Order Code RL31622
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Trio and GEAR UP Programs:
Status and Issues
Updated June 6, 2005
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues
Summary
The Higher Education Act (HEA) is the source of over $52 billion in federally
supported grant, loan, and work-study assistance to help meet the costs of
postsecondary education. The HEA also supports several programs that complement
this student aid by providing services and incentives to disadvantaged students to
help increase their secondary or postsecondary educational attainment. Foremost
among these programs are the federal Trio programs and the Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP).
Each program is administered by the U.S. Department of Education and support
many similar activities and objectives. Trio is primarily intended for individuals who
are low-income, first-generation college students, or are disabled — the precise
population differs among the various programs. GEAR UP directs its support to
individuals from low-income elementary and secondary schools. The goal of both
programs is to increase disadvantaged students’ high school completion and
enrollment in higher education by providing a variety of academic, counseling, and
college preparatory services. GEAR UP includes a scholarship component, while
Trio provides financial aid counseling and work-study employment.
The funding authorizations for Trio and GEAR UP expired along with the rest
of the HEA during the 108th Congress and were temporarily extended through
FY2005 (P.L. 108-366). Given that increasing access to higher education has been
a primary goal of the HEA, whether these and other HEA programs adequately
promote this objective will be a central issue as Congress considers reauthorization.
Other possible topics of concern are program consolidation and coordination, overall
authorization levels, amounts for student grants and scholarships, the nature of
program services, the status of program evaluations and the definition of eligible
students and campuses.
This report will be updated as legislative action occurs.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Program Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Trio Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Talent Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Upward Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Student Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Educational Opportunity Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Indirect Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
GEAR UP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Eligible Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Early Intervention Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Scholarships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Additional Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Population Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Program Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Student Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Upward Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
GEAR UP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Budget History and FY2006 Administration Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Impact of the Administration Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Reauthorization Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of High School and College Students Compared
with Participants in Trio and GEAR UP Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Population Served, Targeted, and Eligible, by Program, 2003 . . . . . . . 11
Trio and GEAR UP Programs:
Status and Issues
Introduction
The Higher Education Act (HEA) is the source of over $52 billion in federally
supported grant, loan, and work-study assistance to help meet the costs of
postsecondary education. The HEA also supports several programs that complement
this student aid by providing services and incentives to students to help increase their
secondary or postsecondary educational attainment. These programs are premised
on the belief that although addressing financial barriers to postsecondary enrollment
is necessary, it is not sufficient for many students, particularly those from
disadvantaged backgrounds. Foremost among these programs are the federal Trio
programs and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Program (GEAR UP).
The first portion of this report covers the legislative background and a basic
overview of these programs. Next, the report describes each program in detail and
provides data on the population served.1 Then, the report reviews recent program
evaluations that have been conducted and summarizes several issues that may arise
during consideration of the reauthorization of the HEA. Finally, the report describes
bills that have been introduced to reauthorize these programs.2
Program Overview
The Trio programs trace their roots to the Johnson Administration’s Great
Society. The first program, Talent Search, was authorized with the initial passage of
the HEA in 1965 and two others, Upward Bound and Student Support Services, were
added in 1968.3 Even though several additional programs have been included over
the years, they are by law called the Trio programs. A relatively new program that
is not part of the Trio array of programs, GEAR UP, was added to HEA by the
Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Trio and GEAR UP are currently
authorized by HEA Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapters 1 and 2 respectively.
1 Much of this section is indebted to the contributions of CRS Specialist in Social
Legislation James B. Stedman.
2 For further information on the HEA reauthorization, see CRS Issue Brief IB10097, The
Higher Education Act: Reauthorization Status and Issues, by Adam Stoll.
3 Upward Bound was originally created through the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and
transferred to the Office of Education in 1968.
CRS-2
Both sets of programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Education
(ED) and support many similar activities and objectives. Trio programs are primarily
intended for individuals who are low-income, first-generation college students, or are
disabled — the precise population differs among the various programs. GEAR UP
directs its support to individuals from low-income elementary and secondary schools.
The goal of both programs is to increase disadvantaged students’ secondary school
completion and postsecondary enrollment by providing a variety of academic,
counseling, and college preparatory services. GEAR UP includes a scholarship
component, while Trio provides financial aid counseling and work-study
employment.
Trio Programs
At the present time, there are five Trio programs that provide direct service to
students and two that provide indirect support. The five primary programs are:
Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound (UB), Student Support Services (SSS), Ronald
E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (MPA), and Educational Opportunity
Centers (EOC). These programs provide grants of four and five years in duration and
are awarded competitively to institutions of higher education and other public and
private institutions and agencies. Projects supported by these grants must
predominantly consist of participants who are from low-income families and are first-
generation college students.
