**A Profile of the**

**Upward Bound Program:**

**2000–2001**

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

**2004**

# A Profile of the Upward Bound Program:

# 2000–2001

**Prepared for:**

**U.S. Department of Education**

**Office of Postsecondary Education**

**Federal TRIO Programs**

**By:**

**Research Triangle Institute**

# Margaret W. Cahalan

# Thomas R. Curtin

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED–01––CO–0052/0007. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U. S. Department of Education**

Rod Paige

*Secretary*

**Office of Postsecondary Education**

Sally L. Stroup

*Assistant Secretary*

**Federal TRIO Programs**

Larry Oxendine

*Director*

August 2004

This report is in the public domain.  Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted.  While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, *A Profile of the Upward Bound Program:  2000–2001*, by Margaret W. Cahalan and Thomas R. Curtin, Washington, DC, 2004. 

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

**write** to:  ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794–1398; 

or **fax**your request to: (301) 470–1244;

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

or **call**in your request toll-free: 1–877–433–7827 (1–877–4-ED-PUBS).  If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1–800–872–5327 (1–800–USA–LEARN). Those who use a tele-communications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1–877–576–7734.

or order online at: http://www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette.  For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260–9895 or (202) 205–8113.

**CONTENTS**

viTABLES

FIGURESix

FOREWORDxi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSxiii

HIGHLIGHTSxv

Grantees and target schoolsxv

Participantsxvi

Program participation levels, services, and academic measuresxvi

Postsecondary enrollmentxvii

CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION1

A.Program purpose, origins, requirements1

B.Program funding history3

C.The changing national context6

D.National evaluations of Upward Bound and Upward Bound Initiatives10

1.Summary of national evaluations10

2.Upward Bound Initiatives10

E.The purpose and development of the Upward Bound performance report11

F.Report structure12

CHAPTER 2  CHARACTERISTICS OF GRANTEES13

A.Federal region14

B.IPEDS comparison15

CHAPTER 3  UPWARD BOUND PARTICIPANTS19

A.Participant distribution, by eligibility19

1.Context: National data on poverty and parent education19

2.Distribution of Upward Bound participants, by eligibility status24

B.Participant distribution, by race/ethnicity25

1.Context: National data on race/ethnicity25

2.Distribution of Upward Bound participants, by race/ethnicity26

C.Participant distribution, by gender28

1.Context: National data on educational participation by gender28

2.Upward Bound distribution, by gender30

D.Participant need for services31

E.Participant distribution, by grade and age at entry into the program33

1.Grade at entry into Upward Bound33

2.Age at entry into Upward Bound35

CHAPTER 4  UPWARD BOUND TARGET SCHOOLS37

A.Number of target schools37

B.Estimates of the percentage of potentially eligible participants served40

C.Comparison of percentage eligible for free lunch and percentage minority43

CHAPTER 5  HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION, SERVICES, AND ACADEMIC MEASURES49

A.Participation level, number served, and length of participation49

1.Participation level49

2.Number served and number funded to serve51

B.Participant status54

1.Participation length56

2.Reason for leaving the program57

3.Overlap among UB and UBMS participation58

C.Services offered and received59

1.Percentage of projects offering service60

2.Percentage of participants receiving instruction in the subject area60

3.Other services for UB in 2000–0163

D.High school grades65

1.GPA at the start and end, by grade65

2.GPA change status66

3.Upward Bound Initiative preliminary data on GPAs68

E.College entrance exams69

1.Context69

2.UB college entrance exam results70

F.Credits earned71

CHAPTER 6  POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT73

A.Overview73

B.Context:  National data on enrollment74

1.Enrollment status of dependent family members 18–24 years of age74

2.College enrollment for high school graduates the October following graduation77

C.Upward Bound performance report data on postsecondary enrollment78

1.Source of information on postsecondary enrollment78

2.Type of postsecondary enrollment78

3.Postsecondary enrollment status, financial aid sources, and standing81

4.Postsecondary grade level and degree and certificate completion status83

REFERENCES85

APPENDIX A  UPWARD BOUND PERFORMANCE  REPORTING: METHODS AND DATA  QUALITY FOR THE FIRST YEAR87

APPENDIX B  GLOSSARY91

****

**TABLES**

41.TRIO funding, number of grants, number of participants, average award, averagenumber served, and amount per person served:  2002–03

2.TRIO funding, by program in current and constant 2002 dollars:  1967–20025

3.Projects and unduplicated counts of current and prior-year UB, UBMS, and VUB participants included in the project reports, by type of project and grantee sector:  2000–0114

4.Number and percentage of Upward Bound projects, by federal region:  2000–0115

5.Number and percentage of two- and four-year degree-granting institutions serving undergraduates that have Upward Bound grants, by type of postsecondary institution:  2000–0116

6.Comparison of the distribution of Carnegie classified institutions and UB grantees, by type of degree awarded:  2000–0117

7.Postsecondary institutions serving undergraduates and institutions with Upward Bound projects, by type of institution:  2000–0118

8.Percentage distribution of UB participants, by eligibility status and by sector of grantee:  2000–0124

9.Percentage distribution of U.S. population, by race/ethnicity:  1970–200125

10.Percentage distribution of reported reason for needing UB services, by sector:  2000–0132

11.Percentage distribution of types of tests used to assess academic need and mean PLAN-ACT and PSAT test scores for UB projects:  2000–0133

12.Percentage distribution of UB participants, by grade at entry into program:  2000–0134

13.Percentage distribution and mean age at program entry for new, current, and re-entry participants in UB projects, by sector of host institution:  1999–200035

14.Number of UB and UBMS projects, number of target schools, and target schools as a percentage of total public schools serving grades 9–12, by state:  2000–0139

15.Number of participants served by Upward Bound and Talent Search projects and estimated percentage of students eligible for free lunch served by the programs, by state:  2000–0141

16.Percentage of students in grades 9 to 12 eligible for the federal free lunch program in Upward Bound target schools and other secondary schools, by state:  2000–0144

17.Percentage of minority students in grades 9 to 12 in Upward Bound schools and other secondary schools, by state:  2000–0146

18.Number and percentage distribution of Upward Bound participants, by grantee sector and type of participation in reporting year: 2000–0150

19.Number of UB projects  and number of participants the projects were funded to serve and actually served, by Upward Bound Initiative status: 2000–0154

20.Percentage distribution of participants, by participant status (new, continuing, and re-entry) and by type of Upward Bound project: 2000–0155

21.Percentage distribution, mean, and median number of months between entry date and date of last participation or end of reporting period for UB participants, by participant status: 2000–0156

22.Percentage distribution, mean, and median number of months between entry date and exit date (or end date of reporting period) for prior-year participants in UB projects, by project sector: 2000–0157

23.Percentage distribution of reported reasons for leaving the program of UB participants with a reported date of last service:  2000–0158

24.Number of UB and UBMS projects with overlapping current and prior-year participants, by grantee sector: 2000–0159

25.Percentage of UB projects having at least one participant receiving service in academic areas and the percentage of current participants receiving the services: 2000–0161

26.Percentage distribution of UB projects  providing  academic year and/or summer service and percentage of current participants receiving the service: 2000–0164

27.Mean high school GPA on 4-point scale for new, continuing, and re-entry UB participants, by grade entering at end of reporting period: 2000–0166

28.Mean GPA at entrance into program, start of reporting period, and end of reporting period, by GPA change status for participants served by UB and UBMS: 2000–0167

29.Grade point averages (GPAs) for UB participants, by Upward Bound Initiativestatus: 2000–0168

30.Average national scores for SAT and ACT, by selected socioeconomic categories:  200169

31.Percentage of UB participants in performance reports with test information and mean score for college entrance exams, by end grade level:  2000–0170

32.Percentage of UB participants earning credits and credits earned, by type of credits earned: 2000–0171

33.Percentage distribution of enrollment status of dependent primary family members 18 to 24 years old, by family income level:  200075

34.Estimated number of persons in family income categories and percent of high school graduates enrolled in college the October following high school graduation, by gender and family income:  October 200077

35.Percentage distribution of source of information on postsecondary activities for UB and UBMS participants, by gender:  2000–0179

36.Percentage distribution of the types of postsecondary institutions first attended by Upward Bound participants, by sector of grantee institution:  2000–0180

37.Percentage distribution of postsecondary enrollment status among those reported as enrolled, by gender:  2000–0182

38.Percentage distribution of type of financial aid among those having  financial aid status reported, by gender:  2000–0182

39.Percentage distribution of postsecondary enrollment standing among those reported as enrolled in or accepted at postsecondary institutions, by gender:  2000–0182

40.Percentage distribution of postsecondary grade level among those reported to have completed secondary education, by gender:  2000–0183

41.Percentage distribution of postsecondary degree completion status  among those reported to have completed secondary education, by gender:  2000–0184

A–1.Number of Upward Bound projects funded and number and percentage that submitted participant performance reports, by program type: 2000–0187

****

**FIGURES**

61.TRIO funding in constant 2002 dollars, by program:  1967–2002

2.Percentage of the population 18–24 years old who have dropped out of highschool (status dropout rate), by race/ethnicity:  1967–20007

3.Percentage of 18–24-year-olds enrolled in postsecondary institutions, byrace/ethnicity: selected years, 1967–20008

4.Percentage of high school graduates enrolled in college the October followinggraduation, by family income:  1972–20009

5.Percentage distribution of UB projects, by sector of host grantees:  2000–0113

6.Percentage of people under 18 years who were below the poverty level, byrace/ethnicity:  1970–200120

7.Percentage of U.S. population and of persons under 18 in families in povertyand under 150 percent of poverty level, by race/ethnicity:  200121

8.Percentage of children 6–18 years of age having a mother with a bachelor’sdegree and percentage having a father with a bachelor’s degree, byrace/ethnicity:  1974–199922

9.Percentage of high school students who were potentially first-generation four-year college graduates by race/ethnicity:  1972, 1980, 1990, and 200223

10.Percentage distribution of UB participants, by eligibility status:  2000–0124

11.Percentage distribution of UB participants, by race/ethnicity:  2000–0126

12.Percentage distribution of UB participants, by race/ethnicity and by host grantee sector:  2000–0127

13.Percentage distribution of participants, by race/ethnicity and by type of Upward Bound program:  2000–0128

14.Percentage of 18–24-year-olds who dropped out of high school (status dropout rate), by gender:  1967–200029

15.Percentage of high school graduates aged 14–24 who were enrolled in or completed some college, by gender:  1967–200030

16.Percentage distribution of participants, by gender and by type of Upward Bound project:  2000–0131

17.Percentage distribution of participants, by grade at entry into program and by type of Upward Bound program:  2000–0134

18.Average number of target schools, by type of Upward Bound project:  2000–0138

19.Percentage of UB and UBMS participants participating at various levels during the reporting year:  2000–0151

20.Number served over course of the reporting year, number funded to serve, and estimated Yearly Full-Time-Equivalent (YFTE) number served, among UB projects submitting performance reports: 2000–0152

21.Percentage distribution of UB current (re-entry, continuing, and new) participants, by grantee sector: 2000–0155

22.Percentage of participants who received instructional services in core subject areas in UB and UBMS during the academic year and the summer program: 2000–0162

23.Percentage of participants who received instructional services in selected mathematics subject areas in UB and UBMS during the academic year and the summer program: 2000–0163

24.GPA of UB participants served in reporting period at program entry, start of reporting period, and end of period, by GPA change status:  2000–0167

25.Percentage of dependent primary family members 18–24 years old enrolled full and part time in two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions or having a bachelor’s degree, by family income level and by gender:  October 200076

26.Percentage of UB participants enrolled (or accepted for enrollment) in postsecondary education who attended grantee institutions, by grantee sector:  2000–0181

****

**FOREWORD**

To help achieve our collective goal of “no child left behind,” high-quality 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 and potentially first-generation college students who have need for academic support to progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to postbaccalaureate programs. 

On behalf of the Federal TRIO Programs, I am pleased to present this report, *A Profile of the Upward Bound Program:  2000–2001*. The goal of the classic Upward Bound Program is to encourage enrollment in postsecondary education and to help low-income, first-generation high school students develop the skills and motivation necessary for success in that environment.

This report is the first in a series that presents a national profile of the classic Upward Bound Program.  We are also preparing similar national profile reports on the Upward Bound Math-Science and Veterans Upward Bound Programs. In addition, individual project reports, which will be provided separately, summarize specific information submitted by each project and provide aggregate information on other Upward Bound projects in the same federal region, the same institutional sector, and the nation. The 2000–01 performance reports, submitted by the Upward Bound projects, were the primary data source for this national profile report and each individual project report.  

We are proud to formally begin a process for sharing national statistical information on the Upward Bound Program and related national data. It is our hope that the collection and dissemination of this information will foster communication aimed at assessing our mission and implementing measures of how well we are doing. We also hope that this profile report will serve as the catalyst for a dialogue on ways to provide program services to more students, improve the effectiveness of program services, and increase postsecondary enrollment and degree completion for low-income, first-generation college students.

I appreciate the collective effort of the Upward Bound community to help ensure that our children will have access to the opportunities afforded through a quality education.

Larry Oxendine

Director

Federal TRIO Programs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Publishing this report was a team effort, and we appreciate the support of all who contributed. First we thank the project staff members of the Upward Bound projects who reported the data upon which this profile report is based.    We also want to thank Larry Oxendine, director of the Federal TRIO Programs, and Margarita Benítez, team leader for the Upward Bound Program, for their contributions.  Frances Bergeron, team leader, Program Management and Development, Federal TRIO Programs, coordinated the data collection and reporting processes, provided feedback as the report developed, and reviewed the report. Kathy Fuller and Teresita Kopka, also of TRIO, provided a careful review of the document in preparation for publication. 

