Part A: Supporting 

Statement for 

Paperwork Reduction 

Act Submission

Study of Enhanced College 

Advising in Upward Bound

Prepared for:

Marsha Silverberg

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Ave, NW

Room 502I

Washington, DC 20208-5500

Submitted by:

Abt Associates Inc.

55 Wheeler Street

Cambridge, MA 02138
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Table of Contents ▌pg. i

Part A: Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

Table of Contents

A. Justification.............................................................................................................................A-1

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................A-1

Overview of the Upward Bound Program.....................................................................A-1

Overview of the Evaluation...........................................................................................A-3

A.1 Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary ..................................A-5

A.2 Purposes and Use of the Information Collection ............................................................A-6

A.2.1 Phase I Data....................................................................................................A-7

A.2.2 Phase II Data...................................................................................................A-9

A.3 Use of Information Technology and Burden Reduction...............................................A-10

A.4 Efforts to Identify Duplication......................................................................................A-11

A.5 Efforts to Minimize Burden in Small Businesses.........................................................A-11

A.6 Consequences of Not Collecting the Information.........................................................A-11

A.7 Special Circumstances Justifying Inconsistencies with Guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 ..A-12

A.8 Consultation Outside the Agency .................................................................................A-12

A.8.1 Federal Registrar Announcement .................................................................A-12

A.8.2 Consultations Outside the Agency ...............................................................A-12

A.8.3 Unresolved Issues.........................................................................................A-12

A.9 Payments or Gifts to Respondents................................................................................A-13

A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality ........................................................................................A-13

A.11 Questions of a Sensitive Nature....................................................................................A-14

A.12 Estimate of Response Burden .......................................................................................A-14

A.13 Estimate of Total Capital and Startup Costs/Operation and Maintenance Costs to 

Respondents or Record-Keepers...................................................................................A-15

A.14 Estimates of Costs to the Federal Government.............................................................A-15

A.15 Changes in Burden........................................................................................................A-15

A.16 Plans for Analysis, Publication and Schedule...............................................................A-15

A.16.1 Analysis Plans ..............................................................................................A-15

A.16.2 Timeline and Publication plans ....................................................................A-19

A.17 Approval to Not Display Expiration Date ....................................................................A-20

A.18 Exceptions to Item 19 of OMB Form 83-1...................................................................A-20

References..............................................................................................................................A-21
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-1

A. Justification

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) will fulfill a congressional mandate to assess the effectiveness 

of a promising practice in its long-standing Upward Bound (UB) program by conducting a research 

demonstration to enhance college advising in UB. This first Information Collection Request (ICR) for 

the study presents an overview of its design, including the plan to randomly assign UB projects in the 

demonstration into treatment and control conditions, and seeks clearance to collect initial student data. A 

later ICR will request approval for the remaining data collection activities.

The study is being sponsored by ED’s Institute of Education Sciences, in collaboration with the Office of 

Postsecondary Education, and implemented by Abt Associates Inc. and its partners, Decision 

Information Resources (DIR), Survey Research Management (SRM), and American Institutes for 

Research (AIR).

Overview of the Upward Bound Program

The UB program is designed to improve college access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

Coming out of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as part of the War on Poverty, the UB program is

the oldest and largest, in terms of spending, of the federal TRIO programs. In 2012-2013, approximately 

$269 million was spent to fund 826 UB projects and serve over 62,500 high school participants. 1

Each version of the Higher Education Act, including the most recent 2008 Higher Education 

Opportunities Act (HEOA) (20 USC 1070A-18), has prescribed major details of the UB program. UB 

project grantees may include two- or four-year colleges (the vast majority), but also other organizations 

such as local education agencies, nonprofit organizations, other community organizations, and state 

education agencies, may also host UB projects. Eligible UB students must come from families with 

household income below 150 percent of the poverty line or in which neither parent holds a bachelor’s 

degree, and two-thirds of any project’s participants must satisfy both criteria. Individual UB projects

must provide an array of services to participants, who typically enter the program early in high school. 

UB projects are required to provide students with: 

 academic tutoring to prepare students to complete secondary or postsecondary courses; 

 guidance on course selection; assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and 

completing college admission applications;

 information on all Federal student financial aid programs, and benefits and resources for locating 

public and private scholarships; 

 assistance completing financial aid applications; 

 

1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Upward Bound Program Awards FY2012, 

available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubgrantees2012.xls
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-2

 education or counseling services to improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of 

students or their parents, including financial planning for postsecondary education; and

 assistance for high school dropouts with secondary school reentry, entry into alternative 

education programs, and entry into general educational development (GED) programs or

postsecondary education programs (20 USC 1070A-13b).

According to grantee-provided data, more than 80 percent of Upward Bound participants attend college 

within two years of graduating high school,

2 with older data suggesting that three-quarters of those 

students (60 percent overall) enroll in a four-year college or university.

3 However, like many low-income 

students, UB participants may miss opportunities to enroll in more selective colleges and universities 

that better match their academic capabilities. A previous study of UB found that only 11 percent of UB

participants enroll in four-year institutions classified by the Barron’s guide as “most competitive”, 

“highly competitive”, or ”very competitive” (Seftor, Mamun and Schirm, 2009). Further, more than a 

third of participants overall attend their host institution (45 percent for those participating in UB 

programs hosted at a two-year institution), but whether that reflects the best outcome for those students 

or a lost opportunity is uncertain. While all UB projects provide college advising and application help, 

there is variation in the emphasis and intensity of these activities and room to improve the “match” or 

“fit” between UB student qualifications, financial circumstances, and interests and the college in which 

they enroll.

Overview of the Enhanced College Advising Demonstration

The demonstration will build on advising activities grantees already conduct, but take into account

information and approaches emerging from recent rigorous research (Avery, 2013; Hoxby and Turner, 

2013; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, and Moeller, 2009; Sherwin, 2012; Carrell and Sacerdote, 2013). The 

intervention is a professional development program for UB staff and a set of tools and resources for them 

to use in working with students in the spring of their junior year through early senior year. Both the staff 

training and student tools and resources will focus on the benefits of attending higher quality 

institutions, the concepts of net costs and completion rates in comparing colleges of interest, the 

availability of financial aid, other factors to consider in finding a “fit,” and the importance of applying to 

at least 4 colleges (Smith, 2011) with fee waivers to ensure that household income is not a constraint on 

the number of applications. 

