Summary

Approximately one-third of all institutions--including most large institutions (71 percent) and almost half of all public institutions (45 percent)--offered at least one precollegiate program for disadvantaged students in 1993-94. Considering only the largest precollegiate program at each institution, these programs served an estimated 317,400 students and involved 9,600 faculty and staff in 1993-94. It was estimated that 68 percent of participants were from low-income families, 59 percent were female, 39 percent were black, and 29 percent were Hispanic. These largest precollegiate programs are likely to account for roughly 64 percent of the funding and 60 percent of the students in all such programs.

In scope, precollegiate programs for the disadvantaged were ancillary to institutions' primary mission of providing postsecondary education. About 90,000 students in these programs were expected to graduate from high school in the next year and thus potentially enter postsecondary education, compared with a total higher education enrollment of 14.5 million. Similarly, the institutional resources provided to the largest precollegiate programs were small compared with the resources for higher education; the programs had 9,600 faculty and staff compared with a total of 826,000 senior instructional faculty.³¹The programs were also small with respect to the total number of students who might be considered eligible; the estimated 90,000 high school graduates contrasted with 1.1 million students of a comparable age who were economically disadvantaged.

Institutional respondents commonly indicated that increasing the likelihood of the students attending college was one of their top three goals (78 percent), while other goals that were frequently cited among the top three were increasing general academic skills development (67 percent) and increasing retention in or completion of high school (64 percent). Most of the precollegiate programs used the college campus as their primary location, but programs that had as their top goal either increasing high school completion or increasing college attendance were more likely than others to use elementary or secondary schools as their primary location.

Precollegiate programs for the disadvantaged were primarily directed towards high school students, with 44 percent stating the students usually entered the program in the freshman or sophomore year and 15 percent in the junior or senior year. Overall, almost two-thirds of the precollegiate program participants in 1993-94 were high school students. The goals of the largest precollegiate programs were sometimes related to the grade levels being served, with programs being more likely to target younger students if the top goal was high school completion or increasing college attendance.

For half (51 percent) of the programs, the federal government was their primary source of funding, while other common sources were the state and/or local governments (20 percent), institutional funding (14 percent), and private sources (13 percent).

The largest precollegiate programs most often operated during both the academic year and the summer, but in programs that ran for a full year, students typically participated for a greater number of hours during the summer. On average, students participated for 2.9 years. The services offered through the precollegiate programs that were most often considered among the three most important, according to the program officials, were social skills development (43 percent), information about admissions and/or financial aid (35 percent), and supplemental courses (33 percent). However, remediation (19 percent) and supplemental courses (18 percent) were both ranked first more often than social skills development (12 percent). Most programs also provided some type of financial benefit, with 50 percent paying a stipend for participation and 33 percent offering financial benefits for successful performance.

This survey was not designed as an evaluation of either federal or institutional programs, and cannot compare the various precollegiate programs in terms of students' ultimate performance. What can be said is that federal support formed an important part of the largest precollegiate programs. Half (51 percent) said that the federal government was the primary source of funding; even excluding Upward Bound programs (among whom 97 percent made this claim), federal funding was still the primary funding source for 30 percent of the remaining programs. Of course, by focusing on the largest precollegiate programs based on funding, this survey may overrepresent programs receiving outside funding compared with the remaining precollegiate programs.

Upward Bound programs differed in many ways from other large precollegiate programs. In this sense, though many institutions have precollegiate programs for the disadvantaged, Upward Bound might be viewed as producing a relatively unique set of program characteristics. Upward Bound programs served a relatively small number of students (about one-tenth of the total) and were relatively intensive: they had a lower student/facultystaff ratio, a longer average student participation, and a greater number of hours of student participation during both the academic year and the summer. Their top goals were more likely to be increasing college attendance and increasing college completion. Their services placed a greater emphasis on accelerated courses below the college level, other supplemental courses, and providing information about admissions and/or financial aid. Compared with other programs, their precollegiate students were more likely to come from low income families and to be black, and were less likely to be Hispanic.

³¹ Statistics are for 1991. Digest of Education Statistics, 1994. op. cit., 230.

Top