs. Organizations such as the Gates
Foundation, the Daniel's Fund, and the I Have a Dream Foundation have
been committed to increasing college access and success for low-income
students. Like other types of outreach programs, those run by nonprofit
organizations and foundations offer similar types of services, though
the particulars of their operation can vary a great deal across programs
(SHEEO, 2003; Pathways, 2004a; Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis, 2003).

**Obstacles to Research and Evaluation of Outreach Programs**

Most outreach programs produce some data regarding their impact on
participants. However, very few programs undergo rigorous evaluations
that are statistically sound. Gullatt and Jan (2003) reviewed the
existing literature on pre-college outreach programs and found six major
reports that surveyed the field of programs and evaluations. In general,
these authors agree that most current outreach program evaluation data
is unreliable and provides little information about the actual impact of
the program on students. For example, few programs use a control group
to compare outcome variables with program participants. In addition,
little is known about the selection criteria for most programs, so there
is no way of knowing if these students would be more likely than their
peers to enroll in college regardless of their participation in the
program. Finally, few programs either report or keep track of their
attrition rates. Gandara (2001) estimates that between one-third and
one-half of all students who begin pre-college outreach programs do not
complete the course of the program. This makes it especially difficult
to estimate the impact of the program, since most administrators report
success rates of students who complete the program, ignoring the failure
of the program to impact those students who drop out.

Little is known about the long-term effects of pre-college outreach
programs since most programs do not offer systemic interventions and
most administrators do not collect longitudinal data (Gandara, 2001). In
addition, there is no research on the cost/benefit analysis of these
programs. Policy makers do not have a clear idea if programs demonstrate
long-term effectiveness, which types of students are most likely to
benefit, and what constructive programs are likely to cost (Perna and
Swail, 2002). More research is needed in these areas to better
understand the role of these pre-college outreach programs in increasing
access and success in higher education for low-income students and to
establish a set of programmatic "best practices."

**"Best Practices" of Pre-College Outreach Programs: What Can We Learn
from the Limited Research?**

In addition to the obstacles to program evaluation previously mentioned,
the sheer number and variety of pre-college outreach programs makes it
difficult to assess which aspects of these programs contribute most to
the overall effectiveness of the program. However, there are several
well-established programs that have undergone rigorous evaluations and
collect high-quality data. Researchers generally look to these programs
to identify a set of "best practices" for early outreach programs.

Based on her review of the literature on pre-college outreach programs,
Heather Oesterreich (2000) found that programs that are comprehensive in
nature and combine a variety of services have the greatest impact on
college access for underserved students. Programs that reach students
early and focus on "readiness" rather than "remediation" are most
effective in preparing students to navigate the academic pipeline.
Successful programs combine a wide variety of pedagogies to offer
students academic experiences that they can then relate to their lives.
These teaching strategies include: individual instruction in a variety
of content areas; summer enrichment programs; individual and group
counseling; tutoring; college visits and access to courses; peer and
adult mentoring; and motivational speakers.

Patricia Gandara (2001) reviewed evaluation studies and concluded that
the most effective programs had the following elements in common:
providing a key person who monitors the students over a long period of
time; providing high-quality instruction and access to the most
challenging courses; making long-term investments rather than short-term
interventions; incorporating culturally sensitive practices; providing a
supportive peer group; and providing financial assistance and
incentives. She recommends that programs take the following steps to
improve evaluations: collect baseline data on participants and
comparisons; monitor and report program attrition; carefully match
control groups and compare differences; be attentive to measuring
outcomes that the program purports to be affecting; and attend to
program features and outcomes. Finally, Gandara, like many other
researchers, recommends that outreach programs should be connected with
other systemic school reform efforts to reinforce support for students
(SHEEO, 2003; Pathways, 2004a; Pathways, 2004b; Cunningham, Redmond and
Merisotis, 2003).

Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis (2003) also reviewed the outreach
program evaluation literature to identify elements common to effective
intervention programs. They found that the most effective programs
tended to provide some type of financial assistance, access to
challenging coursework, and a supportive academic environment. They tend
to provide support service to students over a long period of time and
use a key contact person to maintain sustained contact.

Perna (2002) identified five critical components for programs targeting
low-income students to facilitate educational advancement: (1) the goal
of college attendance to raise expectations; (2) college tours, visits,
or fairs to help students better plan for college; (3) promoting
rigorous course-taking and academic excellence; (4) parental involvement
as a goal; and (5) early outreach, beginning by eighth grade to
facilitate curricular planning. Unfortunately, she found that only
one-fourth of outreach programs offered all of these services (Perna and
Swail, 2002).

According to researchers at SHEEO (2003), the best programs offer
systemic, rather than programmatic, services. Systemic services are
incorporated directly into the educational offerings of the public
school system, while programmatic responses do not reach all students
and are not designed to be long term. For example, a programmatic
intervention might offer students some after-school tutoring, while a
systemic intervention develops regular tutoring sessions with teachers
before and after school that correspond with classes and classroom
curricula (Pathways, 2004b).

**Evidence of Effectiveness: Evaluations of Upward Bound, GEAR UP, the
Rhode Island Children's Crusade, Indiana's 21^st^ Century Scholars, and
the Washington State Achievers Program**

Several well-established programs offer services that are aligned with
recommendations from researchers. There is some evidence that these
programs demonstrate a positive impact on college access and success for
participants. This evidence is primarily based on the few external
outreach program evaluations that make use of reliable baseline data and
make use of control groups for comparisons. A review of this evidence as
it pertains to the Upward Bound program, GEAR UP, the Rhode Island
Children's Crusade, Indiana's 21^st^ Century Scholars, and the
Washington State Achievers Program (WSAP) is included in this report.

***Upward Bound***

Upward Bound is a federally funded outreach program whose prolonged
existence has allowed for extensive longitudinal data collection. The
program targets low-income students who complete eighth grade (there is
a legislative mandate that at least two-thirds of program participants
must be from low-income families). The staff provides weekly academic
support services through tutoring and mentoring relationships during the
school year. They also offer a six-week academic program during the
summer, in which students may participate until the summer after their
graduation from high school (Gullatt and Jan, 2003).

In 2004, researchers at Mathematica Policy Research, on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Education, released an evaluation of Upward Bound.
Researchers used data from a sample group of 2,800 students who were
randomly assigned to one of 67 Upward Bound projects hosted by two- and
four-year colleges or to the control group. They then conducted a
comparative evaluation that would estimate the impact of the program on
participants. In general, Upward Bound participants experienced the
following positive outcomes: earned more non-remedial high school
credits in math; were more likely to remain in school; were more likely
to receive financial aid for postsecondary education; and earned more
non-remedial credits at postsecondary institutions (Gullatt and Jan,
2003). The report concluded that although participation in the Upward
Bound program had no overall effect on high school success (as measured
by credits earned, participation in honors or Advanced Placement
courses, grade point averages or high school graduation rates), students
with lower baseline expectations did experience some tangible gains in
terms of access to four-year, rather than two-year institutions. As a
result of the program, the number of students with low expectations who
enrolled in four-year colleges increased from 18 to 38 percent, and they
earned nearly twice as many credits than did members of the control
group at four-year institutions. In addition, the length of program
participation was highly correlated with increased access to higher
education. On average, each additional year of program participation is
correlated with a 9 percent increase in college enrollment (Meyers et
al., 2004).

***GEAR UP***

The federal GEAR UP program, a much younger program than Upward Bound,
has undergone some preliminary evaluation efforts sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education. GEAR UP administrators award grants to
partnerships among local middle and high schools, colleges, and
community organizations that are working collaboratively to increase
college access and persistence for low-income students. Researchers are
analyzing data from a cohort of students participating in 20 GEAR UP
partnership schools, and a control group of their peers who did not
participate in the GEAR UP program. In the initial analysis, researchers
found several problems with the program including extremely high
attrition rates. Schools with high percentages of low-income students
often have less stable student populations; some schools in the study
had attrition rates as high as 50 percent (Westat Inc, 2003). The most
common and most widely attended GEAR UP activities were characterized as
low-intensity activities, such as college fairs. Only one-third of
program sites offered more extensive support, such as individual
counseling sessions for students. Finally, GEAR UP administrators
reported difficulty in attracting students to their summer programs
(Westat Inc., 2003). The GEAR UP evaluation is useful in highlighting
some potential problems in pre-college outreach program implementation.
Administrators and policy makers can use this information to improve
this and other programs that might be facing similar obstacles.

***The Rhode Island Children's Crusade***

The Rhode Island Children's Crusade (Children's Crusade) serves
low-income third through twelfth grade students in Rhode Island. The
program offers different services for each grade level. These services
include: school literacy activities; tutoring; diagnostic testing and
exam practice; college visits; identification of colleges; college
application support; advising; college planning; attendance and grade
monitoring; and weekend and summer sessions (SHEEO, 2003).

The Children's Crusade underwent an external evaluation in which
researchers surveyed and interviewed school service providers and
program participants in seventh, ninth and twelfth grades. They
identified the lack of longitudinal data and inconsistent service
provisions across schools as two major threats to the validity of the
evaluation. In addition, they reported that the general consensus among
participants and service providers was that the Children's Crusade had a
positive impact on participating students. Younger students, however,
were much more likely than those in more advanced grades to offer
positive assessments of the program. It is impossible to compare these
groups because administrators did not collect longitudinal data by
cohort. Perhaps the twelfth graders felt more positive about the program
when they were in seventh grade or perhaps the program has improved over
the years. Researchers recommended improving data collection, and
increasing individual attention to address some of these concerns
(Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis, 2003). This evaluation led to
programmatic improvements by alerting administrators as to ways in which
they can increase the effectiveness of their outreach efforts.

***Indiana's 21^st^ Century Scholars Program***

Indiana's 21^st^ Century Scholars Program (Scholars Program) is one of
the most well respected state-sponsored early intervention programs
targeted at low-income students. The program has two major features: it
supplements student aid by guaranteeing middle school students a
supplemental scholarship that, in addition to the state need-based
grant, covers the cost of in-state tuition and fees at any Indiana
public university or a private equivalent; it also provides support
services through 16 regional service centers for students and parents
(St. John et al., 2002). The program has an early intervention
component, whereby low-income eighth graders make a commitment to take
the necessary steps to prepare for college in exchange for
state-sponsored supplemental financial and academic support.

Researchers for the Lumina Foundation externally evaluated the Scholars
Program in 2002. They used data from 15,000 high school students between
1995 and 2000 and found that scholars were more likely than the control
group of non-scholars to enroll in Indiana public and private
universities. In general, the college-going rate of Indiana students
increased substantially since the program was established. In 1986, the
state was ranked 40^th^ in the nation for college enrollment, and by
2002, Indiana was ranked 17^th^ in the nation. Researchers attributed
these improvements to changes in the high school curriculum, additional
support services for middle and high school students, and the
establishment of the Scholars Program. They also noted that both
participants and non-participants were more likely to persist in higher
education during their freshman year if they received financial aid for
college, reinforcing the evidence that financial aid is positively
associated with access and persistence in higher education for
low-income students (St. John et al., 2002).

***Washington State Achievers Program (WSA)***

The Washington State Achievers program (WSA) awards a limited number of
scholarships meant to supplement other types of financial aid for low-
and moderate-income students. Students who enroll in private four-year
colleges receive \$6,400, those in public four-year colleges receive
\$5,400 and those in community colleges are awarded \$3,600.
Scholarships are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and
administered by the Washington Education Foundation. Administrators
notify students with scholarship guarantees in eleventh grade, based on
non-academic criteria related to family income, background, and
educational goals (St. John and Hu, 2004).

St. John and Hu (2004) evaluated the impact of WSA on students on the
college plans of twelfth graders who received guarantees during the
previous year by comparing survey results from scholarship recipients
with those from a control group of non-recipients in urban schools.
According to this evaluation, scholarships were positively and
significantly associated with the following: (1) aspirations to enroll
in and graduate from a four-year college in twelfth grade; (2) enrolling
in a four-year college after high school graduation; and (3) the
likelihood of enrollment in an in-state institution (enrollment in
honors courses was also positively associated with four-year college
aspirations and enrollment, but not with enrollment in an in-state
institution). These results demonstrate some evidence of the
effectiveness of the WSA program on access to college for low- and
moderate-income students.

**CONCLUSION**

College enrollment and persistence rates have increased for all groups
in the past half-century. However, gaps in educational attainment by
race and income persist today. Students of color and from low-income
backgrounds do not have access to the same academic, financial and
information resources as their peers. Pre-college outreach programs are
designed to provide underserved students with additional support to
prepare for and succeed in higher education.

Researchers consistently cite the need for high quality data collection
and rigorous evaluations of these programs to better identify elements
of effectiveness for program participants. Evidence from the few
programs that have undergone such evaluations suggests that these
programs can increase access and persistence in higher education for
low-income students. Successful programs generally target students early
and coordinate with systemic school reform efforts. Financial aid and
mentorship are also identified as essential components of effective
programs. More research is needed to improve our understanding of how
these programs impact students and ways in which they can better serve
participants. Based on an exhaustive review of the literature, these
programs have a great deal of potential.

**REFERENCES**

Adelman, C. (1999) *Answers in a Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance
Patterns, and Bachelors Degree Attainment.* Washington D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Research and Improvement.

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (2002) *Empty
Promises: The Myth of College Access in America*. Washington D.C.

Avery, C. and Kane, T. (forthcoming) "Student Opportunities and College
Admissions: The Boston COACH Program" *College Decisions: How Students
Make Them and How They Could.* Caroline Hoxby, ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago.

Cabrera, A.F. and La Nasa, S.M. (2000) "Understanding the College-Choice
Process" in A.F. Cabrera and S.M. La Nasa (eds.), *Understanding the
College Choice of Disadvantaged Students.* (pp.5-22) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

"The College Cost Crisis," [A Congressional Analysis of College Cost and
Implications for America's Higher Education System]{.underline}," by
Rep. John A. Boehner (R-OH), Chairman, U.S. House Committee on Education
and the Workforce, & Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), Chairman, U.S.
House Subcommittee on 21^st^ Century Competitiveness, September 4, 2003.

The Education Trust, *The Funding Gap Report* (2003), from website:
<http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust>**.**

The Education Trust (2004a) *In Need of Improvement : Ten Ways the U.S.
Department of Education Has Failed to Live Up to Its Teacher Quality
Commitments,* from website : <http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust>**.**

The Education Trust (2004b) *TenThings Every American Needs to Know
About Brown v. Board of Education*, from website :
<http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust>**.**

Frankenberry, E. and Lee, C. (2003) *A Multiracial Society with
Segregated Schools: Are We Losing the Dream?* Harvard Civil Rights
Project, from website:
[http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu](http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/).

Gandara, P. (2001) *Paving the Way to Postsecondary Education: K-12
Interventions for Underrepresented Youth.* Washington D.C.: National
Center for Education Statistics.

Gullatt, Y. and Jan, W. (2003) *How Do Pre-Collegiate Academic Outreach
Programs Impact College-Going Among Underrepresented Students?* Pathways
to College Network Clearinghouse, from website:
[http://www.pathwaystocollege.net](http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/).

Harvard Civil Rights Project (February 25, 2004) Press Release: *Study:
Only "50-50" Chance of High School Graduation for U.S. Minority
Students, Weak Accountability Rules Found,* from website:
[http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu](http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/).

The Institute for Higher Education Policy and Scholarship America (April
2004) *Investing in America's Future: Why Student Aid Pays Off for
Society and Individuals**, ***from website: http://www.ihep.org.

Jones, R. (2003) *Pre-college Academic Programs and Interventions.*
Washington D.C.: The Pathways to College Network Clearinghouse, from
website: http://www.pathwaystocollege.net.

Jost, K. (April 23, 2003) *School Desegregation: How Can the Promise of
Equal Education Be Fulfilled?* Congressional Quarterly Researcher, Vol.
14, No. 15.

Kane, T. (2002) *The Price of Admissions: Rethinking How Americans Pay
for College.* Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.

King, T. and Bannon, E. (2002) *The Burden of Borrowing: A Report on the
Rising Rates of Student Loan Dept.* The State Public Interest Research
Group Higher Education Project, from website: http://www.pirg.org.

Levine, A. and Nidiffer, J. (1996) *Beating the Odds: How the Poor Get
to College.* San Francisco: Josey Bass Publishers.

Macy, Beth (2000) *From Rusty Wire Fences to Wrought-Iron Gates: How the
Poor Succeed in Getting to and Through College.* Washington D.C.: The
College Board.

Meyers, D., Olsen, R., Seftor, N., Young, J., and Tuttle, C. (2004) *The
Impacts of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the Third Follow-Up Data
Collection.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, from
website:
<http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/upward/upward-3rd-report.pdf>.

*Orfield, G. and Paul F. (1994) High Hopes, Long Odds: A Major Report on
Hoosier Teens and the American Dream.* Indianapolis: Indiana Youth
Institute.

Padroin, E. (2004) *A Deficit of Understanding: Confronting the Funding
Crisis in Higher Education and the Threat to Low-Income and Minority
Access.* Miami, FL: Miami Dade College.

The Pathways to College Network (2004a) *A Shared Agenda: A Leadership
Challenge to Improve College Access and Success,* from website:
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net.

The Pathways to College Network (2004b) *Pathways to Improving
Practice*, from website: http://www.pathwaystocollege.net.