The professional development will include review of emerging research and best practices; introduce key 

concepts in enhanced college advising; simulate enhanced advising activities with materials, tools, 

resources; and support staff to develop a plan for implementing enhanced advising strategies. The 

professional development will be offered in a series of webinars. The intervention builds on lessons 

learned from recent Hoxby-Turner (2013) research, by providing students with: (1) an illustrative 

example of colleges customized to their PSAT/SAT and/or ACT/PLAN score and their location, and (2) 

a list of scholarships and grants available in their state.

4

 In contrast to the Hoxby-Turner study, where 

 

2

See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubgranteelevel-exp0910.pdf

3

See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubprofile-00-01.pdf

4 The UB host institution will be one of five examples provided, so that students (and potentially their parents) 

can compare the net costs and performance of the host institution to other postsecondary institutions.
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-3

packets were mailed directly to very high-achieving, low-income students, the UB demonstration will 

address students with a wider range of academic backgrounds and encourage staff support to help 

students understand and act on these materials.

Overview of the Evaluation

The 2008 Higher Education Opportunities Act (HEOA) (20 USC 1070A-18), requires ED to conduct a 

rigorous study of a promising practice that has the potential to improve key outcomes for UB

participants. At the same time, the law prohibits any evaluation of a TRIO program that would require 

grantees to “recruit additional students beyond those the program or project would normally recruit” or 

that would result “in the denial of services for an eligible student under the program or project.” The 

proposed research demonstration fulfills HEOA’s mandate to examine a promising practice and is 

consistent with the prohibition against denying students UB services as part of the evaluation. Under the 

demonstration design, both the treatment and control group projects would continue providing regular 

UB services. In addition, ED has committed to providing the professional development program to both 

groups, with the control group projects receiving training after the experimental period is over.

The professional development program will be evaluated using a delayed treatment randomized control 

trial (RCT) design. This design will ensure that all UB projects that volunteer have access to the college 

advising intervention at some point. Approximately 200 Upward Bound projects (awarded grants in 

2012) will be recruited to volunteer for the demonstration. These projects will be randomly assigned so 

that those assigned to Wave 1 (treatment) will receive the professional development program beginning 

in spring 2015.

5

 Wave 2 (control) projects will receive the professional development program beginning 

in fall 2016. 

Students in both groups who were high school juniors in 2014-15 will be tracked over time to collect 

administrative and survey data on key outcomes, including college application behavior, college 

acceptance and matriculation, and receipt of financial aid. ED expects to execute an option to the current 

contract to also enable collection of longer-term data on college persistence, which is the most important 

measure of match or fit.

The study will use the data to assess not only whether the intervention is effective, but how well it was 

implemented and whether its effectiveness depends on key components of the UB program or features of 

the college advising intervention as it was designed and implemented. In particular, the evaluation is 

designed to answer three main research questions: 

1. To what extent do the professional development package and tools have an effect— above and 

beyond the services Upward Bound grantees already provide—on important student outcomes?

2. How fully was the intervention implemented (e.g., in terms of staff participation in training and 

staff implementation of the intervention model)? And to what extent did the intervention 

produce a difference in the Upward Bound college advising provided to treatment and control 

group students?

 

5 We will to conduct blocked random assignment of projects, using region and one or more other blocking 

factors that are associated with the key student outcomes in this study. 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-4

3. Is there variation in the impacts of the enhanced college advising intervention on student 

outcomes and to what extent is the variation associated with other project features or 

characteristics of participating students? For example, do impacts vary between projects hosted 

by two-year institutions and projects hosted by four-year institutions? Are differences in the 

implementation of the enhanced college advising associated with differences in impacts? 

To answer these questions we will conduct both impact and descriptive analyses. The first report, 

which will address each research question, will be available in 2017, and the second report will be 

published in 2018. ED expects to issue a later report on persistence impacts in 2020. To minimize costs, 

the evaluation will rely to the extent possible on easily available administrative data for many of the 

outcome measures.

Exhibit A-1 presents the research questions along with the data sources for each question, the analytic 

approach and outcomes of interest. 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-5

Exhibit A-1. Evaluation Questions, Data Sources, Analytic Approach, and Outcomes of Interest

Research Question Data Sources

Analytic 

Approach Outcomes of Interest

1. To what extent do the 

professional development 

package and tools have an 

effect— above and beyond 

the services Upward Bound 

grantees already provide—

on student outcomes?

 Student survey data

 National Student 

Clearinghouse data

 Federal Student 

Aid data

 NCES IPEDS data

 College Board and 

ACT data

 Impact analysis 

 Sample: 4,000 

students in 200 

UB projects

 Number and type of 

college applications 

submitted

 Selectivity of colleges 

applied to

 Knowledge of college 

net costs

 Knowledge of financial 

aid options

 Completion of FASFA 

 Type of college 

enrolled in

 Selectivity of college 

enrolled in

 Persistence in college

2. How fully was the 

intervention implemented 

(e.g., in terms of staff 

participation in training and 

staff implementation of the 

intervention model)? And to 

what extent did the 

intervention produce a 

difference in the Upward 

Bound college advising 

provided to treatment and 

control group students?

 UB Project Director

survey data

 Student survey data

 Descriptive / 

impact analysis

 Sample: 4,000 

students in 

200 UB 

projects and 

200 UB project 

directors

 Enhanced college 

advising experiences

 Receipt and use of 

student advising 

materials

 Staff knowledge and 

awareness

 Staff behaviors and 

practice

3. Is there variation in the 

impacts of the enhanced 

college advising intervention 

on student outcomes and to 

what extent is the variation 

associated with other 

project features or 

characteristics of 

participating students? For 

example, do impacts vary 

between projects hosted by 

two-year institutions and 

projects hosted by four-year 

institutions? Are differences 

in the implementation of the 

enhanced college advising 

associated with differences 

in impacts? 

 Student survey data

 PD survey data

 National Student 

Clearinghouse data

 Federal Student 

Aid data

 NCES IPEDS data

 College Board and 

Act data

 Impact 

analysis / 

moderator 

analysis

 Sample: 4,000 

students in 

200 UB 

projects and 

200 UB project 

directors

 Number and type of 

college applications 

submitted

 Selectivity of colleges 

applied to

 Knowledge of college 

net costs

 Knowledge of financial 

aid options

 Completion of FASFA 

 Type of college 

enrolled in

 Selectivity of college 

enrolled in

A.1 Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

The study’s data collection and design will allow for a rigorous assessment of a promising practice 

within UB that focuses on program improvement, as required by The 2008 Higher Education 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-6

Opportunities Act (HEOA) (20 USC 1070A-18). It also builds on promising new research about college 

advising practices and on strong policy interest in addressing the issue of college undermatching and fit 

among low-income students.6 Finally, the demonstration and its research will test out a strategy geared 

towards improving college persistence, an outcome of great interest to both policymakers and UB

projects.

