A Profile 

of the Educational

Opportunity 

Centers Program: 

1998-99

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

February 2002

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

February 2002

A Profile 

of the Educational

Opportunity 

Centers Program: 

1998-99

Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Justin G. Humphrey

Margaret W. Cahalan

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

Robert L. Belle Jr.

Frances Bergeron
U. S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Wilbert Bryant

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs

Office of Federal TRIO Programs

Robert L. Belle Jr.

Director

February 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: 1998-99, 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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

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

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

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

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

C. 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 ethnic background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

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

E. Participant distribution by age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

F. Participant distribution by grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

G. Veterans served. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

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

III. PROJECT SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A. Academic support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Adult participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. High school participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B. Personal and career development services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Adult participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

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

IV. PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A. Admissions and financial aid assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

B. Postsecondary admission and reentry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

C. Postsecondary placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

D. Secondary school retention, graduation, and reentry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

V. DATA ISSUES AND FUTURE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables

1 TRIO funding, number of grants, number served, average 

grant award, amount per person served, and average number 

served: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2TRIO funding levels in constant 1999 dollars (millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3 Number of EOC projects and participants reporting performance 

information, by type of host institution: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4 Number of EOC projects and participants and percentage 

reporting performance information, by federal region: 1998-99 . . . . . . . 4

5 Participant distribution by eligibility and type of host 

institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6 Participant distribution by ethnic background and type of host 

institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

7 Participant distribution by age and type of host institution . . . . . . . . . . . 10

8 Participant distribution by grade level and type of host 

institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

9 Percentage of projects offering service to participants, by 

grade level: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

10 Percentage of all participants receiving academic support 

services, average number of sessions per project, and average 

number of sessions per participant: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

11 Average number of sessions per project providing service 

and average number of sessions per participant for adult 

participants: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

12Average number of sessions per project providing service 

and average number of sessions per participant for high 

school participants: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

13 Percentages of all participants receiving personal and career 

development services: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

14 Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements 

for assistance in applying for postsecondary admissions and financial 

aid: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

15 Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for

postsecondary admissions and postsecondary reentry: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . 23

16 Distribution of postsecondary placement of participants by sector: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

17 Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for 

secondary school outcomes: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

18 Section/item response rates: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figures

1 Performance report response rates by region: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2Participant distribution by type of host institution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Participant distribution by status and type of host institution . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Participant distribution by eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5 Participant distribution by ethnic background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6 Participant distribution by gender and type of host institution . . . . . . . . 9

7 Participant distribution by age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

8 Participant distribution by grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

9 Mean number of target schools per EOC project reporting target 

school, by type of host institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

10 Percentage of adult participants receiving academic support services: 

1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

11 Percentage of high school participants receiving academic support 

services: 1998-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

12Percentages of adult participants receiving personal and career 

development services: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

13 Percentages of high school participants receiving personal career and

development services: 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

14 Postsecondary placement of participants for EOC overall: 1998-99. . . . . 23
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: 1998-99. The goal of

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

educational institutions.

This report is the first 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 federal

region, the same institutional sector, and the nation. The 1998-99 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 begin a systematic process for

sharing 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.

Robert L. Belle Jr.

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, directed by Robert L. Belle Jr., sponsored the report, and Frances Bergeron of the Office of

Federal TRIO Programs coordinated the reporting process. Jessica Wilkens, August

Parker, and Valerie Williams of Mathematica Policy Research Inc. deserve special

mention for preparing the report for publication.

vii

HIGHLIGHTS

This report provides a comprehensive profile of the EOC Program using the 1998-

99 performance report data. Complete performance reports were submitted by 95

percent of the projects (or 78 of 82 projects), serving a total of 152,344 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 4-year colleges served 39 percent of all EOC participants;

community organizations, 37 percent; and 2-year colleges, 24 percent.

• Most EOC participants (85 percent) were new to the program, with only 

15 percent continuing from a previous year.

