Introduction 2

U.S. Department of Education

Offi ce of Postsecondary Education

Federal TRIO Programs

Student Support 

A Profi le of the

Services Program

1997–98 and 1998-99, 

 with Select Data from 1999–2000

2004

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Federal TRIO Programs

By Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Nancy Carey

Margaret W. Cahalan

Kusuma Cunningham

Jacqueline Agufa

Student Support 

A Profile of the

Services Program

1997–98 and 1998-99, 

with Select Data from 1999–2000

2004
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education 

under Contract No. 1–36U–6742 (031). The views expressed 

herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement 

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

be inferred. 

U. S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Sally L. Stroup

Assistant Secretary

Federal TRIO Programs

Larry Oxendine

Director

March 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 Student Support Services Program: 1997–98 

and 1998–99, with Select Data from 1999–2000,

Washington, D.C., 2004.

To obtain additional copies of this report,

write to: Federal TRIO Programs, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street, N.W., Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 

20006–8510;

or fax your request to: (202) 502–7857;

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

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

http://www.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/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

Foreword vii

Acknowledgments viii

Highlights ix

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

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

 C. Data issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 D. Distribution of projects and participants by sector and federal region . . . . . . . 6

 E. Structure of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

II. Participant Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 A. Eligibility of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 B. Gender of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

 C. Racial and ethnic background of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 D. Grade level of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

III. Project Services and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 A. Academic instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 B. Academic support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 1. Tutoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 2. Other academic support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 C. Counseling and mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

 D. Cultural and enrichment activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 E. Distribution of contact hours by type of service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 IV. Summary of Participant Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 A. Participant characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 1. Participant status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 2. Participant age at entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 3. Length of time in Student Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 4. Grade at entry and current grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 5. Full-time and part-time enrollment status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 6. Academic need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 7. Financial aid needed and awarded to participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 B. Academic progress of participants ................................................ . 24

 1. Grade point average (GPA) and academic standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 2. End-of-year enrollment status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 3. Degrees and certificates awarded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
V. Retention to the Second Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 A. Procedure for updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 B. Retention rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 C. Limitations and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

VI. Future Plans 29

Appendix

 A. Participant Characteristics for 1999–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

References 33
Tables and Figures

Tables

 1 U.S. legislation authorizing Student Support Services: Goals and services . . . . . . . . . 2

 2 TRIO programs: 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 3 TRIO funding levels in constant 1999 dollars (millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 4 Number and percent of SSS projects submitting performance reports and 

 participant records, by sector: 1997–98 and 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 5 Number and percent of SSS projects submitting performance reports and

 participant records, by federal region: 1997–98 and 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 6 Department of Education federal regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 7 Distribution of SSS projects compared to all postsecondary institutions, by sector:

 1996–97 and 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 8 Distribution of SSS students served, by sector: 1996–97 and 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 9 Number of SSS projects and participant records, by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

10 Number and percent of SSS projects, by federal region: 1996–97 and 1998–99 . . . . . 8

11 Eligibility classification of SSS participants, by sector: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

12 Grade level of SSS participants: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

13 Percent of participants receiving academic instruction supported by SSS project

 funds, by sector: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

14 Academic support services: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

15 Counseling and mentoring services provided by SSS projects: 1997–1998 . . . . . . . .16

16 Participant status, by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

17 Age at entry and years of participation for new and continuing participants, 

 by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

18 Grade level on entry and current grade level of participants, by sector: 1998–99 . . .21

19 Enrollment status of participants, by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

20 Methods used to assess academic needs, by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

21 Financial aid, by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

22 Reasons for deficient aid, by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

23 Average cumulative GPA and academic standing of participants, 

 by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
24 End-of-year enrollment status of current and prior-year participants,

 by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

25 Degrees or certificates awarded to current and prior-year participants, 

 by sector: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

26 Retention rates: 1997–98 to 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

27 Retention rates: 1998–99 to 1999–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Appendix A Tables

A1 Eligibility classification of SSS participants, by sector: 1999–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Figures

1 Percent of SSS projects submitting aggregate data, by federal region: 1997–98 . . . . . . 4

2 Percent of SSS projects submitting participant records, by federal region: 1998–99 . . . . 5

3 Participant distribution by eligibility status: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Gender of SSS participants and of all undergraduate students: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . .10

5 Racial and ethnic background of SSS participants: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

6 Cohort of SSS participants: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

7 Percent of SSS participants receiving tutoring and average contact hours 

 per participant: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

8 Percent of SSS participants receiving academic support services other than 

 tutoring: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

9 Percent of SSS participants engaging in cultural and enrichment activities: 

 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

10 Contact hours by type of SSS service (counseling and mentoring activities and 

 academic support services), by sector: 1997–98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

11 Participant status: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

12 Enrollment status of participants: 1998–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Appendix A Figures

A1 Participant distribution by eligibility status: 1999–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

A2 Gender of SSS participants and all undergraduate students: 1999–2000 . . . . . . . . . .32

A3 Racial and ethnic background of SSS participants: 1999–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
vii

Foreword

To help fulfi ll the goal of President Bush’s education initiative, “No Child Left Behind,” high-quality postsecondary 

educational opportunities and support services must be available to all students. In keeping with this goal, the Federal 

TRIO Programs provide outreach and support programs to assist low-income, fi rst-generation college, and disabled students 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 Profi le of the Student Support Services 

Program: 1997–98 and 1998–99, with Select Data from 1999–2000. The specifi c goal of the Student Support Services (SSS) 

Program is to increase the college retention and graduation rates of its participants.

This report is the second in a series of reports presenting a national profi le of the SSS Program. The annual performance reports for 1997–98 and 1998–99 submitted by the SSS projects were the primary data sources for this report.

I am pleased to share with you national statistical and demographic information on the Student Support Services 

Program and its participants. We hope that the collection and dissemination of this information will encourage responses that help us assess our mission and our performance. We look forward to continuing to work together to improve program services and postsecondary completion rates for low-income and fi rst-generation college students and 

students with disabilities.

Larry Oxendine

Director

Federal TRIO Programs
viii

Acknowledgments

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

Student Support Services projects for reporting the data upon which the report is based. Computer Business Methods 

Inc. (CBMI) processed the student-level record fi les. The Offi ce of Postsecondary Education, Federal TRIO Programs 

sponsored the report, and Frances Bergeron of the Federal TRIO Programs coordinated the data collection and reporting processes. Linda Byrd-Johnson, team leader for the Student Support Services Program, assisted in reviewing the 

report. Among the staff of Mathematica, special mention goes to August Parker, who helped prepare the report 

for publication.
ix

Highlights

This report summarizes data submitted by Student Support Services (SSS) projects for program years 1997–98 and 

1998–99, with selected data from 1999–2000. In 1997–98 aggregate data on project participants and services were submitted by 98 percent of projects; individual participant records were submitted by 86 percent of projects in 1997–98 

and by 96 percent of projects in 1998–99. The 1998–99 reports included more than 230,000 current and prior-year 

participant records. 

 Project Characteristics

• In 1997–98 there were 801 SSS projects. 

• In 1997–98, 54 percent of the SSS projects were housed at four-year institutions and 46 percent were 

housed at two-year institutions.

• In 1999–2000, there were 796 projects; the average project received funding for 224 students at a cost of 

about $1,000 per participant.

 Participant Characteristics—1997–98

• Women were more likely to participate in Student Support Services than men. About two-thirds 

(65 percent) of participants were women and 35 percent were men.

 • The racial and ethnic backgrounds of SSS participants were: 45 percent white; 29 percent black or 

African American; 15 percent Hispanic or Latino; 5 percent Asian; 3 percent American Indian or Alaska 

Native; and 2 percent other. 

 Project Services and Activities—1997–98

 • Math instruction was the most frequent type of academic instruction, with seven percent of SSS 

participants receiving instruction for credit in this area and nine percent receiving noncredit instruction.

 • One-to-one peer tutoring was the most frequent form of tutoring used by SSS participants, with 30 

percent receiving it in 1997–98. Professional one-to-one tutoring was received by 19 percent of SSS participants. Ten percent of participants received group tutoring from a peer, and 7 percent of participants 

received group tutoring from a professional. 

 • The most popular counseling service was academic advising, received by 80 percent of participants. This 

service was followed in popularity by fi nancial aid counseling (48 percent) and personal counseling 

(41 percent). 

 • One-third of participants (33 percent) participated in project-sponsored cultural activities, 23 percent 

participated in information workshops, and 6 percent made campus visits to other colleges or universities.
x

 Individual Participant Records—1998–99

 • Just over one-third of the participant records submitted (36 percent) were for new participants, 

39 percent were for continuing participants, and 25 percent were for prior-year participants.

 • SSS participants, on average, were older than the traditional age of those attending college. The average 

age of new participants at the beginning of the reporting period was 24.6 years.

• Among all those included on the participant records, 63 percent were classifi ed as full-time students.

• Two-thirds of SSS participants (66 percent) were awarded fi nancial aid. The average amount of aid 

needed or requested was $8,482 and the average amount awarded was $6,932.

• The average GPA (grade point average) for all SSS students was 2.6 on a four-point scale (and 3.2 for 

the few projects at institutions on a fi ve-point scale). 

• Eighty-two percent of all participants were classifi ed as in good academic standing.

 Retention to the Second Year

• Sixty-seven percent of SSS participants who entered a project in 1997–98 remained enrolled in the same 

institution in 1998–99. This number is similar to the national retention rate for all students and is three 

percentage points higher than that for liberal academic institutions.

• Retention rates for SSS participants increased by almost two percentage points for 1998–99 and 

1999–2000 (69 percent).
Introduction 1

I. Introduction

This report is the second in a series on the Student 

Support Services (SSS) Program. Its purpose is to 

summarize and evaluate information from the annual 

performance reports that all SSS projects are required to submit. This report covers results from the aggregate portion of 

the performance reports and from the individual participant 

records, fi rst included on the 1995-96 reporting form.1

 We 

hope that projects will use this report to improve services and 

educational opportunities for low-income and fi rst-generation 

college students and students with disabilities. 

This national report presents data by “institution sector.” 

There are four such sectors: (1) public four-year (or more) institutions, (2) public two-year institutions, (3) private four-year (or 

more) institutions, and (4) private two-year institutions. We also 

present response information geographically, according to ten federal regions defi ned by the Department of Education (ED). 

This report, the fi rst one to use more than a single year 

of data, covers performance reports for 1997-98, 1998-99 and 

1999-2000.2

 The information on participant demographics 

and project services comes from the 1997-98 performance 

reports. The individual participant records are those for 

1998-99. The report also includes an analysis of participant 

records for all three years to estimate the percentage of students who continue participating in SSS after their fi rst year, a 

topic not included in the fi rst report. To help interpret project 

data, we have sometimes compared it with data for all U.S. institutions included in the Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS). Finally, an addendum presents some 

information on participant demographics from the 1999-

2000 performance reports.

A. Background

The SSS Program began in 1970 with 121 projects serving 

about 30,000 students and funding of about $10 million ($42.9 

million in constant 1999 dollars). By 1999 there were 796 projects serving 178,000 students with funding of $178.9 million. 

The goal of SSS is to increase the college retention and 

graduation rates of low-income, fi rst-generation college 

students and students with disabilities and to facilitate their 

transition from one level of postsecondary education to the 

next. Table 1 contains the text of the authorizing legislation. 

Services provided by the program include:

• Instruction in basic skills.

• Tutoring.

• Academic, fi nancial, personal, and career counseling.

• Assistance in securing admission to and fi nancial aid 

for enrollment in four-year institutions and graduate 

and professional programs.

• Mentoring.

• Special services for students with limited English 

profi ciency.

1 Prior to 1995–96, the annual performance report form requested only aggregate demographic information on project participants.

2 Annual performance reports cover the 12-month grant (budget) period, typically September through August.

I
2 Student Support Services Program

SSS is one of several direct service TRIO3 programs, 

which include Upward Bound (UB), Upward Bound 

Math-Science (UBMS), Educational Opportunity Centers 

(EOCs), Talent Search (TS), and the Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair). Table 2 gives the 

3

 Prior to 1992, the Federal TRIO Programs were offi cially known as Special Programs for Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds. The 

three original federal programs from which the “trio” programs derived their name were Upward Bound (1964), Talent Search (1965) and 

Student Support Services (1968). Though the term TRIO (in all caps) is not an acronym, it has been retained to avoid confusion. Educators 

began using the word TRIO to describe these student programs in 1968 with the passage of the Student Support Services legislation. Currently 

the TRIO programs are eight in number, since the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 added an eighth program, the TRIO 

Dissemination Partnership Program. In addition to these four already named programs, the other four TRIO programs are: Educational 

Opportunity Centers, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement, Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs, and Upward Bound 

Math-Science.

Table 2. TRIO programs: 1999

(a) Program Authority—The Secretary shall carry out a program to be known as student support services which shall be designed—

 (1) To increase college retention and graduation rates for eligible students;

 (2) To increase the transfer rates of eligible students from two-year to four-year institutions; and

 (3) To foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of low-income and fi rst-generation college students and individuals with disabilities.

 (b) Permissible Services—A student support services project assisted under this chapter may provide services such as—

 (1) Instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, and other subjects necessary for success beyond secondary school;

 (2) Personal counseling;

 (3) Academic advice and assistance in course selection;

 (4) Tutorial services and counseling and peer counseling;

 (5) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually available to disadvantaged students;

 (6) Activities designed to acquaint students participating in the project with the range of career options available to them;

 (7) Activities designed to assist students participating in the project in securing admission and fi nancial assistance for enrollment in graduate and 

professional programs;

 (8) Activities designed to assist students currently enrolled in two-year institutions in securing admission and fi nancial assistance for enrollment in a 

four-year program of postsecondary education;

 (9) Mentoring programs involving faculty or upper-class students, or a combination thereof; and

 (10) Programs and activities as described in paragraphs (1) through (9) which are specially designed for students of limited English profi ciency.

Higher Education Act of 1965 Sec. 402D.20 U.S.C. 1070a-14 Student Support Services.

Table 1. U.S. legislation authorizing Student Support Services: Goals and services

funding information and participant numbers for each TRIO 

program for fi scal year 1999 (program year 1999-2000). SSS 

had the second largest yearly funding of any TRIO program; 

the average project served 224 participants at a cost of about 

$1,000 per person per year. 

 Number Amount per Average 

Program of Number Average person number served

1999 funding grants served grant award served per grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, 2000.
Introduction 3

92 percent of projects submitted aggregate data and 78 percent submitted individual participant records. By 1997-98, 

nearly all projects were submitting aggregate data (98 percent) 

and 86 percent of the projects provided participant records. 

In 1998-99, the response rate for participant records was 96 

percent. Table 4 summarizes these response rates by sector. 

1967 $139.7 $12.4

1970 $127.1 $21.5 $42.9

1975 $118.6 $18.6 $71.2 $9.3

1980 $126.4 $30.9 $121.3 $15.6

1985 $114.0 $32.1 $108.5 $14.2

1990 $128.2 $34.5 $115.9 $15.2 $4.3 $3.8

1995 $208.3 $85.7 $156.9 $26.9 $20.8 $20.9

1999 $220.5 $98.5 $178.9 $29.8 $29.3 $32.1

Table 3. TRIO funding levels in constant 1999 dollars (millions)

Year UB TS SSS EOC UBMS McNair

Source: Calculated from information provided by U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs and the Consumer Price Index.

Number Number Percent 1997-98 1998-99*

Public four-year 297 289 97% 83% 96%

Private four-year 137 134 98% 88% 94%

Public two-year 353 348 99% 89% 97%

Private two-year 14 12 86% 79% 93%

All projects 801 783 98% 86% 96%

*Response rates were calculated on the796 projects receiving funding that year.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98 and 1998-99.

Table 4. Number and percent of SSS projects submitting performance reports and participant 

records, by sector: 1997-98 and 1998-99

Sector

Total projects in 

1997-98

Submitted performance report 

(1997-98) Submitted participant records

I

Table 3 shows TRIO funding levels from 1967 to 1999 in 

constant 1999 dollars. Funding for SSS has increased more 

than fourfold since its inception in 1970.

B. Performance report response 

Performance report response has increased every year since 

the new report form was introduced in 1995-96. In 1996-97, 
4 Student Support Services Program

Table 5 and Figures 1 and 2 show, by region, the percentage of reporting projects. For 1997-98, the percentage of projects submitting participant records ranged from 78 percent 

in Region IX to 90 percent in several regions. In 1998-99, the 

percentages ranged from 93 percent in Regions II and IX to 

100 percent in Regions I and X. Table 6 lists the states and territories included in each region.

Table 5. Number and percent of SSS projects submitting performance reports and participant 

 records, by federal region: 1997-98 and 1998-99

 Percent reporting Percent reporting

Federal region Number of projects aggregate data participant data

1997-98 1998-99 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99

Region I 40 40 100% 90% 100%

Region II 76 76 99% 82% 93%

Region III 68 67 96% 85% 96%

Region IV 166 165 99% 87% 96%

Region V 133 131 99% 89% 98%

Region VI 97 97 95% 90% 94%

Region VII 60 60 100% 90% 98%

Region VIII 54 52 94% 83% 98%

Region IX 76 77 97% 78% 93%

Region X 31 31 100% 90% 100%

All regions 801 796 98% 86% 96%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98 and 1998-99.

Figure 1. Percent of SSS projects submitting aggregate data, by federal region: 1997–98

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997–98.

ME

VT

NY

PA OH

KY

IN IL

WI

MN

MN

MN

WA MT

OH ID WY

UT CO NV

CA

AZ

IA

MO

NE

KS

AR

LA

OK

TX

NM

MI

WV

VA

NC TN

MS AL GA

SC

FL

NJ

NY

DC

NH

MA

CT RI

Region V–99%

Region I–100%

Region II–99%

Region III–96%

Region IV–99%

Region VI–95% Region VII–100%

Region IX–97%

Hawaii &

Pacific Islands

(Region IX)

Region X–100% Alaska (Region X) Region VIII–94%

Puerto Rico

& Virgin Islands

(Region II)
Introduction 5

Table 6. Department of Education federal regions

Federal region Description

Region I Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont

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

Region III Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

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

Region V Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin

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

Region VII Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska

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

Region IX Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, The Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and 

American Samoa

Region X Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, 2002

I

Figure 2. Percent of SSS projects submitting participant records, by federal region: 1998–99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998–99.

ME

VT

NY

PA OH

KY

IN IL

WI

MN

MN

MN

WA MT

OH ID WY

UT CO NV

CA

AZ

IA

MO

NE

KS

AR

LA

OK

TX

NM

MI

WV

VA

NC TN

MS AL GA

SC

FL

NJ

NY

DC

NH

MA

CT RI

Region V–98%

Region I–100%

Region II–93%

Region III–96%

Region IV–96%

Region VI–94% Region VII–98%

Region IX–93%

Hawaii &

Pacific Islands

(Region IX)

Region X–100% Alaska (Region X) Region VIII–98%

Puerto Rico

& Virgin Islands

(Region II)
6 Student Support Services Program

C. Data issues

There was a high level of item response on the reports. For 

example, in the 1998–99 participant records, the completion 

rate for individual items ranged from 91 percent for end-ofyear enrollment status to 100 percent for gender.

The quality of the data reported has also improved each 

year. With regard to participant records, the most serious inconsistency has been in the listing of “prior-year participants.” 

The reporting form instructs projects to include in this category those students who did not receive services in the reporting 

period but who remained at the institution; some projects, 

however, did not follow this instruction.4

 There was also variation in the reporting of participants’ end-of-year enrollment 

status. Some projects reported the status of participants as of 

the end of the spring term, while others reported their status 

as of the start of the next fall term. Not surprisingly, the fi elds 

for dates were sometimes problematic.

To increase the accuracy of the participant data, in the 

summer of 2000 projects were sent lists of 1997–98 participants who were not listed as participants in 1998–99 but who 

might still be enrolled at the institution and qualify as prioryear participants. Projects were asked to report whether or not 

listed students were actually enrolled at their institutions in 

1998–99. This process was repeated during the spring of 2002 

with the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 data fi les. This information 

was used to calculate the retention rates discussed in Section 

V of this report. 

D. Distribution of projects and participants by sector and federal region

According to the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES), the number of two-year colleges and the proportion 

of students who attend them nationally have increased since 

1970. For example, in 1972, 48 percent of the total enrollment 

was at public four-year institutions, 29 percent at public twoyear colleges, and 23 percent at private colleges. By 1999, public two-year colleges had 37 percent of enrollment and public 

four-year institutions’ share of enrollment had declined to 41 

percent. Private colleges have maintained about 23 percent 

of total college enrollment (National Center for Education 

Statistics, 1999).

The percentage of SSS projects in each postsecondary 

institution sector coincided with these national trends. In 

1996–97, 40 percent of SSS projects were in two-year public 

Table 7. Distribution of SSS projects compared to all postsecondary institutions, by sector: 

 1996-97 and 1997-98

Sector Number of projects Percent of projects Institutions in sector*

1996-97 1997-98 1996-97 1997-98 Number Percent

Public four-year 276 297 39% 37% 615 15%

Private four-year 131 137 19% 17% 1,694 42%

Public two-year 284 353 40% 44% 1,092 27%

Private two-year 14 14 2% 2% 663 16%

All projects 705 801 100% 100% 4,064 100%

*From IPEDS, 1997-98.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1996-97 and 1997-98. National Center for 

Education Statistics, The Digest of Education Statistics: 2001.

4

 Projects were instructed to include prior-year participants only in the electronic fi les of individual participant records. These students 

were not included in the aggregate reporting on project participants who received services during the reporting period.
Introduction 7

institutions; in 1997–98, after a new grant competition, this 

increased to 44 percent (Table 7). In 1997–98, more than half 

(54 percent) of SSS projects were at four-year institutions, 

public and private combined, and 46 percent were at two-year 

institutions. Almost all of the SSS projects and participants 

at two-year institutions were at public institutions. Only 14 

SSS projects (two percent of the total) were at private twoyear institutions.

Table 8 shows the distribution of participants by sector in 

1996–97 and, for comparison, 1998–99. Private institutions 

are typically smaller than public institutions and projects 

associated with them have fewer participants. In 1998–99, 

projects at public four-year institutions had an average of 261 

participants, compared with 197 for those at private four-year 

institutions and 219 for those at public two-year institutions. 

The 13 reporting projects at private two-year institutions had 

an average of 180 participants.

