A Profile of the

Educational

Opportunity 

Centers Program:

1999-2000

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

2002

A Profile of the 

Educational

Opportunity 

Centers Program: 

1999-2000

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

By Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Justin G. Humphrey

Nancy L. Carey

2002
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract 

No. 1-36U-6742 (031). The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No

official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should 

be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Postsecondary Education

Sally L. Stroup

Assistant Secretary

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

Larry Oxendine

Acting Director

September 2002

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

is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation

should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 

A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000, Washington,

D.C., 2002.

To obtain additional copies of this report:

write to: Office of Federal TRIO Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K

Street, NW, Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20006-8510

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

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

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

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/eoc.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large

print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the

Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
CONTENTS

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

HIGHLIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

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

A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. Performance report response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

C. Comparison of response rates: 1998-99 and 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . 4

D. Structure of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A. Number of participants assisted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

B. Participant distribution by eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

C. Participant distribution by racial and ethnic background . . . . . . . . . 8

D. Participant distribution by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

E. Participant distribution by age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

F. Participant distribution by grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

G. Veterans served. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

H. Participants of limited English proficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

I. Target schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

J. Comparison of select demographic data: 1998-99 and 1999-2000 . . 14

III. PROJECT SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A. Academic support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Adult participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2. High school participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

B. Personal and career development services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1. Adult participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2. High school participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

C. Comparison of service provisions: 1998-99 and 1999-2000 . . . . . . . 23

IV. PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A. Admissions and financial aid assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B. Postsecondary admission and reentry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

C. Postsecondary placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

D. Secondary school retention, graduation, and reentry . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

E. Comparison of performance outcomes: 1998-99 and 1999-2000 . . . 29

V. DATA ISSUES AND FUTURE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

APPENDIX A: TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES

1. TRIO funding, number of grants, number served, average grant award,

amount per person served, and average number served: 2000-2001 . . . . 2

2. TRIO funding levels in constant 2000 dollars (millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. Number of EOC projects and participants reporting performance

information, by type of host institution: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4. Number of EOC projects and participants and percentage reporting

performance information, by federal region: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5. Participant distribution by eligibility status and type of 

host institution: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6. Participant distribution by racial and ethnic background and type of 

host institution: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7. Participant distribution by age and type of host institution: 1999-2000 . 10

8. Participant distribution by grade level and type of host institution: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

9. Percentage of projects offering services to participants, by grade level: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

10. Comparison of percentage of projects offering different types of 

services to participants: 1998-99 and 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

11. Percentage of projects offering multiple services to participants, 

by grade level: 1999-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

12. Percentage of all participants receiving academic support services, 

average number of sessions per project, and average number of sessions 

per participant: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

13. Average number of sessions per project providing service and average 

number of sessions per participant for adult participants: 1999-2000. . . 19

14. Average number of sessions per project providing services and 

average number of sessions per participant for high school 

participants: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

15. Percentage of all participants receiving personal and career development

services: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

16. Comparison of percentage of participants receiving services: 1998-99 

and 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

17. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for 

assistance in applying for postsecondary admissions and financial aid: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

18. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for

postsecondary admissions and postsecondary reentry: 1999-2000 . . . . . 27

19. Distribution of postsecondary placement of participants by sector: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
20. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements 

for secondary school outcomes: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

21. Comparison of performance outcomes: 1998-99 and 1999-2000 . . . . . . 30

22. Section/item response rates: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

APPENDIX TABLES

A1. Number of EOC projects and participants and percentage reporting

performance information, by federal region: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

A2. Participant distribution by eligibility status and federal region: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

A3. Participant distribution by ethnic background and federal region: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

A4. Participant distribution by grade level and federal region: 1999-2000 . . 34

FIGURES

1. Performance report response rates by region: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Participant distribution by type of host institution: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . 5

3. Participant distribution by status and type of host institution: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4. Participant distribution by eligibility: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. Participant distribution by racial and ethnic background: 1999-2000. . . 8

6. Participant distribution by gender and type of host institution: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7. Participant distribution by age: 1999-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

8. Participant distribution by grade level: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

9. Number of target schools per EOC project reporting 

target schools, by type of host institution, 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

10. Percentage of adult participants receiving academic support services: 

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

11. Percentage of high school participants receiving academic support 

services: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

12. Percentage of adult participants receiving personal and career 

development services: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

13. Percentage of high school participants receiving personal and career

development services: 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

14. Postsecondary placement of participants for EOC overall: 1999-2000. . 28
FOREWORD

To help ensure the full success of President Bush’s education initiative, “No Child

Left Behind,” high-quality postsecondary educational opportunities must be available

to all students. In keeping with this goal, the Federal TRIO Programs provide outreach and support to help low-income, first-generation college students progress

through the academic pipeline from middle school to postbaccalaureate programs.

On behalf of the Office of Federal TRIO Programs, I am pleased to present this

report, A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000. The goal

of this TRIO Program is to increase the number of adults who enroll in postsecondary educational institutions.

This report is the second in a series of reports that present a national profile of the

Educational Opportunity Centers, or EOC Program. Individual project reports,

under separate cover, summarize specific information submitted by each EOC project and provide aggregate information on other EOC projects in the same institutional sector and the nation. The 1999-2000 performance report, submitted by the

EOC projects, was the primary data source for both the national profile and individual project reports.

The Office of Federal TRIO Programs is proud to share with you national statistical

information on the EOC Program. It is our hope that the collection and dissemination of this information will foster communication aimed at assessing our mission and

implementing measures to see how well we are doing. We look forward to continuing to work together to improve program services and postsecondary enrollment

rates for economically disadvantaged adults.

Larry Oxendine

Acting Director

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Publishing this report was a team effort and we appreciate the support of all who contributed. First, we thank the project staff members of the Educational Opportunity

Centers who reported the data upon which the report is based. Computer Business

Methods Inc. processed the data files. The Office of Federal TRIO Programs sponsored the report and Frances Bergeron of the Office of Federal TRIO Programs

coordinated the reporting process. Mary Fran Miklitsch deserves special mention for

designing and preparing the report for publication.

vii

HIGHLIGHTS

This report provides a comprehensive profile of the EOC Program using the 1999-

2000 performance report data. Complete performance reports were submitted by 81

of 82 projects (99 percent), serving a total of 167,128 participants. This report is

intended to serve as a resource for the improvement of EOC services.

Below are highlights from the following sections of the report: demographics of project participants, services and activities, and performance outcomes.

Demographics of Project Participants

• Projects hosted by community organizations served 39 percent of all EOC participants; 4-year institutions, 37 percent; and 2-year colleges, 25 percent.

• Eight of 10 EOC participants (80 percent) were new to the program, with 

20 percent continuing from a previous year.