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

only, 11 percent were low-income only, and the remaining 5 percent were

other classifications.

• Forty-one percent of participants were white, 36 percent were black or African

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

races or ethnic groups.

• Most of all EOC participants (64 percent) were female.

• Forty-four percent of participants were ages 28 and older; 40 percent, 19 to 

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

• The largest percentage of participants (37 percent) were high school (or GED)

graduates. Twenty-one percent were postsecondary students, 14 percent each

were postsecondary or secondary school dropouts, and the remaining 13 percent were secondary school students.

Services and Activities

• Counseling services were offered by 80 percent of EOC projects. Other common services included academic advising (79 percent), referrals to other organizations (70 percent), and college orientation (67 percent).

• Sixty-two percent of all participants, including 80 percent of all adult participants, received counseling services.

ix
x

• Of the remaining services, 44 percent of all EOC participants received academic advising; 32 percent, college orientation; and 29 percent, referrals to

other organizations.

Performance Outcomes

• EOC projects assisted 69 percent of college-ready participants in applying for

postsecondary admissions and 78 percent in applying for financial aid.

• Fifty-one 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, 26 percent to a public 4-year college,

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

remaining 8 percent to another type of educational institution.
I. INTRODUCTION

This report is the first 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 individual 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, 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
2 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

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 1999-2000 (FY 1999). As shown, the

82 EOC projects serve more than 158,000 people each year at an average cost per

person of $188 in 1999-2000.

Table 2 gives TRIO funding levels in constant 1999 dollars. One can see from this

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

since the program’s inception.

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

award, amount per person served, and average number served: 1999

Number Average Amount Average

Program of Number grant per number

1999 funding grants served award person served

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

Opportunity

Centers

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

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

Student Support

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

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

Upward Bound

Math Science $29,276,284 124 6,200 $236,099 $4,722 50

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs, 1999.

Table 2. TRIO funding levels in constant 1999 dollars (millions)

Year EOC TS UB SSS McNair UBMS

1967 — $12.4 $139.7 — — —

1970 — 21.5 127.1 $42.9 — —

1975 $9.3 18.6 118.6 71.2 — —

1980 15.6 30.9 126.4 121.3 — —

1985 14.2 32.1 114.0 108.5 — —

1990 15.2 34.5 128.2 115.9 $3.8 $4.3

1995 26.9 85.7 208.3 156.9 20.9 20.8

1999 29.8 98.5 220.5 178.9 32.1 29.3

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 1998-99 reporting period, the first year that EOC projects used

the new performance report form approved by the Office of Management and Budget

in 1998. Aggregate performance reports covering Sections I-V on the performance

report form were submitted by 95 percent of the projects in operation at the time (Table

3). These reports covered 152,344 participants in the reference year.

Figure 1 and Table 4 give the percentage of project staff that reported by region. Six

had 100 percent response rates (Regions I, III, IV, VIII, IX, and X). In Regions II, V,

VI, and VII, one project did not complete all sections of the report.

I. Introduction 3

Table 3. Number of EOC projects and participants reporting performance

information, by type of host institution: 1998-99

Total Percentage Project Number of

projects of total EOC response participants Percentage

Sector in 1998 projects rate reported distribution

4-year 40 49% 95% 58,931 39%

2-year* 23 28% 96% 36,516 24%

Community

organizations 19 23% 95% 56,897 37%

All projects 82 100% 95% 152,344 100%

*One respondent with a two-year college host provided activity and outcome data but did not provide

demographic data.

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

1998-99.

Figure 1. Performance report response rates by region: 1998-99

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

1998-99.

Region X - 100% Region VIII - 100%

Region VII - 83%

Region V - 91%

Region IX - 100%

Region VI - 94%

Region IV - 100%

Region II - 50%

Region III - 100%

Region I - 100%
C. 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: 1998-99

Table 4. Number of EOC projects and participants and percentage

reporting performance information, by federal region: 1998-99

Total Number Number

projects Project of of projects Response

Federal region in 1998 distribution participants reporting rate

Region I (Boston) 5 6% 20,398 5 100%

Region II (New York) 2 2% 3,724 1 50%

Region III (Philadelphia) 10 12% 17,201 10 100%

Region IV (Atlanta) 17 21% 37,030 17 100%

Region V (Chicago) 11 13% 14,493 10 91%

Region VI (Dallas) 17 21% 26,601 16* 94%

Region VII (Kansas City) 6 7% 6,107 5 83%

Region VIII (Denver) 6 7% 13,434 6 100%

Region IX (San Francisco) 5 6% 8,464 5 100%

Region X (Seattle) 3 4% 4,892 3 100%

Total for nation 82 100% 152,344 78 95%

*One respondent from Region VI provided activity and outcome data but did not provide demographic data.

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

1998-99.
II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 

OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

This section summarizes the demographic information that was reported on the

1998-99 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

Seventy-eight of the 82 EOC projects operating during the 1998-99 reporting year

provided valid demographic data. The 78 projects served a total of 152,344 participants, averaging 1,953 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 4-year colleges, 24 percent

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

projects at community organizations.

5

Figure 2. Participant distribution by type of host institution

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

1998-99.

4-year 

39%

2-year

24%

Community orgs. 

37%
6 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

1A 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.

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

guardians did not receive a baccalaureate degree.

Most of the participants (85 percent) in the 1998-99 program year were new, while

15 percent were continuing participants from the previous year. The percentage of

new participants was greatest (93 percent) among projects in the community organization sector. In the 2-year college sector, 82 percent were new participants and in the

4-year college sector, 79 percent were new (Figure 3).

B. Participant distribution by eligibility

Over two-thirds of all EOC participants met both eligibility criteria: they were lowincome1 participants and potential first-generation college2 students (Figure 4).

Eleven percent met only the low-income criterion; another 13 percent met only the

first-generation college requirement. In addition, 5 percent of participants had other

areas of need. Regulations require that two-thirds of project participants each year

meet both eligibility criteria.

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

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

1998-99.

100%

80

60

40

20

0

21% 18%

7%

15%

79% 82%

93%

85%

4-year 2-year Community orgs. All projects
II. Demographic Profile of Project Participants 7

As Table 5 shows, there is very little variation across the sectors in the distribution of

participants by eligibility status.

C. Participant distribution by ethnic background

Figure 5 below shows that whites made up the largest ethnic group among EOC participants (41 percent). African Americans were the next largest group, representing 

36 percent of the participants. Hispanic or Latino students were 14 percent of the

participants, American Indians/Alaska Natives were 4 percent, Asians and multi-racial

participants were 2 percent each, and Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders were 1 percent.

Figure 4. Participant distribution by eligibility

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

1998-99.

Low income and

first generation 

71%

Low income 

only 

11%

First generation 

only 

13%

Other 

5%

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

Low income Low First

and first income generation

Sector generation only only Other

4-year colleges 73% 10% 13% 4%

2-year colleges 70% 12% 13% 5%

Community orgs. 72% 11% 12% 5%

All projects 72% 11% 13% 5%

Percentages do not total to 100 due to rounding.

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

1998-99.
8 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

Table 6 presents the distribution of EOC participants by both ethnic background and

type of host institution. We see slight variations in the ethnic distributions across sectors. For example, American Indians/Alaskan Natives constituted 6 percent of participants at projects hosted by 4-year colleges but only 2 percent at projects hosted by

community organizations. In addition, African Americans made up 29 percent of the

Figure 5. Participant distribution by ethnic background

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

1998-99.

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 

41%

Black or

African American

36%

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

Native

American Hawaiian More

Indian or Black or Hispanic or other than one

Alaska African or Pacific race

Sector Native Asian American Latino White Islander reported

4-year colleges 6% 1% 32% 15% 44% 0% 1%

2-year colleges 4% 3% 29% 16% 44% 2% 2%

Community orgs. 2% 2% 46% 12% 36% 0% 3%

All projects 4% 2% 36% 14% 41% 1% 2%

Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

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

1998-99.
II. Demographic Profile of Project Participants 9

participant population in the 2-year sector but were almost half of the population in

the community organizations sector.

