U . S . D e pa r t m e n t o f Edu c at i o n

Background

The Talent Search (TS) program is one of 

the federal TRIO programs, a group of 

eight outreach programs funded by the U.S. 

Department of Education that are designed to 

support and assist students from disadvantaged 

backgrounds to progress through the academic 

pipeline from middle school to attainment of 

a postbaccalaureate degree.

The TS program identifies and assists 

individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds 

who have the potential to succeed in higher 

education. The program provides academic, 

career, and financial counseling to its 

participants and encourages them to graduate 

from high school and continue on to the 

postsecondary institution of their choice. 

Talent Search also serves high school dropouts 

by encouraging them to reenter the education 

system and complete their education. The goal 

of Talent Search is to increase the number of 

youths from disadvantaged backgrounds who 

complete high school and enroll in institutions 

of postsecondary education of their choice.

In the past, the TS program has funded projects 

through grant competitions held every four 

years; the program completed one grant cycle 

with the 2005–06 academic year and began a 

new cycle with the 2006–07 academic year. 

Although most grantees received four-year 

awards, the applicants whose peer review 

scores were in the top 10 percent received fiveyear awards, so there is some overlap between 

grant cycles. (Under the Higher Education 

Contents

1 Background

2 Program Funding

2 Outcomes

7 Participants

8 Target Schools

Opportunity Act, signed into law in 2008, in 

the future TS and six other TRIO programs 

will award all grants for five-year periods and 

will therefore hold competitions every five 

years.) As appropriate, this report will examine 

program characteristics and outcomes at up 

to four points: the first year of the previous 

grant cycle (2002–03), the last year of the 

previous grant cycle (2005–06), the first year 

of the current cycle (2006–07), and the most 

recent year for which data is currently available 

(2007–08).

Every year, the grantee for each funded project 

is required to submit an Annual Performance 

Report (APR) that includes data about the 

participants served and the status of those 

participants at the end of the reporting 

period. Reporting periods correspond to 

academic years, and for most grantees run 

from September through the following 

August. For the TS program, grantees report 

the total number of participants that fit into 

a number of different categories, rather than 

the status of each individual participant. 

The APR was redesigned for the new grant 

cycle (beginning in 2006–07) and reflects 

the standard objectives introduced in the FY 

2006 competition; these objectives concerned 

secondary school promotion and graduation, 

application for postsecondary admission and 

financial aid, and, most important, enrollment 

in postsecondary education. The APR also 

incorporates improved consistency checks 

designed to reduce data entry errors.

A Report on the 

Talent Search Program 

2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07
A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

2

Program Funding 

Table 1 shows the major funding characteristics of the TS 

program: number of grantees, funding number of participants 

that the project was funded to serve and actually served, and 

program funding, along with the mean funding per project, 

mean participants served per project, and mean spending per 

participant served. 2002–03 reflected a significant increase in 

the program’s grantees, from 360 in 2001–02 to 474 at the 

outset of the 2002–06 cycle, with 117 first-time awards made. 

Slightly fewer participants were actually served in 2002–03 

than the projects were funded to serve; as the 117 new projects 

gained experience in providing program services, in subsequent 

years the number of participants served increased beyond the 

number the projects were funded to serve. Similarly, in the 

2006 competition, 68 projects were awarded a grant for the first 

time; in 2006–07 the number of participants actually served 

was smaller than the number the projects were funded to serve, 

but by 2007–08 the number served once more exceeded the 

number the projects were funded to serve.

Outcomes

The TS program’s APR captures five important measurable 

outcomes that indicate progress toward the ultimate program 

goal of increasing postsecondary enrollment for low-income, 

potentially first-generation college students. These outcome 

measures are presented in the next five figures.

For the two funding cycles covered in this report, the 

all-important objective of postsecondary enrollment 

was calculated with “college-ready” participants as the 

denominator. In APRs prior to the 2006–10 grant cycle, the 

term “college-ready” referred to high school graduates, high 

school equivalency graduates, and 12th-grade students. As 

of 2006–07, however, the definition of “college-ready” was 

changed to include all groups of participants that aligned 

with the enrollment objective established for the 2006 grant 

competition. Thus, in the current grant cycle, the term “collegeready” refers not only to those included in the previous cycle, 

but also to certain categories of participants listed in the APR: 

participants not older than 18 years enrolled in an alternative 

education program at an academic level equivalent to that of 

a high school senior; adults without high school diploma or 

equivalency credentials (19 years or older) who have reentered 

high school as a senior or enrolled in an alternative education 

program at an academic level equivalent to that of a high school 

senior; postsecondary dropouts; and potential postsecondary 

transfers. These additional categories, however, accounted for 

less than 1 percent of all participants.