In selecting grantees, the Secretary of Education is expected to consider an
applicant’s prior experience in delivering services under the Trio programs and to
encourage coordination of each Trio project with any programs for disadvantaged
students operated by a grantee. A Trio project director is permitted to administer
other programs for disadvantaged students operated by the grantee. In addition, Trio
funding provides indirect support for staff training, dissemination of best practices,
evaluation activities, and administrative expenses.
Talent Search. This program is intended to encourage youth with college
potential to complete high school and enter postsecondary education; to encourage
dropouts to reenter education; and to disseminate information about available
postsecondary student assistance. At least two-thirds of each project’s participants
must be low-income individuals who would be first-generation college students.
Participants must have completed a minimum of five years of elementary education,
or be 11 to 27 years of age. (Age limits in any Trio program can be waived if they
would prevent a project from achieving program purposes.)
Among services provided by TS projects are: assistance in completing college
admissions and financial aid applications, and preparing for college entrance exams;
guidance and assistance to individuals for reentering secondary school or entering
general educational development (GED) programs; personal and career counseling;
tutoring; exposure to college campuses, cultural events, and academic programs;
assistance in secondary school and college course selection; workshops and
counseling for participants’ families; and mentoring programs.
CRS-3
Upward Bound. UB projects are intended to provide precollege students and
veterans with the skills and motivation needed to succeed in postsecondary
education. At least two-thirds of project participants must be low-income students
who would be first-generation college goers; the remainder must be either low-
income or prospective first-generation college goers. Participants must have
completed at least eight years of elementary education, and be 13 to 19 years of age.
Among allowable UB services are the following: instruction in math, lab
science, foreign language, composition, and literature (required of projects that have
received two or more years of assistance); counseling and workshops; tutoring;
mentoring; exposure to cultural events; activities acquainting participants with career
options; work-study positions exposing participants to careers requiring
postsecondary education; and residential programs on college campuses. Most UB
projects provide six-week summer programs on college campuses. Participants may
receive monthly stipends of up to $60 during the summer (work-study students may
receive monthly stipends of $300 in the summer) and $40 during the rest of the year.
ED also funds Upward Bound Math and Science Centers (UBMS) providing
intensive instruction in math and science.
Student Support Services. SSS projects are intended to improve college
students’ retention and graduation rates, and improve the transfer rates of students
from two-year to four-year colleges. Program regulations limit eligible grantees to
postsecondary education institutions. At least two-thirds of SSS participants in any
project must be either disabled individuals or low-income, first-generation college
goers. The remaining participants must be low-income, or first-generation college
goers, or disabled. Not less than one-third of the disabled participants must be low-
income as well.
SSS projects may provide such services as: instruction in reading, writing,
study skills, math, and other subjects; academic counseling; exposure to cultural
events, academic programs, and career options; assistance in the graduate admission
and financial aid processes; assistance in transferring from two-year to four-year
colleges; and mentoring. In selecting grantees, the Secretary must consider an
institution’s efforts to provide participants with aid sufficient to meet full financial
need and to constrain student debt.
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement. MPA projects seek
to prepare disadvantaged students for doctoral study. Program regulations limit
eligible grantees to postsecondary education institutions. At least two-thirds of
participants must be low-income, first-generation college goers; the remainder must
be from groups underrepresented in graduate education.
Among the services that may be provided are: research opportunities, seminars,
and other activities preparing students for doctoral study; summer internships;
tutoring; academic counseling; assistance in securing graduate admission and
financial aid; mentoring; and exposure to cultural events and academic programs.
Research participants may receive an annual award providing a stipend of up to
$2,800; the award may cover the costs of summer tuition, room and board, and
transportation as well.
CRS-4
Educational Opportunity Centers. This program is intended to provide
information to prospective postsecondary students regarding available financial aid
and academic assistance, and help them apply for admission and financial aid. At
least two-thirds of participants in any project must be low-income students who
would be first-generation college goers. They must also be at least 19 years old.
EOCs may provide: information to communities about postsecondary education
and training opportunities; assistance in completing admission and financial aid
applications; assistance preparing for college entrance exams; guidance on reentering
secondary school, or entering a GED program or other program for high school
dropouts; personal counseling; tutoring; career workshops; and mentoring.
Indirect Support. The Staff Development program supports training of
current and prospective Trio staff. Grants can be made to postsecondary education
institutions, and public and private nonprofit entities. Among authorized activities
are conferences, internships, seminars, workshops, and publication of training
manuals. Annually, one or more of the projects must train new Trio project directors,
and must address the following: legislative and regulatory requirements for operating
Trio projects, guidance on assisting students in receiving adequate amounts of
student aid, the design and operation of model Trio projects, and the use of
educational technology in operating Trio projects.
Dissemination Partnership Grants are provided to Trio projects that were
funded prior to the HEA Amendments of 1998 to expand and leverage the success
of these projects. Funds are used to support partnerships with other institutions of
higher education or community-based organizations that are not receiving Trio funds
but that are serving low-income and first-generation college students. Services
include disseminating and replicating best practices and providing technical
assistance to other non-Trio programs and projects.
Funding is also provided for administrative expenses and program
evaluation. Up to 0.5% of the funds appropriated for Trio may be used by ED to
support administrative activities that include: obtaining additional qualified readers
and additional staff to review applications; increasing the level of oversight
monitoring; supporting impact studies, program assessments and reviews; and
providing technical assistance to potential applicants and grantees. Required
evaluation activities include identifying effective practices, documenting student
preparation for college, documenting student success in college, and identifying the
effectiveness of alternative and innovative methods within Trio programs.
GEAR UP
The GEAR UP program was added to HEA Title IV by the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998.4 GEAR UP seeks to increase disadvantaged students’
secondary school completion and postsecondary enrollment by providing support
4 State-level components of GEAR UP reflect the prior National Early Intervention
Scholarship and Partnership program established by the Higher Education Amendments of
1992 (P.L. 102-325) and first funded in FY1994.
CRS-5
services and by assuring students of the availability of financial aid to meet college
costs.
Eligible Entities. States or partnerships are eligible for funding. A
partnership must consist of: (1) one or more school districts acting on behalf of one
or more elementary or secondary schools; (2) one or more postsecondary education
institutions; and (3) at least two other entities, such as community organizations, state
agencies, or other public or private agencies. Of the amount remaining after funding
continuations are distributed for previous awards, at least 33% is for states, at least
33% is for partnerships, and the remainder is awarded to either states or partnerships.
The allocation of the remainder between states and partnerships is to be reevaluated
annually. Participating entities must provide from non-federal funds at least 50% of
the cost of the program. Partnerships’ matching level can be modified through
regulation.
Early Intervention Activities. Any funded state or partnership must provide
comprehensive mentoring, counseling, outreach, and support services to participating
students. This counseling must address financial aid, college applications, and
admissions, and must foster parental involvement in the college preparation process.
Projects may: provide a system of mentoring and advising; require students to enter
into agreements to achieve specific academic milestones in exchange for tuition
assistance; provide services to ensure high school completion and college enrollment
of at-risk individuals; provide summer programs for high school sophomores or
juniors or students planning on going to college in the coming academic year; and
require students to meet other standards.
Participating states are required to make low-income students a priority for
services. Partnerships are required to provide services to at least one grade level of
students (beginning by the seventh grade) in a school with a seventh grade and with
an enrollment at least half of which is eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.
Alternatively, services can be provided to students in a particular grade (beginning
by the seventh grade) who reside in public housing. Partnerships must ensure that
services are provided to each such cohort of students through the twelfth grade. They
must coordinate services with existing early intervention programs and not duplicate
available services.
Scholarships. Participating states are required to establish or maintain a
postsecondary scholarship program for participants; partnerships are permitted to
include a scholarship component. The minimum amount of these scholarships is the
lesser of 75% of the annual average cost of attendance for an in-state student in a
four-year program at public higher education institutions in the state, or the
maximum Pell Grant for that fiscal year (the program statute provides that the total
amount of HEA, Title IV aid cannot exceed a student’s cost of attendance).
To be eligible to receive the initial scholarship, a student must be less than 22
years old; have received a high school diploma or equivalent on or after January 1,
1993; be enrolled or accepted for enrollment in an undergraduate program at an
institution located in the state (at a state’s option, the GEAR UP scholarship can be
made portable); and have participated in the GEAR UP early intervention component
(at the participating entity’s option, Trio participation can qualify a student). Current
CRS-6
Pell Grant recipients must receive priority in the awarding of scholarships. Each state
must use at least 25% of its funds but not more than 50% for early intervention. This
rule also applies to partnerships that conduct a scholarship component. The 50% cap
can be waived if the participant has another way of providing the scholarship
assistance.
Additional Activities. The Secretary is to provide 21st Century Scholar
Certificates to GEAR UP students and may, as practicable, provide them to all
students in grades 6-12 in schools where at least 50% of the enrollment qualifies for
free or reduced-price lunches. These certificates are to be personalized for each
student and indicate the amount of federal postsecondary financial aid the student
may be eligible to receive.
Each participating state or partnership must ensure that its activities are
coordinated with, complement, and enhance other GEAR UP services in the same
district or state, and services under other federal or non-federal programs. Biennially,
each entity receiving GEAR UP funds must submit an evaluation of its activities to
the Secretary. The Secretary, with up to 0.75% of the annual appropriation, is
required to fund evaluations of the effectiveness of the program; the Secretary must
report, biennially, to the U.S. Congress on GEAR UP evaluations.
Population Served
During FY2004, Trio programs served over 873,000 students and GEAR UP
served over 1,485,000.5 Table 1 compares the number and characteristics of students
enrolled in high school and college to the participants in Trio and GEAR UP
programs. The number of participants counted under each program simply refers to
the number receiving any amount of services which in some cases may be as little as
a single visit with a counselor. Program participants are more likely to be female,
black and Hispanic than the overall student population.
5 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2005, Justifications for Appropriation
Estimates to the Congress, vol. 2.
CRS-7
Table 1. Characteristics of High School and College Students
Compared with Participants in Trio and GEAR UP Programs
GEAR
Characteristic
H.S.a
Collegea
UBb
SSSc
TSc
EOCc
MPAc
UPd
Students
(1,000s)e
15,800
15,300
67
200
386
189
4
1,440
Female
49%
56%
70%
65%
60%
64%
65%
n.a.
White, non-
65%
70%
21%
46%
32%
41%
23%
26%
Hispanic
Black, non-
15%
14%
50%
29%
35%
36%
40%
30%
Hispanic
Hispanic
14%
9%
22%
15%
22%
14%
26%
36%
Other, non-
5%
7%
7%
10%
11%
9%
11%
8%
Hispanic
a. Counts and demographic data for high school (grades 9 thru 12) and college students
(undergraduate and graduate students) are CRS estimates of those enrolled during October 2000,
Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
b. The most recent data on the demographic characteristics UB participants is for 1992-1994 from,
The Short-term Impact of Upward Bound: An Interim Report, U.S. Department of Education.
c. Demographic data for SSS are 1997-1998 participants and for TS, EOC and MPA are 1998-1999
participants and are taken from various Trio Profiles reports, U.S. Department of Education.
d. Demographic data on participants in GEAR UP are 2000-2001 participants taken from the Annual
Performance Report, U.S. Department of Education.
e. Student counts for Trio and GEAR UP participants are for FY2002 taken from the 2004
Justifications, U.S. Department of Education.
Program Evaluations
Each of the major Trio programs as well as GEAR UP are currently under
evaluation by ED in collaboration with independent contractors. Preliminary results
from these studies are only available for three programs — SSS, UB, and GEAR UP.
However, these preliminary results provide some evidence on program effectiveness
and serve as a good entry-point for consideration of reauthorization issues.
Student Support Services. A longitudinal evaluation of SSS has been
ongoing since 1991. The first report to come out of this evaluation simply describes
the participating students.6 A second discusses best practices and services offered.7
The most common services provided by SSS programs operating between 1991 and
1994 were academic counseling and peer tutoring.
6 U.S. Department of Education, National Evaluation of Student Support Services: Analysis
and Highlights from Reports on Program Implementation, Interim Report, Volume I, 1994.
7 U.S. Department of Education, Best Practices in Student Support Services: A Study of
Five Exemplary Sites, Aug. 1997.
CRS-8
A third report, generated after the third year of this evaluation, revealed a small
but positive and statistically significant effect on measures of student outcomes
including: grades in college, total number of credits earned, and retention in higher
education.8 During their first year, SSS participants’ GPA increased by an average
of 0.15 compared to a control group of non-participants, credits earned increased by
1.25, and retention increased by 7 percentage points. The small size of these effects
was attributed to the fact that, at such an early stage of the evaluation, most students
had only a modest amount of services provided.
Importantly, the third year report indicates that students who were more
disadvantaged tended to experience greater positive effects as a result of greater SSS
participation. That is, these students tended to have a greater amount of services
provided and consequently showed more benefits from program participation.
The six-year evaluation report, originally scheduled for release in February
2002, is currently under ED review. According to the 2004 Justifications, the results
of this program evaluation will show substantial impacts across a wide range of
outcomes; most importantly, a 9 percentage point increase in the rate of college
graduation compared to a control group of non-participants. SSS also continues to
produce positive results on credits earned, grade point average, and retention. The
newer report looked at transfer rates and found a positive impact of SSS on transfer
from two-year to four-year colleges.
Upward Bound. A longitudinal evaluation of UB has been underway since
1993. A report on phase one of the project was released in 1999 and the results of
a second phase are pending.9 The findings available so far indicate that, across all
participants, UB has no overall impact beyond encouraging students to choose four-
year over year-year schools. Also, nearly half of UB participants drop out of the
program before completing high school — resulting in an average length of exposure
of 19 months.
Conversely, the study found that UB has a large positive impact on the subgroup
of students with low income, lower educational expectations, and serious academic
problems. This positive impact was manifested in a variety of educational outcomes
— most notably, high school completion rates. This important exception to the
overall finding of this evaluation is also in line with the results of the SSS evaluation
— i.e., UB appears to have its greatest impact on the most disadvantaged students
who participate.
GEAR UP. A longitudinal evaluation of GEAR UP has begun following the
cohort of students who began seventh grade in the 2000-2001 school year. The first
report released in 2003 discusses the design of the study and program implementation
issues. Twenty partnerships were selected for the evaluation and were matched with
8 U.S. Department of Education, National Study of Student Support Services: Third Year
Longitudinal Study Results, Feb. 1997.
9 U.S. Department of Education, The Impacts of Upward Bound: Final Report for Phase
I of the National Evaluation, Apr. 1999. The results of phase two were due to be released
in Mar. of 2002 and are currently under ED review.
CRS-9
a non-GEAR UP school in the same school district for comparison purposes. The
study also makes use of data from annual performance reports.
The report describes the characteristics of the participating students
(overwhelmingly non-White) and schools (67% free or reduced-priced lunch
eligibility) as well as a “markedly” improved “climate” in the schools (i.e., the
general attitude toward GEAR UP) between the initial and subsequent site visits.
Implementation issues discussed in the report include heavy reliance on project staff
due to difficulty in getting parents and volunteers involved in the program.
Budget History and FY2006
Administration Proposal
The appropriation for the Trio programs has increased from $600 million in
FY1999 to $836.5 million in FY2005.10 The Administration request for FY2006 is
$369.4 million; this includes zero funding for the Talent Search and Upward Bound
programs.11 The appropriation for GEAR UP has increased from $120 million in
FY1999 to $306.5 million in FY2005.12 The Administration requested zero dollars
for FY2006.13 The Administration further requests that future funds that would have
gone to these programs be redirected to its High School Intervention (HSI)
initiative.14
The Administration argues that the HSI would constitute a more
“comprehensive” and “coordinated” approach than the three existing programs do
individually. To do this, the HSI would, “require a State plan for improving high
school education ... provide States with the flexibility to better prepare students for
postsecondary education ... [and] hold States accountable for improving the academic
performance of at-risk students.”15
The proposed elimination of Talent Search and Upward Bound is based on the
previously mentioned negative reading of their evaluations.16 The FY2006 Budget
10 U.S. Department of Education, Budget Office, May 12, 2005.
11 U.S. Department of Education, Budget Office, FY2006 Budget Justifications.
12 U.S. Department of Education, Budget Office, Dec. 9, 2004.
13 U.S. Department of Education, Budget Office, FY2006 Budget Justifications.
14 Additional funding for the HSI would come from the elimination of funds for the
programs under the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. Bills to reauthorize
the Perkins Act have passed in both chambers (S. 250 passed unanimously on Mar. 10, 2005
and H.R. 366 by a 416-9 margin on May 4, 2005). For more information on these programs,
see CRS Report RL31747, The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998: Background and Implementation. by Rebecca R. Skinner and Richard N. Apling.
15 U.S. Department of Education, FY2006 Budget Justifications, Feb. 2005, p. S-77.
16 U.S. Department of Education, Implementation of the Talent Search Program, Past and
Present: Final Report from Phase I of the National Evaluation, Jan. 2004; and The Impacts
(continued...)
CRS-10
Justifications state, “Upward Bound received an ‘ineffective’ PART rating due to a
lack of data on key performance measures, and evaluation results have found no
overall impact on these measures. The FY2006 Budget Justifications state that Talent
Search suffers from a similar lack of demonstrated performance.”17 The elimination
of GEAR UP is based on its inability to improve schools systemwide because its
“whole-grade approach, limited to high-poverty areas, creates practical limits on the
number of schools that projects can serve.”18
The brief description of the HSI in the FY2006 Budget Justifications indicates
that it would draw many features from the GEAR UP design. Like GEAR UP State
grants, HSI would provide grants to state education agencies (SEAs). The SEAs
would distribute competitive grants to local education agencies (LEAs) that “would
use the funds to implement targeted interventions in secondary schools that have a
demonstrated need for such assistance (particularly high-poverty schools or schools
failing to make adequate yearly progress under Title I).”19
These interventions could include: coursework designed to combine academic
and vocational and technical training; dropout prevention; assessment systems;
postsecondary academic preparation; and college awareness. Unlike the GEAR UP
state grants, HSI does not include financial assistance for college. The FY2006
budget request for HSI is $1.4 billion — $682.8 million of which would be for
continuations to current GEAR UP, Upward Bound, and Talent Search multiyear
grants.
Impact of the Administration Proposal. This discussion of the impact of
the Administration’s FY2006 budget proposal is limited to the provision of services
to improve high school completion and college attendance among low-income
students, and considers only the potential effect that redirecting funds away from
GEAR UP, Upward Bound, and Talent Search and to the HSI initiative may have on
their shared goal of improving these education outcomes. Three issues are discussed
in detail: the scale of projects, the role of partnerships, and the goal of high school
reform. The scale of projects is used here to refer to the depth and breadth of
services available as well as the number of grantees and participants feasible at a
given appropriations level. Cost per participant is one indicator of scale that may be
useful here.
As mentioned above, GEAR UP state projects are able to serve a large number
of students with a shallow depth of services, while Upward Bound projects serve a
small number of students with very intensive services.20 In this regard, the structure
of the HSI initiative appears much more like the GEAR UP state program than
16 (...continued)
of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the Third Follow-Up Data Collection, Apr. 2004.
17 U.S. Department of Education, FY06 Budget Justifications, February 2005, p. S-77.
18 Ibid., p. S-92.
19 Ibid., p. A-49.
20 Another aspect of the GEAR UP program’s ability to serve a larger number of students
per federal dollar is the dollar-for-dollar matching requirement from non-federal funds.
CRS-11
Upward Bound. Importantly, HSI lacks the summer stipends and campus programs
that are available to all Upward Bound and a few GEAR UP participants (these are
the most costly and, some have argued the most effective, aspects of these
programs).21 In one respect, the HSI also lacks the breadth of services offered by
Talent Search projects which are available to those between the ages of 11 and 27.
This discussion of scale should also be placed in the context of the size of the
population targeted by these programs. GEAR UP, Talent Search, and Upward
Bound served a combined 1.9 million students in 2003. One of the key components
for eligibility for these programs is poverty status.22 The most recent poverty data
available on the population targeted by these programs comes from the 2003 Current
Population Survey and are presented in Table 2 along with the participants in each
program.
Table 2. Population Served, Targeted, and Eligible, by Program,
2003
(populations in thousands)
Persons below
150% of
Program
Participants
Target age
poverty*
Percent served
GEAR UP
1,440
11 to 17
7,790
18.49%
Upward Bound**
67
13 to 19
7,229
0.93%
Talent Search
386
11 to 27
18,052
2.14%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, FY2005 Budget Justifications. U.S. Census Bureau, 2003
Current Population Survey.
*The poverty level for a family of four in 2003 was about $19,000.
**Includes Upward Bound–“Classic” Math and Science, and Veterans.
Table 2 clearly shows that GEAR UP serves a much larger proportion of its
target population than the two Trio programs. However, a critical caveat to the
numbers presented here is that the GEAR UP state projects will begin providing large
scholarships to participating students who graduate from high school and are
accepted and enroll in college beginning fall 2005.23 This will have a big impact on
the cost per participant and the number of students that can be served at the same
appropriations level. Moreover, the size of this “target population” (i.e., GEAR UP
state project participants who eventually graduate and enroll in college) is very
difficult to estimate.
21 Wolanin, Comparing GEAR UP and Trio.
22 GEAR UP uses eligibility for free and reduced-priced lunch which is based primarily on
being under 185% of the poverty level and Trio defines low-income as 150% of the poverty
level. Although the Trio programs require that two-thirds of participants also be first-
generation college students, research shows low parental educational attainment to be highly
correlated with poverty.
23 The GEAR UP partnership projects are not required to provide scholarships.
CRS-12
The partnerships involved in GEAR UP, Upward Bound, and Talent Search are
fundamental to the operation of these programs. The vast majority of GEAR UP
projects are funded though the GEAR UP Partnership Grants program — e.g., in
FY2004, 36 state projects and 274 partnership projects were funded. To receive a
grant, GEAR UP Partnerships must include at least one school district, at least one
institution of higher education (IHE), and at least two community organizations or
entities.24 The majority of Trio grants are awarded to IHEs (about 80% for Talent
Search and about 95% for Upward Bound) with the remainder going to community
organizations. These entities partner with local schools and school districts to attract
their participants.
The available information on the Administration’s HSI initiative does not
mention a role for partnerships either with IHEs or community organizations. The
only statement which suggests HSI might entail some form of partnership or
coordination can be found in the FY2006 Budget Justification. Each LEA receiving
funds would have to ensure that its targeted high schools develop individual
performance plans, based on 8th grade student assessment data, for entering students.
Student plans would be developed in consultation with parents, teachers, and
counselors.25
The need for high school reform is a major factor in the debate over where and
how to continue federal support in this area. Both the authorizing language of GEAR
UP and the description of HSI explicitly state that these programs are intended to
reform the educational system. In particular, the architects of these reforms
recognize that our high schools need to do a better job of educating and graduating
their students and of preparing them for postsecondary achievement. Further, there
is wide agreement among education policy analysts that a disconnect exists between
the K-12 and postsecondary systems. Indeed, many states and school districts have
already begun developing K-16 or PreK-16 systems.26
The question of how to achieve such systemic reform is what brings the issues
of scale and partnership together. As with many federal policies, Upward Bound and
GEAR UP were not meant to serve everyone who would be eligible for these
programs, but rather to foster programs with federal moneys that could be duplicated
and supported by non-federal entities — in this case through partnerships between
state and local governments, IHEs, community organizations, and corporations. At
24 According to ED, participating entities include the following companies: Crown, Xerox,
Westinghouse, Ryder, U.S. Steel, PG&E, Chase Manhattan, Bell Atlantic, Lockheed Martin,
Nordstrom’s, Dell Computer Corporation, Marriott Hotels, First Union Bank, Pepperidge
Farms, Pepsi-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Mobil, NASA, Hewlett
Packard, Unisys, and Wells Fargo Bank.
25 U.S. Department of Education, FY2006 Budget Justifications, Feb. 2005, p. A-50.
26 Michael Cohen, Transforming the American High School: New Directions for State and
Local Policy, Aspen Institute, Dec. 2001. Jonathan Tefel, and Nancy Egerhart, Statewide
School-College (K-16) Partnerships to Improve Student Performance, July 1999. The
Education Trust, TICKET TO NOWHERE: The Gap Between Leaving High School and
Entering College and High-Performance Jobs, Thinking-16, vol. 3, issue 2, fall 1999.
CRS-13
the present level of federal education funding, it appears very unlikely that HSI can
achieve the intensity of a program like Upward Bound on the scale of GEAR UP (or
an even broader scale) without such partnerships.
Reauthorization Issues
Given that increasing access to postsecondary education has been a primary goal
of the HEA, whether these and other HEA programs adequately promote this
objective will be a central issue during the reauthorization process. This section
addresses several prominent aspects of Trio and GEAR UP as they pertain to access
and other issues and discusses relevant legislation that has been introduced to date.
Coordination. As the number of Trio programs has grown and GEAR UP
was enacted, a debate has developed around issues of program coordination and
consolidation. The focus of this debate can be framed by the following two
questions: (1) to what extent do the similar objectives of the various programs
produce overlap and duplication of effort, and (2) to what extent do the distinct
activities of these programs produce a disjointed set of services that should be
coordinated to support students at all points in their academic career.
As has been described, GEAR UP seeks to address the problems of high school
completion and college access for disadvantaged students through a holistic
approach. Should this approach be replicated through the array of Trio programs?
Arguably, one of the strengths of GEAR UP is that it “sticks with” the same cohort
of students from start to finish. Trio might be criticized for the way in which the
various programs lack coordination, and therefore follow-up, for students at risk of
terminating their education at any point.
On the other hand, focusing on a single cohort limits the ability of these
programs to adequately and individually serve large numbers of students. Moreover,
providing services to a group of students who enter seventh grade at a particular
school in one particular year and not providing the same services to those entering
seventh grade at the same school in the following year may raise concerns about
fairness and efficiency. Although there is some evidence that some GEAR UP
programs “back fill” by taking in students in subsequent cohorts, there is no
requirement to do so.
Trio advocates, like the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), push for
two steps in program coordination: (1) TS should be re-focused to serve only high
school students, and GEAR UP should be re-focused to serve middle school students,
and (2) GEAR UP be consolidated as one of the Trio programs.27 COE argues that
this would eliminate duplication between the two programs because under the current
structure they serve similar populations and have similar objectives.
27 Council for Opportunity in Education, Policy Options Regarding Trio for the Upcoming
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Jan. 22, 2002.
CRS-14
It has also been suggested by COE and other observers that program continuity
could be improved by better ensuring continuity from grant to grant by placing
greater weight on prior experience, extending the length of grants, and adjusting
minimum grant amounts for inflation and cost increases.
Funding. Several funding issues are likely to be raised during the
reauthorization process. Three general areas of concern are the overall funding
authorization, the mechanisms for awarding and distributing grants, and the aid
offered to students. In a recent hearing held by the House Committee on Education
and the Workforce, a panelist suggested that Trio and GEAR UP funding amounts
be determined as a formula-based proportion of federal student aid appropriations.28
Pegging Trio and GEAR UP funding to federal aid would help ensure that low-
income students’ non-financial issues are addressed to the same degree as their
financial needs. But, in fact, in the last decade Trio appropriations have remained a
relatively stable percentage (7.3%) of appropriations for federal need-based grants
(i.e., Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants).
The importance of prior experience as a factor in the Trio grant award process
has long been a matter of disagreement. Some feel that past success in winning
grants should positively influence the likelihood of continued awards because it
provides for the kind of continuity discussed in the previous section. Others assert
that, given the limited number of grants relative to the vast number of students in
need of services, competitions should be more open to those without prior
experience. Further disagreement exists over other priorities expressed in the
funding mechanism — most notably, whether preference should be given to certain
racial/ethnic groups or geographic areas.
Trio offers little in the way of direct monetary aid to students and some assert
that the stipends offered are inadequate. COE argues that UB stipends be increased
to $60 per month during the school year and $100 per month during the summer.
COE also advocates for raising the maximum allowable stipend for summer research
under MPA. GEAR UP scholarships offer much more substantial funds for students
who attend college. However, financial aid administrators object to statutory
language requiring that these scholarships “supplement, not supplant” regular need-
based aid.29 In recent regulations, ED specified conditions under which colleges and
universities may be exempt from this requirement.30 Stipend amounts and
regulations aside, these concerns raise a larger question about the intent of these
programs. Namely, should the financial aid component of these programs be
expanded thereby linking aid to a broader program of college preparation or should
the financial aspect of access to postsecondary education remain the purview of
traditional sources of monetary assistance?
28 Testimony of Lawrence Gladieux, an independent education and public policy consultant,
to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, July 16, 2002.
29 HEA, Title IV, Section 404E.
30 65 Federal Register 39814 (June 28, 2000).
CRS-15
Services. The non-academic services provided by these programs have come
under attack in recent years; the counseling services component of Upward Bound
is a good example.31 Those in the current Administration focused on program
performance (as defined by specific outcome measures) see these services as
“ineffective.”32 Since one of the goals of UB is to improve college completion rates
among first-generation and low-income students, the preliminary “no impact”
program evaluation results referred to earlier may be viewed as damaging.
At the same time, others argue that non-academic services (such as those that
improve self-esteem) have been a part of Trio programs since their inception and go
to the heart of their intended purpose. In this light, the evaluation result that UB
encourages would-be two-year students to attend four-year schools is a notable
accomplishment. Nonetheless, reauthorization debate over the academic and non-
academic priorities of the Trio and GEAR UP programs seems likely. One possible
outcome might be to narrow the large array of services currently allowable.
Evaluations. In response to the Administration’s negative interpretation of
the UB evaluation, Trio advocates also caution against drawing premature
conclusions about college completion from an unfinished longitudinal study. While
the preliminary results from the evaluation of SSS are more positive, the lack of
recent evaluations of other Trio programs may itself become a reauthorization issue.
Definitions. Through the 1992 amendments, institutions or agencies were
permitted to submit more than one Trio application “if the additional applications
describe programs serving different populations or campuses”.33 Some assert that
subsequent ED regulations defined different populations and different campuses too
narrowly and thereby undermined congressional intent to provide services to
disadvantaged students.
Another problem with Trio eligibility arises from the definition of a “low-
income individual” in Section 402A. Current language stipulates that such an
individual come “from a family whose taxable income for the preceding year did not
exceed 150 percent of an amount equal to the poverty level.” COE argues that this
unfairly excludes students who would be classified as low-income based on current
income, but not on the previous year’s income. Their proposed solution to this
problem is to give Trio Directors the discretion to consider eligibility and
documentation on a case-by-case basis — similar to the discretion provided financial
aid administrators.
However, the evaluation results discussed above indicate that a loosening of the
definition of low-income students may weaken program outcomes. The preliminary
findings from the UB and SSS evaluations suggest that these programs have the
31 Richard Morgan, “Upward Bound’s Slippery Slope,” Chronicle of Higher Education,
May 3, 2002.
32 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2004, Justifications for Appropriation
Estimates to the Congress, vol. 2.
33 HEA, Title IV, Section 402A.
CRS-16
greatest impact on those most disadvantaged — that is, students with lower income,
greater academic problems, and lower educational expectations. Thus, Trio and
GEAR UP programs may be improved by tightening, not loosening, eligibility
definitions to focus on those most in need of services and assistance.