A Profile of the Student Support Services Program:

1997-98 and 1998-99,

with Select Data from 1999-2000

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Federal TRIO Programs

A Profile of the Student Support Services Program:

1997-98 and 1998-99,

with Select Data from 1999-2000

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Federal TRIO Programs

**By Mathematica Policy Research Inc.**

Nancy Carey

Margaret W. Cahalan

Kusuma Cunningham

Jacqueline Agufa

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract No. 1-36U-6742 (031). The views expressed herein are those of
the contractor. 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 Postsecondary Education**

Sally L. Stroup

*Assistant Secretary*

######### Federal TRIO Programs

Larry Oxendine

*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 citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, *A Profile of the Student
Support Services Program: 1997-98 and 1998-*99*, with Select Data from
1999-2000*, Washington, D.C., 2004.

**To obtain additional copies of this report,**

**write** to: Federal TRIO Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1990
K Street, N.W., Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20006-8510;

or **fax** your request to: (202) 502-7857;

or **e-mail** your request to: TRIO@ed.gov.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:

<http://www.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/index.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.

CONTENTS

[***FOREWORD*** v](#__RefHeading___Toc35064516)ii

[***ACKNOWLEDGMENTS*** viii](#acknowledgments)

[***HIGHLIGHTS*** ix](#highlights)

[**I. INTRODUCTION** 1](#i.-introduction)

[A. Background 1](#a.-background)

[B. Performance report response 3](#b.-performance-report-response)

[C. Data issues 6](#c.-data-issues)

[D. Distribution of projects and participants by sector and federal
region
7](#d.-distribution-of-projects-and-participants-by-sector-and-federal-region)

[E. Structure of the report 9](#e.-structure-of-the-report)

[**II. PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS**
11](#ii.-participant-characteristics)

[A. Eligibility of participants 11](#a.-eligibility-of-participants)

[B. Gender of participants 12](#b.-gender-of-participants)

[C. Racial and ethnic background of participants
13](#c.-racial-and-ethnic-background-of-participants)

[D. Grade level of participants 13](#d.-grade-level-of-participants)

[**III**. **PROJECT** **SERVICES** **AND** **ACTIVITIES**
15](#iii.-project-services-and-activities)

[A. Academic instruction 15](#a.-academic-instruction)

[B. Academic support services 16](#b.-academic-support-services)

[1. Tutoring 16](#tutoring)

[2. Other academic support services
17](#other-academic-support-services)

[C. Counseling and mentoring 19](#c.-counseling-and-mentoring)

[D. Cultural and enrichment activities
20](#d.-cultural-and-enrichment-activities)

E. Distribution of contact hours by type of
service................................. 21

[**IV**. **SUMMARY** **OF** **PARTICIPANT** **RECORDS**
23](#iv.-summary-of-participant-records)

[A. Participant characteristics 24](#participant-characteristics)

[1. Participant status 24](#participant-status)

[2. Participant age at entry 25](#participant-age-at-entry)

[3. Length of time in Student Support Services
25](#length-of-time-in-student-support-services)

[4. Grade at entry and current grade level
26](#grade-at-entry-and-current-grade-level)

[5. Full-time and part-time enrollment status
26](#full-time-and-part-time-enrollment-status)

[6. Academic need 27](#academic-need)

[7. Financial aid needed and awarded to participants
28](#financial-aid-needed-and-awarded-to-participants)

[B. Academic progress of participants
................................................
29](#b.-academic-progress-of-participants)

[1. Grade point average (GPA) and academic standing
29](#grade-point-average-gpa-and-academic-standing)

[2. End-of-year enrollment status 30](#end-of-year-enrollment-status)

[3. Degrees and certificates awarded
30](#degrees-and-certificates-awarded)

[**V. RETENTION TO THE SECOND YEAR**
33](#v.-retention-to-the-second-year)

[A. Procedure for updates 33](#a.-procedure-for-updates)

[B. Retention rates 33](#b.-retention-rates)

[C. Limitations and discussion 35](#c.-limitations-and-discussion)

[**VI**. **FUTURE** **PLANS** 37](#vi.-future-plans)

[**APPENDIX**](#appendix-a-participant-characteristics-for-1999-2000)

> [A. Participant Characteristics for 1999-2000
> 39](#appendix-a-participant-characteristics-for-1999-2000)

[**REFERENCES** 41](#references)

# TABLES AND FIGURES

#### TABLES

> [1 U.S. legislation authorizing Student Support Services: Goals and
> services 2](#__RefHeading___Toc35076159)
>
> [2 TRIO programs: 1999 3](#__RefHeading___Toc35076160)
>
> [3 TRIO funding levels in constant 1999 dollars (millions)
> 3](#__RefHeading___Toc35076161)
>
> [4 Number and percent of SSS projects submitting performance reports
> and participant records, by sector: 1997-98 and 1998-99
> 4](#__RefHeading___Toc35076162)
>
> [5 Number and percent of SSS projects submitting performance reports
> and participant records, by federal region: 1997-98 and 1998-99
> 4](#__RefHeading___Toc35076163)
>
> [6 Department of Education federal regions
> 6](#__RefHeading___Toc35076239)
>
> [7 Distribution of SSS projects compared to all postsecondary
> institutions, by sector: 1996-97 and 1997-98
> 7](#__RefHeading___Toc35076240)
>
> [8 Distribution of SSS students served, by sector: 1996-97 and 1998-99
> 8](#__RefHeading___Toc35076241)
>
> [9 Number of SSS projects and participant records, by sector: 1998-99
> 8](#__RefHeading___Toc35076242)
>
> [10 Number and percent of SSS projects, by federal region: 1996-97 and
> 1998-99 9](#__RefHeading___Toc35076243)
>
> [11 Eligibility classification of SSS participants, by sector: 1997-98
> 12](#__RefHeading___Toc35076244)
>
> [12 Grade level of SSS participants: 1997-98
> 14](#__RefHeading___Toc35076245)
>
> [13 Percent of participants receiving academic instruction supported
> by SSS project funds, by sector: 1997-98
> 15](#__RefHeading___Toc35076246)
>
> [14 Academic support services: 1997-98
> 18](#__RefHeading___Toc35076247)
>
> [15 Counseling and mentoring services provided by SSS projects:
> 1997-1998 20](#__RefHeading___Toc35076248)
>
> [16 Participant status, by sector: 1998-99
> 25](#__RefHeading___Toc35076249)
>
> [17 Age at entry and years of participation for new and continuing
> participants, by sector: 1998-99 25](#__RefHeading___Toc35076250)
>
> [18 Grade level on entry and current grade level of participants, by
> sector: 1998-99 26](#__RefHeading___Toc35076251)
>
> [19 Enrollment status of participants, by sector: 1998-99
> 27](#__RefHeading___Toc35076252)
>
> [20 Methods used to assess academic needs, by sector: 1998-99
> 28](#__RefHeading___Toc35076253)
>
> [21 Financial aid, by sector: 1998-99 28](#__RefHeading___Toc35076254)
>
> [22 Reasons for deficient aid, by sector: 1998-99
> 29](#__RefHeading___Toc35076255)
>
> [23 Average cumulative GPA and academic standing of participants, by
> sector: 1998-99 30](#__RefHeading___Toc35076256)
>
> [24 End-of-year enrollment status of current and prior-year
> participants, by sector: 1998-99 31](#__RefHeading___Toc35076257)
>
> [25 Degrees or certificates awarded to current and prior-year
> participants, by sector: 1998-99 31](#__RefHeading___Toc35076258)
>
> [26 Retention rates: 1997-98 to 1998-99
> 34](#__RefHeading___Toc35076259)

27 Retention rates: 1998-99 to
1999-2000................................................ 34

#### APPENDIX A TABLES

> A1 Eligibility classification of SSS participants, by sector:
> 1999-2000 39

**FIGURES**

> [1 Percent of SSS projects submitting aggregate data, by federal
> region: 1997-98 5](#__RefHeading___Toc35235384)
>
> [2 Percent of SSS projects submitting participant records, by federal
> region: 1998-99 5](#__RefHeading___Toc35235385)
>
> [3 Participant distribution by eligibility status: 1997-98
> 11](#__RefHeading___Toc35235386)
>
> [4 Gender of SSS participants and of all undergraduate students:
> 1997-98 12](#__RefHeading___Toc35235387)
>
> [5 Racial and ethnic background of SSS participants: 1997-98
> 13](#__RefHeading___Toc35235388)
>
> [6 Cohort of SSS participants: 1997-98
> 14](#__RefHeading___Toc35235389)
>
> [7 Percent of SSS participants receiving tutoring and average contact
> hours per participant: 1997-98 17](#__RefHeading___Toc35235390)
>
> [8 Percent of SSS participants receiving academic support services
> other than tutoring: 1997-98 18](#__RefHeading___Toc35235391)
>
> [9 Percent of SSS participants engaging in cultural and enrichment
> activities: 1997-98 21](#__RefHeading___Toc35235392)
>
> [10 Contact hours by type of SSS service (counseling and mentoring
> activities and academic support services), by sector: 1997-98
> 22](#__RefHeading___Toc35235393)
>
> [11 Participant status: 1998-99 24](#__RefHeading___Toc35235394)
>
> [12 Enrollment status of participants: 1998-99
> 27](#__RefHeading___Toc35235395)

#### APPENDIX A FIGURES

> [A1 Participant distribution by eligibility status: 1999-2000
> 39](#__RefHeading___Toc35235397)
>
> [A2 Gender of SSS participants and all undergraduate students:
> 1999-2000 40](#__RefHeading___Toc35235399)
>
> [A3 Racial and ethnic background of SSS participants: 1999-2000
> 40](#__RefHeading___Toc35235401)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35064516 .anchor}FOREWORD

To help fulfill the goal of President Bush's education initiative, "No
Child Left Behind," high-quality postsecondary educational opportunities
and support services must be available to all students. In keeping with
this goal, the Federal TRIO Programs provide outreach and support
programs to assist low-income, first-generation college, and disabled
students progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to
postbaccalaureate programs.

On behalf of the Federal TRIO Programs, I am pleased to present this
report, *A Profile of the Student Support Services Program: 1997-98 and
1998-99, with Select Data from 1999-2000*. The specific goal of the
Student Support Services (SSS) Program is to increase the college
retention and graduation rates of its participants.

This report is the second in a series of reports presenting a national
profile of the SSS Program. The annual performance reports for 1997-98
and 1998-99 submitted by the SSS projects were the primary data sources
for this report.

I am pleased to share with you national statistical and demographic
information on the Student Support Services Program and its
participants. We hope that the collection and dissemination of this
information will encourage responses that help us assess our mission and
our performance. We look forward to continuing to work together to
improve program services and postsecondary completion rates for
low-income and first-generation college students and students with
disabilities.

Larry Oxendine

*Director*

Federal TRIO Programs

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Publishing this report was a team effort and we appreciate the support
of all who contributed. First, we thank the Student Support Services
projects for reporting the data upon which the report is based. Computer
Business Methods Inc. (CBMI) processed the student-level record files.
The Office of Postsecondary Education, Federal TRIO Programs sponsored
the report, and Frances Bergeron of the Federal TRIO Programs
coordinated the data collection and reporting processes. Linda
Byrd-Johnson, team leader for the Student Support Services Program,
assisted in reviewing the report. Among the staff of Mathematica,
special mention goes to August Parker, who helped prepare the report for
publication.

# HIGHLIGHTS

This report summarizes data submitted by Student Support Services (SSS)
projects for program years 1997-98 and 1998-99, with selected data from
1999-2000. In 1997-98 aggregate data on project participants and
services were submitted by 98 percent of projects; individual
participant records were submitted by 86 percent of projects in 1997-98
and by 96 percent of projects in 1998-99. The 1998-99 reports included
more than 230,000 current and prior-year participant records.

## Project Characteristics

-   In 1997-98 there were 801 SSS projects.

-   In 1997-98, 54 percent of the SSS projects were housed at four-year
    institutions and 46 percent were housed at two-year institutions.

-   In 1999-2000, there were 796 projects; the average project received
    funding for 224 students at a cost of about \$1,000 per participant.

## Participant Characteristics -- 1997-98

-   Women were more likely to participate in Student Support Services
    than men. About two-thirds (65 percent) of participants were women
    and 35 percent were men.

-   The racial and ethnic backgrounds of SSS participants were: 45
    percent white; 29 percent black or African American; 15 percent
    Hispanic or Latino; 5 percent Asian; 3 percent American Indian or
    Alaska Native; and 2 percent other.

## Project Services and Activities -- 1997-98

-   Math instruction was the most frequent type of academic instruction,
    with seven percent of SSS participants receiving instruction for
    credit in this area and nine percent receiving noncredit
    instruction.

-   One-to-one peer tutoring was the most frequent form of tutoring used
    by SSS participants, with 30 percent receiving it in 1997-98.
    Professional one-to-one tutoring was received by 19 percent of SSS
    participants. Ten percent of participants received group tutoring
    from a peer, and 7 percent of participants received group tutoring
    from a professional.

-   The most popular counseling service was academic advising, received
    by 80 percent of participants. This service was followed in
    popularity by financial aid counseling (48 percent) and personal
    counseling (41 percent).

-   One-third of participants (33 percent) participated in
    project-sponsored cultural activities, 23 percent participated in
    information workshops, and 6 percent made campus visits to other
    colleges or universities.

## Individual Participant Records -- 1998-99

-   Just over one-third of the participant records submitted (36
    percent) were for new participants, 39 percent were for continuing
    participants, and 25 percent were for prior-year participants.

-   SSS participants, on average, were older than the traditional age of
    those attending college. The average age of new participants at the
    beginning of the reporting period was 24.6 years.

-   Among all those included on the participant records, 63 percent were
    classified as full-time students.

-   Two-thirds of SSS participants (66 percent) were awarded financial
    aid. The average amount of aid needed or requested was \$8,482 and
    the average amount awarded was \$6,932.

-   The average GPA (grade point average) for all SSS students was 2.6
    on a four-point scale (and 3.2 for the few projects at institutions
    on a five-point scale).

-   Eighty-two percent of all participants were classified as in good
    academic standing.

## Retention to the Second Year

-   Sixty-seven percent of SSS participants who entered a project in
    1997-98 remained enrolled in the same institution in 1998-99. This
    number is similar to the national retention rate for all students
    and is three percentage points higher than that for liberal academic
    institutions.

-   Retention rates for SSS participants increased by almost two
    percentage points for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 (69 percent).

# I. INTRODUCTION

This report is the second in a series on the Student Support Services
(SSS) Program. Its purpose is to summarize and evaluate information from
the annual performance reports that all SSS projects are required to
submit. This report covers results from the aggregate portion of the
performance reports and from the individual participant records, first
included on the 1995-96 reporting form.[^1] We hope that projects will
use this report to improve services and educational opportunities for
low-income and first-generation college students and students with
disabilities.

This national report presents data by "institution sector." There are
four such sectors: (1) public four-year (or more) institutions, (2)
public two-year institutions, (3) private four-year (or more)
institutions, and (4) private two-year institutions. We also present
response information geographically, according to ten federal regions
defined by the Department of Education (ED).

This report, the first one to use more than a single year of data,
covers performance reports for 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000.[^2] The
information on participant demographics and project services comes from
the 1997-98 performance reports. The individual participant records are
those for 1998-99. The report also includes an analysis of participant
records for all three years to estimate the percentage of students who
continue participating in SSS after their first year, a topic not
included in the first report. To help interpret project data, we have
sometimes compared it with data for all U.S. institutions included in
the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Finally, an
addendum presents some information on participant demographics from the
1999-2000 performance reports.

## A. Background

The SSS Program began in 1970 with 121 projects serving about 30,000
students and funding of about \$10 million (\$42.9 million in constant
1999 dollars). By 1999 there were 796 projects serving 178,000 students
with funding of \$178.9 million.

The goal of SSS is to increase the college retention and graduation
rates of low-income, first-generation college students and students with
disabilities and to facilitate their transition from one level of
postsecondary education to the next. Table 1 contains the text of the
authorizing legislation. Services provided by the program include:

-   Instruction in basic skills.

-   Tutoring.

-   Academic, financial, personal, and career counseling.

-   Assistance in securing admission to and financial aid for enrollment
    in four-year institutions and graduate and professional programs.

-   Mentoring.

-   Special services for students with limited English proficiency.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076159 .anchor}Table 1. U.S. legislation      |
| authorizing Student Support Services: Goals and services              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| \(a\) Program Authority---The Secretary shall carry out a program to  |
| be known as student support services which shall be designed---       |
|                                                                       |
| \(1\) To increase college retention and graduation rates for eligible |
| students;                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| \(2\) To increase the transfer rates of eligible students from        |
| two-year to four-year institutions; and                               |
|                                                                       |
| \(3\) To foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of |
| low-income and first-generation college students and individuals with |
| disabilities.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| \(b\) Permissible Services---A student support services project       |
| assisted under this chapter may provide services such as---           |
|                                                                       |
| \(1\) Instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, and |
| other subjects necessary for success beyond secondary school;         |
|                                                                       |
| \(2\) Personal counseling;                                            |
|                                                                       |
| \(3\) Academic advice and assistance in course selection;             |
|                                                                       |
| \(4\) Tutorial services and counseling and peer counseling;           |
|                                                                       |
| \(5\) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually   |
| available to disadvantaged students;                                  |
|                                                                       |
| \(6\) Activities designed to acquaint students participating in the   |
| project with the range of career options available to them;           |
|                                                                       |
| \(7\) Activities designed to assist students participating in the     |
| project in securing admission and financial assistance for enrollment |
| in graduate and professional programs;                                |
|                                                                       |
| \(8\) Activities designed to assist students currently enrolled in    |
| two-year institutions in securing admission and financial assistance  |
| for enrollment in a four-year program of postsecondary education;     |
|                                                                       |
| \(9\) Mentoring programs involving faculty or upper-class students,   |
| or a combination thereof; and                                         |
|                                                                       |
| \(10\) Programs and activities as described in paragraphs (1) through |
| (9) which are specially designed for students of limited English      |
| proficiency.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Higher Education Act of 1965 Sec. 402D.20 U.S.C. 1070a-14 Student     |
| Support Services.                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

SSS is one of several direct service TRIO[^3] programs, which include
Upward Bound (UB), Upward Bound Math-Science (UBMS), Educational
Opportunity Centers (EOCs), Talent Search (TS), and the Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair). Table 2 gives the funding
information and participant numbers for each TRIO program for fiscal
year 1999 (program year 1999-2000). SSS had the second largest yearly
funding of any TRIO program; the average project served 224 participants
at a cost of about \$1,000 per person per year.

  -------------------------------- --------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- -----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076160                                                                 
  .anchor}Table 2. TRIO programs:                                                                
  1999                                                                                           

  **1999**                         **Program\      **Number\   **Number   **Average   **Amount   **Average
                                   funding**       of\         served**   grant       per\       number
                                                   grants**               award**     person     served per
                                                                                      served**   grant**

  Educational Opportunity Centers  \$29,794,380    82          158,063    \$363,346   \$188      1,928

  McNair                           \$32,114,068    156         3,734      \$205,859   \$8,600    24

  Student Support Services         \$178,916,836   796         178,099    \$224,770   \$1,005    224

  Talent Search                    \$98,450,697    361         323,541    \$272,717   \$304      896

  Upward Bound                     \$220,500,637   772         52,960     \$285,623   \$4,164    69

  Upward Bound Math-Science        \$29,276,284    124         6,200      \$236,099   \$4,722    50

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                                     
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                                        
  Programs, 2000.                                                                                
  -------------------------------- --------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- -----------

Table 3 shows TRIO funding levels from 1967 to 1999 in constant 1999
dollars. Funding for SSS has increased more than fourfold since its
inception in 1970.

+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| []{#__   |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| RefHeadi |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| ng___Toc |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| 35076161 |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| .anch    |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| or}Table |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| 3. TRIO  |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| funding  |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| levels   |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| in       |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| constant |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| 1999     |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| dollars  |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| (m       |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| illions) |          |         |         |        |        |        |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| >        | **UB**   | **TS**  | **SSS** | *      | **     | **Mc   |
| **Year** |          |         |         | *EOC** | UBMS** | Nair** |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1967   | \$139.7  | \$12.4  |         |        |        |        |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1970   | \$127.1  | \$21.5  | \$42.9  |        |        |        |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1975   | \$118.6  | \$18.6  | \$71.2  | \$9.3  |        |        |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1980   | \$126.4  | \$30.9  | \$121.3 | \$15.6 |        |        |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1985   | \$114.0  | \$32.1  | \$108.5 | \$14.2 |        |        |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1990   | \$128.2  | \$34.5  | \$115.9 | \$15.2 | \$4.3  | \$3.8  |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1995   | \$208.3  | \$85.7  | \$156.9 | \$26.9 | \$20.8 | \$20.9 |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1999   | \$220.5  | \$98.5  | \$178.9 | \$29.8 | \$29.3 | \$32.1 |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Source:  |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| Ca       |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| lculated |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| from     |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| inf      |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| ormation |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| provided |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| by U.S.  |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| De       |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| partment |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| of       |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| Ed       |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| ucation, |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| Federal  |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| TRIO     |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| P        |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| rograms\ |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| and the  |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| Consumer |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| Price    |          |         |         |        |        |        |
| Index.   |          |         |         |        |        |        |
+----------+----------+---------+---------+--------+--------+--------+

## B. Performance report response 

Performance report response has increased every year since the new
report form was introduced in 1995-96. In 1996-97, 92 percent of
projects submitted aggregate data and 78 percent submitted individual
participant records. By 1997-98, nearly all projects were submitting
aggregate data (98 percent) and 86 percent of the projects provided
participant records. In 1998-99, the response rate for participant
records was 96 percent. Table 4 summarizes these response rates by
sector.