An accumulating set of studies indicates that, when applying to college, high-achieving low-income 

students often aim for less-selective institutions or “undermatch” (Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson, 

2009; Byndloss and Reid 2013; Roderick, Coca, and Nagaoka, 2011; Smith, Pender, and Howell, 2013). 

These students tend to select colleges that are less academically rigorous, have lower graduation rates, 

and have higher net costs to the student than more academically-rigorous institutions. The research 

indicates that some low-income students have limited access to information about college affordability, 

selectivity, and outcomes (Avery, 2013; Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson, 2009; Hoxby and Turner, 

2013).

Experimental and non-experimental evidence suggests promising college advising practices to address 

“match” or “fit” that can be incorporated into or adapted for Upward Bound (Avery, 2013; Carrell and 

Sacerdote, 2013; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, and Moeller, 2009; Sherwin, 2012, Hoxby and Turner, 2013, 

Byndloss and Reid 2013). These strategies include practical help on the logistics of applying to colleges 

(e.g. deadlines and plans), ways to expand students’ efforts to apply for financial aid, approaches to 

widen students’ aspirations and expectations about school quality, and accommodations for other 

important student considerations such as locality, programs of study, and campus attributes. 

A.2 Purposes and Use of the Information Collection

There are two phases to the information collection for this study. This first ICR requests approval for 

Phase I – Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters and Baseline Student Surveys. During 

Phase I volunteer projects will be randomly assigned to either receive the intervention beginning in 

spring 2015 or spring 2016, student rosters will be collected to identify student participants, and a 

baseline student survey will be administered. A later ICR will request clearance for Phase II – Collection 

of Follow-Up Survey, Project Director Survey, and Administrative Data. 

All information will be collected by the study team. A combination of administrative and survey data 

will be collected to examine the implementation and impacts of the Enhanced College Advising

demonstration (see summary in Exhibit A-2).

 

6

For example, the White House convened a group of university administrators in October 2013 to discuss the 

issue of and possible remedies for undermatching among high achieving, low-income students.
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-7

Exhibit A-2. Data Collection Plan

Schedule Data Purpose Respondent Mode

Phase I –Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters and Baseline Survey

Fall 2014 2014-15

Student 

Rosters

Identify student study sample of

high school juniors in 2014-15 in 

both treatment and control group 

projects

200 UB Project 

Directors in study

Electronic 

data or Paper

Winter 

2015

Baseline 

student 

surveys

Collect baseline student data

from study sample (2014-15 high 

school juniors) in both treatment 

and control group projects

4,000 students in 

study sample

Electronic 

data

Phase II – Collection of Follow-Up Survey, Project Director Survey, and Administrative Data

Spring 

2015

UB APR data Collect student identifiers for 

matching study sample to SAT 

and ACT data

None; extant data on 

4,000 students in study 

sample

Electronic 

data

Spring 

2015

SAT and ACT 

data

Collect SAT and ACT data on 

2014-15 high school juniors in all 

projects

None; extant data on 

4,000 students in study 

sample

Electronic 

data

Fall 2015 2015-2016 

Student 

Rosters

Identify 2015-16 high school 

juniors in control group projects

that will receive access to the 

intervention in 2015-16

100 UB Project 

Directors in study 

control group

Electronic 

data or Paper

Winter 

2016

Project 

Director 

Survey

Collect data on college advising 

in UB from project directors in 

both treatment and control group 

projects

200 UB Project 

Directors in study 

Electronic 

data

Spring 

2016

Follow-Up 

Student 

Survey

Collect follow-up data from study 

sample (2014-15 high school 

juniors who are now high school 

seniors)

4,000 students in 

study sample

Telephone 

and Web

Spring 

2016

SAT and ACT 

data

Collect SAT and ACT data on 

2015-16 high school juniors in 

control projects (note that these 

students are not in the study 

sample; they are the delayed 

treatment group and will not be 

included in the analyses)

None; extant data on 

2,000 students from 

delayed treatment 

group (i.e. 2015-16 high 

school juniors in control 

group projects; these 

students are not in the 

study sample)

Electronic 

data

Summer 

and Fall 

2016

Federal 

Student Aid 

data

Collect data on FASFA 

completion and financial aid 

receipt

None; extant data on 

4,000 students in 

study sample

Electronic 

data

Fall 2016 National 

Student 

Clearinghouse 

data

Obtain college enrollment data None; extant data on 

4,000 students in study 

sample

Electronic 

data

Fall 2018 National 

Student 

Clearinghouse 

data

Obtain college enrollment data None; extant data on 

4,000 students in study 

sample

Electronic 

data

A.2.1 Phase I Data

This ICR requests clearance for the collection, during Phase I, of student rosters and student baseline 

surveys.

Student Rosters. The study team will collect rosters of high school juniors participating at each of the 

approximately 200 UB projects from project directors in the fall of 2014. The students on these rosters 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-8

will define the evaluation sample for all analyses (Questions 1 and 3), which is estimated to include 

4,000 students. The roster data will also help in locating students and parents for the study’s data 

collection. The study team will request only directory information as designated under the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and its implementing regulations (20 U.S.C 1232g and 34 

CFR Part 99) such as the student’s name, email, home address, telephone number, date of birth, and 

parent name. 

To obtain student roster data during Phase I, the study team will rely on the UB project directors. In the 

fall of the 2014-15 school year, the study team will send an email requesting rosters to each project 

director that provides instructions on what is being requested and how to submit the rosters (see 

Appendix A). Next, the study team will reach out to each project director via a telephone call during the 

fall of the 2014-15 school year to follow-up on the request. Project directors will be asked to submit 

student rosters through a password protected secure file transfer portal (SFTP). The study team will hold 

two webinars for project directors to learn how to use the SFTP and why this method of roster 

submission is required to ensure student confidentiality protections.

Rosters must be collected in the fall of the 2014-15 school year to identify the sample for the baseline 

survey, which will be administered in early 2015. 

Student Baseline Survey. The baseline survey will serve multiple purposes. First, it will allow for a 

check of whether the treatment and control group are statistically similar prior to any treatment. Second, 

the data will provide key covariates to improve the precision of the impact estimates. Finally, some of 

the variables may help to form subgroups of students, to examine whether different types of students 

benefit differentially from the college advising strategy (see Appendix C).

The survey will be administered in early 2015 to all high school juniors in the treatment and control 

groups (approximately 4,000 students) before those in the treatment group are exposed to the 

intervention in the late spring of 2015. It will focus on characteristics that are likely correlated with 

college-related outcomes, such as students’ college-going expectations and plans, the number of colleges 

to which a student plans to apply; the name of the college a student is mostly likely to attend; and 

students’ understanding of financial aid options and college costs (see Appendix B). In developing the 

survey, the study team relied heavily on existing survey instruments that address topic areas relevant to 

the key outcomes of the study (see Appendix C).

The baseline survey will be administered in a web-based online format with the option for telephone 

administration, if requested. The study team will send students emails and letters to their home addresses 

with the survey’s URL and their individualized survey login information (see Appendix D). The email 

and letter will ask students to complete the brief 15 minute survey at a time most convenient for them.

Prior to fielding the student baseline survey, parents will receive an informational letter that describes the 

study and its data collection activities and provides instructions to follow (including contacting a tollfree phone number and email address) if parents do not wish their child to participate in the baseline or 

follow-up surveys (see Appendix E). Students in UB projects assigned to the treatment group whose 

parents opt them out of the student surveys will still be eligible to participate in all college advising 

activities. 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-9

A.2.2 Phase II Data

Subsequent phases of the evaluation will involve additional data sources, and a later ICR will request 

approval for these data collection activities. Where possible, the study will rely on existing data sources, 

and surveys will be used to gather information where extant data sources are not available. Phase II

includes the collection of: UB APR data, college entrance exam data, Federal Student Aid (FSA) data, 

National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) data, student rosters, student follow-up surveys, and project 

director surveys.

UB APR data. The study team will use the UB APR data, which include student identifiers such as first 

and last names, birthdates, and SSNs, in conjunction with student identifiers collected from the UB 

rosters to create a UB study participant data file with student names, birthdates and SSNs for matching to 

data from the College Board,the ACT, the FSA, and the NSC.

7 The UB APR data will be obtained from 

ED through a password protected SFTP. 

College Entrance Exam data. To customize the college profiles of the approximately 4,000 UB study 

participants, the study team will obtain PSAT, SAT, and ACT data from the College Board and the ACT. 

The UB study participant data file will be securely transferred to the College Board and the ACT through 

a password protected SFTP. The College Board and the ACT will then match the UB study participant 

data file to their database and send, through the SFTP, a new data file that includes UB participants and 

their PSAT, SAT, and ACT scores to Abt.

Federal Student Aid (FSA) data. These data will provide measures of key study outcomes including 

FAFSA completion and receipt of Federal student aid (such as Pell grants, Federal Work-Study, etc.). 

Additionally, household income, a key covariate in the impact analysis, will be collected from the FSA 

office. These data will be collected in 2016 for the full study sample (the 4,000 high school juniors from

the 2014-15 school year at participating UB projects). The FSA data will be obtained from ED through a 

password protected SFTP. 

National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) data. To measure two of the study’s key outcomes, initial and 

ongoing college enrollment, the study team will collect postsecondary enrollment data from the NSC for 

study students (i.e. UB students at participating projects who were juniors in the 2014-15 school year). 

The NSC data will include enrollment status and institution enrolled in. Their database covers 

institutions in all 50 states and both public and private institutions. The NSC provides student-level data 

on college enrollment and completion for 9,800 member institutions; together, these institutions 

represent 91 percent of enrollment in higher education in the U.S. Although the NSC has lower 

coverage of two-year than four-year institutions, fewer private than public institutions, and gaps in data 

in some states, no other national-level datasets contain individual student-level data on postsecondary 

enrollment and completion.

In fall 2016 and again in fall 2018, the UB study participant data file will be securely transferred to the 

NSC through a password protected SFTP.

8

 The NSC will then match the UB study participant data file 

 

7 Both ACT and the College Board are collaborators in the demonstration, and will have data sharing 

agreements with Abt that bind them to all of the confidentiality and privacy regulations that Abt must adhere to 

as an IES contractor.

8 Abt will enter into a data agreement with the NSC that binds them to all of the confidentiality and privacy 

regulations that Abt must adhere to as an IES contractor.
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-10

to their database and send, through the SFTP, a new data file that includes UB participants and college 

enrollment data to Abt.

Student Rosters. To identify the students eligible for access to the intervention in 2015-16 (nonexperimental group), the study team will collect rosters of high school juniors in the UB program at 

participating control group projects in the fall of 2015. The collection of the student rosters in fall 2015 

will follow similar procedures to those developed for the 2014 roster collection. 

Outcomes data will not be collected on high school juniors participating in UB at control projects in the 

2015-16 school year.

Project Director Survey. The survey will collect information about the features of college advising 

provided in participating UB projects to help estimate the difference in the experimental conditions faced 

by students in the two groups, and to provide data on important factors mediating potential intervention 

impacts. All 200 directors of UB projects in the study will be surveyed. Because students in both 

experimental conditions may be exposed to similar college advising topics, the survey will include items 

specifically developed to determine the differences between the college advising provided to students in 

control group projects and that provided to students in treatment group projects. The survey will not 

cover other UB service offerings because this information was recently collected under a separate 

contract led by DIR in partnership with Abt. That contract included a comprehensive survey of all UB 

projects (obtaining a 95 percent response rate) that covers the full range of required program offerings, 

and these data will be available to the study team for the purposes of the current study about enhance 

college advising. 

The study team will administer the project director survey via the web in the winter of 2016 to the 

approximately 200 UB project directors participating in the study. Additional details about the fielding 

procedures will be included in the Phase II ICR.

Follow-Up Student Survey. The follow-up survey will collect key student outcomes data. In the spring 

of 2016, near the end the senior year of students in the study sample (i.e. 4,000 high school juniors from 

2014-15), the study team will administer a web-based follow-up survey. This survey will capture 

features of the college advising that students received; students’ experiences with the college and 

financial aid application processes; the number and types of colleges to which students applied; reasons 

why they chose to apply to these colleges; the number of colleges to which they were admitted; the types 

and amount of financial aid offered; their college enrollment decision; reasons for choosing to enroll at 

the selected college; and their understanding of financial aid and college costs. The survey will be

fielded after April 15, 2016 because most undergraduate admissions decisions are communicated on or 

before this date annually. Additional details about the fielding procedures will be included in the Phase 

II ICR. 

A.3 Use of Information Technology and Burden Reduction

The data collection plan reflects sensitivity to issues of efficiency, accuracy, and respondent burden. 

 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-11

The study will use a combination of mechanical and electronic technology to collect data. For each data 

collection task, the study team has selected the form of technology that enables the collection of valid 

and reliable information in an efficient way while minimizing respondent burden. 

During Phase I – Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters and Baseline Surveys, the study 

team will collect student rosters from project directors and administer the baseline survey. To minimize 

burden during the collection of student rosters, the evaluator’s electronic mail address and toll-free 

telephone number will be included on the request for student rosters for project directors who have 

questions and project directors will be provided with an SFTP link to upload rosters with minimal effort 

and time. Taken together, these procedures are all designed to minimize the burden on project directors. 

The student baseline survey will be administered primarily online, allowing students to easily 

complete the survey at a time and place most convenient for them. Additionally, online administration 

can reduce time and human error associated with manual data entry because the data will be entered 

directly by respondents and loaded automatically into an electronic data file. However, follow-up phone 

calls will be made to nonresponders and during these calls telephone administration for the survey will 

be available.

A.4 Efforts to Identify Duplication

To date, there has been no rigorous study that addresses the congressional mandate to investigate one or 

more strategies that could improve the effectiveness of Upward Bound. 

To the extent possible, the study team will use existing data for the study rather than duplicate data 

collection efforts. For example, the study team will use data on how projects are implementing most UB

services from the 2013 Upward Bound Project Director survey (collected for a different study under 

OMB #1850-0899, NOA 7/16/13) instead of collecting these data again for this demonstration in 2015-

16. The study team will utilize all publically available data on high school characteristics and about UB

programming. The information collected in the student rosters, and in the student and project director

surveys is not available elsewhere. 

A.5 Efforts to Minimize Burden in Small Businesses

No small businesses will be involved as respondents. The primary entities for this study are UB projects. 

During Phase I, the study team will minimize burden by training data collection staff to make their 

contacts with UB project directors as straightforward and concise as possible. Student surveys will be 

administered via the web, minimizing the burden placed on UB project directors and students. All

notification mailings, conversations, and presentations are designed to be clear, brief, and informative. 

A.6 Consequences of Not Collecting the Information

The consequences of not collecting specific data in Phase I – Random Assignment and Collection of 

Student Rosters and Baseline Student Surveys include: 

 Without collecting the student rosters, the study team could not identify the survey sample or

define treatment and control groups, rendering it impossible to conduct the study.

 Without administering the baseline student survey, the study team could not complete the 

impact analyses.
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-12

 Without conducting the study, ED would not comply with the evaluation requirements set forth 

in the 2008 Higher Education Opportunities Act (HEOA) (20 USC 1070A-18).

A.7 Special Circumstances Justifying Inconsistencies with Guidelines in 5 

CFR 1320.6

There are no special circumstances concerning the collection of information in this study.

A.8 Consultation Outside the Agency

A.8.1 Federal Registrar Announcement

This draft is being posted for the purpose of seeking public comments.

A.8.2 Consultations Outside the Agency

Over the course of the study, the study team will assemble a Technical Working Group (in consultation 

with ED) composed of consultants with various types of expertise in the areas relevant to this study. 

During Phase I, the Technical Working Group will convene in the spring of 2014 to discuss the study

design, instrumentation, and data collection plans.

The intervention’s professional development and resources were developed in collaboration with the 

Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), the College Board, and ACT. Furthermore, COE, the 

association of Upward Bound grantees, was consulted about the study’s recruitment and outreach plans.

A.8.3 Unresolved Issues

There are no unresolved issues. 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-13

A.9 Payments or Gifts to Respondents

During Phase I—Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters and Baseline Student Surveys, 

there will be no payments. 

For Phase II – Collection of Follow-Up Survey, Project Director Survey, and Administrative Data, we 

propose to provide a modest incentive payment ($15 gift card) to each student participant after 

completions of the follow-up survey. An incentive payment is necessary for the follow-up student 

survey because this survey will collect key outcome data essential for the impact analysis. Incentives are 

appropriately used in Federal statistical surveys with respondents whose failure to participate would 

jeopardize the quality of the survey data (Graham, 2006).

To develop this strategy we reviewed the research literature on the problem of attrition in both panel and 

longitudinal surveys and the effectiveness of incentives. For example, Jäckle & Lynn (2008) considered 

the cumulative effects of conditional and unconditional incentives in a panel study of teenagers (aged 16-

17 years old during the first survey wave) in the UK. Unconditional incentives significantly reduced 

attrition in a multi-mode panel study, with no impact on attrition bias, regardless of mode or type of 

incentive. The results suggest that incentives are also effective in maintaining sample sizes in a panel 

study. Rodgers (2011) offered adult participants $20, $30, or $50 in one wave of a longitudinal study and 

found that offering the highest incentive of $50 showed the greatest improvement in response rates and 

also had a positive impact on response rates for the next four waves.

We have no plans to offer an incentive for completion of the project director survey since all projects 

will be receiving the professional development and tools and sign up for the demonstration required 

projects to agree to participate in the data collection components.

A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality

The study team will conduct all activities in in Phases I and II accordance with all relevant regulations 

and requirements. These include the Education Sciences Institute Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, 

Section 183, that requires “[all] collection, maintenance, use, and wide dissemination of data by the 

Institute ... to conform with the requirements of section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, the 

confidentiality standards of subsections (c) of this section, and sections 444 and 445 of the General 

Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232 g, 1232h).” These citations refer to the Privacy Act, the 

Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.

In addition, all data collected for the study shall remain confidential in accordance with Section 552a of 

Title 5, United States Code, the confidentiality standards subsection (c) and sections 444 and 445 of the 

General Educations Provision Act. Subsection (c) of Section 183, referenced above, requires the director 

of IES to “develop and enforce standards designed to protect the confidentiality of persons in the 

collection, reporting, and publication of data.” The study will also adhere to requirements of subsection 

(d) of Section 183 prohibiting disclosure of individually identifiable information as well as making the 

publishing or inappropriate communication of individually identifiable information by employees or 

staff a felony. All collaborator and partner organizations that the study team will be sharing personally 

identifiable information will be required under data sharing agreements to abide by all of these statutes 

as well.

In addition, the following verbatim language will appear on all letters, fact sheets, and other 

study materials:
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-14

Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 

2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183, responses to this data collection will be used only for 

statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across 

the sample and will not associate responses with a specific program, district or 

individual. Any willful disclosure of such information for nonstatistical purposes, except 

as required by law, is a class E felony.

Data will be presented in aggregate statistical form only. All study staff involved in collecting, 

reviewing, or analyzing individual-level data will be knowledgeable about data security procedures and 

will sign nondisclosure agreements. Respondents will be assured that all information identifying them 

will be kept private to the extent allowed by law. The confidentiality procedures adopted for this study 

during all rounds of data collection, data processing, and analysis consist of the following:

 All paper files will be converted to an electronic format and the paper files will be shredded 

immediately after they have been converted. 

 Electronic data files with sensitive data will be removed from computers and working servers in 

a manner that ensures that the information cannot be recovered. 

 At end of contract with the ED, the study team will destroy all student identifiers but will retain 

de-identified student data. 

 All electronic copies of de-identified student data will be destroyed within three years of the 

final contract payment from ED, unless otherwise directed by ED at the request of the study 

team or by ED’s request.

A.11 Questions of a Sensitive Nature

There are no questions of a sensitive nature included in the information requested as part of Phase I –

Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters and Baseline Student Survey. 

A.12 Estimate of Response Burden

The total respondent burden for the data collection effort covered by this Phase I clearance request is 

1,400 hours, for a total estimated cost to respondents of $10,268.00. Exhibit A-3 presents time estimates 

of respondent burden for the data collection activities requested for approval in this submission. The 

burden estimates are based on the following assumptions:

 One project director is expected at each of the anticipated 200 UB projects. It is assumed that 

collecting and submitting the UB student rosters for the 11th grade cohort will take 

approximately two hours per project.

 The total cost to project directors to collect student rosters is $10,268.00, based on an hourly 

wage of $25.67 in 2010-11 for School and Career Counselors.9

 

9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, 

accessed online at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-service/school-and-career-counselors.htm 

(October 12, 2012).
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-15

 Twenty UB student participants are expected at each of the anticipated 200 UB projects. It is 

assumed that accessing, completing and submitting the baseline student survey will take each 

student take approximately 15 minutes.

Exhibit A-3. Estimate of Respondent Burden for Phase I

Informant/Data Collection Activity #

of Resp

ondents

#

of Resp

onses

H

ours/ Resp

onse

T

otal Burden H

ours/

resp

ondent

T

otal Burden

H

ours

C

ost per Resp

ondent

(hourly

wage)

T

otal C

osts per

Resp

ondent

T

otal C

osts

UB Project Coordinators

Collect and Submit Student Rosters 200 1 2.0 2.0 400 $25.67 $51.34 $10,268

Students

Baseline Survey 4,000 1 0.25 0.25 1,000 NA NA NA

Total 4,200 1,400 $10,268

A.13 Estimate of Total Capital and Startup Costs/Operation and Maintenance 

Costs to Respondents or Record-Keepers

There are no annualized capital/startup or ongoing operation and maintenance costs involved in random 

assignment or the collection of student rosters or administration of the student baseline surveys. 

A.14 Estimates of Costs to the Federal Government

The total estimated cost to the federal government of the data collection activities for the study as 

described above (Phases I and II) is $1,573,989. The estimated cost to the federal government of the data 

collection activities for Phase I is $580,210 and the estimated cost to the federal government of the data 

collection activities for Phase II is $993,779. The data collection activities will be carried out over five

years, Fall 2014 to Fall 2018. Thus, the average annual cost to the federal government is $314,798.

A.15 Changes in Burden

This is a request for a new collection of information.

A.16 Plans for Analysis, Publication and Schedule

A.16.1 Analysis Plans

Impact and descriptive analyses will be conducted to answer the study research questions, as described 

here. Part B of this Supporting Statement provides additional detail on these analyses.

1. To what extent do the professional development package and tools have an effect— above and 

beyond the services Upward Bound grantees already provide—on student outcomes?
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-16

To examine the impacts of the intervention (Question 1), the study will exploit the experimental design 

to estimate Intent-to-Treat (ITT) effects of the intervention relative to the control condition. These 

impact effects will be estimated for each of the outcomes (i.e., the number and types of colleges students 

apply to; the selectivity of the college in which students enroll; financial aid obtained; college costs 

borne by students and their families; and overall enrollment in postsecondary education). We will test 

whether each of the impacts is statistically significant to determine if there is convincing scientific 

evidence that the intervention caused improvements in student outcomes. 

In conducting the analysis, the study team will estimate two-level regression models, with students 

(level-1) nested within Upward Bound projects (level-2), to account for clustering.10 The student level

will control for student demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, English language learner status) 

as well as aspects of students’ educational plans collected from the baseline student survey (e.g., whether 

the student’s first planned postsecondary degree is a two- or four-year degree), and whether or not the 

student is the first in the family to attend college. The project level will include the treatment indicator, 

to distinguish between treatment and control projects, indicators for any stratifying variables used in 

random assignment, and we will control for baseline characteristics of the high schools attended by 

students in the project, including, for example, the percentage of seniors applying for federal financial 

aid, average school achievement and the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. 

Hierarchical Linear Model

The following hierarchical linear model will be used to estimate program impacts on continuous 

outcome variables.

The Level-1 (student level) model is:

(1)  =  +  −  + ∑ 



  () −

   + ∑ 





(() −  )+ 

for i=(1,2,...n) students per project and j=(1,2,..,P) UB projects.

Where,  is the value of the outcome (e.g., number of college applications submitted) for the i

th student 

in the j

th UB project;  −  is 1 if the ith student in the jth UB project student is 

the first in the family to attend college and 0 otherwise centered at the grand mean; 

 () −    are E covariates representing 

educational plans for i

th student in the jth UB project (e.g. whether the student’s first planned 

postsecondary degree is a two- or four-year degree) centered at the grand mean;  are K 

additional covariates representing demographic characteristics of the i

th student in the jth UB project 

(e.g., race/ethnicity, English language learner status) each centered at the grand mean; is the 

covariate-adjusted mean value of the outcome for control students in the jth UB project;  through 

 

10 Since each Upward Bound project serves several target schools, it is reasonable to ask whether it might be more 

appropriate to estimate a three-level model of schools nested with projects and students nested within 

schools. However, Schochet (2008) shows that in this context, it is only necessary to capture variation across 

schools if the study selects a sample of target schools from each project. Because the study sample will 

include all target schools for each randomized project, adding a school-level to the model is unnecessary. 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-17

 are regression coefficients indicating the effects of each student-level covariate on the outcome 

variable ; and  is the random effect representing the difference between student ij’s score and the 

predicted mean score for project j. 

The Level-2 (UB project-level) model is:

(2)  =  +  +∑ (h14_15



 − h 14_

15)+ 

Where,  is the covariate-adjusted mean value of the outcome measure across control UB projects; 

is the treatment effect i.e. the difference between the covariate-adjusted means of the treatment and 

control projects; Treatmentj is the treatment status dummy variable with a value of 1 if the jth project is 

assigned to the treatment group and 0 if assigned to the control group; h14_15is a vector of k

variables measuring the characteristics of the j

th project in school year 2014-15 prior to random 

assignment (e.g. the percentage of seniors applying for federal financial aid, the percentage of students 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) each centered at the grand mean;  is the deviation of UB 

project j’s mean from the grand mean, conditional on covariates

The parameter  indicates the impact of the demonstration on the outcome. A two-tailed t-test will be 

conducted to test the null hypothesis of no treatment impact using an alpha level criterion of 0.05. A 

positive and statistically significant estimate of  will indicate that there is compelling scientific 

evidence (at the 5 percent level) that the demonstration had an impact on the targeted outcome. The 

parameter  indicates the magnitude of the impact -- such that the enhanced college advising in UB 

projects is estimated to have, on average, a  point effect on the specified outcome.

A standardized effect size will be calculated by dividing the estimated impact () by the standard 

deviation of the outcome variable,, in the control group (). The standardized effect size is



 . 

The control group standard deviation will be used, as recommended by Burghardt, Deke, Kisker, Puma, 

and Schochet (2009), rather than the pooled standard deviation, because the intervention might affect the 

standard deviation in the treatment group. 

2. How fully was the intervention implemented (e.g., in terms of staff participation in training 

and staff implementation of the intervention model)? And to what extent did the intervention 

produce a difference in the Upward Bound college advising provided to treatment and control 

group students?

Descriptive analyses will be used to provide information on implementation and the fidelity of 

implementation (Question 2). Information on the overall level of and variation in implementation fidelity 

will provide important contextual information for interpreting the impact findings. Our proposed 

implementation analysis will cover: (1) the professional development received by UB staff; (2) the 

nature of the college advising that is offered to participants, (3) the extent to which participants receive 

college advising from Upward Bound, (4) the alignment between UB’s college advising and the college 

advising that projects in the treatment group were expected to provide, and (5) the difference between 

the college advising received by students in the treatment group and students in the control group. 

To capture services offered, we will use program director surveys to obtain information on treatment 

projects’ rollout of the intervention compared to control group members’ reports of college advising

activities provided. To collect data on the services students receive, especially those related to college 

and financial aid planning and applications, we plan to rely on the student follow-up survey. However, 
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-18

we recognize the limitations of these data; student self-reports may suffer from recall error and potential 

response biases (e.g., successful students tend to over-attribute their success to mentors and tutors and 

tend to rate the quality of those services more highly than students who are not as successful). 

To characterize the difference between the college advising received by students in the treatment group 

and students in the control group (i.e., the treatment-control contrast), we will conduct an impact analysis 

using the same methods described earlier in this section. The magnitude of the treatment’ impact on 

college advising services will be used to characterize the treatment-control contrast.

3. Is there variation in the impacts of the enhanced college advising intervention on student 

outcomes and to what extent is the variation associated with other project features or 

characteristics of participating students? For example, do impacts vary between projects 

hosted by two-year institutions and projects hosted by four-year institutions? Are 

differences in the implementation of the enhanced college advising associated with differences 

in impacts? 

An important goal of the study is to identify implementation features or other factors that may influence 

the impacts of the intervention. To address Question 3 (i.e., variation in impacts), we propose to augment 

our analysis model with interaction terms and test whether there are statistically significant correlational 

relationships between the impacts of the intervention and the way in which it was implemented and other 

site-level characteristics. For example, to test for variation between projects hosted by two-year 

institutions and projects hosted by four-year institutions in the program impact, the study team will 

include an interaction between the treatment indicator and an indicator for whether the project is hosted 

by a four year institution in Equation 2, as follows:

(3)  =

 +  + 4 + 4 ∗  +

∑ (h14_15



 −  h 14−15)+ 

Where,  is the covariate-adjusted mean value of the outcome measure (or log-odds of the outcome 

occurring) among control projects hosted by two-year institutions;  is the mean difference in the 

covariate-adjusted outcome between treatment and control projects (i.e., the treatment impact);

Treatmentj is the treatment status dummy variable with a value of 1 if the jth project is assigned to the 

treatment group and 0 if assigned to the control group;  is the difference between projects hosted by 

four-year institutions and projects hosted by two-year institutions in the covariate-adjusted mean value 

(or log-odds) of the outcome among control projects; 4is a host type indicator variable 

with a value of 1 if the jth project is hosted by a four-year institution and 0 if hosted by a two-year 

institution;  is the difference in the treatment impact between projects hosted by four-year institutions 

and projects hosted by two-year institutions; 4*Trtjis the host type by treatment 

condition interaction term; and h14_15is a vector of k variables measuring the characteristics 

of the jth project in school year 2014-15 prior to random assignment (e.g. the percentage of seniors 

applying for federal financial aid, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) 

each centered at the grand mean.

Using a .05 level criterion, the study team will conduct a test of the null hypothesis that the parameter for 

the interaction term is zero, i.e., that there is no statistically significant difference in the program impact 

for the type of host institution. The null hypothesis is expressed as follows:
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-19

: 03 = 0

Because project characteristics cannot be randomly assigned the study team will interpret a statistically 

significant difference as suggestive evidence that the program impact varies by type of host institution. If 

the study team finds a statistically significant difference in program impacts, the study team will then test 

whether the program impact within type of host institution or subgroup is statistically significant. 

Standardized effect sizes will be calculated as described above.

