This is some 

POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the 

Third Follow-Up Data Collection 

2004

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC # 2004-13 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the 

Third Follow-Up Data Collection 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of the Under Secretary 

By: 

David Myers 

Robert Olsen 

Neil Seftor 

Julie Young 

Christina Tuttle 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Washington, D.C. 

2004 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number EA97030001 with 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. David Goodwin served as the contracting officer’s representative. The 

views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of 

Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Rod Paige 

Secretary 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Eugene Hickok 

Under Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

April 2004 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, The Impacts of Regular 

Upward Bound: Results from the Third Follow-Up Data Collection, Washington, D.C., 2004. 

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

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/ppss/index.htm1. 

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. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U. S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

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

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in 

your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833. 

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

Acknowledgments 

This report on the effects of Upward Bound on student outcomes reflects the contributions 

of many individuals. The authors would like to thank David Goodwin of the Policy and Program 

Studies Service of the U.S. Department of Education for his continued support, substantive 

guidance and encouragement throughout the study. Mary Moore, a principal investigator for the 

national evaluation of Upward Bound, helped to shape the study design and has helped to 

interpret study findings. Mark Dynarski provided helpful suggestions on several drafts of the 

report. Paul Decker led the initial phase of the analysis of program participation, and Larry 

Radbill conducted the analysis. Tim Silva provided helpful suggestions on the final draft and 

coordinated the editing process. 

The authors would also like to thank the individuals who contributed to the data analysis and 

the production of the report. Brittany Dawson, Julia Chou, Valerie Klein and Julia Lin provided 

excellent research assistance. Daryl Hall edited the report, and Micki Morris prepared the 

document. 

v 

CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................xv 

 I INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 

A. CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF UPWARD BOUND...........................................1 

B. RESEARCH DESIGN.............................................................................................4 

1. Selection of Upward Bound Projects and Random Assignment .....................4 

2. Data Collection ................................................................................................6 

3. Estimation of Program Effects.........................................................................7 

4. Context for Interpreting Program Effects ........................................................9 

5. Subgroup Analysis .........................................................................................11 

 II UPDATE ON PROGRAM PARTICIPATION, UPWARD BOUND 

 COURSE-TAKING AND EFFECTS ON HIGH SCHOOL OUTCOMES .................15 

A. EXPOSURE TO UPWARD BOUND...................................................................15 

1. Participation ...................................................................................................15 

2. Duration .........................................................................................................15 

3. Receipt of Academic and Nonacademic Services..........................................16 

B. RECEIPT OF SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES .....................................................21 

C. THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON HIGH SCHOOL CREDITS, 

 GRADE POINT AVERAGE AND COMPLETION ............................................24 

1. The Effect of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grade Point 

Average and Completion for All Students.....................................................24 

2. The Effect of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grade Point 

Average and Completion for Selected Subgroups .........................................25 
CONTENTS (continued) 

Page

vi 

 III THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON STUDENTS’ POSTSECONDARY 

 EDUCATION EXPERIENCES....................................................................................31 

A. THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY 

 ENROLLMENT AND PERSISTENCE FOR ALL STUDENTS.........................32 

1. The Effect of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment.........................34 

2. The Effect of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Persistence.........................34 

B. THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY 

 ENROLLMENT AND PERSISTENCE FOR SELECTED SUBGROUPS .........35 

1. Subgroups Defined by Educational Expectations..........................................35 

2. Subgroups Defined by Academic Risk ..........................................................40 

3. Subgroups Defined by the Eligibility Criteria for Upward Bound ................41 

4. Subgroups Defined by Race and Ethnicity ....................................................42 

5. Subgroups Defined by the Sex of the Student ...............................................50 

6. Subgroups Defined by the Likelihood of Being Selected to Participate 

in Upward Bound...........................................................................................50 

C. THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON COLLEGE ENGAGEMENT..........51 

 IV THE EFFECT OF LONGER UPWARD BOUND PARTICIPATION AND 

 COMPLETION ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT AND 

 PERSISTENCE.............................................................................................................59 

A. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...................................................................................60 

B. RESEARCH METHODS ......................................................................................61 

C. THE EFFECT OF LONGER PARTICIPATION AND COMPLETION .............64 

1. The Effect of Longer Participation ................................................................65 

2. The Effect of Program Completion................................................................65 

3. The Effect of Longer Participation and Program Completion on 

Enrollment at Four-Year Institutions .............................................................66 

4. The Effect of Longer Participation and Program Completion for 

Subgroups Defined by Academic Risk ..........................................................68 

D. INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS...........................................................69 

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................73
CONTENTS (continued) 

Page

vii 

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE DESIGN, UNIT NONRESPONSE 

 AND WEIGHTS............................................................................ A-1 

APPENDIX B: BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 

 TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, 

 THIRD FOLLOW-UP SURVEY RESPONDENTS......................B-1 

APPENDIX C: PROGRAM EFFECTS AND STANDARD ERRORS ..................C-1 

APPENDIX D: THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON HIGH SCHOOL 

 OUTCOMES BY SELECTED SUBGROUPS ............................. D-1 

APPENDIX E: THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON COLLEGE 

 ENGAGEMENT BY SELECTED SUBGROUPS.........................E-1 

APPENDIX F: METHODS USED TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF 

 ADDITIONAL UPWARD BOUND PARTICIPATION...............F-1 

APPENDIX G: WEIGHTED STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR 

 ALL OUTCOME VARIABLES.................................................... G-1 

APPENDIX H: DATA COLLECTION .................................................................. H-1 

APPENDIX I: SAMPLE SIZES AND STANDARD ERRORS FOR 

 REPORTED IMPACT ESTIMATES..............................................I-1

ix 

TABLES 

Table Page 

 I.1 RESPONSE RATES ....................................................................................................7 

 II.1 DURATION AND SURVIVAL ESTIMATES .........................................................17 

 II.2 UPWARD BOUND ACADEMIC AND ACTIVITY SESSIONS: 

 ALL PARTICIPANTS ...............................................................................................18 

 II.3 UPWARD BOUND ACADEMIC AND ACTIVITY SESSIONS: 

 PROGRAM COMPLETERS .....................................................................................22 

 II.4 RECEIPT OF SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES..........................................................23 

 II.5 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON HIGH SCHOOL CREDITS, GRADES 

 AND GRADUATION................................................................................................26 

 II.6 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON HIGH SCHOOL CREDITS, GRADES 

 AND GRADUATION FOR STUDENTS WITH HIGHER AND LOWER 

 EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS.........................................................................27 

 II.7 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON HIGH SCHOOL CREDITS, GRADES 

 AND GRADUATION BY STUDENTS’ AT-RISK STATUS .................................29 

 III.1 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS, INCLUDES ALL SELF-REPORTED 

 POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT......................................................................36 

 III.2 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS, EXCLUDES UNVERIFIED SELF-REPORTED 

 ENROLLMENT.........................................................................................................37 

 III.3 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS FOR STUDENTS WITH HIGHER AND LOWER 

 EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS, INCLUDES ALL SELF-REPORTED 

 POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT......................................................................38 

 III.4 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS FOR STUDENTS WITH HIGHER AND LOWER 

 EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS, EXCLUDES UNVERIFIED 

 SELF-REPORTED ENROLLMENT.........................................................................39 
TABLES (continued) 

Table Page 

x

 III.5 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS BY STUDENTS’ AT-RISK STATUS, INCLUDES ALL 

 SELF-REPORTED POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT .....................................44 

 III.6 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS BY STUDENTS’ AT-RISK STATUS, EXCLUDES 

 UNVERIFIED SELF-REPORTED ENROLLMENT................................................45 

 III.7 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS BY STUDENTS’ ELIGIBILITY STATUS, INCLUDES ALL 

 SELF-REPORTED POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT .....................................46 

 III.8 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS BY STUDENTS’ ELIGIBILITY STATUS, EXCLUDES 

 UNVERIFIED SELF-REPORTED ENROLLMENT................................................47 

 III.9 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN, WHITE AND HISPANIC 

 STUDENTS, INCLUDES ALL SELF-REPORTED POSTSECONDARY 

 ENROLLMENT.........................................................................................................48 

 III.10 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN, WHITE AND HISPANIC 

 STUDENTS, EXCLUDES UNVERIFIED SELF-REPORTED ENROLLMENT ...49 

 III.11 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS FOR MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS, INCLUDES ALL 

 SELF-REPORTED POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT .....................................52 

 III.12 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS FOR MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS, EXCLUDES 

 UNVERIFIED SELF-REPORTED ENROLLMENT................................................53 

 III.13 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS BY THE LIKELIHOOD OF ADMISSION TO UPWARD 

 BOUND, INCLUDES ALL SELF-REPORTED POSTSECONDARY 

 ENROLLMENT.........................................................................................................54 

 III.14 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS BY THE LIKELIHOOD OF ADMISSION TO UPWARD 

 BOUND, EXCLUDES UNVERIFIED SELF-REPORTED ENROLLMENT .........55 

 III.15 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON COLLEGE ENGAGEMENT ......................57 
TABLES (continued) 

Table Page 

xi

 IV.1 DURATION OF UPWARD BOUND PARTICIPATION AND 

 COMPLETION RATES, EXCLUDING NO-SHOWS .............................................61 

 IV.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF UPWARD BOUND PARTICIPANTS WHO 

 ENTERED IN NINTH OR TENTH GRADE 

 BY PARTICIPATION DURATION AND COMPLETION STATUS.....................62 

 IV.3 IMPACT OF AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF UPWARD BOUND 

 PARTICIPATION ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS..........................................................................................................66 

 IV.4 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND COMPLETION 

 ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT AND CREDITS....................................67 

 IV.5 IMPACT OF AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF UPWARD BOUND 

 PARTICIPATION ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 

 AND CREDITS BY STUDENTS’ AT-RISK STATUS ...........................................68 

 IV.6 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND COMPLETION 

 ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT AND CREDITS 

 BY STUDENTS’ AT-RISK STATUS.......................................................................69 

xiii 

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

 1 IMPACT OF UPWARD BOUND ON POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT, 

 BY LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS ............................................ xix 

 II.1 UPWARD BOUND ACADEMIC SESSIONS TAKEN BY PARTICIPANTS .......19 

 II.2 UPWARD BOUND NONACADEMIC ACTIVITIES BY PARTICIPANTS..........20 

xv 

Executive Summary 

Policymakers have long been concerned about the disparities in college attendance between 

more and less advantaged groups of students. Data from the 1990s indicate that students from 

high-income families were more than twice as likely to attend a four-year college or university as 

students from low-income families, and this difference is not surprising given disparities in 

college preparation between high- and low-income high school students. While the vast majority 

of high-income high school graduates are qualified to attend a four-year college—based on 

grades and test scores—only half of low-income students have adequate qualifications (Lutz and 

Carroll, 1998). 

Upward Bound is one of the largest and longest running federal programs designed to help 

economically disadvantaged students prepare for, enter and succeed in college. Upward Bound 

is “designed to generate skills and motivation necessary for success in education beyond high 

school among young people from low-income backgrounds and inadequate secondary school 

preparation” (Public Law 90-222, Dec. 23, 1967). About 52,000 students now participate in 727 

regular Upward Bound projects around the country. At least two-thirds of each project’s 

participants must be both low-income and potential first-generation college students. Students 

typically enter the regular Upward Bound program while in ninth or tenth grade. Although 

students may participate in Upward Bound through the summer following twelfth grade (for 

three to four years total), participants typically remain in Upward Bound for about 21 months. 

Projects provide students with a variety of services, including instruction, tutoring and 

counseling. In addition to regularly scheduled meetings throughout the school year, projects also 

offer an intensive instructional program that meets daily for about six weeks during the summer. 

The vast majority of projects are hosted by four-year colleges. 

Since December 1991, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., (MPR) has been conducting the 

national evaluation of Upward Bound for the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The 

evaluation has focused on program implementation issues and the effects of the program on 

student outcomes. The “impact study” is designed to measure the impacts or effects of regular 

Upward Bound on student outcomes, and it is based on a longitudinal evaluation in which 

eligible applicants from a nationally representative sample of projects were randomly assigned to 

Upward Bound or to a control group. Results from the implementation study were presented in 

Moore (1997a) and effects of Upward Bound on high school outcomes were presented in Myers 

and Schirm (1999). The results summarized here are based on the national evaluation’s third 

follow-up data collection, which was completed in 2000. Because the entire sample of students 

was beyond high school age by that time, the report includes updated findings on the effects of 

Upward Bound on high school outcomes. In addition, based on data covering the first few years 

after sample members left high school, the report addresses the following research questions: 

• What effect does Upward Bound have on students’ postsecondary experiences? 

• Who benefits most from Upward Bound? 

• What is the association between staying in Upward Bound and student outcomes? 
xvi 

Because few other programs provide the same intensive experience as regular Upward 

Bound, the opportunity to participate in regular Upward Bound is an opportunity for students to 

get additional help in preparing for college. However, because more intensive programs are 

costlier than less intensive ones, regular Upward Bound is considerably more expensive than 

most other precollege programs. The evaluation was designed to test whether students in regular 

Upward Bound experienced better postsecondary outcomes than if they had participated in other 

available, but typically less intensive, precollege programs. 

Methods and Data 

 Methods 

The first two research questions were addressed by comparing the treatment group to the 

control group. Because eligible students were randomly assigned to these two groups, and 

because only treatment students were offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound, 

the differences between the two groups reveal the value-added of regular Upward Bound above 

and beyond the other programs and services that are available. Upward Bound operates in a 

service-rich environment, and students who are eligible for Upward Bound may participate in 

several precollege programs. Therefore, it is not surprising that many of the students assigned to 

both the treatment and control groups participate in precollege services other than regular 

Upward Bound. In fact, it is critical to the scientific validity of the study that students in the 

treatment and control groups have the same opportunities to pursue other services as the typical 

eligible applicant to regular Upward Bound. This report compares how eligible applicants fare 

when they are offered an opportunity to participate in the program to how they would fare 

without that opportunity. 

The third research question cannot be addressed using random assignment. To assess the 

effect of staying in the program for longer periods, the national evaluation used statistical 

methods that attempted to approximate the rigor of random assignment and, in doing so, allowed 

us to examine the association between length of participation and student outcomes. Students 

who stayed in the program for shorter periods of time were statistically matched with similar 

students who remained in the program for longer periods. Similarly, students who did not 

complete Upward Bound (did not stay until the spring of their senior year of high school) were 

matched with similar students who completed the program. Because the matching procedure 

may not have adjusted for all relevant differences between students who participated for different 

lengths of time, the results must be interpreted with greater caution than used when assessing 

results based on random assignment. 

 Data Sources 

Several data sources have informed this report. A nationally representative sample of 67 

Upward Bound projects hosted by two- and four-year colleges was selected for the evaluation. 

In 1993, a survey of these projects was conducted. From 1992 to 1994, a baseline survey was 

conducted to obtain information on students that applied to these projects. During the same 

period, eligible applicants in each project were randomly assigned to either a treatment group or 

a control group. About 1,500 students were assigned to the treatment group, and about 1,300 

were assigned to the control group. In 1994-1995, 1996-1997 and 1998-2000, follow-up surveys 
xvii 

were conducted. The response rates for these surveys were 97 percent, 86 percent and 81 

percent, respectively. High school and postsecondary transcripts were also collected. Finally, 

Upward Bound project staff reported on the participation of students in the program. 

When information was most recently collected on Upward Bound, the majority of students 

in the study had been out of high school for about two years. Because few students had an 

opportunity to complete college by that time, this report focuses on how Upward Bound affects 

preparation for college, college enrollment, the highest level of postsecondary education attended 

and initial progress in college.1

 Subsequent reports will examine college completion. 

Overview of Major Findings 

Findings in this report suggest that for the average student, Upward Bound (1) increased the 

number of high school math credits earned by participants, (2) did not affect other measures of 

high school academic preparation, (3) may have increased enrollment at four-year institutions 

and (4) did not affect enrollment at postsecondary institutions more generally when all types of 

postsecondary institutions are considered. Perhaps the most notable effect of Upward Bound 

was to increase the likelihood of attending four-year colleges and universities relative to other 

postsecondary institutions for students with lower educational expectations.2

 Finally, Upward 

Bound would have had larger effects if students remained in the program for longer periods of 

time. Below, we describe the findings in greater detail. 

 Effects on Postsecondary Outcomes 

• Upward Bound had no effect on overall enrollment or total credits earned at 

postsecondary institutions, but it may have increased enrollment in four-year 

postsecondary institutions. Almost three-fourths of students in both the treatment 

group and the control group attended postsecondary institutions, broadly defined to 

include four-year institutions, two-year institutions, vocational schools and other 

postsecondary institutions. While the program may have increased the percent of 

students attending four-year colleges by about 6 percentage points, the evidence is not 

conclusive (see Chapter III). 

 1

 In this report, the highest level of postsecondary education is defined based on the types of postsecondary 

institutions that students attended. Students who had attended a four-year college or university were classified as 

having enrolled in a four-year institution. Students who had not attended a four-year college or university but had 

attended a two-year college were classified as having enrolled in a two-year institution. Students who had not 

attended either a four-year college or university or a two-year college but had attended a vocational school after high 

school were classified as having enrolled in a vocational postsecondary institution. 

2

 Lower educational expectations were defined as expecting to complete less than a bachelor’s degree and 

higher expectations included completing a bachelor’s degree or higher. About 20 percent of the eligible program 

applicants had lower expectations. 
xviii 

• Upward Bound had a large effecs on enrollment at four-year colleges for students 

who had lower educational expectations. For students who had lower educational 

expectations when they applied to the program, Upward Bound more than doubled 

the percent attending four-year colleges and universities from 18 percent to 38 

percent (see Figure 1). For students with higher educational expectations, Upward 

Bound had no effect on enrollment at four-year colleges. 

• Upward Bound had a large effect on credits earned at four-year colleges by 

students who had lower educational expectations. Upward Bound more than 

doubled the number of credits that students with lower educational expectations 

earned in four-year colleges from 11 credits to 22 credits. However, Upward Bound 

had no effect on credits earned at four-year colleges by those with higher 

expectations. 

• Staying in Upward Bound for longer periods is associated with better student 

outcomes. Our findings suggest that Upward Bound participants would reap larger 

benefits from additional participation. Among students who applied for Upward 

Bound in ninth or tenth grade and left the program before the end of twelfth grade, 

program completion may increase the rate at which they attend postsecondary 

institutions by as many as 17 percentage points. For each of the same students, 

program completion may result in 16 additional postsecondary credits. Furthermore, 

for students who participated for two years or less, each additional year of Upward 

Bound may increase the rate at which participants attended postsecondary institutions 

by about 9 percentage points. Most of the increase in postsecondary attendance and 

credits earned is attributable to higher enrollment rates in four-year colleges and 

universities. However, these findings are based on nonexperimental methods and are 

therefore less reliable than other findings reported in this summary (see Chapter IV 

for more details). 

 Effects on High School Outcomes 

• Upward Bound had limited or no effects on total high school credits or grades. 

Upward Bound had no effect on total credits and a small effect on credits earned in 

high school math. The program increased the number of math credits earned by 0.2 

credits; that is, about one in five students completed an additional high school math 

course because of their exposure to Upward Bound. Upward Bound had no effect on 

credits earned in science, English, social studies or foreign language courses. Also, 

the program had no effect on honors and Advanced Placement credits, grades earned 

in high school or high school graduation. 

• Upward Bound increased high school credits earned by students with lower 

educational expectations. For students with lower educational expectations, Upward 

Bound increased the number of credits earned in the five core academic subjects 

together by 2.0 credits, and it increased credits earned in two of those subjects 

individually—math and foreign languages—by 0.5 credits and 0.3 credits, 

respectively. Upward Bound also increased the number of credits earned in honors 

and Advanced Placement courses for students with lower expectations. 
xix 

Upward Bound had a significantly larger effect on the likelihood of attending a four-year postsecondary 

institution for students who did not expect to complete a bachelor's degree when they entered Upward 

Bound than for students who expected to complete a bachelor's degree at that time.

Source: pst-hiexp.log and pst-loexp.log

by Level of Educational Expectations

Figure 1

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment,

Four-year Two-year Other

Students with Lower Educational Expectations

18

38

34

17

2

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Control

Treatment

Percent Attending

58%

54%

Students with Higher Educational Expectations

52

55

23

20

2

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Control

Treatment

Percent Attending

80%

77%

1 

I. Introduction 

A. Context and Purpose of Upward Bound 

Enrolling in college and completing a degree are important milestones for many young 

adults. Besides potential long-term benefits from college attendance and completion, such as 

increased wages, there are potential societal benefits that include reducing the burden on social 

service agencies and the criminal justice system, increasing local, state and federal tax revenues 

and, as some suggest, producing a more educated society that is better able to participate in a 

democratic form of government (see, for example, Decker et al. 1997; Oakes et al. 2000). 

Although completion of a college education is important from both the perspective of the 

individual and society, many potential college students lack the skills or the resources needed to 

enter college or complete a college degree. Those who face some of the greatest barriers to 

pursuing a postsecondary education often include young adults from low-income families and 

families where neither parent has acquired a bachelor’s degree; often, these same students are 

students of color (U.S. Department of Education 2001). Related to the low postsecondary 

enrollment rates for these students is the well-documented relationship between family 

socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity and high school academic preparation (see, for example, 

Coleman et al. 1966; Jencks et al. 1972; Mosteller and Moynihan 1972; Congressional Budget 

Office 1987; Jacobson et al. 2001). Although progress has been made to close the gap in 

achievement test scores between disadvantaged and more-advantaged students, large differences 

remain. For example, on achievement tests as reported by the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress, about 84 percent of African American students had scores that were lower 

than the typical white youth (Jencks and Phillips 1998). Furthermore, data from the National 

Education Longitudinal Study (1988-94) suggest that only half of low-income high school 
2 

graduates are academically prepared to attend four-year colleges or universities (Lutz and 

Carroll 1998). 

Since the War on Poverty started in the 1960s, many federal, state, community and 

privately-funded initiatives have been undertaken to alleviate some of the barriers to attending 

college and completing a degree faced by low-income, first-generation college students and 

minority students (see, for example, Adelman 2000; Swail and Perna 2000; James, Jurich, and 

Estes 2001). Programs range from the Equity 2000, Advancement Via Individual Determination 

(AVID) and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), 

which are integrated with the regular high school or middle school experiences, to programs that 

more often supplement the high school experience, such as Upward Bound, Talent Search and I 

Have a Dream. A review of published reports of these programs suggests that few have been 

subjected to rigorous evaluation: the effectiveness of these approaches is generally unknown.3

In December 1991, the U.S. Department of Education initiated a rigorous, longitudinal 

evaluation conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) and its subcontractors, the 

Educational Testing Service, Westat, Decision Information Resources and Branch Associates, 

Inc., to determine whether the intensive strategy used by Upward Bound enables students to 

perform better in high school and subsequently to enter and complete college. This report 

summarizes the effect of the regular Upward Bound program on students’ high school and early 

postsecondary experiences.4

 

 3

 An earlier study of Upward Bound by the Research Triangle Institute (Burkheimer et al. 1979) is one of the 

more rigorous evaluations; however, it relied on comparison group methods that may suffer from “selection bias” of 

the type described on page 6 of this report. 

4

 Within Upward Bound, three programs operate: regular Upward Bound, Veterans Upward Bound and 

Upward Bound Math and Science. In 2001, there were 727 regular Upward Bound projects serving 51,641 students, 

47 Veterans Upward Bound projects serving 9,936 participants, and 121 Upward Bound Math and Science projects 

serving 6,003 students. 
3 

Upward Bound is designed to “generate skills and motivation necessary for success in 

education beyond high school among young people from low-income backgrounds and 

inadequate secondary school preparation” (Public Law 90-222, Dec. 23, 1967). In FY 2001, 

with federal funds of more than $250 million, the regular Upward Bound program served about 

51,600 students in 727 projects nationwide. The average cost per student served was about 

$4,800 per year, and these expenditures provided a variety of services. Most Upward Bound 

projects emphasized academic preparation for attending and completing college and are best 

characterized along the following dimensions: 

• Upward Bound offers a full range of precollege services. During the academic year 

participants engage in activities on a regular basis, often weekly; during the summer, 

they attend an intensive, full-day academic program that typically lasts for about six 

weeks. 

• Upward Bound courses and activities emphasize academics. A key focus of program 

activities is to help students acquire academic proficiencies in challenging collegeprep courses. Projects often require students to take Upward Bound courses during 

both the summer and school year. Also, almost all projects provide students with 

tutoring for high school course work and help to prepare them for college entrance 

exams. 

• Upward Bound provides many activities in addition to academic course work. 

Projects complement academic offerings with a wide range of activities. Students 

attend plays, visit museums, tour college campuses and learn about and apply for 

financial aid. 

Previous reports from this evaluation have documented the operations of Upward Bound 

projects (Moore 1997a), the characteristics of students served by Upward Bound projects (Myers 

and Schirm 1997) and the program’s short-term effects on students’ high school experiences 

(Myers and Schirm 1999). This report updates previous findings and provides a more complete 

picture of students’ early postsecondary experiences. 

In the remainder of this chapter, we provide an overview of the evaluation design. Chapter 

II updates the findings described in Myers and Schirm (1999). Chapter III describes the 
4 

program’s effect on postsecondary enrollment, postsecondary persistence and students’ 

experiences in college. Chapter IV discusses the association of program completion and length 

of time students spend in Upward Bound with postsecondary outcomes. Finally, several 

appendices present details concerning the evaluation and the data analyses. 

B. Research Design 

1. Selection of Upward Bound Projects and Random Assignment 

The national evaluation of Upward Bound is unique within education evaluation studies 

because of two important design elements: (1) a nationally representative sample of Upward 

Bound projects and (2) random assignment of eligible applicants to Upward Bound and a control 

group. These two design elements provide for both external validity and internal validity; that is, 

the ability to generalize the results to the population of regular Upward Bound projects and to 

make inferences about the causal effects of Upward Bound on student outcomes. 

a. Selection of Upward Bound Projects 

For the impact study, we randomly selected 70 Upward Bound projects. These projects are 

representative of all regular Upward Bound projects that were located in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia, were hosted by a postsecondary institution, had operated for at least three 

years by October 1992 and were not dedicated to serving only students with physical disabilities. 

Of the 70 projects we originally selected, 11 could not participate or had to be excluded for 

various reasons. For example, some did not plan to recruit new students for the 1992-1993 

school year and some had too few applicants to accommodate random assignment. We replaced 

8 of these 11 projects with similar, randomly selected projects and ended up with a sample of 67 

projects. See Appendix A for a detailed description of the sample selection and weighting 

procedures. 
5 

b. Random Assignment of Eligible Applicants to Upward Bound and a Control Group 

During the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school years, we randomly assigned eligible 

applicants from each project to either a treatment group, which was invited to participate in 

Upward Bound, or a control group, which was not invited to participate.5 Eligible applicants 

were defined as students whom the projects had recruited and who met the federal eligibility 

criteria (low-income or first-generation status) and project-specific criteria for participation. All 

of the projects had more applicants than openings, and all served the same number of students 

they would have normally served under their usual selection procedures.6

 We implemented 

random assignment over 14 months so that projects could use their normal recruiting procedures 

and enroll students following their usual enrollment schedules. Nationwide, the random 

assignment process resulted in a treatment group of about 1,500 students and a control group of 

about 1,300 students. A detailed description of the random assignment procedures is presented 

in Myers et al. (1993). 

 5

 After randomly assigning students to the treatment and control groups, we discovered that project directors at 

the 67 projects conducting random assignment had allowed 29 students in the control group, or about 2.2 percent of 

control students, to participate in Upward Bound. Although these students continued to receive Upward Bound 

services, we maintained their original status as members of the control group to preserve the comparability between 

the two groups due to random assignment. In the follow-up student surveys, an alternative source of information on 

Upward Bound participation, 43 control group members (3.3 percent) reported that they had participated at Upward 

Bound projects, including projects that were not conducting random assignment. Sensitivity tests reveal that if we 

count these 43 students as participants, reestimate the effects of Upward Bound, and round the estimates as done in 

the report, we obtain impact estimates that often match exactly the estimates presented in the report. Therefore, 

“crossover” had little effect on the estimates presented in this report. See Appendix C for more details. 

6

 To accommodate project wishes concerning the composition of the participants served by the program, such 

as sex, racial or ethnic group balance, we used stratified random sampling to select the treatment and control groups. 

Despite this, random assignment may have led some Upward Bound projects to select students they would not 

normally select. While we cannot determine whether this happened, we can assess whether the average effects of 

the program might be sensitive to such a change. Before random assignment, we asked project directors to rate each 

applicant as either most likely, somewhat likely or least likely to have been selected under normal selection 

procedures; in this report, we assessed whether the effects of Upward Bound vary across these three groups. 

Chapter III provides no evidence that the effects on college enrollment and highest level of postsecondary education 

varied across groups, but some evidence that the effects on postsecondary persistence were particular large for 

students classified as least likely to attend (see Table III.13). 
6 

Random assignment allows us to compute estimates of program effects that should be free 

of selection biases. In observational studies, selection biases are often present and produce both 

measured and unmeasured differences between the group that receives the intervention and the 

comparison group. These differences become confounded with the program’s true effect on 

student outcomes. However, because of random assignment, the only systematic difference 

between treatment and control groups in this evaluation is that the former was offered the 

opportunity to participate in Upward Bound; otherwise, the two groups are statistically 

equivalent (see Appendix B, Table B.1). On key demographic variables, there are no differences 

between treatment and control groups (for example, gender, race, ethnicity and low-income 

status). For some other background variables, small differences exist between the two groups 

(for example, how often parents checked on homework, number of times students missed a day 

of school and mothers’ educational expectations). To adjust for possible differences in the 

treatment and control groups, we computed regression-adjusted estimates of program effects 

where we statistically controlled for some background characteristics, such as students’ 

educational expectations—a strong correlate with parents’ expectations and other parent inputs—

grade at application, race, ethnicity and gender. 

2. Data Collection 

The analyses described in this report are based on information from students, their schools 

and the Upward Bound projects to which they applied. Almost all students in the sample 

completed a baseline questionnaire when they applied to Upward Bound (see Table I.1). For 

each of the follow-up surveys, high response rates were achieved. In the spring of 1994, we 

conducted the first follow-up survey of the students and achieved a 97 percent response rate. In 

1996 and 1998, we conducted additional follow-up surveys with response rates of 86 percent and 
7 

81 percent, respectively. Each time, we also collected transcripts from high schools and 

postsecondary education institutions attended by students in the evaluation sample. Appendix A 

describes the procedures used to adjust for survey nonresponse, and Appendix H describes the 

data collection procedures. 

3. Estimation of Program Effects 

In the next two chapters, we present estimates of two different types of program effects. 

The first type is the effect of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound, or 

the program’s effect on those students who applied and were eligible for Upward Bound. To 

estimate this effect, we computed the difference between the average for the treatment group

(those offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound) and the average for the control 

group (those not offered the opportunity) on a given outcome, such as the proportion ever 

enrolled in a four-year college or university.7

 The size of this effect depends on two things: (1) 

the rate at which students participate in or “show up” for Upward Bound services and (2) the 

 7

 In practice, we estimated program impacts by estimating a linear regression model with the outcome of 

interest as the dependent variable. The independent variables included an indication of students’ random assignment 

status (treatment status), sex, race, ethnicity, educational expectations at baseline, grade at application, and lowincome or first-generation status. Including additional control variables in the regression model allowed us to (1) 

increase the precision with which we estimated the impacts and (2) adjust for chance differences between the 

treatment and control groups on selected characteristics. More details about the computational procedures are 

presented in Appendix C. For selected outcomes, we replicated the analyses using a different technique, a logit 

model, and obtained similar results. 