HIGHLIGHTS

This report provides a comprehensive profile of the regular (classic) Upward Bound (UB) program using individual student-level information for UB participants served in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Ninety-seven percent of the Upward Bound projects (708 out of 727 projects) provided student-level data for this report.  The 708 projects provided information in the performance reports for 69,436 UB participants.  After removing duplicates (e.g., students who were listed more than once within a project), some 68,628 UB project participants were identified.  This included 55,140 new, continuing, and re-entry participants served during the 2000–01 project year (80 percent); 12,846 prior-year participants (19 percent)—those participants served in 1999–2000 but not in 2000–01; and 642 participants whose status is unknown (1 percent).

The highlights below provide information on the characteristics of Upward Bound grantees and program participants, program participation levels, services, and secondary school academic measures; also provided are preliminary data on postsecondary enrollment.

**Grantees and target schools**

· During the 2000–01 program year, a total of 727 classic Upward Bound projects were funded. 

· The largest percentage of UB grantees (63 percent) were four-year postsecondary institutions; almost one-third (32 percent) of grantees were two-year postsecondary institutions; and 5 percent were community-based organizations.

· UB projects had high representation at minority institutions.  While Historically Black Colleges and Universities constitute 3 percent of the nation’s degree-granting institutions that serve undergraduates, they are grantees for 10 percent of UB projects.  While Hispanic Serving Institutions represent 6 percent of degree-granting institutions, they house 12 percent of UB projects.  Tribal Colleges and Universities constitute 1 percent of degree-granting institutions and serve as grantees for 1 percent of UB projects.

· A typical UB project served six target high schools while Upward****Bound Math-Science (UBMS) centers served an average of 18 target schools.

· Among UB and UBMS target schools, 34 percent of students were eligible for free lunch, while about 25 percent of high school students were eligible for free lunch in non-UB schools.

· Almost half (47 percent) of the total enrollment in UB and UBMS target schools was minority; in non-UB schools, 31 percent of the enrollment were minority students.

**Participants**

· Overall, 79 percent of Upward Bound participants were both low-income and potentially first-generation college students; 16 percent were first-generation only; and 5 percent were low-income only. 

· Thirty-eight percent of participants served in 2000–01 were new (first-time) participants; 61 percent were continuing participants having also participated in the program in 1999–2000; and a very small percentage—less than one-half of 1 percent—was classified as re-entry participants.  

· The largest percentage (45 percent) of Upward Bound participants in 2000–01 were black or African American followed by white (25 percent), Hispanic or Latino (19 percent), Asian (5 percent), American Indian or Alaska Native (4 percent), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (2 percent), and those of more than one race (1 percent).  

· Just under two-thirds (64 percent) of UB participants in 2000–01 were female.  

· On average, classic UB projects served 12 students per target school, while UBMS served three students per target school.

· The most commonly cited reasons for the need for services for Upward Bound participants were those related to low grades, low achievement scores, and low aspirations (about 30 percent).  The second most commonly reported reason for needing services was lack of opportunity, support, and guidance to take challenging college preparatory courses (about 20 percent), followed by being a member of a “predominately low-income community” (about 18 percent).

· The majority of UB participants (approximately 57 percent) entered the program as either ninth-graders or rising ninth-graders (i.e., students in the summer between eighth and ninth grades).  About one-third (33 percent) entered in the 10th grade, and 10 percent entered as 11th-graders.  Less than 1 percent entered as rising 12th-graders.

· The mean age of UB participants at entry into the project was 15.2 years. About 44 percent of UB participants entered the program at age 14 or under.

**Program participation levels, services, and academic measures**

· About 61 percent of the 2000–01 participants were involved in the program in the academic year as well as the summer components.  About 37 percent participated in the academic year or the summer but not both components; the level of participation of approximately 2 percent was unknown.

· The mean number of months between the participant’s entry date and the date of last participation or the end of the reporting period for those served in 2000–01 was 22 months; the median was 21. (Average length of participation of Upward Bound students cannot be accurately reported at this time because the data reported do not include a complete grade-level cohort.)

· Virtually all UB projects had participants receiving instruction in the required areas of math, science, foreign languages, and English.****

· Average combined SAT scores for UB students were from 899 for those with an end of reporting period level of 12th grade and 917 for those with an ending level of “enrolled in postsecondary.” 

· Combined ACT scores were 18.8 for those entering the 12th grade at the end of the period and 19.1 for those with end grade of “enrolled in postsecondary.”

**Postsecondary enrollment**

For this first UB profile report, participant-level data were only available for individuals served in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Since nearly 90 percent of UB participants enter the program before the 11th grade, most of the participants included in the 2000–01 report had not completed high school.  Thus, the data provided below on postsecondary enrollment rates do not include a complete grade-level cohort of UB participants. The following information is reported for those 1999–2000 and/or 2000–01 UB participants enrolled in postsecondary education at the end of the report period (summer/fall 2001).

· Overall, of the UB participants enrolled in postsecondary education, 74 percent were enrolled in a four-year institution and 25 percent in a two-year institution. There was a positive association between type of grantee institution and the type of postsecondary institution attended.  For example, among UB participants from programs hosted by two-year institutions, over half (52 percent) attended two-year institutions.

· Thirty-five percent of UB participants who enrolled in a postsecondary institution enrolled in the institution that hosted their Upward Bound project (i.e., the grantee institution).  The percentage of the total enrolled that attended the grantee institution was highest among projects hosted by two-year institutions (46 percent) and lowest among projects hosted by four-year private institutions (17 percent).

· Over 90 percent of those enrolled were reported to be attending full time, with only 5 percent being reported as less than full time and 3 percent reported to have varied enrollment.

· The majority of those enrolled (53 percent) were reported to have multiple federal and other sources of financial aid, with another 20 percent reported to have multiple federal aid.  About 10 percent had a Pell grant only. 

· Among those for whom postsecondary status was reported, a small percentage (4 percent) was reported as not being in good standing.

**CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION**

The U.S. Department of Education’s Strategic Plan 2002–2007 (2002) established an objective to “reduce the gaps in college access and completion among student populations differing by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability while increasing the educational attainment of all.”  Upward Bound, which made its first awards in 1965, has always sought to increase the academic performance and motivation of low-income youths and potentially first-generation college students enrolled in high school, so that these students may complete secondary school and successfully pursue postsecondary education programs.  By continuing its efforts to meet these goals, Upward Bound seeks to contribute to achieving this objective of the Strategic Plan. 

The *Profile of the Upward Bound Program:  2000–2001*is the first in a series of reports that present a national profile of the classic Upward Bound (UB) Program. We are preparing similar national profile reports on the Upward Bound Math-Science (UBMS) and Veterans Upward Bound (VUB) Programs.  Although each of the three types of Upward Bound programs has shared goals and similar performance reports, each has a unique mission, with different participant characteristics and services.  Each profile report follows the same outline and includes some overarching tables that provide findings across the three types of programs.  However, detailed information in this report is presented only for the classic Upward Bound program that is the focus of this profile report.  

In this introductory chapter, we present information on program background, the changing context of Upward Bound, and the purpose and development of the performance reports; we also outline the report structure. 

**A.Program purpose, origins, requirements**

Upward Bound (UB) was the first TRIO program and remains the largest of the programs in terms of annual funding allocations.  TRIO began with the *Economic Opportunity Act of 1964*, which authorized 18 pilot Upward Bound programs in 1965.  In the same year, the *Higher Education Act of 1965* authorized the Talent Search (TS) Program designed to identify and assist youths with the potential for success in higher education.  In 1966, the UB Program was expanded from the 18 pilot programs to 220.  It was not until 1968 that the term TRIO was coined to encompass the three initial programs—UB, TS, and the newly authorized Student Support Services (SSS) Program that provides support services to undergraduates to assist them in completing programs of postsecondary education.  At the same time (in 1968), all three programs were placed under Title IV of the *Higher Education Act,* as amended.  In 1972, during the Vietnam War, VUB was initiated to assist veterans in transitioning from military service to postsecondary education.  Also in 1972, the Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) Program to serve adults was authorized.  Fourteen years later, in 1986, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program was authorized to prepare undergraduates from groups underrepresented in graduate education for graduate study and the attainment of Ph.D. degrees.  In 1990, the Department created the UBMS Program to address the need for specific instruction in the fields of math and science.  The Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs, authorized in 1976, supports training programs to enhance the skills and expertise of project directors and staff employed in the Federal TRIO Programs.  The newest program, TRIO Dissemination Partnership, authorized in 1998, encourages the replication of successful practices of TRIO Programs at institutions and agencies that do not have a federally funded TRIO project. 

The purpose of Upward Bound has always been to foster, among low-income youths and potentially first-generation college students enrolled in high school, the skills and motivation necessary for enrollment and success in education beyond high school.  The goal of the program is to increase the academic performance and motivation of eligible participants so that they may complete secondary school and successfully pursue postsecondary education programs. 

To participate in Upward Bound, students must be between the ages of 13 and 19 (except for veterans), have completed eight years of elementary education, plan to go to college, and need Upward Bound services to fulfill their goals.  Students are generally recruited for participation in UB and UBMS through the high schools they attend.  Selection of the participants is based upon recommendations from their counselors, teachers, and social agencies.  Two-thirds of project participants must be low-income (defined as taxable income less than 150 percent of poverty level, e.g., the income level for a family of four was approximately $26,475 in 2001) *and* potentially first-generation college students. “Potentially first-generation college student” means that neither of the student’s parents has completed a bachelor’s degree.  The remaining one-third of participants must be *either* low-income or potentially first-generation college students. 

Annually, UB projects serve between 50 and 150 participants; UBMS projects serve between 50 and 75, and VUB projects serve a minimum of 120 veterans.  These requirements can be waived.  

UB and UBMS projects must provide both an intensive summer residential or nonresidential program (usually six weeks in length) designed to simulate the college-going experience and an academic-year program. Through the academic-year program, participants continue to receive academic and college preparation support services, offered typically on weekends or after the regular school day.  In addition to the required summer program and academic-year program, projects may also have a summer bridge component for high school graduates planning to enter postsecondary education in the fall.

Upward Bound stipends may be provided to all participants who participate on a full-time basis as evidenced by regular attendance and performance up to the standards established by the project.  Except for youths participating in summer work-study positions, the stipend for the summer months must not exceed $60 per month, and for the academic-year component, the stipend must not exceed $40 per month.  To retain students in the summer program who otherwise might need to work, projects may now (as of 1998) pay youths participating in a work-study position a stipend of $300 per month during the summer. 

UB grants are generally four years in length, with the top-scoring proposals receiving five-year grants.  Prior experience points may be earned by grantees that have conducted an Upward Bound project during the three years prior to the year in which the new application is submitted. Upward Bound grantees may earn up to 15 prior experience points based on the following five regulatory criteria reflecting the goals of Upward Bound; each criterion is worth three points:

1. Whether the project serves the number of participants agreed to under the approved application; 

2. The extent to which project participants have demonstrated improvement in academic skills and competencies as measured by standardized achievement tests  and grade point averages; 

3. The extent to which project participants continue to participate in the Upward Bound Program until they complete their secondary education program;

4. The extent to which participants who complete the project, or were scheduled to complete the project, undertake programs of postsecondary education; and

5. The extent to which participants who complete the project, or were scheduled to complete the project, succeed in education beyond high school, including the extent to which they graduate from postsecondary education programs.

**B.Program funding history**

With an annual appropriation of $802.5 million in Fiscal Year 2002 (FY 2002), the Federal TRIO Programs are the largest set of discretionary grant programs in the U.S. Department of Education.  Table 1 gives a summary of TRIO funding information and participant numbers for FY 2002 (2002**–**03 academic year).  Table 2 gives historical information on funding for TRIO programs from 1967 to 2002 in current and constant 2002 dollars.  During the 1990s, the annual appropriation for the Federal TRIO Programs increased substantially in current dollars and in constant dollars, after a flat period for much of the 1980s.  In 2002, roughly 2,600 grants were made to serve an estimated 800,000 students.  Upward Bound has historically had—and continues to have—the largest total funding allocation of any of the TRIO programs ($264 million in 2002 for UB and $32 million for UBMS) and the second largest funding per student served ($4,648 for UB and $5,215 for UBMS in 2002). Together Upward Bound programs serve about 63,000 participants per year.  Figure 1 provides a graphic display of TRIO funding in constant 2002 dollars across the periods in which the programs were operating.

**Figure 1.TRIO funding in constant 2002 dollars, by program:  1967–2002**

NOTE:  UB=classic Upward Bound; TS =Talent Search; SSS= Student Support Services; EOC= Educational Opportunity Centers; McNair = Ronald McNair Post-Baccalaureate Program; UBMS = Upward Bound Math-Science.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, and Consumer Price Index:  1965–2000.

**C.The changing national context**

Since 1965, when Congress authorized the first TRIO programs, significant advances in the educational achievement and attainment of low-income, first-generation, and minority students have taken place within the United States.  To provide context for the program profile for 2000–01, we review national data on changes in high school dropout rates and postsecondary enrollment over the period since TRIO began.

When Upward Bound and Talent Search began in the late 1960s, there was considerable emphasis on increasing high school graduation rates as the first step towards increasing college enrollment.  Indeed since that time, secondary school dropout rates have declined, especially among black or African American youths—dropout rates in 2000 were less than half of what they were at the time of TRIO program implementation in the late 1960s.  However, as the Census data indicate, the percentage of high school students who have dropped out of high school remains high among all groups in the United States, but especially so for Hispanic youths who may be children of non-English speaking parents (figure 2).

**Figure 2.Percentage of the population 18–24 years old who have dropped out of high school (status dropout rate), by race/ethnicity:  1967–2000**

NOTE:  The term “status dropout rate” in this figure is based on the self reports of 18–24-year-old respondents to the Current Population Survey (CPS) question on high school graduation status.  This figure reflects cumulative data on dropouts among 18–24-year-olds and is considerably higher than that reported by Census for the annual dropout rate of 15**–**17-year-olds which is the proportion of students who left school in the year reported.  For example, for 15**–**17-year-olds the annual rate was 4.5 percent for the national rate and 6.8 for Hispanics in 2000 (as reported in Census Table A–4.  Annual High School Dropout Rates by Sex, Race, Grade, and Hispanic Origin October 1967 to 2000).

SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Surveys, 1967**–**2000 (Table A-5.  The Population 14 to 24 Years Old, by High School Graduate Status, College Enrollment, Attainment, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: October 1967 to 2000)  (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school.html).

Figure 3 presents the postsecondary education enrollment rates from 1967 to 2000 for 18–24- year-old individuals, by racial-ethnic group.  Overall rates increased from 26 percent in 1967 to 36 percent in 2000.  Black or African American youths had the largest increase—more than doubling, from 13 to 30 percent.  The rate of college attendance among Hispanic youth was 20 percent in 1975, declined to 16–17 percent in the 1980s, and was 22 percent in 2000 (figure 3).

**Figure 3.Percentage of 18–24-year-olds enrolled in postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity: selected years, 1967–2000**

SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current Population Surveys, 1967–2000 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school.html).

Figure 4 displays Census figures on the percentage of high school graduates enrolling in postsecondary education immediately after high school graduation (i.e., by the following October).  Overall, postsecondary enrollment among high school graduates went from 49 percent in 1972 to 61 percent in 2000.  Among youths from low-income families, the Census Bureau estimate was 26 percent and 38 percent, respectively, in 1972 and 2000 (figure 4).

**Figure 4.Percentage of high school graduates enrolled in college the October following graduation, by family income:  1972–2000**

NOTE:  Low income from 1972 to 1995 was the lowest 20 percent of family incomes; high income was the top 20 percent; and middle income was the 60 percent in between.  Percents reported for low income for 1990 and 1995 represent three-year averages due to small yearly sample sizes.  In 2000, the percentage groupings changed somewhat:  low income included the bottom 19 percent, and high income was the upper 33 percent.  Middle income was the 48 percent between the two other groups.

SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current Population Surveys, 1972–2000 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school.html).

Although it is important not to minimize these gains, there remain unacceptably large gaps in postsecondary educational attainment among student populations differing by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.  For example, in 2000, the potential for a college degree by age 24 was estimated to be about 8 percent for those in the lowest economic quartile, as compared with 52 percent for those in the highest quartile (Mortenson 2001).  For these reasons, the U.S. Department of Education's Strategic Plan for 2002–2007 stated an objective to reduce these gaps by half over the five-year period (U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan 2002–2007, 2002).  

**D.National evaluations of Upward Bound and Upward Bound Initiatives**

1.Summary of national evaluations

There have been two major national studies of Upward Bound—the first conducted by Research Triangle Institute (now known as RTI International) between 1973 and 1979 (Burkheimer, Riccobono, and Wisenbaker 1979) and the second by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) begun in the early 1990s that is ongoing (Myers and Schirm 1996; 1999).  In addition, there have been a number of analyses that used U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), national longitudinal studies of high school students, such as *High School and Beyond*and the *National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88)*to look at pre-college program participation impact (Horn and Chen 1998).  We note below some similarities in key findings from the UB evaluation studies, as they can help focus our analyses of the performance report data for this report and inform future planned analyses focused on performance outcomes.  

Although 20 years and different methodologies (the RTI study used a matched comparison group and Mathematica used random assignment) separate the two national evaluation studies, there are similarities in some of the findings from the RTI study of the 1970s and those emerging from the random assignment study begun in the 1990s and still in progress.  Most notably, both studies found length of program participation to be related to outcomes. Both studies also found positive impacts for certain subgroups, especially those considered to be more at-risk at entry into the program, either because of lower expectations for college attendance or degree attainment, and/or lower grade point average. These findings suggest that some attention should be paid in the performance report analyses to measures of program retention and risk factors among participants. 

2.Upward Bound Initiatives

For most Upward Bound projects, 1999–2000 was the beginning of a new multi-year grant cycle.  Partly in response to the national evaluation findings that suggested that greater benefits from the program accrued to students who were at greater risk of not graduating from high school or of not pursuing postsecondary education, for the 2000–01 project year, the Department of Education awarded supplemental grants to 184 regular Upward Bound projects to encourage them to select and serve such students over a three-year period (2000–01, 2001–02, and 2002–03). This is known as the FY 2000 *Upward Bound Program Participant Expansion Initiative.*In the performance report, Upward Bound projects included and identified individuals served in 2000–01 under this initiative.  Since this initiative was in its first year in the timeframe covered by this report, only limited information on the initiative is provided in this report.

The Department of Education has continued to encourage projects to serve greater numbers of higher-risk students.  The Department included an invitational priority in the grant application guidelines for the FY 2003 Upward Bound grant competition encouraging applicants to serve higher-risk students.  Then, in the summer of 2003, the Department conducted a competition for supplemental funding that required projects to select students from low-income schools who had not met the state academic achievement standards for grade eight in reading/language arts or math and/or who had grade point averages of 2.5 or less. This competition for supplemental funding is known as the*FY 2003 Upward Bound Program Participant Expansion Initiative.*In 2003, 219 Upward Bound projects received supplemental funding under this second expansion initiative to serve an estimated 4,000 higher-risk students. Thus, Upward Bound is continuing to emphasize service to higher-risk students for whom national evaluation findings suggest the program may have greater benefit.

**E.The purpose and development of the Upward Bound performance report**

The requirements for performance reports in each of the Federal TRIO programs were revised in recent years in response to the *Government Performance and Results Act of 1993* (GPRA)**and the U.S. Department of Education’s strategic plan.  In addition to providing statistical information on the TRIO programs, the new performance reports are designed to provide tools for measuring program outcomes and progress towards meeting program goals.  To date, national profile reports have been published for the SSS, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair), TS, and EOC programs using recent performance report data and other relevant data sources. This report is the first national profile report on the Upward Bound Program using data from the new performance report. 

Upward Bound was the last of the TRIO programs to implement a revised performance reporting form following GPRA.  The report was carefully developed after several working groups considered draft forms and after substantial comment by Upward Bound projects.  The new form includes individual participant records and incorporates measures of the extent and type of services received by program participants.  Projects are expected to track eligible participants (those that participated for a calendar year for UB and a summer for UBMS) for four years following completion of high school. 

For the 2000–01 data collection (the first using the new report requirements), Upward Bound projects were asked to include all individuals that were served in program years 1999–2000 and 2000–01.  Since cohort data on project participants are not available before the 1999–2000 year, some program outcomes (e.g., postsecondary enrollment and completion rates) cannot be reported until additional trend information is collected.  The Upward Bound performance report was designed to provide a rich source of information concerning participant selection, entering characteristics, services/participation, and outcomes.  The fact that participant characteristics and outcomes are reported on individual students can potentially allow for analyses of the relationship among these factors.  The potential also exists to use the information with other sources of national data such as the Federal Aid Files maintained by the Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.

**F.Report structure**

This first descriptive report endeavors to provide a summary of the results of the first year’s performance reporting for Upward Bound for which 97 percent of funded projects submitted individual participant-based performance reports (see appendix A, table A–1). In organizing this report, we largely follow the performance report structure itself.  We begin by presenting demographic profiles of the grantees, participants, and target schools.  We then focus on program participation and services in high school. Finally, we look in a limited manner at the information reported on postsecondary outcomes. 

Specifically, the report is presented in six chapters and two appendices.  Chapter 2 focuses on the characteristics of Upward Bound grantees and is informed by matching the information from the Upward Bound performance reports with the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the 2000–01 academic year.  IPEDS is a core postsecondary education data collection program for NCES and includes all institutions and educational organizations with the primary mission of providing postsecondary education. Chapter 3 includes information on participant characteristics providing a demographic profile of participants.  Chapter 4 covers the characteristics of the target schools associated with the Upward Bound projects gained from matching the performance report information with the Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2000–01 academic year.  Collected annually by NCES, the CCD is a universe of all schools in the United States and outlying areas that provide free public elementary and secondary education.  Chapter 5 focuses on project participation, number served, length of participation in the program, and services provided.   It also includes high school academic measures such as grades and credits earned.  Chapter 6 focuses on postsecondary outcomes.  Appendix A includes methodological information and summary information on performance report response rates and data quality; it also describes plans for future reports.  Appendix B includes a glossary of important terms used in the report.

Throughout the report, we look at selected data by the sector of the host or sponsoring institution.  These sectors include:  (1) public four-year postsecondary institutions, (2) private four-year postsecondary institutions, (3) two-year postsecondary institutions, and (4) secondary schools, nonprofit agencies, and other community organizations.

**CHAPTER 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF GRANTEES**

Upward Bound projects may be hosted by postsecondary institutions and public/private agencies or combinations of such entities.  In exceptional cases, secondary schools may sponsor UB programs.   For classic UB, the largest percentage of grantees (63 percent) were four-year postsecondary institutions (42 percent were public four-year and 21 percent were private four-year institutions).  About one-third of grantees were two-year postsecondary institutions (32 percent); 5 percent were community organizations (figure 5)—including four secondary schools and 40 nonprofit agencies.  Table 3 presents the distribution of the three Upward Bound program types and the participants in those programs, by the sector of the host grantee organization.  UBMS grantees were less likely than UB projects to be hosted by two-year institutions and more likely to be in public four-year institutions.  VUB grantees were less likely to be private four-year institutions than the other two types of Upward Bound projects.  The participant distribution largely mirrors the distribution of projects by sector.

**Figure 5.Percentage distribution of UB projects, by sector of host grantees:  2000–01**

****NOTE:  UB = classic Upward Bound.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

**A.Federal region**

Among the 10 federal regions listed in table 4, the regions with the smallest number of UB projects were Region X with 23, Region VIII with 31, and Region I with 32. The regions with the largest number of UB projects were Region IV with 153, Region V with 117, and Region VI with 112 UB projects.

**B.IPEDS comparison**

To understand the distribution of Upward Bound grantees relative to the entire group of postsecondary degree-granting institutions serving undergraduates in the United States, we merged the TRIO data with the institutional characteristics file for IPEDS.  Overall, roughly

25 percent of the two- and four-year degree-granting Title IV-eligible institutions serving undergraduates had Upward Bound grants of some type and 20 percent had classic UB grants (table 5).  UB was more prevalent in public four-year institutions than among private four-year or all two-year institutions.  For example, almost half of public four-year degree granting institutions (49 percent) had classic UB grants, while 12 percent of four-year private and 15 percent of two-year institutions had grants.

The Carnegie Classification System is a systematic classification of institutions of higher education in the United States according to variables such as degrees offered, size, and commitment to research.  Table 6 compares the distribution of the total Carnegie classified institutions with that of the UB grantees.  Over half of the doctoral-granting/research institutions had Upward Bound projects (134 of 255).  As shown in the table, while they constituted 7 percent of the total institutions classified by Carnegie, they were 19 percent of the UB grantees.  Master's granting institutions were more represented among UB grantees than in the total Carnegie master's group, and conversely, Associate degree granting institutions were less numerous as a proportion of the total than they are in the total Carnegie group.

Table 7 gives the number and percentages of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) among degree-granting institutions found in IPEDS.  Among the total degree-granting institutions serving undergraduates, about 3 percent (99 institutions) were HBCUs, 6 percent were HSIs (215), and 1 percent were Tribal Institutions (29).  Representation of UB projects at minority institutions exceeded the institutions’ representation within IPEDS.  Among classic UB projects, 10 percent of the projects (75 institutions) were at HBCUs, 12 percent (87) were at HSIs, and 1 percent (6) were at TCUs.

**CHAPTER 3 UPWARD BOUND PARTICIPANTS**

This chapter presents information on the demographic characteristics of Upward Bound participants including information on eligibility status, race/ethnicity, gender, need for the program services, and age and grade at entry into the program.    To provide context for the demographic statistics on Upward Bound participants, we also include related information from Census Bureau statistics and related National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) studies. 

**A.Participant distribution, by eligibility**

1.Context: National data on poverty and parent education

Upward Bound was first initiated as part of the “War on Poverty” in the 1960s, manifesting the concept that higher education was a cornerstone for helping to reduce poverty within the United States population. Since 1981, Upward Bound eligibility requirements have stipulated that two-thirds of participants must be low-income and potentially first-generation college students.****  The other one-third must be either low-income or potentially first-generation college students.  “Low income” is defined by having a family taxable income that does not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount at the time of entry into the project.  The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, sets guidelines to determine the definition of the poverty level.  To provide context related to these eligibility criteria, Census Bureau statistics on poverty rates and parent education are provided below. We also include NCES data on the percentage of high school students who were potentially first-generation college students in four points in time (1972, 1980, 1990 and 2002).****  These statistics are useful in understanding the proportion of United States students who have been eligible for the Upward Bound program historically and in the more recent period.

In 2001, out of a total U.S. population of 281 million, about 33 million persons lived in poverty, and 72 million lived at less than 150 percent of the poverty level.  Poverty rates in the United States for all persons under 18 years have fluctuated between a low of 15 percent in 1970 and highs of 21 percent in the 1980’s up to 1990 (figure 6).  By 2001, the poverty rate among persons under 18 had declined to 16.3 percent. 

Figure 7 gives the percentage of those under 18 years in families in poverty and under 150 percent of the poverty level (the eligibility requirement used in UB) in 2001. In that year, 28 percent of all U.S. children under 18 met the Upward Bound 150 percent of poverty level criterion.  This percentage was just under half among Hispanic and black or African American children:  in 2001, 47 percent of Hispanic children and 46 percent of black or African American children were in families under 150 percent of the poverty level (figure 7).

**Figure 6.Percentage of people under 18 years who were below the poverty level, by race/ethnicity:  1970–2001**

NOTE:   Data for 1970 and for Hispanic children in 1975 are for related children in families under 18 years old; all other data are for all persons under 18 years old.  

SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Surveys, Historical Poverty Tables, Table 3. Poverty Status of People, by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959-2002 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov3.html).

**Figure 7.Percentage of U.S. population and of persons under 18 in families in poverty and under 150 percent of poverty level, by race/ethnicity:  2001**

NOTE: Figures for “White under 18” and “White” in this figure are for all whites and include those of Hispanic origin.  Hence they differ from those in figure 6 in which the category is “White, not Hispanic.”  Note poverty rate for “White, not Hispanic” was 9.5 for all persons under 18 in 2001.

SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Surveys, Families as of March of following year.    Table 2. Age, Sex, Household Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin - Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 2001 (http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/pov/new02_000.htm).

The second UB eligibility requirement relates to potentially first-generation college status, defined as not having a parent or guardian who has received a bachelor’s degree.  At the time of TRIO initiation, substantial proportions of students were potentially first-generation high school graduates in addition to being potentially first-generation four-year college graduates.  In the 1970s, during the first decade of TRIO, over a quarter of white mothers and fathers and well over half of black or African American and Hispanic parents of school-age children had not completed high school (U.S. Bureau of Census, March Current Population Survey, as reported in the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, *Condition of Education*, Table 4–1, 2001).*  Census figures document changes in educational attainment since the 1970s to more recent years.  For example, between 1974 and 1999, the percentage of children with black or African American mothers who had less than a high school diploma went from 58 percent in 1974 to 20 percent in 1999, and the percentage of children with black or African American fathers without a high school diploma went from 61 percent to 15 percent in the same period. Among Hispanic parents, change was less pronounced.  For example, the percentage of children with Hispanic mothers without a high school diploma went from 62 percent to 49 percent between 1974 and 1999.  Among Hispanic fathers the percentage without a high school diploma was 58 percent in 1974 and 49 percent in 1999 (U.S. Bureau of Census, March Current Population Survey, as reported in the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, *Condition of Education*, Table 4–1, 2001). 

In a parallel development, since 1974—the first date for which national data are available—the percentage of parents who had a bachelor’s degree has increased substantially.  For example, the percentage of black or African American children whose mothers and fathers had bachelor’s degrees increased fourfold, from 4 percent each to 14 percent for mothers and 17 percent for fathers from 1974 to 1999 (figure 8). In the same period, the percentage of Hispanic mothers with a bachelor’s degree went from 4 percent to 7 percent, and the percentage of Hispanic fathers with a bachelor’s degree increased slightly from 8 to 10 percent. 

**Figure 8.Percentage of children 6–18 years of age having a mother with a bachelor’s degree and percentage having a father with a bachelor’s degree, by race/ethnicity:  1974–1999**

SOURCE:  U.S. Bureau of Census, March Current Population Survey, various years as reported in the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Condition of Education, Table 4–1, 2001.

It should be noted that, while figure 8 shows trends in parents’ educational attainment, the figure does not precisely reflect the UB program’s criterion for a student’s “first-generation” status.  Figure 8 provides separate data on children who had mothers and fathers with a bachelor’s degree; the UB program requires that neither parent have a bachelor’s degree if a student is to be considered “potentially first-generation.”  Figure 9, on the other hand, accurately reflects the program’s “first-generation” criterion. Using data from four NCES nationally representative longitudinal studies of high school students (NLS:72; HS&B, NELS:88, and ELS:2002), figure 9 displays the percentage of potentially first-generation four-year college graduates among high school students in 1972, 1980, 1990, and 2002 by race/ethnicity.  Overall the percentage of

**Figure 9.Percentage of high school students who were potentially first-generation four-year college graduates by race/ethnicity:  1972, 1980, 1990, and 2002**

NOTE: “High school students who were potentially first-generation four-year college graduates” are defined as having neither mother nor father, nor guardian with a bachelor’s degree.  Information is from high school sophomores in 1980, 1990, and 2002.  NSL-72 began with high school seniors; information is thus from seniors.   “More than one race reported” was a possible response only in ELS:2002.  

SOURCE:  Special tabulations using U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972, (NLS–72/73), High School and Beyond (HS&B, 1980) sophomore cohort base year survey, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 first follow-up study (NELS:88/90) and Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 base year student survey (ELS:2002).

potentially first-generation college students was 79 percent in 1972 and 62 percent in 2002.  Among black or African American and Hispanic students, the percentages of potentially first-generation college students were 92 and 93 percent, respectively, in 1972.  By 2002, these percentages had declined to 69 and 79 percent, respectively. 

2.Distribution of Upward Bound participants, by eligibility status

Figure 10 and table 8 give the distribution by eligibility status for Upward Bound by host sector.  Overall 79 percent of Upward Bound participants were both low-income and potentially first-generation college students; 16 percent were first-generation only, and 5 percent were low-income only.  There were few differences in the eligibility status of participants by sector of host grantee (table 8).

**Figure 10.Percentage distribution of UB participants, by eligibility status:  2000–01**

NOTE: UB = classic Upward Bound.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

B.Participant distribution, by race/ethnicity

1.Context: National data on race/ethnicity

The Upward Bound Program is not targeted to specific racial and ethnic groups.  Rather, its mission is to serve low-income and potentially first-generation college students.  However, Upward Bound and the other TRIO programs have historically played an important role in serving minority groups underrepresented in postsecondary education.  Since the initiation of the TRIO programs, shifts have occurred in the distribution of the U.S. population by race/ethnicity.  Table 9 gives Census data on the distribution of the U.S. population from 1970 to 2001.  These data document the growth in minority populations, especially Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander, over the period. In addition, the 2000 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirement that government surveys allow for the choice of more than one race is also reflected in table 9. 

2.Distribution of Upward Bound participants, by race/ethnicity

The largest percentage of Upward Bound participants in 2000–01 (45 percent) were black or African American (figure 11) followed by whites (25 percent), Hispanics or Latinos (19 percent), Asians (5 percent), American Indians or Alaska Natives (4 percent), Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders (2 percent), and those of more than one race (1 percent).  Upward Bound projects hosted by private four-year institutions had the largest proportion of black or African American participants (figure 12).

UB and UBMS participants differed little in distribution by race/ethnicity; however, Asians were a higher proportion of math-science participants than they were of UB participants (figure 13).  VUB participants were much more likely to be white and somewhat more likely to be American Indian or Alaska Native than were participants from UB or UBMS; and they were somewhat less likely to be Hispanic or Latino, or Asian than UB or UBMS participants. 

**Figure 11.Percentage distribution of UB participants, by race/ethnicity:  2000–01**

NOTE: UB = classic Upward Bound. Because of rounding, detail may not total 100 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

**Figure 12.Percentage distribution of UB participants, by race/ethnicity and by host grantee sector:  2000–01**

NOTE: UB = classic Upward Bound.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

**Figure 13.Percentage distribution of participants, by race/ethnicity and by type of Upward Bound program:  2000–01**

NOTE:  UB = classic Upward Bound; UBMS = Upward Bound Math-Science; VUB = Veterans Upward Bound. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

**C.Participant distribution, by gender**

1.Context: National data on educational participation by gender

In the United States, recent years have witnessed a higher rate of increased participation in education at most levels for females than for males, and higher rates of participation in extracurricular and supplemental services as well.  Figure 14 gives Census data on the percentage of 18**–**24-year-olds who dropped out of high school between 1967 and 2000, and figure 15 gives the percentage of high school graduates ages 14**–**24 who enrolled in or completed some college between 1967 and 2000, by gender.  

**Figure 14.Percentage of 18–24-year-olds who dropped out of high school (status dropout rate), by gender:  1967–2000**

NOTE:  The term “status dropout rate” in this figure is based on the self reports of 18–24-year-old respondents to the Current Population Survey (CPS) question on high school graduation status.  This figure reflects cumulative data on dropouts among 18–24-year-olds and is considerably higher than that reported by Census for the annual dropout rate of 15–17-year-olds, which is the proportion of students who left school in the year reported.  For example, for 15–17-year-olds the annual rate was 4.5 percent in 2000 (as reported in Census Table A-4. Annual High School Dropout Rates by Sex, Race, Grade, and Hispanic Origin October 1967 to 2000). 

SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Census, 1967–2000 (Table A‐5.  The Population of 14 to 24-Year-Olds by High School Graduate Status, College Enrollment, Attainment, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: October 1967 to 2000)  (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school.html).

**Figure 15.Percentage of high school graduates aged 14–24 who were enrolled in or completed some college, by gender:  1967–2000**

SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Surveys, various years, October.

As these data indicate, males increasingly have somewhat higher high school dropout rates than females, and there is a growing gap between the college participation rates of males and females. Female and male 18**–**24-year-olds had about the same percentage of dropouts in 1967 (20 percent for both).  By 2000, dropout rates had decreased for both groups, but somewhat more for females—the rate being 11 percent for females and 14 percent for males (figure 14).  More strikingly, female rates of having completed some college went from 45 percent in 1967 to 70 percent in 2000, while males went from 59 to 63 percent in the same period (figure 15).

2.Upward Bound distribution, by gender

Just under two-thirds (64 percent) of UB participants were female in 2000–01 (figure 16).  There were almost no differences by grantee sector in the distribution by gender (data not shown). Historically, males have majored in several math- and science-related disciplines at higher rates than females; however, there was little difference in the percentage of males between classic UB and UBMS projects.  UB was 36 percent male and UBMS was 38 percent male.  However, reflecting the distribution of military service, VUB had a much higher proportion of males (81 percent) than females.

**Figure 16.Percentage distribution of participants, by gender and by type of Upward Bound project:  2000–01**

NOTE:  UB = classic Upward Bound; UBMS = Upward Bound Math-Science; VUB = Veterans Upward Bound.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01

**D.Participant need for services**

In addition to the low-income and potentially first-generation college-going eligibility requirement, there is a requirement that students need the services offered by the project. Participants are selected based upon recommendations from their counselors, teachers, and social agencies.  The Upward Bound performance report form includes an item on the need for services and lists a series of possible reasons.  Projects were asked to select the one code that best describes why the participant needs Upward Bound services.  Taken together, those categories having to do with academic need, such as low grades, low achievement scores, and low aspirations, encompassed about 30 percent of the responses (table 10).  Other categories prompting a high rate of response were lack of opportunity, support, and guidance to take challenging college preparatory courses (20 percent) and predominantly low-income community (18 percent). Two categories having to do with a need for counseling (lack of career goals and/or need for information on career goals; and lack of confidence, self-esteem, and social skills) were each selected as a reason for needing services by 9 percent of participants.

The performance report form also asks for the type of test used to assess academic skills and for information on two common aptitude tests (table 11).  Many projects (47 percent) reported using a test other than those listed.  Among those listed, the test used most frequently to ascertain need was the Stanford Achievement Test. 

With regard to the aptitude tests, about 9 percent of projects reported using the PLAN-ACT test, with a mean score of 16.4.  About 10 percent of the projects reported using the Preliminary SAT (PSAT), with a mean of 45.7.  There was little notable difference in host grantee sector or between classic UB and UBMS.  Math-Science projects reported scores for about the same percentage of participants for each of the two tests, with scores about one point higher.  (Nine percent had scores reported for PLAN-ACT with mean score of 17.7; and 9 percent had PSAT scores reported with a mean score of 46.7—data not shown in table). 

**E.Participant distribution, by grade and age at entry into the program**

1.Grade at entry into Upward Bound

Eligibility requirements specify that UB and UBMS participants should have completed the eighth grade of elementary/middle school education and be 13 to 19 years of age at entry into the program.  Most UB participants entered as ninth-graders with 39 percent entering in the ninth grade and another 17 percent as rising ninth-graders (table 12 and figure 17).  

**Figure 17.Percentage distribution of participants, by grade at entry into program and by type of Upward Bound program:  2000–01**

NOTE:  UB = classic Upward Bound; UBMS = Upward Bound Math-Science.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

The category of “rising ninth-grader” refers to students who will be entering the ninth grade in the next school term (i.e., the student may first participate in Upward Bound the summer prior to entering the ninth grade).  About one-third entered in the 10th grade and 10 percent as 11th- graders.  Less than 1 percent entered as rising 12th-graders.  There were few differences by grantee sector; however, community organizations had a larger percentage entering in the ninth grade than the other sectors.  While most UBMS participants also entered in the ninth or 10th grade, a larger percentage entered in grade 11 (20 percent) or rising 12th grade (5 percent) than for UB (figure 17). 

2.Age at entry into Upward Bound

The mean age of UB participants at entry into the project was 15.2 years (table 13).  About 44 percent of UB participants entered the program at age 14 or under.  Just over one-third (35 percent) were age 15, and 21 percent were 16 or over.  Project entry age did not differ by grantee sector.  On average, UBMS participants were five months older than UB participants.  This is consistent with the larger proportion of participants that were in grade 11 at their entry into the program.

**CHAPTER 4 UPWARD BOUND TARGET SCHOOLS**

In applying for federal grants, Upward Bound projects identify discrete local or regional geographic areas that the projects plan to serve.  Within these target areas, projects also identify target schools to be a focus of project services.  Projects typically establish relationships with school personnel and recruit participants from the school.  They may also provide some UB services at the school locations. 

