Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues

Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues

ȱ
›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ
œœžŽœȱ
Ž??›Ž¢ȱ ǯȱžŽ—£’ȱ
™ŽŒ’Š•’œ?ȱ’—ȱ?žŒŠ?’˜—ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
Š—žŠ›¢ȱşǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ?˜Ÿȱ
řŗŜŘŘȱ
ȱŽ™˜›?ȱ?˜›ȱ˜—?›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
The Higher Education Act (HEA) is the source of over $52 billion in federally supported grant,
loan, and work-study assistance to help meet the costs of postsecondary education. The HEA also
supports several programs that complement this student aid by providing services and incentives
to disadvantaged students to help increase their secondary or postsecondary educational
attainment. Foremost among these programs are the federal Trio programs and the Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP).
Each program is administered by the U.S. Department of Education and support many similar
activities and objectives. Trio is primarily intended for individuals who are low-income, first-
generation college students, or are disabled—the precise population differs among the various
programs. GEAR UP directs its support to individuals from low-income elementary and
secondary schools. The goal of both programs is to increase disadvantaged students’ high school
completion and enrollment in higher education by providing a variety of academic, counseling,
and college preparatory services. GEAR UP includes a scholarship component, while Trio
provides financial aid counseling and work-study employment.
It is likely that the 110th Congress will consider reauthorizing the HEA. Given that increasing
access to higher education has been a primary goal of the HEA, whether these and other HEA
programs adequately promote this objective will be a central issue as Congress considers
reauthorization. Other possible topics of concern are program consolidation and coordination,
overall authorization levels, amounts for student grants and scholarships, the nature of program
services, the status of program evaluations and the definition of eligible students and campuses.
This report will be updated as legislative action occurs.

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
˜—?Ž—?œȱ
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1
Trio Programs .................................................................................................................................. 1
Talent Search............................................................................................................................. 2
Upward Bound .......................................................................................................................... 2
Student Support Services .......................................................................................................... 3
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement.................................................................. 3
Educational Opportunity Centers .............................................................................................. 3
Indirect Support......................................................................................................................... 4
GEAR UP ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Eligible Entities......................................................................................................................... 4
Early Intervention Activities ..................................................................................................... 5
Scholarships .............................................................................................................................. 5
Additional Activities ................................................................................................................. 5
Appropriations History and Population Served............................................................................... 6
Program Evaluations ....................................................................................................................... 7
Student Support Services .......................................................................................................... 7
Upward Bound .......................................................................................................................... 8
GEAR UP.................................................................................................................................. 8
Reauthorization Issues..................................................................................................................... 9
Coordination.............................................................................................................................. 9
Funding ................................................................................................................................... 10
Services ....................................................................................................................................11
Evaluations...............................................................................................................................11
Definitions................................................................................................................................11

Š‹•Žœȱ
Table 1. History of GEAR UP Appropriations, Grants Awarded, and Students Served .................. 6
Table 2. Characteristics of High School and College Students Compared with Participants
in Trio and GEAR UP Programs .................................................................................................. 7

˜—?ŠŒ?œȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 12

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
—?›˜?žŒ?’˜—ȱ
The Higher Education Act (HEA) is the source of over $52 billion in federally supported grant,
loan, and work-study assistance to help meet the costs of postsecondary education. The HEA also
supports several programs that complement this student aid by providing services and incentives
to students to help increase their secondary or postsecondary educational attainment. These
programs are premised on the belief that although addressing financial barriers to postsecondary
enrollment is necessary, it is not sufficient for many students, particularly those from
disadvantaged backgrounds. Foremost among these programs are the federal Trio programs and
the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP).
The statutory authorities in the HEA expired at the end of FY2004; however, they have been
recently extended and currently remain effective.1 As with the rest of the HEA, Trio and GEAR
UP may be considered for reauthorization by the 110th Congress. This report is intended to
provide an overview of Title VI programs, and an analysis of reauthorization issues.
›˜?›Š–ȱŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ
The Trio programs trace their roots to the Johnson Administration’s Great Society. The first
program, Talent Search, was authorized with the initial passage of the HEA in 1965 and two
others, Upward Bound and Student Support Services, were added in 1968.2 Even though several
additional programs have been included over the years, they are by law called the Trio programs.
A relatively new program that is not part of the Trio array of programs, GEAR UP, was added to
HEA by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Trio and GEAR UP are currently authorized
by HEA Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapters 1 and 2 respectively.
Both sets of programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and support
many similar activities and objectives. Trio programs are primarily intended for individuals who
are low-income, first-generation college students, or are disabled—the precise population differs
among the various programs. GEAR UP directs its support to individuals from low-income
elementary and secondary schools. The goal of both programs is to increase disadvantaged
students’ secondary school completion and postsecondary enrollment by providing a variety of
academic, counseling, and college preparatory services. GEAR UP includes a scholarship
component, while Trio provides financial aid counseling and work-study employment.
›’˜ȱ›˜?›Š–œȱ
At the present time, there are five Trio programs that provide direct service to students and two
that provide indirect support. The five primary programs are Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound
(UB), Student Support Services (SSS), Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (MPA),
and Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC). These programs provide grants of four and five