D. Participant distribution by gender

During the 1998-99 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. In the 2-year sector, the percentage of females was 

67 percent, and in the community organizations sector, the percentage was 63 percent (Figure 6).

E. Participant distribution by age

More than four-fifths (84 percent) of EOC participants were ages 19 or older (Figure

7). Only 16 percent were ages 14 to 18. Forty percent of participants were ages 19 to

27 and 44 percent were 28 or above.

At 4-year colleges and community organizations, slightly larger proportions of participants were in the youngest age range (Table 7). Twelve percent of participants at

projects hosted by 2-year schools were 14 to 18 years old, whereas 19 percent of participants at 4-year schools and 16 percent in community organizations were in that

age range. Eighty percent of participants in the 4-year sector were 19 years or older.

Eight-eight percent in the 2-year sector and 84 percent in the community organizations sector were 19 or older.

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

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

1998-99.

Male Female

All projects

Community orgs.

2-year

4-year

36%

37%

33%

36%

64%

63%

67%

64%

0 20 40 60 80 100%
10 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

F. Participant distribution by grade level

As expected given the age distribution, only13 percent of EOC participants were

attending high school during the 1998-99 school year (Figure 8). Thirty-seven percent had already graduated from high school or received their GED certificate (and

were not attending school), 21 percent were attending college, and 28 percent had left

high school or college without graduating.

As shown in Table 8, there are not large differences in grade-level distribution by type of

host institution. The largest percentage of people served by all three types of host institution was high school graduates who had not yet enrolled in postsecondary programs.

However, 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). Projects hosted by community organizations were somewhat more likely to

Figure 7. Participant distribution by age

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

1998-99.

14-18 

16%

19-27

40%

28 and up 

44%

Table 7. Participant distribution by age and type of host institution

Sector 14-18 19-27 28 and up Unknown

4-year colleges 19% 38% 42% 1%

2-year colleges 12% 45% 43% 0%

Community orgs. 16% 39% 45% 0%

All projects 16% 40% 44% 0%

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

1998-99.
II. Demographic Profile of Project Participants 11

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 (4 percent) were veterans. Five percent of

participants in the 4-year sector, 4 percent in the 2-year sector, and 3 percent in the

community organizations sector were veterans.

Figure 8. Participant distribution by grade level

Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

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

1998-99.

Postsecondary 

student

Postsecondary dropout 

High school (or GED)

 graduate 

Secondary school 

dropout 

12th grade only

9th-11th grade

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40% 

21%

14%

37%

14%

11%

2%

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

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

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

12th grade only 12% 5% 13% 11%

Secondary school dropout 15% 16% 12% 14%

High school (or GED) graduate 42% 45% 28% 37%

Postsecondary dropout 11% 16% 15% 14%

Postsecondary student 17% 16% 28% 21%

Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

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

1998-99.
12 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

H. Participants of limited English proficiency

Overall, 5 percent of EOC participants during the 1998-99 reporting period had limited English proficiency. Five percent of participants in the 4-year sector, 1 percent in

the 2-year sector, and 7 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.

Since only those EOC projects that chose to serve high school students will 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 78 EOC projects providing demographic data, 34 projects, or 44 percent, submitted a list of target schools.

EOC projects listing target schools listed an average of eight schools. Projects based in

4-year colleges and in community organizations served an average of nine target schools

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

Figure 9. Mean number of target schools per EOC project reporting target

schools, by type of host institution

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

1998-99.

10

8

6

4

2

0

4-year 2-year Community orgs. All projects

9

5

9

8
13

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 activity sessions and the number of participants who attended each of

10 activities over the 1998-99 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. Seventy-nine of the 82 EOC projects operating during the 1998-99 reporting year provided project services and activities data.

Table 9 highlights the percentages of projects that provided each service for the two

education levels. The most common activity provided by EOC projects was counseling

services. Thirty-three percent of projects provided counseling to high school students,

80 percent to adults, and 80 percent to participants overall. Academic advising, referrals

to other organizations, and college orientation were also common activities. Family

Table 9. Percentage of projects offering service to participants, by grade

level: 1998-99

High School Adult Overall

Tutoring 11% 41% 41%

Assisted (computer) labs 7% 40% 40%

Test-taking & study skills development 22% 48% 48%

Counseling 33% 80% 80%

Academic advising 33% 79% 79%

Mentoring 9% 30% 30%

Cultural activities 12% 23% 26%

College orientation 27% 60% 67%

Family activities 7% 16% 16%

Referrals 21% 65% 70%

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

1998-99.

3Some 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.
14 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

activities, cultural activities, and mentoring were among the services provided by the

smallest percentage of EOC projects. As expected for the EOC Program, the data also

show that projects gear their activities more to adults than to high school students.

A. Academic support services

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

follows in the performance report:

• 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 methods were used to look at 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

project was instructed to count the session as one rather than five sessions.

As Table 10 shows, among academic support services, 3 percent of participants

received tutoring, 4 percent attended assisted (computer) labs, 8 percent attended testtaking and study skills development sessions, and 44 percent received academic advising. On average (among those projects that provided each service), a typical EOC project provided 353 tutoring sessions, 237 assisted computer lab sessions, 152 test-taking

and study skills development sessions, and 1,135 academic advising sessions in the

1998-99 program year. The average number of sessions per participant was almost

three for tutoring and about one for the other three academic support services.
III. Project Services and Activities 15

1. Adult participants

As the previous chapter notes, about 72 percent of participants were adults.4 Figure

10 shows that 55 percent of the adult participants engaged in academic advising sessions provided by EOC projects. Nine percent of the adult participants received testTable 10. Percentage of all participants receiving academic support services, 

average number of sessions per project, and average number of

sessions per participant: 1998-99

Percentage of Average number Average number

participants of sessions of sessions

receiving service per project per participant

Tutoring 3% 353 2.7

Assisted (computer) labs 4% 237 1.1

Test-taking & study skills dev. 8% 152 0.5

Academic advising 44% 1,135 1.1

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

1998-99.

Figure 10. Percentage of adult participants receiving academic support

services: 1998-99

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

1998-99.

60%

50

40

30

20

10

0

Tutoring Assisted 

(computer) labs

9

Test-taking & 

study skills

Academic 

advising

4% 6%

9%

55%

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

GED) graduates.
16 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

taking and study skills sessions, 6 percent received assisted (computer) labs, and 4 percent received tutoring.

The typical EOC project provided adult participants with 325 tutoring sessions, 221

assisted labs, 133 test-taking and study skills development sessions, and 1,025 academic advising sessions (Table 11). The average number of sessions per adult participant ranged from almost three for tutoring to approximately one for assisted labs,

test-taking and study skills development, and academic advising.

2. High school participants

As the previous chapter notes, approximately 27 percent of EOC participants are secondary school students or dropouts. Figure 11 shows that 21 percent of the high

school participants received academic advising services provided by EOC projects.

Eight percent of high school participants received test-taking and study skills services, and 1 percent received tutoring and assisted lab sessions.

Among those EOC projects providing such services, the average project offered high

school participants 104 tutoring sessions, 89 assisted (computer) labs, 42 test-taking

and study skills development sessions, and 260 academic advising sessions for the

program year 1998-99 (Table 12). The typical EOC project offered nearly two tutoring sessions per high school participant and approximately one assisted lab, testtaking and study skills development session, and academic advising session.