Survey Percent Responding

Baseline (1992 - 1993) 99

First Follow-up (1994 - 1995) 97

Second Follow-up (1996 - 1997) 86

Third Follow-up (1998 - 1999) 81

Table I.1

Response Rates
8 

effect of the services on those who actually participate in Upward Bound. By focusing the 

analyses on the effect of students being given the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound, 

we define the treatment more broadly than simply what the Upward Bound program 

accomplishes once students participate in various Upward Bound activities and courses; it also 

includes the projects’ efforts in getting students to participate in services.8

 

The second type of program effect is the effect of actual participation in Upward Bound; 

these estimates adjust for students who never showed up for services and indicate the effects for 

students who attended at least one session. To compute the effect of participating in Upward 

Bound, we used an instrumental variables estimator.9,10 To interpret the instrumental variables 

estimates as the true effect of Upward Bound on participants, some untestable assumptions had 

to be made.11 Because of these assumptions, and because these estimates may only reflect part 

of the effect of offering Upward Bound services to eligible applicants, we focus our discussion 

on the first type of program effect. We present both types of program effects in the tables so that 

readers may compare findings for all students based on the first type of program effect and for 

students who participated based on the second type of effect. In general, the same conclusions 

 8

 About 20 percent of the students who were determined to be eligible for the program never participated. 

9

 The instrumental variables regression model included the same independent variables as the regression model 

to estimate the effect of the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound. However, in the instrumental variables 

regression model, we specified the treatment indicator as an instrumental variable and assumed that the opportunity 

to participate in Upward Bound only affects the outcomes of interest through the probability of participating. 

10 Angrist, Imbens and Rubin (1996) show that under simple conditions, the instrumental variables estimator is 

equivalent to the estimator proposed by Bloom (1989). 

11 When using this estimator to interpret the estimates as the impact for program participants, we had to make 

two assumptions. First, we assumed that the program had no impact on students who did not actually attend one or 

more sessions; that is, early exposure to Upward Bound after being selected for the program was assumed to have no 

impact on students’ high school, postsecondary or related outcomes. This assumption would be violated, for 

example, when students who may have declined to participate received encouragement concerning their academic 

potential from projects and were motivated to perform at a higher level while in high school. Second, we assumed 

that the proportion of students in the Upward Bound group who did not actually receive services is the same 

proportion we would have observed among students in the control group if they had been given a chance to 

participate. 
9 

emerge from estimates of both types of effects. The effect on participants tends to be 20 to 25 

percent larger than the effects on all students, and the difference is attributable to the treatment 

group members who did not participate in Upward Bound. For more details on the methods used 

to estimate program effects, see Appendix C. 

It is possible for the estimated effect of Upward Bound to be positive or negative in 

circumstances where the true effect is zero. Because the evaluation is based on a sample of 

Upward Bound eligible applicants, the estimated program effects presented in this report contain 

what statisticians refer to as “sampling error.” To determine whether the estimated program 

effects can be attributed to the true effects of Upward Bound, we tested whether the estimates are 

“statistically significant”—significantly different from zero—at three levels that are commonly 

used in conducting such tests.12 In the chapters that follow, we argue that Upward Bound had an 

effect if the estimated effect is statistically significant at any of these levels. If the estimated 

effect of Upward Bound on some outcome variable is statistically insignificant, one should not 

necessarily conclude that the true effect of Upward Bound was zero. However, the true effect 

was probably small if the estimated effect is statistically insignificant because the sample was 

designed to “detect” program effects of moderate size. 

4. Context for Interpreting Program Effects 

To properly interpret the estimated effects of Upward Bound that are presented in this 

report, it is important to understand that they (1) indicate the “value-added” of Upward Bound 

given the other programs in which students participate, (2) are based on students who 

 12 More specifically, we conducted two-tailed tests of the null hypothesis that Upward Bound had no effect 

against the alternative that Upward Bound had an effect at the 0.10 level, the 0.05 level and the 0.01 level. 
10 

participated in Upward Bound in the mid-1990s and (3) are based on students who chose to 

participate in Upward Bound for various lengths of time. 

a. Value-Added of Upward Bound 

Upward Bound operates in a service-rich environment, and students who are eligible for 

Upward Bound may participate in several precollege programs. Therefore, it is not surprising 

that many of the students assigned to both the treatment and control groups participate in 

precollege services other than regular Upward Bound. In fact, it is critical to the scientific 

validity of the study that students in the treatment and control groups have the same 

opportunities to pursue other services as the typical eligible applicant to regular Upward Bound. 

This report provides estimates of the value-added of regular Upward Bound above and 

beyond other precollege programs and services that were available. Because eligible students 

were randomly assigned to the treatment and control groups, and because—with very few 

exceptions—only treatment students were offered the opportunity to participate in regular 

Upward Bound, the differences between the two groups provide valid estimates of the value of 

that opportunity given the opportunities that students have to participate in other programs. 

b. Effects for Students Who Participated During the Mid-1990s 

Since the students in the treatment and control groups applied to participate in regular 

Upward Bound during the mid-1990s, this report characterizes the effects of Upward Bound as it 

operated at that time. Like many educational interventions, Upward Bound is designed to affect 

students years after they finish participating in the program. Therefore, one cannot assess the 

effects of Upward Bound as it operates today because current participants have not had the 

opportunity to attend college or even complete high school. However, this report provides a fair 

assessment of Upward Bound today as long as the following two things have not changed much 
11 

since the mid-1990s: the types of services provided by regular Upward Bound and other 

precollege programs and the types students served by these programs. 

c. Variation in Exposure to Upward Bound 

In considering the effects of regular Upward Bound, it is important to recognize that 

students’ Upward Bound experiences vary in the length of participation and, as a result, in the 

amount of services received. While the median duration of participation was 19 months, the 

duration of participation varied widely across students in the evaluation from a few months to a 

few years. Furthermore, the amount of services that students received is directly related to the 

length of time that students participated. In the evaluation, the average program completer 

participated for about 50-percent longer than the average participant and received about 50-

percent more services. In Chapter II, we provide a more detailed picture of the services received 

by students in our sample and the amount of the Upward Bound services received by students in 

the treatment group. 

5. Subgroup Analysis 

The national evaluation of Upward Bound was primarily designed to ensure that we could 

“detect” (flag as statistically significant) average effects that were relatively small but large 

enough to be educationally important. However, the analysis of program effects has included a 

subgroup analysis based on six characteristics of students. These six characteristics and the 

subgroups defined based on them are listed below: 

1. Educational expectations (less than a bachelor’s degree; at least a bachelor’s degree). 

2. Academic risk (bottom 20 percent of ninth-grade academic achievement; top 80 

percent). 

3. Program eligibility (low-income and first-generation; first-generation only; lowincome only). 
12 

4. Race and ethnicity (African American; white; Hispanic). 

5. Sex (male; female). 

6. Likelihood of admission to Upward Bound as rated by project directors (most likely; 

somewhat likely; least likely). 

Some of the subgroup characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, are immutable characteristics of 

the student; others, such as educational expectations, can vary over time. In general, subgroups 

are based on characteristics of the students at the time they applied for Upward Bound.13 

In the following chapters, we have given special attention to two particular pairs of 

subgroups: students with higher and lower educational expectations and students at higher and 

lower academic risk. In our baseline student survey prior to random assignment, students were 

asked if they expected to complete a graduate degree, complete a bachelor’s degree, attend a 

four-year college but not complete a degree, attend a two-year college, graduate from high 

school or not complete a high school degree. For the evaluation, we classified students as having 

“lower educational expectations” if they did not expect to obtain at least a bachelor’s degree 

when they applied for Upward Bound. The previous interim report found large effects for 

students with lower educational expectations (Myers and Schirm 1999). 

However, when recruiting for Upward Bound, projects may find it difficult to target students 

based on their educational expectations. Therefore, we also examine whether high school 

transcripts can be used to identify students who are at risk of poor academic outcomes and who 

may benefit from Upward Bound services. The assessment of academic risk was based on ninthgrade academic achievement, as measured by grade point average and the number of credits 

earned in each of the five core subjects: math, science, English, foreign language and social 

 13 Academic risk subgroups were defined based on ninth-grade academic achievement. For students who 

applied for Upward Bound in eighth and ninth grades, our measure of academic risk could be affected by Upward 

Bound participation if Upward Bound raises high school achievement. 
13 

studies. These variables were weighted using a principal components analysis to create an 

academic risk index: higher values of the index indicate higher academic risk. Students were 

designated to be at higher academic risk if the value of the index belonged to the top 20 percent 

of the distribution for treatment and control students; other students were designated to be at 

lower academic risk.14

For small subgroups, we are likely to “detect” subgroup effects—find that the estimated 

program effects are statistically significant—only if the effects are relatively large. Therefore, 

when we report that the effect for a small subgroup is statistically insignificant, it simply means 

that the effect of Upward Bound was not large enough to be detected given the relatively small 

sample size; it does not mean that Upward Bound had no effect for this group. 

 14 A student’s risk designation—higher or lower—differs between this report and the previous report (Myers 

and Schirm 1999) for three reasons. First, data collected since the previous report was used to update the high 

school variables on which the risk index was based. Second, using the updated variables, we reestimated the 

principal components model and obtained different coefficients or weights from the estimation. These weights were 

then used to create an updated risk index. When assigning the top half of the distribution to the higher-risk group, 

we did not see the sharp distinction in impacts that was observed in the previous report. That fact, along with further 

reflection on the educational expectations results, led us to split students by their level of academic risk in a manner 

that would parallel the distribution of students in terms of educational expectations. Thus, the third change was to 

flag only the students in the top 20 percent of the risk index distribution as higher-risk students instead of the top 50 

percent, as students with lower educational expectation constitute approximately 20 percent of eligible Upward 

Bound applicants. Given that this decision to stratify the data was not made a priori, we need to be careful in our 

interpretation of the results; however, the findings using this split of academic risk are suggestive for the particular 

subgroups we have created. 

15 

II. Update on Program Participation, Upward Bound Course-Taking and Effects on 

High School Outcomes 

Myers and Schirm (1999) presented detailed findings on students’ participation in Upward 

Bound, including the length of participation and participation in Upward Bound courses and 

activities, students’ participation in supplemental services outside of Upward Bound and the 

effects of Upward Bound on high school outcomes, such as high school credits and high school 

graduation. Although most students had left Upward Bound and high school by the time the data 

were last collected, some students were still in high school. With the most recent round of data 

collection, we can now provide a more complete picture of students’ participation and program 

effects on high school outcomes. 

A. Exposure to Upward Bound 

1. Participation 

Upward Bound programs serve most of the students they admit to their programs. 

Approximately 80 percent of treatment group members received some Upward Bound services 

and can be classified as “participants.” In other words, four out of five students who were 

offered a spot in the regular Upward Bound program to which they applied chose to participate 

in that program. Many of the students who chose not to participate indicated on our survey that 

transportation problems or the fact that they had taken a job prevented or discouraged them from 

participating. See Myers and Schirm (1999) for a more detailed assessment. 

2. Duration 

How long students participate in Upward Bound varies across participants. This section 

presents findings on the duration of program participation. These findings, based on 
16 

participation reports provided by Upward Bound projects, are similar to interim findings 

presented in Myers and Schirm (1999). Key findings include (see Table II.1):15 

• The typical number of months participants remained in Upward Bound was 19 

months.16

• About 40 percent of participants who applied for Upward Bound in the eighth grade 

or later were still in the program in the spring of their senior year of high school. 

• Students who applied for Upward Bound in the summer after eighth grade typically 

spent more time in Upward Bound than other participants (42 months). 

• Hispanic participants remained in Upward Bound less time than African American 

participants (15 versus 20 months, on average). 

• Typically, students with lower educational expectations stayed in Upward Bound 15 

months and those with higher expectations stayed 22 months. 

• The most common reason for leaving Upward Bound was to take a job (see Myers 

and Schirm 1999). 

3. Receipt of Academic and Nonacademic Services 

With complete data on participants’ activities in Upward Bound, we found that on average, 

Upward Bound participants attended about 265 academic Upward Bound sessions (see Table 

II.2); 174 of the sessions occurred during the summer program and 91 sessions occurred during 

the academic year. Sessions in English, math and science courses constituted the bulk of 

participants’ Upward Bound academic course work (see Figure II.1). Although Upward Bound 

participants typically attended a substantial number of academic sessions, there was large

 15 Results presented in this report concerning length of time spent in Upward Bound differ somewhat from 

those presented in the previous report (Myers and Schirm 1999). Myers and Schirm only included Upward Bound 

participants in the duration analysis who applied for Upward Bound after eighth grade. They used this definition so 

that most of the sample would have had a chance to complete the program by the time of the last data collection. 

Here, we have broadened the definition to include all participants who had applied for Upward Bound in the 67 

sample projects during the period of late 1992 through early 1994. Some of the participants who were younger and 

not included in the previous analysis remained in Upward Bound for many months and as a result, for example, the 

median duration in Upward Bound presented in this report (19 months) is larger than the median duration presented 

in the previous report (18 months). In general, the differences are modest. 

16 The median duration is used to describe the typical number of months that participants remained in Upward 

Bound. 
17 

Characteristics

All Students 19 21 64 51 37 17 40

Gender

 Male 21 21 65 53 38 17 43

 FemaleR 17 20 61 47 32 17 33

Race

 Asian 24 25 87 68 47 14 51

 Native American 19 17 58 51 23 12 24

 White 21 22 70 53 36 18 41

 Hispanic 15 18 * 56 42 31 5 40

 African AmericanR 20 22 64 53 39 22 40

Entry into Upward Bound

 During 8th grade 20 26 67 62 43 41 38

 Summer after 8th grade 42 33 * 78 71 63 55 35

 During 9th gradeR 11 18 49 41 36 19 26

 Summer after 9th grade 24 22 68 56 49 17 36

 During 10th grade 20 20 67 55 45 — 48

 Summer after 10th grade 17 17 66 49 6 — 51

 During 11th or 12th grade 17 14 59 42 0 — 54

 Summer after 11th or 12th grade 13 10 ** 52 — — — 59

Low-Income and First-Generation

 First-Generation and Low-IncomeR 19 21 62 52 36 16 41

 Low-Income Only 22 25 78 64 45 24 43

 First-Generation Only 14 21 55 45 38 19 33

Director Rating

 Most likely to be servedR 15 20 66 42 28 12 43

 Somewhat likely to be served 19 21 62 50 38 15 38

 Least likely to be served 20 21 65 54 37 19 41

Does Student Have College Plan?

 Bachelor’s degree or moreR 22 22 65 55 39 18 43

 Less than a Bachelor’s degree 15 18 * 60 40 29 14 33

Source: f3_0818.log

Note: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact.

*/**/*** Difference with modal category is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level. R Shows the reference group (modal category) for the tests of statistical significance.

† The percent of participants who were still participating in Upward Bound during the spring of their senior year in high school.

Duration and Survival Estimates

Table II.1

24 or more 36 or more

Completion 

Rate † 

(percent)

Median Months Participating (percent)

Duration 

(months)

Mean 

Duration 

(months) 12 or more 18 or more
18 

variability in the number of sessions attended. For example, while one-quarter of participants 

attended 104 or fewer Upward Bound sessions, another quarter attended 405 or more sessions. 

In addition to the academic course work completed through the Upward Bound program, 

participants engaged in a variety of nonacademic activities. The most common activities 

attended, as reported by Upward Bound projects, focused on counseling, followed by skills 

development and college preparation courses (see Figure II.2). On average, participants attended 

212 activity sessions while in Upward Bound, with nonacademic activities split nearly equally 

Courses

English 32 50 82 24 121

English as a second language 0 0 0 0 0

Foreign language 2 9 12 0 19

Math 20 35 56 23 80

Computers 3 9 11 0 15

Science 16 28 44 11 69

Social science 3 7 10 0 12

Electives 14 34 48 7 75

Other academic sessions 0 2 2 0 0

Total academic sessions 91 174 265 104 405

Activities

College preparedness 23 28 52 11 80

Career exploration 12 305

Self awareness 4 5 9 2 12

Field trips 6 7 13 3 17

Cultural awareness 3 4 7 1 10

Counseling sessions 38 28 66 14 84

Skill development 32 29 60 20 89

Other activities sessions 1 1 2 0 0

Total activities 108 105 212 74 293

Total 199 278 477 201 704

Source: f3_0925.log

Average Total

Table II.2

Upward Bound Academic and Activity Sessions:

All Participants

Academic

Year Summers Average

25th

Percentile

75th

Percentile
This figure shows that English, math and science accounted for most of the academic sessions taken by 

Bound participants.

Source: pst-overall.log

Figure II.1

Upward Bound Academic Sessions Taken by Participants

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Number of Sessions

English Math Science Foreign Language Social Science Electives

19 
20 

This figure shows that counseling, skill development and college preparation courses accounted for mosactivities provided by Upward Bound Projects.

Source: f3_0925.log

Figure II.2

Upward Bound Nonacademic Activities by Participants

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Number of Activities

Counseling Skill Development College Preparation Field Trips Self Awareness O
21 

between the summer and the academic year (see Table II.2). Like the academic sessions, we 

found substantial variability in the number of activities attended by Upward Bound participants: 

about 25 percent of the participants attended 74 or fewer sessions and about 25 percent attended 

293 or more nonacademic sessions. 

Another perspective on the academic experiences of Upward Bound participants comes from 

focusing on “program completers,” defined as participants who were still in the program in the 

spring of their senior year in high school (see Table II.3). On average, program completers 

participated in Upward Bound for 50-percent longer than the average program participant (32 

months versus 21 months) and participated in 50-percent more Upward Bound sessions—about 

398 academic sessions and about 336 nonacademic sessions. 

B. Receipt of Supplemental Services 

The experiences of students in the control group show what eligible applicants to Upward 

Bound would do in the absence of Upward Bound. The results from the most recent data 

collection show that between the time students applied for Upward Bound and 1998-1999, more 

than half of the control group reported participating in some kind of supplemental services (see 

Table II.4). The most common type of supplemental service received by control group members 

focused on instruction and tutoring sessions (43 percent), followed closely by programs with a 

math or science emphasis (38 percent). We also found that 14 percent of the control group 

members reported participating in an Upward Bound Math and Science program and 12 percent 

reported participating in Talent Search. In the control group, 2 percent of students appear to 

have participated in regular Upward Bound.17 More of the students in the control group obtained 

supplemental services during the academic year than the summer (50 percent versus 22 percent).

 17 About half of these students (16) participated in one of the programs in the national evaluation. 
22 

 

Although some students in the control group received services outside of Upward Bound, 

some students in the treatment group also received supplemental services outside of those 

offered by Upward Bound. According to the students in our evaluation, 31 percent attended 

instructional and tutoring sessions outside of Upward Bound; 25 percent participated in a math or 

science program; 14 percent participated in Upward Bound Math and Science; and 8 percent 

participated in Talent Search. 

Courses

English 51 77 127 79 168

English as a second language 0 0 0 0 0

Foreign language 4 13 17 0 28

Math 33 49 81 53 109

Computers 3 12 15 0 25

Science 25 38 63 25 91

Social science 5 9 14 0 24

Electives 26 51 76 38 114

Other academic sessions 1 3 3 0 0

Total academic sessions 146 252 398 248 508

Activities

College preparedness 41 40 81 39 111

Career exploration 23 616

Self awareness 6 7 13 5 16

Field trips 10 10 20 9 29

Cultural awareness 5 6 11 4 14

Counseling sessions 68 45 113 49 166

Skill development 50 42 92 47 128

Other activities sessions 1 1 2 0 0

Total activities 183 154 336 199 469

Total 329 406 734 482 902

Source: f3_0925.log

Average Total

Table II.3

Upward Bound Academic and Activity Sessions:

Program Completers

Academic 25th 75th

Year Summers Average Percentile Percentile
23 

Due to participation in Upward Bound, students in the treatment group received 

substantially more precollege services than students in the control group. Approximately four 

out of five treatment students received services from Upward Bound, while only half of control 

students received precollege services from other programs. Not only are the students in the 

treatment group more likely to receive services, it appears that these services are much more 

intense. For example, Upward Bound spends more than $4,000 per participant annually, while 

Talent Search, another large precollege program, spends about $300 per participant annually.

Participated in Upward Bound (%) † 80 0 80 ***

Supplemental Services - All (%)

Participated in Talent Search 8 12 -4 ***

Participated in Upward Bound Math Science 14 14 0 

Participated in other program that emphasized math or science 25 38 -13 ***

Attended instructional or tutoring sessions outside of Upward Bound 31 43 -12 ***

Participated in any supplemental services 42 54 -12 ***

Supplemental Services - Summer (%)

Participated in Talent Search 2 4 -3 ***

Participated in Upward Bound Math Science 9 5 3 ***

Participated in other program that emphasized math or science 12 14 -2 

Attended instructional or tutoring sessions outside of Upward Bound 10 14 -4 ***

Participated in any supplemental services 18 22 -4 **

Supplemental Services - Academic Year (%)

Participated in Talent Search 7 10 -2 **

Participated in Upward Bound Math Science 12 12 0 

Participated in other program that emphasized math or science 23 34 -11 ***

Attended instructional or tutoring sessions outside of Upward Bound 28 40 -11 ***

Participated in any supplemental services 42 50 -9 ***

Source: suppserv.log

*/**/*** Difference between treatment and control is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

† From project records, all other estimates of use of supplemental services based on student self-reports.

Table II.4

Receipt of Supplemental Services

Treatment Control Difference
24 

C. The Effect of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grade Point Average and 

Completion 

The central goal of the Upward Bound program has been to increase the college enrollment 

and graduation rates of low-income students and students whose parents did not complete 

college. Furthermore, research has shown a strong link between high school academic 

preparation and college enrollment, particularly for minority students (see, for example, 

Adelman 1999; Jencks et al. 1972; Manski and Wise 1983). One way that Upward Bound 

projects attempt to raise the college enrollment and graduation rates of disadvantaged students is 

through improvements in high school achievement and preparation. 

Myers and Schirm (1999) presented a detailed assessment of the effect of Upward Bound on 

students’ high school outcomes. Information used in that report was based on the national 

evaluation’s second follow-up survey and transcript data that capture the high school experiences 

of students in the treatment and control groups. The most recent data collection in 1998-2000 

filled in the few remaining gaps for students who had not yet completed high school by 1996 and 

allow us to update the previous findings. 

Next, we describe the highlights from our analysis of students’ high school experiences 

based on the most recent round of data collection. We focus on the results for all students and 

then provide results for students with lower and higher educational expectations; program effects 

for other subgroups are presented in Appendix D. 

1. The Effect of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grade Point Average and 

Completion for All Students 

For the average eligible applicant, Upward Bound had a statistically insignificant effect on 

most high school academic outcomes, including total credits earned in the five core subjects—

math, science, English, social studies and foreign language—credits earned in honors and 

Advanced Placement courses, grade point average and high school completion. However, 
25 

Upward Bound had a statistically significant effect on the number of math credits earned in high 

school, raising the average from 3.0 credits to 3.2 credits (see Table II.5). The increase of about 

0.2 credits suggests that about one out of five treatment group members completed an additional 

math course over and above what they would have completed in the absence of the program. 

2. The Effect of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grade Point Average and 

Completion for Selected Subgroups 

a. Subgroups Defined by Educational Expectations 

For students who expected to complete less than a bachelor’s degree (about 20 percent of 

eligible applicants), we found that Upward Bound had statistically significant effects on credits 

earned in high school (see Table II.6). For these students, Upward Bound raised the average 

number of high school credits earned from 19 credits to 21 credits; that is, students in the 

treatment group who expected to complete less than a bachelor’s degree completed about the 

equivalent of two more high school courses than they would have in the absence of the program. 

Much of the increase in high school credits came from additional credits in core academic 

subjects (math, science, English, foreign language and social studies); however, the effects were 

statistically significant only for credits earned in math and foreign language courses. 

Upward Bound also increased the number of honors and Advanced Placement courses 

completed by lower-expectation students while in high school (see Table II.6). The increase of 

about 0.7 honors and Advanced Placement credits suggests that about 70 percent of the treatment 

group with lower educational expectations completed one more honors or Advanced Placement 

course than they would have without Upward Bound. For students with lower educational 

expectations, the effects of Upward Bound on high school graduation rates and grade point 

average were not statistically significant. 
26 

Credits

Total 21.2 0.1 0.2 

Total Core 13.9 0.4 0.4 

Math 3.0 0.2 ** 0.2 **

Science 2.7 0.1 0.1 

English 3.9 0.0 0.0 

Social studies 2.8 0.1 0.1 

Foreign language 1.5 0.1 0.1 

Computer science 0.8 0.0 0.0 

Vocational 1.5 -0.1 -0.1 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 1.9 -0.1 -0.2 

Total Core 1.9 -0.2 -0.2 

Math 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Science 0.4 0.0 0.0 

English 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 

Social studies 0.4 0.0 0.0 

Foreign language 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Overall Grade Point Average 2.3 0.0 0.0 

High School Status (%)

Graduated 90 -1 -1 

Still in high school 0 0 0 

Dropped out 7 0 0 

General Educational Development (GED) 3 0 0 

Source: hs-overall.log

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

Note: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.

Impact Impact

Table II.5

Impact of Upward Bound on High School Credits,

Grades and Graduation

All Students Participants

Control Mean
Credits

Total 21.8 -0.3 18.5 2.0 * 

Total Core 14.4 0.0 11.7 1.8 ** 

Math 3.1 0.1 2.6 0.5 ** # Science 2.9 0.0 2.1 0.3 English 4.0 -0.1 3.6 0.4 Social studies 2.9 0.0 2.4 0.3 Foreign language 1.6 0.0 1.0 0.3 * 

Computer science 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.2 * # Vocational 1.5 -0.1 1.5 0.1 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 2.3 -0.3 0.5 0.7 * # 

Total Core 2.2 -0.3 0.5 0.7 * # 

Math 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 ** Science 0.5 -0.1 0.1 0.2 * # English 0.8 -0.1 0.2 0.2 # Social studies 0.5 -0.1 0.1 0.2 # Foreign language 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Overall Grade Point Average 2.4 -0.1 1.9 0.1 High School Status (%)

Graduated 93 -1 75 2 

Still in high school 0 0 1 0 Dropped out 4 3 * 17 -1 General Educational Development (GED) 2 -1 7 -1 

Source: hs-hiexp.log and hs-loexp.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for higher expectations students at the 0.10 level.

Impact 

Higher Expectations

Impact

Lower Expectations

Control Mean Control Mean

All Students 

Table II.6

Impact of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grades and Graduation

for Students with Higher and Lower Educational Expectations

27 
28

Among students who had higher educational expectations (about 80 percent of eligible 

applicants), the effects of Upward Bound on students’ grade point average and the number of 

high school credits earned overall and in specific subject areas were statistically insignificant. 

However, Upward Bound increased the dropout rate for these students from 4 percent to 7 

percent. 

b. Subgroups Defined by Academic Risk 

Upward Bound increased high school credits earned by students at higher academic risk (see 

Table II.7). Upward Bound increased the total number of credits earned in core subjects by 

higher-risk students—each student took approximately one additional course; however, it had a 

statistically insignificant effect on total core credits for lower-risk students. For both types of 

students, Upward Bound slightly increased the number of credits earned in certain core 

subjects—math, English and social studies for higher-risk students, and math, science and 

foreign language for lower-risk students. 
Credits

Total 14.8 1.3 23.0 0.1 

Total Core 8.9 1.1 ** 15.3 0.3 

Math 2.0 0.3 ** 3.2 0.1 *** Science 1.7 0.1 3.0 0.1 ** English 2.8 0.4 * 4.2 -0.1 # Social studies 1.9 0.3 ** 3.1 0.0 Foreign language 0.6 0.1 1.7 0.1 ** 

Computer science 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.0 Vocational 1.4 -0.2 1.6 0.0 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 0.1 0.2 2.4 -0.2 

Total Core 0.1 0.2 * 2.3 -0.2 

Math 0.0 0.0 * 0.4 0.0 Science 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 English 0.1 0.0 0.8 -0.1 Social studies 0.0 0.1 ** 0.5 0.0 # Foreign language 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 

Overall Grade Point Average 1.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 High School Status (%)

Graduated 72 2 95 -2 

Still in high school 1 -1 0 0 Dropped out 19 -1 3 1 General Educational Development (GED) 8 0 2 1 

Source: hs-ar20hi.log and hs-ar20lo.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for higher academic risk students at the 0.10 level.

All Students

Table II.7

Impact of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grades and Graduation

by Students' At-Risk Status

Impact 

Higher Academic Risk

Impact

Lower Academic Risk

Control Mean Control Mean

29 

31

III. The Effect of Upward Bound on Students’ Postsecondary Education Experiences 

The ultimate goal of the Upward Bound program is to increase the chances that high school 

students from low-income families or families in which neither parent has completed a 

bachelor’s degree will attend and graduate from institutions of higher education. With 

information collected in 1999-2000 from the third follow-up survey of students and from college 

transcripts, we have compared the postsecondary experiences of students in the Upward Bound 

group (the treatment group) with the experiences of students in the control group approximately 

three years after they would have graduated from high school. 

This chapter contains estimates of the effect of Upward Bound on: (1) enrollment at any 

type of postsecondary institution, including four-year colleges and universities, two-year colleges 

and vocational institutions; (2) the highest level of postsecondary education attended, defined as 

“four-year” for students who attended a public or private nonprofit four-year college or 

university, “two-year” for students who attended a public or private nonprofit two-year college 

and “vocational” for students who attended a for-profit institution but no two- or four-year 

institution; (3) credits earned of different kinds (remedial, nonremedial and other) and at 

different types of postsecondary institutions; and (4) several measures of college engagement. 

This chapter focuses on the effects of Upward Bound on postsecondary enrollment and credits 

earned at all postsecondary institutions and at four-year colleges and universities. The next 

evaluation report will be based on survey interviews conducted in 2002 and postsecondary 

transcripts collected in the same year, and information from these sources will allow us to assess 

how Upward Bound affects college completion. 
32

A. The Effect of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Persistence for All 

Students 

In this section, we present estimates of the effects of regular Upward Bound on 

postsecondary attendance, the highest level of postsecondary education attended, and the number 

of credits earned at different levels of postsecondary education. In the third follow-up survey, 

we asked treatment and control students whether they had attended a college or other school 

since leaving high school. If they answered affirmatively, we asked them to provide the names 

of the colleges and schools that they had attended. These schools were matched to the 1997-98 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) maintained by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) to determine whether they met NCES’s definition of a 

postsecondary institution. If so, the information in IPEDS was used to classify the institution as 

four-year (public or private, nonprofit), two-year (public or private, nonprofit) or vocational (forprofit). To assess student progress toward completing postsecondary degrees, MPR requested 

transcripts from these institutions for the students who reported having attended them. 

This data collection process relies on the treatment and control students to accurately report 

the schools they have attended since high school. However, it is likely that some of them 

reported attending postsecondary institutions that they never actually attended. For example, 

some may have reported schools that they planned to attend but never attended, and others may 

have reported schools where they participated in a program (such as Upward Bound) but were 

not enrolled as students at the institution. Therefore, it would be desirable to have verification 

that students actually attended the schools they reported. 

While the process of collecting transcripts was not designed to verify attendance, it 

effectively provided such verification in many instances. If a school provided a transcript that 

we requested for a student in our sample, then the student clearly attended that school. 

Furthermore, some of the reasons given by school staff members for not providing transcripts 
33

can be treated as verification of attendance.18 However, in many instances, the reason given for 

not providing transcripts does not clearly indicate whether the student attended the school.19 

Therefore, the information obtained while collecting transcripts is useful in verifying attendance 

in some but not all cases. 

In designing the analysis, we faced the following question: if a student reported attending a 

postsecondary institution, should we accept that the student had actually enrolled there? If so, 

we would almost surely be crediting some sample members with attending colleges and 

universities that they never attended. Alternatively, we could require verification that sample 

members actually attended the postsecondary institutions that they reported. Under this 

approach, we would exclude some schools that students reported but had not attended, but we 

would also exclude some schools that our sample members had attended but for whom we did 

not receive verification of attendance. 

Because both approaches have their merits and drawbacks, we took both approaches and 

compared the results. Findings based on the first approach, which does not require verification 

of attendance, are reported in the odd-numbered tables; findings based on the second approach, 

which requires verification of attendance, are reported in the even-numbered tables. In 

describing the results, we tend to focus on the findings based on the first approach to avoid 

cluttering the analysis with multiple estimates that tell the same story. However, when the 

statistical significance of a key impact estimate depends on whether we attempt to verify 

attendance, we present both estimates and indicate that the evidence is not conclusive. 