1 The most recent extension of these authorities goes through July 31, 2007 under the First Higher Education Extension
Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-44).
2 Upward Bound was originally created through the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and transferred to the Office of
Education in 1968.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
years in duration and are awarded competitively to institutions of higher education and other
public and private institutions and agencies. Projects supported by these grants must
predominantly consist of participants who are from low-income families and are first-generation
college students. The appropriation for the Trio programs was $828.2 million in FY2006 and
FY2007. The appropriation for FY2008 is $885.2 million.3
In selecting grantees, the Secretary of Education is expected to consider an applicant’s prior
experience in delivering services under the Trio programs and to encourage coordination of each
Trio project with any programs for disadvantaged students operated by a grantee. A Trio project
director is permitted to administer other programs for disadvantaged students operated by the
grantee. In addition, Trio funding provides indirect support for staff training, dissemination of
best practices, evaluation activities, and administrative expenses.
Š•Ž—?ȱŽŠ›Œ‘ȱ
This program is intended to encourage youth with college potential to complete high school and
enter postsecondary education; to encourage dropouts to reenter education; and to disseminate
information about available postsecondary student assistance. At least two-thirds of each project’s
participants must be low-income individuals who would be first-generation college students.
Participants must have completed a minimum of five years of elementary education, or be 11 to
27 years of age. (Age limits in any Trio program can be waived if they would prevent a project
from achieving program purposes.)
Among services provided by TS projects are: assistance in completing college admissions and
financial aid applications, and preparing for college entrance exams; guidance and assistance to
individuals for reentering secondary school or entering general educational development (GED)
programs; personal and career counseling; tutoring; exposure to college campuses, cultural
events, and academic programs; assistance in secondary school and college course selection;
workshops and counseling for participants’ families; and mentoring programs.
™ Š›?ȱ˜ž—?ȱ
UB projects are intended to provide precollege students and veterans with the skills and
motivation needed to succeed in postsecondary education. At least two-thirds of project
participants must be low-income students who would be first-generation college goers; the
remainder must be either low-income or prospective first-generation college goers. Participants
must have completed at least eight years of elementary education, and be 13 to 19 years of age.
Among allowable UB services are the following: instruction in math, lab science, foreign
language, composition, and literature (required of projects that have received two or more years
of assistance); counseling and workshops; tutoring; mentoring; exposure to cultural events;
activities acquainting participants with career options; work-study positions exposing participants
to careers requiring postsecondary education; and residential programs on college campuses.
Most UB projects provide six-week summer programs on college campuses. Participants may
receive monthly stipends of up to $60 during the summer (work-study students may receive