• Seventy-three percent of participants met both the low-income and first-generation college eligibility requirements. Twelve percent were first-generation

only and 10 percent were low-income only. The remaining 5 percent were

other classifications.

• Forty percent of participants were white, 38 percent were black or African

American, 14 percent were Hispanic or Latino, and 9 percent were of other

races or ethnic groups.

• More than six of 10 EOC participants (64 percent) were female.

• Forty-two percent of participants were ages 28 and older; 41 percent, 19 to 

27 years old; and 16 percent, 14 to 18 years old.

• The largest percentage of participants (39 percent) were high school (or GED)

graduates. Twenty-three percent were postsecondary students, 26 percent were

postsecondary or secondary school dropouts (12 percent and 14 percent,

respectively), and the remaining 12 percent were secondary school students.

Services and Activities

• Every EOC host organization offered counseling services to its EOC participants. Other common services included academic advising (99 percent), referrals to other organizations (90 percent), and college orientation (81 percent).

• Eighty-three percent of all participants, including 100 percent of all adult participants, received counseling services.

• Of the remaining services, 59 percent of all EOC participants received academic advising; 33 percent, college orientation services; and 31 percent, referrals to other organizations.

ix
Performance Outcomes

• EOC projects assisted 77 percent of college-ready participants in applying for

postsecondary admissions and 83 percent in applying for financial aid.

• Fifty-seven percent of college-ready participants were admitted to a postsecondary institution, and 56 percent of participants who had dropped out of

college reenrolled.

• Among those participants admitted to a postsecondary institution, 54 percent

were admitted to a public 2-year college, 24 percent to a public 4-year college,

14 percent to a public or nonprofit vocational or technical school, and the

remaining 8 percent to another type of educational institution.

x
I. INTRODUCTION

This report is the second in a series addressing the Educational Opportunity Centers

(EOC) projects. The report is presented in two documents. The first piece, the

national report, provides feedback from EOC projects on the status of EOC performance reporting and gives the overall results from all projects reporting. A second,

companion document provides individualized reports, which summarize data from

each project.

The purpose of the reports is to share feedback and other information from the performance reports that EOC projects prepare each year. It is our hope that EOC projects can use the shared information to plan and improve their own services, which will

increase educational opportunities for economically-disadvantaged adults.

In both the national and individual project reports, we look at the data by type of host

institution—4-year and 2-year postsecondary institutions and community organizations. We also present the reporting response rates by federal region.

Although EOC and Talent Search projects have a similar performance report form,

these programs have different missions, participant characteristics, and services. To

gather and present performance report information more fully for each of these programs, we have prepared separate but similar reports for both the EOC and Talent

Search projects.

A. Background

In 1972, EOC became the fourth of the TRIO Programs. EOCs provide counseling

and information on college admissions to qualified adults who want to enter or continue a program of postsecondary education. EOCs coordinate with nearby postsecondary institutions and engage in activities designed to involve and acquaint the

local community with higher education. Participants must reside in the target area

served by the EOC and be age 19 or older. However, if there is not a Talent Search

project in the surrounding region, participants may be younger than 19.

In 1998-99 (FY 1998) new grant awards were made, increasing the number of EOC

projects from 74 to 82. EOC projects are operated by 2- or 4-year colleges and universities, public or private nonprofit agencies or organizations, or a combination of

these sponsors. In each project, at least two-thirds of the participants must be both

low-income and potential first-generation college students. Services provided by

EOC projects include academic advice, personal counseling, career workshops, information on postsecondary educational opportunities, information on student financial

assistance, assistance in completing applications for college admission, testing and

financial aid, coordination with nearby postsecondary institutions, and media activities designed to involve and acquaint the community with higher education opportunities, tutoring, and mentoring.

1
It is helpful to place EOC in the context of the other direct service TRIO Programs—

Upward Bound (UB), Upward Bound Math Science (UBMS), Talent Search (TS),

Student Support Services (SSS), and Ronald E. McNair Baccalaureate Achievement

Program (McNair). Table 1 gives the funding information and participant numbers

for each of the direct service TRIO Programs in 2000-2001 (FY 2000). As shown, the

82 EOC projects serve more than 160,000 people each year at an average cost per

person of $190 in 2000-2001.

Table 2 gives TRIO funding levels in constant 2000 dollars. One can see from this

table that funding for EOC has increased more than threefold in constant dollars

since the program’s inception.

2 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 1. TRIO funding, number of grants, number served, average grant award, 

amount per person served, and average number served: 2000-2001

Amount Average

Program Number Number Average per person number

TRIO Program funding of grants served award served served

Educational Opportunity Centers $30,505,000 82 160,836 $372,012 $190 1,961

Talent Search $100,545,000 360 320,854 $279,292 $313 891

McNair $34,859,000 156 3,774 $223,455 $9,237 24

Student Support Services $183,300,000 795 176,614 $230,566 $1,038 222

Upward Bound $241,941,000 772 56,564 $313,395 $4,277 73

Upward Bound Math Science $30,074,000 123 6,093 $244,504 $4,936 50

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, 2001.

Table 2. TRIO funding levels in constant 2000 dollars (millions)

Year EOC TS UB SSS McNair UBMS

1967 — $9.5 $123.2 — — —

1970 — 16.7 124.2 $41.7 — —

1975 $9.2 18.4 117.5 70.6 — —

1980 13.2 32.0 127.6 115.1 — —

1985 13.0 28.5 113.4 107.2 — —

1990 15.4 34.5 121.2 114.1 $2.0 $2.5

1995 26.4 84.1 204.3 153.9 20.5 20.4

2000 30.5 100.5 241.9 183.3 34.9 30.1

SOURCE: Calculated from information provided by U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs,

and the Consumer Price Index.
B. Performance report response

This report covers the 1999-2000 reporting period. This was the second year that

EOC projects used the new performance report form approved by the Office of

Management and Budget in 1998. For 1999-2000, aggregate performance reports

covering Sections I-V on the performance report form were submitted by 99 percent

of the projects in operation at the time (Table 3). These reports covered 167,128 participants in the reference year.

Figure 1 and Table 4 give the percentage of projects reported by region. Nine of ten

regions had 100 percent response rates. One project did not complete the annual performance report in Region VI.

I. Introduction 3

Table 3. Number of EOC projects and participants reporting performance information,

by type of host institution: 1999-2000

Total Percentage Project Number of

projects of total EOC response participants Percentage

Sector in 1999 projects rate reported distribution

4-year 40 49% 100% 61,018 37%

2-year 23 28% 96% 41,079 25%

Community organizations 19 23% 100% 65,031 39%

All projects 82 100% 99% 167,128 100%

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Figure 1. Performance report response rates, by region: 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

Region X - 100% Region VIII - 100%

Region VII - 100%

Region V - 100%

Region IX - 100%

Region VI - 94%

Region IV - 100%

Region II - 100%

Region III - 100%

Region I - 100%
C. Comparison of response rates: 1998-99 and 1999-2000

All but one EOC project (99 percent) submitted performance reports using the new

OMB approved form for the 1999-2000 project year. For 1998-99, four EOC projects did not submit performance reports (95 percent). Complete demographic data

were provided on 152,344 participants in 1998-99 and 167,128 in 1999-2000.

D. Structure of the report

The rest of this report is organized according to the structure of the performance

report. Chapter II presents a demographic profile of EOC participants and target

schools. Chapter III discusses the provision of project services. Chapter IV provides

an analysis of performance outcomes, and Chapter V discusses data issues as well as

plans for the future.

4 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 4. Number of EOC projects and participants and percentage reporting

performance information, by federal region: 1999-2000

Total Number Number

projects Project of of projects Response

Federal region in 1999 distribution participants reporting rate

Region I (Boston) 5 6% 19,895 5 100%

Region II (New York) 2 2% 3,894 2 100%

Region III (Philadelphia) 10 12% 17,743 10 100%

Region IV (Atlanta) 17 21% 40,541 17 100%

Region V (Chicago) 11 13% 17,665 11 100%

Region VI (Dallas) 17 21% 25,377 16 94%

Region VII (Kansas City) 6 7% 14,458 6 100%

Region VIII (Denver) 6 7% 13,565 6 100%

Region IX (San Francisco) 5 6% 8,807 5 100%

Region X (Seattle) 3 4% 5,183 3 100%

Total for nation 82 100% 167,128 81 99%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

This section summarizes the demographic information that was reported on the

1999-2000 EOC performance reports. Statistics are given for EOC projects as a

whole, as well as projects grouped by type of host institution, defined as 4-year 

colleges and universities, 2-year colleges, and community organizations.

A. Number of participants assisted

Eighty-one of the 82 EOC projects operating during the 1999-2000 reporting year

provided valid demographic data. The 81 projects served a total of 167,128 participants, averaging 2,063 participants per project. The smallest of the projects served

about 500 participants and the largest served more than 8,000. As Figure 2 shows, 

39 percent of participants were served by projects based in community organizations,

25 percent were served by projects at 2-year institutions, and another 37 percent were

served by projects at 4-year colleges and universities.

5

Figure 2. Participant distribution by type of host institution: 1999-2000

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

4-year 

37%

2-year

25%

Community orgs. 

39%
Eight of ten participants (80 percent) in the 1999-2000 program year were new, a

decrease of about 5 percent from 1998-99. Twenty percent of 1999-2000 participants

were continuing from the previous year. The percentage of new participants was

greatest (86 percent) among projects in the community organization sector. In the

2-year college sector, 77 percent were new participants and in the 4-year college sector, 76 percent were new (Figure 3).

B. Participant distribution by eligibility

Seventy-three percent of all EOC participants met both eligibility criteria: they were

low-income1 participants and potential first-generation college2 students (Figure 4).

Ten percent met only the low-income criterion; another 12 percent met only the

first-generation college requirement. Regulations require that two-thirds of project

participants each year meet both eligibility criteria.

6 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Figure 3. Participant distribution by status and type of host institution:

1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

100% 

80

60

40 

20

0

24% 

76%

23% 

77%

14% 

86% 20% 

80%

Continuing 

New

4-year 2-year Community orgs. All projects

1 A low-income participant is one whose family’s income was less than 150 percent of the poverty level amount. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, sets guidelines to determine the definition of poverty level.

2 A potential first-generation college student is an individual whose parents or

guardians did not receive a baccalaureate degree.
As Table 5 shows, there is very little variation across the sectors in the distribution of

participants by eligibility status.

II. Demographic Profile of Project Participants 7

Figure 4. Participant distribution by eligibility: 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

Other 

5%

First 

generation 

only 

12%

Low-income

only

10%

Low-income and 

first generation 

college 

73%

Table 5. Participant distribution by eligibility status and type of host institution: 

1999-2000

Low-income Low-income First generation

Sector and first generation only only Other

4-year 73% 10% 14% 4%

2-year 74% 10% 11% 5%

Community organizations 71% 10% 11% 8%

All projects 73% 10% 12% 5%

Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
C. Participant distribution by racial and ethnic background

Figure 5 shows that whites (40 percent) and blacks or African Americans 

(38 percent) made up the largest racial and ethnic groups among EOC participants in

1999-2000. Hispanic or Latino students were the next largest group with 14 percent

of the participants. American Indians or Alaska Natives were 4 percent, Asians and

multi-racial participants were 2 percent each and Native Hawaiians or other Pacific

Islanders represented 1 percent of all participants.

Table 6 presents the distribution of EOC participants by both racial and ethnic background and type of host institution. We see slight variations in the racial and ethnic

distributions across sectors. For example, African Americans made up less than onethird of the participants at 2-year and 4-year institutions but represented nearly half

the participants in community organizations. Two-year and 4-year institutions had

much larger percentages of white participants (46 percent and 42 percent, respectively) than did community organizations (34 percent).

8 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Figure 5. Participant distribution by racial and ethnic background: 

1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

More than one 

race reported 

2% American 

Indian or Alaska

Native 

4%

Native Hawaiian 

or other 

Pacific Islander

1%

Hispanic or Latino 

14%

Asian 

2%

White 

40%

Black or

African American

38%
D. Participant distribution by gender

During the 1999-2000 reporting period, 64 percent of EOC participants were female

and 36 percent were male. In projects based in 4-year institutions, the percentage of

females was also 64 percent. At 2-year colleges, the percentage of females was 

67 percent, and in the community organizations sector the percentage was 62 percent

(Figure 6).

II. Demographic Profile of Project Participants 9

Table 6. Participant distribution by racial and ethnic background and type of host

institution: 1999-2000

Native

American Hawaiian

Indian Black or Other More than 

or Alaska or African Hispanic Pacific one race 

Sector Native Asian American or Latino White Islander reported

4-year 7% 1% 32% 16% 42% 0% 2%

2-year 4% 2% 31% 12% 46% 1% 3%

Community 

organizations 2% 2% 48% 12% 34% 0% 2%

All projects 4% 2% 38% 14% 40% 1% 2%

Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Figure 6. Participant distribution by gender and type of host institution: 

1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

4-year 

2-year 

Community orgs.

All projects

Female Male

0 20 40 60 80 100%

 64% 36%

67% 33%

 62% 38%

 64% 36%
E. Participant distribution by age

More than four-fifths (83 percent) of EOC participants were ages 19 or older 

(Figure 7). Forty-one percent of participants were ages 19 to 27 and 42 percent were

28 or above. Only 16 percent were ages 14 to 18. 

Community organizations and 2-year institutions had slightly higher proportions of

students in the older age ranges (Table 7). Eighty-five percent of students at both

these types of host organizations were 19 years of age or older. Eighty-two percent of

participants at 4-year colleges and universities were in this same age range.

10 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Figure 7. Participant distribution by age: 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

Age 

14-18 

16%

Age 

19-27

41%

Age 

28 or above 

42%

Age 

unknown

1%

Table 7. Participant distribution by age and type of host institution: 1999-2000

Sector 14-18 19-27 28 or above Unknown

4-year 17% 41% 41% 1%

2-year 14% 40% 45% 1%

Community organizations 15% 42% 43% 0%

All projects 16% 41% 42% 1%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
F. Participant distribution by grade level

As expected given the age distribution, only 12 percent of EOC participants were

attending high school during the 1999-2000 school year (Figure 8). Thirty-nine percent had already graduated from high school or received their GED certificate (and

were not attending school), 23 percent were attending college, and 26 percent had left

high school or college without graduating.

There were some differences in grade-level distribution by type of host institution in

1999-2000. Four-year institutions served the highest proportion of high school students; 16 percent of participants at 4-year institutions were high school students compared with 7 percent at 2-year institutions and 11 percent at community organizations (Table 8). Two-year institutions served a larger proportion of secondary school

dropouts (19 percent), and community organizations served a higher percentage of

postsecondary students (30 percent) than did 4-year or 2-year institutions (17 percent

and 21 percent, respectively).

II. Demographic Profile of Project Participants 11

Figure 8. Participant distribution by grade level: 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40% 

Postsecondary 

student

Postsecondary dropout 

High school (or GED)

 graduate 

Secondary school 

dropout 

12th grade only

9th-11th grade

23%

12%

 39%

 14%

9%

3%
There are some changes from 1998-99 in grade-level distribution by type of host institution. At that time, projects hosted by 2-year and 4-year institutions were somewhat

more likely to serve those who had graduated but not yet enrolled in postsecondary

school (45 percent and 42 percent, respectively) than were projects hosted by community organizations (28 percent). Also, projects hosted by community organizations

were somewhat more likely to serve those who were already postsecondary students

(28 percent) than were projects hosted by 2-year and 4-year institutions (16 percent

and 17 percent, respectively).

G. Veterans served

A small percentage of EOC participants (3 percent) were veterans. Four percent of

participants in the 4-year sector, and 3 percent in the 2-year sector and the community organizations sector were veterans.

H. Participants of limited English proficiency

Overall, 4 percent of EOC participants during the 1999-2000 reporting period 

had limited English proficiency. Two percent of participants in the 4-year sector, 

3 percent in the 2-year sector, and 6 percent in the community organizations sector

had limited English proficiency.

I. Target schools

The performance report form used by both Talent Search and EOC projects asked

projects to list the target schools at which the projects worked. Target schools are secondary or middle schools that the grantee designated as a focus of project services.

12 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 8. Participant distribution by grade level and type of host institution: 1999-2000

Grade Level 4-year 2-year Community orgs. All projects

Grades 9-11 4% 2% 3% 3%

12th grade only 12% 5% 8% 9%

Secondary school dropout 15% 19% 11% 14%

High school (or GED) graduate 39% 38% 40% 39%

Postsecondary dropout 14% 15% 7% 12%

Postsecondary student 17% 21% 30% 23%

Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
Since only those EOC projects that chose to serve high school students work with

target schools, not all EOC projects are expected to provide these data. EOC projects

work with a variety of other educational institutions and community organizations, so

information on target schools provides only a partial picture of the groups with which

EOC projects work. Of the 82 EOC projects, 20 projects, or 24 percent, submitted a

list of target schools.

EOC projects providing lists of target schools included an average of eleven schools.

Projects based in 4-year colleges and universities served an average of 15 target

schools (Figure 9). Projects based at 2-year colleges had an average of nine target

schools and community organizations had an average of eight.

In 1998-99, 34 EOC projects, or 41 percent, submitted a list of target schools. Each

of these projects worked with an average of eight target schools.

II. Demographic Profile of Project Participants 13

Figure 9. Number of target schools per EOC project reporting target

schools, by type of host institution, 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

4-year 2-year Community orgs. All projects

16 

12 

8 

4

0

15

9

8

11
J. Comparison of select demographic data:

1998-99 and 1999-2000

The biggest change in EOC participant demographic data was the rise in the number of continuing participants. In 1998-99, 85 percent of all participants were new

(and 93 percent of participants at community organizations). In 1999-2000, this figure dropped to 80 percent (and 86 percent at community organizations). Other shifts

include a slight rise in the percentage of black or African American participants balanced by a small decline in the percentage of white participants. There was also an

increase in the percentage of postsecondary students and high school graduates coupled with a decrease in 12th grade students.

The shifts in race and ethnicity and grade level are attributable mostly to an increased

response rate in 1999-2000. In 1999-2000 three more projects responded than in

1998-99, including one particularly large project with high percentages of black or

African American students and high school graduates.

14 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000
III. PROJECT SERVICES

AND ACTIVITIES

This section provides an overview of the types of services and activities that EOC

projects provide to their participants. The performance reports asked projects to list

the number of sessions and the number of participants who attended each of 10 activities over the 1999-2000 program year. Staff reported participants by age group—

high school and adult.3 High school participants were in grades 9 to 12 or had

dropped out of high school. Any participant who had completed high school or

earned a GED was considered an adult.

Table 9 highlights the percentages of projects that provided each service in 1999-2000

overall as well as broken down by high school and adult participants. The most common activities provided by EOC projects were counseling and academic advising. All

81 projects provided counseling services and all but one provided academic advising.

Other common activities included referrals to other organizations (90 percent), college orientation activities (81 percent), and test-taking and study skills development

sessions (63 percent). As expected for the EOC Program, the data also show that projects gear their activities more to adults than to high school students.

15

3 Some projects included numbers for middle school participants. Because middle school participants were to be included in the annual performance report for only

the Talent Search Program—not the EOC Program—the data are not included in

this analysis.

Table 9. Percentage of projects offering services to participants, by grade level: 

1999-2000

Service High School Adult Overall

Tutoring 10% 44% 46%

Assisted (computer) labs 17% 47% 49%

Test-taking & study skills development 26% 62% 63%

Counseling 43% 100% 100%

Academic advising/course selection 37% 99% 99%

Mentoring 7% 35% 35%

Cultural activities 15% 27% 32%

College orientation activities 31% 81% 81%

Family activities 11% 23% 26%

Referrals 23% 90% 90%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000
A higher percentage of projects provided each of these services in 1999-2000 than in

1998-99 (Table 10). For counseling, academic advising/course selection, and referrals,

the percentage of projects providing the services increased by 20 percent.

Overall, projects provided a wide array of services in 1999-2000. Sixty-two percent of

projects provided at least six of the above services to either their high school or adult

participants (Table 11). Projects were much more likely, however, to provide these services to adult participants. While 54 percent of projects provided none of these services

to high school participants, 92 percent provided at least four different types of services

to their adult participants.

16 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 10. Comparison of percentage of projects offering different types of services 

to participants: 1998-99 and 1999-2000

Service 1998-1999 1999-2000 Increase

Tutoring 41% 46% 5%

Assisted (computer) labs 40% 49% 9%

Test-taking & study skills development 48% 63% 15%

Counseling 80% 100% 20%

Academic advising/course selection 79% 99% 20%

Mentoring 30% 35% 5%

Cultural activities 26% 32% 6%

College orientation activities 67% 81% 14%

Family activities 16% 26% 10%

Referrals 70% 90% 20%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1998-99 and

1999-2000.

Table 11. Percentage of projects offering multiple services to participants, by grade level: 

1999-2000

Service High school Adults Overall

10 of above services 1% 7% 7%

8 or 9 of above services 5% 15% 19%

6 or 7 of above services 9% 38% 36%

4 or 5 of above services 21% 32% 31%

1, 2 or 3 of above services 10% 7% 7%

None of above services 54% 0% 0%

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
A. Academic support services

The following four services, grouped as academic support services, were defined in

the performance report as follows:

• Tutoring—individual or small-group tutoring provided by professional staff or

students who are either part-time paid staff, volunteers, or internship-for-credit students.

• Assisted (computer) labs—academic support or tutoring provided through a

learning or computer center, which may include computer-assisted instruction.

• Test-taking and study skills development—workshops, tutoring, or individual

assistance specifically designed to help students develop the skills necessary to

1) succeed in academic programs, 2) meet scoring requirements on national or

state standardized tests for admission into a postsecondary educational institution, or 3) pass a high school equivalency exam.

• Academic advising/course selection—assisting students in making education

plans, selecting appropriate courses, meeting academic requirements, planning

for high school graduation, and gaining admission to a postsecondary educational institution.

Three different measures were used to analyze the extent to which services were

offered to participants. The first measure indicated the percentage of all EOC participants who received a service. The second measure was the average number of sessions

per project (for only those projects that undertook that service). The third measure

looked at the average number of sessions per participant (for those participants

engaged in that service). Projects differed in the manner in which they counted sessions, but we included these data here as an indicator of intensity rather than a measure of the number of participant contacts. This measure underestimates the actual sessions per participant. When a project provided services to a group of five people, for

example, the instructions were to count the session as one rather than five sessions.

As Table 12 shows, among academic support services, 3 percent of participants

received tutoring, 9 percent attended assisted (computer) labs, 14 percent attended

test-taking and study skills development sessions, and 59 percent received academic

advising. On average (among those projects that provided each service), a typical EOC

project provided 366 tutoring sessions, 320 assisted computer lab sessions, 

282 test-taking and study skills development sessions, and 1,121 academic advising sessions in the 1999-2000 program year. The average number of sessions per participant

was three for tutoring and about one for the other three academic support services.

The percentage of participants receiving academic advising and course selection assistance increased 15 percent from 1998-99. Increases also occurred in the percentage

of participants receiving assisted (computer) labs (5 percent) and test-taking and study

skills development services (6 percent).

III. Project Services and Activities 17
1. Adult participants

As the previous chapter notes, 74 percent of participants were adults.4 Figure 10 shows

that 72 percent of the adult participants engaged in academic advising sessions pro18 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 12. Percentage of all participants receiving academic support services, average

number of sessions per project, and average number of sessions per participant:

1999-2000

Percentage of Average number Average number

participants receiving of sessions of sessions 

Service service per project per participant

Tutoring 3% 366 3.0

Assisted (computer) labs 9% 320 0.9

Test-taking & study skills development 14% 282 0.6

Academic advising/course selection 59% 1,121 0.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Figure 10. Percentage of adult participants receiving academic support

services: 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

100% 

80 

60 

40 

20

0

Tutoring Assisted 

(computer) labs

Test-taking & 

study skills

Academic 

advising

16%

3% 11%

72%

4 Adults include postsecondary students and dropouts as well as high school (or

GED) graduates.
vided by EOC projects in 1999-2000 (up from 55 percent in 1998-99). Sixteen percent

of the adults participated in test-taking and study skills sessions, 11 percent attended

assisted (computer) labs, and 3 percent received tutoring in 1999-2000.

In 1999-2000, the typical EOC project provided adult participants with 377 tutoring

sessions, 327 assisted labs, 279 test-taking and study skills development sessions, and

1,084 academic advising sessions (Table 13). All four of these represent increases over

the 1998-99 program, the largest of which was an increase of 127 test-taking and

study skills development sessions per project.

In 1999-2000, the average number of sessions per adult participant ranged from more

than three for tutoring to approximately one for assisted labs, test-taking and study

skills development, and academic advising.

2. High school participants

As previously noted, 26 percent of EOC participants were secondary school students

or dropouts. Figure 11 shows that 22 percent of the high school participants received

academic advising services provided by EOC projects in 1999-2000. Eight percent of

high school participants attended test-taking and study skills sessions; 2 percent,

assisted (computer) lab sessions; and 1 percent, tutoring. These figures remain almost

unchanged from 1998-99.

III. Project Services and Activities 19

Table 13. Average number of sessions per project providing service and average number

of sessions per participant for adult participants: 1999-2000

Average number Average number

Service of sessions per project of sessions per participant

Tutoring 377 3.1

Assisted (computer) labs 327 0.9

Test-taking & study skills development 279 0.7

Academic advising/course selection 1,084 0.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
Among those EOC projects providing such services, the average project offered high

school participants 45 tutoring sessions, 50 assisted (computer) labs, 60 test-taking and

study skills development sessions, and 299 academic advising sessions for the program

year 1999-2000 (Table 14). The typical EOC project offered nearly two tutoring sessions per high school participant and less than one assisted (computer) lab, test-taking

and study skills development session, and academic advising session.

20 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Figure 11. Percentage of high school participants receiving academic support

services: 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

40%

30

20

10

0

Tutoring Assisted 

(computer) labs

Test-taking & 

study skills

Academic 

advising

8%

22%

2% 1%

Table 14. Average number of sessions per project providing services and average number

of sessions per participant for high school participants: 1999-2000

Average number Average number 

Service of sessions per project of sessions per participant

Tutoring 45 1.6

Assisted (computer) labs 50 0.7

Test-taking & study skills development 60 0.4

Academic advising/course selection 299 0.8

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
B. Personal and career development services

Additional services and activities were grouped into a single category, comprising

activities designed to enhance the personal and career development of EOC participants. These services, such as counseling and mentoring, often had a much broader

function, involving help with academic decisions in addition to personal and careerrelated matters. The six activities were defined in the performance report as follows:

• Counseling—assistance with personal, educational, and career decision-making.

• Mentoring—a variety of personal or academic support activities provided by

other students or professionals and designed to expose project participants to

careers and other educational opportunities available to them.

• Cultural activities—any project-sponsored activities, such as field trips, special

lectures, and symposiums, that are intended to enrich the academic progress

and personal development of project participants.

• College orientation activities—workshops, college fairs, or project-sponsored

trips to other postsecondary institutions to acquaint students with a variety of

postsecondary educational opportunities.

• Family activities—events, workshops, meetings, and counseling designed to

provide families with information on postsecondary educational opportunities

and financial aid available and to involve them in the educational decisions of

their children.

• Referrals to other service providers—the formal and informal network of social

service programs and community organizations, including other TRIO

Programs, available to help project participants.

The most popular personal and career development service in 1999-2000 among all

EOC participants was counseling (83 percent, Table 15). Thirty-three percent of all

participants also engaged in college orientation services and 31 percent received

referrals to other service providers. Five percent of all participants participated in

family activities and 3 percent received mentoring services and attended cultural

activities. These numbers are similar to 1998-99, with the exception of counseling,

which increased by 20 percent.

III. Project Services and Activities 21
1. Adult participants

All adult participants in EOC in 1999-2000 took advantage of counseling services, the

highest participation rate for a personal and career development service (Figure 12).

Referrals (41 percent) and college orientation services (37 percent) were also popular.

Seven percent of all adult participants engaged in family activities, 4 percent received

mentoring services, and 3 percent engaged in cultural activities. The biggest increase

occurred in counseling services, which grew from 80 percent of adult participants in

1998-99 to 100 percent in 1999-2000.

22 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 15. Percentage of all participants receiving personal and career development

services: 1999-2000

Percentage of participants Average number Average number

Service receiving service of sessions per project of sessions per participant

Counseling 83% 2,420 1.4

Mentoring 3% 119 0.6

Cultural activities 3% 46 0.2

College orientation 33% 280 0.3

Family activities 5% 114 0.3

Referrals 31% 129 0.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Figure 12. Percentage of adult participants receiving personal and career

development services: 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

0 20 40 60 80 100%

Referrals

Family activities

College orientation

Cultural activities

Mentoring

Counseling

 41%

7%

 37%

3%

4%

100%
2. High school participants

Figure 13 presents participation rates for personal and career development services

for high school participants. Counseling, with 32 percent participation, and college

orientation, with 20 percent participation, attracted the highest percentage of participants. Fewer than 5 percent of high school participants received referrals (3 percent),

engaged in family or cultural activities (2 percent each), or received mentoring services (1 percent).

C. Comparison of service provisions: 1998-99 and 1999-2000

The percentage of EOC participants receiving each service increased from 1998-99

to 1999-2000 for nine of the 10 services (Table 16). The biggest increases came in

counseling (20 percent increase) and academic advising/course selection (15 percent).

There was also a noticeable increase in the percentage of participants receiving testtaking and study skills development assistance (6 percent increase) and participating

in assisted (computer) labs (5 percent). It is not clear if these increases are due to an

actual increase in service levels among projects between the two program years or

more complete reporting of services on the 1999-2000 annual performance reports.

III. Project Services and Activities 23

Figure 13. Percentage of high school participants receiving personal and

career development services: 1999-2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

Referrals

Family activities

College orientation

Cultural activities

Mentoring

Counseling

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35%

3%

2%

20%

2%

1%

32%
24 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 16. Comparison of percentage of participants receiving services: 

1998-99 and 1999-2000

Service 1998-1999 1999-2000 Increase

Tutoring 3% 3% 0%

Assisted (computer) labs 4% 9% 5%

Test-taking & study skills development 8% 14% 6%

Counseling 62% 82% 20%

Academic advising/course selection 44% 59% 15%

Mentoring 2% 3% 1%

Cultural activities 2% 3% 1%

College orientation activities 32% 33% 1%

Family activities 2% 5% 3%

Referrals 29% 31% 2%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1998-99.
IV. PERFORMANCE

OUTCOMES

In the fourth section of the performance report, grantees were asked to report on

their progress in meeting the approved objectives. These objectives were outlined in

a project’s grant proposal and needed to relate to the goals of the EOC Program as

well as respond to the prior experience criteria as described in the program regulations. The outcomes addressed admissions and financial aid for postsecondary education for college-ready participants. College-ready participants include adults, 12th

grade high school students, and high school or high school equivalency graduates.

The outcomes also included grade progression, retention, graduation, and reentry

into high schools.

Only EOC projects with the following types of data were included in the objective

and outcome calculations: 1) the applicable population (e.g., number of high school

participants); 2) objective data; and 3) outcome data. Projects missing any of these

three data types were not included in the calculations. In addition, some projects

reported higher numbers in the outcomes than in the applicable population counts

(e.g., more students graduating from high school than 12th grade participants). Thus,

we capped the outcomes at the number reported in the population—so no calculation

was over 100 percent.

A. Admissions and financial aid assistance

One of the aims of the EOC Program is to assist participants with the process of

applying to college and obtaining financial aid, thus helping to overcome some of the

barriers that economically disadvantaged students often face when pursuing postsecondary education. Program staff can offer assistance at various stages of the college application process—selecting schools to apply to, choosing appropriate courses, completing the application, and finding ways to finance a college education. EOC

Program staff were asked to complete the following to assess the extent to which participants were receiving these services:

• Applied for postsecondary admission—number of participants who received

help with college entrance applications and the number who applied for postsecondary admission.

• Applied for student financial aid—number of participants who received 

help completing financial aid forms, including scholarship applications, 

U.S. Department of Education federal student financial aid forms, and state

applications for financial aid, and the number who applied for financial aid.

25
On average, projects met their goals in assisting college-ready participants with

applying for postsecondary admission and financial aid. Projects overall anticipated

assisting 75 percent of participants with applying for admissions to a postsecondary

institution and 78 percent with applying for financial aid (Table 17). In fact, 77 percent of applicable EOC participants applied to a postsecondary institution (up from

69 percent in 1998-99) and 83 percent applied for financial aid (up from 78 percent

in 1998-99).

Examining objectives and outcomes by sector shows some variation among the three

categories of host organizations. Community organizations reported the highest percentage of participants applying both for postsecondary admissions (82 percent) and for

financial aid (90 percent). Four-year institutions had the lowest percentage of participants apply for postsecondary admissions (73 percent) and financial aid (76 percent).

B. Postsecondary admission and reentry

Postsecondary enrollment numbers were divided into the following two groups:

• Postsecondary admissions—number of high school graduates and participants

who have completed requirements to obtain a high school equivalency degree, as

well as other eligible individuals who have enrolled in programs of postsecondary

education for the first time during this reporting period or for the fall term.

• Postsecondary reentry—number of participants who were previously dismissed

or who halted their educational progress toward a postsecondary degree, but

who reenrolled in a program of postsecondary education during the reporting

period or for the fall term.

26 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 17. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for assistance in

applying for postsecondary admissions and financial aid: 1999-2000*

Outcome Approved objective Actual

Assistance in applying for postsecondary admissions

Overall 75% 77%

4-year 74% 73%

2-year 80% 77%

Community Organizations 71% 82%

Assistance in applying for financial aid

Overall 78% 83%

4-year 78% 76%

2-year 83% 87%

Community Organizations 75% 90%

*Outcome data are based on 78 projects providing complete application for admissions figures and 79 projects providing complete application for financial aid figures.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
Overall, EOC projects met their goals for postsecondary admissions and reentry

(Table 18). In 1999-2000, EOC project staff expected 51 percent of their eligible participants to enroll in a postsecondary institution and 45 percent of those who had previously dropped out of college to reenroll. Fifty-seven percent of eligible participants

were admitted to postsecondary institutions, and 56 percent of postsecondary dropouts

had reenrolled. In comparison to the previous year, the post-secondary admittance rate

increased 6 percent and the reenrollment rate remained stable.

In the 1999-2000 program year, 64 percent of college-ready participants at 2-year

colleges were admitted to a postsecondary institution compared with 59 percent at

community organizations and 52 percent at 4-year institutions.

C. Postsecondary placement

In addition to recording the number of participants who enrolled or reenrolled in a

postsecondary institution, EOC projects provided information on the types of institutions that admitted participants (Figure 14). Of all EOC participants who were

admitted to a postsecondary institution, 78 percent were admitted to a public institution (54 percent to a public 2-year institution and 24 percent to a public 4-year institution). Fourteen percent were accepted at a public or nonprofit vocational or 

technical school and four percent to a private nonprofit 4-year college or university.

Two percent were admitted to a proprietary school and 1 percent to a nonprofit 

2-year institution.

IV. Performance Outcomes 27

Table 18. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for postsecondary

admissions and postsecondary reentry: 1999-2000*

Outcome Approved objective Actual

Postsecondary admissions

Overall 51% 57%

4-year 54% 52%

2-year 46% 64%

Community organizations 51% 59%

Postsecondary reentry

Overall 45% 56%

4-year 50% 49%

2-year 39% 62%

Community organizations 44% 58%

*Outcome data are based on the 77 projects providing complete admissions figures and the 69 providing reentry figures.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
Participants at EOC projects with a 2-year college as the host were more likely to be

admitted to a 2-year school (73 percent) than overall (54 percent, Table 19). Projects

hosted at 4-year colleges and community organizations had a higher percentage of

participants accepted at public 4-year institutions than did 2-year college hosts.

28 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Figure 14. Postsecondary placement of participants for EOC overall: 

1999-2000

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance

Reports, 1999-2000.

Public 2-year 

54% Public 4-year 

24%

Public or nonprofit

vocational or technical

school 

14%

Proprietary

school

2%

Nonprofit 

2-year 

1%

Private nonprofit 

4-year 

4%

Table 19. Distribution of postsecondary placement of participants by sector: 1999-2000

4-year college 2-year college Community orgs. All projects

Admitted to:

Public 2-year school 45% 73% 50% 54%

Nonprofit 2-year school 3% <1% 1% 1%

Public 4-year school 28% 2% 30% 24%

Private nonprofit 4-year school 5% 10% 6% 4%

Public or nonprofit vocational 

or technical school 18% 14% 11% 14%

Proprietary school 2% 1% 2% 2%

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. Percentages are based on the number of students admitted to a postsecondary institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
D. Secondary school retention, graduation, and reentry

Secondary school retention, graduation, and reentry were defined as follows in the

instructions that accompanied the performance report form:

• Secondary school retention—all middle and high school students who will continue in secondary school for the next academic term.

• Secondary school graduation—all high school seniors (and GED students or

alternative education students) who received a high school diploma or completed a high school equivalency program during the reporting period.

• Secondary school reentry—all secondary school dropouts who reentered high

school or enrolled in a high school equivalency program during the 

reporting period.

For the 1999-2000 program year, EOC projects overall expected 64 percent of high

school students in grades 9 through 11 to remain in school, 66 percent of high

school seniors to graduate, and 55 percent of secondary school dropouts to reenroll

(Table 20). In actuality, 93 percent of applicable high school students remained in

school, 96 percent of high school seniors graduated, and 27 percent of high school

dropouts reenrolled.

E. Comparison of performance outcomes: 1998-99 and 1999-2000

The percentage of eligible students admitted to a postsecondary institution increased

from 51 percent in 1998-99 to 57 percent in 1999-2000 (Table 21). The percentage of

students applying for postsecondary admissions and for financial aid also increased

between the two programs years. Secondary school outcomes, however, dropped

between 1998-99 and 1999-2000. This may be due in part to the low response rates

for the secondary school outcomes items (between eight and 18 projects responded to

these items in 1998-99 and between eight and 22 projects responded in 1999-2000).

IV. Performance Outcomes 29

Table 20. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for secondary

school outcomes: 1999-2000*

Outcome Approved Objective Actual

Secondary school retention 64% 93%

Secondary school graduation 66% 96%

Secondary school reentry 55% 27%

*Outcome data are based on 8 projects providing complete retention figures, 15 providing graduation figures, and 22

providing reentry figures.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
30 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 21. Comparison of performance outcomes: 1998-99 and 1999-2000

Outcome 1998-99 1999-2000

Assistance in applying for postsecondary ad. 69% 77%

Assistance in applying for financial aid 78% 83%

Postsecondary admissions 51% 57%

Postsecondary reentry 56% 56%

Secondary school retention 86% 72%

Secondary school graduation 93% 85%

Secondary school reentry 35% 27%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
V. DATA ISSUES AND 

FUTURE PLANS

The following section highlights data issues, response rates, and possible future modifications to the EOC performance report. In the performance reports, the rate of

completion on individual data items and sections varied greatly (Table 22).

All demographic items, with the exception of target schools, had response rates of 100

percent. Response rates for postsecondary outcome items were all above 93 percent.5

The response rates for items in the services section could not be determined from the

given data. In this section, projects were given a list of 10 services on which to report

data. They were asked to list the number of sessions they provided during the performance period and the number of participants served through each activity. Because

not all projects provided all 10 services, it was not possible to determine whether a

field was left blank because that particular service was never provided or because the

project did not have the information on hand.

An additional difficulty in interpreting the services data was the lack of clarity about

how the numbers of sessions and participants for a given service were calculated. The

instructions on the performance report stated that “the number of sessions, activities,

events, and organizations categories should reflect the total number of these provided. For example, the project may have conducted 50 tutoring sessions for 15 adults.

Thus, under the ‘Tutoring’ column, the project should indicate No. of Sessions—50,

No. of Participants—15.” In the given example, it is not clear whether each of the 

15 participants attended 50 group sessions, or whether 50 individual sessions were

held and split among 15 students.

There were also some data inconsistencies in Sections III and IV of the performance

report. In Section III, some projects claimed to provide services to more participants

than were included in Section II. In addition, some of the outcome data provided in

Section IV were inconsistent with demographic data in Section II. In some cases,

projects stated that they had more participants in an outcome than was feasible.

Some data quality issues remain to be addressed. The U.S. Department of Education

has added edit checks to the Web-based application to require the numbers reported

in each part of Section IV are not greater than the applicable participant counts in

Section II. In addition, the Department has added edits to Section III that require a

numeric value for each service or activity field to ensure complete reporting. Those

31

5 EOC projects are required to submit data on secondary school outcomes only

if they are applicable to the project site. Since not all EOC projects serve high school

students, a lower response rate for secondary school outcomes is expected.
projects not providing the service or activity must enter a zero in the field. The results

of this change should be immediately apparent in the 2000-01 performance data.

The Department will continue to clarify the directions for completing the reports and

to make revisions based on feedback from the project staff concerning the report form

and instructions. As these changes are implemented and as projects continue to

become more familiar with the online reporting system, changes in program service

levels and outcome data will be more easily attributable to shifts in projects’ actual

performances rather than to changes in the way projects report data in different 

program years.

32 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table 22. Section/item response rates: 1999-2000

Section/Item Response rate

Number of participants assisted 100%

Participant distribution by eligibility 100%

Participant distribution by ethnic background 100%

Participant distribution by gender 100%

Participant distribution by age 100%

Veterans served 100%

Participants of limited English proficiency 100%

Target schools 24%

Approved objectives:

Secondary school retention 40%

Secondary school graduation 42%

Secondary school reentry 46%

Assistance in applying for postsecondary admissions 98%

Assistance in applying for student financial aid 99%

Postsecondary admissions 98%

Postsecondary reentry 93%

Participant status at the end of the reporting period:

Continued in high school 49%

Received high school diploma 59%

Obtained a GED/high school equivalency degree 67%

Applied for admission to programs of postsecondary education 100%

Applied for student financial aid for postsecondary education 100%

Admitted to (or enrolled in) a program of postsecondary education 100%

Re-enrolled in a program of postsecondary education 95%

Dropped out of high school 73%

Other 84%

Unknown 100%

Postsecondary placements (types of institutions) 90%-100%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
APPENDIX A: TABLES

33

Table A1. Number of EOC projects and participants and percentage reporting

performance information, by federal region: 1999-2000

Number or

Total projects Project Number of projects Response

Federal region in 1999 distribution participants reporting rate 

Region I (Boston) 5 6% 19,895 5 100%

Region II (New York) 2 2% 3,894 2 100%

Region III (Philadelphia) 10 12% 17,743 10 100%

Region IV (Atlanta) 17 21% 40,541 10 100%

Region V (Chicago) 11 13% 17,665 11 100%

Region VI (Dallas) 17 21% 25,377 16 94%

Region VII (Kansas City) 6 7% 14,458 6 100%

Region VIII (Denver) 6 7% 13,565 6 100%

Region IX (San Francisco) 5 6% 8,807 5 100%

Region X (Seattle) 3 4% 5,183 3 100%

Total for nation 82 99% 167,128 81 99%

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Table A2. Participant distribution by eligibility status and federal region: 1999-2000

Low income and Low income First generation

Federal region first generation only only Other needs 

Region I (Boston) 71% 12% 12% 4%

Region II (New York) 84% 12% 4% 0%

Region III (Philadelphia) 69% 9% 15% 7%

Region IV (Atlanta) 71% 11% 12% 5%

Region V (Chicago) 73% 9% 14% 5%

Region VI (Dallas) 74% 10% 13% 2%

Region VII (Kansas City) 73% 5% 6% 16%

Region VIII (Denver) 70% 12% 14% 5%

Region IX (San Francisco) 75% 9% 10% 6%

Region X (Seattle) 79% 11% 8% 2%

Percent for nation 73% 10% 12% 5%

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.
34 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1999-2000

Table A3. Participant distribution by ethnic background and federal region: 1999-2000

Haw. or 

Am. Indian Black or Hisp. or other MultiFederal region /Al. Nat. Asian African Am. Latino White Pac Is. racial Unk. 

Region I (Boston) 2% 4% 19% 20% 50% <0.5% 4% 2% 

Region II (New York) 1% <0.5% 2% 66% 30% <0.5% <0.5% 0% 

Region III (Philadelphia) <0.5% 1% 62% 7% 29% <0.5% 1% <0.5% 

Region IV (Atlanta) 1% 1% 56% 2% 38% <0.5% 1% <0.5% 

Region V (Chicago) 1% 2% 49% 5% 39% 0% 3% 1% 

Region VI (Dallas) 7% <0.5% 28% 19% 45% <0.5% <0.5% 0% 

Region VII (Kansas City) 4% 3% 52% 6% 34% <0.5% 1% 0% 

Region VIII (Denver) 15% 1% 9% 24% 49% <0.5% 1% <0.5% 

Region IX (San Francisco) 9% 6% 7% 39% 25% 8% 5% 0% 

Region X (Seattle) 12% 3% 17% 15% 46% 1% 6% 0% 

Percent for nation 4% 2% 38% 14% 39% 1% 2% <0.5%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Table A4. Participant distribution by grade level and federal region: 1999-2000

Secondary High school Post Post

school (GED) secondary secondary

Federal region High school dropout graduate dropout student

Region I (Boston) 6% 8% 46% 9% 31%

Region II (New York) 24% 8% 42% 12% 13%

Region III (Philadelphia) 15% 20% 43% 6% 16%

Region IV (Atlanta) 5% 8% 40% 10% 37%

Region V (Chicago) 5% 27% 46% 15% 7%

Region VI (Dallas) 13% 21% 30% 17% 19%

Region VII (Kansas City) 6% 11% 59% 9% 16%

Region VIII (Denver) 20% 13% 25% 18% 24%

Region IX (San Francisco) 49% 15% 15% 7% 13%

Region X (Seattle) 18% 19% 28% 15% 20%

Percent for nation 12% 14% 39% 12% 23%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, EOC Performance Reports, 1999-2000.