Figure 1 shows rates of enrollment in postsecondary education 

by “college-ready” participants from the beginning of the 

previous grant cycle (2002–03) to the most recent year for 

which data are available (2007–08). Projects were to report 

participants who had enrolled during the reporting period 

or the following fall term. The small drop in enrollment in 

2006–07 reflects that the 68 projects new to the TS program 

reported substantially lower percentages of college-ready 

participants than did continuing grantees.

Figure 2 compares the percentages of “college-ready” program 

participants who applied for admission to an institution of 

postsecondary education. This outcome measure appears to 

be fairly consistent across the years reported.

Table 1. TS program funding characteristics, by reporting year: 2002–03, 2005–06, 2006–07, 

and 2007–08

Reporting year

2002–03 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

Program funding characteristics

 Projects funded 474 468 511 471

Total program funding $143,305,809 $144,648,938 $149,820,229 $142,884,182

Mean funding per project $302,333 $309,079 $293,190 $303,363

Total participants funded to serve 388,153 380,913 393,747 366,330

Total participants served 380,676 389,752 387,408 370,252

Mean spending per participant served $376 $371 $387 $386

Mean participants served per project 803 833 758 786

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance reports, 2002–03, 2005–06, 2006–07, and 2007–08.

NOTE: Table reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS: 2002–06 and 2006–10. Number of projects in 2006–07 reflects 40 prior grantees that did not receive 

an award in the 2006 competition but were funded in 2006-07 for the final year of grants originally awarded in 2002. 
A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

3

Figure 1. Postsecondary enrollment rate of “college-ready” TS program participants, 

by reporting year: 2002–03, 2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, and 2007–08

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance reports, 2002–03, 2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, and 

2007–08.

NOTE: Figure reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS: 2002–06 and 2006–10. The percentage of postsecondary enrollment was derived by dividing the 

number of “college-ready” participants enrolled in a program of postsecondary education by the number of “college-ready” participants. Prior to the 2006–10 

grant cycle, “college-ready” referred to high school graduates, high school equivalency graduates, and 12th-grade students. In 2006–07 and 2007–08 (the 

first two years of the current cycle), however, the definition of “college-ready” also included participants not older than 18 enrolled in an alternative education 

program at an academic level equivalent to a high school senior; adults without high school diploma or equivalency credentials who reentered high school as 

a senior or enrolled in an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to a senior; postsecondary dropouts; and potential postsecondary 

transfers. The additional categories accounted for less than 1 percent of all participants.

Figure 2. Postsecondary application rate of “college-ready” TS program participants, 

by reporting year: 2002–03, 2005–06, and 2007–08

SOURCE:U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance reports, 2002–03, 2005–06, and 2007–08.

NOTE: Figure reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS: 2002–06 and 2006–10. The percentage of “college-ready” TS participants who applied for admission 

to a program of postsecondary education was derived by dividing the number of “college-ready” participants who applied for postsecondary admission by the 

number of “college-ready” participants. Prior to the 2006–10 grant cycle, “college-ready” referred to high school graduates, high school equivalency graduates, 

and 12th-grade students. In 2006–07 and 2007–08 (the first two years of the current cycle), however, the definition of “college-ready” also included participants 

not older than 18 enrolled in an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to a high school senior; adults without high school diploma or 

equivalency credentials who reentered high school as a senior or enrolled in an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to a senior; 

postsecondary dropouts; and potential postsecondary transfers. The additional categories accounted for less than 1 percent of all participants.

78.6% 77.6% 77.8% 77.8% 77.1% 78.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

Percent

Reporting year

86.3% 84.6% 86.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002–03 2005–06 2007–08

Percent

Reporting year
A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

4

Figure 3. Financial aid application rate of “college-ready” TS program participants, 

by reporting year: 2002–03, 2005–06, and 2007–08

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance reports, 2002–03, 2005–06, and 2007–08.