3 U.S. Department of Education, Budget Office; the FY2008 appropriation includes an additional $57,00,000 for the
Upward Bound program passed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
monthly stipends of $300 in the summer) and $40 during the rest of the year. ED also funds
Upward Bound Math and Science Centers (UBMS) providing intensive instruction in math and
science.
?ž?Ž—?ȱž™™˜›?ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ
SSS projects are intended to improve college students’ retention and graduation rates and improve
the transfer rates of students from two-year to four-year colleges. Program regulations limit
eligible grantees to postsecondary education institutions. At least two-thirds of SSS participants in
any project must be either disabled individuals or low-income, first-generation college goers. The
remaining participants must be low-income, or first-generation college goers, or disabled. Not
less than one-third of the disabled participants must be low-income as well.
SSS projects may provide such services as instruction in reading, writing, study skills, math, and
other subjects; academic counseling; exposure to cultural events, academic programs, and career
options; assistance in the graduate admission and financial aid processes; assistance in
transferring from two-year to four-year colleges; and mentoring. In selecting grantees, the
Secretary must consider an institution’s efforts to provide participants with aid sufficient to meet
full financial need and to constrain student debt.
˜—Š•?ȱǯȱŒŠ’›ȱ˜œ?‹ŠŒŒŠ•Šž›ŽŠ?ŽȱŒ‘’ŽŸŽ–Ž—?ȱ
MPA projects seek to prepare disadvantaged students for doctoral study. Program regulations
limit eligible grantees to postsecondary education institutions. At least two-thirds of participants
must be low-income, first-generation college goers; the remainder must be from groups
underrepresented in graduate education.
Among the services that may be provided are research opportunities, seminars, and other
activities preparing students for doctoral study; summer internships; tutoring; academic
counseling; assistance in securing graduate admission and financial aid; mentoring; and exposure
to cultural events and academic programs. Research participants may receive an annual award
providing a stipend of up to $2,800; the award may cover the costs of summer tuition, room and
board, and transportation as well.
?žŒŠ?’˜—Š•ȱ™™˜›?ž—’?¢ȱŽ—?Ž›œȱ
This program is intended to provide information to prospective postsecondary students regarding
available financial aid and academic assistance, and help them apply for admission and financial
aid. At least two-thirds of participants in any project must be low-income students who would be
first-generation college goers. They must also be at least 19 years old.
EOCs may provide information to communities about postsecondary education and training
opportunities; assistance in completing admission and financial aid applications; assistance
preparing for college entrance exams; guidance on reentering secondary school, or entering a
GED program or other program for high school dropouts; personal counseling; tutoring; career
workshops; and mentoring.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
—?’›ŽŒ?ȱž™™˜›?ȱ
The Staff Development program supports training of current and prospective Trio staff. Grants can
be made to postsecondary education institutions, and public and private nonprofit entities. Among
authorized activities are conferences, internships, seminars, workshops, and publication of
training manuals. Annually, one or more of the projects must train new Trio project directors, and
must address the following: legislative and regulatory requirements for operating Trio projects,
guidance on assisting students in receiving adequate amounts of student aid, the design and
operation of model Trio projects, and the use of educational technology in operating Trio projects.
Dissemination Partnership Grants are provided to Trio projects that were funded prior to the
HEA Amendments of 1998 to expand and leverage the success of these projects. Funds are used
to support partnerships with other institutions of higher education or community-based
organizations that are not receiving Trio funds but that are serving low-income and first-
generation college students. Services include disseminating and replicating best practices and
providing technical assistance to other non-Trio programs and projects.
Funding is also provided for administrative expenses and program evaluation. Up to 0.5% of the
funds appropriated for Trio may be used by ED to support administrative activities that include
obtaining additional qualified readers and additional staff to review applications; increasing the
level of oversight monitoring; supporting impact studies, program assessments and reviews; and
providing technical assistance to potential applicants and grantees. Required evaluation activities
include identifying effective practices, documenting student preparation for college, documenting
student success in college, and identifying the effectiveness of alternative and innovative methods
within Trio programs.
ȱȱ
The GEAR UP program was added to HEA Title IV by the Higher Education Amendments of
1998.4 GEAR UP seeks to increase disadvantaged students’ secondary school completion and
postsecondary enrollment by providing support services and by assuring students of the
availability of financial aid to meet college costs. The appropriation for GEAR UP was $303.4
million in FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008.5
•’?’‹•Žȱ—?’?’Žœȱ
States or partnerships are eligible for funding. A partnership must consist of (1) one or more
school districts acting on behalf of one or more elementary or secondary schools; (2) one or more
postsecondary education institutions; and (3) at least two other entities, such as community
organizations, state agencies, or other public or private agencies. Of the amount remaining after
funding continuations are distributed for previous awards, at least 33% is for states, at least 33%
is for partnerships, and the remainder is awarded to either states or partnerships. The allocation of
the remainder between states and partnerships is to be reevaluated annually. Participating entities