In general, the number of SSS participant records is greater than the number of students served, because the former 

category includes prior-year participants and the latter one 

does not. As with the number of students served, the number 

of records per project is larger at public institutions than at 

private ones. Table 9 shows that in 1998–99 the percentage of 

SSS participants in public institutions (as opposed to private 

Table 9. Number of SSS projects and participant records, by sector: 1998-99

Sector Number of projects Participant records IPEDS

Reporting Percent of 

participant Percent of Records per total 

In sector data Number total project enrollment*

Public four-year 294 282 110,850 47% 393 41%

Private four-year 136 128 32,795 14% 256 21%

Public two-year 352 343 90,075 38% 263 37%

Private two-year 14 13 2,483 1% 191 2%

All projects 796 766 236,203 100% 308 100%

*Refl ects percent distribution of enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions.

Note: Participant records include prior-year participants, 25 percent of the total.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99; National Center for Education 

Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1999, page 130 (based on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall Enrollment Surveys).

Table 8. Distribution of SSS students served, by sector: 1996-97 and 1998-99

Number of projects 

reporting Students served per 

Sector participant data Number of students served Percent of total served project

1996-97 1998-99 1996-97 1998-99 1996-97 1998-99 1996-97 1998-99

Public four-year 213 282 67,646 73,512 43% 42% 318 261

Private four-year 89 128 23,908 25,242 15% 14% 269 197

Public two-year 237 343 63,058 75,111 40% 43% 266 219

Private two-year 11 13 2,254 2,345 1% 1% 205 180

All sectors 550 766 156,866 176,210 100% 100% 285 231

Note: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1996-97 and 1998-99.

I
8 Student Support Services Program

E. Structure of the report

The remainder of this report is divided into fi ve sections. 

Section II presents aggregate demographic information on 

project participants submitted in the 1997–98 performance 

reports. Section III provides information on project services and activities included in these reports. Section IV 

summarizes information from the participant records in the 

1998–99 reports. Section V presents a comparison of retention rates of fi rst-year students from 1997–98 to 1998–99 and 

from 1998–99 to 1999–2000. Section VI discusses plans for 

future reports. 

Table 10. Number and percent of SSS projects, by federal region: 1996-97 and 1998-99

Number of projects Percent of total

Federal regions 1996-97 1998-99 1996-97 1998-99

Region I 39 40 6% 5%

Region II 72 76 10% 10%

Region III 67 67 10% 8%

Region IV 145 165 21% 21%

Region V 113 131 16% 16%

Region VI 80 97 11% 12%

Region VII 48 60 7% 8%

Region VIII 50 53 7% 7%

Region IX 64 76 9% 10%

Region X 27 31 4% 4%

All regions 705 796 100% 100%

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1996-97 and 1998-99.

institutions) was much higher than the overall U.S. total (85 

percent versus 78 percent). The percentage of SSS participants 

in four-year institutions, however, was almost the same as for 

the nation as a whole (61 percent versus 62 percent). 

Table 10 shows the distribution of projects over the 10 

federal regions in 1996-97 and 1998-99. In 1998-99, the two 

regions with the greatest number of projects were Region IV 

with 21 percent of projects, and Region V with 16 percent. 

There was little change in the regional distribution of projects 

over the two years. 
9

Figure 3. Participant distribution by eligibility status: 

1997–98

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support 

Services Performance Reports, 1997–98.

There was some variation by sector. For example, low-income disabled and disabled-only students made up a higher 

proportion of the total in public institutions than in private 

institutions. In public, four-year institutions, 15 percent of 

participants were disabled; in private, four-year institutions, 

9 percent were disabled (Table 11). 

This section summarizes the aggregate demographic 

information on current project participants reported 

by the SSS projects in the 1997–98 annual performance 

reports. (Data collected from individual participant records 

for 1998–99 is presented in Section IV.)

A. Eligibility of participants

According to the 1997–98 performance reports, 783 SSS 

projects served 172,279 participants during that year. Sixty 

percent were both low-income5

 and fi rst-generation college6

students. Thirteen percent of the participants were disabled 

(seven percent disabled only and six percent both low-income 

and disabled). Nineteen percent were fi rst-generation only 

and eight percent were low-income only (Figure 3).

II. Participant Characteristics

5

 A low-income participant is one whose family’s taxable income is less than 150 percent of the poverty level. The U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, sets guidelines for determining the poverty level.

6

 A fi rst-generation college student is one whose parents or guardians did not receive a baccalaureate degree.

Low-income and 

first generation 60%

Low-income 

only 8%

First generation

only 19%

Disabled and 

low-income 6%

Disabled only 7%

Participant Characteristics 9

II
10 Student Support Services Program

Table 11. Eligibility classifi cation of SSS participants, by sector: 1997-98

Low-income Firstand fi rst- Low-income generation Disabled and 

Sector generation only only Disabled only low-income

Public four-year 58% 8% 19% 8% 7%

Private four-year 63% 9% 19% 5% 4%

Public two-year 62% 6% 18% 6% 7%

Private two-year 68% 10% 16% 3% 2%

All projects 60% 8% 19% 7% 6%

NOTE: Row percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

B. Gender of participants

As is the case with other TRIO programs, participants 

in SSS were more likely to be women than men (65 percent 

versus 35 percent) (Figure 4). In addition, the proportion 

of women among SSS participants is higher than the proportion of women among all undergraduates (65 percent 

versus 56 percent) (U.S. Department of Education, IPEDS, 

Fall Enrollment Survey, 1997). The difference in gender distribution is especially evident in two-year colleges, where 70 

percent of participants were women and 30 percent were men 

(not shown in tables or fi gures).

Figure 4. Gender of SSS participants and of all 

undergraduate students: 1997–98

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

Support Services Performance Reports, 1997–98. National Center for Education 

Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 

Enrollment Survey, 1997–98.

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

44%

56%

35%

65%

Total Undergraduates SSS students

Men

Women
11

Black or

African American 

29%

Hispanic or Latino 

15%

Asian

5%

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

3%

Other

2%

White

45%

C. Racial and ethnic background of 

participants

Figure 5 shows the racial and ethnic background of SSS 

participants in 1997–98. For comparison, 1988 participants 

had the following distribution: 43 percent white; 32 percent 

black or African American; 16 percent Hispanic or Latino; 

5 percent Asian; and 3 percent American Indian or Alaska 

Native (Cahalan and Muraskin 1994).

Figure 5. Racial and ethnic background of SSS 

participants: 1997–98

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support 

Services Performance Reports, 1997–98.

Table 12. Grade level of SSS participants: 1997-98

Sector Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other

1997-98 cohort 57% 27% 7% 5% 3%

All cohorts combined 37% 33% 12% 13% 5%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

D. Grade level of participants

The year in which a student begins to participate in SSS is 

called the student’s cohort. In 1997–98, new participants made 

up 48 percent of the total SSS population (Figure 6). Refl ecting 

the addition of new projects in 1997–98, this is a somewhat 

higher percentage of new students than began in 1996–97 (44 

percent). 

Of the 1997–98 cohort, more than half of the participants (57 percent) were freshman when they entered the 

program and another 27 percent were sophomores. Among 

all SSS participants, 37 percent were freshmen, 33 percent 

sophomores, 12 percent juniors, 13 percent seniors and 5 

percent “other” (Table 12).

Figure 6. Cohort year of SSS participants served: 

1997–98

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support 

Services Performance Reports, 1997–98.

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

48%

1997-98 1996-97 1995-96 1994-95 1993-94 1992-93 Other

21%

13%

8%

5%

2% 3%

Participant Characteristics

II
12 Student Support Services Program
I

n 1995–96, the SSS program began asking projects to 

include in their performance reports information on the 

intensity of their services, particularly the number of contact hours for academic support services and for counseling 

and mentoring services. The information presented in this 

section comes from the 1997–98 performance reports.

A. Academic Instruction

Projects reported the number of participants receiving 

SSS-supported formal academic instruction, either for credit 

III. Project Services and 

Activities

Table 13. Percent of participants receiving academic instruction supported by SSS project 

funds, by sector: 1997-98

All sectors Public four-year Private four-year Public two-year Private two-year

Credit Non-credit Credit Non-credit Credit Non-credit Credit Non-credit Credit Non-credit

Reading 4% 5% 3% 4% 5% 12% 3% 3% 11% 6%

Writing 3% 6% 3% 5% 5% 10% 3% 6% 13% 6%

Math 7% 9% 8% 11% 7% 12% 6% 7% 19% 6%

English 4% 5% 4% 1% 5% 7% 4% 4% 12% 9%

English for LEP Students 1% 2% 1% 8% 1% 4% 2% 1% 2% 4%

Other 4% 8% 5% 8% 5% 9% 3% 7% 4% 4%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

or noncredit, in the following subjects: reading, writing, 

math, English, English for those with Limited Profi ciency 

(LEP),7 and “other” (Table 13). Overall, percentages ranged 

from one percent for credit instruction in English for LEP 

students to nine percent for noncredit instruction in math. 

Math instruction, for credit and noncredit, had the greatest 

number of students. In general, private institutions reported 

higher proportions of participants taking any kind of instruction than did public institutions.

7

 Limited English Profi cient (LEP) is a term defi ned in federal regulations to include students whose fi rst language is not English and whose 

profi ciency in English is currently at a level where they are not able to fully participate in an English-only instructional environment.

Project Services and Activities

III

13
14 Student Support Services Program

B. Academic support services

Academic support services, a major component of the 

SSS program since its inception, help participants both with 

specifi c courses and with their general academic progress. To 

give some indication of the intensity of services that participants receive, projects report the number of students receiving 

specifi ed forms of academic support as well as the total number of contact hours. Academic support services include: peer 

tutoring, professional tutoring, supplemental instruction, assisted labs, computer-assisted instruction, study-skills classes 

or workshops, and orientation classes and workshops. 

1. Tutoring

There are four different types of tutoring services: 

• Individual (one-to-one) tutoring provided by a professional, usually a graduate student or professional 

staff person.

• Group tutoring provided by a professional.

• Individual (one-to-one) peer tutoring, usually provided 

by another undergraduate.

• Group peer tutoring. 

Figure 7 shows the percentage of participants who received the different types of tutoring in 1997–98. One-to-one 

peer tutoring was the most frequent. Projects also reported 

the total number of contact hours delivered for each service. 

Dividing the total contact hours by the number of participants receiving the service gives the average time per recipient, as shown in the boxes in Figure 7. 

2. Other academic support services

In addition to tutoring, SSS projects provided academic 

support services described on the report form as follows:

• Supplemental instruction—organized tutoring sessions for specifi c courses that are tied directly to the 

instruction in the courses.

• Assisted labs—academic support or tutoring provided 

through a learning center or other formal means.

• Computer-assisted instruction—academic support 

or tutoring provided via computers or other formal 

means.

• Study skills classes and workshops—activities designed 

to help students gain the skills needed to succeed in the 

academic programs of the institution.

• Orientation classes and workshops—sessions or classes 

that help students adjust to the institution which may 

include help with registration for courses and understanding the academic requirements of the institution.

Figure 7. Percent of SSS participants receiving tutoring and average contact hours per participant: 1997-98

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997–98.

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

11.9 Hours

9.3 Hours

12.3 Hours

13.5 Hours

Professional tutoring–group Professional tutoring–individual Peer tutoring–group Peer tutoring–individual

7%

19%

10%

30%
15

Figure 8 shows the percentage of students receiving these 

services. Orientation classes or workshops and study skills 

classes each involved about one-fi fth of all participants. The 

average number of contact hours per participant ranged from 

5.3 hours for orientation activities to 14.5 hours for supplemental instruction (Table 14).

Table 14 also shows the average total contact hours for 

service calculated for those projects that reported offering the 

service. This ranged from 429 hours for “other” to 1,155 hours 

for one-to-one peer tutoring. 

Figure 8. Percent of SSS participants receiving academic support services other than tutoring: 1997–98

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997–98.

Table 14. Academic support services: 1997-98

Percentage of Percentage of Hours per Average total 

projects participants participant hours perproject 

Service offering service* receiving service receiving service offering service

Peer tutoring, one-to-one 81% 30% 13.5 1,155

Peer tutoring, group 43% 10% 12.3 673

Professional tutoring, one-to-one 59% 19% 9.3 695

Professional tutoring, group 32% 7% 11.9 627

Supplemental Instruction 31% 7% 14.5 803

Assisted labs 29% 10% 12.4 986

Computer-assisted instruction 40% 10% 9.5 563

Study skills classes or workshops 72% 21% 7.7 516

Orientation classes or workshops 60% 22% 5.3 456

Other 34% 11% 5.8 429

*A project is counted as offering the service if at least one participant received it.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.

Orientation classes and workshops

Study skills classes and workshops

Assisted labs

Computer-assisted instruction

Other

Supplemental instruction

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

22%

21%

10%

10%

11%

7%

Project Services and Activities

III
16 Student Support Services Program

• Professional mentoring—professionals, other than 

project staff, working with project participants to expose them to career and other opportunities available 

to them.

• Peer counseling and mentoring—a variety of support, 

personal or academic, provided by other students and 

designed to help project participants adjust to the institution.

Over 90 percent of projects offered personal counseling, academic advising, fi nancial aid advice, and career and 

employment counseling. Fewer projects offered professional 

mentoring (30 percent) or peer counseling and mentoring (45 

percent) (Table 15). Counseling sessions frequently covered 

more than one of these areas. In these cases, projects prorated 

the number of contact hours among the different types of 

counseling.

The most popular counseling service was academic advising, used by 80 percent of participants, followed by fi nancial aid counseling, career counseling, and personal counseling, at about half that level. The average number of hours per 

participant receiving the service ranged from 1.7 hours for 

fi nancial aid counseling to 7.6 hours for peer counseling and 

mentoring. Hours per project ranged from 75 for graduate 

school counseling to 652 for academic advising.

C. Counseling and mentoring

The support services received by the largest number of 

SSS participants were counseling and mentoring, which are 

defi ned on the report form as follows:

• Personal counseling—crisis intervention and assistance with personal problems and decisions.

• Academic advising—assisting students in making educational plans, selecting appropriate courses, meeting 

academic requirements, and planning for graduation 

and further education.

• Financial aid counseling—assisting students individually or in small groups in completing fi nancial aid applications or in working with the fi nancial aid offi ce to 

develop adequate aid packages.

• Career counseling and employment assistance—helping students learn about career opportunities through 

written and computerized information, assessing their 

career interests and capabilities, and making occupational plans.

• Transfer counseling—assisting students interested in 

four-year programs in meeting the academic requirements of those programs, choosing four-year institutions, and applying for admission and fi nancial aid at 

those institutions.

• Graduate school counseling—assisting students in 

choosing graduate or professional programs and applying 

for admission and fi nancial aid for those programs.

Table 15. Counseling and mentoring services provided by SSS projects: 1997-1998

Percentage of Percentage of Hours per Hours per 

projects participants participant project 

Service offering service* receiving service receiving service offering service

Personal counseling 92% 41% 3.4 353

Academic advising 95% 80% 3.3 652

Financial aid counseling 91% 48% 1.7 206

Career and employment assistance 92% 39% 2.2 222

Transfer counseling 65% 15% 2.6 141

Graduate school counseling 45% 7% 2.1 75

Professional mentoring 30% 8% 4.5 268

Peer counseling and mentoring 45% 14% 7.6 557

Other 34% 12% 3.6 299

*A project is counted as offering the service if at least one participant received it.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98.
17

D. Cultural and enrichment activities

SSS projects reported the number of participants who engaged in cultural enrichment activities, but not the number of 

contact hours. These activities are defi ned on the report form 

as follows:

• Cultural activities—These include any project-sponsored activities, such as fi eld trips, special lectures, and 

symposia, that foster academic progress and personal 

development.

• Campus visitations—These include project-sponsored 

trips to other postsecondary institutions to acquaint 

students with other institutions that the participants 

could attend to further their education (e.g., four-year 

institutions for students at two-year colleges or graduate or professional schools for students at four-year 

institutions).

• Information workshops—These include short workshops or seminars (usually a half day or less) on topics 

that may range from stress management and test-taking to drug and alcohol abuse.

Projects reported that 33 percent of participants attended 

project-sponsored cultural activities (Figure 9). Information 

workshops were attended by 23 percent of participants. Six 

percent of participants made campus visits. Campus visits 

were more frequent among participants in two-year than 

four-year institutions. Eleven percent of participants in twoyear institutions were reported to have made such visits. 

Figure 9. Percent of SSS participants engaging in 

cultural and enrichment activities: 1997–98

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support 

Services Performance Reports, 1997–98.

E. Distribution of contact hours by type 

of service

Figure 10 presents the distribution of contact hours by 

type of service—that is, the academic support services taken 

together and the counseling and mentoring services taken 

together—by institution sector. Across all sectors, between 62 

and 68 percent of the contact hours were accounted for in academic support activities, and between 32 and 38 percent were 

devoted to counseling and mentoring services. As noted previously, tutoring in its various forms accounted for the largest 

percentage of the total contact hours. This pattern is similar 

for both four-year and two-year public institutions.

Figure 10. Contact hours by type of SSS service 

(counseling and mentoring activities and academic 

support services), by sector: 1997–98

NOTE: Academic support services include all forms of tutoring, supplemental 

instruction, assisted labs, computer labs, orientation, study skills, and other 

forms of support. Counseling and mentoring activities include personal, academic, fi nancial aid, career and employment, graduate school, transfer, peer 

and professional, and any other forms of counseling.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support 

Services Performance Reports, 1997–98.

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Cultural 

activities

Information 

workshops

Campus

Visits

33%

23%

6%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Counseling and

mentoring activities

Academic support, 

including tutoring

Public 

4–year

38%

62%

Private 

4–year

32%

68%

Public 

2–year

34%

66%

Private 

2–year

34%

66%

III

Project Services and Activities
18 Student Support Services Program
19

IV. Summary of Participant 

Records 

This section summarizes information obtained from the 

individual participant records submitted in 1998–99, 

the fourth year that these data were reported by projects. For that reporting period, SSS projects submitted records 

for 236,203 students, including those identifi ed as prior-year 

participants. (In 1997–98, participant records were submitted 

for 190,670 participants.)

For each participant record on the fi le, information was 

requested on the following characteristics:

• Date of birth.

• Gender.

• Race and ethnicity.

• Eligibility.

• Date of entrance into project.

• Date of enrollment into institution.

• Academic need criteria.

• Participant status.

• Enrollment status. 

• College grade level when student became a participant 

in SSS.

• Current college grade level at end of reporting period.

• Amount of fi nancial need needed.

• Amount of fi nancial need awarded.

• Reasons full fi nancial aid was not awarded.

• Grade point average (GPA).

• Academic standing.

• End-of-year enrollment status.

• Degree or certifi cate completed.

A. Participant characteristics

Section II summarized the gender, race and ethnicity, eligibility status, and current grade level of students receiving SSS 

services in 1997–98 and reported as aggregate data in the performance reports. This section focuses on information from 

the 1998–99 participant records not included in the aggregate 

reports, such as participant status, age, and fi nancial aid. 

1. Participant status

The status of a participant can be new, continuing, or 

prior-year:

• New participants are those who began to receive services in the reporting period.

• Continuing participants are those who had begun in 

a previous period and continued to receive program 

services in the reporting period.

• Prior-year participants are former participants still at 

the institution but not receiving services in the reporting period. 

IV

Summary of Participant Records
20 Student Support Services Program

Figure 11 shows the status of participants in 1998–99.

Figure 11. Participant status: 1998–99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support 

Services Performance Reports, 1998–99.

Table 16 shows participant status by institution sector. 

Because students spend a longer time at four-year institutions, 

SSS projects at four-year institutions, especially public institutions, had higher proportions of prior-year participants. 

2. Participant age at entry

The calculation of participants’ age at entry into SSS excludes prior-year participants. SSS participants, on average, 

were older than the traditional student attending college. The 

mean age of new participants entering the program during the 

reporting period was 24.6 years and the median age was 20. 

Among two-year public institutions, the mean age was 27.1 

and the median was 22.8 (Table 17).

New participants

36%

Continuing participants

39%

Prior–year participants

25%

Table 17. Age at entry and years of participation for new and continuing participants, by

 sector: 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

Mean age at entry into the program 24.6 23.1 21.3 27.1 24.7

Median age at entry into the program 20.0 19.3 18.9 22.8 20.8

Mean years of SSS participation at time of report 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.5

Median years of SSS participation at time of report 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.0

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Table 16. Participant status, by sector: 1998-99

Sector New participants Continuing participants Prior-year participants

Public four-year 30% 36% 33%

Private four-year 36% 41% 23%

Public two-year 42% 42% 16%

Private two-year 57% 38% 5%

All sectors 36% 39% 25%

NOTE: Row percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.
21

IV

3. Length of time in Student Support Services

The calculation of participants’ length of time in SSS also 

excludes prior-year participants. At the end of the reporting 

period, the mean amount of time that new and continuing 

participants had spent in SSS was 1.9 years, similar to the 

1996–97 fi ndings (1.8 years). As would be expected, projects 

at four-year institutions had longer periods of participation 

than those at two-year institutions (Table 17).

4. Grade at entry and current grade level

Over half (54 percent) of all SSS participants, including 

almost three-fourths of those at private institutions, were 

fi rst-year students who had never attended college when they 

began to participate (Table 18). As to current grade, the largest 

group of participants was second-year students (31 percent).

Table 18. Grade level on entry and current grade level of participants, by sector: 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

Grade level on entry

First year, never attended 54% 54% 69% 49% 73%

First year, attended before 22% 14% 13% 34% 17%

Second year, sophomore 13% 12% 9% 15% 10%

Third year, junior 6% 11% 5% 0% 0%

Fourth year, senior 3% 5% 2% 0% 0%

Fifth year, other undergrad 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Missing or no response 2% 3% 1% 2% 0%

Current grade level 

First year, never attended 13% 10% 18% 16% 24%

First year, attended before 20% 13% 10% 32% 32%

Second year, sophomore 31% 20% 24% 48% 42%

Third year, junior 11% 17% 18% 1% 1%

Fourth year, senior 16% 26% 22% 1% 0%

Fifth year, other undergraduate 3% 5% 3% 0% 0%

First year, graduate or professional 1% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Second year, graduate or professional 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Third year, graduate or professional 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Beyond third year graduate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Missing or no response 4% 6% 4% 2% 1%

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Summary of Participant Records
22 Student Support Services Program

5. Full-time and part-time enrollment status

Full-time students constituted 63 percent of SSS participants in 1998–99 (Figure 12). Another ten percent of 

participants were enrolled half-or three-quarters-time. 

Fifteen percent had an enrollment status of “varied,” meaning that the status changed over the course of the year. The 

six percent of participants who were “not enrolled” were presumably students who dropped out during the year. Private 

four-year institutions had a substantially higher proportion of 

participants who were enrolled full-time (83 percent); public 

two-year institutions had the lowest percentage of full-time 

participants (48 percent) (Table 19).

Figure 12. Enrollment status of participants: 1998–99

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support 

Services Performance Reports, 1998–99.

Table 19. Enrollment status of participants, by sector: 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

Full time 63% 68% 83% 48% 67%

Three-fourths time 4% 3% 2% 7% 6%

Half-time 5% 4% 2% 8% 4%

Less than half-time 4% 2% 4% 6% 3%

Varied 15% 11% 5% 24% 12%

Not enrolled 6% 9% 3% 4% 0%

Missing 2% 2% 1% 3% 8%

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Missing 

2%

Full time

63%

Half time

5%

Three–fourths time

4%

Less than 

half time

4%

Varied

15%

Not 

enrolled

6%
23

IV

6. Academic need

Participant records indicated the methods that projects 

used to assess the participant’s academic needs. The most frequent response was “multiple,” meaning that more than one 

method was used (Table 20). “Diagnostic tests” were the most 

frequently used specifi c assessment tool, with 16 percent of all 

participant records reporting their use, and they were used 

more frequently in two-year than in four-year institutions.

7. Financial aid needed and awarded to participants

Projects offered fi nancial aid to two-thirds (66 percent) of 

SSS participants in the 1998–99 reporting period (Table 21). 

Participants at private institutions were more likely to receive 

aid and more likely to receive an amount closer to the aid requested than those at public institutions.

The average amount of aid requested was $8,482 and the average amount awarded was $6,932 (Table 21). The amounts were 

lowest in SSS projects at public two-year institutions ($6,016 

requested and $4,159 awarded) and highest in projects at private 

four-year institutions ($12,709 requested and $11,381 awarded). 

Table 20. Methods used to assess academic needs, by sector: 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

High school GPA 2.4% 3.2% 3.9% 1.0% 2.3%

SAT scores-verbal 1.3% 1.7% 2.8% 0.2% 0.8%

SAT scores-math 0.7% 0.8% 1.7% 0.2% 1.3%

ACT scores 8.1% 12.5% 6.5% 3.4% 1.2%

Predictive indicator 7.3% 7.4% 5.7% 7.7% 10.8%

Diagnostic tests 16.4% 9.0% 14.8% 25.2% 48.5%

College GPA 3.9% 5.4% 3.5% 2.3% 1.1%

High school equivalency 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 1.2%

Failing grades 2.0% 1.9% 1.2% 2.5% 0.9%

Out of academic pipeline 3.7% 2.7% 1.9% 5.6% 2.6%

Multiple needs 35.2% 33.2% 42.1% 36.0% 10.9%

Other 15.2% 18.3% 15.0% 11.3% 17.9%

Missing 3.0% 3.5% 0.5% 3.4% 0.6%

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Table 21. Financial aid, by sector: 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

Total number of students 236,203 110,850 32,795 90,075 2,483

Number requesting aid 163,694 73,214 25,235 63,140 2,105

Number offered aid 154,852 69,407 26,350 56,937 2,158

Percentage offered aid 66% 63% 80% 63% 87%

Mean aid requested $8,482 $8,943 $12,709 $6,016 $8,969

Mean aid offered $6,932 $7,578 $11,381 $4,159 $6,307

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Summary of Participant Records
24 Student Support Services Program

Table 22 shows the reasons that aid applicants did not receive 

the amounts requested. The most frequent reasons were that 

a loan was refused or that there was insuffi cient aid available.

B. Academic progress of participants

This section summarizes information about the academic progress of participant as reported on the 1998–99 

participant records.

1. Grade point average (GPA) and academic standing

Almost all SSS projects (99 percent) were housed in institutions using a four-point grading scale (Table 23). (Only 836 

participant records out of 236,203 reported GPAs using a fi vepoint scale). The average GPA for all SSS students in 1998–99 

was 2.6 on a four-point scale (3.2 for the few projects at institutions on a 5-point scale). This is similar to the results in the 

National Study of Student Support Services, which reported an 

average cumulative GPA of 2.6 for SSS students in their third 

year of school (Chaney, Muraskin, Cahalan, and Rak, 1997). 

There was little variation between public and private institutions, but students at two-year institutions had somewhat 

higher average GPAs than students at four-year institutions. 

Eighty-two percent of SSS current and prior-year participants in 1999 were in good academic standing at their institutions (often defi ned as a GPA of 2.0), 14 percent were not in 

good standing, and 4 percent had missing information.

2. End-of-year enrollment status

Table 24 shows the enrollment status of SSS students.8 

More than 61 percent were continuing students, 3 percent 

transferred, 14 percent graduated, 1 percent enrolled in 

graduate school, 10 percent withdrew (mostly for “personal 

reasons”), 2 percent were dismissed, and 9 percent had an 

unknown status. 

Only two percent of participants received an academic 

dismissal at the end of the year. The highest occurrence was at 

public four-year institutions. 

Table 22. Reasons for defi cient aid, by sector: 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

Loan refused 9.2% 8.3% 8.7% 10.6% 7.2%

Insuffi cient Federal grant aid 6.1% 6.2% 5.8% 6.2% 5.4%

Insuffi cient College Work Study aid 0.9% 1.1% 0.6% 0.9% 1.4%

Insuffi cient institution aid 4.6% 5.1% 5.3% 3.7% 9.6%

Inadequate academic progress 1.3% 1.3% 0.8% 1.4% 2.5%

Refused College Work study aid 2.3% 1.8% 1.8% 3.2% 0.5%

Not enrolled full-time 4.3% 2.6% 3.3% 6.9% 4.0%

Not eligible for fi nancial aid 5.1% 3.8% 3.3% 7.3% 4.4%

Full amount awarded, or none requested 66.1% 69.8% 70.3% 59.8% 64.9%

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.

8 There was some confusion about the meaning of “end of year.” Some projects took this to mean June and others took it as fall enrollment 

(August or September). 
25

IV

Table 23. Average cumulative GPA and academic standing of participants, by sector: 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

Average cumulative GPA on 4-point scale 2.64 2.61 2.62 2.69 2.73

Academic standing

Good 82.2% 82.5% 83.7% 81.4% 78.1%

Not in good standing 13.9% 14.4% 13.3% 13.7% 12.7%

Missing 3.9% 3.2% 3.0% 5.0% 9.3%

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services 

Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Table 24. End-of-year enrollment status of current and prior-year participants, by sector: 

 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

Academic dismissal 2.3% 3.4% 1.4% 1.4% 2.8%

Dismissal for nonacademic reasons 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 1.2%

Withdrew for fi nancial reasons 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5%

Withdrew for health reasons 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 1.1%

Withdrew for academic reasons 1.9% 1.9% 1.5% 2.1% 3.4%

Withdrew for personal reasons 6.9% 5.3% 5.3% 9.5% 8.1%

Transferred 3.3% 2.1% 2.2% 5.2% 6.1%

Graduated 11.9% 13.9% 13.4% 9.0% 7.2%

Graduated and transferred 1.9% 0.2% 0.1% 4.6% 6.0%

Enrolled in graduate programs 0.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2%

Continuing student 61.1% 62.8% 70.2% 55.8% 52.6%

No response 8.6% 8.4% 4.0% 10.5% 10.9%

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services 

Performance Reports, 1998-99.

Summary of Participant Records
26 Student Support Services Program

3. Degrees and certifi cates awarded

Almost 17 percent of SSS current and prior-year participants enrolled at the institution during the reporting year 

completed a degree or certifi cate in 1998–99 (Table 25).

Table 25. Degrees or certifi cates awarded to current and prior-year participants, by sector:

 1998-99

Public Private Public Private

All four-year four-year two-year two-year

Certifi cate or diploma for less than two-year program 0.8% 0.1% 0.3% 1.7% 8.4%

Certifi cate or diploma for two-year program 0.9% 0.1% 1.4% 1.7% 0.5%

Associate’s degree 5.5% 1.2% 2.0% 11.8% 16.9%

First bachelor’s degree 8.9% 15.3% 11.3% 0.3% *%

Second bachelor’s degree 0.1% .1% *% *% *%

Teaching credential program *% .1% *% *% *%

Graduate or professional degree 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% *%

No degree or certifi cate reported in period 83.5% 82.8% 84.6% 84.2% 74.1%

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

* Percent is less than .05 percent.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99.
27

V. Retention to the 

Second Year 

This section provides estimates of the percentage of 

fi rst-year SSS participants who returned to the same 

institution the following year. The estimates are based 

on participant records and on updates received from projects. 

We calculated retention rates between 1997–98 and 1998–99 

and between 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

A. Procedure for updates

To increase the quality of the performance reports, in 

July 2000 we sent to 681 projects lists of participants who 

appeared on the fi les in 1997–98 but did not appear on the 

fi les in 1998–99. Participants whose records indicated that 

they were likely to graduate or that they had withdrawn were 

excluded from the lists. Projects were asked to review the lists 

and indicate whether any of the listed students were actually 

enrolled at their institution in 1998–99, regardless of whether 

they continued as SSS participants. By January 2001, we had 

received the updates from 496 projects (including nine with 

no changes). 

We did not send lists to, or include in our calculations, 

projects that did not submit participant records for both 

years. We also excluded projects for which there remained 

unresolved problems with the data.

Similar procedures were repeated in January 2002 when 

we sent to 674 projects lists of participants who were included 

on the fi les in 1998–99 but did not appear on the fi les in 

1999–2000. This time, project directors were also given instructions on how to submit their updated reports via the 

Web, and encouraged to do so as an alternative to returning 

paper reports in the mail. A total of 565 updated reports were 

returned (84 percent). Of those returned, 497 (88 percent) 

reports were submitted electronically. However, 47 of the Web 

returns were incomplete due to problems with transmission. 

A second request to these projects yielded a return of another 

25 completed reports.

B. Retention rates

Table 26 shows the rates of retention at SSS institutions 

from 1997–98 to 1998–99. We have also included comparison 

numbers taken from Postsecondary Education Opportunity 

(June 1997 and November 1999), which are based on ACT data. 

The overall retention rate for SSS students (67 percent) is virtually identical to the national average. It is three percentage 

points higher than that of “liberal admission” institutions (64 

percent), a more appropriate comparison group for SSS.

Table 27 shows the retention rates from 1998–99 to 

1999–2000. Retention of SSS participants for this time span 

was about two percentage points higher than for 1997–98 to 

1998–99 (69 percent versus 67 percent). This is refl ective of 

the increased number of fi rst-year SSS students in 1998–99 

(75,934) compared to 1997–98 (66,249). Additionally, a larger 

percentage of students were retained in private four-year institutions in 1999–2000 than in 1998–99 (75 percent versus 

67 percent).

Retention to the Second Year

V
28 Student Support Services Program

C. Limitations and discussion 

SSS retention rates may be higher than calculated. Not all 

projects updated their records. Retention rates calculated using no updates are seven percent lower that the fi nal fi gures.

Tables 26 and 27 include some national rates obtained 

from ACT data for comparison. The SSS rates are about the 

same as the national average for retention to the second year. 

At public institutions, the SSS rates are higher than the national average; they are slightly lower at private institutions. 

This refl ects the greater prevalence of SSS projects at institutions with more liberal or fl exible entrance requirements. The 

National Study of Student Support Services found that about 

one-third of all open admission institutions have SSS projects, 

while only about 19 percent of highly selective institutions 

have SSS projects.

Table 26. Retention rates: 1997-98 to 1998-99

 Number of Percent 

 second year retained in Percent

Number of Number of students in liberal retained in

SSS projects fi rst-year 1998–99 Percent of admission all U.S.

included in students in (including SSS students schools schools

Sector calculation 1997–98 updates) retained (ACT) (ACT)

Public four-year 235 21,014 15,357 73.1% 66.3% 71.9%

Private four-year 116 8,207 5,487 66.9% 65.6% 75.1%

Public two-year 304 35,713 22,601 63.3% NA 52.5%

Private two-year 11 1,315 670 51.0% NA 69.9%

All sectors 666 66,249 44,115 66.6% 63.8% 66.7%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1997-98 and 1998-99; Postsecondary 

Education Opportunity, June 1997 and November 1999.

Table 27. Retention rates: 1998-99 to 1999-2000

 Number of Percent 

 second year retained in Percent

Number of Number of students in liberal retained in

SSS projects fi rst-year 1999–2000 Percent of admission all U.S.

included in students in (including SSS students schools schools

Sector calculation 1998–99 updates) retained (ACT) (ACT)

Public four-year 273 24,698 18,295 74.1% 66.3% 71.9%

Private four-year 123 9,018 6,752 74.9% 65.6% 75.1%

Public two-year 334 40,892 26,549 64.9% NA 52.5%

Private two-year 12 1,326 597 45.0% NA 69.9%

Total 742 75,934 52,193 68.7% 63.8% 66.7%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1998-99 and 1999-2000; Postsecondary 

Education Opportunity, June 1997 and November 1999.
29

As this report demonstrates, Student Support Services 

projects are submitting performance data of high 

internal consistency and validity. We commend SSS 

projects for their extensive and effective work in producing 

the performance reports. 

Among issues that need to be clarifi ed in future report 

cycles are the range of participants whose records should 

be submitted and consistency across projects in reporting 

some items.

Plans for improving and using this information include:

• Clarifying directions for completing performance reports.

• Analyzing data that cover longer time spans to understand student progress toward graduation.

• Establishing benchmarks for project planning and assessment in order to improve services.

• Linking SSS data with other federal databases.

The Department is confi dent that these efforts will give 

SSS projects more information to help them improve services 

and enhance the success of low-income and fi rst-generation 

college students and students with disabilities in postsecondary education.

VI. Future Plans VI

Future Plans
30 Student Support Services Program
31

Figure A1. Participant distribution by eligibility status: 1999–2000

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1999–2000.

Appendix A: Participant 

Characteristics for 1999–2000

Table A1. Eligibility classifi cation of SSS participants, by sector: 1999-2000

Low-income Disabled and 

Sector and fi rst- generation Low-income only First- generation only Disabled only low-income

Public four-year 58% 8% 19% 8% 7%

Private four-year 62% 9% 20% 5% 4%

Public two-year 61% 6% 19% 7% 7%

Private two-year 66% 9% 20% 4% 2%

All projects 60% 7% 19% 7% 6%

Note: Row percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support Services Performance Reports, 1999-2000.

Low-income and 

first generation college 60% 

Low-income only 7%

First generation only 19%

Disabled only 7% Disabled and low-income 6%

Appendix A
32 Student Support Services Program

Figure A2. Gender of SSS participants and all 

undergraduate students: 1999–2000

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

Support Services Performance Reports, 1999–2000 and National Center for 

Education Statistics, Profi le of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education 

Institutions, 1999–2000.

Figure A3. Racial and ethnic background of SSS 

participants: 1999–2000

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal TRIO Programs, Student Support 

Service Performance Reports, 1999–2000.

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

44%

56%

34%

65%

Total Undergraduates SSS students

Men

Women

Black or

African 

American 

28%

Hispanic or Latino 

16%

Asian

5%

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

3%

Other

2%

White

45%
33

References

Cahalan, Margaret. Lana Muraskin. National 

Study of Student Services Interim Report: Vol. 1, Program 

Implementation, U.S. Department of Education, 1994.

Chaney, Bradford. Lana Muraskin, Margaret Cahalan, 

Rebecca Rak. National Study of Student Support Services. Third 

Year Longitudinal Study Results and Program Implementation 

Study Update. U.S. Department of Education, February 1997.

References