NOTE: Figure reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS: 2002–06 and 2006–10. The percentage of “college-ready” TS participants who applied for student 

financial aid was derived by dividing the number of “college-ready” participants who applied for such aid by the number of “college-ready” participants. Prior 

to the 2006–10 grant cycle, “college-ready” referred to high school graduates, high school equivalency graduates, and 12th-grade high school students. In 

2006–07 and 2007–08 (the first two years of the current cycle), however, the definition of “college-ready” also included participants not older than 18 enrolled 

in an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to a high school senior; adults without high school diploma or equivalency credentials who 

reentered high school as a senior or enrolled in an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to a senior; postsecondary dropouts; and 

potential postsecondary transfers. The additional categories accounted for less than 1 percent of all participants.

Figure 4. Secondary school promotion rate of TS program participants, 

by reporting year: 2002–03, 2005–06, and 2007–08

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance reports, 2002–03, 2005–06, and 2007–08.

NOTE: Figure reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS: 2002–06 and 2006–10. The percentage of participants who attained secondary school promotion 

was derived by dividing the number of secondary school participants who were promoted to the next grade in secondary school (except those who graduated) 

by the number of secondary school participants (except 12th-grade students). Secondary school refers to the sixth through 12th grades, which are those 

specified in the TS program’s regulations as allowable grades for participants’ enrollment.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002−03 2005−06 2007−08

85.3% 85.0% 85.1%

Percent

Reporting year

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002−03 2005−06 2007−08

97.0% 97.1% 96.6%

Percent

Reporting year
A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

5

Figure 3 compares the percentages of “college-ready” program 

participants who applied for financial aid for attendance at an 

institution of postsecondary education; these figures are even 

more consistent than those for application for admission. As 

Figures 1, 2, and 3 indicate, rates of applying for admission 

and financial aid are higher than those for actual enrollment. 

The difference may result in part from difficulties projects 

sometimes encounter in compiling complete information 

on participants’ enrollment by the time annual performance 

reports are due in late fall. In addition, some students who 

apply for admission and/or financial aid in a given reporting 

period may not actually enroll until after the fall semester, and 

thus would not be included in the count of enrollees.

Although Figures 1, 2, and 3 present the most direct 

measurements of the Talent Search program goal of increasing 

postsecondary enrollment for low-income, potentially firstgeneration college students, those measures only take into 

account “college-ready” program participants, who represent 

about one-fifth of the program participants served each 

year. The next two figures examine whether the bulk of the 

program participants made satisfactory progress toward this 

program goal.

Figure 4 displays the percentage of non–senior program 

participants in secondary school (defined in the figure as sixth 

through 12th grades) who were promoted to the next grade 

level; the rate remained stable across grant cycles.

Figure 5 shows the rate at which 12th-grade program 

participants and certain other participants graduated from high 

school or received a certificate of high school equivalency. In 

2002–03 and 2005–06, this rate was defined as the percentage 

of high school seniors and secondary school dropouts 

who graduated from high school or received a high school 

equivalency credential, while the 2007–08 calculation reflects 

the percentage of high school seniors and their equivalents in 

alternative educational programs who graduated from high 

school or received a high school equivalency credential. This 

change in which groups of participants are being measured 

likely accounts for the rise in the calculated graduation rate 

in 2007–08 compared to the rates of the two earlier years; 

secondary school dropouts are presumably less likely to receive 

a high school diploma or GED than senior-equivalent students 

in alternative educational programs.

Figure 5. High school graduation rate of TS program participants, by reporting year: 2002–03, 

2005–06, and 2007–08

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance reports, 2002–03, 2005–06, and 2007–08.

NOTE: Figure reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS: 2002–06 and 2006–10. In 2002–06 cycle, the percentage of participants who attained high school 

graduation was derived by dividing the number of participants who received high school diplomas or high school equivalency credentials by the number of high 

school seniors and secondary school dropouts. In the 2006–10 cycle, the denominator was defined as the number of high school seniors and their equivalents 

in alternative education programs.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002−03 2005−06 2007−08

92.6% 92.4% 95.8%

Percent

Reporting year
A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

6

Table 2. Number and percentage distribution of TS program participants by program eligibility 

characteristics, “college-ready” status, and academic status: Reporting year 2007–08

Number Percentage

Program eligibility characteristics

Low-income, potentially first-generation 271,140 73.2%

Low-income only 23,067 6.2%

Potentially first-generation only 54,931 14.8%

Neither low-income nor potentially first-generation 21,114 5.7%

College-ready status

“College-ready” 76,168 20.6%

Not “college-ready” (includes unknown status) 294,084 79.4%

Academic status

Middle school (6th–8th grade) 113,336 30.6%

High school non-senior (9th–11th grade) 177,706 48.0%

High school senior (12th grade only)* 71,014 19.2%

Participant not older than 18 years enrolled in an alternative education program at an academic 

level equivalent to that of a high school senior*

1,051 0.3%

Adult without high school diploma or equivalency credentials who has reentered school as a senior 

or enrolled in an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to that of a high 

school senior*

1,159 0.3%

Other adults without high school diploma or equivalency credentials 588 0.2%

High school graduates or high school equivalency graduates not already enrolled in a 

postsecondary school*

2,333 0.6%

Postsecondary dropout* 443 0.1%

Potential postsecondary transfer* 168 < 0.1%

Other/Unknown 2,454 0.7%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance report, 2007–08.

NOTE: Table reflects the current funding cycle in TS: 2006–10. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

*Participants in this category are referred to as “college-ready”; participants in all other categories in this section are referred to as not “college-ready.”
A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

7

Participants

The Talent Search program primarily seeks to increase 

postsecondary enrollment for low-income, potentially firstgeneration college students (although grantees also serve 

a small percentage of students who do not fit this profile). 

The TRIO programs define low-income students as those 

whose families’ taxable income for the preceding year did not 

exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount established 

by the Census Bureau based on family size, with adjustments 

for determining poverty status of residents of Alaska and 

Hawaii. Potentially first-generation college status refers to 

an individual neither of whose natural or adoptive parents 

received a baccalaureate degree, or 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 receive a baccalaureate degree. The program’s 

regulations require that at least two-thirds of participants be 

both low-income individuals and potentially first-generation 

college students.

Table 2 shows the numbers and percentages of 2007–08 

program participants who were considered low-income, 

potentially first-generation college students, low-income only, 

potentially first-generation college students only, and neither 

low-income nor potentially first-generation college students; 

the number and percentage of program participants considered 

“college-ready”; and the distribution of 2007–08 program 

participants by academic status. These percentages have 

remained stable between years and grant cycles. The categories 

used to describe participants’ academic status changed in the 

revised APR first used in 2006–07, but the general distribution 

was similar to the academic status of program participants in 

the previous grant cycle and APRs.

Table 3 displays the gender and age distribution of program 

participants served in each of the past three years (2005–06, 

2006–07, and 2007–08). The proportion of male participants 

has increased slightly relative to female participants over the 

course of this period.

The Talent Search program normally serves students who 

are as young as 11 years old (or who have completed five 

years of elementary education) but not older than 27, with 

approximately 71 percent of participants being between 

ages 14 and 18. An individual older than 27, however, may 

participate in a TS project if he or she cannot be appropriately 

served by a project of the Educational Opportunity Centers 

(EOC) program (the sister program to TS within TRIO, 

which primarily serves participants ages 19 and older), and if 

the individual’s participation would not dilute the TS project’s 

services to its primary recipients. Table 3 indicates that the 

proportion of high school-age participants (ages 14–18) has 

increased slightly while the proportion of older participants 

(ages 19 and older) has decreased slightly across the three years 

shown. The Talent Search program’s participants include a 

small percentage who are age 19 or older (less than 3 percent 

in each year). In contrast, in EOC, 17.2 percent of participants 

in 2007–08 were younger than 19. Talent Search, then, serves 

participants outside its primary age group to a much lesser 

extent than does EOC. 

Table 3. Distribution of TS program participants by gender, age and reporting year: 2005–06, 

2006–07, and 2007–08

Reporting year

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

Gender and age of participants

Male 38.4% 38.7% 38.9%

Female 61.6% 61.3% 61.1%

Age 11–13 26.0% 26.3% 25.8%

Age 14–18 70.5% 70.7% 71.3%

Age 19–28 2.8% 2.5% 2.3%

Age 28+ 0.5% 0.2% 0.2%

Age Unknown 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance reports, 2005–06, 2006–07, and 2007–08.

NOTE: Table reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS: 2002–06 and 2006–10. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

8

Table 4 displays the race and ethnicity of the program 

participants served in each of the past three years; for 2007–08, 

the figures reflect new guidance on collecting and reporting 

data on race and ethnicity issued Department-wide in late 

2007 and incorporated into the 2007–08 APR.1

 The drop in 

the percentage of Hispanic or Latino participants in 2006–07 

is largely attributable to a project that had served an unusually 

high number of Hispanic participants that was not funded in 

the 2006 competition

Target Schools

Talent Search projects typically serve participants at middle 

or high schools designated by the project as foci of project 

services and referred to as target schools. Table 5 displays the 

number of target schools reported as being served by TS and 

EOC projects in each of the past three years for which data was 

available: the final year of the previous grant cycle (2005–06) 

and the first two years of the current grant cycle (2006–07 and 

2007–08). This section will discuss the characteristics of all 

target schools served by TS and EOC projects, as EOC projects 

served a much smaller number of target schools than did TS 

projects, as seen in Table 5. Because the focus of the EOC 

program is on adult participants, most EOC projects do not 

serve any target schools, and EOC projects may serve target 

schools only if the eligible students cannot be appropriately 

served by a Talent Search project.

The application instructions for the fiscal year 2006 grant 

competition asked applicants to “provide information that 

addresses how the project will serve students at all proposed 

target schools and ensure that sufficient resources are available 

to effectively and efficiently serve the proposed number of 

target schools” (p. 69) and specified that the “number of 

proposed target schools should be determined based upon 

the ability of the project to efficiently and effectively deliver 

services within the proposed project budget” (p. 65).2 Table 

5 indicates that many grantees may have responded to these 

directions by focusing on serving fewer target schools in order 

to increase the quality of service at each school; the total 

number of target schools served and the mean number of 

target schools served per project both declined between 2005–

06 and 2006–07 and again between 2006–07 and 2007–08. 

Table 4. Race and ethnicity of TS program participants, by reporting year: 2005–06, 2006–07, and 

2007–08

Race and ethnicity 2005–06 2006–07 Race and ethnicity 2007–08

American Indian or Alaska Native 4.3% 4.2% American Indian or Alaska Native, 

non-Hispanic/Latino

3.9%

Asian 3.6% 3.6% Asian, non-Hispanic/Latino 3.5%

Black or African-American 33.7% 33.9% Black or African-American, 

non-Hispanic/Latino

34.2%

Hispanic or Latino 23.0% 21.8% Hispanic or Latino of any race 22.1%

White 30.5% 30.8% White, non-Hispanic/Latino 30.6%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1.2% 1.3% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, nonHispanic/Latino1.4%

More than one race 2.9% 3.3% Two or more races, 

non-Hispanic/Latino

3.1%

Unknown race 0.9% 1.0% Race and ethnicity unknown 1.3%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search performance reports, 2005–06, 2006–07, and 2007–08.

NOTE: Table reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS: 2002–06 and 2006–10. Categories are those used in the APRs for the years indicated; 2007–08 

reflects Department-wide guidance on collecting and reporting data on race and ethnicity issued Oct. 19, 2007. Percentages may not add to 100 due to 

rounding.

1 Information on the guidance may be found in the instructions to 

the APR (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/tseocaprinstr-07-08.pdf, pp. 7–9).

2 http://www.ed.gov/programs/triotalent/2006-044.pdf
A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

9

Two possible explanations for the decrease in average number 

of schools served per TS grantee both stem from the FY 2006 

grant competition, in which 63 grantees from the 2002–06 

grant cycle did not receive a new grant, and 67 new grantees 

were funded (68 new grants were awarded but one new grantee 

subsequently withdrew). In 2007–08, the 67 grantees funded 

for the first time in 2006–07 served an average of 8.0 target 

schools, compared to an average of 12.6 target schools served 

by the 404 grantees funded prior to 2006–07. Of the 63 prior 

grantees that did not receive a new grant, 21 were funded 

through 2005–06, 37 were funded through 2006–07, and five 

were funded through 2007–08; the discontinuation of service 

by these grantees likely contributed to the decline in both total 

number of schools served and average number of schools 

served per grantee, as they were counted in the calculation 

of average number of schools served by grantees funded 

prior to 2006–07 above. The combination of new grantees 

serving a smaller than average number of target schools, and 

discontinued grantees no longer serving target schools likely 

accounts for part of the observed reductions in target schools 

served.

Table 5 also shows a steady increase in the mean number of 

TS participants served per target school. Projects that serve 

fewer schools but more students per school may be working 

more efficiently, which may be further evidence of the effect 

of the directions in the application instructions for the FY 

2006 grant competition.

In order to better understand the characteristics of the target 

schools served by TS and EOC projects, target schools were 

matched to the most recent version of the National Center 

for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Common Core of Data 

(CCD) available at the time. The CCD Public Elementary and 

Secondary School Universe file contains basic demographic 

information reported by state education agencies (SEAs) on 

more than 100,000 public schools in the United States and 

outlying territories.

Table 5. Total number of target schools served by TS and EOC grantees, of EOC projects 

serving those schools, and of participants served by TS projects; mean number of 

target schools served per project and of participants served per target school, by 

reporting year: 2005–06, 2006–07, and 2007–08

Reporting year

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

Schools and participants served

TS projects submitting an APR 464 507 471

Total target schools served by TS projects 7,021 6,334 5,585

EOC projects serving target schools 37 25 20

Total target schools served by EOC projects 452 287 207

Mean number of target schools served per TS project 15.1 12.5 11.9

Total participants served by TS projects 389,752 387,408 370,252

Mean number of TS participants served per target school 55.5 61.2 66.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers performance reports, 2005–06, 

2006–07, and 2007–08.

NOTE: Table reflects two four-year funding cycles in TS and EOC: 2002–06 and 2006–10. Total number of target schools served is the sum of the number 

of schools reported by each project; a school served by two projects is thus counted twice in this table. In 2007–08, 281 schools were served by two or more 

projects; similar proportions were served by two or more projects in prior years.
10

A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07

Table 6. Target schools served by 2007-08 TS and EOC projects compared to all middle and high 

schools in the 2006-07 CCD, by percentages of students in the schools eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunches under the National School Lunch Program and of minority 

students enrolled and by locale

Target schools

All Middle and 

High schools

School characteristics 

Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches 57.4% 40.8%

Minority student enrollment 51.9% 36.9%

Locale

City 30.5% 21.8%

Suburb 14.8% 26.1%

Town 17.3% 17.0%

Rural 36.3% 34.7%

 Rural, fringe 10.6% 13.0%

 Rural, distant 13.7% 11.8%

 Rural, remote 12.1% 9.9%

Unknown 1.1% 0.4%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers performance reports, 2007–08, and 

National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 2006–07.

NOTE: Table reflects the current funding cycle in TS and EOC: 2006–10. Middle and high schools were identified in the CCD as LEVEL06 = 2 (middle-school) 

or 3 (high school). In the CCD, locale codes are reported at the four major groupings (city, suburb, town, and rural) based on schools’ locations relative to 

urbanized areas. The three rural codes (fringe, distant, and remote) together constitute the locale: rural major grouping. For further information, see http://

nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp. For full documentation of the CCD variables, please see http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/. Percentages may not add to 100 due to 

rounding. 

Using data from the 2006–07 CCD, table 6 compares target 

schools served by 2007–08 TS and EOC projects and all middle 

and high schools across several dimensions: percentage of 

students in the schools who were eligible for free or reducedprice lunch under the National School Lunch Program, 

percentage of minority students enrolled in the schools, and 

distribution of the schools by locale. Table 6 indicates that 

target schools served by TS and EOC projects tend to have 

higher percentages of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunches and of minority student enrollment compared 

to the national average of middle and high schools in the 

CCD. Regarding locale (as determined by the CCD’s locale 

codes based on the location of the school’s address relative 

to urbanized areas), while 22 percent of all middle and high 

schools in the nation were located in urban areas, about 31 

percent of target schools served by TS and EOC projects were 

located in those areas. NCES has reported that 2004 college 

enrollment rates were generally lower in rural areas than in all 

other locales3

; given the intent of the TS and EOC programs 

to assist disadvantaged individuals in entering and succeeding in 

postsecondary education, the extent of TS and EOC projects’ 

service to rural schools should therefore be examined. Table 6 

shows that higher percentages of all target schools were found 

in the two most remote rural locales than were percentages of 

all middle and high schools in the CCD found in those locales 

(13.7 percent compared to 11.8 percent in “rural, distant” and 

12.1 percent compared to 9.9 percent in “rural, remote”).

3 Provasnik, S., KewalRamani, A., McLaughlin Coleman, M., 

Gilbertson, L., Herring, W., & Xie, Q. (2007). Status of education 

in rural America. (NCES 2007-040). Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of Postsecondary Education

Daniel T. Madzelan

Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

September 2009

This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. The publication’s citation 

should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, A Report on the Talent Search Program: 2007–08, 

With Select Comparative Data, 2002–07, Washington, D.C., 2009.

To obtain copies of this publication, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

You may fax your order to: 1-301-470-1244 or send an e-mail request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

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

1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) 

should call 1-877-576-7734.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org. This publication is also available on the Department’s Web site 

at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/triotalent/index.html.

On request, this publication is also available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print or computer diskette. For more 

information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 1-202-260-0852 or 1-202-260-0818.
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student 

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by 

fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov