U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

HEA: TRIO Upward Bound - FY 2006


CFDA Numbers: 84.047 - TRIO Upward Bound
84.047M - TRIO Upward Bound Math/Science

Program Goal: Increase the percentage of low-income, first-generation college students who successfully pursue postsecondary education opportunities.
Objective 1 of 1: Increase postsecondary enrollment rates of low-income, first-generation individuals in the academic pipeline.
Indicator 1.1 of 2: Postsecondary enrollment: The percentage of Upward Bound participants enrolling in college will increase.
 
Measure 1.1.1 of 1: The percentage of Upward Bound participants and higher-risk participants enrolling in college.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Overall Enrollment High-Risk Enrollment
Overall Enrollment High-Risk Enrollment
2000
65 34
   
2003
69.30  
65 35
2004
   
65 35.50
2005
   
65 36
2006
   
65 36.50
2007
   
65 37

Source: Evaluation, Higher Education.
Section: The National Evaluation of Upward Bound: Summary of First-year Impacts and Program Operations (1997) .

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: November 2006
The annual performance report is comprised of self-reported data; a variety of data quality checks are used to assess the completeness and reasonableness of the data submitted.

Limitations: The definition of higher-risk student used in the national evaluation is somewhat different than the criteria used by Upward Bound projects funded under the Upward Bound Initiative.
 
Explanation: This measure tracks separately the effect of the program on higher risk students. This reflects: (1) the findings of the national evaluation of the Upward Bound Program, which found the program has significant effects on higher-risk students; and (2) recent funding initiatives encouraging Upward Bound projects to serve more higher risk students. With a greater proportion of Upward Bound participants being higher-risk students, continual program improvements will be required to maintain the college enrollment rate at current levels. Program experience has led to collecting enrollment data one year after enrollment, since enrollment rates are consistently higher than preliminary values. Primarily for this reason, data for 2002-03 were revised for FY 2006 from 54.5% to 71.3%.
 
Indicator 1.2 of 2: Efficiency Measure: Cost per successful outcome.
 
Measure 1.2.1 of 1: Cost of program completers: persisters in high school or enrollees in college and the gap between cost per successful outcome and cost per participant.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Cost per successful outcome Gap between cost per outcome and cost per output
Cost per successful outcome Gap between cost per outcome and cost per output
2003
6,340  
   
2004
6,579  
   

Source: Grantee Performance Report, Annual Performance Report for the Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math/Science, and Veterans Upward Bound Programs.

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: November 2006
The annual performance report is comprised of self-reported data; a variety of data quality checks are used to assess the completeness and reasonableness of the data submitted.

Improvements: Actual allocations of the annual appropriation are now used instead of the overall appropriation.
 
Explanation: The calculation is the annual allocated appropriation divided by the number of students that persist in high school and enroll in college. The appropriation number used for 2003-04 is $276,310,780, which is adjusted from the total appropriation ($299,949,888) by removing funding for those projects that were in their first year and therefore could not have any persisting participants. The cost/outcome measure value for 2002-03 is revised in FY 2006 to use the same approach as for 2003-04; projects not funded in 2003-04 are not included. The measure value changed from $6,381 to $6,340 per successful outcome.
 


Return to table of contents

Last Modified: 01/20/2006