Characteristics of the Programs

Size of Programs

Several questionnaire items were designed to obtain general descriptive information about these largest precollegiate programs: how many students and faculty were involved, how the programs were funded, the primary goals of the programs, where the programs were located (on campus or at other locations), and the length and timing of student participation.

The largest precollegiate programs had a total of 317,400 students, with a median of 82 students per program (table 3).¹⁶This total comprised 60 percent of the approximately 525,100 students who were in all (not just the largest) precollegiate programs for the disadvantaged; however, the overall estimate of 525,100 is almost certainly an underestimate because respondents had difficulty in estimating the total enrollment and in identifying all precollegiate programs at the institution.¹⁷ To put this enrollment in perspective, one must first adjust for the fact that the precollegiate students were at a mixture of grade levels: roughly 90,000 of all precollegiate students would be expected to graduate from high school in the next year.¹⁸ By comparison, approximately 1.1 million 17-year-olds were economically disadvantaged in 1991.¹⁹ Thus, precollegiate programs for the disadvantaged enrolled a relatively small proportion of the total number of students who might be considered eligible for such programs. Not all of the precollegiate students can be expected to enroll in higher education, and some of these students might have enrolled even without the encouragement of the precollegiate programs, but these estimates might be compared with the total higher education enrollment of 14.5 million to obtain a rough estimate of the potential impact of current precollegiate programs on future higher education enrollment.²⁰

A median of 6 students at the institution worked with the precollegiate program (e.g., as tutors), with a greater number in 4-year than 2-year institutions (8 students versus 4), and more in large institutions than small institutions (10 students versus 5).

Primary Source of Funding

The federal government was the primary source of funding for 51 percent of the largest programs, while state and local governments were the primary source for 20 percent, institutional funding for 14 percent, and private funding (including both individuals and corporate/foundation funding) for 13 percent (table 4). Federal funding was especially important for public institutions (60 percent versus 36 percent for private institutions) and was more important in the Southeast than in the Northeast (69 percent versus 31 percent). On the other hand, private funding was more important at private institutions than public institutions (28 percent versus 5 percent). As might be expected for the U.S. Department of Education's Upward Bound programs, institutions almost universally stated that federal funding was their primary source of funding (97 percent); this contrasted greatly with how institutions described their other largest programs, with only 30 percent saying federal funding was the primary source.

Primary Goals of Precollegiate Programs

Institutions were asked to rank each of six potential goals for their largest precollegiate program in terms of their importance (figure 2).²¹ Essentially the same number of institutions reported that increasing college attendance or increasing high school completion was the top goal of the program (28 percent and 26 percent, respectively), but increasing coliege attendance stood out among these two as being more likely to be among the top three goals (78 percent versus 64 percent). Another goal --increasing general academic skills development -- also was frequently indicated, with 20 percent of institutions saying it was their largest program's top goal and 67 percent saying it was among the top three goals. Each of these three goals was indicated as one of the top three goals for their largest precollegiate program by at least 64 percent of the institutions, while none of the remaining goals was among the top three for more than 45 percent.

The ranking of the goals varied depending on the institutional characteristics (table 5). Precollegiate programs at public institutions were more likely than those at private institutions to emphasize high school retention (32 percent versus 17 percent) and increasing the likelihood of attending college (34 percent versus 18 percent) as their single most important goal; programs at private institutions, on the other hand, were more likely to emphasize general academic skills (34 percent versus 12 percent). Programs at small institutions were more likely to emphasize general academic skills than those at large or mid-sized institutions (27 percent versus 12 to 16 percent).

There also were differences in goals between Upward Bound and other of the largest precollegiate programs. Upward Bound programs were more likely than other programs to emphasize the likelihood of attending college (46 percent versus 21 percent) and completing college (20 percent versus 9 percent), while they were less likely than other programs to emphasize promoting a particular subject area (0 percent versus 14 percent) and general academic skills (14 percent versus 23 percent).

Primary Location for Program

For the overwhelming majority of precollegiate programs run by higher education institutions, the primary location for holding the program was the college campus (80 percent; table 6). The main alternative was to hold the program at elementary or secondary schools (19 percent). Programs were more likely to be held on campus at private institutions than public institutions (91 percent versus 73 percent), at 4-year institutions than 2-year institutions (83 percent versus 73 percent), and at small institutions than at large or mid-sized institutions (88 percent versus 74 percent). Upward Bound programs also more commonly took place on campus than other programs (86 percent versus 77 percent).

Despite the widespread use of college campuses as the primary location, there were some differences with respect to location based on the priorities of the programs (table 7). The greatest use of elementary or secondary schools as the primary locations occurred when programs had either increasing students' completion of high school (34 percent) or increasing students' probability of attending college (24 percent) as their top goal; among the remaining programs, the range was from 0 percent (for programs seeking to enhance college recruitment) to 8 percent (for programs seeking to increase students' probabiliity of attending college).

Hours of Participation

When programs operated. Institutions were asked the number of hours a typical precollegiate student spends in program activities during the academic year and during the summer. An estimated 57 percent of the precollegiate programs operated during both the academic year and the summer, while 33 percent operated during the summer only, and 10 percent only during the academic year (table 8). Precollegiate programs at large institutions were more likely to have full-year programs than those at small institutions (74 percent versus 47 percent), while close to half (45 percent) of the programs at small institutions offered activities during the summer only. All Upward Bound programs operated during the full year, compared with only 38 percent of other precollegiate programs.

Just as 57 percent of the programs operated during the full year, an equivalent percentage of the students (58 percent) were in such programs.²² However, for those programs that operated for less than a full year, the distribution of students differed from the distribution of programs. Programs that operated only during the summer accounted for 33 percent of all programs but had just 8 percent of all students. Rather, students who were not in full-year programs tended to be in programs that operated only during the academic year (10 percent of programs, but 34 percent of students). There were also some differences based on institutional characteristics. Programs at large institutions had a greater proportion of students in full-year programs than programs at small or mid-sized institutions (72 percent versus 47 to 49 percent).

Number of hours of activities. Typical students in precollegiate programs spent a mean of 247 hours in program activities during the academic year and the summer combined (table 9). Typical students spent more hours in program activities in 4-year institutions than in 2-year institutions (277 versus 189) and in large institutions than in small institutions (284 versus 216).

Since 57 percent of the programs operated during both the summer and academic year, while others operated during only one time period or the other, institutions had several strategies available for apportioning the time. For example, one possibility is that programs that operate during the entire year would require the same level of activity as other programs while dividing that activity over the entire year. In fact, however, the intensity of the program was related to the time period in which it operated (figure 3). Programs that operated only during the academic year were the least intensive (with typical students spending a mean of 86 hours per year), and programs that operated during the entire year were the most intensive (a mean of 323 hours). Moreover, typical students actually spent more hours on average in summer program activities if they were in full-year programs (206 hours) than if they were in summer-only programs ( 166 hours). Thus, though fewer months are available during the summer than in the academic year, typical students spent more of their time in program activities during the summer when there presumably was less conflict with other school activities.

Table 9 shows how much time typical students spent in program activities if all programs are combined. As also shown in figure 3, the typical student spent more time in precollegiate programs in the summer than in the academic year (a mean of 192 hours, compared with 112).²³ Students in precollegiate programs at 2-year institutions spent an especially large number of hours in the summer (a mean of 218 hours versus 137 hours at programs in 4-year institutions), though students in 2-year and 4-year institutions had roughly equivalent hours of precollegiate program activities during the academic year (109 hours and 114 hours, respectively). A different pattern occurred for students in precollegiate programs in large institutions as compared to those in small institutions, with precollegiate students at large institutions spending a greater mean number of hours in the academic year (129 versus 89), but essentially the same number of hours in the summer (194 versus 182).

Upward Bound programs again were much more intensive than other precollegiate programs, with a mean of 433 hours over the full year, compared with 166 hours for other programs. In part, the difference was due to Upward Bound programs' greater use of full-year programs (noted earlier), but even for the academic year and the summer alone, students in Upward Bound programs had more hours of activities (141 versus 88 during the academic year, and 292 versus 140 during the summer).

Length of student participation. On average, institutions reported that typical precollegiate students in their largest programs participated for 2.9 years. Programs had somewhat longer periods of participation if they were at large institutions than if they were at small institutions (a mean of 3.3 years versus 2.5 years), and if they were Upward Bound programs than if they were other programs (3.5 years versus 2.6 years).

---

¹⁶ Medians rather than means are reported because the presence of a few very large precollegiate programs would cause the mean to overstate the "typical" size of a program. For example, while the West had almost half the total number of precollegiate students, this was due to the presence of a few very large programs in the West; the mean size for the West would appear exceptionally high, while the median size was not even the largest of the four regions.

¹⁷ The estimate was computed by dividing the number of precollegiate students by the percentage of all precollegiate students that were in the largest program. Estimates were computed within each institution, and then summed across institutions. A similar calculation suggests that the largest programs had approximately 64 percent of the total funding, although this estimate is only an approximation and probably understates the total funding for all precollegiate programs.

¹⁸ The estimate of 90,000 is based on 34 percent of precollegiate students being juniors and seniors in high school (to be presented in chapter 4 of this report), so that roughly half this number (i.e., 17 percent) were seniors. Some additional students might graduate from high school whose experience in precollegiate programs was prior to their senior year.

¹⁹ Using a definition of the economically disadvantaged as those whose family incomes are under 150 percent of the poverty level. Statistics are based on the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Poverty in the United States, 1991," series P-60, No. 175, August 1992, table 6. Some other definitions of disadvantaged would produce an even greater disparity between the number of precollegiate students and the number who were eligible. For example, over half of all students could probably be considered educationally disadvantaged in the sense that they were the first generation in their family to (potentially) receive a college degree. Among bachelor's degree recipients in 1990, 48 percent met this criterion. National Study of Student Support Services, Interim Report: Volume 1 -- Program Implementation, prepared by Westat, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Education, 1994, 2-21.

²⁰ The data on higher education enrollment are the estimated 1992 total fall enrollment, including both full-time and part-time students, from the Digest of Education Statistics 1994, op. cit., 176.

²¹ Institutions could also write in another goal besides those listed on the questionarre, however, few institutions added to the list provided.

²² Since institutions provided information about "typical" students, an individual student's full-year status was not necessarily the same as the program's.

²³ These means are based only on those programs with activities during the appropriate time period (i.e., zeroes are excluded). No distinction was made based on whether the program operated during both the academic year and the summer, or during one time period only.

Top