The TRIO Programs
Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy
September 10, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42724
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The TRIO Programs
Summary
This report serves as an introduction to the TRIO programs. The TRIO programs are the primary
federal programs providing support services to disadvantaged students to promote achievement in
postsecondary education. This report provides a description of the TRIO programs, authorized in
Title IV-A-2-1 of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended by the Higher Education
Opportunity Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315) in 2008. Key program amendments of the HEOA as
implemented through final Department of Education (ED) regulations published in 2010 are
discussed. The report is intended to support congressional understanding of the programs,
summarize recent evaluations and performance reports, and review the Department of
Education’s progress in implementing HEOA.
In FY2012, the TRIO programs were funded at $840 million and served almost 800,000
secondary, postsecondary, and adult students. The TRIO programs have been designed to prepare
qualified individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds for postsecondary education and
encourage their success throughout the educational pipeline from secondary school to
undergraduate and graduate education. While the TRIO programs primarily serve low-income,
first-generation college students, they also serve students with disabilities, veterans, homeless
youth, foster youth, and individuals underrepresented in graduate education. The TRIO programs
are also designed to award prior grantees that implement successful projects and propose high-
quality projects with subsequent grants before awarding applicants without prior TRIO
experience.
There are six TRIO programs, each serving a different demographic. The TRIO Upward Bound
(UB) Program serves secondary school students, providing relatively intensive preparation
services and encouragement to help students pursue education beyond secondary school. the
TRIO Talent Search (TS) Program provides less intensive services than UB in support of the
completion of high school and enrollment in postsecondary education, and it encourages
primarily students and out-of-school youth. The TRIO Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC)
Program primarily serves adults. The TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) Program motivates
undergraduate students to complete their undergraduate education. The Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program prepares undergraduate students for graduate
school. Finally, the TRIO Staff Development (Training) Program trains TRIO project staff to be
more effective.
Several TRIO program provisions were amended through the HEOA. Two key HEOA
amendments address issues pertaining to the application review process: scoring and second
reviews (appeals). The first amendment defined outcome criteria that require the secretary and
each grantee to agree upon objectives/targets for the criteria. The extent to which grantees meet or
exceed these objectives determines the number of prior experience (PE) points the grantee may
earn as part of its application in the next grant competition. Earning more PE points increases the
likelihood of funding. The FY2011 TS and EOC and FY2012 UB grant competitions requested
that applicants propose objectives for the statutorily defined outcome criteria. The second
amendment established an application review process by which those unsuccessful applicants that
can identify a specific technical, administrative, or scoring error may have their applications
reviewed a second time (appealed). The FY2012 TRIO UB competition is the first to use the
revised application review process.
Congressional Research Service
The TRIO Programs
Contents
Background...................................................................................................................................... 1
Pipeline of TRIO Programs ............................................................................................................. 2
TRIO Upward Bound (UB) Program ........................................................................................ 2
Eligible Recipients .............................................................................................................. 2
Program Participants ........................................................................................................... 3
Program Intensity and Activities ......................................................................................... 3
Outcome Criteria................................................................................................................. 4
TRIO Talent Search (TS) Program ............................................................................................ 5
Eligible Recipients .............................................................................................................. 6
Program Participants ........................................................................................................... 6
Program Intensity and Activities ......................................................................................... 6
Outcome Criteria................................................................................................................. 7
TRIO Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) Program.......................................................... 7
Eligible Recipients .............................................................................................................. 7
Program Participants ........................................................................................................... 7
Program Intensity and Activities ......................................................................................... 7
Outcome Criteria................................................................................................................. 8
TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) Program ....................................................................... 8
Eligible Recipients .............................................................................................................. 9
Program Participants ........................................................................................................... 9
Program Intensity and Activities ......................................................................................... 9
Outcome Criteria............................................................................................................... 10
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program ................................. 11
Eligible Recipients ............................................................................................................ 11
Program Participants ......................................................................................................... 11
Program Intensity and Activities ....................................................................................... 11
Outcome Criteria............................................................................................................... 11
TRIO Staff Development (Training) Program......................................................................... 12
Eligible Recipients ............................................................................................................ 12
Program Participants ......................................................................................................... 12
Program Intensity and Activities ....................................................................................... 12
Outcome Criteria............................................................................................................... 12
Comparison of Key Features of the TRIO Programs .............................................................. 13
Program Appropriations and Project Participants.......................................................................... 15
Major HEOA Amendments to Common TRIO Provisions............................................................ 17
Required Program Activities ................................................................................................... 17
Prior Experience Points ........................................................................................................... 18
Application Review Process (Appeal)..................................................................................... 20
Award Amounts and Numbers of Program Participants.......................................................... 21
Length of Grant Award ............................................................................................................ 21
Multiple Grants for Different Populations............................................................................... 21
Research, Evaluation, and Assessments ........................................................................................ 22
SSS Independent Evaluations.................................................................................................. 23
SSS PART Reviews and Annual Performance Report Data .................................................... 24
UB Independent Evaluations ................................................................................................... 25
UB PART Review and Annual Performance Report Data....................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service
The TRIO Programs
TS Evaluations......................................................................................................................... 28
TS PART Review and Annual Performance Report Data........................................................ 28
EOC Evaluations ..................................................................................................................... 29
EOC PART Review and Annual Performance Report Data .................................................... 29
McNair Independent Evaluations ............................................................................................ 30
McNair PART Review and Annual Performance Report Data................................................ 30
Training Evaluations................................................................................................................ 30
Tables
Table 1. TRIO Program Eligible Grant Recipients ........................................................................ 13
Table 2. Comparison of the Required Program Participant Demographics across the TRIO
Programs..................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 3. Comparison of the Required Program Activities for the Student Serving TRIO
Programs..................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4. TRIO Appropriations and Program Allocations: FY2006-FY2012 ................................. 16
Table 5. Number of TRIO Participants: FY2008-FY2011............................................................. 17
Table 6. Statutory Outcome Criteria for the Student-Serving TRIO Programs ............................. 19
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30
Congressional Research Service
The TRIO Programs
Background
Since its inception, the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 has had a focus on increasing the
postsecondary access and achievement of disadvantaged students, including low-income and
first-generation college students. The two major approaches are financial support or supportive
services. The Pell Grant program is the single largest source of federal grant aid supporting
primarily low-income postsecondary education students.1 The Pell Grant program provided
almost $33.4 billion to approximately 9.7 million undergraduate students in award year 2011-
2012. The TRIO programs are the primary federal programs providing support services to
disadvantaged students to promote achievement in postsecondary education.2 The TRIO programs
were so named by the 1968 HEA amendments, which consolidated a trio of programs that support
the educational achievement of disadvantaged students under one title. The number of TRIO
programs has since expanded to six, and they were funded a total of $840 million in FY2012.
Collectively, the TRIO programs are designed to identify qualified individuals from
disadvantaged backgrounds, prepare them for a program of postsecondary education, provide
support services for postsecondary students, motivate and prepare students for doctoral programs,
and train individuals serving or preparing for service in the TRIO programs. TRIO services
support the federal policy goals of secondary school completion, college preparation, college
enrollment, undergraduate completion, and graduate school preparation. There are six main TRIO
programs (in descending order of funding levels):
• TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) Program,
• TRIO Upward Bound (UB) Program,
• TRIO Talent Search (TS) Program,
• TRIO Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) Program,
• Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program, and
• TRIO Staff Development (Training) Program.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315) of 2008 made several changes to
the TRIO programs to increase accountability, rigor, and uniformity and to ensure that all
disadvantaged students had access to the programs. In October 2010, the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) released the final regulations to implement the HEOA TRIO program provisions.3
This report serves as an introduction to the TRIO programs. The initial section describes the
provisions of each of the programs, as reauthorized by HEOA. The subsequent section provides a
brief overview of recent funding and participation trends for each of the programs. This is
followed by a description of unique provisions and regulations that are common to the TRIO
1 For more information on Pell Grants, see CRS Report R42446, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education
Act: How the Program Works, Recent Legislative Changes, and Current Issues, by Shannon M. Mahan.
2 HEA Title IV-A-2-1; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-11 et seq.
3 Office of Postsecondary Education and Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.,
“High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, The Federal TRIO Programs, and
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program,” 75 Federal Register 65712-65803, October 26,
2010.
Congressional Research Service
1
The TRIO Programs
programs, highlighting key HEOA and regulatory changes. A concluding section presents the key
findings and results of recent program evaluations and assessments.
Pipeline of TRIO Programs
The federal TRIO programs provide support services and some financial assistance primarily to
low-income, first-generation college students to help them succeed academically and encourage
them to advance through much of the educational pipeline. The TRIO programs work together to
provide a pipeline of support services from secondary school through undergraduate and graduate
education. Each of the TRIO programs is designed to serve a different target population of
participants through a different level of education. The following subsections describe the
purpose, eligible recipients, program participants, program intensity and activities, and outcome
criteria of each of the TRIO programs and are ordered according to their sequence in the
educational pipeline:
• UB primarily supports the college preparation of secondary students,
• TS primarily supports the postsecondary enrollment of secondary students,
• EOC primarily supports the postsecondary enrollment of adult students,
• SSS primarily supports the completion of undergraduate education,
• McNair primarily supports graduate school preparation, and
• Training supports TRIO staff development.