4 State-level components of GEAR UP reflect the prior National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership
program established by the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (P.L. 102-325) and first funded in FY1994.
5 U.S. Department of Education, Budget Office.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
must provide from non-federal funds at least 50% of the cost of the program. Partnerships’
matching level can be modified through regulation.
Š›•¢ȱ —?Ž›ŸŽ—?’˜—ȱŒ?’Ÿ’?’Žœȱ
Any funded state or partnership must provide comprehensive mentoring, counseling, outreach,
and support services to participating students. This counseling must address financial aid, college
applications, and admissions, and must foster parental involvement in the college preparation
process. Projects may provide a system of mentoring and advising; require students to enter into
agreements to achieve specific academic milestones in exchange for tuition assistance; provide
services to ensure high school completion and college enrollment of at-risk individuals; provide
summer programs for high school sophomores or juniors or students planning on going to college
in the coming academic year; and require students to meet other standards.
Participating states are required to make low-income students a priority for services. Partnerships
are required to provide services to at least one grade level of students (beginning by the seventh
grade) in a school with a seventh grade and with an enrollment at least half of which is eligible
for free or reduced-price lunches. Alternatively, services can be provided to students in a
particular grade (beginning by the seventh grade) who reside in public housing. Partnerships must
ensure that services are provided to each such cohort of students through the twelfth grade. They
must coordinate services with existing early intervention programs and not duplicate available
services.
Œ‘˜•Š›œ‘’™œȱ
Participating states are required to establish or maintain a postsecondary scholarship program for
participants; partnerships are permitted to include a scholarship component. The minimum
amount of these scholarships is the lesser of 75% of the annual average cost of attendance for an
in-state student in a four-year program at public higher education institutions in the state, or the
maximum Pell Grant for that fiscal year (the program statute provides that the total amount of
HEA, Title IV aid cannot exceed a student’s cost of attendance).
To be eligible to receive the initial scholarship, a student must be less than 22 years old; have
received a high school diploma or equivalent on or after January 1, 1993; be enrolled or accepted
for enrollment in an undergraduate program at an institution located in the state (at a state’s
option, the GEAR UP scholarship can be made portable); and have participated in the GEAR UP
early intervention component (at the participating entity’s option, Trio participation can qualify a
student). Current Pell Grant recipients must receive priority in the awarding of scholarships. Each
state must use at least 25% of its funds but not more than 50% for early intervention. This rule
also applies to partnerships that conduct a scholarship component. The 50% cap can be waived if
the participant has another way of providing the scholarship assistance.
??’?’˜—Š•ȱŒ?’Ÿ’?’Žœȱ
The Secretary is to provide 21st Century Scholar Certificates to GEAR UP students and may, as
practicable, provide them to all students in grades 6-12 in schools where at least 50% of the
enrollment qualifies for free or reduced-price lunches. These certificates are to be personalized
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
for each student and indicate the amount of federal postsecondary financial aid the student may
be eligible to receive.
Each participating state or partnership must ensure that its activities are coordinated with,
complement, and enhance other GEAR UP services in the same district or state, and services
under other federal or non-federal programs. Biennially, each entity receiving GEAR UP funds
must submit an evaluation of its activities to the Secretary. The Secretary, with up to 0.75% of the
annual appropriation, is required to fund evaluations of the effectiveness of the program; the
Secretary must report, biennially, to the U.S. Congress on GEAR UP evaluations.
™™›˜™›’Š?’˜—œȱ ’œ?˜›¢ȱŠ—?ȱ˜™ž•Š?’˜—ȱŽ›ŸŽ?ȱ
As mentioned above, for FY2008, Trio was funded at $885.2 million, and GEAR UP was funded
at $303.4 million. During the 2006 fiscal year, Trio programs served over 876,000 students and
GEAR UP served 709,000.6 Table 1 presents statistics on the recent history of Trio and GEAR
UP appropriations, grants awarded, and population served.
Table 1. History of GEAR UP Appropriations, Grants Awarded, and Students Served
Trio GEAR
UP
Appropriation
Students
Appropriation
State
Partnership
Students
FY
($000s)
Grants
served
($000s)
grants
grants
served
2008 885,178 n.a. n.a.
303,423 n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
2007 828,178 2,671 n.a.
303,423 40
169 746,080
2006 828,178 2,676
876,341 303,423 40
173 708,899
2005 836,543 2,705
877,777 306,488 36
209 723,933
2004 832,559 2,690
868,969 298,230 36
274 1,484,477
2003 827,089 2,726
864,302 294,152 36
280 1,440,111
2002 802,500 2,646
872,032 285,000 36
288 1,238,306
2001 730,000 2,489
747,917 295,000 30
243 971,606
2000 645,000 2,352
724,845 200,000 26
239 766,829
1999 600,000 2,321
722,477 120,000 21
164 448,263
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Justifications for Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, vol. 2, various
years.
Table 2 compares the number and characteristics of students enrolled in high school and college
to the participants in Trio and GEAR UP programs. The number of participants counted under
each program simply refers to the number receiving any amount of services which in some cases
may be as little as a single visit with a counselor. Program participants are more likely to be
female, black and Hispanic than the overall student population.

6 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2006, Justifications for Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, vol. 2.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Table 2. Characteristics of High School and Col ege Students Compared with
Participants in Trio and GEAR UP Programs
Characteristic H.S.a Collegea UBb SSSc TSc EOCc MPAc GEAR
UPd
Students (1,000s)e 15,800
15,300
63
200
321
161 4 971
Female 49%
56%
70%
65%
60%
64%
65%
n.a.
White, non-Hispanic
65%
70%
21%
46%
32%
41%
23%
26%
Black, non-Hispanic
15%
14%
50%
29%
35%
36%
40%
30%
Hispanic 14%
9%
22%
15%
22%
14%
26%
36%
Other, non-Hispanic
5%
7%
7%
10%
11%
9%
11%
8%
a. Counts and demographic data for high school (grades 9 through 12) and college students (undergraduate
and graduate students) are CRS estimates of those enrolled during October 2000, Current Population
Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
b. The most recent data on the demographic characteristics UB participants is for 1992-1994, from The Short-
term Impact of Upward Bound: An Interim Report, U.S. Department of Education.
c. Demographic data for SSS are 1997-1998 participants and for TS, EOC and MPA are 1998-1999
participants, and are taken from various Trio Profiles reports, U.S. Department of Education.
d. Demographic data on participants in GEAR UP are 2000-2001 participants, and are taken from the Annual
Performance Report, U.S. Department of Education.
e. Student counts for Trio and GEAR UP participants are for FY2001, and are taken from the 2003
Justifications, U.S. Department of Education.
›˜?›Š–ȱŸŠ•žŠ?’˜—œȱ
Each of the major Trio programs as well as GEAR UP are currently under evaluation by ED in
collaboration with independent contractors. Preliminary results from these studies are only
available for three programs—SSS, UB, and GEAR UP. However, these preliminary results
provide some evidence on program effectiveness and serve as a good entry-point for
consideration of reauthorization issues.
?ž?Ž—?ȱž™™˜›?ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ
A longitudinal evaluation of SSS has been ongoing since 1991. The first report to come out of this
evaluation simply describes the participating students.7 A second discusses best practices and
services offered.8 The most common services provided by SSS programs operating between 1991
and 1994 were academic counseling and peer tutoring.
A third report, generated after the third year of this evaluation, revealed a small but positive and
statistically significant effect on measures of student outcomes including grades in college, total
number of credits earned, and retention in higher education.9 During their first year, SSS

7 U.S. Department of Education, National Evaluation of Student Support Services: Analysis and Highlights from
Reports on Program Implementation, Interim Report, Volume I, 1994.
8 U.S. Department of Education, Best Practices in Student Support Services: A Study of Five Exemplary Sites, August
1997.
9 U.S. Department of Education, National Study of Student Support Services: Third Year Longitudinal Study Results,
(continued...)
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
participants’ GPA increased by an average of 0.15 compared to a control group of non-
participants, credits earned increased by 1.25, and retention increased by 7 percentage points. The
small size of these effects was attributed to the fact that, at such an early stage of the evaluation,
most students had only a modest amount of services provided.
Importantly, the third year report indicates that students who were more disadvantaged tended to
experience greater positive effects as a result of greater SSS participation. That is, these students
tended to have a greater amount of services provided and consequently showed more benefits
from program participation.
The six-year evaluation report, originally scheduled for release in February 2002, is currently
under ED review. According to the 2004 Justifications, the results of this program evaluation will
show substantial impacts across a wide range of outcomes; most importantly, a 9 percentage point
increase in the rate of college graduation compared to a control group of non-participants. SSS
also continues to produce positive results on credits earned, grade point average, and retention.
The newer report looked at transfer rates and found a positive impact of SSS on transfer from
two-year to four-year colleges.
™ Š›?ȱ˜ž—?ȱ
A longitudinal evaluation of UB has been underway since 1993. A report on phase one of the
project was released in 1999 and the results of a second phase are pending.10 The findings
available so far indicate that, across all participants, UB has no overall impact beyond
encouraging students to choose four-year over year-year schools. Also, nearly half of UB
participants drop out of the program before completing high school—resulting in an average
length of exposure of 19 months.
Conversely, the study found that UB has a large positive impact on the subgroup of students with
low income, lower educational expectations, and serious academic problems. This positive impact
was manifested in a variety of educational outcomes—most notably, high school completion
rates. This important exception to the overall finding of this evaluation is also in line with the
results of the SSS evaluation—that is, UB appears to have its greatest impact on the most
disadvantaged students who participate.
ȱȱ
A longitudinal evaluation of GEAR UP has begun following the cohort of students who began
seventh grade in the 2000-2001 school year. The first report released in 2003 discusses the design
of the study and program implementation issues. Twenty partnerships were selected for the
evaluation and were matched with a non-GEAR UP school in the same school district for
comparison purposes. The study also makes use of data from annual performance reports.

(...continued)
February 1997.
10 U.S. Department of Education, The Impacts of Upward Bound: Final Report for Phase I of the National Evaluation,
April 1999. The results of phase two were due to be released in March of 2002 and are currently under ED review.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Şȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
The report describes the characteristics of the participating students (overwhelmingly non-White)
and schools (67% free or reduced-priced lunch eligibility) as well as a “markedly” improved
“climate” in the schools (i.e., the general attitude toward GEAR UP) between the initial and
subsequent site visits. Implementation issues discussed in the report include heavy reliance on
project staff due to difficulty in getting parents and volunteers involved in the program.
ŽŠž?‘˜›’£Š?’˜—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
Given that increasing access to postsecondary education has been a primary goal of the HEA,
whether these and other HEA programs adequately promote this objective will be a central issue
during the reauthorization process. This section addresses several prominent aspects of Trio and
GEAR UP as they pertain to access and other issues and discusses relevant legislation that has
been introduced to date.
˜˜›?’—Š?’˜—ȱ
As the number of Trio programs has grown and GEAR UP was enacted, a debate has developed
around issues of program coordination and consolidation. The focus of this debate can be framed
by the following two questions: (1) to what extent do the similar objectives of the various
programs produce overlap and duplication of effort, and (2) to what extent do the distinct
activities of these programs produce a disjointed set of services that should be coordinated to
support students at all points in their academic career.
As has been described, GEAR UP seeks to address the problems of high school completion and
college access for disadvantaged students through a holistic approach. Should this approach be
replicated through the array of Trio programs? Arguably, one of the strengths of GEAR UP is that
it “sticks with” the same cohort of students from start to finish. Trio might be criticized for the
way in which the various programs lack coordination, and therefore follow-up, for students at risk
of terminating their education at any point.
On the other hand, focusing on a single cohort limits the ability of these programs to adequately
and individually serve large numbers of students. Moreover, providing services to a group of
students who enter seventh grade at a particular school in one particular year and not providing
the same services to those entering seventh grade at the same school in the following year may
raise concerns about fairness and efficiency. Although there is some evidence that some GEAR
UP programs “back fill” by taking in students in subsequent cohorts, there is no requirement to do
so.
Trio advocates, like the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), push for two steps in
program coordination: (1) TS should be re-focused to serve only high school students, and GEAR
UP should be re-focused to serve middle school students, and (2) GEAR UP be consolidated as
one of the Trio programs.11 COE argues that this would eliminate duplication between the two
programs because under the current structure they serve similar populations and have similar
objectives.