 18 For example, in some cases, the college indicated that it could not provide a transcript for the student 

because he or she owed money to the school. 

19 For example, some schools required written consent from the students themselves even though the law does 

not require it, and MPR typically obtained only verbal consent (see Appendix H); these schools may not have even 

checked whether the student attended the school before indicating that they could not provide us with transcripts. 
34

1. The Effect of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment 

Upward Bound did not have a statistically significant effect on whether students enrolled in 

any postsecondary institution. About 74 percent of students in the treatment group and 71 

percent of students in the control group attended some type of postsecondary institution, and the 

difference is not statistically significant (see Table III.1). 

It is not clear whether Upward Bound increased enrollment in four-year colleges and 

universities. When we include all postsecondary enrollment reported by sample members, as 

described earlier, the estimated effect on four-year college enrollment is positive, 6 percentage 

points, and statistically significant (see Table III.1).20 However, when we exclude unverified 

postsecondary enrollment, the effect falls to 5 percentage points and is statistically insignificant 

(see Table III.2). These two estimates are very similar to each other. However, in this 

evaluation like many others, we have treated statistical significance at the 0.10 level as the 

threshold between strong and weak evidence that the program had an effect (see Chapter I). 

Based on this threshold, the estimated effect of 6 percentage points presented in Table III.1 

provides strong evidence, and the estimated effect of 5 percentage points presented in Table III.2 

provides weak evidence. We believe that both of these estimates are credible and thus the 

evidence does not paint a clear picture of whether Upward Bound raised enrollment in four-year 

colleges. In future reports, we will reexamine the evidence based on more recent data. 

2. The Effect of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Persistence 

Upward Bound did not have a statistically significant effect on the total number of credits 

earned at postsecondary institutions (Table III.1). On average, treatment students and control 

 20 This is consistent with the estimated effect of Upward Bound on educational expectations: Upward Bound 

increased the percent of students that expected to obtain at least a four-year degree (Myers and Schirm, 1999, Figure 

III.2). 
35

students had earned about 37 credits and 36 credits, respectively, from postsecondary 

institutions, and the difference is statistically insignificant.21 The estimated effects on credits 

earned at two- and four-year colleges are also statistically insignificant. 

B. The Effect of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Persistence for 

Selected Subgroups 

1. Subgroups Defined by Educational Expectations 

For students with lower educational expectations—students who did not expect to complete 

a bachelor’s degree when they applied to Upward Bound—about half of control group members 

attended college and less than one out of five attended a four-year college or university (see 

Table III.3). Therefore, the odds of completing a bachelor’s degree are low for students who had 

lower educational expectations and did not participate in Upward Bound. However, Upward 

Bound more than doubles the likelihood that students with lower educational expectations attend 

a four-year college or university, raising the enrollment rate from 18 percent to 38 percent. 

Upward Bound increased the number of postsecondary credits earned at four-year colleges 

and universities by students with lower educational expectations.22 More specifically, Upward 

Bound raised the average number of credits earned at four-year colleges and universities by these 

students from 11 credits to 22 credits, almost a one-semester difference. Among students with 

higher educational expectations—students who expected to complete a bachelor’s degree or 

more before entering the program—the effects of Upward Bound on enrollment and credits were 

 21 Combined with the postsecondary enrollment rates presented in Section A.1, these estimates suggest that in 

both the treatment group and the control group, students who had attended at least one postsecondary institution 

earned an average of about 50 postsecondary credits.

22 While the estimated effect on total credits earned at all postsecondary institutions is statistically insignificant 

for students with lower educational expectations, it becomes larger and statistically significant when we use the 

procedures described earlier to verify postsecondary attendance (see Table III.4). 
36

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 71 3 3 

Four-year college 44 6 ** 7 ** 

Two-year college 24 -5 -6 

Vocational school 2 2 2 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 35.8 1.4 1.7 

 Nonremedial 33.8 0.8 0.9 

 Remedial 1.5 -0.2 -0.2 

 Other 0.5 0.8 0.9 

Four-year colleges 25.1 3.2 3.6 

 Nonremedial 24.1 2.3 2.7 

 Remedial 0.6 0.1 0.1 

 Other 0.5 0.7 0.9 

Two-year colleges 9.6 -1.3 -1.5 

 Nonremedial 8.6 -1.0 -1.2 

 Remedial 0.9 -0.3 -0.3 

 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Vocational schools 1.1 -0.4 -0.5 

 Nonremedial 1.1 -0.5 -0.6 

 Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Source: pst-overall.log

Note: Weighted values reported.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

Impact Impact

Table III.1

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits,

All Students Participants

Control Mean

Includes All Self-Reported Postsecondary Enrollment
37

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 62 3 4 

Four-year college 38 5 5 

Two-year college 22 -3 -3 

Vocational school 2 1 2 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 31.3 0.7 0.8 

 Nonremedial 29.6 0.2 0.2 

 Remedial 1.3 -0.1 -0.1 

 Other 0.4 0.6 0.8 

Four-year colleges 21.8 2.2 2.6 

 Nonremedial 20.8 1.7 2.0 

 Remedial 0.6 0.0 0.0 

 Other 0.4 0.6 0.6 

Two-year colleges 8.5 -1.4 -1.7 

 Nonremedial 7.8 -1.3 -1.6 

 Remedial 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 

 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Vocational schools 0.9 -0.1 -0.1 

 Nonremedial 0.9 -0.2 -0.2 

 Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Source: pst-overall.log

Note: Weighted values reported.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

Impact Impact

Table III.2

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits,

All Students Participants

Control Mean

Excludes Unverified Self-Reported Enrollment
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 77 3 54 4 

Four-year college 52 4 18 20 ** # Two-year college 23 -3 34 -16 Vocational school 2 3 2 0 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 40.3 1.0 21.6 6.2 

 Nonremedial 37.9 1.4 20.4 0.1  Remedial 1.9 -0.2 0.5 -0.1  Other 0.5 -0.1 0.6 6.2 

Four-year colleges 29.0 2.2 11.0 10.9 *** # 

 Nonremedial 27.8 2.2 10.3 4.5  Remedial 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1  Other 0.5 -0.2 0.6 6.2 

Two-year colleges 10.5 -1.0 7.8 -2.5 

 Nonremedial 9.3 -0.6 7.3 -2.3  Remedial 1.1 -0.4 0.5 -0.2  Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 

Vocational schools 0.8 -0.1 2.8 -2.1 

 Nonremedial 0.8 -0.2 2.7 -2.0  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Other 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Source: pst-hiexp.log and pst-loexp.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for higher expectations students at the 0.10 level.

Higher Expectations 

Control Mean Control Mean Impact

Lower Expectations 

Impact

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits for Students with Higher and Lower Educational Expectations,

Table III.3

All Students 

Includes All Self-Reported Postsecondary Enrollment

38
39

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 68 2 45 12 Four-year college 44 1 14 21 ** Two-year college 21 -1 29 -9 Vocational school 2 2 2 0 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 36.1 -1.2 16.7 9.2 ** 

 Nonremedial 34.1 -0.9 15.7 4.6  Remedial 1.6 -0.2 0.6 -0.1  Other 0.4 -0.1 0.4 4.7 

Four-year colleges 26.0 -0.2 7.1 13.0 *** 

 Nonremedial 24.9 0.1 6.6 8.2 ***  Remedial 0.7 -0.1 0.1 0.1  Other 0.4 -0.2 0.4 4.7 

Two-year colleges 9.3 -1.2 7.4 -2.5 

 Nonremedial 8.4 -1.0 7.0 -2.3  Remedial 0.8 -0.1 0.4 -0.1  Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 

Vocational schools 0.7 0.1 2.1 -1.3 

 Nonremedial 0.7 0.0 2.0 -1.3  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Other 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Source: pst-hiexp.log and pst-loexp.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for higher expectations students at the 0.10 level.

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits for Students with Higher and Lower Educational Expectation

Table III.4

All Students 

Excludes Unverified Self-Reported Enrollment

Higher Expectations 

Control Mean Control Mean Impac

Lower Expectations 

Impact
40

statistically insignificant for four-year colleges and universities and all postsecondary institutions 

(see Table III.3). 

The effect of Upward Bound on enrollment in four-year postsecondary institutions is larger 

for students with lower educational expectations than for students with higher educational 

expectations. This difference suggests that Upward Bound might have larger effects on 

enrollment in four-year postsecondary institutions if it served a larger proportion of students who 

did not expect to obtain a bachelor’s degree when they applied for Upward Bound. Since it 

might be difficult for projects to target students based on their self-reported educational 

expectations, the next section addresses whether Upward Bound also has especially large effects 

on students whose ninth-grade transcripts suggest that they are at relatively high risk of academic 

failure. 

2. Subgroups Defined by Academic Risk 

Upward Bound had statistically insignificant effects on overall college enrollment for 

students at higher academic risk or for students at lower academic risk (see Table III.5). Upward 

Bound raised four-year college enrollment for students at lower academic risk; it may also have 

raised four-year college enrollment for students at higher academic risk, but the evidence is not 

conclusive. When we include all postsecondary enrollment reported by sample members, the 

estimated impacts on four-year college enrollment are positive and statistically significant for 

both groups—8 percentage points for students at higher academic risk and 7 percentage points 

for students at lower academic risk. However, when we exclude unverified postsecondary 

enrollment, the effect on higher-risk students becomes statistically insignificant (see Table III.6). 

For students at lower academic risk, Upward Bound raised the average number of credits 

earned at four-year colleges from 30 credits to 36 credits (see Table III.5). Upward Bound did 
41

not have statistically significant effects on total postsecondary credits earned at all types of 

institutions for either students at higher academic risk or students at lower academic risk. 

Our findings suggest that it is difficult to use ninth-grade transcripts to identify students who 

benefit as much from Upward Bound as participants with lower educational expectations. In 

future research, we will make further attempts to use information from high school transcripts to 

identify students who would reap large benefits from Upward Bound. 

3. Subgroups Defined by the Eligibility Criteria for Upward Bound 

To be eligible to participate in Upward Bound, students had to be classified as “low-income” 

(family income below 150 percent of the poverty line) or “first-generation” (neither parent had 

earned a bachelor’s degree). For the largest group of students, those who met both eligibility 

criteria, Upward Bound did not have a statistically significant effect on overall postsecondary 

enrollment, but it increased enrollment at four-year colleges and universities from 43 percent to 

50 percent (see Table III.7). For these students, the effects of Upward Bound on credits earned 

from postsecondary institutions are statistically insignificant. 

Among students who only met the first-generation criterion, Upward Bound reduced overall 

postsecondary enrollment from 80 percent to 73 percent. Interestingly, Upward Bound increased 

enrollment at vocational institutions for these students. However, the drop in overall 

postsecondary enrollment indicates that the increase in enrollment in vocational institutions was 

more than offset by the decrease in enrollment at other types of institutions. For students who 

only met the first-generation eligibility criterion, it is not clear whether Upward Bound affected 

postsecondary persistence. When we include all postsecondary enrollment reported by sample 

members, the estimated impacts on credits earned at four-year and all postsecondary institutions 

are positive and statistically significant (see Table III.7). However, when we exclude unverified 

postsecondary enrollment, these effects become statistically insignificant (see Table III.8). 
42

For the small number of students who only met the low-income eligibility criterion, the 

effects of Upward Bound on postsecondary enrollment and credits are statistically insignificant. 

Given the small sample size, the effects on this group would have to be very large to expect 

significant impact estimates. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the effects of Upward Bound 

for this small subgroup. 

4. Subgroups Defined by Race and Ethnicity 

For white students, Upward Bound increased overall postsecondary enrollment from 58 

percent to 69 percent (see Table III.9). It may also have increased four-year college enrollment 

for white students, but the evidence is inconclusive. When we include all postsecondary 

enrollment reported by sample members, the estimated effect on four-year college enrollment is 

statistically insignificant. However, when we exclude unverified postsecondary enrollment, the 

effect becomes positive and statistically significant (see Table III.10). 

 For Hispanic students, Upward Bound increased enrollment at four-year postsecondary 

institutions from 38 percent to 50 percent (see Table III.9). It may also have increased overall 

postsecondary enrollment for Hispanic students, but the evidence is inconclusive. When we 

include all postsecondary enrollment reported by sample members, the estimated impact on 

overall postsecondary enrollment is statistically insignificant (see Table III.9). However, when 

we exclude unverified postsecondary enrollment, this effect becomes positive and statistically 

significant (see Table III.10). 

Upward Bound did not have statistically significant effects on postsecondary enrollment or 

enrollment in four-year colleges and universities for African American students. While Upward 

Bound may have raised enrollment in vocational institutions and reduced enrollment in two-year 

colleges for these students, the evidence is not conclusive. When we include all postsecondary 

enrollment reported by sample members, the estimated effects on these two outcomes are 
43

statistically significant (see Table III.9). However, when we exclude unverified postsecondary 

enrollment, the effects become statistically insignificant (see Table III.10). 

Our findings suggest that the effects of Upward Bound on persistence at postsecondary 

institutions may be especially large for Hispanic students. For these students, Upward Bound 

raised the average number of credits earned at four-year colleges and universities from 13 credits 

to 28 credits (see Table III.9). For these students, Upward Bound also raised the average number 

of credits earned at all postsecondary institutions from 30 credits to 38 credits. For African 

American students and white students, there is no conclusive evidence that Upward Bound 

affected the number of postsecondary credits earned at any type of postsecondary institution.23

 23 While Upward Bound may have increased the number of credits earned at two-year colleges for whites, the 

evidence is not conclusive. When we include all postsecondary enrollment reported by sample members, the 

estimated effect is statistically insignificant (see Table III.9). However, when we exclude unverified postsecondary 

enrollment, the effect becomes statistically significant (see Table III.10).
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 51 -6 76 4 # 

Four-year college 19 8 ** 52 7 *** Two-year college 31 -15 ** 23 -4 Vocational school 1 1 2 2 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 11.8 0.9 42.1 4.0 

 Nonremedial 11.5 -0.3 39.7 3.3  Remedial 0.3 1.2 ** 1.8 -0.5 #  Other 0.0 - 0.6 1.2 

Four-year colleges 6.7 1.4 29.8 6.6 ** 

 Nonremedial 6.6 1.0 28.7 5.4 *  Remedial 0.1 0.4 * 0.6 0.1  Other 0.0 - 0.5 1.1 

Two-year colleges 4.0 0.7 11.2 -2.4 

 Nonremedial 3.8 -0.1 10.0 -1.8  Remedial 0.2 0.8 ** 1.2 -0.6 #  Other 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 

Vocational schools 1.1 -1.2 1.1 -0.2 

 Nonremedial 1.1 -1.2 1.0 -0.3  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Other 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 

Source: pst-ar20hi.log and pst-ar20lo.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for higher academic risk students at the 0.10 level.

Impact 

Higher Academic Risk

Control Mean Control Mean Impact

Lower Academic Risk 

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits by Students' At-Risk Status,

Table III.5

Includes All Self-Reported Postsecondary Enrollment

All Students 

44
45

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 42 -5 69 6 

Four-year college 16 4 45 6 ** Two-year college 25 -9 22 -2 Vocational school 1 -1 2 2 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 11.0 -1.7 37.2 3.2 

 Nonremedial 10.3 -1.9 35.3 2.4  Remedial 0.8 0.2 1.4 -0.2  Other 0.0 - 0.5 1.0 

Four-year colleges 5.2 0.8 26.4 4.9 * 

 Nonremedial 4.8 0.9 25.4 4.0  Remedial 0.4 -0.1 0.6 0.1  Other 0.0 - 0.4 0.8 

Two-year colleges 5.0 -1.6 9.8 -1.8 

 Nonremedial 4.6 -1.8 8.9 -1.6  Remedial 0.4 0.3 0.8 -0.2  Other 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 

Vocational schools 0.9 -0.9 0.9 0.1 

 Nonremedial 0.9 -0.9 0.9 0.0  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Other 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 

Source: pst-ar20hi.log and pst-ar20lo.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for higher academic risk students at the 0.10 level.

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits by Students' At-Risk Status,

Table III.6

All Students 

Excludes Unverified Self-Reported Enrollment

Impact 

Higher Academic Risk

Control Mean Control Mean Impact

Lower Academic Risk 
46

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 68 5 80 -7 ** # 84 -5 5 Four-year college 43 7 ** 49 0 44 10 9 *Two-year college 22 -5 30 -9 36 -12 -5 Vocational school 2 2 0 4 ** 4 -3 2 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 36.7 0.2 32.5 13.0 ** 33.5 7.3 0.2 

 Nonremedial 34.7 -0.9 30.5 14.9 ** # 31.1 9.8 -1.0  Remedial 1.6 0.1 1.2 -1.0 1.0 -0.2 0.1  Other 0.4 1.0 0.8 -0.9 # 1.4 -2.3 1.1 

Four-year colleges 26.4 1.1 20.3 13.9 ** 22.5 7.4 1.3 

 Nonremedial 25.5 0.0 18.8 15.6 *** # 20.4 10.1 0.0  Remedial 0.5 0.3 0.7 -0.7 0.6 -0.4 0.3  Other 0.3 0.9 0.8 -1.0 # 1.4 -2.3 1.0 

Two-year colleges 8.9 -0.4 12.1 -1.3 10.1 1.1 -0.5 

 Nonremedial 7.8 -0.2 11.6 -1.2 9.8 1.0 -0.2  Remedial 1.1 -0.2 0.5 -0.2 0.3 0.2 -0.2  Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 

Vocational schools 1.3 -0.6 0.1 0.5 1.0 -1.3 -0.6 

 Nonremedial 1.3 -0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 -1.3 -0.8  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0  Other 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.1 

Source: pst-lifg.log, pst-low_only.log, and pst-fgenonly.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for low-income and first-generation students at the 0.10 level.

Control Mean Impact

Low-Income & First-Gen. LI & F

Control Mean Impact

Control Mean 

First-Generation Only Low-Income Only

Impact Impac

Table III.7

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits by Students' Eligibility Status,

Includes All Self-Reported Postsecondary Enrollment

All Students
47

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 58 6 78 -15 ** # 68 8 7 Four-year college 37 7 ** 47 -9 # 30 18 9 *Two-year college 20 -1 30 -9 33 -8 -2 Vocational school 2 0 0 5 * 4 -3 0 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 30.5 0.0 33.9 3.3 35.9 13.5 0.0 

 Nonremedial 28.9 -0.8 31.6 5.1 34.0 14.3 -0.9  Remedial 1.3 0.0 1.5 -1.1 * 0.8 0.7 0.0  Other 0.3 0.8 * 0.8 -0.7 # 1.1 -1.6 0.9 * 

Four-year colleges 21.2 1.5 23.4 4.2 25.3 11.8 1.8 

 Nonremedial 20.5 0.8 21.5 6.0 23.7 12.8 0.9  Remedial 0.5 0.1 1.1 -0.9 * 0.5 0.6 0.1  Other 0.3 0.7 * 0.8 -0.8 # 1.1 -1.6 0.8 * 

Two-year colleges 8.1 -1.2 10.4 -1.6 9.7 2.5 -1.4 

 Nonremedial 7.3 -1.1 10.0 -1.6 9.4 2.3 -1.3  Remedial 0.8 -0.1 0.4 -0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.1  Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 

Vocational schools 1.1 -0.3 0.1 0.7 ** 0.9 -0.9 -0.4 

 Nonremedial 1.1 -0.4 0.1 0.7 ** # 0.9 -0.9 -0.5  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0  Other 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.1 

Source: pst-lifg.log, pst-low_only.log, and pst-fgenonly.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for low-income and first-generation students at the 0.10 level.

Table III.8

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits by Students' Eligibility Status,

All Students 

Excludes Unverified Self-Reported Enrollment

Control Mean 

First-Generation Only Low-Income Only

Control Mean Impact Impact Impac

Low-Income & First-Gen. LI & F

Control Mean Impact
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 77 -2 58 11 *** # 65 8 -3 Four-year college 50 4 35 8 38 12 ** 5 Two-year college 25 -10 ** 21 5 # 25 -4 -12 *Vocational school 1 4 ** 2 -1 * # 2 0 4 *

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 38.6 -1.9 32.6 4.6 30.0 7.9 * -2.2 

 Nonremedial 36.6 -2.9 31.5 4.6 27.6 8.4 * -3.3  Remedial 1.6 0.1 0.9 0.1 2.1 -0.5 0.1  Other 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.2 -0.1 1.0 

Four-year colleges 31.1 -1.8 20.6 2.1 13.1 15.3 *** # -2.0 

 Nonremedial 30.0 -2.7 20.0 2.0 12.7 15.2 *** # -3.1  Remedial 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2  Other 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 

Two-year colleges 6.6 -0.3 11.1 2.9 14.9 -5.2 -0.4 

 Nonremedial 5.7 -0.2 10.6 2.9 13.0 -4.7 -0.2  Remedial 0.8 -0.1 0.5 0.0 1.9 -0.5 -0.2  Other 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 

Vocational schools 1.0 0.2 0.8 -0.2 1.9 -2.5 0.2 

 Nonremedial 0.9 0.0 0.8 -0.2 1.8 -2.3 0.0  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0  Other 0.0 0.2 0.0 - 0.1 -0.2 0.2 

Source: pst-black.log, pst-white.log, and pst-hisp.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for African American students at the 0.10 level.

Control Mean Impact Control Mean Impact Impact Control Mean Impac

African American Hispanic White Afr Am

Table III.9

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits for African American, White and Hispanic Students,

Includes All Self-Reported Postsecondary Enrollment

All Students

48
49

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 68 -7 52 15 *** # 56 16 *** # -8 Four-year college 44 -1 30 10 ** 31 14 *** # -1 Two-year college 22 -7 19 8 ** # 23 -2 -8 Vocational school 1 1 2 -1 ** # 2 3 1 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 33.6 -3.7 30.1 4.8 25.1 7.8 * -4.4 

 Nonremedial 31.8 -4.3 29.2 4.8 * 23.4 7.5 * -5.2  Remedial 1.5 -0.2 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.3 -0.2  Other 0.3 0.9 * 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 * 

Four-year colleges 26.4 -2.0 19.4 1.6 12.2 12.1 *** # -2.4 

 Nonremedial 25.3 -2.7 18.8 1.7 11.7 11.9 *** # -3.2  Remedial 0.8 0.0 0.4 -0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0  Other 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.8 

Two-year colleges 6.3 -1.8 10.0 3.6 * # 11.5 -3.6 -2.2 

 Nonremedial 5.6 -1.6 9.6 3.6 * # 10.3 -3.8 -1.9  Remedial 0.7 -0.2 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.3 -0.3  Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 

Vocational schools 0.9 0.1 0.6 -0.3 1.4 -0.9 0.2 

 Nonremedial 0.9 -0.1 0.6 -0.3 1.3 -0.8 -0.1  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0  Other 0.0 0.2 0.0 - 0.1 -0.1 0.2 

Source: pst-black.log, pst-white.log, and pst-hisp.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for African American students at the 0.10 level.

Table III.10

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits for African American, White, and Hispanic Students,

All Students

Excludes Unverified Self-Reported Enrollment

African American Hispanic White Afr Am

Control Mean Impact Control Mean Impact Impact Control Mean Impac
50

5. Subgroups Defined by the Sex of the Student 

Upward Bound may have raised the enrollment rate of young men and young women in 

four-year institutions, but the evidence is not conclusive. When we include all postsecondary 

enrollment reported by sample members, the estimated effect on four-year college enrollment is 

7 percentage points and statistically significant for both groups (see Table III.11). However, 

when we exclude unverified postsecondary enrollment, the effect becomes smaller and 

statistically insignificant for both groups (see Table III.12). 

The impacts of Upward Bound on postsecondary credits are positive for men. For young 

men, Upward Bound increased the total number of postsecondary credits from 19 credits to 27 

credits (see Table III.11). For young women, the estimated effect is statistically insignificant. 

6. Subgroups Defined by the Likelihood of Being Selected to Participate in Upward 

Bound 

Before students were randomly assigned to the treatment group or control group, we asked 

project directors to rate students they had determined eligible for their program according to the 

likelihood that they would have been selected to participate in Upward Bound in the absence of 

the experiment. We used these ratings to assess whether the program’s effects would change if 

project directors dipped further into the pool of eligible applicants to select different types of 

students. 

Upward Bound raised four-year college enrollment by students who were most likely to be 

selected for Upward Bound (see Table III.13).24 For these students, Upward Bound raised fouryear college enrollment 10 percentage points to 52 percent; this represents a 24 percent increase 

over the enrollment rate for similar students in the control group (42 percent). For students who 

 24 In general, when we tested whether differences in impacts existed among these three groups, we found no 

statistically significant differences. This suggests that our evaluation did not distort the group of students served. 
51

were somewhat likely to be selected, the estimated effects of Upward Bound on postsecondary 

enrollment are statistically insignificant. For students who were least likely to be selected, 

Upward Bound may raise four-year college enrollment but the evidence is inconclusive. When 

we include all postsecondary enrollment reported by sample members, the estimated effect on 

four-year college enrollment is statistically insignificant for these students (see Table III.13). 

However, when we exclude unverified postsecondary enrollment, the estimated effect becomes 

larger and statistically significant (see Table III.14). 

The effect of Upward Bound on postsecondary persistence appears to be largest for the 

students that projects are least likely to serve. For students who were least likely to be selected 

for the program, Upward Bound increased the number of credits earned at four-year institutions 

from 9 to 33 credits—large impacts for a small subgroup of treatment students (see Table III.13). 

For these students, Upward Bound may have also increased the number of credits earned at all 

postsecondary institutions (see Table III.13), but the estimated impact becomes statistically 

insignificant when we exclude unverified postsecondary enrollment (see Table III.14). For 

students who were somewhat likely to be selected, the effects of Upward Bound on the total 

number of credits earned at all postsecondary institutions and the number of credits earned at 

four-year institutions were statistically insignificant. For students who were most likely to be 

selected, Upward Bound may have raised the average number of credits earned at four-year 

colleges and universities (see Table III.13), but the estimated impact becomes statistically 

insignificant when we exclude unverified postsecondary enrollment (see Table III.14). 

C. The Effect of Upward Bound on College Engagement 

 Besides assessing the effects of Upward Bound on postsecondary enrollment and credits, we 

examined the effects of the program on a set of related outcomes that describe students’ 
52

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 59 4 75 3 

Four-year college 33 7 * 49 7 * Two-year college 24 -3 24 -6 Vocational school 1 0 2 3 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 18.5 8.9 ** 42.1 -1.3 # 

 Nonremedial 17.0 8.5 ** 39.9 -1.9 #  Remedial 1.1 -0.1 1.7 -0.1  Other 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 

Four-year colleges 12.5 7.0 ** 29.7 1.7 

 Nonremedial 11.5 6.9 ** 28.7 0.8  Remedial 0.5 -0.1 0.6 0.2  Other 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.8 

Two-year colleges 5.8 1.2 10.9 -2.1 

 Nonremedial 5.3 1.3 9.8 -1.8  Remedial 0.5 0.0 1.1 -0.4  Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Vocational schools 0.2 0.6 1.4 -0.9 

 Nonremedial 0.2 0.3 1.4 -0.9  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Other 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Source: pst-male.log and pst-female.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for male students at the 0.10 level.

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits for Male and Female Students,

Table III.11

All Students 

Includes All Self-Reported Postsecondary Enrollment

Impact

Female 

Impact 

Male 

Control Mean Control Mean
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 50 9 * 67 2 

Four-year college 26 6 43 4 Two-year college 23 -1 21 -3 Vocational school 1 4* 2 0 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 17.9 6.6 * 36.5 -1.6 

 Nonremedial 16.7 6.1 * 34.6 -2.1  Remedial 1.0 -0.2 1.4 -0.1  Other 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 

Four-year colleges 12.4 4.6 25.5 1.2 

 Nonremedial 11.7 4.3 24.4 0.6  Remedial 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0  Other 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 

Two-year colleges 5.4 0.2 9.8 -2.0 

 Nonremedial 4.9 0.3 9.0 -1.9  Remedial 0.5 -0.1 0.8 -0.1  Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Vocational schools 0.2 1.7 ** 1.2 -0.8 # 

 Nonremedial 0.2 1.5 ** 1.2 -0.8 #  Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Other 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Source: pst-male.log and pst-female.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for male students at the 0.10 level.

Impact

Female 

Impact 

Male 

Control Mean Control Mean

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits for Male and Female Students,

Table III.12

All Students 

Excludes Unverified Self-Reported Enrollment

53
54 

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 65 9 74 2 68 4 10 Four-year college 30 15 50 1 42 10 *** 17 Two-year college 34 -7 23 -4 23 -6 -7 Vocational school 0 0 1 5 * 2 0 0 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 28.5 17.3 ** 40.0 -4.9 # 33.3 4.3 19.6 *

 Nonremedial 27.0 17.9 *** 38.2 -4.8 # 30.9 3.0 # 20.3 * Remedial 1.2 -0.5 1.3 0.4 1.8 -0.5 -0.5  Other 0.3 -0.1 0.5 -0.5 0.6 1.9 * -0.2 

Four-year colleges 8.8 24.4 *** 31.6 -4.4 # 22.0 4.9 * # 27.7 *

 Nonremedial 8.1 24.7 *** 30.5 -4.0 # 21.1 3.1 # 28.0 * Remedial 0.3 -0.1 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.2 -0.2  Other 0.3 -0.1 0.4 -0.4 0.6 1.6 -0.2 

Two-year colleges 17.3 -4.1 7.6 -0.2 10.0 -0.7 -4.7 

 Nonremedial 16.4 -3.8 7.0 -0.5 8.6 0.0 -4.3  Remedial 0.9 -0.3 0.5 0.4 ** 1.4 -0.8 * -0.4  Other 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 - 

Vocational schools 2.4 -3.0 0.8 -0.4 1.1 0.1 -3.4 

 Nonremedial 2.4 -3.0 0.7 -0.3 1.1 -0.2 -3.4  Remedial 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -  Other 0.0 - 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.2 - 

Source: pst-rating_h.log, pst-rating_m.log, and pst-rating_l.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for least likely students at the 0.10 level.

Control Mean Control Mean Impact Impact Control Mean Impact Impac

Least Likely

Table III.13

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits by the Likelihood of Admission to Upward Bound,

Includes All Self-Reported Postsecondary Enrollment

All Students

Somewhat Likely Most Likely Leas
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 57 11 65 0 60 5 13 Four-year college 24 18 ** 42 -2 37 9 *** 21 * Two-year college 32 -7 21 -1 21 -3 -7 Vocational school 1 0 2 3 2 0 0 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 28.1 10.4 32.5 -3.4 30.6 1.4 11.7 

 Nonremedial 26.8 10.9 31.0 -3.2 28.7 0.3 12.2  Remedial 0.9 -0.1 1.2 0.1 1.5 -0.4 -0.1  Other 0.4 -0.3 0.4 -0.3 0.5 1.5 * -0.4 

Four-year colleges 12.7 16.8 *** 25.1 -3.2 # 20.2 3.1 # 18.9 *

 Nonremedial 12.0 17.1 *** 24.1 -2.8 # 19.3 1.7 # 19.2 * Remedial 0.3 0.1 0.8 -0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1  Other 0.4 -0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.5 1.3 -0.4 

Two-year colleges 13.6 -4.2 6.6 -0.2 9.5 -1.8 -4.8 

 Nonremedial 12.9 -4.0 6.1 -0.5 8.5 -1.3 -4.6  Remedial 0.7 -0.2 0.4 0.3 1.0 -0.4 * -0.2  Other 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 

Vocational schools 1.8 -2.1 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.1 -2.4 

 Nonremedial 1.8 -2.1 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 -2.4  Remedial 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -  Other 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 - 

Source: pst-rating_h.log, pst-rating_m.log, and pst-rating_l.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for least likely students at the 0.10 level.