This chapter provides information on UB projects’ target schools, including the number of schools and the percentage of eligible students served in them.  The chapter also compares Upward Bound target schools with state and national averages for the percentages of students eligible for free lunch and students from minority populations.

The Upward Bound performance reports asked projects to provide the U.S. Department of Education Common Core of Data (CCD) school identification number for the target school for each participant.  CCD is a data collection program of the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), that provides a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of information about all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts in the United States (approximately 95,000 schools and 17,000 districts during the 2000–01 school year).

To obtain estimates of the number and characteristics of target schools attended by participants, we merged the school ID numbers reported in the UB performance reports for each participant with the CCD file.   The performance reports included CCD target school identification numbers for 56,041 Upward Bound participants (81 percent of participants overall).****  To provide an additional context for comparison, several tables in this chapter also include target school information for Talent Search (TS), another TRIO program that provides services to secondary school students.  This information initially appeared in the aggregate 1998–99 performance reports for the Talent Search program, as published in the report *A Profile of the Talent Search Program:  1998*–*99* (May 2002).

**A.Number of target schools**

By matching performance report data with the CCD public school information, we found that 5,380 schools were served by UB, UBMS, or both.  Of these, 3,268 schools were served by UB only; 986 were served by UBMS only; and 1,126 were served by both UB and UBMS.  The total served by UB was thus 4,394 (i.e., 3,268 + 1,126), while the total served by UBMS was 2,112 (i.e., 986 + 1,126).  Among the projects that submitted performance reports, UB projects served an average of six target schools and UBMS projects served 18 target schools (figure 18).  For comparison, we note that TS served an average of 15 middle and high schools per project.

**Figure 18.Average number of target schools, by type of Upward Bound project:  2000–01**

NOTE:  UB = classic Upward Bound; UBMS = Upward Bound Math-Science.  The number of target schools served by each UB project shown in this figure is based on an unduplicated count of schools. Since some Upward Bound projects may serve the same target schools, the duplicated count of target schools per UB project would be eight.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

On average, classic UB projects served 12 students per target school while UBMS projects served approximately three students per target school. As displayed in table 14, the total number of public schools attended by UB and UBMS participants represents about 21 percent of the total public schools serving any student in grades 9–12.  Target schools served by UB projects represent about 17 percent of high schools in the United States and outlying areas.

**SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01; U.S. Department of Education, National Center For Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2000–01.**

**B.Estimates of the percentage of potentially eligible participants served**

One can get a sense of the extent to which UB reaches potentially eligible students by comparing the number of students the program serves with the number of students eligible for free lunch in the same schools, because such eligibility is a reasonable proxy for low-income status.  Free-lunch eligibility is slightly different from Upward Bound eligibility,**** but it does give an indication of the proportion of economically disadvantaged students who were served.  Table 15 presents the number of participants served by UB and UBMS projects for each state, and the number eligible for free lunch in UB and UBMS schools and all other high schools within the 

state. We also include the percentage of those eligible for free lunch who are served by UB within the target schools and the percentage of the total counts of those eligible for free lunch within the nation and state.  UB and UBMS taken together serve about 62,000 participants, roughly 3 percent of those eligible for free lunch within their target schools.****  Generalizing the number of UB participants served during the 2000–01 program year to all schools in the United States serving grades 9 to 12, the percentage of students served by UB and UBMS was about 2 percent of those eligible for free school lunch in grades 9–12 in the nation. 

To provide an additional context for understanding the Upward Bound target schools, table 15 also includes similar statistics by state for TS projects during the 1998–99 program year (Chou, Cahalan, Humphrey, Overton 2002).  Note that the numbers served and enrollment figures for TS include students in middle and high school.  Talent Search serves a much larger number of students per year and reaches an estimated 20 percent of those eligible for free lunch within its target schools.

**C.Comparison of percentage eligible for free lunch and percentage minority**

One indicator that UB projects are serving suitable target schools is the percentage of students in those schools who are eligible for free lunch.  Nationwide about 27 percent of students in schools enrolling grades 9–12 were eligible for free lunch in 2000–01 (table 16).  Among UB and UBMS schools, 34 percent of students were eligible for free lunch, and among non-UB schools, about 25 percent were eligible—a difference of 9 percentage points.  There is considerable variation by state. Generally, the poorer states and the less populated states have less difference between UB and UBMS schools and the state average.

Almost half of the total enrollment in UB and UBMS target schools (47 percent) was minority students, compared to a national average for minorities of 35 percent (table 17).  As with free lunch eligibility, the states with relatively smaller proportions of minority enrollment overall had the largest differences between UB and UBMS schools and the other schools in the states.  

**CHAPTER 5 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION, SERVICES, AND ACADEMIC MEASURES**

This chapter focuses on project participation in Upward Bound during high school and includes the following: the number of participants served in 2000–01; the level and length of participation; the services offered; and the percentage of participants receiving the service.  In addition, some limited information on high school academic measures, e.g., high school grades, college entrance test scores, and high school and postsecondary credits earned from program participation, are presented.  In subsequent reports, as data become available on a complete cohort of participants that entered the Upward Bound program in 1999–2000, we plan to include information on grade progression and high school graduation. 

**A.Participation level, number served, and length of participation**

1.Participation level

Upward Bound regulations require projects to offer both summer and academic year programs, with a notation that Math-Science Centers should offer academic year programs to the extent that the distance from the projects that participants live will allow.  The distribution of participation across the various components of UB is given in table 18.  UB projects reported that about 55 percent of the UB participants were involved in the program during both the academic year and summer (table 18 and figure 19).  Another 6 percent participated in both the academic year and the summer bridge programs.  This implies that just under two-thirds (61 percent) of participants were in the program for the entire service year.  

Just over one-quarter of the UB participants (28 percent) participated in the academic year only, and 10 percent of UB participants were enrolled only in the summer or summer bridge program.  One percent of participants were reported as enrolled only in the summer bridge program; these participants may reflect graduating seniors at the start of the reporting period (May 2000) who participated in the summer bridge program within the reporting year and then entered postsecondary education rather than the UB academic year program.  A few participants (2 percent) were reported as either “prior-year participants” who received limited or no follow-up services, or as those whose level of participation was not reported. UBMS had half of its participants involved in both the summer and academic year program. Reflecting its regional aspects, UBMS had a larger percentage than UB of participants who were only in the summer program (27 percent compared to 8 percent).****UBMS also had a smaller percentage of academic year only participants (17 percent compared to 28 percent).

**Figure 19.Percentage of UB and UBMS participants participating at various levels during the reporting year:  2000–01**

****NOTE: UB = classic Upward Bound; UBMS = Upward Bound Math-Science. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

2.****Number served and number funded to serve

As in other TRIO programs, UB grants are made with an explicit expectation that the project will serve a specified number of participants throughout the project year (academic year plus summer and, where relevant, summer bridge programs). Based on the projects returning performance reports in 2000-01, UB projects were funded to serve 71 participants each. Figure 20 shows that when projects report on the number of individuals served by the project during the reporting year,  the number of individual students  served in UB exceeded the number funded to serve by approximately 5,000. Note that not all students participated on a full-time basis (i.e., not all students attended during the academic year plus the summer/summer bridge), and that projects frequently recruited additional students to take the place of those who participated in only one component or for those who relocated or otherwise dropped out of the Upward Bound project.  Thus, the count of individuals participating in the program may actually overstate the number of persons who receive the full complement of UB services from a program.  For example, a project may have reported the participation of two students, one who attended the program during the academic year only and one who participated only in the summer, when in fact neither alone represents a complete "funded to serve" participant.

**Figure 20.Number served over course of the reporting year, number funded to serve, and estimated Yearly Full-Time-Equivalent (YFTE) number served, among UB projects submitting performance reports: 2000–01**

* Estimated YFTE for UB was calculated by totaling participants who were in both summer and academic year programs at 100 percent; academic year only at 55 percent; and summer or summer bridge only at 45 percent.  This number is intended to give an estimate of the number being actively served at any given time in the reporting year.  

NOTE: UB = classic Upward Bound.   

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

To take into account students’ participation for various portions of the reporting year, we have estimated a Yearly Full-time Equivalent (YFTE) count of participants.  This YFTE was calculated by assigning different weights to participants according to their participation level, as follows:  those in both summer or summer bridge and academic year offerings were weighted at 100 percent; those who attended only during the academic year were weighted at 55 percent; and those who participated only in the summer or summer bridge received weights of 45 percent.  We selected the 55/45 split because this reflects on average the proportional allocation of project funds for the academic and summer components for a typical Upward Bound project.

The YFTE estimate is intended to approximate the number of participants actively served at any given time in the reporting year.  Table 18 and Figure 20 provide the YFTE estimates.  Using this calculation, the estimated number of participants served at any given time was 44,303, which is 5,900 participants fewer than the number funded to serve over the course of the entire reporting year (50,203).

**Upward Bound Initiative**. For the 2000–01 project year, the U.S. Department of Education awarded supplemental funding totaling $14.6 million under the Upward Bound Initiative to 184 Upward Bound projects to serve additional participants. The purpose of the initiative was to “increase the number of the neediest eligible students served in the UB program.”  All UB projects funded for 2000–01 were eligible to apply for funds to serve up to 20 additional students, with awards of up to $85,000.  VUB and UBMS projects were not eligible for this supplemental funding. The initiative gave an absolute priority to projects serving at least one target school in which at least 50 percent of the students were eligible for the free lunch program.  The rationale for this priority was that “the neediest students are generally those from the lowest income levels.”  In addition, UB projects that received funding under the initiative were strongly encouraged to recruit, select, and serve students who were at greatest risk of not graduating from high school or pursuing postsecondary education.  

The UB Initiative was announced in July 2000, with awards made during fall 2000.  For the 2000–01 performance reports, UB grantees were instructed to identify UB participants selected and served by the project as a result of the increased funding provided under the initiative.  The 182 projects that identified initiative participants reported serving 5,008 participants with the supplemental initiative funding in 2000–01 (table 19), which exceeded the number funded to serve by more than 1,500.

**B.Participant status**

Figure 21 gives the distribution over the grantee sectors for new, continuing, and re-entry participants for the 2000–01 service year.  A new participant is an individual who participated in the project for the first time in the program year (in this case 2000–01).  A continuing participant is an individual who participated in the project in both the current reporting period (program year 2000–01) and the preceding project period (program year 1999–2000).  A re-entry participant is a former project participant who participated in the project during the current reporting period (program year 2000–01) but *not* during the preceding project period (program year 1999–2000).****

Among classic UB projects, 38 percent of the students served in 2000–01 were new participants, 61 percent were continuing, and a very small percentage (0.4 percent) were classified as re-entry participants (figure 21).  As indicated in table 20, UB had proportionally fewer new participants than UBMS.  VUB had the largest percentage of new participants, reflecting the program’s short-term service orientation. 

**Figure 21.Percentage distribution of UB current (re-entry, continuing, and new) participants, by grantee sector: 2000–01**

NOTE: UB = classic Upward Bound.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

1.Participation length

The data provided in this first Upward Bound profile have a number of limitations, one of which is significant in considering length of program participation.  For the 2000–01 report, grantees were required to provide data on participants beginning with those served in 1999–2000.  Some of these participants would have first enrolled in UB in earlier years (for example, 1998 or 1997).  But some of their fellow participants who also enrolled in those years would have left the program before 1999–2000.  Their length of participation would often have been shorter than that of many of the participants included in the 2000–01 report.  For this reason, average length of participation for participants as calculated from the 2000–01 data is doubtless somewhat distorted; had data been available for all  participants in the  earlier cohorts, we suspect that length of participation would have been shorter than that reported below.  

Having acknowledged this limitation of the analysis, we believe that the data below provide some indication of average duration of participation.  The mean number of months between the entry date and the date of last participation or end of the reporting period was 22 months and the median was 21 (table 21). Comparable statistics for UBMS reflect the fact that participants often enter when they are in a higher grade in high school and that a larger proportion of UBMS students than UB students participate only during the summer.  The mean number of months between entry date and the date of last participation or the end of the reporting period for UBMS participants was 14 months and the median was 12 months (data for UBMS not shown in table).

Table 22 includes information on length of participation only for those identified as prior participants in the 2000–01 performance report.  As noted above, data in this table are based on an incomplete cohort of prior participants; we anticipate that this resulted in a higher distribution of months of participation than might otherwise have been obtained.  As it stands, table 22 shows 25 months of participation as the mean and 26 as the median.  There were few differences in these statistics by grantee sector as illustrated in table 22, except that projects sponsored by community organizations had lower mean and median months of participation among prior participants (22 months compared with 25 months for the total, and 20 months vs. 26 months, respectively).  This is consistent with the fact that projects hosted by community organizations also had a larger proportion of new participants compared with the postsecondary host grantees.

2.Reason for leaving the program

For those who reported a date of last service, a follow-up item asked the reason for leaving the program from a listing of potential reasons.  These reasons were developed in conjunction with the UB performance report working group (table 23).  The most common reason was "graduated from high school" (58 percent).  This was followed by “no longer interested” with 14 percent and other reasons with 8 percent.  Each of the following reasons—need or desire for employment, moved out of area, other extracurricular activities, and family responsibilities—were listed for between 3 to 6 percent of the participants.  Few participants (1 percent) were reported to have left the program to participate in another pre-college program.  Based on responses to this item, one might estimate that about 42 percent of those served at least 12 months left prior to graduating from high school and did so for a variety of reasons related to other interests and commitments.

3.Overlap among UB and UBMS participation

To examine the extent to which students may have participated in both a UB and a UBMS project, we matched participant records using students’ Social Security numbers to calculate the number and percentage of projects that had any overlapping participants and the percentage of participants that were served by the two programs (table 24).  Overall, about 44 percent of UB projects had at least one participant who was also a UBMS participant, and 65 percent of UBMS projects had at least one participant who was also included among the UB participants.  However, the actual number of participants involved was quite small—about 1 percent of UB participants and about 10 percent of UBMS participants.  The former percentage is consistent with that reported in table 23 as the percentage that left the program to participate in another academic program (also 1 percent). 

**C.Services offered and received**

Upward Bound regulations specify academic areas for which projects are required to provide instruction, in the form of either courses or tutoring.  The regulations also list other services that are often offered by projects.  These academic areas and services are reflected in the performance reports and are listed in the following tables.  The glossary in appendix B provides definitions of these services as defined in the instructions to the Upward Bound performance report.  The two major statistics reported below are the percentage of projects having at least one participant receiving the service for 2000–01 (used as indicator of offering/providing the service) and the percentage of participants who are reported to have received the service in the reporting year.  For example, if none of the participants whose records were submitted by the project were reported to have received “Japanese foreign language” instruction, then the project would be classified as not offering the service.  If the project had at least one participant, then it would be classified as offering the service.  Among those projects offering the service, we then calculated the percentage of total participants who received the service.

1.Percentage of projects offering service

Service statistics indicate that virtually all projects have some participants receiving instruction in the required core curriculum, either in the summer or academic year.****  About 97–98 percent of UB projects had at least some participants receiving instruction in the summer program in the areas of math, science, and English.  During the academic year, 87 percent had some participants receiving instruction in math, 83 percent in science, 70 percent in foreign languages, and 89 percent in English (table 25). 

2.Percentage of participants receiving instruction in the subject area 

For UB, over 50 percent of participants received instruction in some form of mathematics, English, and science in the summer program, and almost 40 percent had some foreign language instruction.  Participation levels were significantly higher in the academic year for math, English, and science. Two-thirds of academic-year participants received mathematics and English instruction of some type; about one-half received science instruction; and almost one-third received foreign languages (table 25).  

Figures 22 and 23 provide a comparison between UB and UBMS for the percentage of participants receiving instruction in the broad areas and selected mathematics subjects.  The differences reflect the emphasis of UBMS on math and science and the differences in academic levels of the students.  UBMS students were on average more likely to enter the program at a later grade and to have slightly higher grade point averages (GPAs) at time of entry.  They also reflect that UB has a higher percentage of participants who participate in both the academic year and summer programs.

Much of the math instruction was at the algebra I and II and geometry levels.  Table 25 provides the percentage of UB and UBMS participants who took selected math courses.  For classic UB, about 4 percent of academic-year and summer participants received instruction in trigonometry, 4 to 5 percent in pre-calculus, and 1 percent in calculus.  Seven percent received integrated math instruction in the academic year (table 25).  

**Figure 22.Percentage of participants who received instructional services in core subject areas in UB and UBMS during the academic year and the summer program: 2000–01**

NOTE:  UB= classic Upward Bound; UBMS = Upward Bound Math-Science, AY = academic year, S = summer program.  Percentages are of the total new, continuing, and re-entry participants in the service year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

**Figure 23.Percentage of participants who received instructional services in selected mathematics subject areas in UB and UBMS during the academic year and the summer program: 2000–01**

NOTE:  UB= classic Upward Bound; UBMS = Upward Bound Math-Science, AY = academic year, S = summer program.  Percentages are of the total new, continuing, and re-entry participants in the service year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

3.Other services for UB in 2000–01

The UB performance reports also ask for information on other services as listed in table 26. Those services/activities in which more than three-fourths of students participated at some time during the service year were: academic advising, cultural activities, tutoring, personal counseling, study skills, family activities, career awareness, and campus visitation. About half (55 percent) participated in computer science either in the academic year, summer, or both. Peer mentoring was received by 61 percent and professional mentoring by 43 percent.  Fewer students participated in work study (**see** definition in appendix B) or employment related services (3 and 11 percent, respectively).

**D.High school grades**

Grade point average (GPA) data can be used both to assess a participant’s need for UB services and also to examine the improvements in academic achievement.  There is considerable interest in examining whether participation in UB has a positive impact on the high school grades of project participants, and for this reason the performance reports collect three grade measures:

· High school cumulative grade point at entry into the program (for those who had a high school GPA when they entered the program),

· High school GPA at the start of the reporting period, and

· High school GPA at the end of the reporting period.

In this first performance report, we present preliminary descriptive information on average GPAs.  We also report on the percentage of students that were reported to have had a higher GPA, the same GPA, and a lower GPA than when they entered the program.  In subsequent reports, as more years of data become available, we hope to present a more detailed analysis of participant grades by length of time participating in the program and services received.  In addition, we will report on the result of analyses of the factors such as participant background, type of services received, and length of time in the program that may be related to entry GPA and to reported GPA change.  

Some cautions are in order in interpreting this data.  These are listed below:

· Although over 80 percent of UB and UBMS participants had grades reported that were usable (on a 4- or 5-point scale), in a number of cases the GPAs reported were the same for the start and end of the reporting period.  We do not know if this reflects that the GPA remained unchanged or that data were not updated to reflect GPA at the end of the reporting period/school year.

· Without information on the high school courses taken, it becomes difficult to evaluate the significance of change or lack of change in GPA.  For example, a student may be encouraged to take more challenging college preparatory courses by the program and consequently may have a decline in overall GPA, while at the same time becoming better prepared for college.

· GPAs differ by school grade, and participants have different grades of entrance into the UB program; hence the need to look at the data by grade. 

1.GPA at the start and end, by grade

In table 27, the three GPAs collected (standardized to a 4-point scale) are broken down by the grade the participant would be entering at the end of the period.  For new participants, the GPA 

at entry to the program and at the start of the reporting period would be the same in most cases.  One of the first things to notice about the table is that, while there is little variation, GPAs increase slightly as students progress through high school.  As might be expected, GPA is lower for those who drop out of high school and higher for those who have enrolled in a postsecondary institution by the end of the reporting period. 

The average GPA among all UB participants at entry into the program was 2.8. For reference, the College Board reports that the mean GPA for all college-bound seniors taking the SAT was 3.3 (3.2 for males and 3.3 for females) in 2001. Among UB participants, when the average GPA at the start of the reporting period and the end of the period were compared for all participants, regardless of grade, there was an increase from 2.8 to 2.9 (table 27). 

2.GPA change status

The evaluations of UB in both the 1970s and 1990s found more evidence of positive high school and postsecondary relative impacts among those who started the program with lower GPA averages (Burkheimer, Riccobono, Wisenbaker 1979; Myers and Schirm 1996).  The preliminary data from the first year of performance reporting seem to support this finding for both UB and UBMS with regard to high school GPA.  Table 28 provides the distribution of total participants reported served in 2000–01 by GPA change status (whether the grade at the start of the period was higher, unchanged, or lower than GPA at the end of the reporting period).  Some caution is needed in interpreting these data due to reporting issues in this the first year of reporting; however, these data suggest that those who had increases in GPA over the reporting period entered the program with slightly lower GPAs than average (figure 24).  Overall, 43 percent of participants had higher GPAs at the end of the reporting period than at the start, 27 percent were unchanged, and 29 percent were lower (table 28).  Those participants who had some increase in

**Figure 24.GPA of UB participants served in reporting period at program entry, start of reporting period, and end of period, by GPA change status:  2000–01**

NOTE:  UB = classic Upward Bound.  Grade point averages (GPAs) are the averages for the total new, continuing, and re-entry participants in the service year on a 4-point scale.  GPAs reported on a 5-point scale were converted to a 4-point scale.  GPAs reported on other scales were excluded from tabulation.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01.

GPA averaged 2.7 at the start of the period, and those that experienced some decline averaged 2.9 at the start.  The same pattern holds for UBMS—those having an increase averaged 3.0 at the start and those who had a decline averaged 3.2.  Additional analyses controlling for differences in grade level are needed as more years of data become available.

3.Upward Bound Initiative preliminary data on GPAs

The Upward Bound Initiative was begun based on a priority to increase the number of the neediest eligible students who are served by the Upward Bound program, as evidenced by their being enrolled in schools in which at least 50 percent of the students are eligible for free lunch participation.  As the initiative was begun in 2000, the data in the performance reports for 2000‐01 reflect preliminary information and should be used with caution.  Of those included in the database and reported served in 2000–01, about 9 percent were identified as UB initiative-funded participants.  A comparison of the GPAs for these students with others served by the same projects shows that they entered the program with a GPA of 2.8 compared with 2.9 among others from the same project (table 29).  However, their GPA was similar to that of the average of all Upward Bound participants (2.8).  This suggests that initiative-funded participants, while more at risk than average students within their own particular projects, may not be more at risk than the UB population as a whole.

**E.College entrance exams**

1.Context****

Nationally, about 1.7 million high school seniors take the American College Testing (ACT) exam and about 1.1 million take the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) each year.  Census figures estimated the number of students enrolled in the 12th grade as 3.7 million in 2000.  Thus, an estimated 29 percent of seniors took the SAT and 46 percent took the ACT.  The national average score in 2001 for the SAT-Verbal was 506, and for SAT-Math, 514.  The national mean ACT composite score was 21.0.  Table 30 gives average national scores by income and parent education for the SAT, and by income for the ACT, and illustrates the strong association between parent education and income and college entrance test results.  

2.UB college entrance exam results

UB projects were asked to report college entrance exam results for those participants who had taken the test and for whom they had information.  Table 31 includes the percentage of participants reported as having taken the test, and the scores reported for the SAT for Mathematics, Verbal and Combined, and ACT Combined scores.  As it is most meaningful to look at the data by grade level, table 31 also gives the percentage of applicable students taking the test and the mean scores by the “end grade” for the period—for example, this means that, assuming normal progression, those with an end grade of 12th grade would have been in the 11th grade for the reporting year.

Combined SAT scores for UB ranged from 875 for participants whose reported ending grade indicated that they were high school graduates or held GEDs and who were not enrolled in postsecondary education to 917 for those with an end grade of enrolled in postsecondary education. The mean SAT-Math score was 451 and the mean SAT-Verbal was 440 for the total participants with scores on the performance reports. Combined ACT scores ranged from 17.6 for the end-grade group that were high school completers but who were not enrolled in postsecondary education, to 19.1 for those in the end grade of enrolled in postsecondary, with an overall mean of 18.5. These scores were similar to the national average scores for students from the two lowest income categories reported in table 30. UBMS mean scores were higher than UB scores (495 for SAT-Math and 465 for SAT-Verbal, and 20.6 for ACT-combined).

**F.Credits earned**

Some Upward Bound programs have arrangements with target schools or colleges to allow participants to earn either high school or college credit for courses taken as part of a summer or academic program.  The UB reporting form includes items for reporting target high school and postsecondary host institution credits earned for Upward Bound participation.  For postsecondary credits, the form has separate recording elements for non-summer bridge postsecondary credit hours, and summer bridge credit and non-credit hours.  Projects were asked to use standardized Carnegie credits for high school (e.g., one credit for one academic year of a subject and 0.5 credit for a half year).

Data reported for UB and UBMS indicate that most participants do not earn standard high school and college credit for completing Upward Bound activities.  For UB, about 19 percent of participants were reported as earning high school credit, and about 5 percent of participants were reported as earning postsecondary credit (table 32).  About 7 percent reported credits associated with summer bridge programs.  Although projects were asked to use a Carnegie Credit system for standard reporting of high school credits—that is, one credit for a full year of work in a single subject—we are unsure if this measure was used consistently.  Among those reporting more than zero credits and under 30 credits, the median credits earned for these high school programs were two Carnegie credits.  The median was 6.0 credits for postsecondary programs.

**CHAPTER 6 POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT**

**A.Overview**

Information on postsecondary outcomes (enrollment and degree completion) for Upward Bound participants represents the primary performance indicator for the program.  With this in mind, the performance report includes a number of items on postsecondary education enrollment status:

· Source of enrollment information,

· Postsecondary institution first attended and enrolled in at end of reporting period,

· Date of first postsecondary enrollment,

· Postsecondary enrollment status (e.g., full- or part-time enrollment),

· Financial aid sources,

· Postsecondary grade level,

· Postsecondary standing, and

· Degree certificate awarded. 

Projects were instructed to report postsecondary status for all current and prior-year project participants who had completed high school or a high school equivalency program.  The report instructions stated that projects should include all prior-year participants who had completed:

· One calendar year for classic UB participants, or

· A summer program for UBMS participants.

The instructions also specified that applicable prior-year participants should be followed through college graduation or for four years after completing high school.  Since follow-up data on a full cohort of participants are not yet available, we are able to include only limited information on the key statistic of interest—the percentage of those served by Upward Bound who enter and persist in postsecondary education.  In this report, we summarize information reported from the first year of data, with a focus on issues of reporting and interpreting the data, while stopping short of giving an estimate of the percentage of Upward Bound participants who have enrolled in postsecondary education.  In the next section, we first present contextual information from the Current Population Survey (CPS) data on secondary and postsecondary enrollment.  We then summarize information from the performance reports.

**B.Context:  National data on enrollment**

As discussed in chapter 1, the years since Upward Bound began have shown substantial increases in the percentages of postsecondary enrollment over time, whereas differences in enrollment rates by income have persisted.  Reporting postsecondary enrollment status is complex for national statistics as well as for Upward Bound performance reports.  Rates of enrollment depend upon who is included (especially whether the rate is based on all individuals in an age cohort or only on high school graduates) and the time frame involved (whether it reflects enrollment at a single point in time or it is based on the percentage ever enrolled).  

1.Enrollment status of dependent family members 18–24 years of age

Table 33 and figure 25 display the enrollment status of 18**–**24-year-old dependent family members by income level categories for the year 2000. These numbers are based on the Census Bureau’s CPS and are subject to sampling error, especially for small population subsets such as those included for the lowest income levels in figure 25.  It should be noted that this figure is based on “dependent primary family members” and excludes those 18**–**24 year olds who were not reported as dependents of a family at the time of the survey.

As the table and figure illustrate, there is a strong relationship between income and high-school statuses, such as high school graduation, and post-high school statuses, such as obtaining a bachelor’s degree, college enrollment, and enrollment in a four-year college.  For example, among those in families with incomes of $29,999 or less, about 22 percent of 18**–**24 year olds were not high school graduates and were not enrolled in school, compared with 3 percent for those with incomes of $75,000 or more (table 33).  In another example, among families with incomes of $29,999 or less, about 14 percent of dependent 18**–**24 year olds were enrolled full time in a four-year college, compared with 42 percent in the highest income level.  

Overall, 47 percent of the dependent 18**–**24 year olds were enrolled in college or held a bachelor’s degree (3 percent held a bachelor’s) in October of 2000.  This measure of college participation ranged from 27 percent for those in families with incomes of $29,999 or less (the TRIO requirement of 150 percent of the poverty level for a family of four in 2002 was $27,150) to 65 percent for those in families with incomes of $75,000 and over.  As figure 25 illustrates, there was a difference in rates by gender overall, with the differences between males and females slightly larger for the middle-income categories. 

**Figure 25.Percentage of dependent primary family members 18–24 years old enrolled full and part time in two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions or having a bachelor’s degree, by family income level and by gender:  October 2000**

NOTE:  Percentage of 18–24-year-old dependent primary family members with bachelor’s degrees was 3 percent for the total and ranged from 1 percent for the lowest income category to 5 percent for the highest income category.

SOURCE:  Calculated from information in U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (Table 14 Enrollment Status of Dependent Primary Family Members 18 to 24 Years Old, by Family Income, Level of Enrollment, Type of School, Attendance Status)  (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school.html).

2.College enrollment for high school graduates the October following graduation

Table 34, also from the CPS, gives college enrollment rates for high school graduates the October following graduation by gender and income.  The overall enrollment rate for high school graduates in 2000 was 62 percent (55 percent for males and 69 percent for females).  As with figure 25 discussed above, due to small sample sizes, the fine breakouts among the lowest income categories were somewhat unstable; however, the pattern is clear.  There were large differences by income, and females had higher rates than males, with the differences by gender being somewhat larger in the middle and upper income levels than among the lowest income categories.  Combining the five income categories most likely to reflect incomes of TRIO families ($29,999 or less), we find that the rates were similar for males and females (41 percent).  This compares with 86 percent for females and 68 percent for males in the highest income level grouping of $75,000 and over.

C.Upward Bound performance report data on postsecondary enrollment

1.Source of information on postsecondary enrollment

The first item in the section of the Upward Bound performance report form on postsecondary outcomes asks projects to report on the source of the follow-up information included in the performance report.  As shown in table 35, among the total group of classic UB participants reported as having completed secondary school by the end of the reporting period, projects indicated they had some form of institutional enrollment data for about 24 percent (5 percent from official transcripts, 16 percent from other institutional data, and 3 percent from self-reported information with transcripts), while they had self reports only for another 20 percent.  Thirty-six percent were listed as not enrolled and another 21 percent as unknown.

The data in table 35 imply that, of all students reported as having completed secondary school, about 43–44 percent (both UB and UBMS) were reported to be enrolled in postsecondary education.  If we look only at the prior participants included in the database (those served in 1999–2000 and not in 2000–01 who had completed secondary), we see that the percentage of individuals for whom there was enrollment information increases to 73 percent for UB and 68 percent for UBMS.  These estimates, however, represent incomplete cohorts of the first year of reporting.  Because grantees did not always have full data on the extent to which students had finished high school, the first estimate—that 43 percent of UB students who had finished high school had enrolled in postsecondary education—may understate the extent of enrollment.  On the other hand, the figures for enrollment of prior participants (73 percent in UB, 68 percent in UBMS) are almost certainly overstated, given that the 2000–01 data collection used in this report excluded from the cohort of prior participants all those who left the program prior to 1999–2000.  The estimates in table 35 should, therefore, be used with caution.

2.Type of postsecondary enrollment

Projects were instructed to report the Department of Education Student Financial Aid code for the first postsecondary institution in which the participant enrolled after completing high school or obtaining a GED and to also report the institution in which the student was enrolled at the end of the reporting period.  We merged these codes with IPEDS to obtain information on the types of institutions attended.  One question of interest is whether the type of UB host institution is related to the type of institution attended.  Another question is whether UB students are more likely to enroll in the host program institution than in another postsecondary education institution.  

Of the total records for UB participants, a total of 11,776 individuals had postsecondary codes that matched the IPEDS file.  These data indicate that about 74 percent of UB participants in the 2000–01 reporting year database who had a postsecondary code associated with them were listed as enrolled in a four-year institution (table 36).  

Twenty-five percent were in a two-year institution (24 percent in two-year public and 1 percent in two-year private institutions) and 1 percent in “other postsecondary.”  Overall, about 35 percent of participants who enrolled in postsecondary education attended the same institution as the grantee host institution (figure 26).  This percentage was highest among projects hosted by two-year institutions (46 percent) and least among projects hosted by four-year private institutions (17 percent). These figures may over-represent the degree to which participants who were enrolled in postsecondary education were attending the host institution.  We would expect that projects would be somewhat more likely to know the participant’s institution for those that enrolled if it was their own institution rather than another institution.  Among UBMS participants, the percentage attending the host sponsor institution was less than among UB participants (21 percent—data not shown in table).

In general, there was an association between the sector of the host institution and the type of institution attended (table 36).  For example, overall 19 percent of UB participants who enrolled attended a four-year private institution; however, among participants from projects hosted by four-year private institutions, 38 percent were enrolled in a four-year private institution. While overall about 24 percent attended a two-year public institution, among those participants from projects hosted by two-year institutions, 52 percent attended a two-year public institution. 

**Figure 26.Percentage of UB participants enrolled (or accepted for enrollment) in postsecondary education who attended grantee institutions, by grantee sector:  2000–01**

NOTE:  UB = classic Upward Bound.  This comparison is not applicable for participants from projects hosted by community organizations.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Upward Bound performance reports, 2000–01, and National Center for Education Statistics (IPEDS-IC), 2000–01.

3.Postsecondary enrollment status, financial aid sources, and standing

Over 90 percent of those enrolled were reported to be attending full time, with only 5 percent being reported as less than full time and 3 percent reported to have varied enrollment (table 37). The majority of those enrolled were reported to have "multiple federal and other sources of aid," with another 20 percent reported to have "multiple federal aid" (table 38).  About 10 percent had a Pell grant only.  The other choices listed were selected by less than 1 percent to 3 percent of participants (table 38).  Overall, 3 percent were reported to have no aid awarded and another 2 percent to not need aid.  There were few differences by gender or between UB and UBMS on these items.  UBMS had a slightly higher percentage with multiple federal and other aid reported, and somewhat less reported with only a Pell grant (table 38). 

Overall, among those enrolled or accepted, a small percentage were reported as not being in good standing, but this percentage was larger among UB participants than among UBMS participants (table 39).

4.Postsecondary grade level and degree and certificate completion status

The distributions of grade level and degree and certificate status for individuals reported as having completed secondary school by the end of the reporting period are displayed in tables 40 and 41. The majority of grade levels were those for the first year, with almost half reported as not enrolled.  As was the case with the data reported in table 35, because grantees did not always have full information on high school and postsecondary status, the percentages reported as accepted or enrolled in postsecondary may be understated. As might be expected, in the degree and certificate distribution (given in table 41), less than 1 percent had attained degrees or certificates and virtually all of those enrolled were in the category of not yet completing a postsecondary program.

**REFERENCES**

Burkheimer, G., Riccobono, J., and Wisenbaker, J.  (1979)  *Evaluation Study of the Upward Bound Program—A Second Follow-Up, Final Report.*Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute.

Chou, J.Y., Cahalan, M.W., Humphrey, J.G., Overton, A.T.  (2002)  *A Profile of the Talent Search Program:  1998–1999.*  Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal TRIO Programs.

Horn, L.J., and Chen, X.  (1998)  *Toward Resiliency:  At-Risk Students Who Make It to College.*  Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Moore, M.T.  (1996)  *A 1990's View of Upward Bound:  Programs Offered, Students Served, and Operational Issues.*  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.

Mortenson, T.G. (ed).  (2001, October)  *Postsecondary Education Opportunity.*  Oskaloosa, Iowa. Postsecondary Education Opportunity.

Myers, D.  (1991)  *The Effects of Upward Bound and Supplemental Service Programs: Findings from Extant Data.*Rockville, Md.:  Westat.

Myers, D.E., and Schirm, A.  (1999)  *The Impacts of Upward Bound:  Final Report for  Phase I of the National Evaluation.*Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.

Myers, D.E., and Schirm, A.  (1996)  *The Short-Term Impacts of Upward Bound:  An Interim Report.* Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.**

United States Department of Education. (2002) *Strategic Plan 2002–2007.* Washington, D.C.

**APPENDIX A UPWARD BOUND PERFORMANCE REPORTING: METHODS AND DATA QUALITY FOR THE FIRST YEAR**

During the 2000–01 program year, a total of 727 classic Upward Bound (UB) projects were funded through Upward Bound grants (table A–1).  Computer Business Methods, Inc. (CBMI) processed the files of each of the projects submitting reports and performed a variety of data quality and error checks.  CBMI combined the submissions of each project into the national database.  Of these funded grantees, 708 projects (97 percent of the total) submitted performance reports containing individual participant records for 69,436 UB participants.  Analyses of individual records using Social Security numbers and other information identified 808 UB participants with duplicate records (1 percent).  These duplicate records were removed from the counts of numbers served presented in the Profile Report.

The unique records represented 55,140 new, current, and re-entry participants (80 percent of the total of UB participants) and 12,846 individuals identified as prior-year participants (19 percent).  In the first reporting period, projects were instructed to include in the data file individual participant data for all students served in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Further, projects were instructed to provide only one record for each participant and provide or update the information for each participant to reflect each student’s participation and academic status for the 2000–01 project year.  Service information was to be provided for 2000–01 participants only.

This report covers the first year of reporting using participant-level data for Upward Bound.  The wealth of data contained in this report testifies to the strong effort that projects have made to carefully report the data requested for each Upward Bound participant.  Upward Bound projects are to be commended on the quality of the data provided for the first year’s reports. Although the percentage of missing data is not large overall, items such as test scores and especially postsecondary enrollment information had the highest percentage of unknown data reported.  The percentage of records with data reported or legitimately inapplicable ranged from 65 percent for items such as SAT scores to 100 percent for items such as program type.  Most items have over 95 percent reported, and the average for 71 data elements in the file was 91 percent reported or inapplicable.  However, the extent of missing data is masked somewhat by the fact that some items are only applicable to portions of the individuals in the file and that the inapplicable code is a legitimate response.  

Although the reports maintained a high level of internal consistency for most items, responses to some items indicated that a portion of projects may not have understood how to report the item or that selected response codes were used inappropriately in this the first year of reporting.  We note some of these problem areas below.  

· ***Duplicate records.***  In the first year of reporting, as noted above, about 1 percent of participant records were duplicates within projects.  The reporting structure allows for only one record per participant per reporting period. 

· ***Date reporting in the format specified***was a problem for some projects.******Accurate reporting of dates in the form specified is very important as it is the means by which several key statistics, such as length of time in the project, are calculated.

· ***Including valid SSNs only in the field for SSNs***.  In a small number of projects, if the SSN was missing, some other form of ID was included.  Mixing other ID schemes with SSN leads to difficulty in processing.  SSN is very important as it allows the Department of Education to match with the federal student aid files for purposes of tracking participant postsecondary outcomes.

· ***Target School reporting using The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) school ID (NCESSchID)*.**  For the first year of reporting, about 19 percent of the NCES school identification numbers reported for the UB participants did not match to the Common Core of Data (CCD).  

· ***The Office of Postsecondary Education codes*** for postsecondary institutions first attended and attended at the end of the reporting period were also missing for a portion of applicable cases.  Because no names are collected, the codes are the only way to identify the institutions.  

· ***Grade progression.***  One of the performance measures for Upward Bound is progression from grade to grade.  The Upward Bound report form asks for the grade of new participants at time of entry into the project and the grade of participants at the end of the reporting period.  A larger number of new participants had the same grade reported for entering and end grade than might have been expected given normal progression, indicating that some projects may have misunderstood how to report this information.

· ***Grade point average (GPA) reporting.***  There are three measures of GPA on the form, representing GPA at entry, at the start of the reporting period, and at the end of the reporting period.  Some participants had the same GPA reported in each of these fields. To be able to measure changes in participant GPAs, it is important that accurate information be provided. 

· ***Carnegie credits (one credit per subject for entire year) for high school credits*** (HSCred)***.*** A substantial portion of high school credits earned through the program was reported using scales other than Carnegie (which is one credit for a subject for an entire academic year). 

· ***Postsecondary enrollment items*.** In the postsecondary enrollment section, there appears to have been some confusion about how to designate that the item is inapplicable because the participant has not yet completed secondary school.  

· ***Unknown information.***  For many items the extent of unknown data was low; however, for some key items, such as postsecondary enrollment status, if one considers only the applicable cases (i.e., those students who completed high school), the percentage of unknown information increases considerably.  For example, about 30 percent of students who had completed high school were reported as having an unknown postsecondary enrollment status.

As the report displays, for the most part, Upward Bound projects provided complete and accurate information on participants for the period reported. However, with each reporting year, we anticipate that the number of unknown statuses will increase as it may become more difficult to track the postsecondary progress of prior-year participants several years after leaving the program.  We also anticipate that there will be a larger proportion of participants with unknown postsecondary enrollment status among those who leave the program prior to their senior year and high school graduation.  For this reason, we are working with the Department of Education to match Upward Bound participant records annually with the Federal Financial Aid Application and Recipient files to gain additional information on postsecondary enrollment and persistence of federal-aid students who participated in Upward Bound. We plan to include the results of this matching in future reports.  In order for these data matches to be successful, SSNs must be correctly reported.  Also, as additional years of data become available, we look forward to examining the inter-relationships among participant characteristics, length of project participation, types of services received, and the educational progress of participants.  

**APPENDIX B GLOSSARY**

This glossary contains a listing of terms used in the report.  Some of them are specific to the TRIO program and do not necessarily apply to other Department of Education programs or grants.

**Academic year component**refers to Upward Bound services that occur during the regular academic year as defined by the participant’s secondary school.  Section 645.11 of the UB regulations indicates that projects should provide program participants with one or more of the core services on a weekly basis throughout the academic year and to the extent possible should not prevent participants from fully participating in academic and nonacademic activities at the participants’ secondary school**.**

**Carnegie Classification System** is a systematic classification of institutions of higher education in the United States according to such variables as degrees offered, size, and commitment to research.  The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in Menlo Park, Calif., offers a free online version of *A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education* (2000) (http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/).  The Carnegie Classification was originally published in 1973, and subsequently updated in 1976, 1987, 1994, and 2000. 

The **Common Core of Data (CCD),** sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of information on all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts in the U.S and outlying areas—approximately 95,000 schools and 17,000 school districts.  The outlying areas include American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (1,672 schools).  Also included in the CCD are schools operated directly by the U.S. Government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior (185 schools in 23 states) and the U.S. Department of Defense (154 overseas schools in 11 countries and 70 schools in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Guam). (For additional information, see http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.)

**Core Curriculum for Upward Bound**includes the following: instruction in mathematics through precalculus, laboratory science, foreign language, composition, and literature.

**Federal regions** are defined as follows:  

Region 1:Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont 

Region II:New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, New York

Region III:Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Region IV:Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee

Region V:Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin.

Region VI:Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Region VII:Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Region VIII:Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Region IX:Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands

Region X:Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 

**The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)** was established as the core postsecondary education data collection program for NCES.  IPEDS is a comprehensive system of surveys designed to collect data from all institutions and organizations whose primary purpose is to provide postsecondary education, as defined by Title IV of the *Higher Education Act of 1965*, as amended.  The system is built around a series of interrelated surveys to collect institution-level data in such areas as enrollments, program completions, faculty, staff, and finances.  The IPEDS for 2000–01 contains a total of 9,905 postsecondary institutions.  Of these, 3,455 were two- or four-year public or private not-for-profit degree-granting Title IV-eligible institutions that served undergraduates.  (See http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ for additional information on IPEDS.)

**Low-income individual**is defined in the Upward Bound regulations as a person whose family taxable income did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount in the calendar year preceding the year in which the individual initially participated in the project.  The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, sets guidelines to determine the definition of the poverty level.  For example, the poverty threshold in 2000 for a four-person family with two children less than 18 years of age was $17,463 (Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children: 1980–*2003,*U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, January 30, 2004, http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld.html).  For this family, 150 percent of the poverty threshold would be $26,195.

**Participant status for performance**can be one of the following: new, continuing, re-entry, or prior participants.  

· A *new participant* is an individual who participated in the Upward Bound project for the first time in the reporting period.

· A *continuing participant*****is an individual who participated in the project in both the current reporting period and the immediately preceding project period. 

· *A re-entry participant*****is a former project participant who participated in the project during the current reporting period but not during the preceding project period.****

· *A prior-year participant* is a former project participant who did not participate in the project during the current reporting period.

**Potentially first-generation college status**is defined in the Upward Bound regulations as the following:

(1) an individual neither of whose natural or adoptive parents received a baccalaureate degree; or

(2) a student who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one natural or adoptive parent and whose supporting parent did not received a baccalaureate degree.

**Rising Grade**is used to refer to a student’s status in the summer prior to the school year cited.  Thus, “rising ninth-grader” and “rising 12th-grader” refer to students who will be entering the ninth or 12th grade in the next school term.  Note: students may first participate in Upward Bound in the summer prior to entering the ninth grade.

**Services.**Definitions applicable to “services” include the following:

· *Academic advising* means assisting students in making educational plans, selecting appropriate courses, developing career plans, meeting academic requirements, and planning for graduation and further education.

· *Assistance with college admissions* means workshops or individualized assistance to help participants complete college entrance applications.

· *Campus visitations* means project-sponsored trips to postsecondary institutions for the purpose of acquainting students with institutions that the project participants may wish to attend.

· *Career awareness* means project-sponsored activities, such as field trips, special lectures, and workshops, to increase students’ knowledge of the various career opportunities available.

· *College entrance exam preparation* means workshops, tutoring, or individualized assistance specifically designed to help students meet scoring requirements on national or state standardized tests given to students for admission into a postsecondary educational institution. 

· *Computer Science* means instruction, workshops, academic support, or tutoring to increase a participant’s knowledge and skills in using computer technology, including knowledge of the various computer languages, software applications, computer hardware, and World Wide Web applications.

· *Cultural activities*means any project-sponsored activities, such as field trips, special lectures, and symposiums, that have as their purpose the improvement of the project participants’ academic progress and personal development.

· *Employment*means jobs of at least 10 hours per week arranged either by the project or by the Upward Bound participant that are separate from the Upward Bound program.  In contrast to the “work-study” positions, these jobs are primarily meant to allow participants to earn some income while participating in the program.

· *Family activities* means events, workshops, and meetings that parents and other family members attend, including program orientation meetings, year-end award/recognition ceremonies, and activities designed to provide families with information on postsecondary educational opportunities and financial aid available. 

· *Financial aid assistance* means workshops or individualized assistance to help participants complete various financial aid applications, including scholarship applications, U.S. Department of Education federal student financial aid applications, and state applications for financial aid.

· *Instruction/tutorials* means a formal, structured method for transmitting facts, information, understanding of the concept, and skills to students.  Instruction usually includes lesson plans and assignments designed to help students achieve learning objectives. 

· *Integrated Math and Science* means learning in the context of real-world applications.  It synthesizes practical application with theoretical knowledge to help students learn better from hands-on, applications-oriented instruction.  It emphasizes applications of theory, problem solving, and critical thinking to provide students with the skills in literacy, numeracy, computing, scientific methodology, and technology that postsecondary institutions recognize as a necessary foundation for further study in most fields.

· *Personal counseling* means crisis intervention and assistance with personal problems and decisions.

· *Peer counseling/mentoring* means a variety of personal or academic support provided by other high school or college students designed to help project participants adjust.

· *Professional mentoring* means professionals, other than project staff, working with project students to expose them to career and other opportunities available to them.

· *Reading* means instruction, tutorials, or individualized assistance to improve a student’s phonetic ability and reading comprehension skills.

· *Study skills* means workshops, tutoring, or individualized assistance specifically designed to help students develop the skills necessary to succeed in academic programs.

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

· *Tutoring*means individual or small group informal academic assistance provided by professional staff or students who are either part-time paid, volunteer, or internship-for-credit students.

· *Target school advocacy* means project staff intervening with target school officials on behalf of a participant (i.e., individual meetings, academic advising, participating in parent- teacher conferences) to assist students in their academic efforts.

· *Work-study positions* (as the term is used in the *Higher Education Act of 1965*, as amended in 1998, Section 402C(b)(10)) mean internships and/or employment provided or arranged for by the project for the purpose of exposing participants to careers requiring a postsecondary degree.  Upward Bound students participating in one of these work-study positions may be paid a stipend of $300 per month during June, July, and August.   

**Summer component**is designed to simulate a college-going experience for participants.  It is typically six weeks in length and provides participants with UB services at least five days a week as described in 645.11 of the regulations.

**Summer bridge component****provides participants with services and activities including college courses, aiding in the transition from secondary education to postsecondary education.  This service is typically provided to UB participants who have graduated from secondary school and intend to enroll in postsecondary school in the fall term.

**Target area** is defined as a discrete local or regional geographic area designated by the applicant as the area to be served by an Upward Bound project. 

**Target school** is defined as a school designated by the applicant as the focus of project activities.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

�	There are three types of Upward Bound Program projects:  regular, or classic, projects that prepare high school students for programs of postsecondary education; Math-Science Centers that prepare high school students for postsecondary programs that lead to careers in the fields of math and science; and Veterans projects that assist military veterans to prepare for entry into postsecondary education programs.  The acronym UB refers to classic Upward Bound; UBMS refers to Upward Bound Math-Science, and VUB refers to Veterans Upward Bound.

�	Throughout this report, unless otherwise noted or implied, the acronym UB refers to classic Upward Bound.  We refer to Upward Bound Math-Science as UBMS and Veterans Upward Bound as VUB. 

�	Consistent with the U.S. Census, tables and figures reporting U.S. Census information use only the term “Black.”

�	Lower expectations for college attendance or degree attainment refers to responses to survey items concerning how far in school the respondent would like to go and also how far in school the respondent anticipated going in terms of completing a high school, vocational postsecondary, college, or advanced degree.

�	Participant numbers represent an unduplicated count of individuals within projects.  Overall, duplicate records for 808 UB, 104 UBMS, and 213 VUB participants were removed.

� The IPEDS Institutional Characteristics file for 2000–2001 contains 9,905 institutions.  For our analyses, we used postsecondary institutions awarding at least two-year degrees and excluded private for-profit institutions, institutions not serving undergraduates, and non-Title IV participants (about 6,700 postsecondary schools were Title IV participating).  The resulting comparison file had 3,455 IPEDS institutions.

� Title IV-eligible institutions are those determined eligible to participate in federal aid to postsecondary education including the Federal Pell Grants, the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), the Federal Work-Study Program (FWS), the Federal Stafford Loans (subsidized and unsubsidized), the Federal PLUS Loan Program (Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students), the Federal Perkins Loan Program, and the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program.

�	Requirements prior to 1981 were that participants be “disadvantaged” and have need of services; however, the TRIO legislation did not define a specific income or parent educational level until 1981.

�	The studies include the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972, first follow-up study (NLS-72/73), High School and Beyond (HS&B, 1980) sophomore cohort base year survey, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 first follow-up study (NELS:88/90), and Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 base year student survey (ELS:2002).

* 	This paragraph differs slightly from the information in the printed version of the report released in August 2004. The changes reflect corrections in the wording and estimates of educational attainment to match information found in the Condition of Education.

�	The full names of the studies were the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS-72/73), High School and Beyond (HS&B, 1980) sophomore cohort base year survey, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 first follow-up study (NELS:88/90), and Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 base year student survey (ELS:2002).

�	PLAN-ACT is a pre-ACT instrument that measures English (usage, mechanics, and rhetorical skills), math (algebra and geometry), reading, and science reasoning.  PLAN composite scores range from one to 32.  The preliminary SAT (PSAT) measures verbal reasoning, reading, math problem-solving, and writing and is scored from 20 to 80.

�	The UB performance reports actually included school identification numbers for 69,436 UB participants.  Of these, 13,395 (19.3 percent) did not "match" the schools in the CCD dataset. 

�	A total of 349 Talent Search (TS) projects completed the 1998–99 TS performance report, and 341 submitted a list of target schools.  These projects combined served a total of 5,105 middle and high schools (p. 12 of A Profile of the Talent Search Program:  1998–99).

�	To be eligible for free lunches through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National School Lunch Program, family income must not exceed 130 percent of the poverty level as defined by the Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.  The Code of Federal Regulations for Upward Bound (34 CFR 645.6) defines a low-income individual as one whose family taxable income did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount for the calendar year preceding the year of the individual's initial participation.

�	Percentages were calculated by dividing the total number of UB participants in a given state by the total number of students eligible for the free lunch program in the target schools in the state.  Although all UB participants may not be eligible for free lunch, the calculation includes all Upward Bound participants. 

�	Because this was the first year of reporting on initiative participants, it is possible that some projects classified a larger number of individuals as initiative participants than were actually served with the supplemental funding.  In some cases, all participants from the identified target school, whether or not actually supported with supplemental initiative funds, may have been classified as initiative participants.

�	The tabulations in figure 21 and table 20 do not include prior-year participants in the performance file.  A prior-year participant is a former project participant who did not participate in the project during the current reporting period.

�	As specified  in the TRIO program regulations (34 CFR 645.11), an Upward Bound project that receives funds for at least two years “shall include as part of its core curriculum, instruction in—(1) Mathematics through pre-calculus; (2) Laboratory science; (3) Foreign language; (4) Composition; and (5) Literature.”

�	Dates of enrollment are not included in this report, but will be included as more years of data become available.

�	The participation status of an additional 642 participants (0.9 percent) was unknown.

# _1164119241.xls

# _1164121549.xls

# _1164184895.xls

# _1164187135.xls

# _1164187821.xls

# _1164190499.xls

# _1164187608.xls

# _1164185542.xls

# _1164124507.xls

# _1164125786.xls

# _1164174838.xls

# _1164175904.xls

# _1164125011.xls

# _1164122089.xls

# _1164124308.xls

# _1164121963.xls

# _1164120656.xls

# _1164121149.xls

# _1164119595.xls

# _1164116672.xls

# _1164118129.xls

# _1164118635.xls

# _1164116944.xls

# _1164115916.xls

# _1164116070.xls

# _1164115426.xls