For a comparison of eligible grant recipients, program participant requirements, and required
program activities, see Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, respectively.
TRIO Upward Bound (UB) Program4
The UB program is intended to provide intensive preparation and encouragement toward success
in education beyond secondary school. UB has three types of projects: Regular UB to prepare
secondary school students for programs of postsecondary education, UB Math and Science
Centers (UBMS) to prepare high school students for postsecondary education programs that lead
to careers in the fields of math and science, and Veterans UB (VUB) to assist military veterans to
prepare for a program of postsecondary education. Compared to Regular UB projects, UBMS
projects typically serve more students in their junior or senior years, serve students with stronger
math and science skills, and emphasize the summer component more.
Eligible Recipients
Grants or contracts are available to institutions of higher education (IHEs); public and private
agencies and organizations, including community-based organizations (CBOs) with experience in
4 HEA section 402C; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-13; 34 C.F.R. 645.
Congressional Research Service
2
The TRIO Programs
serving disadvantaged youth;5 secondary schools;6 and combinations of such institutions,
agencies, and organizations.
Program Participants
All participants must have completed eight years of elementary education or be at least 13 years
of age but not more than 19 years of age, unless the age and grade limitation defeats the purpose
of the program. In addition, all participants must be in need of academic support to pursue
education beyond secondary school successfully. At least two-thirds of the program participants
must be low-income, first-generation college students. The remaining one-third of Regular UB
and VUB participants must be low-income, first-generation, or at-risk of academic failure.7 The
remaining one-third of UBMS participants must be low-income or first-generation. The program
defines a Regular UB participant who has a high risk for academic failure as an individual who is
not at the proficient level on state assessments in reading or language arts; is not at the proficient
level on state assessments in math; has not successfully completed pre-algebra or algebra by the
beginning of the 10th grade; or has a grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for the
most recent school year. The program defines a military veteran who has a high risk for academic
failure as an individual who has been out of high school or dropped out of a program of
postsecondary education for five or more years; has scored on standardized tests below the level
that demonstrates a likelihood of success in a program of postsecondary education; or meets the
definition of an individual with a disability.
Program Intensity and Activities
Historically, UB has been a relatively high-intensity program. In FY2011 on average, Regular
UB, UBMS, and VUB projects expended $4,697, $4,836, and $2,280 per participant,
respectively.8 The Regular UB and UBMS per-participant spending is, on average, at least 10
times more than TS and EOC projects, which may also serve secondary school students.
The HEA requires each grantee to provide the following seven services:
• instruction in mathematics through precalculus, laboratory science, foreign
language, composition, and literature, as part of the core curriculum in the third
and succeeding years;9
• academic tutoring to enable students to complete secondary or postsecondary
courses;
• secondary and postsecondary course selection advice and assistance;
• assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and assistance in
completing college admission applications;
5 The HEOA amendments clarified that community based organizations were eligible to receive grants.
6 Prior to the HEOA, secondary schools were eligible in exceptional circumstances.
7 Prior to the HEOA, the remaining one-third of participants were either low-income or first-generation college.
8 FY2013 President’s Budget Request.
9 Although some grantees such as high schools may already offer these instructional services to UB participants and
other students, other grantees must include these instructional services as part of the core curriculum.
Congressional Research Service
3
The TRIO Programs
• information on student financial aid opportunities and assistance in completing
financial aid applications;
• guidance on and assistance in methods for achieving a secondary school diploma
or an equivalent or postsecondary education; and
• education or counseling services designed to improve financial and economic
literacy.
Per regulations, Regular UB and UBMS grantees must provide a summer instructional
component. Regulations also require UBMS grantees to provide participants with opportunities to
learn from mathematicians and scientists who are engaged in research and teaching and
opportunities with graduate and undergraduate science and mathematics majors.
Program statute lists permissible activities such as exposure to cultural events, academic
programs not usually available to disadvantaged students and mentoring programs, and programs
and activities designed specifically for special populations.10 Program regulations allow UB
grantees, under certain conditions, to pay tuition for courses that will allow participants to
complete a rigorous secondary school program of study and room and board for a residential
summer instructional component.
Regular UB and UBMS grantees may also provide such services as cultural or academic field
trips, mentoring, work-study, or stipends. The Regular UB and UBMS stipends may not exceed
$40 per month for the academic year component and may not exceed $60 per month for the three-
month summer recess, except that youth participating in work-study may be paid $300 per month
during the summer recess. Regular UB and UBMS stipends are for full-time, satisfactory
participants only.11
VUB grantees may provide such services as short-term remedial or refresher courses, stipends,
and assistance accessing veteran support services. The VUB stipend may not exceed $40 per
month and is for full-time, satisfactory participants only.
Outcome Criteria
All UB projects must annually report the extent to which they meet or exceed the goals approved
in their application for the following outcome criteria:
• the number of participants served;
• participant school performance, as measured by the percentage of participants
with a specified cumulative grade point average (inapplicable to VUB grantees);
• participant academic performance, as measured by the percentage of participants
scoring at or above the proficient level on state standardized tests in
10 Special populations include students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary education, students with disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths
students who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system, and other disconnected students.
11 Satisfactory participation is defined in regulations as having regular program attendance and performing in
accordance with standards established by the grantee and described in the application.
Congressional Research Service
4
The TRIO Programs
reading/language arts and math, or, in the case of VUB, receiving a better score
on a standardized test after completing the program;
• secondary school retention and graduation of participants, as measured by the
percentage of participants re-enrolling at the next grade level or graduating with a
regular high school diploma or, in the case of VUB, program retention or
completion;
• completion of a rigorous secondary school curriculum (see box below), as
measured by the percentage of current and prior participants expected to graduate
who actually graduate with a regular high school diploma and complete a
rigorous secondary school curriculum (inapplicable to VUB grantees);
• postsecondary enrollment of participants, as measured by the percentage of
current and prior participants expected to graduate or, in the case of VUB, who
have completed the VUB program and enrolled in an IHE within a specified
timeframe; and
• completion of a postsecondary degree, as measured by the percentage of prior
participants enrolled in an IHE within a specified timeframe who graduate with a
degree within a specified period or, in the case of VUB, completion of
postsecondary education.
Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study
A rigorous secondary school program of study is defined in regulations as a program of study that is
•
recognized as such for the no-longer-funded Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program (HEA section
401A);
•
an advanced or honors program established by the state;
•
any program in which a student successfully completes at least four years of English; three years of mathematics,
including algebra I and a higher-level class; three years of science, including one year each of at least two of the
fol owing courses: biology, chemistry, and physics; three years of social studies; and one year of a language other
than English;
•
a program identified by a state-level partnership that is recognized by the no-longer-funded State Scholars
Initiative;
•
any program for a student who completes at least two courses from an International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma
Program and receives a score of a “4” or higher on the examinations for at least two of those courses; or
•
any program for a student who completes at least two Advanced Placement (AP) courses and receives a score
of “3” or higher on the AP exams for at least two of those courses.
TRIO Talent Search (TS) Program12
The TS program also has the aim of high school completion and postsecondary enrollment. It
encourages students to complete high school and enroll in postsecondary education; helps
students apply for student financial assistance; and encourages older individuals who have not
completed secondary or postsecondary education to enter, or re-enter, and complete such
programs.
12 HEA section 402B; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-12; 34 C.F.R. 643.
Congressional Research Service
5
The TRIO Programs
Eligible Recipients
Grants or contracts are available to institutions of higher education (IHEs); public and private
agencies and organizations, including community-based organizations (CBOs) with experience in
serving disadvantaged youth;13 secondary schools;14 and combinations of such institutions,
agencies, and organizations.
Program Participants
All participants must have completed five years of elementary education or be at least 11 years of
age but not more than 27 years of age, unless the age and grade limitation defeats the purpose of
the program. Individuals over 27 may participate if they cannot be served by an area Educational
Opportunity Centers (EOC) grantee. At least two-thirds of the program participants must be low-
income, first-generation college students. For each new grant competition after 2010, the
secretary identifies the minimum number of participants and the minimum and maximum grant
award amounts in the Federal Register notice inviting applications.15
Program Intensity and Activities
Grantees must provide course selection advice and assistance, assistance in preparing for college
entrance examinations, assistance in completing college admission applications, information on
student financial aid opportunities, assistance in completing financial aid applications, and
guidance on and assistance in methods for achieving a secondary school diploma or an equivalent
or postsecondary education. Because TS is a less intensive program than UB, grantees need only
provide connections to tutoring and connections to services designed to improve financial and
economic literacy. The list of required services, as amended by the HEOA, requires TS grantees
to provide a fuller range of services and more intensive services than prior to the HEOA. The
average cost per TS participant increased from about $393 in FY2008–FY2010 to $434 in
FY2011, the first year of a new grant cycle under the HEOA.
Examples of permissible activities are exposure to cultural events, academic programs not usually
available to disadvantaged students, mentoring programs, tutoring, counseling, exposure to
careers or higher education, and related programs and activities designed specifically for special
populations.16 Program regulations permit grantees to pay for tuition, transportation, meals, and,
if necessary, lodging, for participants and staff in limited situations because TS is designed as a
low cost per participant program. Under limited circumstances, program regulations allow the TS
grantees to pay participant educational costs, such as transportation, meals, high school
equivalency programs, college applications, and college entrance examinations but not third-party
college entrance exam preparation.
13 The HEOA amendments clarified that community based organizations were eligible to receive grants.
14 Prior to the HEOA, secondary schools were eligible in exceptional circumstances.
15 Prior to the HEOA by regulation, grantees had to serve a minimum of 600 participants in each budget period.
16 Special populations include students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary education, students with disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths
students who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system, and other disconnected students.
Congressional Research Service
6
The TRIO Programs
Outcome Criteria
All TS projects must annually report the extent to which they meet or exceed the goals approved
in their application for the following statutory outcome criteria:
• the number of participants served;
• the secondary school retention of participants;
• the graduation of participants with a regular secondary school diploma in the
standard number of years;
• the graduation of participants having completed a rigorous secondary school
curriculum;
• the postsecondary enrollment of participants; and
• the postsecondary education completion of participants.
TRIO Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) Program17
Like Upward Bound (UB) and Talent Search (TS), the EOC program also supports high school
completion and postsecondary enrollment. EOC provides information on financial and academic
assistance available to individuals who want to pursue postsecondary education; provides
assistance in applying for admission to postsecondary education and assistance in completing
financial aid applications; and improves the financial and economic literacy of students.
Eligible Recipients
Grants or contracts are available to IHEs; public and private agencies and organizations,
including CBOs with experience in serving disadvantaged youth;18 secondary schools; 19 and
combinations of such institutions, agencies, and organizations.
Program Participants
All participants must be at least 19 years of age, unless the age limitation defeats the purpose of
the program. One prominent distinction between the TS and EOC programs is that EOC grantees
generally serve an adult population; however, TS may serve adults and EOC may serve
secondary-age students if the individuals cannot be appropriately served by the other program and
if the individual’s participation does not dilute the project’s services. In addition, at least two-
thirds of the program participants must be low-income, first-generation college students.
Program Intensity and Activities
EOC projects provide the least intensive services as measured by the $248 cost per participant in
FY2011.20 Unlike the other student-serving TRIO programs, EOC statutory provisions do not
17 HEA section 402F; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-16; 34 C.F.R. 644.
18 The HEOA amendments clarified that community based organizations were eligible to receive grants.
19 Prior to the HEOA, secondary schools were eligible in exceptional circumstances.
Congressional Research Service
7
The TRIO Programs
establish activities required of all grantees. Grantees may provide such services as academic
advice and assistance in course selection, tutoring, public information campaigns regarding
postsecondary education opportunities, and counseling and guidance. The EOC projects may also
provide programs and activities designed specifically for special populations.21 Program
regulations allow spending on transportation, meals, and, with specific prior approval of the
secretary, lodging under limited circumstances because the EOC program is intended to have a
low cost per participant. Program regulations also allow grantees to pay for college applications,
college entrance examinations, and examination fees for alternative education programs.
Outcome Criteria
All EOC projects must annually report the extent to which they meet or exceed the goals
approved in their application for the following statutory outcome criteria:
• The total number of program participants;
• The completion of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent by
participants that did not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent;
• The enrollment of secondary school graduates who were served by the program
in programs of postsecondary education;
• The number of participants completing financial aid applications; and
• The number of participants applying for college admission.
Prior to the HEOA, the secretary awarded PE points per regulations based on the number of
participants; participant demographics; the provision of assistance in applying for admission to,
or financial aid for, programs of postsecondary education; and the admission or reentry of
participants to postsecondary education.
TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) Program22
The SSS program provides support services to college students with the aim of improving their
retention, graduation rates, financial and economic literacy, and transfers from two-year to four-
year schools. SSS programs are also intended to foster an institutional climate supportive of
potentially disconnected students.23
(...continued)
20 FY2013 President’s Budget Request.
21 Special populations include students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary education, students with disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths
students who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system, and other disconnected students.
22 HEA section 402D; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-14; 34 C.F.R. 646.
23 Disconnected students include students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary education, students with disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths,
and students who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system.
Congressional Research Service
8
The TRIO Programs
Eligible Recipients
Grants or contracts are available to IHEs and combinations of IHEs.
Program Participants
All SSS participants must be enrolled, or accepted for enrollment, at the grantee and be in need of
academic support to pursue education successfully beyond secondary school. At least two-thirds
of participants must be either students with disabilities24 or low-income, first-generation college
students. The remaining one-third of participants must be low-income, first-generation college, or
students with disabilities. Also, at least one-third of the participating students with disabilities
must be low-income.
Program Intensity and Activities
In FY2006, SSS projects expended $1,347 per participant, on average.25 All TRIO SSS programs
must offer
• academic tutoring, directly or through other institutional services;
• course selection advice and assistance;
• assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations;
• assistance in completing college admission applications;
• education or counseling services designed to improve financial and economic
literacy;
• information on student financial aid opportunities and assistance in completing
financial aid applications; and
• assistance in applying for admission to, and obtaining financial assistance for
enrollment in, either graduate and professional programs to students enrolled in
four-year IHEs or four-year programs of postsecondary education to students
enrolled in two-year IHEs.
In addition to the required services, grantees may also provide services such as academic or
career counseling, exposure to cultural events, academic programs not usually available to
disadvantaged students, mentoring programs, temporary housing for homeless and foster care
youth, related programs and activities designed specifically for special populations,26 and student
aid stipends. Program regulations allow grantees to provide transportation and, with prior
24 For the purpose of all the TRIO programs and since October 2010, an individual with a disability is a person with a
disability, as that term is defined in section 12102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq.). Prior to October 2010, program regulations defined “individual with disabilities [as] a person who has a
diagnosed physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person’s ability to participate in the educational
experiences and opportunities offered by the grantee institution.”
25 FY2008 President’s Budget Request.
26 Special populations include students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary education, students with disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths
students who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system, and other disconnected students.
Congressional Research Service
9
The TRIO Programs
approval of the secretary, meals and lodging for participants and staff during approved
educational and cultural activities sponsored by the project. Program regulations limit
expenditures on professional development travel to no more than 4% of staff salaries.
Projects may provide student aid stipends to program participants who are in the first two years of
postsecondary education and who are receiving Pell Grants.27 If the needs of Pell-recipient SSS
program participants in the first two years of postsecondary education are fulfilled, projects may
also provide student aid stipends to Pell-recipient SSS program participants who have completed
the first two years of postsecondary education and who are at high risk of dropping out. Student
aid stipends must be greater than 10% of the total maximum Pell Grant award amount but no
more than the sum of the discretionary base maximum Pell award and add-on Pell award as
determined for each student.28 Grantees may not use more than 20% of their SSS award for
student aid stipends and must match at least one-half of the federal funds used for SSS student aid
stipends, in cash, from non-federal sources unless the IHE is eligible for Title III-A, Title III-B, or
Title V of the HEA. Title III-A, Title III-B, and Title V of the HEA provide institutional aid to
IHEs with lower than average educational and general expenditures and high enrollments of
needy students and to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs).
Outcome Criteria
All SSS projects must annually report the extent to which they meet or exceed the goals approved
in their application for the following statutory outcome criteria:
• The number of participants;
• Participant postsecondary retention, completion, or transfer from a two-year to
four-year IHE;
• The participants who remain in good academic standing;
• For two-year IHEs, the completion of a degree or certificate and the transfer to
baccalaureate degree-granting IHEs; and
• For baccalaureate degree-granting IHEs, the percentage of students completing
the degree programs in which enrolled.
Prior to the HEOA, the secretary awarded prior experience points per regulations based on
participant postsecondary persistence, participants being in good academic standing, participant
graduation from four-year IHEs or graduation from two-year IHEs and transfer from two-year to
four-year IHEs, and projects meeting the program administrative requirements.
27 For more information on Pell Grants, see CRS Report R42446, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education
Act: How the Program Works, Recent Legislative Changes, and Current Issues, by Shannon M. Mahan, pp. 4-12.
28 An SSS student aid stipend shall not be considered in determining that student’s need for grant or work assistance
under Title IV of the HEA, but the total amount of student financial assistance awarded to a student under Title IV of
the HEA cannot exceed that student’s cost of attendance.
Congressional Research Service
10
The TRIO Programs
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement
(McNair) Program29
The TRIO McNair program helps prepare disadvantaged college students for subsequent doctoral
study by providing research opportunities, internships, counseling, tutoring, and other preparatory
activities.
Eligible Recipients
Grants or contracts are available to IHEs and combinations of IHEs.
Program Participants
All participants must be enrolled in a degree program at the grantee. At least two-thirds of
students served must be low-income, first-generation college students. The remaining one-third of
participants must be from a group that is underrepresented in graduate education, including
Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native American Pacific Islanders.
Program Intensity and Activities
In FY2011, on average, McNair projects expended $8,511 per participant.30 All projects must
provide academic tutoring, academic counseling, summer internships that prepare participants for
doctoral study, opportunities for research or other scholarly activities, seminars and other
educational activities designed to prepare students for doctoral study, and assistance in securing
graduate program admissions and financial assistance. Projects may provide stipends of no more
than $2,800 annually and the costs of summer tuition, summer room and board, and
transportation to students engaged in summer research internships, provided that the student has
completed the sophomore year before the internship begins. Projects may also provide services
such as mentoring programs, exposure to cultural events and academic programs, and services
designed to improve financial and economic literacy.
Outcome Criteria
All McNair projects must annually report the extent to which they meet or exceed the goals
approved in their application for the following statutory outcome criteria:
• The total number of program participants;
• The provision of appropriate scholarly or research activities for participants;
• The acceptance and enrollment of participants in graduate programs;
• The retention of prior participants in graduate study, and
• The attainment of doctoral degrees by prior participants.
29 HEA section 402E; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-15; 34 C.F.R. 647.
30 FY2013 President’s Budget Request.
Congressional Research Service
11
The TRIO Programs
TRIO Staff Development (Training) Program31
The TRIO Training program provides training to existing and potential TRIO program staff to
improve project administration, operation, outcomes, and outreach.
Eligible Recipients
Two-year grants or contracts are available to IHEs and public and private nonprofit institutions
and organizations. Grantees may receive more than one award if the additional awards are
intended to meet different absolute priorities established for the competition. ED includes an
absolute priority in a grant competition to focus the competition on specific objectives or
activities, and each applicant must address the absolute priority to be eligible for funding.
Program Participants
Program participants are staff and leadership personnel employed in, participating in, or preparing
for employment in, TRIO programs and projects.
Program Intensity and Activities
Grantees provide annual training through conferences, internships, seminars, workshops, and
manuals designed to improve TRIO programs. Allowable costs include transportation and lodging
of participants, staff, and consultants and honorariums for speakers. Training is designed
specifically for new TRIO project directors and designed to cover specific topics such as
legislative and regulatory requirements, the use of educational technology, or strategies for
recruiting disconnected students. ED establishes absolute priorities to ensure the desired
populations and specific topics are covered in each grant competition. At least one grantee will
train new TRIO project directors. At least one grantee will cover the specific topics listed in the
application notice. ED also ensures that training is offered in every geographic region and
customized to local needs.
Outcome Criteria
Unlike the student-serving TRIO programs, there are no statutorily defined outcome criteria for
the Training program. Program regulations require all Training projects to annually report the
extent to which they meet or exceed the goals approved in their application for the following
outcome criteria:
• The number of participants served;
• Assisting participants in developing increased qualifications and skills to meet
the needs of disadvantaged students;
• Providing the participants with an increased knowledge and understanding of the
TRIO programs; and
• The applicant meeting all administrative requirements.
31 HEA section 402G; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-17; 34 C.F.R. 642.
Congressional Research Service
12
The TRIO Programs
Comparison of Key Features of the TRIO Programs
A comparison of program features and eligible participants across the TRIO programs follows.
Table 1. TRIO Program Eligible Grant Recipients
Educational
Student
Ronald E. McNair
Eligible Grant
Upward Talent Opportunity Support Postbaccalaureate
Staff
Recipients
Bound
Search
Centers
Services
Achievement
Development
Institutions of higher
X X X
X
X
X
education (IHEs)
Public and private
X X X
X
agencies and
organizations
Secondary schools
X
X
X
Combinations of the
X X X
X
X
above institutions,
agencies, and
organizations
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on statutory and regulatory provisions.
Table 2. Comparison of the Required Program Participant Demographics
across the TRIO Programs
>= 2/3rd of
Remaining 1/3rd of
Program
Age/Grade Range
Additional
Participants
Participants
Upward Bound
After eight years of
In need of academic
Low-income, first-
Low-income, first-
elementary education support to pursue
generation college
generation college, or
or 13-19 years of
education beyond
students
at-risk of academic
agea
secondary school
failureb for Regular
successfully
Upward Bound and
Veterans Upward
Bound or low-income
or first-generation
col ege for Upward
Bound Math-Science
Talent Search
After five years of
Over 27 years of age
Low-income, first-
NA
elementary education if Educational
generation college
or 11-27 years of
Opportunity Centers
students
agea
not accessible
Educational
>= 19 years of agea
Under 19 years of
Low-income, first-
NA
Opportunity
age if Talent Search
generation college
Centers
not accessible
students
Student Support
Enrol ed or accepted
In need of academic
Low-income, first-
Low-income, first-
Services
for enrol ment at
support to pursue
generation college
generation college, or
grantee institution
education beyond
students or students
students with
secondary school
with disabilities
disabilities
successfully
Congressional Research Service
13
The TRIO Programs
>= 2/3rd of
Remaining 1/3rd of
Program
Age/Grade Range
Additional
Participants
Participants
Ronald E. McNair Enrolled in a degree
NA Low-income,
first-
Underrepresented in
Postbaccalaureate program at grantee
generation college
graduate education
Achievement
institution
students
Staff
NA
Potential and current
NA NA
Development
TRIO staff and
leadership personnel
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on statutory provisions.
Notes: NA means not applicable.
a. The age and grade range requirements are applicable unless the age and grade limitation defeats the purpose
of the program.
b. A Regular UB individual who has a high risk for academic failure is not at the proficient level on state
assessments in reading or language arts; is not at the proficient level on state assessments in math; has not
successful y completed pre-algebra or algebra by the beginning of the 10th grade; or has a grade point
average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for the most recent school year. A veteran who has a high risk for
academic failure has been out of high school or dropped out of a program of postsecondary education for
five or more years; has scored on standardized tests below the level that demonstrates a likelihood of
success in a program of postsecondary education; or meets the definition of an individual with a disability.
Table 3. Comparison of the Required Program Activities for the
Student Serving TRIO Programs
Educational
Student
Ronald E. McNair
Upward Talent Opportunity Support Postbaccalaureate
Required Activity
Bound
Search
Centersa
Services
Achievement
Assistance with col ege entrance
X X
X
X
examinations and admission applications
Information on financial aid
X X
Xb X
opportunities and assistance in
completing financial aid applications
Academic tutoring
X
Xc
X
X
Course selection advice and assistance
X
X
X
Services to improve financial and
X Xc
X
economic literacy
Guidance on and assistance in methods
X X
for achieving a secondary school
diploma or an equivalent or
postsecondary education
Academic instruction
X
Summer component
Xd
Xe
Research and teaching and
Xf
Xg
opportunities
Seminars and activities designed to
X
prepare students for doctoral study
Academic counseling
X
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on statutory and regulatory provisions.
Congressional Research Service
14
The TRIO Programs
a. Educational Opportunity Centers’ statutory provisions do not establish activities required of al grantees.
b. Student Support Services’ grantees must provide assistance in applying for admission to, and obtaining
financial assistance for enrollment in, either graduate and professional programs to students enrolled in
four-year institutions of higher education (IHEs) or four-year programs of postsecondary education to
students enrolled in two-year IHEs.
c. Talent Search grantees need only provide connections to tutoring and connections to services designed to
improve financial and economic literacy.
d. Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-Science regulations require that grantees provide a summer
instructional component.
e. The Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement summer component is internships that prepare
participants for doctoral study.
f.
Regulations require Upward Bound Math-Science grantees to provide participants with opportunities to
learn from mathematicians and scientists who are engaged in research and teaching and opportunities with
graduate and undergraduate science and mathematics majors.
g. Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement projects must provide opportunities for research or
other scholarly activities.
Program Appropriations and Project Participants
The Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended, authorized a total of $700 million for the TRIO
programs for FY1999 and such sums as necessary for each of FY2000-FY2003.32 The
authorization of appropriations is intended to provide guidance regarding the appropriate amount
of funds to carry out the authorized activities of a program. The Higher Education Opportunity
Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315) of 2008 raised the authorization level to a total of $900 million for
FY2009 and such sums as necessary for each of FY2010-FY2014. Of the TRIO authorization,
McNair is authorized at least $11 million for each of FY2009-FY2014.
The annual discretionary appropriation is a single amount for all of the TRIO programs. The
appropriation provides budget authority to the U.S. Department of Education to incur obligations
and authorize payments for the specified programs. The annual appropriation increased from
$828 million in FY2006 to $853 million in FY2010 before declining to $827 million in FY2011
and $840 million in FY2012. The secretary allocates the discretionary appropriation to the
various TRIO programs. Table 4 displays appropriations and allocations over the latest 10 year
period.
Through the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (CCRAA; P.L. 110-84), ED received a
mandatory appropriation of $57 million for each of FY2008-FY2011 to make four-year awards to
186 unsuccessful UB applicants from the FY2007 competition that scored above 70.33 The
mandatory funding was appropriated, in part, to fund several historically Black colleges and
universities that lost their awards in the FY2007 competition.34
32 The program was not authorized from FY2003 to FY2008, but Congress continued to appropriate funds.
33 Funds in excess of those needed to fund UB awards were permitted to be expended on UB program administration
and technical assistance.
34 Kelly Field, “Changes Debated for Upward Bound,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 6, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
15
The TRIO Programs
Table 4. TRIO Appropriations and Program Allocations: FY2006-FY2012
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
TRIO Programs and
Spending
($ in millions)
Discretionary
Appropriations
Talent
Search
145 144 145 150 143 143 142 142 139 136
Upward
Bound
279 287 277 267 267 259 257 257 249 266
Veterans Upward Bound
NRa NRa NRa
12
13
12
14
14
13
13
Upward Bound Math-Science
34
33
33
32
34
31
35
35
34
44
Educational Opportunity
48
49
49
48
47
47
47
47
48
47
Centers
Student
Support
Services
264 263 278 271 272 284 302 302 291 291
Ronald E. McNair
42
42
42
42
45
45
47
48
46
36
Postbaccalaureate Achievement
Staff Development
8
5
5
3
3
3
3
4
4
1
Evaluation
2
1
1
1
2
0
—
1
0
2
Administrative expenses
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
4
4
3
Subtotal
827 833 837 828 828 828 848 853 827 840
Upward Bound (Mandatory)b
-
-
-
-
-
57
57
57
57
—
Total
TRIO
827 833 837 828 828 885 905 910 884 840
Source: U.S. Department of Education Budget Requests, FY2005-FY2013.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding, and table excludes funds al ocated to Dissemination Partnership Grants. Dissemination Partnership Grants supported
partnerships between TRIO grantees and institutions of higher education and community-based organizations that did not receive TRIO grant funds but served low-income,
first-generation students. Continuation grants were made under the Dissemination Partnership Grants program from FY2003 to FY2005 in the amount of approximately $4
mil ion annual y.
a. NR means not reported separately. Funding for Veterans Upward Bound projects is included in Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-Science totals.
b. The authorization for mandatory funding of $57 million for each of fiscal years 2008 to 2011 were made available by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act
(CCRAA; P.L. 110-84) to make four-year awards to 186 unsuccessful Upward Bound applicants for the FY2007 competition who scored above an average peer review
score of 70 out of 115 points. Any funds not needed for grants may be used for technical assistance and administration costs for the Upward Bound program.
CRS-16
The TRIO Programs
The TRIO programs served over 820,000 participants in each of FY2008-FY2010 (Table 5). In
FY2011, the TRIO programs served fewer than 790,000 participants as a result of a reduction in
the number of TS participants. The number of TS participants declined, in part, as a result of ED
reducing the TS allocation from $142 million in FY2010 to $139 million in FY2011 and
establishing $460 as the maximum cost per participant in the FY2011 competition in response to
the HEOA amendments, which increased the intensity of TS services. TRIO participation data
reflects the number of participants served by each program. The intensity of services received and
the duration of participation differs for each program and among individuals in the same program.
Table 5. Number of TRIO Participants: FY2008-FY2011
TRIO
Programs
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
Talent Search (TS)
363,300
361,179
359,740
319,678
Upward Bound (UB)
53,690
53,531
53,333
53,184
Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)
5,060
5,900
5,780
5,780
Upward Bound Math-Science (UBMS)
6,250
7,057
7,007
6,992
Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC)
195,795
194,795
194,445
192,196
Student Support Services (SSS)
198,940
197,439
204,181
202,921
McNair Post Baccalaureate (McNair)
5,067
5,439
5,430
5,419
UB Mandatory funding
11,489
11,598
11,192
11,078
Total
828,102
825,340
829,916
786,170
Source: President’s Budget Request, FY2010-FY2013.
Major HEOA Amendments to Common
TRIO Provisions
Several statutory provisions common to most of the TRIO programs were amended or added by
the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA; P.L. 110-315) of 2008. The HEOA made several
important changes to the grant making process, which impact the way the Department of
Education (ED) administers the programs and the way grantees implement their funds. Through
the HEOA, Congress also attempted to standardize the grant cycle and maximize the numbers of
disadvantaged students participating.
Required Program Activities
TRIO services support the goals of secondary school completion, college preparation, college
enrollment, undergraduate completion, and graduate school preparation. Prior to the HEOA,
statutory provisions identified only a list of permissible services for each of the programs. With
the exception of EOC, the HEOA defined a list of required services and a list of permissible
services for each program. The required services are expected to increase consistency across
grantees, and it is hoped that this will increase program effectiveness. All of the required services
must be made available to all program participants; however, not all participants may need nor
choose to avail themselves of the required services. In other words, the required services must be
offered by the program, but participants have the ability to choose which services they receive.
Congressional Research Service
17
The TRIO Programs
Grantees may offer services that are not listed explicitly as required or permissible as long as the
services further the purpose of the program. The required activities are described in the relevant
program sections above and presented for the student-serving programs in Table 3.
Prior Experience Points
The TRIO programs have always been designed to reward successful grantees with new grants. In
making new discretionary grants, ED employs peer reviewers who have relevant background and
expertise to read and evaluate grant applications. The peer reviewers score each application up to
100 points based on a set of selection criteria. For the student-serving TRIO programs, statutory
provisions have also required ED to consider each applicant’s prior experience of service delivery
by allowing prior grantees to earn additional prior experience (PE) points. Grants are then
awarded in rank order on the basis of the applications’ total score─peer review score plus PE
points.
PE points have been awarded according to the extent to which a student-serving TRIO program
grantee meets or exceeds the objectives in its prior application. Program regulations prior to
passage of the HEOA required that grantees propose ambitious but attainable objectives for the
outcome criteria that were defined in regulations. The outcome criteria were primarily based on
measures related to the number of participants served and their academic achievements or the
services of which they took advantage. The extent to which the grantee met or exceeded its prior
grant objectives determined how many of the 15 possible PE points applicants received in the
competition.
Prior to the HEOA during the FY2006 TS and EOC competitions, several applicants charged that
they were denied funding because ED did not apply PE points uniformly and according to its
regulations. ED’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that ED had improperly awarded PE
points by not complying with its regulations, awarding PE points to applicants that did not meet
minimum requirements, making execution errors, and changing the process.35 The OIG also
found that ED did not have a well-defined, transparent process for reviewing grantee performance
and did not hold grantees responsible for serving fewer participants than funded to serve.36
Congress through the HEOA desired to increase the rigor, quality, effectiveness, and
accountability of the TRIO student-serving programs by establishing outcome criteria on which to
base PE points for each of the student-serving programs (see Table 6).37 The Secretary and
applicant agree upon targets/objectives for each of the outcome criteria, as defined by statute and
refined in regulations and Federal Register notices. Statutory provisions also require that the
outcome criteria measure the quality and effectiveness of projects annually and over multiple
35 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, Review of the Office of Postsecondary Education’s
Awarding of Prior Experience Points in the 2006 Educational Opportunity Centers and Talent Search Grant
Competitions: Final Inspection Report, ED-OIG/I13I0001, Washington, DC, September 8, 2008.
36 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, Review of the Office of Postsecondary Education’s
Actions to Address Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers Grantees That Did Not Serve the Number of
Participants They Were Funded to Serve in Fiscal Years 2003-07, ED-OIG/I13I0007, Washington, DC, September 30,
2009.
37 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., December 19, 2007, H.Rept. 110-500.
Congressional Research Service
18
The TRIO Programs
years. By regulation, prior grantees that failed to serve at least 90% of the approved number of
participants do not receive any PE points.
Table 6. Statutory Outcome Criteria for the Student-Serving TRIO Programs
Educational
Student
Ronald E. McNair
Upward Talent Opportunity Support Postbaccalaureate
Outcome Criteriaa
Bound
Search
Centers
Services
Achievement
Number of participants served
X
X
X
X
X
Secondary school education
Secondary education enrol ment
X
Secondary school retention
X
School performance, as measured by
X
grade point average or the equivalent
Academic performance, as measured by
X
standardized tests
Secondary school retention and
X
graduation
Secondary school graduation with a
X
regular diploma in the standard number
of years
Completion of a rigorous secondary
X X
school program of study
Undergraduate postsecondary education
Assistance completing financial aid
X
applications and college admission
applications
Postsecondary enrol ment
X
X
Postsecondary enrollment in an
X
institution of higher education
Good academic standing
X
Postsecondary retention
X
Postsecondary completion
X
X
Degree/certificate completion at two-
X
year IHE and transfer to four-year IHE
Degree completion at four-year IHE
X
Provision of appropriate scholarly and
X
research activities
Graduate postsecondary education
Graduate school acceptance and
X
enrol ment
Graduate school retention and doctoral
X
degree attainment
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Title IV-A-2-1 of the Higher Education Act, as amended, and 34 C.F.R.
642-647.
Congressional Research Service
19
The TRIO Programs
a. The Secretary further refines the outcome criteria through regulations and through Federal Register notices
for each grant competition.
Some of the outcome criteria raised program expectations above those established in regulations
prior to the HEOA. For instance prior to the HEOA, TS outcome criteria focused on participant
numbers, participant demographics, high school retention and completion, and postsecondary
enrollment. The HEOA added criteria for the completion of a rigorous secondary school program
of education and postsecondary completion. Also prior to the HEOA, the Secretary awarded PE
points for UB based on the number of participants served; participants’ improvement on
standardized achievement tests and grade point averages (GPAs); UB program retention;
postsecondary enrollment; and postsecondary education success. The HEOA and regulations
revised the criterion of improvement on standardized tests to achievement on standardized tests,
revised the criterion of postsecondary success to postsecondary completion, and added a criterion
for participants’ completing a rigorous secondary program of education. Grant competitions for
FY2011 and beyond, following passage of the HEOA and final regulations, use the outcome
criteria established by the HEOA.
TRIO Training uses a different process for PE points, and it was not amended by the HEOA. ED
awards Training applicants based on the peer review score ranking compared to other applicants
that address the same absolute priority (see the section on Required Program Activities). ED uses
PE points in case of a tie in the peer review scores. PE points are awarded per regulations to prior
grantees on the basis of their established objectives on
• The number of participants served;
• Assisting participants in developing increased qualifications and skills to meet
the needs of disadvantaged students;
• Providing the participants with an increased knowledge and understanding of the
TRIO programs; and
• The applicant meeting all administrative requirements.
Application Review Process (Appeal)
Also in response to the OIG report finding that ED improperly awarded PE points and evidence
of other errors by ED in processing applications,38 the HEOA added provisions allowing certain
unsuccessful applicants to request a second review of their application, sometimes referred to as
an appeal. To be eligible for a second review, the applicant must have evidence of a specific
technical, administrative, or scoring error made by ED or a peer reviewer with respect to the
scoring or processing of a submitted application, and the applicant must have otherwise met all of
the application submission requirements. According to statute to the extent feasible based on the
availability of appropriations, the secretary will fund applications with scores adjusted as a result
of a second review if the scores are equal to or exceed the minimum cut score for the competition.
Per regulations, the secretary reserves a portion of the appropriation to award grants under the
second review. Under ED regulations, the only applicants eligible for a second review are those
that were not funded under the first review but that had an application score that could be funded
38 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Higher Education Opportunity Act, Conference Report to accompany H.R.
4137, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., July 30, 2008, H.Rept. 110-803 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 505.
Congressional Research Service
20
The TRIO Programs
if the secretary had reserved 150% of the appropriation actually reserved to fund under the second
review. During the FY2012 Regular UB competition, the secretary reserved almost $9 million
(3.5%) of the over $260 million allocation for the second review.
Award Amounts and Numbers of Program Participants
Statutory provisions establish a minimum grant award of $200,000 for the student-serving TRIO
programs, unless the applicant requests a smaller amount, and $170,000 for the Training
program.39 Per regulations for each new grant competition after 2010, the secretary identifies the
minimum number of participants and the minimum and maximum grant award amounts in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications.40
For example for the FY2011 TS grant competition, the secretary required all applicants to
propose serving at least 500 participants for no more than $460 per participant. New grantees
were eligible to receive an award of up to $230,000. Prior grantees were allowed a maximum
award of the greater of $230,000 or 103% of their prior award amount.
Prior to the HEOA, the statutory minimum award for UB was $190,000. The secretary regulated
the number of participants each project had to serve, unless the applicant demonstrated that the
project would be more cost effective and consistent with the objectives of the program. Regular
UB projects were expected to serve 50-150 participants; UBMS projects were expected to serve
50-75 participants; and VUB projects were expected to serve at least 120 participants. Thus, the
secretary essentially established a base cost per participant of $1,267-$3,800 for Regular UB,
$2,533-$3,800 for UBMS, and $1,583 for VUB.
Length of Grant Award
The student-serving TRIO program grants are awarded for a period of five years. Training grants
are awarded for a period of two years. Prior to the HEOA, student-serving TRIO program grants
were awarded for a period of five years to applicants scoring in the highest 10% and for a period
of four years for all other applicants. The HEOA allowed the secretary a one-time, limited
extension of grants to synchronize all of the grants on the same schedule. The secretary extended
the SSS projects scheduled to end in 2009 until 2010; the TS and EOC projects scheduled to end
in 2010 until 2011; and the UB and McNair projects scheduled to end in 2011 until 2012. These
extensions, however, did not synchronize the grant periods.
Multiple Grants for Different Populations
Some Members of Congress were concerned that ED regulations prevented the TRIO programs
from serving the maximum number of disadvantaged students.41 The HEOA added a provision
39 Prior to the HEOA, the statutory minimum award was $170,000 for SSS and Training; $180,000 for TS and EOC,
and $190,000 for UB and McNair.
40 Prior to the HEOA, regulations established a minimum of number of participants in each budget period for UB, TS,
and EOC.
41 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., December 19, 2007, H.Rept. 110-500.
Congressional Research Service
21
The TRIO Programs
clarifying that grantees may receive more than one award if the additional awards serve different
populations, target areas, target schools, or different campuses. The secretary publishes the
different populations for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application for each grant
competition. Applicants that propose serving a different population from the prior grant do not
receive PE points for the application serving a new population. Prior to the HEOA, this had been
allowed to varying degrees by program regulations.
In the FY2010 SSS grant competition, the secretary defined six different populations: (1)
participants who meet the minimum SSS requirements; (2) participants with disabilities
exclusively; (3) English as a second language (ESL) participants exclusively; (4) participants
receiving services in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields; (5)
participants receiving services in the health sciences fields; and (6) participants receiving teacher
preparation services.
Training grantees may receive more than one award if the additional awards are intended to meet
different absolute priorities established for the competition. ED includes an absolute priority in a
grant competition to focus the competition on specific objectives or activities, and each applicant
must address an absolute priority to be eligible for funding.
Research, Evaluation, and Assessments
Statutory provisions require the secretary to report annually to Congress on the performance of
the TRIO programs, including performance on the outcome criteria. In addition, the secretary is
expected to make grants to, or enter into contracts with, IHEs and other organizations for rigorous
evaluations of effective practices of the programs. The results of such evaluations should be
disseminated. Statutory provisions permit the secretary to use no more than 0.5% of the TRIO
appropriation for evaluations, the peer review of applications, grantee oversight, and technical
assistance. This set-aside for evaluation and other activities has contributed to a large body of
TRIO evaluations.
This section will highlight recent independent evaluations, ED analyses of grantee annual
performance reports (APRs), and ratings from the now out-of-use Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART). Between 2002 and 2008, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assessed
the effectiveness of federal programs through the PART. OMB reviewed the program’s purpose
and design, strategic planning, management, and results/accountability. PART was expected to
drive program improvement and inform federal appropriations and the legislative process.
Through PART, OMB rated not performing programs as ineffective or results not demonstrated
and performing programs as adequate, moderately effective, or effective. The results of the PART
reviews are included in this report because they informed some of the HEOA amendments, which
sought to improve program effectiveness.
Also in partial response to the PART, ED has published data based on APRs on program
performance measures and efficiency. The data provide grantee-level results for such educational
outcome measures as participant retention, enrollment, and completion. The data are expected to
inform improvements in ED program management and participant educational outcomes. ED
cautions against comparing results between projects since differences in incoming student
characteristics are not quantified. For the same reason, APR data does not allow simple
comparisons to outcomes for students who did not participate in a TRIO program.
Congressional Research Service
22
The TRIO Programs
Two issues emerge from the independent evaluations. It is difficult to establish a comparison or
control group that does not limit the applicability of the findings. For instance, the comparison or
control group may not have a similar risk profile to the TRIO participants, or the comparison or
control group receives a treatment that is similar to that of the TRIO participants. Support
services that mimic those provided by TRIO projects may supplement the TRIO services
provided to TRIO participants and may be provided to the comparison or control group. Another
issue is that the evaluations require many years for data collection─following students through
secondary and postsecondary education, analysis, and review. For example, an SSS evaluation
initiated in 1991 was published in 2010. The evaluation timeframe and legislative cycle are often
not in sync.
Finally in general, the evaluation results across a series of studies indicate that the TRIO
programs or similar services have a statistically significant positive effect on various academic
outcome measures of subpopulation(s) of participants and, in some instances, all participants. For
example, the recent SSS evaluation found that receiving supplemental services, including those
from an SSS project, was associated with higher postsecondary persistence and degree
completion. Also, for example, the recent Regular UB study found that the rate of postsecondary
enrollment and the likelihood of earning a postsecondary credential increased significantly for the
subgroup of participants who entered the program with lower educational expectations, although
the program “had no detectable effect on the rate of overall postsecondary enrollment” compared
to the control group.
SSS Independent Evaluations
ED contracted a six-year longitudinal evaluation of AY1991-92 freshman SSS participants and a
matched comparison group. Despite efforts to select a similar comparison group, the comparison
group students were less educationally and economically disadvantaged than the SSS participants.
The three-year longitudinal interim evaluation, published in 1997,42 indicated that “SSS showed a
small but positive and statistically significant effect on all three measures of student outcomes,”
grade point averages, retention rates, and college credits earned.
An ED contractor published a study of promising practices in 1997 based on five projects
identified in the aforementioned evaluation that had achieved positive, statistically significant
results with respect to GPA, retention, or both.43 The most common practices at the five
exemplary sites were providing a freshman experience, emphasizing academic support for
developmental and popular freshman courses, maximizing student contact, recruiting selectively,
providing incentives for participation, hiring dedicated staff, and having a prominent role on
campus.
42 Bradford Chaney, Lana Muraskin, and Margaret Cahalan, et al., National Study of Student Support Services: Third-
Year Longitudinal Study Results and Program Implementation Study Update, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC, February 1997.
43 Lana Muraskin, “Best Practices” in Student Support Services: A Study of Five Exemplary Sites. Followup Study of
Student Support Services Program, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, August 1997.
Congressional Research Service
23
The TRIO Programs
In 2010, the contractor published the final report of the six-year longitudinal evaluation.44 The
study concluded that postsecondary supplemental services are associated with better student
outcomes, generally. Participation in SSS as a freshman was associated with receiving more
supplemental services from other sources as well and with a “moderate” increase in
postsecondary persistence and degree completion. However, the study found that participation in
SSS as a freshman was not associated with a change in the rate of transfer from two-year to four-
year colleges. Receiving supplemental services from any source over the six-year period,
particularly in the later years, was associated with higher postsecondary persistence and degree
completion than receiving supplemental services from the SSS program during the freshman year
only. Models comparing the SSS participants to students in the matched comparison group found
that supplemental services were associated with a 12–19 percentage point increase in retention or
degree completion, a 8–10 percentage point increase in degree attainment, and a 16 percentage
point increase in transfers from two-year to four-year institutions. Models based on the number of
hours of participation in various services found that supplemental services were associated with a
15–24 percentage point increase in retention or degree completion, a 11–13 percentage point
increase in degree attainment, and a 10 percentage point increase in transfers from two-year to
four-year institutions. The specificity of the results to SSS are limited because freshman SSS
participants received supplemental services through SSS and other programs; the intensity and
types of SSS services varied considerably; some individuals in the comparison group received
supplemental services from non-SSS programs; and students must have persisted to receive
supplemental services.
The study also found that a positive effect on student outcomes was associated with certain,
specific supplemental services: home-based SSS programs, blended SSS programs, peer tutoring
provided by the SSS grantee, services for disabled students provided by the SSS grantee,
counseling, field trips or cultural enrichment, referrals to outside resources, services for the
disabled and for those with limited English ability, college reentrance counseling, and any recent
contacts with support services. Home-based SSS programs provide a home base on campus at
which students may receive a broader range of services. In contrast to home-based programs,
some SSS services were blended with other services on campus.
ED initiated another study of SSS promising practices in 2006. The study was scheduled for
release in 2009 but is not available as of August 2012.45
SSS PART Reviews and Annual Performance Report Data
A 2005 OMB PART review determined that the SSS program was moderately effective.
Moderately effective programs had ambitious goals and were well-managed but needed to
improve their efficiency or address other problems in the programs’ design or management in
order to achieve better results. According to the review, ED had not made grantee-level
performance data available publicly, had not fully met its performance goals, and had not
developed targets for its program efficiency measure. An earlier 2002 OMB PART review rated
44 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, National Evaluation of Student Support Services: Examination of Student Outcomes After Six Years,
Washington, DC, 2010.
45 Office of Management and Budget, TRIO Student Support Services Assessment, last updated on September 6, 2008,
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10000208.2005.html and President’s Budget
Request, FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
24
The TRIO Programs
the SSS program results not demonstrated. A rating of results not demonstrated (RND) indicated
that the program had not developed acceptable performance goals or collected data to determine
whether it was performing.
ED has published APR data on program performance measures and efficiency for 2005-2006
through 2009-2010.46 Based on the 2009-2010 APRs, 74% of participants who were enrolled in
the SSS project for the first-time as first-time, full-time freshmen persisted, graduated, or
transferred from a two-year to a four-year IHE by the beginning of the next year. The six-year
graduation rate was 42% for participants who were enrolled in the SSS project for the first-time
as first-time, full-time freshmen at four-year IHEs. The three-year graduation rate was 36% for
participants who were enrolled in the SSS project for the first-time as first-time, full-time
freshmen at two-year IHEs.
UB Independent Evaluations
The most recent evaluation report of Regular UB was a nine-year impact study contracted by
ED.47 The study analyzed randomly assigned treatment and control groups from nationally
representative projects from 1992 to 2004. The official results determined that Regular UB “had
no detectable effect on the rate of overall postsecondary enrollment or the type or selectivity of
postsecondary institution attended for the average eligible applicant.” Postsecondary enrollment
of the treatment group was 81% compared to 79% for the control group. However, the official
results found that there was a five percentage-point increase in Regular UB participants earning
postsecondary vocational certificates/licenses compared to nonparticipants, that the likelihood of
the subgroup of Regular UB participants who entered the program with lower educational
expectations earning a postsecondary degree/certificate/license increased 12 percentage-points,
and that each additional year of participation in a Regular UB project resulted in a five
percentage-point increase in the likelihood of receiving a bachelor’s degree.
A separate analysis of the study data was completed by the ED Contracting Officer’s Technical
Representative48 for the aforementioned study and published by the Council for Opportunity in
Education (COE)49 without ED endorsement. The study was intended to address a number of
perceived sampling design and non-sampling error issues in the official analysis.50 Examples of
these issues included allowing one of the 67 projects sampled to represent 26% of the Regular UB
46 U.S. Department of Education, “ Student Support Services Program, Performance, Past Program Performance
Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/performance.html.
47 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound on Postsecondary Outcomes Seven to Nine Years After Scheduled
High School Graduation, Washington, DC, 2009.
48 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) is responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording and
reporting on the technical performance of the contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COTR has primary responsibility
for monitoring and evaluating the contractor’s work performance and deliverables. If the COTR determines that
substantive changes are necessary, the COTR provides feedback to the contractor. Corrective actions based on the
COTR’s feedback may be initiated after negotiation between the contractor, COTR, and the contracting officer (CO)
who is appointed with the authority to enter into and administer contracts on behalf of the government.
49 COE is a nonprofit organization dedicated to furthering the expansion of college opportunities for low-income, first-
generation students and students with disabilities throughout the United States. COE is the major advocacy
organization for the TRIO programs.
50 Margaret Cahalan, Addressing Study Error in the Random Assignment National Evaluation of Upward Bound: Do
the Conclusions Change?, Council for Opportunity in Education, Washington, DC, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
25
The TRIO Programs
universe of projects and a considerable proportion of the control group population receiving
services similar to those offered through the Regular UB program, including participation in a
UBMS program. The alternative analysis found a 10.9 percentage-point increase in postsecondary
enrollment and a 50% increase in the probability of achieving a bachelor’s degree for Regular UB
and UBMS participants compared to the control group. However, the alternative analysis has its
own limitations. For instance, the results do not represent the Regular UB universe since a project
representing 26% of the Regular UB universe was removed from consideration. Additionally, the
treatment and control groups become unequally weighted because individuals were reassigned
from the control to the treatment group by the analyst in instances when the individual indicated
exposure to UBMS.
A component of ED’s UB study evaluated a random sample of 1993-1995 UBMS participants and
a comparison group of students with similar characteristics. Within four to six years of expected
high school graduation, the study found that UBMS student outcomes were positive, showing an
average 0.1 point GPA increase in math courses, higher enrollment in physics and chemistry
courses in high school, a 10 percentage-point increase in enrollment in more selective four-year
colleges, and a 6-12% increase in the completion of math and science bachelor’s degrees.51
Within seven to nine years of expected high school graduation, a second study found that
participation in UBMS was associated with increased enrollment in selective four-year colleges
and increased postsecondary degree completion, particularly in the social sciences.52
As part of the FY2007 Regular UB competition, ED included an “absolute priority” that would
allow it to initiate a random assignment, control group evaluation.53 The absolute priority set rules
regarding which students would be given priority for participation in the program and called for
an evaluation of the program using a control group of students who would not receive UB
services. The evaluation design required all grantees to be prepared to recruit sufficient students
for the control and treatment group and ensure the integrity of the control and treatment groups.
Some Members of Congress and stakeholders opposed as unethical the recruiting of a control
group of primarily low-income and minority students that would not receive services.54 In
addition, the selection criteria were vigorously opposed by many grantees who also questioned
ED’s authority, repudiated the effectiveness of recruiting a greater number of younger students,
and argued that serving more students who have a high academic risk for failure would change
the program’s focus and effectiveness.55 The TRIO UB “absolute priority” also required grantees
to begin serving students who had completed the 8th grade, but not the 9th grade. This priority was
established in response to the nine-year impact study (described earlier) that indicated that
postsecondary enrollment rates increased for participants who were served multiple years.56 The
51 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, Upward Bound Math-Science: Program Description and Interim Impact Estimates, Washington, DC, 2007.
52 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, The Impacts of Upward Bound Math-Science on Postsecondary Outcomes 7–9 Years After Scheduled High
School Graduation, Washington, DC, 2010.
53 The absolute priority was published by the Department of Education (ED) in the Federal Register on September 22,
2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 55447 et seq.).
54 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., December 19, 2007, H.Rept. 110-500 and Kelly Field, “Are the Right Students ‘Upward Bound?,’”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 17, 2007.
55 U.S. Department of Education, “Authority to Implement a Priority in the UB Program,” 71 Federal Register 55447,
September 22, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
26
The TRIO Programs
HEOA eliminated the absolute priority for the TRIO UB program and amended the evaluation
requirements to preclude excess recruiting and the denial of services as part of the evaluation
methodology.
In place of ED’s intended evaluation, the HEOA required a rigorous evaluation of UB identifying
practices that further the achievement of a program’s outcome goals to be completed by June 30,
2010. In 2010 through a contractor, ED initiated a design and feasibility study. If it is determined
that a rigorous quasi-experimental evaluation of UB effective program or project practices is
feasible, “A Study of Implementation and Outcomes in Upward Bound and Other TRIO
Programs” may be available in 2015.57
ED initiated a study of UB promising practices in 2006. The study was scheduled for release in
2009 but is not available as of August 2012.58
UB PART Review and Annual Performance Report Data
A 2002 OMB PART review determined that the UB program was ineffective. According to the
PART ratings, ineffective programs are not using tax dollars effectively and have been unable to
achieve results due to a lack of clarity regarding the program’s purpose or goals, poor
management, or some other significant weakness. The review determined that UB projects do not
typically target the students, those with lower expectations and at higher risk, for which the
program was most effective according to an independent evaluation. The review also found that
ED had not regularly conducted independent program evaluations, that program performance
results were not used to manage the program, that the awarding of PE points did not encourage
first-time grantees, and that the program had not achieved its performance goals.
ED has published data on Regular UB and UBMS performance measures and efficiency for 2004-
2005 through 2009-2010.59 The latest data show that the postsecondary enrollment rate of
Regular UB participants expected to graduate high school in 2008-2009 was 82%, and the rate for
UBMS was 90%.
In 2008, an ED contractor published an analysis of 2000-2006 academic progress data from UB
and UBMS APRs matched with the students’ federal financial aid files maintained by ED.60 In
(...continued)
56 U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, The Impacts of
Regular Upward Bound: Results from the Third Follow-Up Data Collection, Washington, DC, 2004.
57 U.S. Department of Education, “Notice of Submission for OMB Review,” 76 Federal Register 22084, April 20,
2011. For more information on the study design, see Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Evaluation Studies of the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, “A Study of Implementation and Outcomes in Upward Bound and Other TRIO Programs,”
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_trio.asp.
58 Office of Management and Budget, TRIO Upward Bound Assessment, last updated on September 6, 2008,
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10000210.2002.html and President’s Budget
Request, FY2010.
59 U.S. Department of Education, “Upward Bound Program, Grantee-level Performance Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/trioupbound/grantee-level.html.
60 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-
Science Program Outcomes for Participants Expected to Graduate High School in 2004–05, With Supporting Data
From 2005–06, Washington, DC, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
27
The TRIO Programs
2004-2006, Regular UB grantees served seven high schools, on average, and UBMS grantees
served 17, on average. Over half (59% and 55%, respectively) of participants stayed in their UB
or UBMS project until their expected high school graduation date. Of participants expected to
graduate in 2004-2005, 77% of UB participants and 86% of UBMS participants enrolled in
postsecondary education by 2005-2006. Postsecondary enrollment increased as the length of
project participation increased. For instance of participants expected to graduate in 2004-2005,
55% of one-year UB participants enrolled in postsecondary education by 2005-2006 compared to
91% of three-year or longer than three-year UB participants. For UBMS participants expected to
graduate in 2004-2005, 80% of less-than-one-year participants enrolled in postsecondary
education by 2005-2006 compared to 87% of one-year or longer than one-year participants. Of
the participants who enrolled in postsecondary education, 45% of participants served by two-year
IHE grantees enrolled at their grantee institution, 33% served by public four-year IHE grantees
enrolled at their grantee institution, and 11% served by private four-year IHE grantees enrolled at
their grantee institution.
TS Evaluations
In 2004, an ED contractor released the Final Report from Phase I of the National Evaluation.61
The report primarily described the program’s history, grant recipients, program staff, program
activities, and program participants through 1999. The evaluation also compared project
outcomes to the goals established by the individual projects. In 1998-1999, the majority (87%) of
projects achieved their secondary school graduation goal; 53% achieved their postsecondary
admissions goal; and 38% achieved their postsecondary re-entry goal. On average, 71% of high
school graduates enrolled in postsecondary education compared to the average goal of 75%.
Phase II of the National Evaluation culminated in a limited quasi-experimental study of 1995-96
ninth graders in Florida, Indiana, and Texas.62 The study, released in 2006, found that TS
participants applied for financial aid at rates 17, 14, and 28 percentage points higher than
nonparticipant comparison students in Florida, Indiana, and Texas, respectively. The study also
found that the rate of enrollment of TS participants in public colleges and universities was 14, 6,
and 18 percentage points higher for Florida, Indiana, and Texas, respectively, than for the
nonparticipant comparison groups. Postsecondary enrollment data was only available for public
colleges in the states of Florida, Indiana, and Texas.
TS PART Review and Annual Performance Report Data
A 2005 OMB PART review determined that the TS program was moderately effective. The review
determined that ED still needed to make grantee-level performance data available publicly, meet
all of its program performance goals, and develop targets for its program efficiency measure.
61 U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, Implementation
of the Talent Search Program, Past and Present, Final Report from Phase I of the National Evaluation, Washington,
DC, 2004, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/talentsearch/talentreport.pdf.
62 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, A Study of the Effect of the Talent Search Program on Secondary and Postsecondary Outcomes in Florida,
Indiana and Texas: Final Report From Phase II of the National Evaluation, Washington, DC, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
28
The TRIO Programs
ED has published data on program performance measures and efficiency for 2006-2007 through
2009-2010.63 According to the 2009-2010 data, 80% of college-ready participants enrolled in
postsecondary education and 89% applied for financial aid. College-ready participants are high
school seniors or the equivalent, high school graduates that have not enrolled in postsecondary
education or the equivalent, postsecondary dropouts, and potential postsecondary transfers. The
enrollment rate of college-ready participants was higher (83%) for participants not served by
IHEs than for participants served by two-year IHE grantees (78%) and participants served by
four-year IHEs (80%). Also, participants were more likely to enroll in a college of the same level
(two-year or four-year) as sponsored the TS program. For example, 57% of participants served by
two-year IHEs enrolled in two-year IHEs compared to the 60% of participants served by four-
year IHEs that enrolled in four-year IHEs.
EOC Evaluations
The evaluation of TS in 2004 included an appendix describing EOC history, grant recipients,
program staff, program activities, and program participants based on a 1999-2000 survey of
project directors and 1998-99 annual performance reports. Little data on student outcomes was
available. Of the 16% of EOC projects that reported a goal for secondary school completion, the
average goal was 58%, and the average completion rate was 93%. Of the 79% of EOC projects
that reported a goal for postsecondary admissions, the average goal was 49%, and the average
admissions rate was 51%. Finally of the 67% of EOC projects that reported a goal for
postsecondary re-entry, the average goal was 46%, and the average re-entry rate was 56%.
CRS has not been able to identify any rigorous evaluations of EOC as of the date of this report.
EOC PART Review and Annual Performance Report Data
A 2007 OMB PART review rated the EOC program results not demonstrated. The program
scored indefinitively because ED had not conducted a recent independent evaluation, had no
baseline or targets for measuring and achieving efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program
execution, had yet to analyze grantee level performance, and failed to meet some of its annual
performance goals.
ED has published data on program performance measures and efficiency for 2006-2007 through
2009-2010.64 According to the 2009-2010 data, 60% of college-ready participants enrolled in
postsecondary education. College-ready participants are high school seniors or their equivalent,
high school graduates that have not enrolled in postsecondary education or their equivalent,
postsecondary dropouts, and potential postsecondary transfers. The enrollment rate of college-
ready participants was higher (62%) for participants served by two-year IHE grantees than for
participants served by four-year IHEs (59%) or other organizations (61%). As in the TS program,
participants were more likely to enroll in a college of the same level (two-year or four-year) as
sponsored the EOC program. Specifically, 79% of participants served by two-year IHEs enrolled
63 U.S. Department of Education, “Talent Search Program, Grantee-level Performance Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/triotalent/grantee-level.html.
64 U.S. Department of Education, “Grantee-level Performance Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/grantee-
level.html.
Congressional Research Service
29
The TRIO Programs
in two-year IHEs compared to the 53% of participants served by four-year IHEs that enrolled in
two-year IHEs.
McNair Independent Evaluations
In 2008, an ED contractor released a report of educational and employment outcomes based on a
descriptive analysis of prior McNair participants.65 The report found that 73% of McNair
participants enrolled in graduate school within five to seven years of completing a bachelor’s
degree, compared to 30% of all bachelor’s degree recipients. The report also found that 44% of
McNair participants earned a master’s degree, 14.4% earned a doctorate degree, and 12.1%
earned a professional degree within 10 years of program participation. It is important to note that
the findings presented in the report were not the result of a random assignment study design and
that there may be differences in the propensity to enroll in graduate school between McNair
participants and all bachelor’s degree recipients.
McNair PART Review and Annual Performance Report Data
A 2006 OMB PART review determined that the McNair program was moderately effective. The
program was in the early stages of measuring and achieving efficiencies and cost effectiveness in
program execution, and the program had not made grantee-level performance data available
publicly.
ED has published data on a program performance measure for 2005-2006 through 2009-2010.66
On average, 70% of McNair participants who received their bachelor’s degree in 2006-2007
enrolled in graduate school within three years.
Training Evaluations
A major evaluation of the program has not been conducted, and ED does not publish grantee-level
performance results.
Author Contact Information
Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy
cdortch@crs.loc.gov, 7-0376
65 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, Education and Employment Outcomes of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program
Alumni, Washington, DC, 2008.
66 U.S. Department of Education, “Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, Performance, Grantee-
level Performance Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/programs/triomcnair/performance.html.
Congressional Research Service
30