A.16.2 Timeline and Publication plans

Timeline

The study is expected to be conducted across seven years, assuming ED exercises the option for longerterm data collection. Exhibit A-4 (below) displays the full study timeline. Phase I data collection 

activities will occur in the first half of study year 2; the collection of student rosters will occur in the fall 

of 2014, the administration of the baseline survey will take place in the winter of 2015 and random 

assignment will occur, after administration of the baseline survey, in late winter of 2015. All additional 

data collection efforts, which are part of Phase II and are outside of the purview of this ICR package 

will, take place no earlier than the spring of 2015. 

Exhibit A-4 Study Timeline

Activity Date

Study Year 1 (Phase I)

Design Surveys October 2013- March 2014

UB projects volunteer to participate February-May 2014

Pilot Baseline Survey April 2014

Convene Technical Working Group April-May 2014

Pilot Follow-Up and PD Surveys July 2014

Study Year 2 (Phases I and II)

Collection of Student Rosters November-December 2014

Notify UB Parents December 2014 – January 2015

Administer Baseline Survey January-March 2015

Random Assignment of UB Projects into Wave 1*or Wave 2† March 2015

Collection of SAT and ACT Data Spring 2015

Professional Development for Wave 1 Projects Spring-Fall 2015

Enhanced College Advising Wave1 Projects Summer-Fall 2015

Study Year 3 (Phase II)

Collection of Rosters of Wave 2 Juniors November-December 2015

Administer Project Director Survey January-March 2016

Collection of SAT and ACT Data for Wave 2 Juniors Spring 2016

Administer Follow-Up Survey Spring 2016

Professional Development for Wave 2 Project Directors Summer-Fall 2016

Collection of FSA Data June 2016

Study Year 4 (Phase II)

Expanded College Advising for Wave 2 Juniors Fall 2016
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-20

Activity Date

Collection of NSC Data November 2016

Collection of Updated FSA Data November 2016

Release of Report #1 Spring 2017

Study Year 5 (Phase II)

Release of Report #2 Winter 2018

Submission of Data File with Documentation Winter 2018

Study Year 6 (Phase II)

Collection of NSC Data November 2018

Study Year 7 (Phase II)

Release of Report #3 Winter 2020

*Wave 1 (spring/summer/fall 2015): receive PD in spring 2015, customized college profiles provided to juniors in summer 2015 and expanded 

college advising strategies implemented in summer and fall 2015.

†Wave 2 (spring/summer/fall 2016): receive PD in summer 2016, customized college profiles provided to juniors in summer 2016 and expanded 

college advising implemented in summer and fall 2016. Wave 2 projects will have student outcomes data (i.e. surveys, NSC, or FSA data) 

collected on their 2014-15 juniors but will implement expanded college advising strategies with their 2015-2016 juniors.

Publication plans

The evaluation plans call for three reports, including the option period. The first, published in May 2017, 

will be based on data collected through June 2016 (from both the Phase I and II ICRs) and will focus on 

the outcomes measure prior to high school graduation such as of college matriculation plans and 

students’ understanding of financial aid and college costs. The second report will be available in March 

2018 and will include results regarding actual post-secondary enrollment, the selectivity of colleges 

where students’ enrolled, and students’ use of Federal financial aid. The third report will be available in 

March 2020 and will include results regarding college persistence.

A.17 Approval to Not Display Expiration Date

No exemption is requested. The data collection instruments will display the expiration date. 

A.18 Exceptions to Item 19 of OMB Form 83-1

The submission describing data collection requires no exemptions to the Certificate for Paperwork 

Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.9).
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-21

References

Avery, C. (2013). Evaluation of the College Possible Program: Results from a Randomized Controlled 

Trial. (Working Paper 19562). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research: 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19562

Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M.M., & McPherson, M.S. 2009. Crossing the Finish Line: Completing 

College at America’s Public Universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Burghardt, J., Deke, J., Kisker, E., Puma, M., & Schochet, P. (2009). Regional educational laboratory 

rigorous applied research studies: Frequently asked analysis questions. Institute of Education 

U.S. Department of Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematics Policy Research.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 

2012-13 Edition. Accessed online at: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-socialservice/school-and-career-counselors.htm (accessed November 15, 2013).

Byndloss, C. D. & Reid, C. (2013). “Promoting College Match for Low-Income Students: Lessons for 

Practitioners.” MDRC Policy Brief, September 2013. Available at: 

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/college_match_brief.pdf (accessed November 15, 2013).

Carrell, S. E. & Sacerdote, B. (2013). Late Interventions Matter Too: The Case of College Coaching in 

New Hampshire. Working Paper 19031). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research: 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19031.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99.3.

Graham, J. D. (2006). Questions and Answers When Designing Surveys for Information Collections. 

Washington, D.C., Office of Management and Budget.

Hoxby, C. & Turner, S. (2013). Expanding College Opportunities for High-Achieving, Low Income 

Students. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 12-014.

Jäckle, A. & Lynn, P. (2008). Respondent Incentives in a Multi-Mode Panel Survey: Cumulative Effects 

on Nonresponse and Bias. Survey Methodology, 34(1), 105-117.

Rodgers, W. 2011. Effects of Increasing the Incentive Size in a Longitudinal Study. Journal of Official 

Statistics 27 (2): 279-299.

Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Coca, V., & Moeller, E. (2009). From High School to the Future: Making 

Hard Work Pay Off. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Roderick, M., Coca, V., & Nagaoka, J. (2011). "Potholes on the Road to College: High School Effects in 

Shaping Urban Students’ Participation in College Application, Four-year College Enrollment, and 

College Match." Sociology of Education 84(3): 178-211.

Schochet, P. Z. (2008). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs. 

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(1), 62-87.
Revised OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part A: Justification ▌pg. A-22

Seftor, N. S., Mamun, A. & Schirm, A. (2009). “The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound on 

Postsecondary Outcomes 7-9 Years After Scheduled High School Graduation.” Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. Available at: http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/pdfs/upwardboundoutcomes.pdf

Sherwin, J. (2012). “Make Me a Match: Helping Low-Income and First-Generation Students Make Good 

College Choices.” MDRC Policy Brief, April 2012. Available at:

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/policybrief_24.pdf

Smith, J. (2011). “Can Applying to More Colleges Increase Enrollment Rates?” The College Board. 

Available at: 

http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/11b_4313_College%20App%20Research%20Bri

ef_WEB_111026.pdf

Smith, J., Pender, M., & Howell, J. (2013). The full extent of student-college academic undermatch. 

Economics of Education Review, 32(0), 247-261.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Annual Performance Report:

Upward Bound Program Awards FY2012. Available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubgrantees2012.xls