+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
| []{#          |           |          |          |          |        |
| __RefHeading_ |           |          |          |          |        |
| __Toc35076162 |           |          |          |          |        |
| .anchor}Table |           |          |          |          |        |
| 4. Number and |           |          |          |          |        |
| percent of    |           |          |          |          |        |
| SSS projects  |           |          |          |          |        |
| submitting    |           |          |          |          |        |
| performance   |           |          |          |          |        |
| reports and   |           |          |          |          |        |
| participant   |           |          |          |          |        |
| records, by   |           |          |          |          |        |
| sector:       |           |          |          |          |        |
| 1997-98 and   |           |          |          |          |        |
| 1998-99       |           |          |          |          |        |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
| #             | **Total   | **S      |          | **S      |        |
| ###### Sector | projects  | ubmitted |          | ubmitted |        |
|               | in        | per      |          | par      |        |
|               | 1997-98** | formance |          | ticipant |        |
|               |           | report   |          | r        |        |
|               |           | (19      |          | ecords** |        |
|               |           | 97-98)** |          |          |        |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
|               | *         | **       | **P      | **1      | *      |
|               | *Number** | Number** | ercent** | 997-98** | *1998- |
|               |           |          |          |          | 99\*** |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
| Public        | 297       | 289      | 97%      | 83%      | 96%    |
| four-year     |           |          |          |          |        |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
| Private       | 137       | 134      | 98%      | 88%      | 94%    |
| four-year     |           |          |          |          |        |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
| Public        | 353       | 348      | 99%      | 89%      | 97%    |
| two-year      |           |          |          |          |        |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
| Private       | 14        | 12       | 86%      | 79%      | 93%    |
| two-year      |           |          |          |          |        |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
| All projects  | 801       | 783      | 98%      | 86%      | 96%    |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+
| \*Response    |           |          |          |          |        |
| rates were    |           |          |          |          |        |
| calculated on |           |          |          |          |        |
| the796        |           |          |          |          |        |
| projects      |           |          |          |          |        |
| receiving     |           |          |          |          |        |
| funding that  |           |          |          |          |        |
| year.         |           |          |          |          |        |
|               |           |          |          |          |        |
| Source: U.S.  |           |          |          |          |        |
| Department of |           |          |          |          |        |
| Education,    |           |          |          |          |        |
| Federal TRIO  |           |          |          |          |        |
| Programs,     |           |          |          |          |        |
| Student       |           |          |          |          |        |
| Support       |           |          |          |          |        |
| Services      |           |          |          |          |        |
| Performance   |           |          |          |          |        |
| Reports,      |           |          |          |          |        |
| 1997-98 and   |           |          |          |          |        |
| 1998-99.      |           |          |          |          |        |
+---------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+--------+

Table 5 and Figures 1 and 2 show, by region, the percentage of reporting
projects. For 1997-98, the percentage of projects submitting participant
records ranged from 78 percent in Region IX to 90 percent in several
regions. In 1998-99, the percentages ranged from 93 percent in Regions
II and IX to 100 percent in Regions I and X. Table 6 lists the states
and territories included in each region.

+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| []{#          |          |        |              |        |        |
| __RefHeading_ |          |        |              |        |        |
| __Toc35076163 |          |        |              |        |        |
| .anchor}Table |          |        |              |        |        |
| 5. Number and |          |        |              |        |        |
| percent of    |          |        |              |        |        |
| SSS projects  |          |        |              |        |        |
| submitting    |          |        |              |        |        |
| performance   |          |        |              |        |        |
| reports and   |          |        |              |        |        |
| participant   |          |        |              |        |        |
| records, by   |          |        |              |        |        |
| federal       |          |        |              |        |        |
| region:       |          |        |              |        |        |
| 1997-98 and   |          |        |              |        |        |
| 1998-99       |          |        |              |        |        |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| ####### F     | ##       |        | > Percent    | P      |        |
| ederal region | ##### Nu |        | > reporting  | ercent |        |
|               | mber of  |        | > aggregate  | repo   |        |
|               | projects |        | > data       | rting\ |        |
|               |          |        |              | parti  |        |
|               |          |        |              | cipant |        |
|               |          |        |              | data   |        |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
|               | 1997-98  | 1      | 1997-98      | 1      | 1      |
|               |          | 998-99 |              | 997-98 | 998-99 |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region I      | 40       | 40     | 100%         | 90%    | 100%   |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region II     | 76       | 76     | 99%          | 82%    | 93%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region III    | 68       | 67     | 96%          | 85%    | 96%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region IV     | 166      | 165    | 99%          | 87%    | 96%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region V      | 133      | 131    | 99%          | 89%    | 98%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region VI     | 97       | 97     | 95%          | 90%    | 94%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region VII    | 60       | 60     | 100%         | 90%    | 98%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region VIII   | 54       | 52     | 94%          | 83%    | 98%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region IX     | 76       | 77     | 97%          | 78%    | 93%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Region X      | 31       | 31     | 100%         | 90%    | 100%   |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| All regions   | 801      | 796    | 98%          | 86%    | 96%    |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+
| Source: U.S.  |          |        |              |        |        |
| Department of |          |        |              |        |        |
| Education,    |          |        |              |        |        |
| Federal TRIO  |          |        |              |        |        |
| Programs,     |          |        |              |        |        |
| Student       |          |        |              |        |        |
| Support       |          |        |              |        |        |
| Services      |          |        |              |        |        |
| Performance   |          |        |              |        |        |
| Reports,      |          |        |              |        |        |
| 1997-98 and   |          |        |              |        |        |
| 1998-99.      |          |        |              |        |        |
+---------------+----------+--------+--------------+--------+--------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235384 .anchor}Figure 1. Percent of SSS projects
submitting aggregate data, by federal region: 1997-98

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.779861111111111in" height="3.53125in"}

Region 1 -- 100%, Region 2 -- 99%, Region 3 -- 96%, Region 4 -- 99%,
Region 5 -- 99%, Region 6 -- 95%, Region 7 -- 100%, Region 8 -- 94%,
Region 9 -- 97%, Region 10 -- 100%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235385 .anchor}Figure 2. Percent of SSS projects
submitting participant records, by federal region: 1998-99

![](media/image2.wmf){width="4.845833333333333in" height="3.175in"}

Region 1 -- 100%, Region 2 -- 93%, Region 3 -- 96%, Region 4 -- 96%,
Region 5 -- 98%, Region 6 -- 94%, Region 7 -- 98%, Region 8 -- 98%,
Region 9 -- 93%, Region 10 -- 100%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| []{#__RefH |                                                         |
| eading___T |                                                         |
| oc35076239 |                                                         |
| .an        |                                                         |
| chor}Table |                                                         |
| 6.         |                                                         |
| Department |                                                         |
| of         |                                                         |
| Education  |                                                         |
| federal    |                                                         |
| regions    |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| ##         | **Description**                                         |
| ##### Fede |                                                         |
| ral region |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region I | Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and    |
|            | Vermont                                                 |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region   | New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands   |
| > II       |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region   | Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West        |
| > III      | Virginia, and Washington, D.C.                          |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region   | Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North |
| > IV       | Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee                 |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region V | Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and       |
|            | Wisconsin                                               |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region   | Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas    |
| > VI       |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region   | Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska                    |
| > VII      |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region   | Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,    |
| > VIII     | and Wyoming                                             |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region   | Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, The          |
| > IX       | Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and American  |
|            | Samoa                                                   |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| > Region X | Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington                   |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Source:    |                                                         |
| U.S.       |                                                         |
| Department |                                                         |
| of         |                                                         |
| Education, |                                                         |
| Federal    |                                                         |
| TRIO       |                                                         |
| Programs,  |                                                         |
| 2002       |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

## C. Data issues

There was a high level of item response on the reports. For example, in
the 1998-99 participant records, the completion rate for individual
items ranged from 91 percent for end-of-year enrollment status to 100
percent for gender.

The quality of the data reported has also improved each year. With
regard to participant records, the most serious inconsistency has been
in the listing of "prior-year participants." The reporting form
instructs projects to include in this category those students who did
not receive services in the reporting period but who remained at the
institution; some projects, however, did not follow this
instruction.[^4] There was also variation in the reporting of
participants' end-of-year enrollment status. Some projects reported the
status of participants as of the end of the spring term, while others
reported their status as of the start of the next fall term. Not
surprisingly, the fields for dates were sometimes problematic.

To increase the accuracy of the participant data, in the summer of 2000
projects were sent lists of 1997-98 participants who were not listed as
participants in 1998-99 but who might still be enrolled at the
institution and qualify as prior-year participants. Projects were asked
to report whether or not listed students were actually enrolled at their
institutions in 1998-99. This process was repeated during the spring of
2002 with the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 data files. This information was
used to calculate the retention rates discussed in Section V of this
report.

## D. Distribution of projects and participants by sector and federal region

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the
number of two-year colleges and the proportion of students who attend
them nationally have increased since 1970. For example, in 1972, 48
percent of the total enrollment was at public four-year institutions, 29
percent at public two-year colleges, and 23 percent at private colleges.
By 1999, public two-year colleges had 37 percent of enrollment and
public four-year institutions' share of enrollment had declined to 41
percent. Private colleges have maintained about 23 percent of total
college enrollment (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999).

The percentage of SSS projects in each postsecondary institution sector
coincided with these national trends. In 1996-97, 40 percent of SSS
projects were in two-year public institutions; in 1997-98, after a new
grant competition, this increased to 44 percent (Table 7). In 1997-98,
more than half (54 percent) of SSS projects were at four-year
institutions, public and private combined, and 46 percent were at
two-year institutions. Almost all of the SSS projects and participants
at two-year institutions were at public institutions. Only 14 SSS
projects (two percent of the total) were at private two-year
institutions.

  -------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076240                                                                          
  .anchor}Table 7. Distribution of                                                                        
  SSS projects compared to all                                                                            
  postsecondary institutions, by                                                                          
  sector: 1996-97 and 1997-98                                                                             

  Sector                           Number of                   Percent of                  Institutions   
                                   projects                    projects                    in sector\*    

                                   **1996-97**   **1997-98**   **1996-97**   **1997-98**   **Number**     **Percent**

  Public four-year                 276           297           39%           37%           615            15%

  Private four-year                131           137           19%           17%           1,694          42%

  Public two-year                  284           353           40%           44%           1,092          27%

  Private two-year                 14            14            2%            2%            663            16%

  All projects                     705           801           100%          100%          4,064          100%

  \*From IPEDS, 1997-98.                                                                                  

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                                              
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                                                 
  Programs, Student Support                                                                               
  Services Performance Reports,                                                                           
  1996-97 and 1997-98. National                                                                           
  Center for Education Statistics,                                                                        
  The Digest of Education                                                                                 
  Statistics: 2001.                                                                                       
  -------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------- -------------

Table 8 shows the distribution of participants by sector in 1996-97 and,
for comparison, 1998-99. Private institutions are typically smaller than
public institutions and projects associated with them have fewer
participants. In 1998-99, projects at public four-year institutions had
an average of 261 participants, compared with 197 for those at private
four-year institutions and 219 for those at public two-year
institutions. The 13 reporting projects at private two-year institutions
had an average of 180 participants.

+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| []{#__   |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| RefHeadi |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| ng___Toc |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| 35076241 |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| .anch    |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| or}Table |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| 8.       |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Dist     |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| ribution |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| of SSS   |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| students |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| served,  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| by       |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| sector:  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| 1996-97  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| and      |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| 1998-99  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Sector   | Num |       | **N   |       | **P |      | *   |     |
|          | ber |       | umber |       | erc |      | *St |     |
|          | of  |       | of    |       | ent |      | ude |     |
|          | pr  |       | stu   |       | of  |      | nts |     |
|          | oje |       | dents |       | to  |      | ser |     |
|          | cts |       | ser   |       | tal |      | ved |     |
|          | rep |       | ved** |       | se  |      | per |     |
|          | ort |       |       |       | rve |      | pro |     |
|          | ing |       |       |       | d** |      | jec |     |
|          | pa  |       |       |       |     |      | t** |     |
|          | rti |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
|          | cip |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
|          | ant |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
|          | d   |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
|          | ata |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
|          | **  | *     | *     | *     | **  | **1  | **  | **  |
|          | 199 | *1998 | *1996 | *1998 | 199 | 998- | 199 | 199 |
|          | 6-9 | -99** | -97** | -99** | 6-9 | 99** | 6-9 | 8-9 |
|          | 7** |       |       |       | 7** |      | 7** | 9** |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Public   | 213 | 282   | 6     | 7     | 43% | 42%  | 318 | 261 |
| f        |     |       | 7,646 | 3,512 |     |      |     |     |
| our-year |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Private  | 89  | 128   | 2     | 2     | 15% | 14%  | 269 | 197 |
| f        |     |       | 3,908 | 5,242 |     |      |     |     |
| our-year |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Public   | 237 | 343   | 6     | 7     | 40% | 43%  | 266 | 219 |
| two-year |     |       | 3,058 | 5,111 |     |      |     |     |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Private  | 11  | 13    | 2,254 | 2,345 | 1%  | 1%   | 205 | 180 |
| two-year |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| All      | 550 | 766   | 15    | 17    | 1   | 100% | 285 | 231 |
| sectors  |     |       | 6,866 | 6,210 | 00% |      |     |     |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Note:    |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Percents |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| may not  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| sum to   |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| 100      |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| because  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| of       |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| r        |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| ounding. |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
|          |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Source:  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| U.S.     |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| De       |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| partment |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| of       |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Ed       |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| ucation, |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Federal  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| TRIO     |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| P        |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| rograms, |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Student  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Support  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Services |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Per      |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| formance |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| Reports, |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| 1996-97  |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| and      |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
| 1998-99. |     |       |       |       |     |      |     |     |
+----------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+-----+-----+

In general, the number of SSS participant records is greater than the
number of students served, because the former category includes
prior-year participants and the latter one does not. As with the number
of students served, the number of records per project is larger at
public institutions than at private ones. Table 9 shows that in 1998-99
the percentage of SSS participants in public institutions (as opposed to
private institutions) was much higher than the overall U.S. total (85
percent versus 78 percent). The percentage of SSS participants in
four-year institutions, however, was almost the same as for the nation
as a whole (61 percent versus 62 percent).

  -------------------------------- ------------ ------------- --------------- ----------- ----------- ----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076242                                                                      
  .anchor}Table 9. Number of SSS                                                                      
  projects and participant                                                                            
  records, by sector: 1998-99                                                                         

  Sector                           **Number of                **Participant                           **IPEDS**
                                   projects**                 records**                               

                                   **In         **Reporting   **Number**      **Percent   **Records   **Percent of
                                   sector**     participant                   of total**  per         total
                                                data**                                    project**   enrollment\***

  Public four-year                 294          282           110,850         47%         393         41%

  Private four-year                136          128           32,795          14%         256         21%

  Public two-year                  352          343           90,075          38%         263         37%

  Private two-year                 14           13            2,483           1%          191         2%

  All projects                     796          766           236,203         100%        308         100%

  \*Reflects percent distribution                                                                     
  of enrollment in degree-granting                                                                    
  postsecondary institutions.                                                                         

  Note: Participant records                                                                           
  include prior-year participants,                                                                    
  25 percent of the total.                                                                            

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                                          
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                                             
  Programs, Student Support                                                                           
  Services Performance Reports,                                                                       
  1998-99; National Center for                                                                        
  Education Statistics, The                                                                           
  Condition of Education, 1999,                                                                       
  page 130 (based on Integrated                                                                       
  Postsecondary Education Data                                                                        
  System (IPEDS), Fall Enrollment                                                                     
  Surveys).                                                                                           
  -------------------------------- ------------ ------------- --------------- ----------- ----------- ----------------

Table 10 shows the distribution of projects over the 10 federal regions
in 1996-97 and 1998-99. In 1998-99, the two regions with the greatest
number of projects were Region IV with 21 percent of projects, and
Region V with 16 percent. There was little change in the regional
distribution of projects over the two years.

  -------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076243                                             
  .anchor}Table 10. Number and                                               
  percent of SSS projects, by                                                
  federal region: 1996-97 and                                                
  1998-99                                                                    

                                   **Number of                 **Percent of  
                                   projects**                  total**       

  **Federal regions**              **1996-97**   **1998-99**   **1996-97**   **1998-99**

  Region I                         39            40            6%            5%

  Region II                        72            76            10%           10%

  Region III                       67            67            10%           8%

  Region IV                        145           165           21%           21%

  Region V                         113           131           16%           16%

  Region VI                        80            97            11%           12%

  Region VII                       48            60            7%            8%

  Region VIII                      50            53            7%            7%

  Region IX                        64            76            9%            10%

  Region X                         27            31            4%            4%

  All regions                      705           796           100%          100%

  Note: Percentages may not sum to                                           
  100 because of rounding.                                                   

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                 
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                    
  Programs, Student Support                                                  
  Services Performance Reports,                                              
  1996-97 and 1998-99.                                                       
  -------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

## E. Structure of the report

The remainder of this report is divided into five sections. Section II
presents aggregate demographic information on project participants
submitted in the 1997-98 performance reports. Section III provides
information on project services and activities included in these
reports. Section IV summarizes information from the participant records
in the 1998-99 reports. Section V presents a comparison of retention
rates of first-year students from 1997-98 to 1998-99 and from 1998-99 to
1999-2000. Section VI discusses plans for future reports.

# II. PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS

This section summarizes the aggregate demographic information on current
project participants reported by the SSS projects in the 1997-98 annual
performance reports. (Data collected from individual participant records
for 1998-99 is presented in Section IV.)

## A. Eligibility of participants

According to the 1997-98 performance reports, 783 SSS projects served
172,279 participants during that year. Sixty percent were both
low-income[^5] and first-generation college[^6] students. Thirteen
percent of the participants were disabled (seven percent disabled only
and six percent both low-income and disabled). Nineteen percent were
first-generation only and eight percent were low-income only (Figure 3).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235386 .anchor}Figure 3.
![](media/image3.wmf)Participant distribution by eligibility status:
1997-98

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

There was some variation by sector. For example, low-income disabled and
disabled-only students made up a higher proportion of the total in
public institutions than in private institutions. In public, four-year
institutions, 15 percent of participants were disabled; in private,
four-year institutions, 9 percent were disabled (Table 11).

+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| []{       |          |          |           |          |          |
| #__RefHea |          |          |           |          |          |
| ding___To |          |          |           |          |          |
| c35076244 |          |          |           |          |          |
| .anc      |          |          |           |          |          |
| hor}Table |          |          |           |          |          |
| 11.       |          |          |           |          |          |
| El        |          |          |           |          |          |
| igibility |          |          |           |          |          |
| class     |          |          |           |          |          |
| ification |          |          |           |          |          |
| of SSS    |          |          |           |          |          |
| part      |          |          |           |          |          |
| icipants, |          |          |           |          |          |
| by        |          |          |           |          |          |
| sector:   |          |          |           |          |          |
| 1997-98   |          |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| #####     | **Lo     | **Low    | **First-\ | **       | **       |
| ## Sector | w-income | -income\ | ge        | Disabled | Disabled |
|           | and      | only**   | neration\ | only**   | and      |
|           | first-   |          | only**    |          | low-     |
|           | gene     |          |           |          | income** |
|           | ration** |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Public    | 58%      | 8%       | 19%       | 8%       | 7%       |
| four-year |          |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Private   | 63%      | 9%       | 19%       | 5%       | 4%       |
| four-year |          |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Public    | 62%      | 6%       | 18%       | 6%       | 7%       |
| two-year  |          |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Private   | 68%      | 10%      | 16%       | 3%       | 2%       |
| two-year  |          |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| All       | 60%      | 8%       | 19%       | 7%       | 6%       |
| projects  |          |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| NOTE: Row |          |          |           |          |          |
| pe        |          |          |           |          |          |
| rcentages |          |          |           |          |          |
| may not   |          |          |           |          |          |
| sum to    |          |          |           |          |          |
| 100       |          |          |           |          |          |
| because   |          |          |           |          |          |
| of        |          |          |           |          |          |
| rounding. |          |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Source:   |          |          |           |          |          |
| U.S.      |          |          |           |          |          |
| D         |          |          |           |          |          |
| epartment |          |          |           |          |          |
| of        |          |          |           |          |          |
| E         |          |          |           |          |          |
| ducation, |          |          |           |          |          |
| Federal   |          |          |           |          |          |
| TRIO      |          |          |           |          |          |
| Programs, |          |          |           |          |          |
| Student   |          |          |           |          |          |
| Support   |          |          |           |          |          |
| Services  |          |          |           |          |          |
| Pe        |          |          |           |          |          |
| rformance |          |          |           |          |          |
| Reports,  |          |          |           |          |          |
| 1997-98.  |          |          |           |          |          |
+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+

## B. Gender of participants

As is the case with other TRIO programs, participants in SSS were more
likely to be women than men (65 percent versus 35 percent) (Figure 4).
In addition, the proportion of women among SSS participants is higher
than the proportion of women among all undergraduates (65 percent versus
56 percent) *(U.S. Department of Education, IPEDS, Fall Enrollment
Survey, 1997*). The difference in gender distribution is especially
evident in two-year colleges, where 70 percent of participants were
women and 30 percent were men (not shown in tables or figures).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235387 .anchor}Figure 4. Gender of SSS
participants and of all undergraduate students: 1997-98

![](media/image4.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98. National Center for
Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), Fall Enrollment Survey, 1997-98.

## C. Racial and ethnic background of participants

Figure 5 shows the racial and ethnic background of SSS participants in
1997-98. For comparison, 1988 participants had the following
distribution: 43 percent white; 32 percent black or African American; 16
percent Hispanic or Latino; 5 percent Asian; and 3 percent American
Indian or Alaska Native (Cahalan and Muraskin 1994).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235388 .anchor}Figure 5. Racial and ethnic
background of SSS participants: 1997-98

![](media/image5.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

## D. Grade level of participants

The year in which a student begins to participate in SSS is called the
student's cohort. In 1997-98, new participants made up 48 percent of the
total SSS population (Figure 6). Reflecting the addition of new projects
in 1997-98, this is a somewhat higher percentage of new students than
began in 1996-97 (44 percent).

Of the 1997-98 cohort, more than half of the participants (57 percent)
were freshman when they entered the program and another 27 percent were
sophomores. Among all SSS participants, 37 percent were freshmen, 33
percent sophomores, 12 percent juniors, 13 percent seniors and 5 percent
"other" (Table 12).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235389 .anchor}Figure 6. Cohort year of SSS
participants served: 1997-98

![](media/image6.wmf)Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO
Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

  -------------------------------- -------------- --------------- ------------ ------------ -----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076245                                                            
  .anchor}Table 12. Grade level of                                                          
  SSS participants: 1997-98                                                                 

  **Sector**                       **Freshman**   **Sophomore**   **Junior**   **Senior**   **Other**

  1997-98 cohort                   57%            27%             7%           5%           3%

  All cohorts combined             37%            33%             12%          13%          5%

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                                
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                                   
  Programs, Student Support                                                                 
  Services Performance Reports,                                                             
  1997-98.                                                                                  
  -------------------------------- -------------- --------------- ------------ ------------ -----------

# III. PROJECT SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES

In 1995-96, the SSS program began asking projects to include in their
performance reports information on the intensity of their services,
particularly the number of contact hours for academic support services
and for counseling and mentoring services. The information presented in
this section comes from the 1997-98 performance reports.

## A. Academic instruction

Projects reported the number of participants receiving SSS-supported
formal academic instruction, either for credit or noncredit, in the
following subjects: reading, writing, math, English, English for those
with Limited Proficiency (LEP),[^7] and "other" (Table 13). Overall,
percentages ranged from one percent for credit instruction in English
for LEP students to nine percent for noncredit instruction in math. Math
instruction, for credit and noncredit, had the greatest number of
students. In general, private institutions reported higher proportions
of participants taking any kind of instruction than did public
institutions.

  -------------------------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076246                                                                                                                                          
  .anchor}Table 13. Percent of                                                                                                                                            
  participants receiving academic                                                                                                                                         
  instruction supported by SSS                                                                                                                                            
  project funds, by sector:                                                                                                                                               
  1997-98                                                                                                                                                                 

                                   **All                         **Public                       **Private                      **Public                      **Private    
                                   sectors**                     four-year**                    four-year**                    two-year**                    two-year**   

                                   **Credit**   **Non-credit**   **Credit**    **Non-credit**   **Credit**    **Non-credit**   **Credit**   **Non-credit**   **Credit**   **Non-credit**

  Reading                          4%           5%               3%            4%               5%            12%              3%           3%               11%          6%

  Writing                          3%           6%               3%            5%               5%            10%              3%           6%               13%          6%

  Math                             7%           9%               8%            11%              7%            12%              6%           7%               19%          6%

  English                          4%           5%               4%            1%               5%            7%               4%           4%               12%          9%

  English for LEP Students         1%           2%               1%            8%               1%            4%               2%           1%               2%           4%

  Other                            4%           8%               5%            8%               5%            9%               3%           7%               4%           4%

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                                                                                                              
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                                                                                                                 
  Programs, Student Support                                                                                                                                               
  Services Performance Reports,                                                                                                                                           
  1997-98.                                                                                                                                                                
  -------------------------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------------

## B. Academic support services

Academic support services, a major component of the SSS program since
its inception, help participants both with specific courses and with
their general academic progress. To give some indication of the
intensity of services that participants receive, projects report the
number of students receiving specified forms of academic support as well
as the total number of contact hours. Academic support services include:
peer tutoring, professional tutoring, supplemental instruction, assisted
labs, computer-assisted instruction, study-skills classes or workshops,
and orientation classes and workshops.

### Tutoring

There are four different types of tutoring services:

-   Individual (one-to-one) tutoring provided by a professional, usually
    a graduate student or professional staff person.

-   Group tutoring provided by a professional.

-   Individual (one-to-one) peer tutoring, usually provided by another
    undergraduate.

-   Group peer tutoring.

Figure 7 shows the percentage of participants who received the different
types of tutoring in 1997-98. One-to-one peer tutoring was the most
frequent. Projects also reported the total number of contact hours
delivered for each service. Dividing the total contact hours by the
number of participants receiving the service gives the average time per
recipient, as shown in the boxes in Figure 7.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235390 .anchor}Figure 7. Percent of SSS
participants receiving tutoring and average contact hours per
participant: 1997-98

![](media/image7.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

### Other academic support services

In addition to tutoring, SSS projects provided academic support services
described on the report form as follows:

-   Supplemental instruction -- organized tutoring sessions for specific
    courses that are tied directly to the instruction in the courses.

-   Assisted labs -- academic support or tutoring provided through a
    learning center or other formal means.

-   Computer-assisted instruction -- academic support or tutoring
    provided via computers or other formal means.

-   Study skills classes and workshops -- activities designed to help
    students gain the skills needed to succeed in the academic programs
    of the institution.

-   Orientation classes and workshops -- sessions or classes that help
    students adjust to the institution which may include help with
    registration for courses and understanding the academic requirements
    of the institution.

Figure 8 shows the percentage of students receiving these services.
Orientation classes or workshops and study skills classes each involved
about one-fifth of all participants. The average number of contact hours
per participant ranged from 5.3 hours for orientation activities to 14.5
hours for supplemental instruction (Table 14).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235391 .anchor}Figure 8. Percent of SSS
participants receiving academic support services other than tutoring:
1997-98

![](media/image8.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

Table 14 also shows the average total contact hours for service
calculated for those projects that reported offering the service. This
ranged from 429 hours for "other" to 1,155 hours for one-to-one peer
tutoring.

  -------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076247                                               
  .anchor}Table 14. Academic                                                   
  support services: 1997-98                                                    

  Service                          **Percentage   **Percentage   **Hours per   **Average
                                   of projects    of             participant   total hours
                                   offering       participants   receiving     per project
                                   service\***    receiving      service**     offering
                                                  service**                    service**

  Peer tutoring, one-to-one        81%            30%            13.5          1,155

  Peer tutoring, group             43%            10%            12.3          673

  Professional tutoring,           59%            19%            9.3           695
  one-to-one                                                                   

  Professional tutoring, group     32%            7%             11.9          627

  Supplemental Instruction         31%            7%             14.5          803

  Assisted labs                    29%            10%            12.4          986

  Computer-assisted instruction    40%            10%            9.5           563

  Study skills classes or          72%            21%            7.7           516
  workshops                                                                    

  Orientation classes or workshops 60%            22%            5.3           456

  Other                            34%            11%            5.8           429

  \*A project is counted as                                                    
  offering the service if at least                                             
  one participant received it.                                                 

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                   
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                      
  Programs, Student Support                                                    
  Services Performance Reports,                                                
  1997-98.                                                                     
  -------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ------------

## C. Counseling and mentoring

The support services received by the largest number of SSS participants
were counseling and mentoring, which are defined on the report form as
follows:

-   Personal counseling -- crisis intervention and assistance with
    personal problems and decisions.

-   Academic advising -- assisting students in making educational plans,
    selecting appropriate courses, meeting academic requirements, and
    planning for graduation and further education.

-   Financial aid counseling -- assisting students individually or in
    small groups in completing financial aid applications or in working
    with the financial aid office to develop adequate aid packages.

-   Career counseling and employment assistance -- helping students
    learn about career opportunities through written and computerized
    information, assessing their career interests and capabilities, and
    making occupational plans.

-   Transfer counseling -- assisting students interested in four-year
    programs in meeting the academic requirements of those programs,
    choosing four-year institutions, and applying for admission and
    financial aid at those institutions.

-   Graduate school counseling -- assisting students in choosing
    graduate or professional programs and applying for admission and
    financial aid for those programs.

-   Professional mentoring -- professionals, other than project staff,
    working with project participants to expose them to career and other
    opportunities available to them.

-   Peer counseling and mentoring -- a variety of support, personal or
    academic, provided by other students and designed to help project
    participants adjust to the institution.

Over 90 percent of projects offered personal counseling, academic
advising, financial aid advice, and career and employment counseling.
Fewer projects offered professional mentoring (30 percent) or peer
counseling and mentoring (45 percent) (Table 15). Counseling sessions
frequently covered more than one of these areas. In these cases,
projects prorated the number of contact hours among the different types
of counseling.

The most popular counseling service was academic advising, used by 80
percent of participants, followed by financial aid counseling, career
counseling, and personal counseling, at about half that level. The
average number of hours per participant receiving the service ranged
from 1.7 hours for financial aid counseling to 7.6 hours for peer
counseling and mentoring. Hours per project ranged from 75 for graduate
school counseling to 652 for academic advising*.*

  -------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076248                                               
  .anchor}Table 15. Counseling and                                             
  mentoring services provided by                                               
  SSS projects: 1997-1998                                                      

  **Type of counseling and         **Percentage   **Percentage   **Hours per   **Hours per
  mentoring service**              of projects    of             participant   project
                                   offering       participants   receiving     offering
                                   service\***    receiving      service**     service**
                                                  service**                    

  Personal counseling              92%            41%            3.4           353

  Academic advising                95%            80%            3.3           652

  Financial aid counseling         91%            48%            1.7           206

  Career and employment assistance 92%            39%            2.2           222

  Transfer counseling              65%            15%            2.6           141

  Graduate school counseling       45%            7%             2.1           75

  Professional mentoring           30%            8%             4.5           268

  Peer counseling and mentoring    45%            14%            7.6           557

  Other                            34%            12%            3.6           299

  \*A project is counted as                                                    
  offering the service if at least                                             
  one participant received it.                                                 

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                   
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                      
  Programs, Student Support                                                    
  Services Performance Reports,                                                
  1997-98.                                                                     
  -------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------

## D. Cultural and enrichment activities

SSS projects reported the number of participants who engaged in cultural
enrichment activities, but not the number of contact hours. These
activities are defined on the report form as follows:

-   Cultural activities -- These include any project-sponsored
    activities, such as field trips, special lectures, and symposia,
    that foster academic progress and personal development.

-   Campus visitations -- These include project-sponsored trips to other
    postsecondary institutions to acquaint students with other
    institutions that the participants could attend to further their
    education (e.g., four-year institutions for students at two-year
    colleges or graduate or professional schools for students at
    four-year institutions).

-   Information workshops -- These include short workshops or seminars
    (usually a half day or less) on topics that may range from stress
    management and test-taking to drug and alcohol abuse.

Projects reported that 33 percent of participants attended
project-sponsored cultural activities (Figure 9). Information workshops
were attended by 23 percent of participants. Six percent of participants
made campus visits. Campus visits were more frequent among participants
in two-year than four-year institutions. Eleven percent of participants
in two-year institutions were reported to have made such visits.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235392 .anchor}Figure 9. Percent of SSS
participants engaging in cultural and enrichment activities: 1997-98

![](media/image9.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

#### E. Distribution of contact hours by type of service

Figure 10 presents the distribution of contact hours by type of
service---that is, the academic support services taken together and the
counseling and mentoring services taken together---by institution
sector. Across all sectors, between 62 and 68 percent of the contact
hours were accounted for in academic support activities, and between 32
and 38 percent were devoted to counseling and mentoring services. As
noted previously, tutoring in its various forms accounted for the
largest percentage of the total contact hours. This pattern is similar
for both four-year and two-year public institutions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235393 .anchor}Figure 10. Contact hours by type
of SSS service (counseling and mentoring activities and academic support
services), by sector: 1997-98

![](media/image10.wmf)NOTE: Academic support services include all forms
of tutoring, supplemental instruction, assisted labs, computer labs,
orientation, study skills, and other forms of support. Counseling and
mentoring activities include personal, academic, financial aid, career
and employment, graduate school, transfer, peer and professional, and
any other forms of counseling.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

# IV. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT RECORDS 

This section summarizes information obtained from the individual
participant records submitted in 1998-99, the fourth year that these
data were reported by projects. For that reporting period, SSS projects
submitted records for 236,203 students, including those identified as
prior-year participants. (In 1997-98, participant records were submitted
for 190,670 participants.)

For each participant record on the file, information was requested on
the following characteristics:

-   Date of birth.

-   Gender.

-   Race and ethnicity.

-   Eligibility.

-   Date of entrance into project.

-   Date of enrollment into institution.

-   Academic need criteria.

-   Participant status.

-   Enrollment status.

-   College grade level when student became a participant in SSS.

-   Current college grade level at end of reporting period.

-   Amount of financial need needed.

-   Amount of financial need awarded.

-   Reasons full financial aid was not awarded.

-   Grade point average (GPA).

-   Academic standing.

-   End-of-year enrollment status.

-   Degree or certificate completed.

## Participant characteristics

Section II summarized the gender, race and ethnicity, eligibility
status, and current grade level of students receiving SSS services in
1997-98 and reported as aggregate data in the performance reports. This
section focuses on information from the 1998-99 participant records not
included in the aggregate reports, such as participant status, age, and
financial aid.

### Participant status

The status of a participant can be new, continuing, or prior-year:

-   New participants are those who began to receive services in the
    reporting period.

-   Continuing participants are those who had begun in a previous period
    and continued to receive program services in the reporting period.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Prior-year participants are former participants still at the
    institution but not receiving services in the reporting period.

Figure 11 shows the status of participants in 1998-99.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235394 .anchor}Figure 11. Participant status:
1998-99

![](media/image11.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Table 16 shows participant status by institution sector. Because
students spend a longer time at four-year institutions, SSS projects at
four-year institutions, especially public institutions, had higher
proportions of prior-year participants.

  -------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------ -----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076249                                       
  .anchor}Table 16. Participant                                        
  status, by sector: 1998-99                                           

  Sector                           **New            **Continuing       **Prior-year
                                   participants**   participants**     participants**

  Public four-year                 30%              36%                33%

  Private four-year                36%              41%                23%

  Public two-year                  42%              42%                16%

  Private two-year                 57%              38%                5%

  All sectors                      36%              39%                25%

  NOTE: Row percentages may not                                        
  sum to 100 because of rounding                                       

  Source: U.S. Department of                                           
  Education, Federal TRIO                                              
  Programs, Student Support                                            
  Services Performance Reports,                                        
  1998-99.                                                             
  -------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------ -----------------

### Participant age at entry

The calculation of participants' age at entry into SSS excludes
prior-year participants. SSS participants, on average, were older than
the traditional student attending college. The mean age of new
participants entering the program during the reporting period was 24.6
years and the median age was 20. Among two-year public institutions, the
mean age was 27.1 and the median was 22.8 (Table 17).

  -------------------------------- ------ ----------- ------------- ------------ ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076250                                                 
  .anchor}Table 17. Age at entry                                                 
  and years of participation for                                                 
  new and continuing participants,                                               
  by sector: 1998-99                                                             

                                   All    Public\     **Private\    **Public\    **Private\
                                          four-year   four-year**   two-year**   two-year**

  Mean age at entry into the       24.6   23.1        21.3          27.1         24.7
  program                                                                        

  Median age at entry into the     20.0   19.3        18.9          22.8         20.8
  program                                                                        

  Mean years of SSS participation  1.9    2.1         2.0           1.6          1.5
  at time of report                                                              

  Median years of SSS              1.4    1.6         1.6           1.1          1.0
  participation at time of report                                                

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                     
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                        
  Programs, Student Support                                                      
  Services Performance Reports,                                                  
  1998-99.                                                                       
  -------------------------------- ------ ----------- ------------- ------------ ------------

### Length of time in Student Support Services

The calculation of participants' length of time in SSS also excludes
prior-year participants. At the end of the reporting period, the mean
amount of time that new and continuing participants had spent in SSS was
1.9 years, similar to the 1996-97 findings (1.8 years). As would be
expected, projects at four-year institutions had longer periods of
participation than those at two-year institutions (Table 17).

### Grade at entry and current grade level

Over half (54 percent) of all SSS participants, including almost
three-fourths of those at private institutions, were first-year students
who had never attended college when they began to participate (Table
18). As to current grade, the largest group of participants was
second-year students (31 percent).

+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| []{#__                   |     |        |        |        |         |
| RefHeading___Toc35076251 |     |        |        |        |         |
| .anchor}Table 18. Grade  |     |        |        |        |         |
| level on entry and       |     |        |        |        |         |
| current grade level of   |     |        |        |        |         |
| participants, by sector: |     |        |        |        |         |
| 1998-99                  |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
|                          | *   | P      | **Pr   | **P    | **P     |
|                          | *Al | ublic\ | ivate\ | ublic\ | rivate\ |
|                          | l** | fou    | four-  | two-   | two     |
|                          |     | r-year | year** | year** | -year** |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| **Grade level on entry** |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > First year, never      | 54% | 54%    | 69%    | 49%    | 73%     |
| > attended               |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > First year, attended   | 22% | 14%    | 13%    | 34%    | 17%     |
| > before                 |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Second year, sophomore | 13% | 12%    | 9%     | 15%    | 10%     |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Third year, junior     | 6%  | 11%    | 5%     | 0%     | 0%      |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Fourth year, senior    | 3%  | 5%     | 2%     | 0%     | 0%      |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Fifth year, other      | 0%  | 1%     | 0%     | 0%     | 0%      |
| > undergrad              |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Missing or no response | 2%  | 3%     | 1%     | 2%     | 0%      |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| **Current grade level**  |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > First year, never      | 13% | 10%    | 18%    | 16%    | 24%     |
| > attended               |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > First year, attended   | 20% | 13%    | 10%    | 32%    | 32%     |
| > before                 |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Second year, sophomore | 31% | 20%    | 24%    | 48%    | 42%     |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Third year, junior     | 11% | 17%    | 18%    | 1%     | 1%      |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Fourth year, senior    | 16% | 26%    | 22%    | 1%     | 0%      |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Fifth year, other      | 3%  | 5%     | 3%     | 0%     | 0%      |
| > undergraduate          |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > First year, graduate   | 1%  | 2%     | 0%     | 0%     | 0%      |
| > or professional        |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Second year, graduate  | 0%  | 1%     | 0%     | 0%     | 0%      |
| > or professional        |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Third year, graduate   | 0%  | 0%     | 0%     | 0%     | 0%      |
| > or professional        |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Beyond third year      | 0%  | 0%     | 0%     | 0%     | 0%      |
| > graduate               |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| > Missing or no response | 4%  | 6%     | 4%     | 2%     | 1%      |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| NOTE: Percentages may    |     |        |        |        |         |
| not sum to 100 because   |     |        |        |        |         |
| of rounding.             |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Source: U.S. Department  |     |        |        |        |         |
| of Education, Federal    |     |        |        |        |         |
| TRIO Programs, Student   |     |        |        |        |         |
| Support Services         |     |        |        |        |         |
| Performance Reports,     |     |        |        |        |         |
| 1998-99.                 |     |        |        |        |         |
+--------------------------+-----+--------+--------+--------+---------+

### Full-time and part-time enrollment status

Full-time students constituted 63 percent of SSS participants in 1998-99
(Figure 12). Another ten percent of participants were enrolled half- or
three-quarters-time. Fifteen percent had an enrollment status of
"varied," meaning that the status changed over the course of the year.
The six percent of participants who were "not enrolled" were presumably
students who dropped out during the year. Private four-year institutions
had a substantially higher proportion of participants who were enrolled
full-time (83 percent); public two-year institutions had the lowest
percentage of full-time participants (48 percent) (Table 19).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235395 .anchor}Figure 12. Enrollment status of
participants: 1998-99

![](media/image12.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

  -------------------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076252                                                        
  .anchor}Table 19. Enrollment                                                          
  status of participants, by                                                            
  sector: 1998-99                                                                       

                                   **All       **Public      **Private     **Public     **Private
                                   sectors**   four-year**   four-year**   two-year**   two-year**

  Full time                        63%         68%           83%           48%          67%

  Three-fourths time               4%          3%            2%            7%           6%

  Half-time                        5%          4%            2%            8%           4%

  Less than half-time              4%          2%            4%            6%           3%

  Varied                           15%         11%           5%            24%          12%

  Not enrolled                     6%          9%            3%            4%           0%

  Missing                          2%          2%            1%            3%           8%

  NOTE: Percentages may not sum to                                                      
  100 because of rounding.                                                              

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                            
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                               
  Programs, Student Support                                                             
  Services Performance Reports,                                                         
  1998-99.                                                                              
  -------------------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------

### Academic need

Participant records indicated the methods that projects used to assess
the participant's academic needs. The most frequent response was
"multiple," meaning that more than one method was used (Table 20).
"Diagnostic tests" were the most frequently used specific assessment
tool, with 16 percent of all participant records reporting their use,
and they were used more frequently in two-year than in four-year
institutions.

  -------------------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076253                                                        
  .anchor}Table 20. Methods used                                                        
  to assess academic needs, by                                                          
  sector: 1998-99                                                                       

                                   **All       **Public\     **Private\    **Public\    **Private\
                                   sectors**   four-year**   four-year**   two-year**   two-year**

  High school GPA                  2.4%        3.2%          3.9%          1.0%         2.3%

  SAT scores-verbal                1.3%        1.7%          2.8%          0.2%         0.8%

  SAT scores-math                  0.7%        0.8%          1.7%          0.2%         1.3%

  ACT scores                       8.1%        12.5%         6.5%          3.4%         1.2%

  Predictive indicator             7.3%        7.4%          5.7%          7.7%         10.8%

  Diagnostic tests                 16.4%       9.0%          14.8%         25.2%        48.5%

  College GPA                      3.9%        5.4%          3.5%          2.3%         1.1%

  High school equivalency          0.7%        0.4%          0.3%          1.2%         1.2%

  Failing grades                   2.0%        1.9%          1.2%          2.5%         0.9%

  Out of academic pipeline         3.7%        2.7%          1.9%          5.6%         2.6%

  Multiple needs                   35.2%       33.2%         42.1%         36.0%        10.9%

  Other                            15.2%       18.3%         15.0%         11.3%        17.9%

  Missing                          3.0%        3.5%          0.5%          3.4%         0.6%

  NOTE: Percentages may not sum to                                                      
  100 because of rounding.                                                              

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                            
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                               
  Programs, Student Support                                                             
  Services Performance Reports,                                                         
  1998-99.                                                                              
  -------------------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------

### Financial aid needed and awarded to participants

Projects offered financial aid to two-thirds (66 percent) of SSS
participants in the 1998-99 reporting period (Table 21). Participants at
private institutions were more likely to receive aid and more likely to
receive an amount closer to the aid requested than those at public
institutions.

  -------------------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076254                                                        
  .anchor}Table 21. Financial aid,                                                      
  by sector: 1998-99                                                                    

                                   **All       **Public\     **Private\    **Public\    **Private\
                                   sectors**   four-year**   four-year**   two-year**   two-year**

  Total number of students         236,203     110,850       32,795        90,075       2,483

  Number requesting aid            163,694     73,214        25,235        63,140       2,105

  Number offered aid               154,852     69,407        26,350        56,937       2,158

  Percentage offered aid           66%         63%           80%           63%          87%

  Mean aid requested               \$8,482     \$8,943       \$12,709      \$6,016      \$8,969

  Mean aid offered                 \$6,932     \$7,578       \$11,381      \$4,159      \$6,307

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                            
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                               
  Programs, Student Support                                                             
  Services Performance Reports,                                                         
  1998-99.                                                                              
  -------------------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------

The average amount of aid requested was \$8,482 and the average amount
awarded was \$6,932 (Table 21). The amounts were lowest in SSS projects
at public two-year institutions (\$6,016 requested and \$4,159 awarded)
and highest in projects at private four-year institutions (\$12,709
requested and \$11,381 awarded).

Table 22 shows the reasons that aid applicants did not receive the
amounts requested. The most frequent reasons were that a loan was
refused or that there was insufficient aid available.

  -------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------ ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076255                                                      
  .anchor}Table 22. Reasons for                                                       
  deficient aid, by sector:                                                           
  1998-99                                                                             

                                   **All       Public\     **Private\    **Public\    **Private\
                                   sectors**   four-year   four-year**   two-year**   two-year**

  Loan refused                     9.2%        8.3%        8.7%          10.6%        7.2%

  Insufficient Federal grant aid   6.1%        6.2%        5.8%          6.2%         5.4%

  Insufficient College Work Study  0.9%        1.1%        0.6%          0.9%         1.4%
  aid                                                                                 

  Insufficient institution aid     4.6%        5.1%        5.3%          3.7%         9.6%

  Inadequate academic progress     1.3%        1.3%        0.8%          1.4%         2.5%

  Refused College Work study aid   2.3%        1.8%        1.8%          3.2%         0.5%

  Not enrolled full-time           4.3%        2.6%        3.3%          6.9%         4.0%

  Not eligible for financial aid   5.1%        3.8%        3.3%          7.3%         4.4%

  Full amount awarded, or none     66.1%       69.8%       70.3%         59.8%        64.9%
  requested                                                                           

  NOTE: Percentages may not sum to                                                    
  100 because of rounding.                                                            

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                          
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                             
  Programs, Student Support                                                           
  Services Performance Reports,                                                       
  1998-99.                                                                            
  -------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------ ------------

## B. Academic progress of participants

This section summarizes information about the academic progress of
participant as reported on the 1998-99 participant records.

### Grade point average (GPA) and academic standing

Almost all SSS projects (99 percent) were housed in institutions using a
four-point grading scale (Table 23). (Only 836 participant records out
of 236,203 reported GPAs using a five-point scale). The average GPA for
all SSS students in 1998-99 was 2.6 on a four-point scale (3.2 for the
few projects at institutions on a 5-point scale). This is similar to the
results in the *National Study of Student* *Support Services*, which
reported an average cumulative GPA of 2.6 for SSS students in their
third year of school (Chaney, Muraskin, Cahalan, and Rak, 1997).

There was little variation between public and private institutions, but
students at two-year institutions had somewhat higher average GPAs than
students at four-year institutions.

+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| []{#__                   |        |       |       |        |        |
| RefHeading___Toc35076256 |        |       |       |        |        |
| .anchor}Table 23.        |        |       |       |        |        |
| Average cumulative GPA   |        |       |       |        |        |
| and academic standing of |        |       |       |        |        |
| participants, by sector: |        |       |       |        |        |
| 1998-99                  |        |       |       |        |        |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
|                          | All    | **Pu  | **Pri | **P    | **Pr   |
|                          | s      | blic\ | vate\ | ublic\ | ivate\ |
|                          | ectors | f     | f     | two-   | two-   |
|                          |        | our-y | our-y | year** | year** |
|                          |        | ear** | ear** |        |        |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **Average cumulative GPA | 2.64   | 2.61  | 2.62  | 2.69   | 2.73   |
| on 4-point scale**       |        |       |       |        |        |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **Academic standing**    |        |       |       |        |        |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| > Good                   | 82.2%  | 82.5% | 83.7% | 81.4%  | 78.1%  |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| > Not in good standing   | 13.9%  | 14.4% | 13.3% | 13.7%  | 12.7%  |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| > Missing                | 3.9%   | 3.2%  | 3.0%  | 5.0%   | 9.3%   |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| NOTE: Percentages may    |        |       |       |        |        |
| not sum to 100 because   |        |       |       |        |        |
| of rounding.             |        |       |       |        |        |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| Source: U.S. Department  |        |       |       |        |        |
| of Education, Federal    |        |       |       |        |        |
| TRIO Programs, Student   |        |       |       |        |        |
| Support Services         |        |       |       |        |        |
|                          |        |       |       |        |        |
| Performance Reports,     |        |       |       |        |        |
| 1998-99.                 |        |       |       |        |        |
+--------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+--------+

Eighty-two percent of SSS current and prior-year participants in 1999
were in good academic standing at their institutions (often defined as a
GPA of 2.0), 14 percent were not in good standing, and 4 percent had
missing information.

### End-of-year enrollment status

Table 24 shows the enrollment status of SSS students.[^8] More than 61
percent were continuing students, 3 percent transferred, 14 percent
graduated, 1 percent enrolled in graduate school, 10 percent withdrew
(mostly for "personal reasons"), 2 percent were dismissed, and 9 percent
had an unknown status.

Only two percent of participants received an academic dismissal at the
end of the year. The highest occurrence was at public four-year
institutions.

### Degrees and certificates awarded

Almost 17 percent of SSS current and prior-year participants enrolled at
the institution during the reporting year completed a degree or
certificate in 1998-99 (Table 25).

+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| []{#__Ref             |        |        |        |        |        |
| Heading___Toc35076257 |        |        |        |        |        |
| .anchor}Table 24.     |        |        |        |        |        |
| End-of-year           |        |        |        |        |        |
| enrollment status of  |        |        |        |        |        |
| current and           |        |        |        |        |        |
| prior-year            |        |        |        |        |        |
| participants, by      |        |        |        |        |        |
| sector: 1998-99       |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       | All    | P      | **Pr   | **P    | **Pr   |
|                       | s      | ublic\ | ivate\ | ublic\ | ivate\ |
|                       | ectors | fou    | four-  | two-   | two-   |
|                       |        | r-year | year** | year** | year** |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Academic dismissal    | 2.3%   | 3.4%   | 1.4%   | 1.4%   | 2.8%   |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Dismissal for         | 0.2%   | 0.1%   | 0.4%   | 0.1%   | 1.2%   |
| nonacademic reasons   |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Withdrew for          | 0.5%   | 0.4%   | 0.4%   | 0.7%   | 0.5%   |
| financial reasons     |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Withdrew for health   | 0.6%   | 0.4%   | 0.4%   | 0.9%   | 1.1%   |
| reasons               |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Withdrew for academic | 1.9%   | 1.9%   | 1.5%   | 2.1%   | 3.4%   |
| reasons               |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Withdrew for personal | 6.9%   | 5.3%   | 5.3%   | 9.5%   | 8.1%   |
| reasons               |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Transferred           | 3.3%   | 2.1%   | 2.2%   | 5.2%   | 6.1%   |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Graduated             | 11.9%  | 13.9%  | 13.4%  | 9.0%   | 7.2%   |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Graduated and         | 1.9%   | 0.2%   | 0.1%   | 4.6%   | 6.0%   |
| transferred           |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Enrolled in graduate  | 0.7%   | 1.1%   | 0.7%   | 0.2%   | 0.2%   |
| programs              |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Continuing student    | 61.1%  | 62.8%  | 70.2%  | 55.8%  | 52.6%  |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| No response           | 8.6%   | 8.4%   | 4.0%   | 10.5%  | 10.9%  |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| NOTE: Percentages may |        |        |        |        |        |
| not sum to 100        |        |        |        |        |        |
| because of rounding.  |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Source: U.S.          |        |        |        |        |        |
| Department of         |        |        |        |        |        |
| Education, Federal    |        |        |        |        |        |
| TRIO Programs,        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Student Support       |        |        |        |        |        |
| Services              |        |        |        |        |        |
|                       |        |        |        |        |        |
| Performance Reports,  |        |        |        |        |        |
| 1998-99.              |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| []                           |      |       |        |      |      |
| {#__RefHeading___Toc35076258 |      |       |        |      |      |
| .anchor}Table 25. Degrees or |      |       |        |      |      |
| certificates awarded to      |      |       |        |      |      |
| current and prior-year       |      |       |        |      |      |
| participants, by sector:     |      |       |        |      |      |
| 1998-99                      |      |       |        |      |      |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
|                              | *    | Pu    | **Pr   | *    | **   |
|                              | *All | blic\ | ivate\ | *Pub | Priv |
|                              | s    | four  | four-  | lic\ | ate\ |
|                              | ecto | -year | year** | tw   | tw   |
|                              | rs** |       |        | o-ye | o-ye |
|                              |      |       |        | ar** | ar** |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| Certificate or diploma for   | 0.8% | 0.1%  | 0.3%   | 1.7% | 8.4% |
| less than two-year program   |      |       |        |      |      |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| Certificate or diploma for   | 0.9% | 0.1%  | 1.4%   | 1.7% | 0.5% |
| two-year program             |      |       |        |      |      |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| Associate's degree           | 5.5% | 1.2%  | 2.0%   | 1    | 1    |
|                              |      |       |        | 1.8% | 6.9% |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| First bachelor\'s degree     | 8.9% | 15.3% | 11.3%  | 0.3% | \*%  |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| Second bachelor\'s degree    | 0.1% | .1%   | \*%    | \*%  | \*%  |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| Teaching credential program  | \*%  | .1%   | \*%    | \*%  | \*%  |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| Graduate or professional     | 0.3% | 0.4%  | 0.4%   | 0.2% | \*%  |
| degree                       |      |       |        |      |      |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| No degree or certificate     | 8    | 82.8% | 84.6%  | 8    | 7    |
| reported in period           | 3.5% |       |        | 4.2% | 4.1% |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| NOTE: Percentages may not    |      |       |        |      |      |
| sum to 100 because of        |      |       |        |      |      |
| rounding*.*                  |      |       |        |      |      |
|                              |      |       |        |      |      |
| \* Percent is less than .05  |      |       |        |      |      |
| percent.                     |      |       |        |      |      |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+
| Source: U.S. Department of   |      |       |        |      |      |
| Education, Federal TRIO      |      |       |        |      |      |
| Programs, Student Support    |      |       |        |      |      |
| Services Performance         |      |       |        |      |      |
| Reports, 1998-99.            |      |       |        |      |      |
+------------------------------+------+-------+--------+------+------+

# V. RETENTION TO THE SECOND YEAR 

This section provides estimates of the percentage of first-year SSS
participants who returned to the same institution the following year.
The estimates are based on participant records and on updates received
from projects. We calculated retention rates between 1997-98 and 1998-99
and between 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

## A. Procedure for updates

To increase the quality of the performance reports, in July 2000 we sent
to 681 projects lists of participants who appeared on the files in
1997-98 but did not appear on the files in 1998-99. Participants whose
records indicated that they were likely to graduate or that they had
withdrawn were excluded from the lists. Projects were asked to review
the lists and indicate whether any of the listed students were actually
enrolled at their institution in 1998-99, regardless of whether they
continued as SSS participants. By January 2001, we had received the
updates from 496 projects (including nine with no changes).

We did not send lists to, or include in our calculations, projects that
did not submit participant records for both years. We also excluded
projects for which there remained unresolved problems with the data.

Similar procedures were repeated in January 2002 when we sent to 674
projects lists of participants who were included on the files in 1998-99
but did not appear on the files in 1999-2000. This time, project
directors were also given instructions on how to submit their updated
reports via the Web, and encouraged to do so as an alternative to
returning paper reports in the mail. A total of 565 updated reports were
returned (84 percent). Of those returned, 497 (88 percent) reports were
submitted electronically. However, 47 of the Web returns were incomplete
due to problems with transmission. A second request to these projects
yielded a return of another 25 completed reports.

## B. Retention rates

Table 26 shows the rates of retention at SSS institutions from 1997-98
to 1998-99. We have also included comparison numbers taken from
*Postsecondary Education Opportunity (June 1997 and November 1999)*,
which are based on ACT data. The overall retention rate for SSS students
(67 percent) is virtually identical to the national average. It is three
percentage points higher than that of "liberal admission" institutions
(64 percent), a more appropriate comparison group for SSS.

  -------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- -----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc35076259                                                                     
  .anchor}Table 26. Retention                                                                        
  rates: 1997-98 to 1998-99                                                                          

  Sector                           Number of SSS **Number of  **Number of   **Percent of **Percent   **Percent
                                   projects      first-year   second-year   SSS students retained in retained in
                                   included in   students in  students in   retained**   liberal     all U.S.
                                   calculation   1997-98**    1998-99                    admission   schools
                                                              (including                 schools     (ACT)**
                                                              updates)**                 (ACT)**     

  Public four-year                 235           21,014       15,357        73.1%        66.3%       71.9%

  Private four-year                116           8,207        5,487         66.9%        65.6%       75.1%

  Public two-year                  304           35,713       22,601        63.3%        NA          52.5%

  Private two-year                 11            1,315        670           51.0%        NA          69.9%

  All sectors                      666           66,249       44,115        66.6%        63.8%       66.7%

  Source: U.S. Department of                                                                         
  Education, Federal TRIO                                                                            
  Programs, Student Support                                                                          
  Services Performance Reports,                                                                      
  1997-98 and 1998-99;                                                                               
  Postsecondary Education                                                                            
  Opportunity, June 1997 and                                                                         
  November 1999.                                                                                     
  -------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- -----------

Table 27 shows the retention rates from 1998-99 to 1999-2000. Retention
of SSS participants for this time span was about two percentage points
higher than for 1997-98 to 1998-99 (69 percent versus 67 percent). This
is reflective of the increased number of first-year SSS students in
1998-99 (75,934) compared to 1997-98 (66,249). Additionally, a larger
percentage of students were retained in private four-year institutions
in 1999-2000 than in 1998-99 (75 percent versus 67 percent).

  --------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- -----------
  Table 27.                                                                         
  Retention                                                                         
  rates: 1998-99                                                                    
  to 1999-2000                                                                      

  Sector          Number of SSS **Number of  **Number of   **Percent of **Percent   **Percent
                  projects      first-year   second-year   SSS students retained in retained in
                  included in   students in  students in   retained**   liberal     all U.S.
                  calculation   1998-99**    1999-2000                  admission   schools
                                             (including                 schools     (ACT)**
                                             updates)**                 (ACT)**     

  Public          273           24,698       18,295        74.1%        66.3%       71.9%
  four-year                                                                         

  Private         123           9,018        6,752         74.9%        65.6%       75.1%
  four-year                                                                         

  Public two-year 334           40,892       26,549        64.9%        NA          52.5%

  Private         12            1,326        597           45.0%        NA          69.9%
  two-year                                                                          

  Total           742           75,934       52,193        68.7%        63.8%       66.7%

  Source: U.S.                                                                      
  Department of                                                                     
  Education,                                                                        
  Federal TRIO                                                                      
  Programs,                                                                         
  Student Support                                                                   
  Services                                                                          
  Performance                                                                       
  Reports,                                                                          
  1998-99 and                                                                       
  1999-2000;                                                                        
  Postsecondary                                                                     
  Education                                                                         
  Opportunity,                                                                      
  June 1997 and                                                                     
  November 1999.                                                                    
  --------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- -----------

## C. Limitations and discussion 

SSS retention rates may be higher than calculated. Not all projects
updated their records. Retention rates calculated using no updates are
seven percent lower that the final figures.

Tables 26 and 27 include some national rates obtained from ACT data for
comparison. The SSS rates are about the same as the national average for
retention to the second year. At public institutions, the SSS rates are
higher than the national average; they are slightly lower at private
institutions. This reflects the greater prevalence of SSS projects at
institutions with more liberal or flexible entrance requirements. The
*National Study of Student Support Services* found that about one-third
of all open admission institutions have SSS projects, while only about
19 percent of highly selective institutions have SSS projects.

# VI. FUTURE PLANS

As this report demonstrates, Student Support Services projects are
submitting performance data of high internal consistency and validity.
We commend SSS projects for their extensive and effective work in
producing the performance reports.

Among issues that need to be clarified in future report cycles are the
range of participants whose records should be submitted and consistency
across projects in reporting some items.

Plans for improving and using this information include:

-   Clarifying directions for completing performance reports.

-   Analyzing data that cover longer time spans to understand student
    progress toward graduation.

-   Establishing benchmarks for project planning and assessment in order
    to improve services.

-   Linking SSS data with other federal databases.

The Department is confident that these efforts will give SSS projects
more information to help them improve services and enhance the success
of low-income and first-generation college students and students with
disabilities in postsecondary education.

# APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS FOR 1999-2000

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ --------------
  Table A1.                                                                
  Eligibility                                                              
  classification                                                           
  of SSS                                                                   
  participants, by                                                         
  sector:                                                                  
  1999-2000                                                                

  **Sector**       **Low-income   **Low-income   **First-     **Disabled   **Disabled and
                   and first-     only**         generation   only**       low-income**
                   generation**                  only**                    

  Public four-year 58%            8%             19%          8%           7%

  Private          62%            9%             20%          5%           4%
  four-year                                                                

  Public two-year  61%            6%             19%          7%           7%

  Private two-year 66%            9%             20%          4%           2%

  All projects     60%            7%             19%          7%           6%

  Note: Row                                                                
  percentages may                                                          
  not sum to 100                                                           
  because of                                                               
  rounding.                                                                

  Source: U.S.                                                             
  Department of                                                            
  Education,                                                               
  Federal TRIO                                                             
  Programs,                                                                
  Student Support                                                          
  Services                                                                 
  Performance                                                              
  Reports,                                                                 
  1999-2000.                                                               
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ --------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235397 .anchor}Figure A1. Participant
distribution by eligibility status: 1999-2000

![](media/image13.wmf)Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO
Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235399 .anchor}Figure A2. Gender of SSS
participants and all undergraduate students: 1999-2000

![](media/image14.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Services Performance Reports, 1999-2000 and National Center for
Education Statistics, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary
Education Institutions, 1999-2000.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc35235401 .anchor}Figure A3. Racial and ethnic
background of SSS participants: 1999-2000

![](media/image15.wmf)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student
Support Service Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

# REFERENCES

Cahalan, Margaret. Lana Muraskin. *National Study of Student Services
Interim Report: Vol. 1, Program Implementation,* U.S. Department of
Education, 1994.

Chaney, Bradford. Lana Muraskin, Margaret Cahalan, Rebecca Rak.
*National Study of Student Support Services. Third Year Longitudinal
Study Results and Program Implementation Study Update.* U.S. Department
of Education, February 1997.

####### 

[^1]: ^1^Prior to1995-96, the annual performance report form requested
    only aggregate demographic information on project participants.

[^2]: ^2^Annual performance reports cover the 12-month grant (budget)
    period, typically September through August.

[^3]: ^?^Prior to 1992, the Federal TRIO Programs were officially known
    as Special Programs for Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds. The
    three original federal programs from which the "trio" programs
    derived their name were Upward Bound (1964), Talent Search (1965)
    and Student Support Services (1968). Though the term TRIO (in all
    caps) is not an acronym, it has been retained to avoid confusion.
    Educators began using the word TRIO to describe these student
    programs in 1968 with the passage of the Student Support Services
    legislation. Currently the TRIO programs are eight in number, since
    the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 added an
    eighth program, the TRIO Dissemination Partnership Program. In
    addition to these four already named programs, the other four TRIO
    programs are: Educational Opportunity Centers, Ronald E. McNair
    Postbaccalaureate Achievement, Training Program for Federal TRIO
    Programs, and Upward Bound Math-Science.

[^4]: ^?^ Projects were instructed to include prior-year participants
    only in the electronic files of individual participant records.
    These students were not included in the aggregate reporting on
    project participants who received services during the reporting
    period.

[^5]: A low-income participant is one whose family's taxable income is
    less than 150 percent of the poverty level. The U.S. Department of
    Commerce, Bureau of the Census, sets guidelines for determining the
    poverty level.

[^6]: A first-generation college student is one whose parents or
    guardians did not receive a baccalaureate degree.

[^7]: ^?^Limited English Proficient (LEP) is a term defined in federal
    regulations to include students whose first language is not English
    and whose proficiency in English is currently at a level where they
    are not able to fully participate in an English-only instructional
    environment.

[^8]: There was some confusion about the meaning of "end of year." Some
    projects took this to mean June and others took it as fall
    enrollment (August or September).