Somewhat Likely Most Likely Leas

All Students 

Least Likely 

Table III.14

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits by the Likelihood of Admission to Upward Bound,

Excludes Unverified Self-Reported Enrollment

Control Mean Control Mean Impact Impact Control Mean Impact 

Impac

55 
56

experiences while attending postsecondary institutions. Previous research has shown, for 

example, that postsecondary students who are more engaged in school are more likely to persist 

and graduate (Braxton 2000). For the national evaluation of Upward Bound, we measured 

students’ engagement by asking them to report on the frequency with which they used academic 

counseling services, obtained personal counseling, received help from a learning skills center, 

received tutoring services, engaged in services offered by a minority student center or obtained 

services from a health center during their first year of college. We also measured students’ use 

of services provided by Student Support Services,25 receipt of financial aid and whether students 

had met with faculty or an advisor about academic issues, participated in study groups outside of 

class, worked for pay while in college or participated in activities outside of class such as 

intramural sports and school clubs. 

For most of the college engagement outcomes that we examined, the estimated effects of 

Upward Bound are statistically insignificant (see Table III.15). For example, Upward Bound did 

not have a statistically significant effect on the rate at which students received financial aid in 

college. However, Upward Bound slightly increased the receipt of personal counseling, the use 

of learning skills centers and the use of tutoring services during students’ first year in college 

(see Table III.15). Upward Bound also increased the employment rate and hours worked by 

students in college. For college sophomores, Upward Bound raised the employment rate from 37 

percent to 47 percent and the average number of hours worked per week from 10 to 12 hours per 

week. The effects of Upward Bound on college engagement outcomes for different subgroups 

do not suggest any notable findings (see Appendix E). 

 25 Student Support Services is a federal program designed to provide low-income and first-generation college 

students with opportunities for academic development, assist them in meeting basic college requirements and 

motivate them toward completing their degrees. 
57

Residence in focused housing (%) 1 0 0 

Days per year of parent or student contact with school 72.2 2.0 2.4 

Academic counseling 1.4 0.2 0.2 

Personal counseling 0.4 0.2 ** 0.3 **

Learning skills center services 0.8 0.2 * 0.3 *

Tutoring services 1.0 0.3 *** 0.4 ***

Minority student services 0.4 0.1 0.1 

Health services 0.6 0.0 0.1 

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Student Support Services 5 1 1 

McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 1 0 0 

Student received financial aid (%) 55 -1 -2 

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 2.1 0.1 0.1 

Met with advisor concerning academic plans 1.7 0.1 0.1 

Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 1.6 0.2 ** 0.3 **

Participated in study groups outside of class 2.4 -0.1 -0.1 

Went to events with friends from school 3.1 0.1 0.1 

Participated in school clubs 1.3 0.1 0.1 

Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 1.4 0.0 0.0 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports,

music, drama, etc. 1.2 0.0 0.0 

Cut classes 1.5 0.0 0.0 

While in college or other school, student worked for pay (%)

Freshman year 45 1 1 

Sophomore year 37 10 *** 11 ***

Approximate hours worked per week during:

Freshman year 12.9 -1.4 -1.7 

Sophomore year 10.0 2.0 *** 2.4 ***

Source: pss-overall.log

Note: Weighted values reported.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

Impact

How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Impact

Table III.15

Impact of Upward Bound on College Engagement

All Students Participants

How often during first year in postsecondary school 

student used the following supplemental services

Participation in federally supported programs while in 

postsecondary school (%)

Control Mean

59

IV. The Effect of Longer Upward Bound Participation and Completion on Postsecondary 

Enrollment and Persistence 

It is possible that students would reap larger benefits from Upward Bound if they spent more 

time in the program. The typical participant remains in Upward Bound for a little more than a 

year and a half, and most participants do not complete the program (see Chapter II). In this 

chapter, we describe the relationships between two postsecondary outcomes—postsecondary 

enrollment and credits—and two measures of the extent to which students participated in 

Upward Bound—the duration of program participation and program completion. In measuring 

these relationships, we attempt to estimate the effects of additional participation on 

postsecondary enrollment and credits. 

As we describe later, the estimated effects of additional participation may overstate the true 

effects due to selection bias. With this caution in mind, our findings suggest that keeping 

students in Upward Bound for longer periods may substantially improve their postsecondary 

outcomes. Although these findings may appear at odds with the findings described in Chapter III 

on the effect of Upward Bound on postsecondary outcomes, our analysis suggests that the 

findings in Chapters III and IV are not inconsistent with each other (see Section D). 

Findings reported in this chapter suggest that the effects of Upward Bound on postsecondary 

enrollment and persistence would increase if Upward Bound projects implemented retention 

programs that raised the average length of program participation. However, the findings do not 

suggest that the effects of Upward Bound would increase if projects focused their recruiting on 

the types of students who tend to have long spells of participation. For example, students with 

higher educational expectations tend to have long spells of participation (see Chapter II, Table 
60

II.1). However, these students tend to reap smaller benefits from Upward Bound than students 

with lower educational expectations (see Chapter III, Table III.2). 

A. Research Questions 

To assess the potential for keeping students in Upward Bound for longer periods of time, we 

classified participants as “low-duration participants” (1 to 12 months of participation), “mediumduration participants” (13 to 24 months of participation) or “high-duration participants” (25 or 

more months of participation), and also as program “completers” (still participating in the spring 

of senior year) or “noncompleters.” Among Upward Bound participants, 35 percent participate 

for 1 to 12 months, 28 percent participate for 13 to 24 months and 36 percent participate for 25 

or more months; 40 percent complete the program, that is, participate in Upward Bound through 

high school graduation (see Table IV.1).26 These findings suggest that there is considerable 

opportunity to increase the completion rate and the length of time that participants remain in the 

program. 

To better understand the potential effects of Upward Bound retention on postsecondary 

enrollment and credits, we address two research questions: 

1. For low- and medium-duration participants, hereafter referred to as “lower-duration 

participants,” how much higher would their postsecondary enrollment rate and 

persistence be if they participated for an additional year? 

2. For noncompleting participants, how much higher would their postsecondary 

enrollment rate and persistence be if they completed Upward Bound? 

 26 Students who complete Upward Bound participate for different lengths of time depending on whether they 

enter the program in eighth grade, ninth grade, tenth grade or eleventh grade. 
61

B. Research Methods 

To answer these questions, we compared the outcomes for students with relatively low 

levels of participation to those for students with relatively high levels of participation. A simple

comparison of students with different levels of Upward Bound participation, however, may fail 

to reveal the effects of additional participation. While random assignment ensures that there will 

be no systematic differences between treatment and control students, it does not ensure there will 

be no systematic differences between completers and noncompleters or among students who 

choose to participate in Upward Bound for different lengths of time. The characteristics of 

students may influence how long they choose to participate in Upward Bound and whether they 

complete Upward Bound. If so, the average characteristics of students will vary with the level of 

Upward Bound participation. For example, we found that students who participate in Upward 

Bound for longer periods of time are more likely to be female and have higher grade point 

averages in ninth grade than students who participate for shorter periods (see Table IV.2); we 

find similar differences between completers and noncompleters. Therefore, we cannot infer the 

effects of additional Upward Bound participation simply from differences in average outcomes 

between lower- and higher-duration students and between completers and noncompleters. 

Duration 1-12 months 13-24 months 25+ months Rates

All Cohorts of Participants 21 35 28 36 40

8th Grade Cohort 31 24 17 60 35

9th Grade Cohort 21 38 18 44 33

10th Grade Cohort 18 35 41 24 48

11th Grade Cohort 12 43 57 — 57

Source: char1.log

Completion

Table IV.1

Duration of Upward Bound Participation and Completion Rates,

Distribution of Duration

Mean

Excluding No-Shows
62

Male 41 36 24 39 25

Female 60 64 76 61 75

African American 44 42 44 41 47

White 19 31 23 25 21

Hispanic 29 16 26 24 25

Other Race 8 11 8 10 7

Low-Income and First-Generation 74 84 81 77 83

First-Generation Only 22 10 15 19 12

Low-Income Only 465 55

High School or Less 4 3 4 6 1

Some College 17 20 17 19 16

Finish Four-year College 43 37 37 36 43

More Than a Four-year Degree 28 27 33 29 30

Total Credits 5.7 6.1 6.1 5.8 6.2

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5

Overall Grade Point Average 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.5

Less than 1 Hour / Week 11 8 3 11 2

1-10 Hours / Week 68 66 76 70 71

More than 10 Hours / Week 21 26 20 19 26

Less than 1 Hour / Week 41 38 34 40 34

1-10 Hours / Week 46 49 55 47 54

11-15 Hours / Week 578 67

More than 15 Hours / Week 543 44

Disobeying Rules 46 42 42 46 39

In-school Suspension 24 11 14 20 12

Out-of-school Suspension 14 12 10 14 9

Very Sure 84 90 87 84 92

Less Sure 16 10 13 16 8

Source: char2.log

Yes

Participation Duration (Months) Completion Status

Table IV.2

Characteristics of Upward Bound Participants Who Entered in Ninth or Tenth Grade

by Participation Duration and Completion Status

1-12 13-24 25+ No

Homework (%)

Extracurricular Activities (%)

Disciplinary Problems (%)

Graduation probability (self-assessed, %)

Race (%)

Low-Income and First-Generation (%)

Characteristics

Academic Achievement - Ninth Grade

Educational Expectations (%)

Sex (%)
63

Because students with different levels of Upward Bound participation have different 

characteristics, we used statistical matching to select samples of lower- and higher-duration 

students with similar observed characteristics and samples of noncompleters and completers with 

similar characteristics.27 To measure the potential effects of participating in Upward Bound for 

an additional year, we matched low-duration participants to similar medium-duration 

participants, and we matched medium-duration participants to similar high-duration 

participants.28 Likewise, to measure the potential effects of program completion on 

noncompleters, we matched noncompleters to similar completers. The matching process ensured 

that matched samples contained participants with similar demographic characteristics, 

educational aspirations and ninth-grade academic performance.29 

In this analysis, we restricted our sample to students who entered Upward Bound in ninth or 

tenth grade. We excluded students who applied for Upward Bound in the eighth grade because 

they had not yet entered high school and therefore we could not obtain information on their 

previous academic performance from high school transcripts. Because postsecondary enrollment 

and credits were the key outcomes for this analysis, and because academic performance before 

college influences these outcomes, it was important to match students with similar academic 

performance before they entered Upward Bound. We also excluded students who applied for 

Upward Bound after tenth grade. Their window of opportunity to participate in Upward Bound 

 27 Unlike random assignment, which ensures two statistically equivalent groups that are similar in terms of 

observed and unobserved characteristics, the matching procedures can only create groups that are similar in terms of 

observed characteristics. 

28 These matches allow us to simulate what the outcomes of low-duration participants would have been had 

they instead been medium-duration participants and what the outcomes of medium-duration participants would have 

been had they instead been high-duration participants. 

29 We used propensity score matching to select the matched samples. See Appendix F for additional details. 
64

was relatively short—two years—so the potential for increasing the length of their participation 

in Upward Bound was limited. 

Once matching was completed, we estimated program effects using the same methods 

employed throughout this report. For example, consider the comparison of noncompleters to 

similar completers. We treated completers as the “treatment group”—the group that received 

additional Upward Bound services—and noncompleters as the “control group.” The treatmentcontrol difference in mean outcomes provides an estimate of the potential benefit of additional 

Upward Bound participation.30 

Although the matched samples have similar demographic characteristics, educational 

expectations and ninth-grade academic performance, they may differ in ways not revealed by the 

data collected for the evaluation. For example, our matched samples of completers and 

noncompleters may differ in their motivation to attend college. Unobserved differences between 

matched samples may bias the estimates presented in the next section. Therefore, we must 

interpret these estimates cautiously (see Section D). 

C. The Effect of Longer Participation and Completion 

Though subject to the caveats described earlier and presented in more detail at the end of 

this chapter, findings from this analysis suggest: 

• Longer participation may yield larger effects. For students who participated in 

Upward Bound for less than two years, an additional year of Upward Bound 

participation may raise the postsecondary enrollment rate by as much as 9 percentage 

points and the average number of postsecondary credits earned by as many as nine 

credits. 

 30 Mean outcomes were regression-adjusted with the same linear model used throughout the report to compute 

the impacts of the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, footnote 6), with additional covariates 

on ninth-grade academic performance and Upward Bound cohort. 
65

• Program completion may yield larger effects. For Upward Bound participants who 

did not complete the program, program completion may raise postsecondary 

enrollment by as much as 17 percentage points and the average number of 

postsecondary credits by as much as 16 credits. 

• The effect of additional participation operates through greater enrollment at fouryear institutions. Additional Upward Bound participation seems to raise enrollment 

at four-year institutions and, as a consequence, raises overall postsecondary 

enrollment. 

• The effect of additional participation on postsecondary enrollment and credits is 

similar for students with higher and lower ninth-grade academic performance. For 

none of the relevant outcomes is there a statistically significant difference in the 

effects of additional participation between higher- and lower-risk students; almost all 

of the estimated effects are similar for the two groups. 

1. The Effect of Longer Participation 

Our findings suggest that Upward Bound would have a much larger effects on lowerduration participants—students who participated for no more than 24 months—if it could keep 

them in the program longer (see Table IV.3). About 69 percent of lower-duration participants 

had attended a postsecondary institution between high school and the third follow-up survey. 

Our results suggest that if these participants had stayed in Upward Bound an additional year, 78 

percent would have attended a postsecondary institution, and the average number of 

postsecondary credits earned would have risen from 30 to 40. 

2. The Effect of Program Completion 

Our findings also suggest that Upward Bound might have a larger effect on noncompleters if 

it retained them through high school graduation (see Table IV.4). If noncompleters remained in 

Upward Bound through program completion, we estimate that they would on average participate 

for an additional 22 months—almost two years.31 Therefore, one might expect the effects of

 31 For students who entered Upward Bound in ninth or tenth grade, the average duration for noncompleters was 

just over nine months. For completers from this same group, the average duration in the program was more than 31 

months. 
66

program completion to be approximately twice that of an additional year of participation, and our 

analysis confirms that expectation. For noncompleters, our estimates suggest program 

completion would raise postsecondary enrollment rates from 74 percent to 91 percent.32 

Additional estimates suggest that completing Upward Bound would raise the average number of 

postsecondary credits earned by noncompleters from 37 to 53. 

3. The Effect of Longer Participation and Program Completion on Enrollment at FourYear Institutions 

Just as Upward Bound participation raises enrollment rates at four-year colleges and 

universities (see Chapter III, Table III.1), additional Upward Bound participation also seems to 

raise enrollment rates at these institutions. For lower-duration participants, our estimates suggest 

 32 For comparison, 87 percent of Upward Bound completers attended a postsecondary institution. 

Lower-Duration

Participants

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school † 69 9 ***

Four-year college 46 13 ***

Two-year college 21 -4 *

Vocational school 2 1 

Credits Earned (mean)

All postsecondary schools † 30.4 9.4 ***

Four-year colleges 22.6 6.8 ***

Two-year colleges 6.9 2.5 

Vocational schools 0.9 0.2 

Source: means.log and out_imp.log

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

† Includes four-year, two-year, vocational, and other postsecondary schools that could not be classified.

Table IV.3

Additional Year

Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits

Impact of an Additional Year of Upward Bound Participation on

Impact of an
67

that an additional year of participation would raise enrollment rates at four-year colleges and 

universities from 46 percent to 59 percent (see Table IV.3). For noncompleters, our estimates

suggest that program completion would raise enrollment rates at four-year institutions from 52 

percent to 75 percent (see Table IV.4). 

Furthermore, the effect of additional participation on four-year college enrollment appears to 

generate a positive effect on overall postsecondary enrollment. The estimated effect of an 

additional year of participation on overall postsecondary enrollment—9 percentage points—can 

be attributed to the 13 percentage point increase in enrollment at four-year colleges and 

universities (see Table IV.3). Similarly, the estimated effect of program completion on overall 

postsecondary enrollment—17 percentage points—can be attributed to the 23 percentage point 

increase in enrollment at four-year colleges and universities (see Table IV.4). Therefore, 

additional Upward Bound participation seems to raise enrollment at four-year institutions and, as 

a consequence, raises overall postsecondary enrollment. 

Noncompleters

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school † 74 17 ***

Four-year college 52 23 ***

Two-year college 18 -8 **

Vocational school 3 3 

Credits Earned (mean)

All postsecondary schools † 37.1 15.8 ***

Four-year colleges 27.7 12.3 ***

Two-year colleges 8.5 3.9 *

Vocational schools 0.8 -0.3 

Source: means.log and out_imp.log

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

† Includes four-year, two-year, vocational, and other postsecondary schools that could not be classified.

Table IV.4

Completion

Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits

Impact of Upward Bound Completion on

Impact of Program
68

4. The Effect of Longer Participation and Completion for Subgroups Defined by 

Academic Risk 

For lower-duration students, our findings suggest that an additional year of Upward Bound 

would raise enrollment at four-year colleges and overall postsecondary enrollment for both 

students at higher risk of academic failure and students at lower risk of academic failure (see 

Table IV.5). The estimated effect of an additional year of Upward Bound participation on fouryear college enrollment is 12 percentage points for higher-risk students and 13 percentage points 

for lower-risk students. As a result, Upward Bound raised overall postsecondary enrollment for 

both groups, by 7 percentage points for higher-risk students and by 8 percentage points for 

lower-risk students. For both higher-risk and lower-risk students, an additional year of Upward

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school † 47 7 * 76 8 ***

Four-year college 31 12 *** 51 13 ***

Two-year college 15 -4 23 -6 **

Vocational school 1 -1 2 0 

Credits Earned (mean)

All postsecondary schools † 12.2 6.7 ** 37.2 12.1 ***

Four-year colleges 7.5 6.6 ** 28.2 10.4 ***

Two-year colleges 3.9 0.4 7.9 1.7 

Vocational schools 0.7 -0.3 0.9 0.1 

Source: means.log and out_imp.log

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

The impacts for higher risk and lower risk students are not significantly different from each other at the 0.10 level.

† Includes four-year, two-year, vocational, and other postsecondary schools that could not be classified.

Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits by Students' At-Risk Status

Lower-Duration Impact of an Lower-Duration Impact of an

Additional Year

Table IV.5

Impact of an Additional Year of Upward Bound Participation on

Participants Additional Year

Higher Risk

Participants

Lower Risk
69

Bound also seems to raise the number of postsecondary credits earned in four-year colleges and 

overall. 

For noncompleters, our findings suggest that Upward Bound completion would raise 

postsecondary enrollment and credits earned for both students at higher risk of academic failure 

and students at lower risk of academic failure (see Table IV.6). For example, the estimated 

effects on overall postsecondary enrollment are 18 percentage points for higher-risk students and 

16 percentage points for lower-risk students; the estimated effects on total postsecondary credits 

are approximately 24 credits for higher-risk students and 19 credits for lower-risk students. 

D. Interpretation of the Findings 

Our findings suggest that the potential effects of retaining Upward Bound participants who 

would otherwise leave the program early may be large. They suggest that an additional year of 

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school † 52 18 * 80 16 ***

Four-year college 37 29 *** 57 22 ***

Two-year college 14 -13 19 -9 ***

Vocational school 1 2 4 3 

Credits Earned (mean)

All postsecondary schools † 18.7 24.1 *** 43.6 19.1 ***

Four-year colleges 11.9 14.4 33.3 17.4 ***

Two-year colleges 6.3 8.6 * 9.3 2.3 

Vocational schools 0.5 1.1 1.0 -0.6 

Source: means.log and out_imp.log

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

The impacts for higher risk and lower risk students are not significantly different from each other at the 0.10 level.

† Includes four-year, two-year, vocational, and other postsecondary schools that could not be classified.

Noncompleters Completion Noncompleters Completion

Table IV.6

Impact of Upward Bound Completion on

Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits by Students' At-Risk Status

Higher Risk Lower Risk

 Impact of Program Impact of Program
70

participation would raise the postsecondary enrollment rate for lower-duration participants by 

about 9 percentage points, and that program completion would raise the postsecondary 

enrollment rate for noncompleters by about 20 percentage points. 

However, we suspect the true effects of additional participation are probably smaller than 

the estimates presented in this chapter. Although we used rigorous statistical methods in our 

analysis, we could not randomly assign students to different levels of Upward Bound 

participation. Therefore, it is likely that unobserved differences between the matched samples 

have generated selection bias in the estimates reported in this chapter. Because participants 

decide how long to participate and whether to complete the program (unless they are expelled), 

the groups may differ along many dimensions, including unmeasured characteristics like the 

motivation to attend college. If so, the estimated effects of additional participation, based on 

comparisons between these groups, may be partly attributable to differences in motivation that 

predated the Upward Bound participation of these students. 

While the selection bias could be positive or negative, we suspect that selection bias leads us 

to overestimate the effects of additional participation. It seems likely that more motivated 

students participate longer in Upward Bound and complete Upward Bound at higher rates than 

less motivated students. If so, higher-duration participants would tend to be more motivated than 

lower-duration participants, and completers would tend to be more motivated than 

noncompleters. Furthermore, it seems likely that more motivated students enroll in college at 

higher rates than less motivated students. If so, higher-duration students should have higher 

college enrollment rates than lower-duration students because higher-duration students tend to be 

more motivated, and completers should have higher college enrollment rates than noncompleters 

because completers tend to be more motivated. While matching may reduce the motivational 
71

differences between the samples, we expect that these differences partially explain the large 

positive effects of additional participation reported in this chapter.33

Given the nature of selection bias, it is impossible to know for certain whether it exists and, 

if so, how large it is. But we should not assume that the estimates reported in this chapter greatly 

overstate the effects of additional Upward Bound participation. An exercise we conducted 

suggests that the magnitudes of the estimates reported in this chapter are credible. The estimated 

effects of an additional year of Upward Bound on college enrollment, which are presented in this 

chapter, are roughly consistent with the estimated effects of actual participation presented in 

Chapter III when you account for the average length of participation and the characteristics of 

lower-duration participants.34 Therefore, the estimated effects of additional Upward Bound 

participation are consistent with the possibility that for lower-duration students who applied for 

Upward Bound in ninth or tenth grade, Upward Bound raises the likelihood of college attendance 

by about 9 percentage points per year of participation. 

 33 If unobserved factors have led to selection bias, the bias was probably not reduced much by matching 

because the characteristics used in matching were weak predictors of how long students participated in Upward 

Bound and whether they completed the program. For example, only 6 out of the 19 variables used in matching 

lower-risk completers and noncompleters were significantly related to program completion at the 10 percent level; 

for higher-risk completers and noncompleters, 9 out of the 19 variables were used in matching were significantly 

related to program completion at the 10 percent level. 

34 In Chapter III, we estimated that Upward Bound raised enrollment at four-year colleges for participants by 7 

percentage points (see “Participants” column in Table III.1). However, this estimate is a function of the types of 

students served by the program and the duration of their participation in Upward Bound. The estimated impacts 

reported in Chapter III were based on all participants, while the estimated impacts reported in this chapter were 

based on a subgroup of participants that included students who entered Upward Bound in ninth or tenth grade (see 

Appendix F). These participants had somewhat lower than average educational expectations when they entered the 

program, and Chapter III found larger impacts for lower-expectation students. For students who entered Upward 

Bound in ninth or tenth grade, the estimated impacts of Upward Bound participation on enrollment at four-year 

colleges were 26 percentage points for lower-expectation students and 6 percentage points for higher-expectation 

students. These impacts correspond to annual impacts of 17 percentage points and 5 percentage points, respectively, 

for lower- and higher-expectation students. Weighting these estimates by the proportion of lower- and higherexpectation students among lower-duration students who entered Upward Bound in ninth or tenth grade yields an 

estimate of the annual impact of Upward Bound participation on four-year college enrollment (8 percentage points) 

that is to the same order of magnitude as the estimated impact of an additional year of Upward Bound on four-year 

college enrollment (13 percentage points, see Table IV.3). We find a similar degree of consistency between the 

annual impacts of Upward Bound participation and the impact of an additional year of participation on enrollment at 

two-year colleges. 

73

References 

Adelman, Cliff. “Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and 

Bachelor’s Degree Attainment.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office 

of Educational Research and Improvement, 1999. 

Adelman, Cliff. “Participation in Outreach Programs Prior to High School Graduation: 

Socioeconomic Status by Race.” Paper presented at the ConnectED Conference, San Diego, 

Jan. 10, 2000. 

Angrist, Joshua D., Guido W. Imbens and Donald B. Rubin. “Identification of Causal Effects 

Using Instrumental Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 91, 

No. 434, June 1996. 

Berker, Lutz and C. Dennis Carroll. “Access to Postsecondary Education for the 1992 High 

School Graduates.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Educational Research and Improvement, 1998 (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/access/98105.pdf). 

Bloom, Howard. “Accounting for No-Shows in Experimental Evaluation Designs.” Evaluation 

Review, Vol. 8, 1984. 

Braxton, John M. (ed.). Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt 

University Press, 2000. 

Burkheimer, Graham J., Jay R. Levinsohn, Helen P. Koo and Arthur M. French. “A Study of the 

National Upward Bound and Talent Search Programs. Vol. IV. Evaluation Study of the 

Upward Bound Program.” Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1976. 

Burkheimer, Graham J. et al. “Final Report: Evaluation Study of the Upward Bound Program--

A Second Follow-Up.” Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, 1979. 

Cohen, Jacob. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. 

Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988. 

Coleman, James, E. Campbell, C. Hobson, J. McPartland, A. Mood, F. Weinfield and R. York. 

“Equality of Educational Opportunity.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare, 1966. 

Congressional Budget Office. “Educational Achievement: Explanations and Implications of 

Recent Trends.” Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, August 1987. 

Decker, Paul T., Jennifer King Rice, Mary T. Moore and Mary R. Rollefson. “Education and the 

Economy: An Indicators Report.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 

April 1997. 
References (continued) 

74

Jacobson, Jonathan, Cara Olsen, Jennifer King Rice, Stephen Sweetland and John Ralph. 

“Educational Achievement and Black-White Inequality.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational 

Research and Improvement, 2001. 

James, Donna Walker, Sonia Jurich and Steve Estes. “Raising Minority Academic 

Achievement: A Compendium of Education Programs and Practices.” Washington, D.C.: 

American Youth Policy Forum, 2001. 

Jencks, Christopher, Marshall Smith, Henry Acland, Mary Jo Bane, David Cohen, Herbert 

Gintis, Barbara Heyns and Stephen Michelson. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of 

Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972. 

Jencks, Christopher and Meredith Phillips (ed.). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, 

D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998. 

Manksi, Charles F. and David A. Wise. College Choice in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press, 1983. 

Moore, Mary T. “The National Evaluation of Upward Bound: A 1990's View of Upward Bound 

Programs Offered, Students Served, and Operational Issues.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, 1997a. 

Moore, Mary T. “Developing Math and Science Skills Among Disadvantaged Youth: A Review 

of the Upward Bound Precollege Math/Science Centers.” Report submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1997b. 

Mosteller, Frederick and Daniel Moynihan. On Equality of Educational Opportunity. New 

York: Vintage Books, 1972. 

Myers, David, Mary Moore, Allen Schirm and Zev Waldman. “The National Evaluation of 

Upward Bound: Design Report.” Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. 

Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica 

Policy Research, Inc., November 1993. 

Myers, David and Allen Schirm. “The Impacts of Upward Bound: Final Report on Phase I of the 

National Evaluation.” Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 1999 (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES 

/higher/upward.pdf). 

Myers, David and Allen Schirm. “The Short-Term Impact of Upward Bound: An Interim 

Report.” Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 1997. 

Oakes, Jeannie, Karen Hunter Quartz, Steve Ryan and Martin Lipton. Becoming Good American 

Schools: The Struggle for Civic Virtue in Education Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 

2000. 
References (continued) 

75

Rosenbaum, Paul R. and Donald B. Rubin. “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in 

Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika, 70, 41-55, 1983. 

Rosenbaum, Paul R. and Donald B. Rubin. “Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate 

Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score.” The American 

Statistician, 39, 33-38, 1985. 

Swail, Scott and Laura Perna. “A View of the Landscape: Results of the National Survey of 

Outreach Programs.” Outreach Program Handbook 2001. New York: The College Board, 

2000. 

U.S. Department of Education. “The Condition of Education, 2001.” Washington, D.C.: 

National Center for Education Statistics, 2001. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute 

of Child Health and Human Development. “Teaching Children to Read: An EvidenceBased Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for 

Reading Instruction.” NIH Pub. No. 00-475. Rockville, Md.: DHHS, 2000. 

APPENDIX A 

SAMPLE DESIGN, UNIT NONRESPONSE AND WEIGHTS

A-3 

In this appendix, we describe how the treatment and control samples were selected for the 

Upward Bound evaluation. We also describe how weights were assigned to members of both 

samples to account for the sample design and missing data due to unit nonresponse. 

A. Sample Design 

For the impact study, we selected a nationally representative sample of eligible Upward 

Bound applicants in two stages. First, a nationally representative sample of Upward Bound 

projects was selected to serve as “primary sampling units” (PSUs). Second, eligible applicants in 

the projects were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. 

1. First-Stage Sampling: Selection of Projects 

The “universe” of projects for the impact study—the collection of projects whose students 

are eligible to be selected for the study sample—consists of active regular Upward Bound 

projects that (1) are located in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, (2) are hosted by 

postsecondary educational institutions, (3) had operated for at least three years by October 1992 

and (4) were not serving only students with physical disabilities. Veterans projects and math and 

science projects are not considered regular projects. During the period when the impact study 

sample of students was being selected (roughly May 1992 through March 1994), there were 395 

Upward Bound projects that met the definition of the universe.35

From the universe of 395 projects, we selected a sample of 70 projects using stratified 

random sampling: each project in the universe was assigned to a group of projects (a stratum), 

and a sample was drawn from each stratum. Sampling rates varied across strata, so some

 35 Some projects funded in the 1989-1992 grant cycle were defunded in the 1992-1995 grant cycle and 

therefore eliminated from the universe. Projects newly funded in the 1992-1995 and later grant cycles were also 

excluded from the universe. 
A-4 

projects had a greater chance of being selected than other projects. Stratification with 

disproportionate sampling (unequal sampling rates) was used to ensure that enough projects—

and therefore enough students—were selected to support precise estimates for relatively small 

but important analytic subgroups, such as students in large projects or students in projects hosted 

by two-year postsecondary institutions. 

Table A.1 displays the 46 strata used to select projects in the first-stage sampling for the 

impact study. The table also shows, for each stratum, the number of projects in the universe, the 

number of projects selected for the sample and the number of projects in which random 

assignment of students was carried out. Within each stratum, projects were selected using simple 

random sampling without replacement. Thus, although selection probabilities varied across 

strata, each project in a given stratum had the same chance of being selected. That chance equals 

the number of projects selected divided by the number of projects in the universe in that 

stratum.36

Strata are defined, in part, by cross-tabulating three stratifying variables: (1) location of the 

host institution, (2) type and control of the host institution and (3) project size. Type and control 

was ascertained from the 1990-1991 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 

Institutional Characteristics file. The project size variable has three categories: (1) small (60 or 

fewer students), (2) medium (61 to 99 students) and (3) large (100 or more students). Enrollment 

figures were obtained from the 1990-1991 Upward Bound performance reports. 

 36 Three of the projects in the sample are backups selected randomly from the same strata as three originally 

selected projects for which it was determined that random assignment would be inappropriate. Two of the three 

originally selected projects were operating under special administrative provisions, and the third project had, for 

several years, been unable to fill all available openings. These three projects that were replaced by backups are 

included in the universe counts in Table A.1. 
A-5 

Stratum

Urban: Four-year, Public

Small: 

African Americanb 14 2 2

Latino 4 1 1

Other 7 1 1

Medium: 

Asian 5 2 2

Native American 2 1 1

Latino 9 2 2

Other 56 1 1

Large: 

African American 25 3 3

Latino 6 3 3

White 2 1 1

Other 6 1 1

Urban: Four-year, Private

Small: 

African American 8 1 1

Other 5 1 1

Medium: 

Asian 4 1 1

African American 38 3 3

Latino 3 2 2

Other 5 1 1

Large: 

Asian 2 1 1

African American 22 5 3

Other 3 1 1

Urban: Two-year 

Small: 

Native American 1 1 1

African American 9 3 3

Latino 3 1 1

Other 5 1 1

Medium: 

Asian 2 1 1

African American 10 3 3

Other 4 1 1

Large 3 1 1

Sample

Number of Projects

Table A.1

Selection of Upward Bound Projects for the Impact Study

Universe Selected Respondentsa
A-6 

Stratum

Rural: Four-year, Public

Small: 

White 6 1 1

Other 6 1 1

Medium:

Native American 7 3 2

Latino 4 1 1

Other 30 1 1

Large:

African American 5 1 1

Other 10 2 2

Rural: Four-year, Private

Small 7 1 1

Medium 14 2 2

Large 4 1 1

Rural: Two-year

Small: 

African American 4 2 2

White 5 1 1

Other 6 1 1

Medium:

African American 5 1 1

White 8 2 2

Other 5 1 1

Large:

White 3 1 1

Other 3 1 1

Total 395 70 67

a Respondents are projects in which random assignment was carried out.

b At least 50 percent of the students served by "African American projects" are classified as African American

according to the 1990-91 Upward Bound performance reports. Native American, Latino, and white projects are

similarly defined. (Native American includes Alaskan Native.) For Asian projects, at least 25 percent of the

students served are classified as Asian or Pacific Islander.

TABLE A.1 (continued )

Number of Projects

Sample

Universe Selected Respondentsa
A-7 

Although some strata are defined entirely in terms of the location, type and size variables, 

many strata are defined by also taking into account projects’ racial and ethnic compositions. At 

least 25 percent of the students served by “Asian projects” are classified as Asian or Pacific 

Islander. For a Native American (including Alaskan Native), African American, Latino or white 

project, at least 50 percent of the students served are classified as members of the specified racial 

or ethnic group. Data on race and ethnicity were obtained from Upward Bound performance 

reports. 

When possible, projects were sampled proportionately by racial and ethnic composition 

within classifications based on the other three stratifying variables. Thus, differences by racial 

and ethnic composition in the overall rates at which projects were sampled are due largely to 

disproportionate sampling by size and type and control. Small projects, large projects and 

projects hosted by two-year postsecondary institutions were oversampled to provide adequate 

sample sizes for subgroup analyses. 

2. Second-Stage Sampling: Selection of Students 

For each of the 67 projects selected in the first stage, we identified its main recruiting 

period(s)—typically spring 1993, fall 1993 or both—that fell during the student sample intake 

period for the impact study (roughly October 1992 to March 1994). With few exceptions, 

eligible students applying to Upward Bound during a project’s main recruiting period(s) were 

selected with certainty for the baseline impact study sample and subject to random assignment to 

treatment (Upward Bound) and control groups. The exceptions were students designated as 

“exempt” from random assignment and students randomly chosen as “givebacks.” We discuss 

these exceptions after describing how random assignment was conducted. 
A-8 

a. Random Assignment 

When a project had completed recruiting for a given recruiting period, we selected eligible 

applicants at random to fill all available program openings. Eligible applicants not selected for 

Upward Bound and assigned to the treatment group were assigned to the control group or, more 

accurately, to a waiting list that could be used to fill certain future program openings. The 

waiting list and students selected from it, so-called “post-initial treatments” (PITs), are discussed 

in the next section.37

At least one round of random assignment was conducted in each of 67 projects.38 In 17 

projects with more than one recruiting period, there were two or more rounds of random 

assignment. We conducted a total of 87 rounds of random assignment. 

Many Upward Bound project directors were concerned that the element of chance 

introduced by random assignment could severely unbalance the student composition of their 

programs. For example, it would be possible for all students in a cohort to be from just one 

target school or to be female. The former outcome could have seriously damaged relationships 

with target schools whose students were not selected, while the latter might have hampered 

program operations if there were not enough dormitory rooms available for females during the 

summer session. Therefore, project directors were allowed to specify random assignment strata 

and, subject to the existence of enough eligible applicants, to allocate available program 

 37 As we discuss later, students designated as post-initial treatments will not necessarily be members of the 

treatment group for baseline or follow-up analyses. 

38 As indicated in Table A.1, random assignment was not carried out in 3 of the 70 projects selected for the 

sample. The stated policy of one of those three projects was to serve all eligible applicants. Although not policy, 

the practice of another project was also to serve all eligible applicants because there were just enough students to fill 

program openings, leaving none to form a control group. The third project had its funding cut and had no openings 

for new students. These three projects could not be replaced by backups even though, as noted earlier, three other 

projects in which random assignment could not be carried out had been replaced. Backups could not be selected 

because random assignment was determined to be infeasible only after it had been announced that no additional 

projects would be selected for the impact study. Failure to carry out random assignment in originally selected 

projects may introduce bias of unknown direction and magnitude into sample estimates. 
A-9 

openings across the strata to obtain the desired mix of students.39 In all, there were 339 random 

assignment strata. Within a given stratum, random assignment was conducted as described 

earlier. The eligible applicants in the stratum were chosen at random to fill the available 

openings in the stratum. Students not picked for Upward Bound were assigned to the waiting 

list. 

b. Exemptions, Givebacks and PITs 

Exemptions. At the request of Upward Bound project directors, a very small number of 

students applying to Upward Bound were exempt from random assignment because it was 

determined that allowing the assignment of such students to be subject to the vagaries of chance 

could be unusually or permanently disruptive to normal program operations. For example, if a 

project and a local child protective services agency had a prior agreement that all eligible 

students referred by the agency would be accepted into Upward Bound, that agreement was not 

violated for the evaluation, and students referred during the sample intake period were exempt 

from random assignment. Strict policies of accepting all siblings into the program or accepting 

none of them were honored, and they accounted for a few exemptions. For instance, one of a 

pair of twins applying to a project with such a policy was exempt from random assignment, 

while the other twin was subject to random assignment. The exempt twin would be allowed to 

participate in Upward Bound only if the nonexempt twin were randomly assigned to the 

treatment group. All exempt students were designated as nonresearch cases and were excluded 

from all analyses. 

 39 Stratification was also needed in some instances to ensure that a project did not violate the federal 

requirement that two-thirds of the project’s students be both low-income and potential first-generation college. For 

projects with multiple rounds of random assignment, each round had its own set of strata. 
A-10 

Givebacks. Some projects recruited many more eligible applicants than were needed to fill 

available program openings and form a control group of adequate size. In such instances, we 

randomly selected students from the control group and “gave them back” to the projects 

immediately after random assignment. These givebacks could be selected by the projects to fill 

program openings when the impact study student intake period had ended. Although subject to 

random assignment, givebacks are not part of the baseline or follow-up samples. All 97 

givebacks (distributed across 11 projects) are nonresearch cases. 

PITs. After being selected for Upward Bound, some students never enter the program. 

Other students enter but leave before completing the program. Therefore, Upward Bound 

projects typically maintain waiting lists of students so that program openings can be filled 

without having to either mount a full-scale recruiting effort or wait until the next recruiting 

period. 

During the sample intake period for the evaluation, projects were not allowed to have their 

own waiting lists: all nonexempt applicants were subject to random assignment.40 To enable 

projects to maintain full enrollment under such conditions, we assigned students not selected for 

Upward Bound to an evaluation waiting list, rather than a strict control group. Students could be 

randomly selected from the evaluation waiting list to fill program openings, although such use of 

the waiting list was subject to time and size restrictions. Specifically, students could not be 

selected off the waiting list after a certain date—typically, the start of the next recruiting period. 

Also, for a given random assignment stratum, a student could not be selected from the waiting 

list if the selection of a student reduced the number of students remaining on the waiting list to 

 40 Even students who applied to Upward Bound and were placed on a project’s waiting list prior to the sample 

intake period for the study were generally subject to random assignment. The only exceptions were students who 

had previously been promised admission when openings became available. Such students were among the small 

number of exemptions. 
A-11 

less than about two-thirds the number of students originally assigned to the treatment group. 

Students randomly selected from the evaluation waiting list are designated as PITs. The next 

section discusses how PITs are used in baseline and third follow-up analyses. 

B. Weighting 

Students were assigned weights that we have used in estimating impacts. Weighting has 

three purposes. First, it ensures that the sample “weights up” to the universe, producing correct 

totals (subject to sampling variability).41 Second, for purposes of estimation, weighting 

“undoes” the effects of disproportionate sampling so that two strata with the same number of 

students in the universe are counted equally, even if they have different numbers of students in 

the sample. Third, weighting adjusts for nonresponse. 

In the following sections, we describe how we assigned baseline and third follow-up 

weights. We constructed separate third follow-up weights for analyzing data from the survey, 

high school transcripts, postsecondary transcripts and participation reports from the 67 

evaluation projects. To exclude exemptions and givebacks from all analyses, we assigned them 

zero baseline and third follow-up weights. In contrast, all PITs were included in baseline 

analyses and received nonzero baseline weights. As we will discuss later, whether a PIT 

received a nonzero third follow-up weight depended on when that student was selected from the 

evaluation waiting list. 

 41 For example, without weighting, a total estimated from a simple one-in-two random sample would, on 

average, fall short of the true (population) total by 50 percent. 
A-12 

1. Baseline Weights 

We assigned nonzero baseline weights to 3,028 students—all nonexempt students except 

givebacks.42 A student’s baseline weight is: 

s

s

1 (number of applicants) w = x , project selection probability (number of applicants - number of givebacks)

where s indexes the student’s random assignment stratum. This baseline weight is the inverse of 

the student’s probability of being selected for the baseline sample. That selection probability is: 

s

s

(number of applicants - number of givebacks) p = project selection probability x . (number of applicants)

The first term is project selection probability in the first stage of sampling, that is, the probability 

that the project to which the student applied was selected. The second term is the student 

selection probability in the second stage of sampling, that is, the probability that the student was 

selected conditional on the selection of the student’s project. Put differently, this term equals the 

probability that the student was retained in the experimental sample after being randomly 

assigned, which equals the probability of not being selected as a “giveback.” The product for the 

first and second terms gives the student’s overall (unconditional) probability of selection for the 

evaluation. The first- and second-stage selection probabilities are easy to calculate. The firststage probability equals the proportion of all projects in the stratum that conducted random 

 42 For the baseline sample, students were designated as treatments or controls based on their initial random 

assignment status. Students initially selected for Upward Bound are treatments, while students initially placed on 

the evaluation waiting list, including students who later became PITs, are controls. 
A-13 

assignment for the evaluation (see Table A.1). The second-stage probability equals the 

proportion of all nonexempt students who were not “givebacks.” 

Two simple examples illustrate how we calculated baseline weights. For an applicant to a 

large, rural project hosted by a private, four-year university, the project selection probability is 

1/4: according to Table A.1, random assignment was carried out in one of the four large, rural 

projects hosted by private, four-year universities. If there were seven other applicants (for a 

total of eight) and no givebacks in the student’s random assignment stratum, the second-stage 

selection probability equals one and the overall selection probability equals 1/4 × 1 = 1/4. 

Therefore, the student’s baseline weight is four (the inverse of 1/4), implying that the student 

represents herself or himself and three other students who applied to projects but were not 

selected for the first-stage sample. Alternatively, if there were four givebacks instead of none, 

the second-stage selection probability equals 4/8, and the overall selection probability equals 1/4 

× 4/8 = 1/8. Then, the student’s baseline weight is eight, implying that the student represents 

himself or herself, one giveback and six other students (two applicants to each of three projects 

not selected for the evaluation). 

2. Third Follow-Up Survey Weights 

As discussed in the previous section, 3,028 students received nonzero baseline weights. For 

the third follow-up survey, we set aside the 184 students classified as nonresearch cases (see the 

next section) and focused on the other 2,844 students. Our goal was to complete interviews with 

all 2,844 students; we succeeded in interviewing 2,292 students, which corresponds to an 81 

percent response rate.43 Next, we discuss how we weighted students for the analyses of the third 

 43 Item nonresponse (failure to answer individual questions) created little missing data beyond that created by 

unit nonresponse (failure to answer any questions). 
A-14 

follow-up survey data to account for sampling and unit nonresponse. These weights are 

designed to allow the treatment students who responded the survey to represent the population of 

Upward Bound eligible applicants nationwide and the control students who responded to the 

survey to represent the same population. We begin by describing how we designated students as 

treatments, controls or nonresearch cases. 

a. Designating Students as Treatment, Control or Nonresearch 

Of the 3,028 students who received nonzero baseline weights, 1,524 were designated as 

treatments, 1,320 as controls and 184 as nonresearch cases for the third follow-up analysis. All 

1,479 students assigned to the treatment group at initial random assignment are designated as 

treatments for this analysis. Similarly, all 1,320 students assigned to the evaluation waiting list 

at initial random assignment and not randomly selected from it as PITs are controls. 

Of the 229 PITs, 45 are designed as treatments for the third follow-up analyses; the rest are 

designated as nonresearch cases. A PIT was designated as a treatment if two conditions were 

satisfied. First, the PIT had the opportunity to begin participating in Upward Bound at 

essentially the same time (often the same day) as the original treatments in the PIT’s random 

assignment stratum. Second, the PIT did not replace a treatment who dropped out of Upward 

Bound (or never showed up). PITs satisfying these two conditions were designated as treatments 

because it is assumed that they would have been original treatments had the Upward Bound 

project director not underestimated the number of open slots that were available at the initial 

random assignment.44 As noted before, all other PITs were designated as nonresearch cases. 

 44 Project directors often do not regard a slot as open until there is strong evidence that a previously enrolled 

student has dropped out. Therefore, rather than delaying student selection until the “last minute,” some slots that 

were later confirmed as open were not filled in the initial random assignment. 
A-15 

b. Survey Weights 

Survey weights were developed to account for the probability of being assigned to the 

treatment group for treatment students, the probability of being assigned to the control group for 

control students and the probability of responding to the survey. The following steps were taken 

to compute survey weights: 

1. Calculate control totals. We summed the baseline weights of all students (treatment, 

control and nonresearch) in each weighting class to obtain 297 control totals.45 

2. Estimate propensity scores. For each treatment and control group member, we 

estimated the probability that the student responded to the survey, conditional on a set 

of baseline characteristics.46 

3. Compute preliminary survey weights. We multiplied each student’s baseline weight 

by the inverse of his or her propensity score to compute a preliminary survey weight. 

4. Post-stratify the sample to compute final survey weights. To compute final survey 

weights, the preliminary weights were ratio-adjusted to ensure that the final weights 

for treatments and controls separately summed to the control totals within each 

weighting class. Final weights for all nonrespondents and nonresearch cases were set 

to zero. 

3. Third Follow-Up High School Transcript Weights 

To construct nonresponse-adjusted weights for the third follow-up analyses of high school 

transcript data, we followed similar procedures used to construct weights for third follow-up 

 45 In 42 of the original 339 random assignment strata, the response rate for either the treatment group or the 

control group was zero. These 42 strata were combined with other strata based on propensity scores, whose 

estimation is described later in the text. We combined an empty stratum with a nonempty stratum based on the 

similarity of students’ propensity scores, as measured by the difference in the average propensity scores between 

students in a given empty stratum and students in a nonempty stratum with which the empty stratum might be 

combined. The nonempty stratum with the smallest difference was judged the most similar to the empty stratum. 

We did not combine strata across projects. Propensity scores were used to combine strata into weighting classes 

because these scores reflect a broad range of characteristics related to nonresponse and to the outcomes that are 

examined in the impact analysis. 

46 The probability was obtained for all 2,844 treatment and control students from two logistic regression 

models, one for the treatment group and the other for the control group. These models predict response to the third 

follow-up survey as a function of the control variables from the regression model used to estimate impacts: sex, 

race, educational aspirations, grade level at program application, and eligibility status—first-generation, low-income 

or both. Estimation of these propensity score models revealed that sex, race, educational expectations and eligibility 

status were significant predictors of response to the third-followup survey for at least one of the two groups. 
A-16 

survey data. We attempted to collect high school transcript data for the subgroup of the 2,844 

treatment and control students who had not yet completed high school by the previous round of 

transcript data collection. After the round of transcript data collection that followed the fielding 

of the third follow-up survey, we had collected at least some high school transcripts for 95 

percent of all treatment and control students. Because some sample members did not respond to 

the survey and therefore did not provide us with a current list of all high schools they had 

attended, we cannot distinguish between survey nonrespondents with partial transcript 

information and survey nonrespondents with complete transcript information. Thus, we chose to 

treat the 95 percent of treatment and control students for whom we had any transcript data as 

respondents when developing high school transcript weights. The high school transcript weights 

are designed to allow the treatment students for whom we had received transcripts to represent 

the population of Upward Bound eligible applicants nationwide, and to allow the control students 

for whom we had received transcripts to represent the same population. 

In computing high school transcript weights, we used the same four steps taken to compute 

survey weights, including the same propensity score model—inserting an indicator for transcript 

response as the dependent variable—and the same weighting classes for post-stratification.

4. Third Follow-Up Postsecondary Transcript Weights 

In the third follow-up survey, 1,737 students reported that they had attended some type of 

postsecondary institution. Some students reported institutions that were not really postsecondary 

institutions (for example, the Job Corps), and others reported schools that were not in IPEDS and 

were not institutions that maintain transcripts. We classify as “postsecondary institutions” all 

schools that can be found in IPEDS or could otherwise be located and determined to be a 

transcript-providing institution. We classify as “postsecondary students” all 1,524 treatments 

and controls who responded to the third follow-up survey and reported having attended one or 
A-17 

more “postsecondary institutions.” We requested transcripts from each of the postsecondary 

institutions attended by the 1,524 postsecondary students unless the students refused to give 

consent for the release of their transcripts. 

Of the 1,524 postsecondary students, we received transcripts from all the postsecondary 

institutions they attended for 1,375 of them, a response rate of 90 percent. To develop 

postsecondary transcript weights that adjust the survey weights to account for variability in 

likelihood of receiving complete postsecondary transcript data for postsecondary students, we 

took the following four steps: 

1. Calculate control totals for postsecondary students, separately for treatment and 

control students. For the treatment and control groups separately, we summed the 

third follow-up survey weights of postsecondary students in each random assignment 

stratum to obtain 224 control totals. 

2. Calculate control totals for postsecondary students, separately for treatment and 

control students. For the treatment and control groups separately, we summed the 

third follow-up survey weights of postsecondary students in each random assignment 

stratum to obtain 224 control totals. 

3. Calculate control totals for postsecondary students, separately for treatment and 

control students. For the treatment and control groups separately, we summed the 

third follow-up survey weights of postsecondary students in each random assignment 

stratum to obtain 224 control totals.47 

4. Estimate propensity scores. Among postsecondary students, we estimated the 

probability that we received complete postsecondary transcript data for the student.48 

 47 In 73 of the 297 weighting classes used to develop the survey weights, the response rate for either the 

treatment group or the control group was zero. These 73 cells were combined with other cells based on propensity 

scores, whose estimation is described later. These cells were combined for the same reason and in the same manner 

that the original 339 random assignment strata were combined to form 297 weighting classes for developing the 

survey weights. 

48 This estimate was computed by multiplying together two estimated probabilities: the probability that the 

student gave consent for us to obtain his or her transcripts, and the probability that we were able to obtain those 

records if consent was given. For the treatment and control groups separately, we estimated two logit models—one 

to predict consent, the other to predict receipt of complete transcript data conditional on consent. The first model 

predicts consent as a function of some of the control variables from the regression model used to estimate impacts, 

sex, race, and educational aspirations, along with counts of the number of four-year, two-year, and other colleges 

that the student attended. The second model predicts receipt of all transcripts requested as a function of sex, the 

school counts for four-year, two-year, and other colleges, and current college status (current college attendance and 

college completion). 
A-18 

5. Compute preliminary postsecondary transcript weights. After computing the control 

totals, we multiplied each student’s baseline weight by the inverse of his or her 

propensity score. 

6. Post-stratify the sample to compute final postsecondary transcript weights. The 

preliminary weight was then ratio-adjusted to ensure that the final postsecondary 

transcript weights for treatments and controls sum to their respective control totals 

within each of the 224 weighting classes. For all nonrespondents, nonresearch cases 

and third follow-up survey nonrespondents, the final postsecondary transcript weight 

equals zero; for survey respondents who were not classified as postsecondary 

students, the final postsecondary transcript weight equals the third follow-up survey 

weight. 

The postsecondary transcript weights are designed to make two samples representative of 

the population of Upward Bound eligible applicants nationwide: treatment students who 

responded to the third follow-up survey and for whom we had transcripts from every 

postsecondary institution attended, and control students who met the same two criteria. 

5. Third Follow-Up Upward Bound Participation Weights 

One goal of the evaluation is to describe the patterns of program participation among 

applicants who are accepted into the program. Therefore, we examined the participation 

behavior of the 1,524 students assigned to the treatment group (the group offered the chance to 

participate in Upward Bound); we weight them to represent all eligible applicants. 

However, we have incomplete participation data for 17 Upward Bound participants from the 

treatment group. For these participants, we received participation reports in previous rounds of 

data collection, did not receive a participation report in the latest round of data collection and 

were unable to compensate using self-reported survey data. To develop participation weights 

that adjust the survey weights to account for the probability of receiving complete participation 

data for treatment students, we took the following three steps:

1. Calculate control totals for postsecondary students, separately for treatment and 

control groups. For each group, we summed the baseline weights of all 3,028 
A-19 

treatment, control and nonresearch cases in each random assignment stratum to obtain 

339 control totals. 

2. Compute baseline treatment weights. The probability of assignment to the treatment 

group varied across random assignment strata. Therefore, for each stratum, a baseline 

treatment weight was computed by dividing the baseline weight by the proportion of 

students randomly assigned to the treatment group. 

3. Post-stratify the sample to compute participation weights. The treatment group was 

post-stratified into three weighting classes: one class of students who had completed 

their Upward Bound participation before the previous round of data collection and 

two classes of students who had not completed their participation before the previous 

round of data collection—those with baseline treatment weights greater than 20 and 

those with smaller weights. For the first weighting class, our participation 

information is complete: the participation weight was set to the baseline treatment 

weight. For the second and third weighting classes separately, the participation 

weight is computed as the baseline treatment weight times the inverse of the weighted 

“response” rate for the weighting class, that is, the weighted proportion of students 

with complete participation information. For all nonparticipants and the 17 students 

with incomplete participation information, the participation weight was set to zero. 

APPENDIX B 

BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, 

THIRD FOLLOW-UP SURVEY RESPONDENTS

B-3 

Baseline Characteristics

Educational expectations1

Student 16.5 17.1 -0.6

Father 16.6 16.8 -0.2

Mother 16.7 17.1 -0.4 *

How often talked with parents about2

Courses 1.9 2.0 -0.1

School activities 2.0 2.1 -0.1

Studies 1.9 2.0 -0.2 ***

Grades 2.4 2.5 -0.1 *

Transferring to another school 0.7 0.7 -0.1

Taking ACT or SAT exam 1.0 1.1 -0.1 *

College plans 2.2 2.4 -0.2 *

How often parent2

Checked on homework 2.1 2.2 -0.1 **

Helped with homework 1.6 1.8 -0.2

Gave special privileges 1.9 1.9 0.0

Limited privileges 1.7 1.7 0.0

Required chores 2.6 2.6 0.0

Limited TV and video time 1.5 1.4 0.1

Limited time with friends 2.1 2.0 0.0

Times 

Late for school 2.7 2.8 -0.1

Skipped classes 0.9 0.7 0.3

Missed a day of school 3.8 3.5 0.3 **

In trouble for not following school rules 1.1 1.1 -0.1

Put on in-school suspension 0.4 0.3 0.1

Suspended 0.2 0.2 0.0

Transferred for disciplinary reasons 0.0 0.0 0.0

Arrested 0.0 0.0 0.0

Spent time in juvenile home 0.0 0.0 0.0 *

Parent (%)

Attended school meeting 63 67 -4 **

Spoke with teachers 70 74 -4

Visited classes 48 49 -1

Attended school event 63 66 -3

Hours spent

On homework3 7.0 7.6 -0.7 *

On school-sponsored activities3 4.5 5.2 -0.7

Playing video games (weekdays)4 1.0 0.8 0.1 **

Playing video games (weekends)4 1.4 1.3 0.1 **

Grade at application 9.4 9.4 0.0

Table B.1

Baseline Characteristics of the Treatment and Control Groups,

Difference

Third Follow-up Survey Respondents

Treatment Control
B-4 

Baseline Characteristics

Low-Income and First-Generation (%)

Low-Income and First-Generation 79 79 0

Low-Income Only 4 4 0

First-Generation Only 16 17 0

Race (%)

Hispanic 22 22 0

White 22 20 2

African-American 49 52 -4

Other Race 7 6 1

Gender (%)

Male 29 28 0

Female 71 72 0

Sample Size 1,265 1,027

Source: f3_0142.log

Note: The numbers in the "Difference" column may not exactly equal the difference between the numbers in the

 "Treatment" and "Control" columns due to rounding; weights used to account for survey nonresponse.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

1 Expected years of schooling.

2 Coding: 0=never, 1=rarely, 2=sometimes, 3=often.

3 Hours per week.

Difference

TABLE B.1 (continued )

Treatment Control
APPENDIX C 

PROGRAM IMPACTS AND STANDARD ERRORS

C-3 

This appendix describes how we estimated the effects (impacts) of Upward Bound—both 

the opportunity to participate and actual participation—and how we estimated the standard errors 

of the estimates. 

A. Computing Program Impacts 

Some policymakers and program operators may be most interested in learning about the 

effects of offering Upward Bound services to eligible applicants. Others may be more interested 

in learning about the effects of actually participating in Upward Bound. The evaluation literature 

refers to the first impact as the “intended to treat effect” (ITT) and the second impact as the 

“complier average causal effect” (CACE). Our estimates of the ITT are based on a comparison 

of students randomly assigned to the treatment group with students randomly assigned to the 

control group. Our estimates of the CACE are based on a comparison of Upward Bound 

participants to nonparticipants, using the outcome of random assignment, treatment or control 

status, as an instrumental variable to predict program participation. 

1. Impacts of the Opportunity to Participate in Upward Bound (ITT) 

In order to compute the average impact of the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound, 

we estimate a statistical model that predicts the outcome of interest as a function of treatment 

status and background characteristics, such as educational expectations, sex, race, ethnicity and 

grade level at application. We include baseline characteristics in the model to increase the 

precision with which we estimate program impacts and to capture chance differences in baseline 

characteristics that remained after students were randomly assigned to the treatment and control 

groups. The basic form of the model is: 

y= + + + i ββ β 01 2 T X i i ε 1i (C.1)
C-4 

where yi is the outcome of interest; Ti equals 1 if the student was randomly assigned to the 

treatment group and equals 0 otherwise; Xi is a vector that includes baseline characteristics of the 

student; 1i ε is a random error term that captures the effects of unobserved factors that influence 

the outcome; and β 0 , β1 and β 2 are parameters or vectors of parameters to be estimated. The 

parameter of most interest is β1 because it shows the impact of being offered the opportunity to 

participate in Upward Bound on student outcomes. We estimate the parameters in equation C.1 

using ordinary least squares for both categorical and continuous outcomes. All regression 

models are weighted to account for the sampling design and unit nonresponse (see Appendix A). 

2. Impacts of Participation in Upward Bound (CACE)

To compute the CACE estimator for the impact of participating in Upward Bound, we 

estimate the relationship between the opportunity to participate and participation and the 

relationship between participation and student outcomes. These relationships can be expressed 

as: 

 (C.2)

 

where yi is the outcome of interest; Ti equals 1 for students who were randomly assigned to the 

treatment group and equals 0 for other students; Xi is a vector that includes background variables; 

Pi equals 1 for students who were randomly assigned to the treatment group and participated in 

Upward Bound and equals 0 for other students; εpi and εyi are random error terms that capture the 

effects of unobserved factors that influence both participation and the outcome; and α0 , α1 , α2 , 

β 0 , β1 and β 2 are parameters or vectors of parameters to be estimated. The parameter of greatest 

interest is β1 because it shows the impact of participating in Upward Bound on the outcome. 

01 2

01 2

i ii pi

i i yi i

P TX =+ + +

y =+ + + P X

αα α ε

ββ β ε
C-5 

We estimate the parameters in equation C.2 using the instrumental variables estimator. This 

technique allows us to compute asymptotically unbiased and efficient estimates of the 

parameters. The parameter β1 can be interpreted as the causal impact for “compliers,” that is, 

students who were induced to participate in Upward Bound by the randomly assigned offer.49 To 

implement the instrumental variables estimator, we use the two-stage least squares procedure 

when either continuous or categorical outcomes are analyzed. 

The CACE estimator used throughout the report does not account for the fact that some 

Upward Bound control group members were offered the chance to participate in regular Upward 

Bound and subsequently participated in the program. (See footnote 5 in Chapter V.) However, 

results from a sensitivity test suggest that accounting for “crossover,” as it is commonly called, 

would have very little effect on the estimated impacts of participating in Upward Bound as 

presented in this report. Table C.1 provides the impact estimates from Table III.1 using methods 

that account for crossover. A comparison of Tables III.1 and C.1 indicate that accounting for 

crossover has a negligible effect on the estimated impacts of participating in regular Upward 

Bound. 

B. Calculating Standard Errors 

To determine whether impact estimates are statistically significant, we computed standard 

errors that account for the sample design of the study, which is described in Appendix A. The 

first stage of sampling in the evaluation involved selecting a stratified random sample of Upward 

Bound projects. The second stage of the sampling process involved taking a random sample of 

eligible students and assigning them to the treatment group; the remaining students were

 49 See Angrist, Imbens, and Rubin (1996). 
C-6 

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 71 3 3 

Four-year college 44 6 ** 8 ** 

Two-year college 24 -5 -6 

Vocational school 2 2 2 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 35.8 1.4 1.7 

 Nonremedial 33.8 0.8 1.0 

 Remedial 1.5 -0.2 -0.2 

 Other 0.5 0.8 1.0 

Four-year colleges 25.1 3.2 3.8 

 Nonremedial 24.1 2.3 2.8 

 Remedial 0.6 0.1 0.1 

 Other 0.5 0.7 0.9 

Two-year colleges 9.6 -1.3 -1.6 

 Nonremedial 8.6 -1.0 -1.2 

 Remedial 0.9 -0.3 -0.4 

 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Vocational schools 1.1 -0.4 -0.5 

 Nonremedial 1.1 -0.5 -0.6 

 Remedial 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Source: pst-overall.log

Note: Weighted values reported.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.

Impact Impact

Table C.1

Impact of Upward Bound on Postsecondary Enrollment and Credits,

All Students Participants

Control Mean

Accounting for the 43 Control Group Members Who Reported Participating in Regular Upward Bound 
C-7 

assigned to the control group. Given that projects were first sampled and then students were 

sampled, we have a cluster sample of students and not a simple random sample of students. 

To accommodate the complex sample design, we use bootstrapping techniques to compute 

estimates of the standard errors of the impact estimates and other statistical parameters used in 

the evaluation. Bootstrap samples of projects were selected from the 67 evaluation projects, 

impacts were computed for each bootstrap sample, and standard errors were computed by 

measuring the variability in impact estimates across bootstrap samples. Bootstrapping allows us 

to compute a direct estimate of the variability without making assumptions about the 

independence of students within projects. 

APPENDIX D 

THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON HIGH SCHOOL OUTCOMES

BY SELECTED SUBGROUPS

D-3 

Credits

Total 21.1 0.4 21.7 -0.8 20.7 0.5 0.4 

Total Core 13.8 0.5 14.4 -0.4 13.6 1.2 0.6 

Math 2.9 0.2 * 3.1 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.2 Science 2.7 0.1 2.8 -0.3 2.8 0.3 0.1 English 3.9 0.0 3.9 0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 Social Studies 2.8 0.1 3.0 -0.3 * # 2.9 0.1 0.2 Foreign Language 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.3 0.5 * 0.1 

Computer Science 0.8 0.0 0.9 -0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 Vocational 1.5 -0.1 1.4 -0.1 1.4 -0.2 -0.1 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 2.0 -0.4 2.0 0.2 0.8 1.7 ** # -0.4 

Total Core 1.9 -0.4 1.9 0.1 0.8 1.7 ** # -0.4 

Math 0.3 0.0 0.4 -0.1 ** 0.1 0.3 ** # 0.0 Science 0.4 -0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.4 ** # -0.1 English 0.7 -0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 * # -0.2 Social Studies 0.4 -0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 *** # -0.1 Foreign Language 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 * 0.0 

Overall Grade Point Average 2.3 0.0 2.3 -0.1 2.1 0.4 *** # 0.0 High School Status (%)

Graduated 89 0 93 -3 94 5 0 Still in high school 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 Dropped out 8 -1 5 5 1 -1 -1 General Educational Development (GED) 3 1 2 -1 5 -4 1 

Source: hs-lifg.log, hs-low_only.log, and hs-fgenonly.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for low-income and first-generation students at the 0.10 level.

Table D.1

Impact of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grades and Graduation

by Students' Eligibility Status

All Students 

Low-Inc. and First-Gen.

Impact Impact

First-Generation Only Low-Income Only

Control Mean Control Mean Control Mean Impact Impac

LI and 
D-4 

Credits

Total 21.4 -0.8 20.4 0.9 ** # 21.5 1.4 ** # -1.0 

Total Core 14.0 -0.2 13.3 0.9 ** # 14.1 1.0 * -0.3 

Math 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.3 ** 3.0 0.4 *** # 0.0 Science 2.9 -0.1 2.6 0.2 *** 2.5 0.3 * -0.2 English 3.9 -0.1 3.7 0.2 * # 4.1 0.1 -0.1 Social Studies 2.9 0.0 2.8 0.2 * 2.8 0.1 0.0 Foreign Language 1.5 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.1 

Computer Science 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 Vocational 1.5 -0.3 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 -0.3 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 2.0 0.1 1.0 -0.1 2.8 -0.8 0.2 

Total Core 1.9 0.1 0.9 -0.1 2.7 -0.9 0.2 

Math 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 -0.2 0.0 Science 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 -0.2 0.0 English 0.7 0.0 0.4 -0.1 0.9 -0.2 0.0 Social Studies 0.4 0.1 * 0.2 0.0 0.7 -0.3 0.1 Foreign Language 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Overall Grade Point Average 2.2 -0.1 2.4 0.1 2.3 0.0 -0.1 High School Status (%)

Graduated 94 -2 82 5 ** # 88 1 -3 Still in high school 1 -1 0 0 0 2 -1 Dropped out 5 0 10 1 8 -1 -1 General Educational Development (GED) 1 4 ** 8 -7 ** # 4 -2 4 

Source: hs-black.log, hs-white.log, and hs-hisp.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for African American students at the 0.10 level.

Control Mean Impact Control Mean

Hispanic

All Students 

African American White

Table D.2

Impact of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grades and Graduation

for African American, White, and Hispanic Students

Impact Impact 

Control Mean Impac

Afr. Am
D-5 

Credits

Total 19.4 0.5 21.9 0.1 

Total Core 12.6 0.5 14.4 0.3 

Math 2.7 0.2 3.1 0.1 Science 2.5 0.0 2.8 0.1 English 3.6 0.1 4.0 0.0 Social Studies 2.6 0.1 2.9 0.1 Foreign Language 1.1 0.1 1.6 0.1 

Computer Science 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.0 Vocational 1.4 0.0 1.6 -0.1 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 1.0 0.1 2.3 -0.3 

Total Core 0.9 0.2 2.3 -0.3 

Math 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 Science 0.2 0.0 0.5 -0.1 English 0.4 0.0 0.8 -0.1 Social Studies 0.2 0.1 0.5 -0.1 # Foreign Language 0.0 0.0 ** 0.1 0.0 # 

Overall Grade Point Average 2.0 0.1 2.4 -0.1 High School Status (%)

Graduated 85 2 92 -1 

Still in high school 01 00 Dropped out 8 -2 6 1 General Educational Development (GED) 6 -1 2 1 

Source: hs-male.log and hs-female.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for male students at the 0.10 level.

Control Mean Impact Control Mean Impact 

All Students 

Table D.3

Impact of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grades and Graduation

for Male and Female Students

Male Female 
Credits

Total 19.9 0.9 21.6 0.0 21.0 0.2 1.0 

Total Core 12.8 1.1 14.3 0.1 13.6 0.4 1.2 

Math 2.7 0.4 ** 3.1 0.1 2.9 0.2 * 0.5 Science 2.6 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.0 English 3.6 0.3 4.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.3 Social Studies 2.6 0.2 2.9 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.2 Foreign Language 1.2 0.2 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.3 

Computer Science 0.9 -0.2 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 -0.2 Vocational 1.8 -0.2 1.5 -0.2 1.5 0.0 -0.3 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 0.8 0.1 2.7 -0.1 1.4 -0.1 0.1 

Total Core 0.8 0.1 2.6 -0.1 1.4 -0.1 0.1 

Math 0.1 0.1 0.5 -0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 Science 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 English 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.5 -0.1 0.1 Social Studies 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Foreign Language 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Overall Grade Point Average 2.1 0.0 2.4 -0.1 2.3 0.1 0.0 High School Status (%)

Graduated 78 2 92 0 90 -1 2 Still in high school 0 - 0 0 0 0 - Dropped out 13 5 5 1 8 -2 6 General Educational Development (GED) 9 -7 * 3 0 2 3 # -8 

Source: hs-rating_h.log, hs-rating_m.log, and hs-rating_l.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for least likely students at the 0.10 level.

Most Likely

Control Mean Control Mean Control Mean Impact Impact Impact

Least Likely Somewhat Likely

Table D.4

Impact of Upward Bound on High School Credits, Grades and Graduation

by the Likelihood of Admission to Upward Bound

All Students 

Leas

Impac

D-6 
APPENDIX E 

THE EFFECT OF UPWARD BOUND ON COLLEGE ENGAGEMENT

BY SELECTED SUBGROUPS

E-3 

Residence in focused housing (%) 1 1 1 0 Days per year of parent or student contact with school 77.3 1.4 54.0 6.4 

Academic counseling 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.4 Personal counseling 0.4 0.3 *** 0.3 0.1 Learning skills center services 0.9 0.2 * 0.4 0.1 Tutoring services 1.2 0.2 ** 0.5 0.5 * Minority student services 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 Health services 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Student Support Services 5 2 4 -3 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 1 0 1 -1 

Student received financial aid (%) 61 -1 40 -2 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 2.4 -0.2 1.1 0.4 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 2.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 * Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 1.9 0.1 0.8 0.6 * Participated in study groups outside of class 2.7 -0.3 1.3 0.4 Went to events with friends from school 3.5 0.0 2.0 0.3 Participated in school clubs 1.4 0.0 0.9 0.3 Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 1.6 -0.2 0.8 0.2 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports,

music, drama, etc. 1.4 -0.1 0.7 0.2 

Cut classes 1.7 -0.1 1.0 0.1 

Source: pss-hiexp.log and pss-loexp.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for higher expectations students at the 0.10 level.

Table E.1

For Higher and Lower Educational Expectations Students

Higher Expectations 

Control Mean Control Mean Impact

Impact of Upward Bound on College Engagement

Lower Expectations

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

All Students

Impact
E-4 

Residence in focused housing (%) 1 -1 1 1 Days per year of parent or student contact with school 55.3 -0.7 77.2 2.9 

Academic counseling 0.7 0.1 1.6 0.3 ** Personal counseling 0.2 0.4 ** 0.4 0.2 * Learning skills center services 0.6 -0.1 0.8 0.4 ** # Tutoring services 0.5 0.1 1.2 0.4 *** Minority student services 0.0 0.2 *** 0.5 0.1 Health services 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Student Support Services 6 -3 5 2 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 0 0 1 0 

Student received financial aid (%) 35 -13 61 2 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 1.3 -0.3 2.3 0.2 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 1.1 -0.1 1.9 0.2 * Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 0.9 0.0 1.8 0.4 *** Participated in study groups outside of class 1.2 0.0 2.7 -0.1 Went to events with friends from school 1.7 0.1 3.5 0.1 Participated in school clubs 0.5 -0.1 1.5 0.2 * Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 0.9 -0.3 ** 1.5 0.1 # 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports,

music, drama, etc. 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 

Cut classes 1.1 -0.5 1.7 0.1 

Source: pss-ar20hi.log and pss-ar20lo.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for higher academic risk students at the 0.10 level.

All Students 

Impact 

Higher Academic Risk

Control Mean

Lower Academic Risk 

Impact of Upward Bound on College Engagement

Table E.2

by Students' At-Risk Status

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Control Mean Impact
E-5 

Residence in focused housing (%) 1 1 2 -1 3 -4 1 Days per year of parent or student contact with school 70.5 5.6 81.5 -15.5 * # 67.9 8.1 6.6 

Academic counseling 1.4 0.2 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.6 * 0.2 Personal counseling 0.3 0.2 * 0.4 0.3 ** 0.4 0.3 0.2 * Learning skills center services 0.7 0.2 * 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 * Tutoring services 1.0 0.3 ** 1.5 0.0 0.7 1.2 *** 0.3 ** Minority student services 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 Health services 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 * 0.0 Student Support Services 5 1 4 1 6 0 1 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 10 10 0 - 0 

Student received financial aid (%) 54 0 59 -12 ** 56 5 -1 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 2.0 0.2 2.5 -0.8 * # 2.1 0.8 0.2 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 1.6 0.3 ** 2.0 -0.5 ** # 2.5 -0.5 0.3 ** Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 1.5 0.3 ** 1.8 -0.2 1.9 -0.5 0.4 ** 

Participated in study groups outside of class 2.3 0.1 2.9 -1.5 ** # 2.2 1.3 *** # 0.1 Went to events with friends from school 3.0 0.1 3.6 -0.4 3.6 0.9 * 0.1 Participated in school clubs 1.2 0.0 1.6 -0.3 0.9 1.2 ** # 0.1 Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 1.4 0.0 1.5 -0.2 1.3 1.1 * # 0.0 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports, 1.2 -0.2 

music, drama, etc. -0.1 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 

Cut classes 1.4 0.0 2.1 -0.7 1.4 1.5 *** # 0.0 

Source: pss-lifg.log, pss-low_only.log, and pss-fgenonly.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for lower-income and first-generation students at the 0.10 level.

Table E.3

Impact of Upward Bound on College Engagement

by Students' Eligibility Status

All Students 

Low-Inc. and First-Gen. LI and F

First-Generation Only Low-Income Only

Control Mean Control Mean Impact Impact Impac

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Control Mean Impact
E-6 

Residence in focused housing (%) 21 00 01 1 Days per year of parent or student contact with school 74.1 -0.2 54.5 13.2 ** 85.9 5.4 -0.2 

Academic counseling 1.4 0.2 1.1 0.4 ** 1.5 0.3 * 0.2 Personal counseling 0.4 0.3 *** 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 *Learning skills center services 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 Tutoring services 1.2 0.3 * 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.6 * 0.3 * Minority student services 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 -0.1 0.2 Health services 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 -0.1 0.1 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.0 Student Support Services 6 1 2 4 ** 4 0 1 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 2 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 

Student received financial aid (%) 60 -5 46 7 ** 51 -2 -6 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 2.3 -0.3 1.8 0.6 ** # 1.8 0.5 # -0.4 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 2.0 0.0 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.3 0.0 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 1.8 0.1 1.3 0.5 ** 1.3 0.1 0.1 

Participated in study groups outside of class 2.5 -0.2 1.9 0.5 * 2.4 -0.4 -0.3 Went to events with friends from school 3.2 0.0 2.7 0.4 *** 3.2 0.0 0.1 Participated in school clubs 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.3 ** 1.2 -0.2 0.0 Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 1.7 -0.2 0.9 0.2 1.2 0.2 -0.3 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports, 1.5 -0.3 

music, drama, etc. -0.2 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.3 

Cut classes 1.6 -0.2 1.6 0.2 1.2 0.2 -0.2 

Source: pss-black.log, pss-white.log, and pss-hisp.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for African American students at the 0.10 level.

Control Mean Impact

White Hispanic

Control Mean Impact

African American

All Students 

Table E.4

Impact of Upward Bound on College Engagement

for African American, White and Hispanic Students

Impact

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Control Mean Impac

Afr. Am
E-7 

Residence in focused housing (%) 2 -1 1 1 Days per year of parent or student contact with school 54.8 5.3 79.1 1.2 

Academic counseling 1.2 0.2 1.4 0.2 Personal counseling 0.4 0.5 *** 0.4 0.1 # Learning skills center services 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.2 Tutoring services 0.8 0.5 * 1.1 0.2 ** Minority student services 0.2 0.4 *** 0.5 0.0 # Health services 0.3 0.2 ** 0.6 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Student Support Services 5 1 5 1 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 1 -1 1 0 

Student received financial aid (%) 43 3 60 -3 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 1.7 0.1 2.2 0.1 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 1.5 0.0 1.8 0.2 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 1.2 0.4 * 1.7 0.2 * Participated in study groups outside of class 2.1 -0.2 2.5 -0.1 Went to events with friends from school 2.8 0.1 3.2 0.1 Participated in school clubs 1.0 0.2 1.4 0.0 Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 1.0 0.1 1.5 -0.1 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports,

music, drama, etc. 1.7 0.0 1.0 -0.1 

Cut classes 1.2 0.2 1.6 -0.1 

Source: pss-male.log and pss-female.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for male students at the 0.10 level.

Impact of Upward Bound on College Engagement

Table E.5

for Male and Female Students

All Students 

Male 

Control Mean Control Mean Impact

Female

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Impact
E-8 

Residence in focused housing (%) 11 01 20 1 Days per year of parent or student contact with school 63.2 4.7 75.4 8.1 * 70.7 -1.7 5.3 

Academic counseling 1.4 0.7 * 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.8 Personal counseling 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 ** 0.4 Learning skills center services 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.3 ** 0.8 0.2 0.4 Tutoring services 1.2 -0.1 1.1 0.5 *** 0.9 0.3 -0.1 Minority student services 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 Health services 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 Other 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Student Support Services 3 0 4 1 6 1 0 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 0 0 0 1 2 -1 * # 0 

Student received financial aid (%) 41 5 56 -1 56 -2 6 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 1.8 0.7 2.3 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.8 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 1.7 0.6 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.7 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.1 1.6 0.4 ** 0.3 

Participated in study groups outside of class 2.0 0.5 2.6 -0.6 2.2 0.1 0.6 Went to events with friends from school 2.7 0.6 3.3 -0.4 3.0 0.4 * 0.7 Participated in school clubs 0.8 0.5 * 1.6 -0.4 1.1 0.4 *** 0.6 * Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 1.0 0.5 1.5 -0.2 # 1.4 0.1 0.6 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports, 0.9 1.1 * 

music, drama, etc. 0.9 * 1.1 -0.1 1.3 -0.2 #

Cut classes 1.6 0.1 1.6 -0.3 1.4 0.1 0.1 

Source: pss-rating_h.log, pss-rating_m.log, and pss-rating_l.logNote: Hyphens indicate too few respondents to compute impact. Weighted values reported.*/**/*** Impact estimate is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level.# Indicates that for all students, the impacts are significantly different from the impacts for least likely students at the 0.10 level.

All Students

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Control Mean

Table E.6

Impact of Upward Bound on College Engagement

by the Likelihood of Admision to Upward Bound

Impact Control Mean 

Least Likely Least

Control Mean Impact Impac

Somewhat Likely Most Likely

Impact
APPENDIX F 

METHODS USED TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL UPWARD BOUND PARTICIPATION

F-3 

The duration and completion analyses presented in Chapter IV are designed to measure the 

potential benefits of additional Upward Bound participation, defined as longer Upward Bound 

participation for students who participate for a relatively short period of time and Upward Bound 

completion for noncompleting participants. The two “target” populations for this analysis—

students who could be targeted for program retention efforts—are students who participated in 

Upward Bound for less than two years and noncompleting participants. To estimate the effects 

of additional Upward Bound participation on the target populations, we matched samples from 

the target populations to appropriate comparison samples. While we had no firm rule for how 

comparable the two weighted samples must be, two samples were considered comparable if the 

weighted means of baseline variables were similar between the two samples, that is, if the two 

samples appear to represent the same population. The remainder of this appendix describes the 

target and comparison samples, details the rules used in matching and assesses the comparability 

of the matched target and comparison samples. 

A. Selecting Target and Comparison Samples to be Matched 

To measure the impacts of an additional year of Upward Bound participation, we defined the 

target population to be all Upward Bound participants who participated for no more than two 

years. This population consists of low-duration participants, who participated for 1 to 12 

months, and medium-duration participants, who participated for 13 to 24 months. For each of 

these two subgroups of the target population, we selected a comparison population of students 

who participated in Upward Bound for roughly one more year than students in the target 

population—medium-duration participants for targeted low-duration participants, and highduration participants (who participated for more than 24 months) for targeted medium-duration 

participants. To measure the impacts of program completion on noncompleters, we defined the 
F-4 

target population to be all participants who do not complete Upward Bound (noncompleters) and 

the comparison population to be all participants who do complete the program (completers). 

The treatment group provides samples of students from the target and comparison 

populations that can be used to measure the potential impacts of additional Upward Bound 

participation. We restricted our sample to students who (1) applied for Upward Bound in ninth 

or tenth grade at one of the 67 evaluation projects, (2) were assigned to the treatment group and 

(3) ultimately participated in Upward Bound. We excluded students who applied for Upward 

Bound in eighth grade. We excluded students who applied for Upward Bound in eighth grade 

because high school transcripts were unavailable for them—they had not yet attended high 

school—and thus we had no information on their academic achievement prior to program entry. 

Because the key outcomes of this analysis are college enrollment and persistence, and because 

academic achievement prior to college influences these outcomes, it was important to match 

students with similar achievement prior to entering Upward Bound. We also excluded students 

who applied for Upward Bound after tenth grade because their window of opportunity to 

participate in Upward Bound was relatively short: their maximum spell of participation was no 

more than two years. Therefore, the potential for increasing the length of participation for these 

students is fairly limited. The sample is restricted to Upward Bound participants so that we can 

measure the impacts of longer spells of participation relative to shorter spells and the impact of 

program completion relative to participation without completion. 

Because of missing data due to survey nonresponse and “transcript” nonresponse (see 

Appendix H), we needed to impose two further restrictions. Because it was important to match 

students with similar achievement prior to entering Upward Bound, we dropped students for 

whom we lacked ninth-grade transcripts. Furthermore, because the third follow-up survey was 

used to collect information on the postsecondary institutions that sample members had attended, 
F-5 

we dropped students who did not complete a third follow-up interview. These restrictions 

generated a sample of 762 target and comparison sample members from the 1,523 students 

assigned to the treatment group. These participants were divided into target and comparison 

samples, and matching algorithms were applied to select matched target and comparison 

samples. 

Postsecondary transcripts provided information on postsecondary credits earned, but we 

were unable to collect a complete set of postsecondary transcripts for 28 percent of all 

postsecondary students in our treatment and control samples. While transcript weights were 

developed to account for incomplete transcript data in the experimental samples, for the analyses 

in Chapter IV, we needed to account for incomplete transcript data in our nonexperimental 

comparison samples. Instead of developing weights for the comparison samples, we selected 

additional matched samples for the subgroup of 717 students for whom we have a complete set 

of postsecondary transcripts. 

B. Selecting Matched Target and Comparison Samples 

For each matching exercise, the target and comparison samples were split into two 

subgroups: (1) students whose ninth-grade transcripts suggest that they were at relatively high 

risk of academic failure (higher-risk students) and (2) students whose ninth-grade transcripts 

suggest that they were at relatively low risk of academic failure (lower-risk students). This split 

was motivated by the need to compute impacts separately for these two subgroups. 

Within each of the two subgroups, we estimated propensity scores on which the two samples 

were matched (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983; Rosenbaum and Rubin 1985). An unweighted logit 

model was estimated to distinguish between members of the two samples; the dependent variable 

was coded as 1 for target sample members and 0 for comparison sample members. The 
F-6 

explanatory variables contain information about gender, race, educational aspirations, time spent 

on homework, ninth-grade academic achievement and Upward Bound cohort.50 Furthermore, the 

baseline weight, which reflects the probability that the student’s project was selected into the 

evaluation, was included as an explanatory variable.51 The model was used to estimate the log 

odds of being in the target sample conditional on the explanatory variables for each target and 

comparison sample member.52

Separately for higher- and lower-risk students, we matched target sample members to 

“comparable” comparison sample members. Two students were deemed comparable when their 

log odds were sufficiently close. We matched each target sample member to all comparison 

sample members who were deemed comparable.53 Target sample members for whom we were 

unable to find a comparable comparison sample member were excluded from the matched target 

sample because no comparison student could provide credible information about the outcomes 

we would have observed with additional Upward Bound participation. All comparison sample 

members who were matched to one or more target sample members were included in the 

matched comparison sample. 

The matched comparison sample was weighted to represent the same segment of the 

Upward Bound population that is represented by the matched target sample. For each 

comparison student, c, who was matched to a single target student, t, we assigned a weight of 

 50 See the first column of Table F.1 for a complete list of variables. 

51 While we had experimented with weighting the propensity score model, we were generally able to obtain 

more comparable matched target and comparison samples when we included the baseline weight as an explanatory 

variable in the propensity score model. 

52 The log odds of being in the target sample equals the natural log of P(1) / P(0), where P(1) equals the 

probability of being in the target sample and P(0) equals the probability of being in the comparison sample. These 

probabilities were predicted using the estimated coefficients from the logit model. 

53 Therefore, we matched target sample members to comparison sample members “with replacement.” 
F-7 

w wn c tt = , where wt equals the weight of the target student, and nt equals the number of 

comparison students who were matched to the target student. That is, the weight of target 

student t was distributed equally to all comparison students to whom t was matched. However, 

most comparison students were matched to multiple target students. Therefore, for each matched 

comparison student, we assigned a weight of c

c tt t M

w wn ∈= ∑ , where Mc is the set of target students 

who were matched to the comparison student. 

The most challenging task in selecting an algorithm for choosing the matched target and 

comparison samples was selecting “caliper ranges” that define how close the log odds of 

matched target and comparison sample members must be. Narrow caliper ranges can leave 

many target sample members unmatched when similar students could be found in the 

comparison sample; wide caliper ranges generate matches between students who are not really 

comparable. We tested several different caliper ranges in matching the target samples to the 

comparison samples. One caliper range that we tested corresponds to the smallest possible range 

under which all target sample members match at least one comparison sample member. Other 

caliper ranges that we tested correspond to the smallest possible ranges under which fixed 

proportions of the target sample—less than 100 percent—match at least one comparison sample 

member. Each caliper range generated different matched target and comparison samples; 

therefore, selecting a caliper range was equivalent to selecting a pair of matched target and 

comparison samples. Ultimately, we selected the widest caliper range that led to matched target 

and comparison samples with a small number of significant differences in variables that describe 

baseline characteristics and ninth-grade academic achievement. 
F-8 

The resulting matched samples were used to measure the impacts of additional Upward 

Bound participation in Chapter IV. To measure the impacts of an additional year of Upward 

Bound, the matched target sample consisted of the following groups: 

• Higher-risk low-duration students who were matched to one or more higher-risk 

medium-duration students. 

• Lower-risk low-duration students who were matched to one or more lower-risk 

medium-duration students. 

• Higher-risk medium-duration students who were matched to one or more higher-risk 

high-duration students. 

• Lower-risk medium-duration students who were matched to one or more lower-risk 

high-duration students. 

To measure the impacts of completing Upward Bound for noncompleters, the matched target 

sample consisted of the following groups: 

• Higher-risk noncompleters who were matched to one or more higher-risk completers. 

• Lower-risk noncompleters who were matched to one or more lower-risk completers. 

The matched comparison sample consisted of all the comparison sample members to whom 

target sample members were matched. 

C. Describing and Assessing the Matched Samples 

Through the process described in Section B, we were able to select comparable matched 

target and comparison samples for answering the questions posed in Chapter IV. Included in this 

appendix are four tables that can be used to assess the matched samples, along with two tables 

that compare the average characteristics of the matched and unmatched target sample members. 

Tables F.1 and F.2 describe the full and matched samples of lower-duration and higher-duration 

students by level of academic risk and overall; Table F.3 presents the mean characteristics of the 

lower-duration target sample separately for both matched and unmatched students and overall. 
F-9 

Tables F.4 and F.5 describe the full and matched samples of noncompleters and completers by 

level of academic risk and overall; Table F.6 presents the mean characteristics of the target 

sample of noncompleters separately for both matched and unmatched students and overall. 

Each table shows that while the unmatched target and comparison samples differ from each 

other, the matched target and comparison samples are more comparable to each other. For each 

group, the first set of columns, titled “Full Samples,” provides mean values for the baseline 

characteristics of the target and comparison samples, along with an indicator for the level at 

which the difference in means is statistically significant. The second set of columns, titled 

“Matched Samples,” provides mean values for the baseline characteristics of the matched target 

and comparison samples, also followed by an indicator of the level of statistical significance for 

the difference. The means for the full samples—both the target sample and the comparison 

sample—and means for the matched target sample are weighted to account for unequal sampling, 

survey nonresponse and, where appropriate (Tables F.2 and F.5), the absence of complete 

postsecondary transcript data. In contrast, the matched comparison sample means are weighted 

to account for the results from matching, as described in Section B. 

An assessment from each table suggests that matching was successful in producing samples 

that are comparable in the characteristics that we examined based on data collected for the 

evaluation. To assess the performance of matching in balancing the two samples, we compare 

the number of statistically significant baseline differences between the full target and 

comparison samples to the number of statistically significant baseline differences between the 

matched target and comparison samples.

54 Typically, the target and comparison samples are 

 54 Our tests for significant differences account for heteroscedasticy due to unequal weighting but do not 

account for the correlation between the means of the two samples due to matching. Mean differences are flagged as 

statistically significant at the 10 percent (*), 5 percent (**), and 1 percent (***) levels. 
F-10 

significantly different on several baseline characteristics, and the matched target and comparison 

samples are significantly different on fewer baseline characteristics. The matching algorithm 

generated matched samples that appear to differ primarily in the extent of their participation. 

The remainder of this appendix shows that the matched target and comparison samples are 

comparable. Table F.1 illustrates the comparability of the matched samples of lower- and 

higher-duration participants. For the overall target and comparison samples, combining higherand lower-risk students together, higher-duration participants were significantly more likely to be 

female, to have higher ninth-grade GPAs and credits and to spend more time on homework each 

week than lower-duration participants. Our preferred caliper range selects a matched target 

sample consisting of 90 percent of the 463 lower-duration target sample members. The matched 

comparison sample is significantly different from the matched target sample on only 2 of the 17 

baseline characteristics—whether the student applied for Upward Bound before 1994 and 

whether the student spent 1 to 10 hours per week on homework. For students with complete 

postsecondary transcript data, the matched comparison sample only differs from the matched 

target sample with respect to the year of Upward Bound application (Table F.2). For the higherrisk group, there are five significant differences between the matched samples (see Tables F.1 

and F.2); for the lower-risk group, there is one significant difference between them. 

Table F.4 illustrates the comparability of the matched samples of noncompleters and 

completers. For the overall target and comparison samples, completers were significantly more 

likely to be female, to have higher ninth-grade GPAs and to spend more time on homework each 

week than noncompleters. Our preferred caliper range selects a matched target sample 

consisting of 90 percent of the 412 noncompleters. As shown in Table F.4, the matched 

comparison sample is significantly different from the matched target sample only in ninth-grade 

GPA. For students with complete postsecondary transcript data, the matched comparison sample 
F-11 

also differs from the matched target sample in the percentage of students who only met the firstgeneration eligibility criterion (see Table F.5). For the higher-risk group, there are two 

significant differences between the matched samples for both survey respondents (see Table F.4) 

and those with complete postsecondary transcripts (see Table F.5); for the lower-risk group, 

there is one significant difference for survey respondents, and there are three significant 

differences for those with complete postsecondary transcripts. 

We believe that the matched target and comparison samples provide credible estimates of 

the potential impacts of additional Upward Bound participation. Each matched comparison 

sample is roughly as similar to its corresponding matched target sample in the number of 

significant baseline differences as we would expect under random assignment.55 Furthermore, 

the baseline variables we used to assess the comparability of matched samples provide 

information on demographic characteristics, prior academic achievement and other factors that 

may influence postsecondary enrollment and persistence. Thus, the findings in Chapter IV 

should have strong internal validity relative to many other nonexperimental analyses. 

Additionally, 90 percent of students in the target sample were matched and included in the 

analysis. Therefore, the findings in Chapter IV probably also have strong external validity. 

 55 The notable exception occurred in matching lower-duration target sample members and higher-duration 

comparison sample members. In this case, the limited number of students in comparison sample pool resulted in 

more significant differences between the matched target and comparison samples than would have been expected 

from random assignment. 
Higher Academic Risk Lower Academic Risk 

SD SD SD SD 

Male (%) 39 23 38 37 31 26 ** 29 33 34 25 Race (%)

White 19 11 19 19 25 29 28 27 23 25 Hispanic 9 23 * 10 20 ** 30 25 21 24 25 24 Other Race 10 5 13 7 7 9 9 13 8 8 

Low-Income and First-Generation (%)

First-Generation Only 11 4 ** 13 7 21 14 13 14 18 12 Low-Income Only 0 3 0 3 ** 4 6 5 6 3 5 

Educational Expectations (%) Some College 30 29 41 25 * 9 17 * 12 21 15 20  Finish Four-year College 37 31 29 37 46 38 41 33 44 37  Master's Degree or Equivalent 5 8 6 15 * 9 11 11 14 8 11  PhD, MD, or Professional Degree 14 8 8 9 24 20 25 24 21 18 Academic Achievement - Ninth Grade

Total Credits 4.3 5.0 ** 4.9 4.9 6.7 6.5 ** 6.6 6.5 6.0 6.2 Advanced Placement and Honors Credits 0.0 0.3 * 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.5 Overall Grade Point Average 1.4 1.6 *** 1.6 1.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.4 Higher Academic Risk (%) 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 27 21 

Homework (%) 1-10 Hours / Week 45 63 *** 56 78 ** 70 74 65 73 63 72  More than 10 Hours / Week 24 21 17 16 25 23 31 24 25 22 Upward Bound Cohort

Grade at UB Application 9.4 9.3 9.5 9.4 9.5 9.5 ** 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.4 Applied for UB Before 1994 (%) 66 78 67 61 65 66 72 51 ** 65 69 

Students 116 95 105 94 347 458 313 396 463 553 Source: balance.logNote: The matched samples represent those in the target sample (T) of lower-duration participants who were matched using the caliper range which yields a 90 percent mgroup (C) of higher-duration participants.*/**/*** Difference between T and C is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level, indicated in the SD columns.

Full Samples Matched Samples

Table F.1

Matching Lower-Duration Target Sample Members (T) and Higher-Duration Comparison Sample Members (C),

Survey Respondents

Full Samples Matched Samples Full Samp

TC TC TC TC TC 

F-12 
Higher Academic Risk Lower Academic Risk 

SD SD SD SD 

Male (%) 40 18 ** 33 44 36 30 ** 32 39 37 27 Race (%)

White 18 9 18 20 24 32 * 28 32 23 26 Hispanic 9 19 ** 9 21 ** 30 23 24 27 24 22 Other Race 10 4 12 7 8 10 9 9 8 9 

Low-Income and First-Generation (%)

First-Generation Only 10 4 ** 11 5 27 19 20 14 22 15 Low-Income Only 0 2 0 3 * 5 6 7 4 4 5 

Educational Expectations (%) Some College 35 29 42 25 ** 10 20 13 17 17 22  Finish Four-year College 31 40 22 38 48 34 38 34 43 35  Master's Degree or Equivalent 3 5 4 12 ** 9 11 11 13 7 10  PhD, MD, or Professional Degree 16 7 20 10 21 21 26 28 20 17 Academic Achievement - Ninth Grade

Total Credits 4.3 4.9 ** 4.9 4.8 6.7 6.4 *** 6.5 6.6 6.0 6.1 Advanced Placement and Honors Credits 0.1 0.6 ** 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.5 Overall Grade Point Average 1.4 1.5 *** 1.6 1.9 *** 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.4 Higher Academic Risk (%) 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 27 26 

Homework (%) 1-10 Hours / Week 44 51 ** 48 83 *** 71 75 67 61 64 69  More than 10 Hours / Week 22 33 26 11 *** 25 20 30 33 24 24 Upward Bound Cohort

Grade at UB Application 9.4 9.2 * 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 Applied for UB Before 1994 (%) 65 81 * 59 49 61 63 73 45 *** 62 68 

Students 97 80 88 84 274 359 249 321 371 439 Source: balance.logNote: The matched samples represent those in the target sample (T) of lower-duration participants who were matched using the caliper range which yields a 90 percent mgroup (C) of higher-duration participants.*/**/*** Difference between T and C is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level, indicated in the SD columns.

TC TC TC TC TC 

Table F.2

Matching Lower-Duration Target Sample Members (T) and Higher-Duration Comparison Sample Members (C),

Survey Respondents with Complete Postsecondary Transcripts

Full Samples Matched Samples Full Samples Matched Samples Full Samp

F-13 
F-14 

Male (%) 40 31 34 53 34 36

Race (%)

White 15 26 23 24 28 28

Hispanic 43 19 25 29 20 21

Other Race 2 10 8 11 12 12

Low-Income and First-Generation (%)

First-Generation Only 34 13 18 27 11 13

Low-Income Only 1 4 3 2 5 5

Educational Expectations (%)

 Some College 2 19 15 9 17 16

 Finish Four-year College 61 38 44 40 38 38

 Master's Degree or Equivalent 1 10 8 7 12 11

 PhD, MD, or Professional Degree 23 20 21 22 23 23

Academic Achievement - Ninth Grade

Total Credits 5.6 6.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3

Overall Grade Point Average 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.4

Higher Academic Risk (%) 30 26 27 24 25 25

Homework (%)

 1-10 Hours / Week 66 63 63 73 70 70

 More than 10 Hours / Week 16 27 25 22 24 24

Upward Bound Cohort

Grade at UB Application 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6

Applied for UB Before 1994 (%) 49 70 65 62 54 55

Students 45 418 463 45 418 463

Source: unmatch.log

Note: An unmatched participant is one who is unable to be matched with a comparison group member within the caliper

range.

Unweighted

All

Table F.3

Comparison of Unmatched, Matched and All Participants,

Duration Analysis, Survey Respondents

Unmatched Matched All Unmatched Matched

Weighted
Higher Academic Risk Lower Academic Risk 

SD SD SD SD 

Male (%) 34 31 28 32 33 21 *** 25 29 33 22 Race (%)

White 17 12 22 21 29 22 23 35 25 20 Hispanic 16 13 20 27 29 30 28 14 25 27 Other Race 9 2 12 10 8 7 9 15 9 6 

Low-Income and First-Generation (%)

First-Generation Only 10 2 * 11 11 26 13 23 15 21 11 Low-Income Only 1 3 1 3 4 5 4 5 3 5 

Educational Expectations (%) Some College 25 21 33 23 12 16 11 12 16 16  Finish Four-year College 33 46 25 36 41 40 42 34 39 41  Master's Degree or Equivalent 4 15 5 9 10 12 11 15 8 12  PhD, MD, or Professional Degree 14 9 8 16 25 20 28 31 21 18 Academic Achievement - Ninth Grade

Total Credits 4.3 5.0 *** 4.9 5.0 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.4 5.9 6.3 Advanced Placement and Honors Credits 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.6 Overall Grade Point Average 1.3 1.7 *** 1.5 1.8 ** 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.7 * 2.2 2.5 Higher Academic Risk (%) 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 31 15 

Homework (%) 1-10 Hours / Week 48 63 60 84 *** 74 74 74 66 66 73  More than 10 Hours / Week 23 35 18 13 20 23 23 28 21 25 Upward Bound Cohort

Grade at UB Application 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.5 *** 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.5 Applied for UB Before 1994 (%) 70 76 74 68 59 65 59 55 62 66 

Students 108 51 98 51 304 299 274 262 412 350 Source: balance.logNote: The matched samples represent those in the target sample (T) of noncompleting participants who were matched using the caliper range which yields a 90 percent mgroup (C) of completing participants.*/**/*** Difference between T and C is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level, indicated in the SD columns.

TC TC TC TC TC 

Table F.4

Matching Noncompleting Target Sample Members (T) and Completing Comparison Sample Members (C),

Survey Respondents

Full Samples Matched Samples Full Samples Matched Samples Full Samp

F-15 
Higher Academic Risk Lower Academic Risk 

SD SD SD SD 

Male (%) 36 19 * 29 31 33 27 23 37 33 25 Race (%)

White 17 8 21 22 26 24 22 39 * 24 21 Hispanic 16 10 20 20 30 28 28 15 26 24 Other Race 9 2 12 12 8 9 9 12 8 7 

Low-Income and First-Generation (%)

First-Generation Only 9 2 9 6 30 19 27 12 24 15 Low-Income Only 0 3 0 3 4 6 5 4 3 5 

Educational Expectations (%) Some College 29 16 38 22 11 19 10 15 17 18  Finish Four-year College 28 62 19 31 48 34 46 36 43 40  Master's Degree or Equivalent 3 8 4 8 10 12 11 16 8 11  PhD, MD, or Professional Degree 15 7 9 23 20 22 23 25 18 18 Academic Achievement - Ninth Grade

Total Credits 4.4 4.8 ** 5.0 4.9 6.7 6.4 *** 6.5 6.4 * 6.0 6.0 Advanced Placement and Honors Credits 0.0 1.1 * 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.7 Overall Grade Point Average 1.3 1.6 *** 1.5 1.8 ** 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.8 ** 2.2 2.4 Higher Academic Risk (%) 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 29 22 

Homework (%) 1-10 Hours / Week 47 43 60 84 *** 73 77 73 71 65 69  More than 10 Hours / Week 20 56 14 10 22 20 25 25 21 28 Upward Bound Cohort

Grade at UB Application 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.5 *** 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.4 Applied for UB Before 1994 (%) 68 83 * 72 64 58 61 60 54 61 66 

Students 87 46 78 47 254 225 229 194 341 271 Source: balance.logNote: The matched samples represent those in the target sample (T) of noncompleting participants who were matched using the caliper range which yields a 90 percent mgroup (C) of completing participants.*/**/*** Difference between T and C is statistically significant at the 0.10 / 0.05 / 0.01 level, indicated in the SD columns.

TC TC TC TC TC 

Table F.5

Matching Noncompleting Target Sample Members (T) and Completing Comparison Sample Members (C),

Survey Respondents with Complete Postsecondary Transcripts

Full Samples Matched Samples Full Samples Matched Samples Full Samp

F-16 
F-17 

Male (%) 70 26 33 65 32 35

Race (%)

White 38 23 25 55 30 32

Hispanic 21 26 25 23 20 20

Other Race 2 10 9 8 13 13

Low-Income and First-Generation (%)

First-Generation Only 25 20 21 30 14 16

Low-Income Only 0 3 3 0 5 4

Educational Expectations (%)

 Some College 8 18 16 10 17 17

 Finish Four-year College 46 37 39 33 36 35

 Master's Degree or Equivalent 3 9 8 13 13 13

 PhD, MD, or Professional Degree 18 22 21 18 23 23

Academic Achievement - Ninth Grade

Total Credits 5.3 6.1 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.0

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2

Overall Grade Point Average 1.5 2.3 2.2 1.6 2.4 2.4

Higher Academic Risk (%) 42 29 31 25 26 26

Homework (%)

 1-10 Hours / Week 44 70 66 60 71 70

 More than 10 Hours / Week 18 22 21 18 23 23

Upward Bound Cohort

Grade at UB Application 9.0 9.4 9.4 9.1 9.4 9.4

Applied for UB Before 1994 (%) 56 64 62 38 54 52

Students 40 372 412 40 372 412

Source: unmatch.log

Note: An unmatched participant is one who is unable to be matched with a comparison group member within the caliper

range.

Unweighted

All

Table F.6

Comparison of Unmatched, Matched and All Participants,

Completion Analysis, Survey Respondents

Unmatched Matched All Unmatched Matched

Weighted

APPENDIX G 

WEIGHTED STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL OUTCOME VARIABLES

G-3 

High School Outcomes

Credits

Total 6.6

Total Core 4.9

Math 1.2

Science 1.3

English 1.5

Social Studies 1.2

Foreign Language 1.1

Computer Science 0.8

Vocational 1.5

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 3.5

Total Core 3.3

Math 0.8

Science 0.9

English 1.2

Social Studies 0.8

Foreign Language 0.3

Grade Point Average

Overall 0.8

Math 0.9

Science 0.9

English 0.9

Social Studies 1.0

Foreign Language 1.1

High School Status (%)

Graduated 31

Still in high school 6

Dropped out 26

General Educational Development (GED) 17

Source: hs-overall.log

Standard Deviation

Table G.1

Weighted Standard Deviations for High School Outcome Variables
G-4 

Postsecondary Outcomes

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 45

Four-year college 50

Two-year college 41

Vocational school 16

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 44.8

 Nonremedial 43.2

 Remedial 4.1

 Other 9.8

Four-year colleges 41.5

 Nonremedial 39.8

 Remedial 3.1

 Other 9.6

Two-year colleges 20.8

 Nonremedial 20.0

 Remedial 2.8

 Other 1.0

Vocational schools 7.7

 Nonremedial 7.2

 Remedial 0.3

 Other 1.6

Source: pst-overall.log

Table G.2

Weighted Standard Deviations for Postsecondary Outcome Variables,

Transcript Information

Standard Deviation
G-5 

Postsecondary Outcomes

Residence in focused housing (%) 11

Frequency of parent or student contact with school (days/year) 63.5

Academic counseling 2.0

Personal counseling 1.3

Learning skills center services 1.8

Tutoring services 2.2

Minority student services 1.4

Health services 1.4

Other 0.2

Participation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Student Support Services 22

McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 10

Student received financial aid (%) 50

How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 2.4

Met with advisor concerning academic plans 2.0

Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 2.3

Participated in study groups outside of class 2.7

Went to events with friends from school 3.1

Participated in school clubs 2.4

Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field trips with friends 2.0

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports, music, drama, etc. 2.3

Cut classes 2.2

While in college or other school, student worked for pay during (%):

Freshman year 50

Sophomore year 49

Approximate hours worked per week during:

Freshman year 15.8

Sophomore year 14.8

Source: pss-overall.log

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following 

supplemental services

Table G.3

Weighted Standard Deviations for Postsecondary Outcome Variables,

Survey Information

Standard Deviation

APPENDIX H 

DATA COLLECTION

H-3

This appendix describes and assesses the procedures for collecting the data that contributed 

to this report. These data come from three different sources: 

1. The third follow-up survey of students. 

2. Secondary and postsecondary transcripts. 

3. Administrative records from Upward Bound programs. 

The collection of administrative records from Upward Bound programs was straightforward. 

Therefore, this appendix focuses on procedures for obtaining completed interviews in the third 

follow-up survey and for collecting academic transcripts. 

A. Third Follow-Up Survey of Students 

The third follow-up survey was conducted between October 1998 and December 1999. This 

survey was the third conducted after students were randomly assigned to Upward Bound and a 

control group, and it was designed to collect information on secondary and postsecondary 

outcomes approximately six years after random assignment. 

1. Data Collection Modes 

One week before we began interviewing, we sent a letter to all study participants. The letter 

indicated that we would call them to complete an interview for an important study, and it 

encouraged them to participate. In addition, the letter indicated that we would pay them $10 for 

completing the interview. 

Most interviews were administered using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). 

CATI interviews took about 20 minutes to complete. When a CATI interview was not possible, 

we attempted to interview the sample member in person or obtain a completed questionnaire 

through the mail. In February 1999, questionnaires were mailed to study participants that could 

not be reached by telephone. Five additional follow up mailings were conducted after the first 
H-4

mailing, with the last set of questionnaires being sent out in November 1999. In addition, field 

staff located some sample members and asked them to complete the self-administered 

questionnaire. 

2. Locating 

Throughout the data collection period, locating staff used services such as Deltech and 

Choicepoint to obtain updated addresses and phone numbers for study participants that were 

difficult to reach. In addition, student financial aid files were also used to search for updated 

addresses. 

3. Methods Used to Obtain a High Response Rate 

Financial incentives and field locating were used to obtain a high response rate for the 

survey. 

a. Incentives 

We conducted an experiment to measure the benefits of incentives in obtaining a high 

response rate for this sample. After we had interviewed 64 percent of the sample, the remaining 

36 percent of the sample was divided into three groups: the first group received a $10 check, the 

second group received a letter promising a $10 payment for completing the survey, and the third 

group received only a letter encouraging them to complete and return the survey. The response 

rates after three weeks indicated that sample members responded differently to the different 

incentive schemes. The response rates after three weeks were 16 percent for the first group, 7 

percent for second group and 3 percent for the third group. Based on these results, an incentive 

check was enclosed for everyone in subsequent mailings. 

For the final mailing in November 1999, the incentive amount was increased to $25. This 

mailing sought to increase the response rate among control participants, which was lower than 
H-5

that for the treatment group. (In October 1999, the response rate for the control group was 76 

percent versus 84 percent for the treatment group.) After obtaining updated address information 

on some participants from student financial aid files, we sent questionnaires to the control 

nonrespondents and to a select group of treatment nonrespondents. Through this effort, the 

difference in response rates between treatment and control participants was reduced to 5 

percentage points. 

b. Field Locating 

To reduce the gap in response rates among the treatment and control groups and to increase 

the overall response rate, field locating was added to the data collection methods for one month 

near the end of the data collection period. Field staff were hired and trained in cities with high 

nonresponse rates to locate students that had not been reached by phone or by mail.56

4. Response Rates 

Of the 3,006 eligible sample members from the treatment, control and nonresearch groups, 

2,448 completed a third follow-up interview.57 Therefore, the response rate for the full sample 

was 81 percent. The response rates for the control group, the treatment group and the nonresearch group were 79 percent, 83 percent and 85 percent, respectively. Table H.1 displays the 

number of completed interviews, the number of eligible nonrespondents, the number ineligible 

because they had deceased and the number ineligible for other reasons for the control group, the 

treatment group and the non-research group respectively. 

 56 Field staff obtained seven completed interviews by locating sample members, giving them copies of the 

questionnaire, waiting while the questionnaires were completed, and sending the completed questionnaires back to 

MPR. Field staff obtained some additional completed interviews by asking sample members to complete the 

questionnaires and send them to MPR, and by giving sample members the toll-free number necessary to complete a 

telephone interview. 

57 See Appendix A for a description of how students were assigned to the three groups. 
H-6

B. Transcript Data Collection 

For the third follow-up analysis of Upward Bound, secondary and postsecondary transcripts 

were collected between May 1999 and May 2000. Academic transcripts provided the primary 

source of information on postsecondary achievement. Transcript requests were made from 

institutions that were reported by sample members in the third follow-up survey of students and 

in earlier surveys. 

1. Preparation for Requesting Transcripts 

Information about students’ secondary and postsecondary enrollment was primarily obtained 

from follow-up interviews. Students reported the secondary and postsecondary institutions that 

they had attended. We were also able to obtain information about postsecondary enrollment of 

some nonrespondents using financial aid files from the Department of Education.58

To obtain mailing addresses for the schools that were attended by sample members, we 

matched schools that were reported by survey respondents to directories of secondary and 

postsecondary schools maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. Secondary schools 

 58 The financial aid files also enabled us to get updated addresses of participants that we had not been able to 

locate previously. Mail surveys were sent to these participants, and new school information provided on returned 

surveys was entered into the database for future transcript requests. 

Completed Interview 1,027 1,265 156 2,448

Eligible Nonrespondent 281 250 27 558

Ineligible - Deceased 4217

Ineligible - Other 2 0 0 2

Total 1,314 1,517 184 3,015

Table H.1

Response Rates for the Third Follow-up Survey of Students

Control Group Treatment Group Non-research Group Full Sample
H-7

were matched to the Common Core of Data (CCD); postsecondary schools were matched to the 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).59

2. Procedures for Requesting Transcripts 

Each school was sent a transcript request packet that included: 

• A letter, printed on Department of Education letterhead, that explained the purpose of 

the study and the reason we were requesting transcripts. 

• A statement of Authorization and Confidentiality, which cited the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act and included questions and answers regarding consent and 

confidentiality. 

• A transcript checklist of all the materials that we requested from the school, including 

student transcripts, a course catalog, grade descriptions and a transcript 

reimbursement form, which would indicate the reimbursement that the school 

required for providing the requested transcripts. 

• A postage-paid business reply envelope for sending the transcripts. 

• A disclosure notice to be placed in each student’s file, indicating that a copy of his or 

her transcript was released to Mathematica Policy Research as an agent to the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

3. Follow-Up Procedures 

For schools that did not respond to our initial request for transcripts, we mailed another 

request for student transcripts. These mailings were done periodically as we tracked the schools 

that had not yet sent the requested transcripts and corrected requests that contained errors. 

As the targeted end date for collecting transcripts approached, interviewers started calling 

schools directly to inquire about the status of our requests. Many schools responded to these 

calls by faxing us the requested transcripts. When the school indicated that they could not 

 59 Students were asked to provide the name and state of each secondary and postsecondary school they 

attended, but sometimes misspellings or incomplete information resulted in some invalid requests for student 

transcripts as schools were matched with an incorrect address and transcripts were requested from the wrong school. 

When a school indicated that they could not fill a request because they had no record of the student whose transcript 

we requested, it was sometimes due to such mismatches. In these cases, we attempted to learn the correct name and 

address of the school where the student was enrolled and make a new transcript request. 
H-8

provide one or more of the requested transcripts, the interviewer completed a problem sheet 

indicating the reason. The reason generally fell into one of the following categories: 

• The student was never enrolled at the school according to the school’s records. 

When this occurred, our first response was to call the school and provide more 

information on the student (e.g., provide or verify date of birth and dates of 

attendance) to see if a transcript could be located with additional information. In 

many cases, the school was able to locate and provide transcripts once additional 

information was provided. In other cases, the school provided some information that 

helped us determine where we might obtain the needed transcripts.60 When all other 

attempts to locate the student’s transcript failed, we tried to contact the student 

directly to verify his or her enrollment at the school. If we were unable to reach the 

student and the school had no record of the student having ever attended, we finally 

marked the case as an invalid request. When we did reach the student and the student 

confirmed the information in the database, we would call the school again to ask them 

to check their records, providing any additional information that might help them 

locate the transcript. Typically, after we called the school again and confirmed the 

student’s attendance dates, the transcript was located and sent. 

• Transcripts were held by the school district. Some schools only held the transcripts 

of currently enrolled students and all other transcripts were sent to the school district. 

In this situation, the school would sometimes forward the request packet to the 

district. Other times, the school returned the materials to us, and we sent them to the 

school district. 

• The student transferred to another school. When the student had transferred to 

another school, a transcript was requested from the school to which the student had 

transferred. In some cases, the registrar or school secretary forwarded the request 

materials to the transfer school. In other cases, the request materials were sent back 

to us and we sent a new request to the transfer school. 

 60 For example, some school principals and registrars indicated that their school was often confused with 

another school having the same or a similar name and suggested that we direct our request to the other school. In 

this case, we would call the alternate school to find out if the student was ever enrolled there. If so, we made a 

correction to the database and sent a request to the newly identified school.
H-9

• The school would not release any transcript without student’s written consent. 

Many schools returned the transcript request materials with no transcripts, indicating 

that they required written consent from each student whose transcript we were 

requesting. A problem sheet was completed for these cases, and they were forwarded 

to the survey manager for follow-up. As a first step, the survey manager called the 

school to explain that, as an agent of the Department of Education, Mathematica 

Policy Research was authorized to collect student transcripts for the purposes of this 

study and that, according to the laws of FERPA, schools are permitted to release 

student transcripts to the Department of Education without the written consent of 

students participating in the study. It was also explained that students had given 

verbal consent over the telephone or written consent when they completed the mail 

survey, and that we did not request transcripts for any students who refused consent. 

Some schools agreed to send the requested transcripts upon hearing this explanation. 

Others reiterated that signed consent was required by school policy. In this case, we 

sent written consent forms to the students for them to sign and return to Mathematica 

so that we could obtain their student transcript for the impact study. A $10 check and 

a postage-paid return envelope were included with the form as an incentive to 

complete and return it. Several students did sign and return the consent form, but 

many of the letters came back unopened because we no longer had a valid address for 

the student. 

• The school would not release transcripts without advance payment. In these cases, 

we sent a check to cover the cost of each transcript, along with a list of the students 

whose transcripts we were requesting. 

• The school would not release a transcript until the student paid an outstanding 

debt. In some cases we were eventually able to obtain these transcripts as students 

paid whatever bills they owed the school. When the debt remained unpaid, however, 

there was no way we could get the transcript. These cases were marked as unfilled 

requests. 

4. Reimbursements 

When reimbursement forms were returned to us with student transcripts, we sent checks to 

the schools requesting reimbursement and a list of the students whose transcripts we received. 

Not all schools requested reimbursement for the transcripts. In all, 741 checks were issued 

totaling $5,397. 
H-10

5. Response Rates 

Of the approximately 7,000 transcripts that we requested, we received approximately 5,700 

of them (see Table H.2). We received 82 percent of the transcripts requested from secondary 

schools and 80 percent of the transcripts requested from postsecondary institutions. 

Number Requested Number Received Percent Received

Secondary 2,997 2,444 82

Postsecondary 4,028 3,211 80

Total 7,025 5,655 80

Table H.2

Response Rates to Requests for Transcripts
APPENDIX I 

SAMPLE SIZES AND STANDARD ERRORS FOR

REPORTED IMPACT ESTIMATES

I-3

Credits

Total 2,687 0.55 0.65

Total Core 2,687 0.41 0.49

Math 2,687 0.08 0.09

Science 2,687 0.10 0.11

English 2,687 0.12 0.15

Social Studies 2,687 0.08 0.10

Foreign Language 2,687 0.07 0.08

Computer Science 2,687 0.03 0.04

Vocational 2,687 0.09 0.11

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 2,687 0.25 0.30

Total Core 2,687 0.26 0.32

Math 2,687 0.06 0.07

Science 2,687 0.07 0.09

English 2,687 0.08 0.10

Social Studies 2,687 0.05 0.06

Foreign Language 2,687 0.01 0.01

Overall Grade Point Average 2,673 0.09 0.10

High School Status (%)

Graduated 2,291 3.57 4.18

Still in high school 2,291 0.38 0.44

Dropped out 2,291 1.96 2.29

General Educational Development (GED) 2,291 1.75 2.05

Source: hs-overall.log

† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see

 Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B,

 Subsection 3).

Standard Error † Standard Error ‡

Table 1.1

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table II.5

All Students Participants

Sample Size
Credits

Total 1,994 0.86 467 1.22 

Total Core 1,994 0.60 467 0.90 

Math 1,994 0.10 467 0.21 Science 1,994 0.16 467 0.19 English 1,994 0.14 467 0.28 Social Studies 1,994 0.10 467 0.22 Foreign Language 1,994 0.11 467 0.17 

Computer Science 1,994 0.06 467 0.11 Vocational 1,994 0.12 467 0.30 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 1,994 0.39 467 0.43 

Total Core 1,994 0.39 467 0.41 

Math 1,994 0.05 467 0.03 Science 1,994 0.11 467 0.10 English 1,994 0.13 467 0.14 Social Studies 1,994 0.09 467 0.17 Foreign Language 1,994 0.01 467 0.02 

Overall Grade Point Average 1,982 -0.09 465 0.14 High School Status (%)

Graduated 1,700 1.91 403 14.82 

Still in high school 1,700 0.20 403 1.12 Dropped out 1,700 1.43 403 10.60 General Educational Development (GED) 1,700 1.01 403 4.67 

Source: hs-hiexp.log and hs-loexp.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

All Students 

Table I.2

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table II.6

Std Error † 

Higher Expectations

Std Error †

Lower Expectations

Sample Size Sample Size

I-4 
Credits

Total 528 0.79 2,114 0.29 

Total Core 528 0.54 2,114 0.24 

Math 528 0.12 2,114 0.05 Science 528 0.10 2,114 0.05 English 528 0.22 2,114 0.13 Social Studies 528 0.13 2,114 0.05 Foreign Language 528 0.08 2,114 0.04 

Computer Science 528 0.14 2,114 0.04 Vocational 528 0.18 2,114 0.06 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 528 0.12 2,114 0.25 

Total Core 528 0.10 2,114 0.25 

Math 528 0.02 2,114 0.06 Science 528 0.03 2,114 0.07 English 528 0.03 2,114 0.07 Social Studies 528 0.05 2,114 0.05 Foreign Language 528 0.01 2,114 0.01 

Overall Grade Point Average 528 0.04 2,114 0.01 High School Status (%)

Graduated 411 6.01 1,768 3.16 

Still in high school 411 1.05 1,768 0.38 Dropped out 411 5.27 1,768 1.57 General Educational Development (GED) 411 2.60 1,768 1.79 

Source: hs-ar20hi.log and hs-ar20lo.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Std Error † 

Higher Academic Risk

Std Error †

Lower Academic Risk

Sample Size Sample Size

All Students

Table I.3

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table II.7

I-5 
Credits

Total 2,133 0.56 411 1.01 143 1.34 0.66 

Total Core 2,133 0.46 411 0.53 143 1.00 0.55 

Math 2,133 0.10 411 0.13 143 0.24 0.12 Science 2,133 0.09 411 0.22 143 0.26 0.11 English 2,133 0.13 411 0.14 143 0.32 0.15 Social Studies 2,133 0.09 411 0.16 143 0.26 0.10 Foreign Language 2,133 0.10 411 0.17 143 0.29 0.12 

Computer Science 2,133 0.05 411 0.17 143 0.16 0.06 Vocational 2,133 0.09 411 0.34 143 0.30 0.10 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 2,133 0.35 411 0.38 143 0.66 0.42 

Total Core 2,133 0.35 411 0.32 143 0.65 0.42 

Math 2,133 0.07 411 0.05 143 0.14 0.08 Science 2,133 0.09 411 0.07 143 0.17 0.10 English 2,133 0.11 411 0.14 143 0.26 0.14 Social Studies 2,133 0.07 411 0.10 143 0.12 0.09 Foreign Language 2,133 0.01 411 0.02 143 0.08 0.02 

Overall Grade Point Average 2,122 -0.03 408 -0.12 143 0.40 0.11 High School Status (%)

Graduated 1,801 3.73 362 3.61 128 3.68 4.38 Still in high school 1,801 0.46 362 0.19 128 0.00 0.54 Dropped out 1,801 2.01 362 2.95 128 1.88 2.37 General Educational Development (GED) 1,801 1.91 362 1.31 128 3.26 2.24 

Source: hs-lifg.log, hs-low_only.log, and hs-fgenonly.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

LI and FG 

Std Error ‡ 

Low-Inc. and First-Gen.

Std Error † Std Error †

First-Generation Only Low-Income Only

Sample Size Sample Size Sample Size Std Error †

All Students 

Table I.4

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table D.1

I-6 
Credits

Total 1,143 0.68 761 0.38 503 0.71 0.89 

Total Core 1,143 0.44 761 0.37 503 0.53 0.55 

Math 1,143 0.07 761 0.11 503 0.15 0.09 Science 1,143 0.19 761 0.07 503 0.15 0.25 English 1,143 0.10 761 0.10 503 0.19 0.13 Social Studies 1,143 0.05 761 0.10 503 0.16 0.07 Foreign Language 1,143 0.09 761 0.07 503 0.11 0.11 

Computer Science 1,143 0.06 761 0.05 503 0.08 0.08 Vocational 1,143 0.20 761 0.16 503 0.16 0.26 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 1,143 0.16 761 0.14 503 0.86 0.19 

Total Core 1,143 0.16 761 0.14 503 0.86 0.19 

Math 1,143 0.05 761 0.04 503 0.19 0.06 Science 1,143 0.05 761 0.04 503 0.19 0.06 English 1,143 0.08 761 0.06 503 0.21 0.10 Social Studies 1,143 0.05 761 0.03 503 0.26 0.07 Foreign Language 1,143 0.01 761 0.02 503 0.04 0.02 

Overall Grade Point Average 1,139 -0.09 758 0.08 500 -0.01 0.11 High School Status (%)

Graduated 962 2.94 672 2.67 415 5.55 3.50 Still in high school 962 0.48 672 0.23 415 1.90 0.56 Dropped out 962 1.72 672 2.53 415 3.19 2.01 General Educational Development (GED) 962 1.47 672 3.05 415 2.74 1.81 

Source: hs-black.log, hs-white.log, and hs-hisp.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Afr. Amer. 

Std Error † Std Error † Sample Size Std Error ‡

Table I.5

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table D.2

Hispanic

All Students 

African American White

Sample Size Std Error † Sample Size

I-7 
Credits

Total 864 0.91 1,823 0.48 

Total Core 864 0.58 1,823 0.41 

Math 864 0.13 1,823 0.09 Science 864 0.11 1,823 0.10 English 864 0.20 1,823 0.09 Social Studies 864 0.13 1,823 0.08 Foreign Language 864 0.08 1,823 0.08 

Computer Science 864 0.07 1,823 0.03 Vocational 864 0.15 1,823 0.11 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 864 0.18 1,823 0.26 

Total Core 864 0.15 1,823 0.28 

Math 864 0.06 1,823 0.05 Science 864 0.05 1,823 0.08 English 864 0.06 1,823 0.08 Social Studies 864 0.05 1,823 0.07 Foreign Language 864 0.01 1,823 0.02 

Overall Grade Point Average 864 0.06 1,809 -0.05 High School Status (%)

Graduated 699 5.67 1,592 3.67 

Still in high school 699 1.06 1,592 0.33 Dropped out 699 2.45 1,592 2.26 General Educational Development (GED) 699 3.80 1,592 1.54 

Source: hs-male.log and hs-female.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Males Females 

All Students 

Table I.6

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table D.3

Sample Size Std Error † Sample Size Std Error † 

I-8 
Credits

Total 264 1.02 1,011 0.58 1,403 0.53 1.21 

Total Core 264 0.73 1,011 0.49 1,403 0.39 0.87 

Math 264 0.17 1,011 0.10 1,403 0.08 0.19 Science 264 0.18 1,011 0.15 1,403 0.08 0.21 English 264 0.21 1,011 0.15 1,403 0.12 0.25 Social Studies 264 0.31 1,011 0.08 1,403 0.09 0.37 Foreign Language 264 0.15 1,011 0.09 1,403 0.08 0.18 

Computer Science 264 0.25 1,011 0.05 1,403 0.05 0.28 Vocational 264 0.20 1,011 0.16 1,403 0.09 0.25 

Advanced Placement and Honors Credits

Total 264 0.42 1,011 0.20 1,403 0.21 0.50 

Total Core 264 0.42 1,011 0.23 1,403 0.21 0.50 

Math 264 0.09 1,011 0.07 1,403 0.04 0.10 Science 264 0.13 1,011 0.06 1,403 0.06 0.16 English 264 0.11 1,011 0.08 1,403 0.07 0.14 Social Studies 264 0.13 1,011 0.03 1,403 0.05 0.16 Foreign Language 264 0.04 1,011 0.02 1,403 0.01 0.04 

Overall Grade Point Average 263 0.02 1,009 -0.12 1,392 0.05 0.13 High School Status (%)

Graduated 232 10.47 873 1.90 1,179 4.88 12.11 Still in high school 232 0.00 873 0.46 1,179 0.66 0.00 Dropped out 232 8.20 873 1.31 1,179 2.50 9.44 General Educational Development (GED) 232 4.08 873 1.11 1,179 2.80 4.60 

Source: hs-rating_h.log, hs-rating_m.log, and hs-rating_l.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Std Error ‡ 

Least 

All Students 

Table I.7

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table D.4

Most Likely

Sample Size Sample Size Sample Size Std Error † Std Error † Std Error †

Least Likely Somewhat Likely

I-9 
I-10

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 2,292 3.91 4.58

Four-year college 2,292 2.67 3.13

Two-year college 2,292 3.43 4.02

Vocational school 2,292 1.38 1.62

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 1,842 3.05 3.53

 Nonremedial 1,842 3.34 3.87

 Remedial 1,842 0.25 0.29

 Other 1,842 0.62 0.71

Four-year colleges 1,842 2.16 2.50

 Nonremedial 1,842 2.41 2.79

 Remedial 1,842 0.17 0.19

 Other 1,842 0.61 0.70

Two-year colleges 1,842 2.06 2.37

 Nonremedial 1,842 1.87 2.15

 Remedial 1,842 0.25 0.28

 Other 1,842 0.03 0.04

Vocational schools 1,842 0.56 0.65

 Nonremedial 1,842 0.51 0.59

 Remedial 1,842 0.01 0.02

 Other 1,842 0.10 0.12

Source: pst-overall.log

† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see

 Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B,

 Subsection 3).

Standard Error † Standard Error ‡

Table I.8

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.1

All Students Participants

Sample Size
I-11

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 2,292 4.93 5.78

Four-year college 2,292 3.39 3.97

Two-year college 2,292 3.22 3.77

Vocational school 2,292 1.09 1.28

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 2,292 2.96 3.46

 Nonremedial 2,292 3.14 3.68

 Remedial 2,292 0.20 0.24

 Other 2,292 0.47 0.55

Four-year colleges 2,292 2.20 2.56

 Nonremedial 2,292 2.37 2.76

 Remedial 2,292 0.15 0.17

 Other 2,292 0.46 0.53

Two-year colleges 2,292 1.66 1.95

 Nonremedial 2,292 1.54 1.81

 Remedial 2,292 0.15 0.18

 Other 2,292 0.03 0.03

Vocational schools 2,292 0.43 0.50

 Nonremedial 2,292 0.39 0.45

 Remedial 2,292 0.01 0.01

 Other 2,292 0.09 0.11

Source: pst2-overall.log

† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see

 Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B,

 Subsection 3).

Standard Error † Standard Error ‡

Table I.9

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.2

All Students Participants

Sample Size
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 1,701 2.71 403 11.67 

Four-year college 1,701 3.31 403 8.92 Two-year college 1,701 2.43 403 12.07 Vocational school 1,701 2.22 403 1.33 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 1,331 3.73 344 4.02 

 Nonremedial 1,331 3.73 344 6.35  Remedial 1,331 0.27 344 0.25  Other 1,331 0.34 344 4.97 

Four-year colleges 1,331 2.70 344 3.51 

 Nonremedial 1,331 2.85 344 4.28  Remedial 1,331 0.26 344 0.08  Other 1,331 0.32 344 4.97 

Two-year colleges 1,331 2.18 344 2.60 

 Nonremedial 1,331 1.95 344 2.61  Remedial 1,331 0.29 344 0.25  Other 1,331 0.04 344 0.00 

Vocational schools 1,331 0.49 344 1.81 

 Nonremedial 1,331 0.43 344 1.80  Remedial 1,331 0.02 344 0.03  Other 1,331 0.12 344 0.02 

Source: pst-hiexp.log and pst-loexp.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Higher Expectations 

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error †

Lower Expectations 

Std Error †

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.3

Table I.10

All Students 

I-12 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 1,701 4.57 403 10.36 

Four-year college 1,701 4.60 403 8.43 Two-year college 1,701 2.51 403 10.12 Vocational school 1,701 1.48 403 1.21 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 1,701 3.61 403 4.59 

 Nonremedial 1,701 3.56 403 3.71  Remedial 1,701 0.24 403 0.21  Other 1,701 0.26 403 3.44 

Four-year colleges 1,701 2.82 403 4.29 

 Nonremedial 1,701 2.83 403 2.22  Remedial 1,701 0.19 403 0.11  Other 1,701 0.23 403 3.44 

Two-year colleges 1,701 1.79 403 2.37 

 Nonremedial 1,701 1.67 403 2.36  Remedial 1,701 0.16 403 0.18  Other 1,701 0.04 403 0.00 

Vocational schools 1,701 0.45 403 1.21 

 Nonremedial 1,701 0.40 403 1.20  Remedial 1,701 0.01 403 0.03  Other 1,701 0.11 403 0.02 

Source: pst2-hiexp.log and pst2-loexp.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Higher Expectations 

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error †

Lower Expectations 

Std Error †

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.4

Table I.11

All Students 

I-13 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 411 4.48 1,769 3.45 

Four-year college 411 3.44 1,769 2.51 Two-year college 411 6.48 1,769 3.61 Vocational school 411 1.85 1,769 0.95 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 340 3.04 1,413 2.63 

 Nonremedial 340 2.86 1,413 2.82  Remedial 340 0.47 1,413 0.42  Other 340 0.00 1,413 0.83 

Four-year colleges 340 2.51 1,413 3.09 

 Nonremedial 340 2.41 1,413 2.88  Remedial 340 0.21 1,413 0.19  Other 340 0.00 1,413 0.80 

Two-year colleges 340 1.74 1,413 2.80 

 Nonremedial 340 1.67 1,413 2.45  Remedial 340 0.36 1,413 0.40  Other 340 0.00 1,413 0.05 

Vocational schools 340 1.21 1,413 0.66 

 Nonremedial 340 1.20 1,413 0.57  Remedial 340 0.01 1,413 0.01  Other 340 0.00 1,413 0.14 

Source: pst-ar20hi.log and pst-ar20lo.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Std Error † 

Higher Academic Risk

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error †

Lower Academic Risk 

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.5

Table I.12

All Students 

I-14 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 411 6.90 1,769 3.45 

Four-year college 411 3.16 1,769 3.04 Two-year college 411 7.26 1,769 3.02 Vocational school 411 0.79 1,769 1.53 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 411 2.73 1,769 2.28 

 Nonremedial 411 2.63 1,769 2.46  Remedial 411 0.27 1,769 0.26  Other 411 0.00 1,769 0.62 

Four-year colleges 411 1.65 1,769 2.56 

 Nonremedial 411 1.50 1,769 2.44  Remedial 411 0.23 1,769 0.18  Other 411 0.00 1,769 0.59 

Two-year colleges 411 1.99 1,769 2.02 

 Nonremedial 411 1.95 1,769 1.85  Remedial 411 0.27 1,769 0.21  Other 411 0.00 1,769 0.04 

Vocational schools 411 0.84 1,769 0.56 

 Nonremedial 411 0.84 1,769 0.49  Remedial 411 0.01 1,769 0.01  Other 411 0.00 1,769 0.13 

Source: pst2-ar20hi.log and pst2-ar20lo.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Std Error † 

Higher Academic Risk

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error †

Lower Academic Risk 

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.6

Table I.13

All Students 

I-15 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 1,802 4.69 362 3.67 128 8.01 5.50 Four-year college 1,802 3.19 362 6.30 128 10.73 3.75 Two-year college 1,802 3.89 362 7.77 128 8.81 4.59 Vocational school 1,802 1.21 362 1.83 128 3.46 1.43 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 1,453 2.93 292 5.94 97 12.85 3.42 

 Nonremedial 1,453 3.11 292 5.95 97 12.42 3.63  Remedial 1,453 0.24 292 0.67 97 0.57 0.29  Other 1,453 0.59 292 0.75 97 1.96 0.68 

Four-year colleges 1,453 2.72 292 5.92 97 12.54 3.18 

 Nonremedial 1,453 2.89 292 5.99 97 12.19 3.37  Remedial 1,453 0.23 292 0.55 97 0.58 0.27  Other 1,453 0.56 292 0.75 97 1.96 0.66 

Two-year colleges 1,453 1.34 292 4.50 97 4.74 1.57 

 Nonremedial 1,453 1.21 292 4.36 97 4.74 1.42  Remedial 1,453 0.21 292 0.34 97 0.28 0.25  Other 1,453 0.04 292 0.08 97 0.00 0.05 

Vocational schools 1,453 0.71 292 0.39 97 1.51 0.83 

 Nonremedial 1,453 0.65 292 0.39 97 1.51 0.76  Remedial 1,453 0.02 292 0.00 97 0.00 0.02  Other 1,453 0.13 292 0.00 97 0.00 0.15 

Source: pst-lifg.log, pst-low_only.log, and pst-fgenonly.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Size Std Error †

Low-Inc. and First Gen. LI and FG

Sample Size Std Error †

Sample Size 

First-Generation Only Low-Income Only

Std Error † Std Error ‡ 

Table I.14

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.7

All Students 

I-16 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 1,802 5.25 362 6.04 128 10.05 6.16 Four-year college 1,802 2.98 362 6.71 128 11.09 3.51 Two-year college 1,802 3.44 362 7.88 128 8.56 4.05 Vocational school 1,802 0.52 362 2.73 128 3.46 0.61 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 1,802 2.78 362 6.16 128 9.33 3.27 

 Nonremedial 1,802 2.88 362 6.11 128 8.92 3.39  Remedial 1,802 0.19 362 0.61 128 1.05 0.22  Other 1,802 0.41 362 0.59 128 1.47 0.49 

Four-year colleges 1,802 2.12 362 5.40 128 8.85 2.49 

 Nonremedial 1,802 2.19 362 5.32 128 8.41 2.57  Remedial 1,802 0.15 362 0.56 128 1.09 0.17  Other 1,802 0.39 362 0.59 128 1.47 0.46 

Two-year colleges 1,802 1.45 362 3.75 128 3.18 1.70 

 Nonremedial 1,802 1.35 362 3.67 128 3.15 1.59  Remedial 1,802 0.15 362 0.24 128 0.25 0.18  Other 1,802 0.03 362 0.06 128 0.00 0.04 

Vocational schools 1,802 0.50 362 0.37 128 1.02 0.58 

 Nonremedial 1,802 0.44 362 0.37 128 1.02 0.51  Remedial 1,802 0.01 362 0.00 128 0.00 0.01  Other 1,802 0.11 362 0.00 128 0.00 0.14 

Source: pst2-lifg.log, pst2-low_only.log, and pst2-fgenonly.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Size Std Error †

Low-Inc. and First Gen. LI and FG

Sample Size Std Error †

Sample Size 

First-Generation Only Low-Income Only

Std Error † Std Error ‡ 

Table I.15

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.8

All Students 

I-17 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 962 3.85 673 3.70 415 6.16 4.63 Four-year college 962 3.11 673 4.95 415 5.12 3.64 Two-year college 962 4.17 673 4.66 415 5.05 5.15 Vocational school 962 1.82 673 0.64 415 1.57 2.25 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 742 4.23 560 3.69 344 4.53 4.80 

 Nonremedial 742 4.50 560 3.51 344 4.41 5.09  Remedial 742 0.26 560 0.54 344 0.70 0.30  Other 742 0.70 560 0.19 344 0.49 0.79 

Four-year colleges 742 4.10 560 3.13 344 5.30 4.67 

 Nonremedial 742 4.36 560 3.09 344 5.34 4.95  Remedial 742 0.30 560 0.41 344 0.57 0.34  Other 742 0.68 560 0.19 344 0.38 0.78 

Two-year colleges 742 1.17 560 2.48 344 4.04 1.33 

 Nonremedial 742 1.09 560 2.38 344 3.83 1.23  Remedial 742 0.20 560 0.31 344 0.31 0.22  Other 742 0.06 560 0.01 344 0.00 0.07 

Vocational schools 742 0.89 560 0.48 344 1.58 1.02 

 Nonremedial 742 0.80 560 0.48 344 1.57 0.91  Remedial 742 0.03 560 0.00 344 0.02 0.03  Other 742 0.18 560 0.00 344 0.18 0.20 

Source: pst-black.log, pst-white.log, and pst-hisp.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Size Std Error † Sample Size Std Error † Std Error † Sample Size Std Error ‡ 

African American Hispanic White Afr. Amer

Table I.16

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.9

All Students

I-18 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 962 8.64 673 4.13 415 5.50 10.43 Four-year college 962 5.48 673 4.44 415 4.44 6.53 Two-year college 962 4.49 673 3.51 415 4.47 5.46 Vocational school 962 0.70 673 0.70 415 2.92 0.83 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 962 5.99 673 2.98 415 4.32 7.20 

 Nonremedial 962 6.04 673 2.87 415 4.25 7.27  Remedial 962 0.24 673 0.38 415 0.55 0.29  Other 962 0.52 673 0.13 415 0.40 0.62 

Four-year colleges 962 4.99 673 3.43 415 3.80 5.97 

 Nonremedial 962 5.11 673 3.35 415 3.78 6.12  Remedial 962 0.23 673 0.33 415 0.48 0.27  Other 962 0.50 673 0.12 415 0.36 0.59 

Two-year colleges 962 1.56 673 2.00 415 2.75 1.90 

 Nonremedial 962 1.40 673 1.94 415 2.69 1.70  Remedial 962 0.21 673 0.18 415 0.34 0.25  Other 962 0.05 673 0.01 415 0.00 0.06 

Vocational schools 962 0.65 673 0.29 415 1.26 0.77 

 Nonremedial 962 0.57 673 0.29 415 1.24 0.67  Remedial 962 0.02 673 0.00 415 0.01 0.02  Other 962 0.16 673 0.00 415 0.07 0.20 

Source: pst2-black.log, pst2-white.log, and pst2-hisp.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Size Std Error † Sample Size Std Error † Std Error † Sample Size Std Error ‡ 

African American Hispanic White Afr. Amer

Table I.17

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.10

All Students

I-19 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 699 4.04 1,593 4.94 

Four-year college 699 3.48 1,593 3.40 Two-year college 699 2.91 1,593 4.31 Vocational school 699 1.11 1,593 1.81 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 563 3.78 1,279 4.22 

 Nonremedial 563 3.69 1,279 4.51  Remedial 563 0.35 1,279 0.29  Other 563 0.75 1,279 0.74 

Four-year colleges 563 3.23 1,279 3.07 

 Nonremedial 563 3.28 1,279 3.28  Remedial 563 0.28 1,279 0.21  Other 563 0.69 1,279 0.73 

Two-year colleges 563 1.94 1,279 2.84 

 Nonremedial 563 1.93 1,279 2.66  Remedial 563 0.21 1,279 0.25  Other 563 0.02 1,279 0.05 

Vocational schools 563 0.57 1,279 0.77 

 Nonremedial 563 0.36 1,279 0.76  Remedial 563 0.02 1,279 0.02  Other 563 0.29 1,279 0.04 

Source: pst-male.log and pst-female.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.11

Table I.18

All Students 

Std Error †

Females 

Std Error † 

Males 

Sample Size Sample Size

I-20 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 699 4.90 1,593 5.45 

Four-year college 699 3.91 1,593 3.68 Two-year college 699 3.73 1,593 3.74 Vocational school 699 2.16 1,593 1.01 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 699 3.75 1,593 4.09 

 Nonremedial 699 3.63 1,593 4.32  Remedial 699 0.33 1,593 0.23  Other 699 0.54 1,593 0.59 

Four-year colleges 699 3.56 1,593 3.03 

 Nonremedial 699 3.53 1,593 3.22  Remedial 699 0.26 1,593 0.18  Other 699 0.45 1,593 0.57 

Two-year colleges 699 1.55 1,593 2.26 

 Nonremedial 699 1.52 1,593 2.15  Remedial 699 0.18 1,593 0.17  Other 699 0.01 1,593 0.04 

Vocational schools 699 0.76 1,593 0.56 

 Nonremedial 699 0.59 1,593 0.55  Remedial 699 0.02 1,593 0.01  Other 699 0.28 1,593 0.02 

Source: pst2-male.log and pst2-female.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.12

Table I.19

All Students 

Std Error †

Females 

Std Error † 

Males 

Sample Size Sample Size

I-21 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 232 11.20 873 2.72 1,180 4.82 13.04 Four-year college 232 9.29 873 4.12 1,180 3.35 10.90 Two-year college 232 6.68 873 3.18 1,180 4.25 7.68 Vocational school 232 0.75 873 2.62 1,180 0.79 0.88 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 185 6.81 691 5.83 960 2.86 8.05 

 Nonremedial 185 6.66 691 6.03 960 2.93 7.84  Remedial 185 0.43 691 0.37 960 0.45 0.50  Other 185 0.37 691 0.36 960 1.06 0.43 

Four-year colleges 185 8.68 691 5.40 960 2.54 9.77 

 Nonremedial 185 8.59 691 5.53 960 2.71 9.64  Remedial 185 0.25 691 0.33 960 0.20 0.30  Other 185 0.37 691 0.32 960 1.03 0.43 

Two-year colleges 185 5.43 691 1.84 960 1.50 6.36 

 Nonremedial 185 5.21 691 1.87 960 1.28 6.12  Remedial 185 0.36 691 0.19 960 0.42 0.41  Other 185 0.00 691 0.07 960 0.04 0.00 

Vocational schools 185 2.55 691 0.76 960 0.61 3.02 

 Nonremedial 185 2.55 691 0.75 960 0.48 3.02  Remedial 185 0.00 691 0.02 960 0.03 0.00  Other 185 0.00 691 0.08 960 0.20 0.00 

Source: pst-rating_h.log, pst-rating_m.log, and pst-rating_l.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error † Std Error † Sample Size Std Error † Std Error ‡ 

Least Likely

Table I.20

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.13

All Students

Somewhat Likely Most Likely 

Least

I-22 
Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 232 12.01 873 4.53 1,180 4.52 14.06 Four-year college 232 8.89 873 5.49 1,180 3.26 10.52 Two-year college 232 6.76 873 3.20 1,180 3.60 7.79 Vocational school 232 1.54 873 2.37 1,180 0.52 1.76 

Credits Earned

All postsecondary schools 232 7.44 873 4.58 1,180 3.38 8.76 

 Nonremedial 232 7.22 873 4.55 1,180 3.59 8.52  Remedial 232 0.39 873 0.31 1,180 0.29 0.45  Other 232 0.40 873 0.23 1,180 0.87 0.46 

Four-year colleges 232 6.08 873 4.37 1,180 2.55 7.07 

 Nonremedial 232 5.92 873 4.30 1,180 2.70 6.89  Remedial 232 0.30 873 0.26 1,180 0.20 0.34  Other 232 0.40 873 0.19 1,180 0.84 0.46 

Two-year colleges 232 3.78 873 1.60 1,180 1.93 4.29 

 Nonremedial 232 3.58 873 1.56 1,180 1.72 4.07  Remedial 232 0.31 873 0.19 1,180 0.24 0.35  Other 232 0.00 873 0.06 1,180 0.03 0.00 

Vocational schools 232 1.78 873 0.58 1,180 0.47 2.04 

 Nonremedial 232 1.78 873 0.57 1,180 0.36 2.04  Remedial 232 0.00 873 0.01 1,180 0.02 0.00  Other 232 0.00 873 0.03 1,180 0.17 0.00 

Source: pst2-rating_h.log, pst2-rating_m.log, and pst2-rating_l.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error † Std Error † Sample Size Std Error † Std Error ‡ 

Least Likely

Table I.21

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.14

All Students

Somewhat Likely Most Likely 

Least

I-23 
I-24

Residence in focused housing (%) 2,292 0.66 0.77

Days per year of parent or student contact with school 2,292 4.05 4.74

Academic counseling 2,292 0.17 0.20

Personal counseling 2,292 0.09 0.11

Learning skills center services 2,292 0.13 0.15

Tutoring services 2,292 0.12 0.14

Minority student services 2,292 0.12 0.14

Health services 2,292 0.10 0.12

Other 2,292 0.02 0.03

Student Support Services 2,292 1.03 1.19

McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 2,292 0.46 0.54

Student received financial aid (%) 2,292 5.39 6.32

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 2,292 0.18 0.21

Met with advisor concerning academic plans 2,292 0.11 0.13

Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 2,292 0.11 0.13

Participated in study groups outside of class 2,292 0.26 0.30

Went to events with friends from school 2,292 0.21 0.25

Participated in school clubs 2,292 0.16 0.19

Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 2,292 0.09 0.10

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports,

music, drama, etc. 2,292 0.12 0.14

Cut classes 2,292 0.19 0.22

Worked for pay in college (%)

Freshman year 2,292 2.83 3.31

Sophomore year 2,292 2.34 2.78

Hours worked per week in college

Freshman year 2,292 1.04 1.21

Sophomore year 2,292 0.77 0.91

Source: pss-overall.log

† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see

 Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B,

 Subsection 3).

How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Standard Error ‡

Table I.22

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table III.15

All Students Participants

How often during first year in postsecondary school 

student used the following supplemental services

Participation in federally supported programs while in 

postsecondary school (%)

Sample Size Standard Error †
Residence in focused housing (%) 1,701 0.85 403 0.79 

Days per year of parent or student contact with school 1,701 3.23 403 19.67 

Academic counseling 1,701 0.26 403 0.33 Personal counseling 1,701 0.09 403 0.17 Learning skills center services 1,701 0.13 403 0.22 Tutoring services 1,701 0.11 403 0.24 Minority student services 1,701 0.17 403 0.18 Health services 1,701 0.13 403 0.11 Other 1,701 0.01 403 0.04 Student Support Services 1,701 1.48 403 2.09 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 1,701 0.71 403 1.44 

Student received financial aid (%) 1,701 4.06 403 11.86 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 1,701 0.23 403 0.41 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 1,701 0.15 403 0.29 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 1,701 0.19 403 0.36 Participated in study groups outside of class 1,701 0.30 403 0.31 Went to events with friends from school 1,701 0.28 403 0.34 Participated in school clubs 1,701 0.29 403 0.31 

Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 1,701 0.22 403 0.30 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports,

music, drama, etc. 1,701 0.22 403 0.22 

Cut classes 1,701 0.16 403 0.43 

Source: pss-hiexp.log and pss-loexp.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

All Students

Std Error †

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table E.1

Lower Expectations

Table I.23

Higher Expectations 

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error †

I-25 
Residence in focused housing (%) 411 0.81 1,769 0.86 

Days per year of parent or student contact with school 411 8.28 1,769 4.61 

Academic counseling 411 0.22 1,769 0.13 Personal counseling 411 0.17 1,769 0.10 Learning skills center services 411 0.19 1,769 0.16 Tutoring services 411 0.17 1,769 0.16 Minority student services 411 0.05 1,769 0.13 Health services 411 0.09 1,769 0.11 Other 411 0.02 1,769 0.03 Student Support Services 411 3.11 1,769 1.23 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 411 0.53 1,769 0.53 

Student received financial aid (%) 411 9.76 1,769 3.02 

How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 411 0.40 1,769 0.18 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 411 0.19 1,769 0.12 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 411 0.23 1,769 0.13 Participated in study groups outside of class 411 0.23 1,769 0.24 Went to events with friends from school 411 0.25 1,769 0.14 Participated in school clubs 411 0.23 1,769 0.12 

Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 411 0.17 1,769 0.10 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports,

music, drama, etc. 411 0.15 1,769 0.10 

Cut classes 411 0.33 1,769 0.15 

Source: pss-ar20hi.log and pss-ar20lo.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Sample Size Std Error †

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table E.2

Table I.24

All Students 

Std Error † 

Higher Academic Risk

Sample Size

Lower Academic Risk 

I-26 
Residence in focused housing (%) 1,802 0.64 362 2.15 128 3.79 0.75 

Days per year of parent or student contact with school 1,802 3.74 362 8.52 128 12.39 4.38 

Academic counseling 1,802 0.17 362 0.34 128 0.33 0.20 Personal counseling 1,802 0.09 362 0.17 128 0.36 0.10 Learning skills center services 1,802 0.13 362 0.24 128 0.40 0.15 Tutoring services 1,802 0.12 362 0.26 128 0.45 0.14 Minority student services 1,802 0.10 362 0.38 128 0.46 0.12 Health services 1,802 0.09 362 0.21 128 0.46 0.10 Other 1,802 0.01 362 0.13 128 0.05 0.01 Student Support Services 1,802 1.00 362 3.90 128 5.08 1.16 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 1,802 0.55 362 1.68 128 0.00 0.64 

Student received financial aid (%) 1,802 5.78 362 5.62 128 9.89 6.79 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 1,802 0.19 362 0.42 128 0.51 0.22 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 1,802 0.13 362 0.25 128 0.47 0.15 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 1,802 0.14 362 0.24 128 0.42 0.16 Participated in study groups outside of class 1,802 0.22 362 0.60 128 0.42 0.25 Went to events with friends from school 1,802 0.27 362 0.38 128 0.52 0.32 Participated in school clubs 1,802 0.16 362 0.45 128 0.51 0.19 Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 1,802 0.11 362 0.25 128 0.55 0.12 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports, 1,802 

music, drama, etc. 0.17 362 0.28 128 0.59 0.20

Cut classes 1,802 0.17 362 0.57 128 0.55 0.19 

Source: pss-lifg.log, pss-low_only.log, and pss-fgenonly.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error † Std Error † 

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Sample Size 

All Students

Std Error †

Low-Inc. and First-Gen. LI & FG 

First-Generation Only Low-Income Only

Std Error ‡

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table E.3

Table I.25

I-27 
Residence in focused housing (%) 962 1.33 673 0.50 415 1.13 1.56 

Days per year of parent or student contact with school 962 4.49 673 6.34 415 7.12 5.32 

Academic counseling 962 0.22 673 0.21 415 0.15 0.26 Personal counseling 962 0.09 673 0.16 415 0.17 0.11 Learning skills center services 962 0.14 673 0.23 415 0.22 0.17 Tutoring services 962 0.15 673 0.25 415 0.34 0.17 Minority student services 962 0.14 673 0.06 415 0.21 0.16 Health services 962 0.16 673 0.15 415 0.13 0.19 Other 962 0.01 673 0.03 415 0.06 0.02 Student Support Services 962 1.81 673 1.79 415 1.82 2.10 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 962 0.89 673 0.35 415 0.60 1.06 

Student received financial aid (%) 962 5.75 673 3.15 415 10.36 6.99 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 962 0.23 673 0.30 415 0.32 0.28 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 962 0.16 673 0.19 415 0.24 0.19 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 962 0.16 673 0.24 415 0.21 0.19 Participated in study groups outside of class 962 0.30 673 0.26 415 0.32 0.36 Went to events with friends from school 962 0.25 673 0.16 415 0.41 0.30 Participated in school clubs 962 0.26 673 0.13 415 0.23 0.31 Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 962 0.21 673 0.14 415 0.31 0.26 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports, 962 

music, drama, etc. 0.20 673 0.13 415 0.22 0.24

Cut classes 962 0.22 673 0.27 415 0.34 0.26 

Source: pss-black.log, pss-white.log, and pss-hisp.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).Participation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error † Std Error ‡ 

Table I.26

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table E.4

Std Error †

How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental services

African American

All Students 

White 

Afr Amer 

Sample Size Std Error †

Hispanic

I-28 
Residence in focused housing (%) 699 1.14 1,593 0.81 

Days per year of parent or student contact with school 699 6.60 1,593 5.29 

Academic counseling 699 0.26 1,593 0.23 Personal counseling 699 0.17 1,593 0.09 Learning skills center services 699 0.25 1,593 0.13 Tutoring services 699 0.29 1,593 0.12 Minority student services 699 0.12 1,593 0.18 Health services 699 0.09 1,593 0.13 Other 699 0.01 1,593 0.03 Student Support Services 699 1.95 1,593 1.36 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 699 0.68 1,593 0.55 

Student received financial aid (%) 699 4.08 1,593 6.68 

How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 699 0.25 1,593 0.19 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 699 0.18 1,593 0.13 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 699 0.21 1,593 0.11 Participated in study groups outside of class 699 0.30 1,593 0.29 Went to events with friends from school 699 0.24 1,593 0.26 Participated in school clubs 699 0.19 1,593 0.20 

Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 699 0.15 1,593 0.11 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports,

music, drama, etc. 699 0.23 1,593 0.14 

Cut classes 699 0.20 1,593 0.27 

Source: pss-male.log and pss-female.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental servicesParticipation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Std Error † 

Males 

Sample Size Sample Size Std Error †

Females

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table E.5

Table I.27

All Students 

I-29 
Residence in focused housing (%) 232 2.09 873 0.79 1,180 0.97 2.42 

Days per year of parent or student contact with school 232 13.13 873 4.18 1,180 5.57 15.29 

Academic counseling 232 0.41 873 0.23 1,180 0.19 0.47 Personal counseling 232 0.32 873 0.14 1,180 0.09 0.37 Learning skills center services 232 0.43 873 0.13 1,180 0.15 0.50 Tutoring services 232 0.40 873 0.17 1,180 0.17 0.46 Minority student services 232 0.44 873 0.14 1,180 0.09 0.51 Health services 232 0.36 873 0.15 1,180 0.07 0.42 Other 232 0.08 873 0.03 1,180 0.01 0.09 Student Support Services 232 2.34 873 1.46 1,180 1.69 2.70 McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 232 0.28 873 0.63 1,180 0.78 0.31 

Student received financial aid (%) 232 10.37 873 4.04 1,180 6.53 12.26 How often during first year of postsecondary school student:

Talked with faculty in office about academic matters 232 0.50 873 0.18 1,180 0.24 0.58 Met with advisor concerning academic plans 232 0.44 873 0.15 1,180 0.16 0.49 Had informal contact with advisor or other faculty 232 0.26 873 0.16 1,180 0.19 0.31 Participated in study groups outside of class 232 0.51 873 0.50 1,180 0.24 0.59 Went to events with friends from school 232 0.44 873 0.35 1,180 0.23 0.52 Participated in school clubs 232 0.31 873 0.38 1,180 0.16 0.35 Attended career-related lectures, conventions, or field

trips with friends 232 0.33 873 0.16 1,180 0.15 0.37 

Participated in intramural or intercollegiate sports, 232 

music, drama, etc. 0.48 873 0.17 1,180 0.26 0.55

Cut classes 232 0.34 873 0.28 1,180 0.18 0.39 

Source: pss-rating_h.log, pss-rating_m.log, and pss-rating_l.log† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).‡ The standard error of the estimated impact of actually participating in Upward Bound (see Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).How often during first year in postsecondary school student used the following supplemental services

Table I.28

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table E.6

Participation in federally supported programs while in postsecondary school (%)

Sample Size

Least Likely Least

Std Error † Sample Size Sample Size Std Error † Std Error ‡ 

Somewhat Likely

Std Error †

Most Likely 

All Students 

I-30 
I-31

Sample Size

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 463 2.26

Four-year college 463 3.36

Two-year college 463 2.22

Vocational school 463 1.72

Credits Earned (mean)

All postsecondary schools 373 2.08

Four-year colleges 373 2.55

Two-year colleges 373 1.64

Vocational schools 373 0.48

Source: means.log and out_imp.log

† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see

 Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Standard Error †

Table I.29

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table IV.3
I-32

Sample Size

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 762 3.95

Four-year college 762 5.47

Two-year college 762 3.33

Vocational school 762 3.85

Credits Earned (mean)

All postsecondary schools 615 3.20

Four-year colleges 615 3.39

Two-year colleges 615 2.16

Vocational schools 615 0.61

Source: means.log and out_imp.log

† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see

 Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Standard Error †

Table I.30

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table IV.4
I-33

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 116 4.08 347 2.83

Four-year college 116 4.15 347 4.09

Two-year college 116 4.54 347 2.29

Vocational school 116 0.76 347 1.83

Credits Earned (mean)

All postsecondary schools 97 3.15 276 2.37

Four-year colleges 97 3.11 276 2.44

Two-year colleges 97 1.57 276 1.77

Vocational schools 97 0.40 276 0.56

Source: means.log and out_imp.log

† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see

 Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Table I.31

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table IV.5

Sample Size Std Error †

Higher Risk

Sample Size Std Error †

Lower Risk
I-34

Postsecondary School Status (%)

Any postsecondary school 159 9.27 603 4.26

Four-year college 159 10.19 603 6.58

Two-year college 159 12.75 603 3.27

Vocational school 159 3.34 603 4.60

Credits Earned (mean)

All postsecondary schools 133 8.78 482 3.95

Four-year colleges 133 9.45 482 4.22

Two-year colleges 133 4.60 482 2.68

Vocational schools 133 1.50 482 0.78

Source: means.log and out_imp.log

† The standard error of the estimated impact of being offered the opportunity to participate in Upward Bound (see

 Chapter I, Section B, Subsection 3).

Table I.32

Sample Sizes and Standard Errors for Reported Impact Estimates: Table IV.6

Higher Risk Lower Risk

Sample Size Std Error † Sample Size Std Error †