Table 11. Average number of sessions per project providing service and average

number of sessions per participant for adult participants: 1998-99

Average number of Average number of

sessions per project sessions per participant

Tutoring 325 2.8

Assisted (computer) labs 221 1.1

Test-taking & study skills dev. 133 0.5

Academic advising 1,025 1.1

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

1998-99.
III. Project Services and Activities 17

B. Personal and career development services

An additional six 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 broadFigure 11. Percentage of high school participants receiving academic support

services: 1998-99

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

1998-99.

25%

20

15

10

5

0

Tutoring Assisted 

(computer) labs

9

Test-taking & 

study skills

Academic 

advising

8%

10%

1% 1%

Table 12. Average number of sessions per project providing service and

average number of sessions per participant for high school

participants: 1998-99

Average number of Average number of

sessions per project sessions per participant

Tutoring 104 1.9

Assisted (computer) labs 89 1.2

Test-taking & study skills dev. 42 0.2

Academic advising 260 0.8

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

1998-99.
18 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

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

• 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 project participants’

academic progress and personal development.

• 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 among all EOC participants was counseling (62 percent, Table 13). Thirty-two percent of all participants

also engaged in college orientation services and 29 percent received referrals to other

service providers. Two percent of all participants received mentoring services and cultural and family activities.

Table 13. Percentage of all participants receiving personal and career

development services: 1998-99

Percentage of Average number of Average number of

participants receiving of sessions of sessions

service sessions per project per participant

Counseling 62% 2,290 1.6

Mentoring 2% 109 0.7

Cultural activities 2% 16 0.1

College orientation 32% 410 0.5

Family activities 2% 46 0.2

Referrals 29% 144 0.2

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

1998-99.
III. Project Services and Activities 19

1. Adult participants

Eighty percent of adult participants took advantage of counseling services provided

by EOC projects, the highest participation rate for a personal and career development

service (Figure 12). Referrals (39 percent) and college orientation services (36 percent) were also popular. Three percent of all adults participated in mentoring and

family activities, and 2 percent engaged in cultural activities.

2. High school participants

Figure 13 presents participation rates for personal and career development services

for high school participants. These two services attracted the highest percentage of

participants: counseling, with 27 percent participation, and college orientation, with

26 percent participation. Referrals were next most popular, with 6 percent of all high

school students participating. Two percent of high school participants engaged in

family and cultural activities, and less than 1 percent in mentoring services.

Figure 12. Percentage of adult participants receiving personal and career

development services: 1998-99

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

1998-99.

Referrals

Family activities

College orientation

Cultural activities

Mentoring

Counseling

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80%

39%

3%

36%

2%

3%

80%
20 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

Figure 13. Percentage of high school participants receiving personal and

career development services: 1998-99

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

1998-99.

Referrals

Family activities

College orientation

Cultural activities

Mentoring

Counseling

0 5 10 15 20 25 30%

6%

26%

27%

0%

2%

2%
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. Seventy-nine of the 82 EOC projects operating during 1998-99

reporting year provided valid performance outcome data.

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 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.

21
22 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

Overall, projects anticipated assisting 76 percent of participants with applying for

admissions to a postsecondary institution and 79 percent with applying for financial

aid (Table 14). In fact, 69 percent of college-ready EOC participants applied to postsecondary institutions and 78 percent applied for financial aid applications.

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.

As Table 15 shows, EOC project staff expected 49 percent of their eligible participants to enroll in a postsecondary institution and 46 percent of those who had previously dropped out of college to reenroll. According to 1998-99 performance data, 

51 percent of eligible participants were admitted to postsecondary institutions, and 

56 percent of postsecondary dropouts had reenrolled.

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 college, 80 percent were admitted to a public institution (54 percent to 

a public 2-year institution and 26 percent to a public 4-year institution). Thirteen

percent were accepted at a public or nonprofit vocational or technical school, and 

Table 14. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for

assistance in applying for postsecondary admissions and financial aid:

1998-99*

Approved

Outcome Approved Objective Actual

Assistance in applying for postsecondary admissions 76% 69%

Assistance in applying for financial aid 79% 78%

* Outcome data are based on 67 projects providing complete application for admissions figures and 69

projects providing application for financial aid figures.

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

1998-99.
IV. Performance Outcomes 23

5 percent at a private nonprofit 4-year college. One percent each were admitted to a

proprietary school or a nonprofit 2-year institution.

As Table 16 shows, 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 (55 percent).

Participants at projects with 4-year colleges and community organizations as hosts

had a higher percentage of participants accepted at 4-year institutions than did 2-year

college hosts.

Table 15. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for

postsecondary admissions and postsecondary reentry: 1998-99*

Approved

Outcome Approved Objective Actual

Assistance in applying for postsecondary admissions 49% 51%

Assistance in applying for financial aid 46% 56%

*Outcome data are based on the 65 projects providing complete admissions figures and the 55 providing reentry figures.

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

1998-99.

Figure 14. Postsecondary placement of participants for EOC overall: 1998-99

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

1998-99.

Public 2-year 

54% Public 4-year 

26%

Nonprofit 

2-year 

1%

Public or nonprofit

vocational or technical

school 

13%

Proprietary

school

1%

Private nonprofit 

5%
24 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

D. Secondary school retention, graduation, and reentry

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

instructions provided to projects with the performance report form:

• Secondary school retention—all secondary students who will continue in high

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.

As Table 17 shows, EOC projects expected 55 percent of high school students in grades

9 through 11 to remain in school, 58 percent of high school seniors to graduate, and 

51 percent of secondary school dropouts to reenroll. For the 1998–99 program year, 

86 percent of applicable high school students remained in school, 93 percent of high

school seniors graduated, and 35 percent of high school dropouts reenrolled.

Table 16. Distribution of postsecondary placement of participants by sector: 

1998-99

4-year 2-year Community All

college college orgs. projects

Admitted to:

Public 2-year school 45% 73% 48% 54%

Nonprofit 2-year school 2% 0% 1% 1%

Public 4-year school 29% 11% 33% 26%

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

Public or nonprofit vocational

or technical school 16% 10% 11% 13%

Proprietary school 2% 1% 1% 1%

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

1998-99.

Table 17. Comparison of approved objectives and actual achievements for

secondary school outcomes: 1998-99*

Outcome Approved Objective Actual

Secondary school retention 55% 86%

Secondary school graduation 58% 93%

Secondary school reentry 51% 35%

*Outcome data are based on eight projects providing complete retention figures, 13 providing graduation figures, and 18 providing reentry figures.

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

1998-99.
25

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 18). 

All demographic items, with the exception of target schools and participants with limited English proficiency, had response rates of 100 percent. Response rates for outcome items were not as high as those for demographic items.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.

Some additional data issues were as follows:

• The total numbers of participants did not always add up across some of the sections. For example, the total number provided in the participant distribution

by eligibility section did not always equal the total from the participant distribution by age.

• When a field was left blank, we could not determine whether the field was not

applicable or the data item was missing.

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

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.
26 A Profile of the Educational Opportunity Centers Program: 1998-99

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

has already added edit checks to the Web-based application to require the totals in

each part of Section II of the report to add up to the total number served. The results

of this change should be immediately apparent in the 1999-2000 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.

Table 18. Section/item response rates: 1998-99

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 95%

Target schools 44%

Approved objectives:

Secondary school retention 11%

Secondary school graduation 19%

Secondary school reentry 27%

Assistance in applying for postsecondary admissions 86%

Assistance in applying for student financial aid 89%

Postsecondary admissions 84%

Postsecondary reentry 71%

Participant status at the end of the reporting period:

Continued in high school 66%

Received high school diploma 71%

Obtained a GED/high school equivalency degree 72%

Applied for admission to programs of postsecondary education 91%

Applied for student financial aid for postsecondary education 91%

Admitted to (or enrolled in) a program of postsecondary education 84%

Re-enrolled in a program of postsecondary education 71%

Dropped out of high school 80%

Other 85%

Unknown 86%

Postsecondary placements (types of institutions) 92%–99%

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

1998-99.