11 Council for Opportunity in Education, Policy Options Regarding Trio for the Upcoming Reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, January 22, 2002.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
şȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
It has also been suggested by COE and other observers that program continuity could be
improved by better ensuring continuity from grant to grant by placing greater weight on prior
experience, extending the length of grants, and adjusting minimum grant amounts for inflation
and cost increases.
ž—?’—?ȱ
Several funding issues are likely to be raised during the reauthorization process. Three general
areas of concern are the overall funding authorization, the mechanisms for awarding and
distributing grants, and the aid offered to students. In a recent hearing held by the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, a panelist suggested that Trio and GEAR UP
funding amounts be determined as a formula-based proportion of federal student aid
appropriations.12 Pegging Trio and GEAR UP funding to federal aid would help ensure that low-
income students’ non-financial issues are addressed to the same degree as their financial needs.
But, in fact, in the last decade Trio appropriations have remained a relatively stable percentage
(7.3%) of appropriations for federal need-based grants (i.e., Pell Grants and Supplemental
Educational Opportunity Grants).
The importance of prior experience as a factor in the Trio grant award process has long been a
matter of disagreement. Some feel that past success in winning grants should positively influence
the likelihood of continued awards because it provides for the kind of continuity discussed in the
previous section. Others assert that, given the limited number of grants relative to the vast number
of students in need of services, competitions should be more open to those without prior
experience. Further disagreement exists over other priorities expressed in the funding
mechanism—most notably, whether preference should be given to certain racial/ethnic groups or
geographic areas.
Trio offers little in the way of direct monetary aid to students and some assert that the stipends
offered are inadequate. COE argues that UB stipends be increased to $60 per month during the
school year and $100 per month during the summer. COE also advocates for raising the
maximum allowable stipend for summer research under MPA. GEAR UP scholarships offer much
more substantial funds for students who attend college. However, financial aid administrators
object to statutory language requiring that these scholarships “supplement, not supplant” regular
need-based aid.13 In recent regulations, ED specified conditions under which colleges and
universities may be exempt from this requirement.14 Stipend amounts and regulations aside, these
concerns raise a larger question about the intent of these programs. Namely, should the financial
aid component of these programs be expanded thereby linking aid to a broader program of
college preparation or should the financial aspect of access to postsecondary education remain the
purview of traditional sources of monetary assistance?

12 Testimony of Lawrence Gladieux, an independent education and public policy consultant, to the House Committee
on Education and the Workforce, July 16, 2002.
13 HEA, Title IV, Section 404E.
14 65 Federal Register 39814 (June 28, 2000).
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŖȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Ž›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ
The non-academic services provided by these programs have come under attack in recent years;
the counseling services component of Upward Bound is a good example.15 Those in the current
Administration focused on program performance (as defined by specific outcome measures) see
these services as “ineffective.”16 Since one of the goals of UB is to improve college completion
rates among first-generation and low-income students, the preliminary “no impact” program
evaluation results referred to earlier may be viewed as damaging.
At the same time, others argue that non-academic services (such as those that improve self-
esteem) have been a part of Trio programs since their inception and go to the heart of their
intended purpose. In this light, the evaluation result that UB encourages would-be two-year
students to attend four-year schools is a notable accomplishment. Nonetheless, reauthorization
debate over the academic and non-academic priorities of the Trio and GEAR UP programs seems
likely. One possible outcome might be to narrow the large array of services currently allowable.
ŸŠ•žŠ?’˜—œȱ
In response to the Administration’s negative interpretation of the UB evaluation, Trio advocates
also caution against drawing premature conclusions about college completion from an unfinished
longitudinal study. While the preliminary results from the evaluation of SSS are more positive,
the lack of recent evaluations of other Trio programs may itself become a reauthorization issue.
Ž?’—’?’˜—œȱ
Through the 1992 amendments, institutions or agencies were permitted to submit more than one
Trio application “if the additional applications describe programs serving different populations or
campuses”.17 Some assert that subsequent ED regulations defined different populations and
different campuses too narrowly and thereby undermined congressional intent to provide services
to disadvantaged students.
Another problem with Trio eligibility arises from the definition of a “low-income individual” in
Section 402A. Current language stipulates that such an individual come “from a family whose
taxable income for the preceding year did not exceed 150 percent of an amount equal to the
poverty level.” COE argues that this unfairly excludes students who would be classified as low-
income based on current income, but not on the previous year’s income. Their proposed solution
to this problem is to give Trio Directors the discretion to consider eligibility and documentation
on a case-by-case basis, similar to the discretion provided financial aid administrators.
However, the evaluation results discussed above indicate that a loosening of the definition of low-
income students may weaken program outcomes. The preliminary findings from the UB and SSS
evaluations suggest that these programs have the greatest impact on those most disadvantaged—
that is, students with lower income, greater academic problems, and lower educational

15 Richard Morgan, “Upward Bound’s Slippery Slope,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 3, 2002.
16 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2004, Justifications for Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, vol. 2.
17 HEA, Title IV, Section 402A.
˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŗȱ

›’˜ȱŠ—?ȱ ȱȱ›˜?›Š–œǱȱ?Š?žœȱŠ—?ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
expectations. Thus, Trio and GEAR UP programs may be improved by tightening, not loosening,
eligibility definitions to focus on those most in need of services and assistance.

ž?‘˜›ȱ˜—?ŠŒ?ȱ —?˜›–Š?’˜—ȱ

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi

Specialist in Education Policy
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov, 7-8645

˜—?›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŘȱ