The TRIO Programs: A Primer
Updated October 21, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R42724

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

Summary
The TRIO programs are the primary federal programs providing support services to
disadvantaged students to promote achievement in postsecondary education. The Higher
Education Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 90-575) consolidated a “trio” of programs under one
overal program. This report provides a description of the TRIO programs, authorized in Title IV-
A-2-1 of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended.
In FY2019, the TRIO programs were funded at $1.060 bil ion, and they served more than
800,000 secondary, postsecondary, and adult students. The TRIO programs have been designed to
encourage and prepare qualified individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds for 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 subsequent grants to prior grantees that have implemented successful projects and propose
high-quality projects before awarding applicants without prior TRIO experience.
There are now 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 aims to
motivate undergraduate students to complete their undergraduate education. The Ronald E.
McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program prepares undergraduate students for
graduate school. Final y, the TRIO Staff Development (Training) Program trains TRIO project
staff to be more effective.
Several key TRIO program provisions were amended by the Higher Education Opportunity Act
(HEOA; P.L. 110-315) in 2008. Two key HEOA amendments addressed 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 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 was the first to use the revised
application review process.

Congressional Research Service

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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 and supportive
services. The Pel Grant program is the single largest source of federal grant aid supporting
primarily low-income postsecondary education students.1 The Pel Grant program is estimated to
have provided approximately $29.631 bil ion to approximately 6.8 mil ion undergraduate students
in FY2020.2 The TRIO programs are the primary federal programs providing support services to
disadvantaged students to promote achievement in postsecondary education.3 The Higher
Education Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 90-575) consolidated a “trio” of programs under one
overal program. The number of TRIO programs has since expanded to six, and they were funded
at a total of $1.090 bil ion in FY2020.4
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 FY2020 funding levels):
 TRIO Upward Bound (UB) Program,
 TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) 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 al
disadvantaged students had access to the programs.5 In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education
(ED) released the final regulations to implement the HEOA TRIO program provisions.6

1 For more information on the Pell Grant program, see CRS Report R45418, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher
Education Act: Prim er.
2 U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Fiscal Year 2021 President’s Budget, Department of
Education Budget T ables, February 10, 2020.
3 HEA T itle IV-A-2-1; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-11 et seq.
4 U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Fiscal Year 2021 President’s Budget, Department of
Education Budget T ables, February 10, 2020.
5 T he Higher Education T echnical Corrections Act (P.L. 111-39), Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010 (P.L. 110-152), and Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L. 114-95) made more recent but technical or conforming
changes to the T RIO statutory provisions.
6 Office of Postsecondary Education and Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education,
“High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, T he Federal T RIO Programs, and
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program,” 75 Federal Register 65712-65803, October 26,
2010.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 18 The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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, funding instructions, 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 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,7 first-generation8 college students to help them succeed academical y 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 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) Program9
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

7 As defined in HEA for purposes of the T RIO programs, a low-income individual is an individual whose family’s
taxable income did not exceed 150% of the Bureau of the Census’ poverty level amount in the calendar year preceding
the year in which the individual initially participated in the project. In addition , in accordance with a November 7,
2018, ED email to T RIO project directors, the family’s income as reported on the most recently completed Free
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which is based on prior -prior calendar year information, may be used to
document income eligibility for the T RIO programs beginning in FY2019.
8 As defined in HEA and regulations for purposes of the T RIO programs, a first -generation college student is an
individual whose natural or adoptive parents did not receive a baccalaureate degree; an individual who, prior to the age
of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one parent and whose supporting parent did not receive a
baccalaureate degree; or, depending on the program, an individual who, prior to the age of 18, did not regularly reside
with or receive support from a natural or an adoptive parent.
9 HEA §402C; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-13; 34 C.F.R. §645.
Congressional Research Service

2

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

projects typical y serve more students in their junior or senior years, serve students with stronger
math and science skil s, 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
serving disadvantaged youth;10 secondary schools;11 and combinations of such institutions,
agencies, and organizations.
Program Participants
Al participants must have completed eight years of elementary education and 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, al 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.12 The
remaining one-third of UBMS participants must be low-income or first-generation. Program
regulations define 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. Program regulations define 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.13
Program Intensity and Activities
Historical y, UB has been a relatively high-intensity program for precollege students. In FY2019
on average, Regular UB, UBMS, and VUB projects expended $4,854, $4,818, and $2,337 per
participant, respectively.14 The Regular UB and UBMS per-participant spending is, on average, at
least eight times higher than TS and EOC projects, which may also serve secondary school
students.

10 T he HEOA amendments clarified that community-based organizations were eligible to receive grants.
11 Prior to the HEOA, secondary schools were eligible in exceptional circumstances.
12 Prior to the HEOA, the remaining one-third of participants was either low-income or first-generation college.
13 For the purposes of all the T RIO programs and since October 2010, an individual with a disability is a person with a
disability, as that term is defined in §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.”
14 U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Fiscal Year 2021 President’s Budget, Congressional
Budget Justification: Higher Education, p. S-99.
Congressional Research Service

3

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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;15
 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;
 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 usual y available to disadvantaged students, mentoring programs, and programs and
activities designed specifical y for special populations.16 Program regulations al ow UB grantees,
under certain conditions, to pay tuition for courses that wil al ow 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 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.17
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
Al UB projects must annual y report the extent to which they meet or exceed the goals approved
in their application for the following outcome criteria:

15 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.
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
who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system, and other disconnected students.
17 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: A Primer

 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
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 reenrolling 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 actual y 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 successful y 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) Program18
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

18 HEA §402B; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-12; 34 C.F.R. §643.
Congressional Research Service

5

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

completed secondary or postsecondary education to enter, or reenter, and complete such
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;19 secondary schools;20 and combinations of such institutions,
agencies, and organizations.
Program Participants
Al 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 years of age 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.
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.21 For FY2019, the average cost per
TS participant was $580.22
Examples of permissible activities are exposure to cultural events, academic programs not usual y
available to disadvantaged students, mentoring programs, tutoring, counseling, exposure to
careers or higher education, and related programs and activities designed specifical y for special
populations.23 Program regulations permit grantees to pay for educational costs, such as tuition,
transportation, meals, high school equivalency programs, and college applications, if necessary,
for participants.

19 T he HEOA amendments clarified that community-based organizations were eligible to receive grants.
20 Prior to the HEOA, secondary schools were eligible in exceptional circumstances.
21 U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Fiscal Year President’s Budget, 2010–2013, Congressional
Budget Justification: Higher Education.
22 U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Fiscal Year 2021 President’s Budget, Congressional
Budget Justification: Higher Education, p. S-99.
23 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
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: A Primer

Outcome Criteria
Al TS projects must annual y 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) Program24
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;25 secondary schools;26 and
combinations of such institutions, agencies, and organizations.
Program Participants
Al 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
general y 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 reflected by the $280 cost per participant in
FY2019.27 Unlike the other student-serving TRIO programs, EOC statutory provisions do not
establish activities required of al grantees. Grantees may provide such services as academic
advice and assistance in course selection, tutoring, public information campaigns regarding

24 HEA §402F; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-16; 34 C.F.R. 644.
25 T he HEOA amendments clarified that community-based organizations were eligible to receive grants.
26 Prior to the HEOA, secondary schools were eligible in exceptional circumstances.
27 U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Fiscal Year 2021 President’s Budget, Congressional
Budget Justification: Higher Education, p. S-99.
Congressional Research Service

7

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

postsecondary education opportunities, and counseling and guidance. The EOC projects may also
provide programs and activities designed specifical y for special populations.28 Program
regulations al ow 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 al ow grantees to pay for college applications,
college entrance examinations, and examination fees for alternative education programs.
Outcome Criteria
Al EOC projects must annual y 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.
TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) Program29
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
potential y disconnected students.30
Eligible Recipients
Grants or contracts are available to IHEs and combinations of IHEs.
Program Participants
Al 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 in at least one of the following two categories: students with disabilities31

28 Special populations include students who are limited English proficien t, 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 disc onnected students.
29 HEA §402D; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-14; 34 C.F.R. §646.
30 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.
31 For the purpose of all the T RIO programs and since October 2010, an individual with a disability is a person with a
disability, as that term is defined in §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.”
Congressional Research Service

8

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

or students who are both low-income and first-generation. Each of the remaining one-third of
participants must meet at least one of the following three criteria: low-income, first-generation, or
students with disabilities. Also, at least one-third of the participating students with disabilities
must be low-income.
Program Intensity and Activities
In FY2019, SSS projects expended $1,667 per participant, on average.32 Al TRIO SSS programs
must offer
 academic tutoring, directly or through other institutional services;
 course selection advice and assistance;
 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 enrol ed 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 usual y available to
disadvantaged students, mentoring programs, temporary housing for homeless and foster care
youth, related programs and activities designed specifical y for special populations,33 and student
aid stipends. Program regulations al ow grantees to provide transportation and, with prior
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 Pel Grants.34 If the needs of Pel -recipient SSS
program participants in the first two years of postsecondary education are fulfil ed, projects may
also provide student aid stipends to Pel -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 Pel Grant award amount but no
more than the total maximum Pel Grant award amount as determined for each student.35 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 nonfederal sources

32 U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Fiscal Year 2021 President’s Budget, Congressional
Budget Justification: Higher Education, p. S-99.
33 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
who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system, and other disconnected students.
34 For more information on Pell Grants, see CRS Report R45418, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education
Act: Prim er.
35 An SSS student aid stipend shall not be considered in determining that student’s need for grant or work assistance
under T itle IV of the HEA, but the total amount of student financial assistance awarded to a student under T itle IV of
the HEA cannot exceed that student’s cost of attendance.
Congressional Research Service

9

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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 minority-serving institutions (MSIs), which are
IHEs that general y serve high concentrations of minority students, have relatively low
educational and general expenditures, and enroll high proportions of financial y needy students.36
Outcome Criteria
Al SSS projects must annual y 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;
 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.
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair)
Program37
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
Al participants must be enrolled in a nondoctoral degree program at a grantee IHE. 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. The
following groups are underrepresented in graduate education: Black (non-Hispanic) persons,
Hispanic persons, American Indian persons, Alaska Native persons, Native Hawai an persons,
Native American Pacific Islander persons, and persons from groups documented by standard
statistical references or other national survey data as underrepresented in certain academic
disciplines and as accepted by ED.38

36 For more information on the HEA T itle III-A, Title III-B, or T itle V programs, see CRS In Focus IF10959, Overview
of Program s Supporting Minority-Serving Institutions under the Higher Education Act.
37 HEA §402E; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-15; 34 C.F.R. §647.
38 34 C.F.R. §§647.3(c)(3), 647.7.
Congressional Research Service

10

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

Program Intensity and Activities
In FY2019, on average, McNair projects expended $9,544 per participant.39 Al 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 annual y 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
Al McNair projects must annual y 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.
TRIO Staff Development (Training) Program40
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.
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. Al owable costs include transportation and lodging
of participants, staff, and consultants and honorariums for speakers. Training is designed
specifical y 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

39 U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education Fiscal Year 2021 President’s Budget, Congressional
Budget Justification: Higher Education, p. S-99.
40 HEA §402G; 20 U.S.C. §1070a-17; 34 C.F.R. 642.
Congressional Research Service

11

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

populations and specific topics are covered in each grant competition. At least one grantee wil
train new TRIO project directors. At least one grantee wil 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 annual y 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 skil s to meet the
needs of disadvantaged students;
 providing the participants with an increased knowledge and understanding of the
TRIO programs; and
 the applicant meeting al administrative requirements.
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
higher education
(IHEs)
Public and private
X
X
X

X
agencies and
organizations
Secondary
X
X
X

schools
Combinations of
X
X
X
X
X

the above
institutions,
agencies, and
organizations
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on statutory and regulatory provisions.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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
support to pursue
generation col ege
generation col ege,
education and 13-19
education beyond
students
or at risk of
years of agea
secondary school
academic failureb for
successful y
Regular 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
if Educational
generation col ege
education or 11-27
Opportunity
students
years of agea
Centers not
accessible
Educational
>= 19 years of agea
Under 19 years of
Low-income, first-
NA
Opportunity
age if Talent Search
generation col ege
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 col ege
generation col ege,
grantee institution
education beyond
students or students
or students with
secondary school
with disabilities
disabilities
successful y
Ronald E. McNair
Enrol ed in a degree
NA
Low-income, first-
Underrepresented in
Postbaccalaureate program at grantee
generation col ege
graduate education
Achievement
institution
students
Staff
NA
Potential and
NA
NA
Development
current 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.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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
X
X

X

assistance
Services to improve financial and
X
Xc

X

economic literacy
Guidance on and assistance in
X
X

methods 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.
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 enrol ment in, either graduate and professional programs to students enrol ed in
four-year institutions of higher education (IHEs) or four-year programs of postsecondary education to
students enrol ed 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.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 20 The TRIO Programs: A Primer

Program Appropriations and Project Participants
The Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended, authorized a total of $900 mil ion for FY2009 and
such sums as necessary for each of FY2010-FY2014. Of the TRIO authorization, McNair was
authorized at least $11 mil ion for each of FY2009-FY2014. The authorization of appropriations
was intended to provide guidance regarding the appropriate amount of funds to carry out the
authorized activities of a program. The authorization was extended through FY2015 under the
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), although the programs have continued to receive
appropriations.41
The annual discretionary appropriation is a single amount for al 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. An examination of appropriations over the
last decade shows that the annual appropriation general y increased each year from $827 mil ion
in FY2011 to $1.090 bil ion in FY2020, with the exception of a decline to $796 mil ion in
FY2013. With the increased appropriations, the actual FY2020 discretionary appropriation
exceeds by 12% the FY2011 inflation-adjusted appropriation level of $973 mil ion (in FY2020
dollars).42 The Secretary al ocates the discretionary appropriation to the various TRIO programs.
The FY2013 appropriations ultimately available to ED and other federal departments and
agencies included the application of an across-the-board rescission required by the Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) and the executive branch
calculations of the automatic spending reductions triggered by sequestration under the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of
2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240). Table 4 displays appropriations and al ocations 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 mil ion for each of FY2008-FY2011 to make four-year awards to
186 unsuccessful UB applicants from the FY2007 competition that scored above 70.43 The
mandatory funding was appropriated, in part, to fund several historical y Black colleges and
universities that lost their awards in the FY2007 competition.44

41 For more information on GEPA’s Contingent Extension of Programs, see CRS Report R41119, General Education
Provisions Act (GEPA): Overview and Issues.
42 T he inflation-adjusted level was calculated by CRS as the October 2019 buying power of funds in October 2010
using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
43 Funds in excess of those needed to fund UB awards were permitted to be expended on UB program administration
and technical assistance.
44 Kelly Field, “Changes Debated for Upward Bound,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 6, 2007.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 20
Table 4. TRIO Appropriations and Program Allocations: FY2011-FY2020
(Dol ars in mil ions)
TRIO Programs and Spending
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
Discretionary Appropriations

Talent Search
139
136
128
135
135
150
152
158
180
170
Upward Bound
249
268
250
265
263
270
312
356
343
353
Veterans Upward Bound
13
14
13
14
14
14
18
18
19
20
Upward Bound Math-Science
34
44
41
43
43
44
58
68
64
65
Educational Opportunity Centers
48
46
44
47
47
56
51
52
54
56
Student Support Services
291
290
282
282
297
328
304
304
335
374
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate
46
37
34
46
33
29
46
48
59
42
Achievement
Staff Development
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Evaluation
7
0
2
2
2
2
3
1
—
<1
Administrative expenses
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
5
Subtotal
827
840
796
838
840
900
950
1,010
1,060
1,090
Upward Bound (Mandatory)a
57
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total TRIO
884
840
796
838
840
900
950
1,010
1,060
1,090
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education President’s Budget, Congressional Budget Justification: Higher Education, FY2013-FY2021.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. <1 means the amount was greater than zero but too smal to round to one.
a. The authorizations for mandatory funding of $57 mil ion for each of fiscal years 2008 to 2011 were made available by the Col ege 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 could be used for technical assistance and administration costs for the Upward Bound
program.

CRS-16

link to page 22 link to page 20 The TRIO Programs: A Primer

Since FY2016, Congress has used the conference reports and committee prints that accompanied
the annual appropriations acts to variously instruct or encourage ED in expending the increased
appropriations levels and administering new grant competitions.
For example, in FY2016 and FY2017 Congress instructed ED to provide grantees in their second
to fifth award years (continuation grants) with increased funding over their prior-year award
levels. As a follow-up in FY2017 and FY2019, ED was urged “to avoid imposing additional
requirements as a condition for [continuation] grantees to receive” the increased amounts. In
FY2020, Congress “directed [ED] to al ocate any grant funding not needed for non-competitive
continuation awards or for programs up for re-competition in fiscal year 2020 to provide
inflationary increases for current grantees and to increase the number and size of new awards in
the Student Support Services grant competition.”45
As another example, during the review of FY2017 UB applications ED rejected at least 40
applicants for not following the application instructions, which specified font size among other
requirements.46 The statements that accompanied the FY2017 and FY2018 appropriations acts
encouraged ED to al ow the rejected applicants to correct their applications and instructed ED to
apply formatting requirements consistently thereafter.47 In response, ED reviewed the rejected
applications without requiring such applicants to correct them as instructed and rescinded its
policy al owing mandatory page limit and formatting requirements for grant applications in order
to establish consistent requirements.48
TRIO programs participation has varied from 758,000 to 831,000 during the FY2010-FY2019
period (Table 5). Despite the increase in appropriations since FY2016 (Table 4), the number of
participants has declined, in part as a consequence of congressional instructions to increase grant
amounts for continuation awards without requiring an increase in the number of participants.
Talent Search, a lower intensity program, serves approximately 40% of the participants with 16%
of the appropriation. The EOC and SSS programs each serve approximately one-quarter of TRIO
participants. TRIO participation data reflect 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.

45 Mr. Rogers, “Regarding House Amendment No. 1 to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 2029—Continued Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2016,” Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, vol. 161 (December 17, 2015), p. H10292;
Mr. Frelinghuysen, “Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendments on H.R. 244,” Explanatory
Statement, Congressional Record, vol. 163 (May 3, 2017), p. H3956; U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,
Departm ent of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending Septem ber 30, 2019, and for Other Purposes, Conference Report to
Accompany H.R. 6157, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., September 13, 2018, H.Rept. 115-952; and U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, committee print, prepared by H.R.
1865 / Public Law 116–94 [Legislative T ext and Explanatory Statement], 116th Cong., 2nd sess., January 2020, pp. 164-
165.
46 Goldie Blumenstyk, “Dozens of Colleges’ Upward Bound Applications Are Denied for Failing to Dot Every I,” The
Chronicle of Higher Education, April 26, 2017.
47 Mr. Frelinghuysen, “Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendments on H.R. 244,” Explanatory
Statement, Congressional Record, vol. 163 (May 3, 2017), p. H3956; and Mr. Frelinghuysen, “ Regarding the House
Amendment to Senate Amendment on H.R. 1625,” Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, vol. 164 (March 22,
2018), p. H2706.
48 U.S. Department of Education, “Secretary DeVos Announces Reconsideration of Upwar d Bound Applications,”
press release, May 24, 2017, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-announces-reconsideration-
upward-bound-applications; and Letter from Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, to Senior Department Officials and
Executive Officers, Policy Regarding Mandatory Form atting Requirem ents for Grant Com petitions, April 27, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

17

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

Table 5. Number of TRIO Participants: FY2010-FY2019
(Numbers in thousands)

Fiscal Year
TRIO Programs
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Talent Search
360
320
314
300
311
310
319
313
310
310
Upward Bound
53
53
62
59
61
61
62
70
71
71
Veterans Upward
6
6
7
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
Bound
Upward Bound Math-
7
7
10
10
10
10
10
13
13
13
Science
Educational
194
192
189
181
190
190
226
200
194
194
Opportunity Centers
Student Support
204
203
203
198
202
205
203
203
203
202
Services
Ronald E. McNair
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
Postbaccalaureate
Achievement
Upward Bound
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Mandatory)
Total
830
786
789
758
785
787
831
812
804
803
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education President’s Budget, Congressional Budget
Justification: Higher Education, FY2012-FY2021.
Notes: The numbers may represent a duplicative count of students.
a. The authorizations for mandatory funding of $57 mil ion for each of FY2008 to FY2011 were made available
by the Col ege 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 whose application score when averaged
across peer reviewers was above 70 out of a possible 115 points. Any funds not needed for grants could be
used for technical assistance and administration costs for the Upward Bound program.
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 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
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 18 link to page 24 The TRIO Programs: A Primer

grantees, and it is hoped that this wil increase program effectiveness. Al of the required services
must be made available to al program participants; however, not al participants may need or
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.
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. ED also calculates prior experience (PE) points
based on each applicant’s prior experience of service delivery.
Student-Serving TRIO Programs
For the student-serving TRIO programs, statutory provisions require ED to consider each
applicant’s prior experience of service delivery by al owing prior grantees to earn additional prior
experience (PE) points. Grants are then awarded in rank order on the basis of the applicant’s total
score─peer review score plus PE points.
PE points are 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.49 The OIG also
found that ED did not have a wel -defined, transparent process for reviewing grantee performance
and did not hold grantees responsible for serving fewer participants than funded to serve.50
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).51 The Secretary and

49 U.S. Department of Educat ion, 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
Com petitions: Final Inspection Report, ED-OIG/I13I0001, Washington, DC, September 8, 2008.
50 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 Num ber of
Participants They Were Funded to Serve in Fiscal Years 2003 -07, ED-OIG/I13I0007, Washington, DC, September 30,
2009.
51 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

19

link to page 25 The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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 annual y and over multiple
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
X

by 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 col ege admission
applications
Postsecondary enrol ment

X
X

Postsecondary enrol ment in an
X

institution of higher education
Good academic standing

X

Postsecondary retention

X

Postsecondary completion
X
X

Degree/certificate completion at

X

two-year IHE and transfer to four-
year IHE
Degree completion at four-year IHE

X

Provision of appropriate scholarly

X
and research activities
Graduate postsecondary education
Graduate school acceptance and

X
enrol ment
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 25 link to page 22 The TRIO Programs: A Primer

Educational
Student
Ronald E. McNair
Upward
Talent
Opportunity
Support
Postbaccalaureate
Outcome Criteriaa
Bound
Search
Centers
Services
Achievement
Graduate school retention and

X
doctoral 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.
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
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 outcome criteria.
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,52 the HEOA added provisions al owing 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 al of
the application submission requirements. According to statute to the extent feasible based on the
availability of appropriations, the Secretary wil 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
if the Secretary had reserved 150% of the appropriation actual y reserved to fund under the

52 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

21

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

second review. During the FY2012 Regular UB competition, the Secretary reserved almost $9
mil ion (3.5%) of the over $260 mil ion al ocation for the second review. In the FY2015 SSS
competition, the Secretary awarded approximately $270 mil ion to 968 institutions in
approximately July 2015, and following the second review awarded an additional $23.4 mil ion to
more than 100 institutions in approximately August 2015.
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 smal er amount, and $170,000 for the Training
program.53 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.54
For example, for the FY2011 TS grant competition, the Secretary required al 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 al owed a maximum
award of the greater of $230,000 or 103% of their prior award amount.
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 al other applicants. The HEOA al owed the Secretary a one-time, limited
extension of grants to synchronize al 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.55 The HEOA added a provision
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
al owed 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)

53 Prior to the HEOA, the statutory minimum award was $170,000 for SSS and T raining; $180,000 for T S and EOC,
and $190,000 for UB and McNair.
54 Prior to the HEOA, regulations established a minimum of number of participants in each budget period for UB, T S,
and EOC.
55 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

22

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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 and Evaluation
Statutory provisions require the Secretary to report annual y 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 wil highlight recent independent evaluations and ED analyses of grantee annual
performance reports (APRs). ED published data based on APRs for 2013-2014 and earlier. The
data provide grantee-level results for program performance measures such 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 do not al ow simple comparisons to outcomes for students who
did not participate in a TRIO program.
As a result of issues with independent, rigorous comparative evaluations, ED has not published
such an evaluation since 2010. One issue is the difficulty in establishing a comparison or control
group and ensuring the control 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.
Final y, in general, the evaluation results across a series of studies indicate that the TRIO
programs or similar services have a statistical y significant positive effect on various academic
outcome measures of subpopulation(s) of participants and, in some instances, al 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 overal postsecondary enrollment” compared
to the control group.
Congressional Research Service

23

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

SSS Independent Evaluations
AY1991-1992 Freshman SSS Participants
ED contracted a six-year longitudinal evaluation of AY1991-1992 freshman SSS participants and
a matched comparison group. Despite efforts to select a similar comparison group, the
comparison group students were less educational y and economical y disadvantaged than the SSS
participants. The three-year longitudinal interim evaluation, published in 1997,56 indicated that
“SSS showed a smal but positive and statistical y significant effect on al 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, statistical y significant
results with respect to GPA, retention, or both.57 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.
In 2010, the contractor published the final report of the six-year longitudinal evaluation.58 The
study concluded that postsecondary supplemental services are associated with better student
outcomes, general y. Participation in SSS as a freshman was associated with receiving more
supplemental services from other sources as wel 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, an 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, an 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 is 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

56 Bradford Chaney, Lana Muraskin, and Margaret Cahalan, et al., National Study of Student Support Services: Third-
Year Longitudinal Study Results and Program Im plem entation Study Update , U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC, February 1997.
57 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.
58 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, National Evaluation of Student Support Services: Exam ination of Student Outcomes After Six Years,
Washington, DC, 2010.
Congressional Research Service

24

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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.
2006 SSS Promising Practices
ED initiated another study of SSS promising practices in 2006. The study did not meet
methodological standards and thus wil not be released.59
AY2007-2008 Freshman SSS Participants
In August 2015, ED released a study of postsecondary persistence and completion rates,
comparing students who first participated in the SSS program as col ege freshmen in AY2007-
2008 to a sample of students who began college during AY2003-2004 and who were either low-
income, first-generation college students, or students with disabilities who also demonstrated
some form of academic need.60 The sample of AY2003-2004 beginning college students was
drawn from ED’s 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:04/09).61
Because of the difference in the timeframe of the students and resulting differences in student and
institutional characteristics, the persistence and completion outcomes for the AY2007-2008 SSS
participants and AY2003-2004 BPS:04/09 cannot be compared to determine the effectiveness of
SSS.62
Overal this study noted that “SSS participants appeared to have higher persistence and
completion rates in postsecondary education at both two-year [and] four-year institutions.”63 For
students who first enrolled in two-year institutions, the SSS persistence rate (persistence includes
continued enrollment or certificate/degree completion) to the following year was 86% and the
three-year completion rate (completion includes transfer to a four-year institution or
certificate/degree completion) was 41%. For SSS students who first enrolled in four-year
institutions, the persistence rate to the following year was 93% and the six-year bachelor’s degree
completion rate was 48%. BPS:04/09 sample students who first enrolled in two-year institutions
had a 65% persistence rate to the following year and a 21% three-year completion rate. Among
BPS:04/09 sample students who first enrolled in four-year institutions, the persistence rate to the
following year was 79% and the six-year bachelor’s degree completion rate was 40%.

59 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, FY2014.
60 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Student Service, Persistence and Completion in
Postsecondary Education of Participants in the TRIO Student Support Services Program , Washington, DC, 2015.
61 BPS follows a cohort of students who are enrolling in postsecondary education for the first time. T he study collects
data on student persistence in, and completion of, postsecondary education programs, their transition to employment,
demographic characteristics, and changes over time in their goals, marital status, income, and debt, among other
indicators. BPS:04/09 initially surveyed students at the end of their first academic year (2003 -2004) and then in follow-
up surveys at the end of their third (2005-2006) and sixth (2008-2009) years after entry in to postsecondary education.
62 T here are additional limitations that prevent using this study to examine program effects.
63 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Student Service, Persistence and Completion in
Postsecondary Education of Participants in the TRIO Student Support Services Program , Washington, DC, 2015.
Congressional Research Service

25

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

SSS Annual Performance Report Data
ED has published APR data on program performance measures and efficiency for 2005-2006
through 2013-2014.64 Based on the 2010-2011 through 2013-2014 APRs, approximately 87% 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 approximately 50% 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/transfer rate was approximately 40% 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.65 The study analyzed randomly assigned treatment and control groups from national y
representative projects from 1992 to 2004. The official results determined that Regular UB “had
no detectable effect on the rate of overal 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 by 12 percentage points,
and that each additional year of participation in a Regular UB project resulted in a 5 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
Representative66 for the aforementioned study and published by the Council for Opportunity in
Education (COE)67 without ED endorsement. The study was intended to address a number of
perceived sampling design and nonsampling error issues in the official analysis.68 Examples of
these issues included al owing one of the 67 projects sampled to represent 26% of the Regular UB
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

64 U.S. Department of Education, “Student Support Services Program, Performance, Past Program Performance
Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/performance.html.
65 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, The Im pacts of Regular Upward Bound on Postsecondary Outcom es Sev en to Nine Years After Scheduled
High School Graduation, Washington, DC, 2009.
66 T he Contracting Officer’s T echnical Representative (COT R) is responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording and
reporting on the technical performance of the contractor on a day-to-day basis. T he COT R has primary responsibility
for monitoring and evaluating the contractor’s work performance and deliverables. If the COT R determines that
substantive changes are necessary, the COT R provides feedback to the contractor. Corrective actions based on the
COT R’s feedback may be initiated after negotiation between the contractor, COT R, and the contracting officer (CO)
who is appointed with the authority to enter into and administer contracts on behalf of the government.
67 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 T RIO programs.
68 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

26

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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. Additional y, the
treatment and control groups become unequal y 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.69 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.70
As part of the FY2007 Regular UB competition, ED included an “absolute priority” that would
al ow it to initiate a random assignment, control group evaluation.71 The absolute priority set rules
regarding which students would be given priority for participation in the program and cal ed for
an evaluation of the program using a control group of students who would not receive UB
services. The evaluation design required al grantees to be prepared to recruit suffic ient 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.72 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.73 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.74 The
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.

69 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 Im pact Estim ates, Washington, DC, 2007.
70 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, The Im pacts of Upward Bound Math-Science on Postsecondary Outcom es 7-9 Years After Scheduled High
School Graduation, Washington, DC, 2010.
71 T he absolute priority was published by the Department of Education (ED) in the Federal Register on September 22,
2006 (71 Federal Register 55447 et seq.).
72 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.
73 U.S. Department of Education, “Authority to Implement a Priority in the UB Program,” 71 Federal Register 55447,
September 22, 2006.
74 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.
Congressional Research Service

27

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

ED initiated a study of UB promising practices in 2006. The study did not meet methodological
standards and thus wil not be released.75
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. ED initiated a five-year, $3.8 mil ion study entitled “A Study of Implementation and
Outcomes in Upward Bound and Other TRIO Programs.”76
 ED determined that statutory limitations on the study design would make it
difficult to meet ED’s program evaluation standards and would prevent achieving
“reliable results” from a quasiexperimental evaluation of the efficacy of various
implementation strategies in UB.77
 In February 2016, an ED contractor concluded the study of common UB program
and project practices.78 The resulting survey report of Upward Bound directors
indicated the types of services that programs provide and when, where, and how
the services are delivered. Four of UB’s core services had predominant
approaches present in projects across the board: for academic instruction
requirements, 58% of projects indicated a focus on noncredit courses; for tutoring
requirements, 69% indicated a focus on homework help; for college exposure
requirements, 56% indicated a focus on assistance in researching colleges; and
for college application assistance requirements, 50% indicated a focus on
providing guidance to complete applications.
In 2014, 194 UB projects volunteered to participate in the “Study of Enhanced College Advising
in Upward Bound” to determine whether enhanced advising could increase the enrollment of
disadvantaged students in colleges that match their academic credentials. Half of the projects
were randomly assigned to participate in Find the Fit, the enhanced advising system, while the
other half provided their regular services. Find the Fit provides personalized college planning
materials, personalized text or email messages, and training for UB advisors. The study tracks
almost 4,500 rising 2015-2016 seniors through 2018. The first report issued in 2018 found the
following:79
 A higher and statistical y significant proportion of Find the Fit participants (53%)
applied to four or more colleges compared to the control group (44%).
 A higher and statistical y significant proportion of Find the Fit participants (48%)
applied to a more selective college ranked as at least very competitive compared
to the control group (38%). The Barron’s Admissions Competitiveness Index

75 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, FY2014.
76 Department of Education, “A Study of Implementation and Outcomes in Upward Bound and Other T RIO Programs,”
as downloaded on March 15, 2018, from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_trio.asp.
77 FY2010 President’s Budget Request and emails from ED’s National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance to CRS dated February 15-20, 2018.
78 S.R. Epps, R.H. Jackson, R.O. Olsen, A. Shivji, and R. Roy, Upward Bound at 50: Reporting on Implementation
Practices Today (NCEE 2017-4005), Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education , 2016.
79 Martinez, A., Linkow, T ., Miller, H., & Parsad, A. (2018). Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound:
Im pacts on Steps Toward College (NCEE 2018-4015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Congressional Research Service

28

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

ranks four-year colleges by selectivity levels—“most competitive,” “highly
competitive,” “very competitive,” “competitive,” “somewhat competitive,”
“noncompetitive,” and “special/missing.”
 While there was no statistical difference in the overal proportion of Find the Fit
and control group participants that completed the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) by March 15, a higher and statistical y significant
proportion of Find the Fit participants who were Black (64%) or had college
entrance exam scores in the lowest quartile (60%) completed the FAFSA by
March 15 compared to their peers in the control group (54% and 52%,
respectively).
The evaluation is currently ongoing and estimated to cost $6.8 mil ion through September 2023,
and the final report is expected in 2021.80
UB Annual Performance Report Data
ED has published data on Regular UB and UBMS performance measures for 2004-2005 through
2013-2014.81 The 2009-2010 through 2012-2013 APRs show that the postsecondary enrollment
rate of Regular UB participants expected to graduate high school in the prior year was
approximately 82%, and the rate for UBMS was approximately 89%. In 2013-2014, ED modified
the postsecondary enrollment calculation methodology to report that 85% and 87% of participants
in Regular UB and UBMS, respectively, who graduated from high school in the prior year with a
regular diploma enrolled in postsecondary education in 2013-2014.
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.82 In
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.

80 U.S. Department of Educat ion, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, “ Effectiveness of Promising Strategies in Federal College Access Programs: Study of Enhanced
Advising to Improve College Fit in Upward Bound,” downloaded October 9, 2020, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/
evaluation/pathways_upward.asp.
81 U.S. Department of Education, “Upward Bound Program, Grantee-level Performance Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/trioupbound/grantee-level.html.
82 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-
Science Program Outcom es for Participants Expected to Graduate High School in 2004-05, With Supporting Data
From 2005-06, Washington, DC, 2008.
Congressional Research Service

29

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

TS Evaluations
In 2004, an ED contractor released the Final Report from Phase I of the National Evaluation.83
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 reentry 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 quasiexperimental study of 1995-1996
ninth graders in Florida, Indiana, and Texas.84 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 were only available for public
colleges in the states of Florida, Indiana, and Texas.
TS Annual Performance Report Data
ED has published data on program performance measures and efficiency for 2006-2007 through
2013-2014.85 Since 2011-2012, approximately 84% of high school seniors applied for financial
aid during their senior year.86 Also since 2011-2012, approximately 80% of college-ready
participants enrolled in postsecondary education by the fal term following high school graduation
or by the next academic term if the institution deferred the participant’s enrollment. College-
ready participants are high school seniors who received a regular diploma or alternative award
(e.g., certificate of attendance). 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 since 2011-2012,
approximately 55% of participants served by two-year IHEs enrolled in two-year IHEs compared
to the 62% of participants served by four-year IHEs that enrolled in four-year IHEs. As a
comparison since 2011-2012, approximately 54% of participants served by secondary schools and
CBOs 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 1998-1999 annual performance reports. Few data on student outcomes were
available. Of the 16% of EOC projects that reported a goal for secondary school completion, the

83 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.
84 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 Outcom es in Florida,
Indiana and Texas: Final Report From Phase II of the National Evaluation , Washington, DC, 2006.
85 U.S. Department of Education, “Talent Search Program, Grantee-level Performance Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/
programs/triotalent/grantee-level.html.
86 T he methodology for reporting data changed starting in 2011 -2012.
Congressional Research Service

30

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

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%. Final y, of the 67% of EOC projects that reported a goal for
postsecondary reentry, the average goal was 46%, and the average reentry rate was 56%.
CRS has not been able to identify any rigorous evaluations of EOC as of the date of this report.
EOC Annual Performance Report Data
ED has published data on program performance measures for 2006-2007 through 2013-2014.87
Since 2011-2012, 60% of college-ready participants enrolled in postsecondary education, and of
those postsecondary enrollees, approximately 68% enrolled in two-year IHEs.88 College-ready
participants are participants who received a high school diploma during the year or already had
a high school diploma before receiving program services. The enrollment rate of college-ready
participants was higher (63%) for participants served by two-year IHE grantees than for
participants served by four-year IHEs (56%) or other organizations (59%).
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.89 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 al 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; there
may be differences in the propensity to enroll in graduate school between McNair participants
and al bachelor’s degree recipients.
McNair Annual Performance Report Data
ED has published program performance measure data for cohorts of students graduating from
college in AY2005-2006 through AY2013-2014.90 On average, since the 2009-2010 cohort, 70%
of McNair participants who received their bachelor’s degree 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.

87 U.S. Department of Education, “Grantee-level Performance Results,” http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/grantee-
level.html.
88 T he methodology for reporting data changed starting in 2011 -2012.
89 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies
Service, Education and Em ploym ent Outcom es of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievem ent Program
Alum ni, Washington, DC, 2008.
90 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

31

The TRIO Programs: A Primer

Author Information

Cassandria Dortch

Specialist in Education Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R42724 · VERSION 14 · UPDATED
32