Detailed Information on the
TRIO Educational Opportunity Centers Assessment

Analyze grantee performance and make grantee-level performance data available to the public on the web.

Establish targets for the efficiency measure.

Develop a strategy for conducting an evaluation of the program.

Measure: The percentage of participants enrolling in college.

Explanation:The data presented are the percentage of "college ready" EOC participants who enrolled in college. "College ready" participants included those who were high school graduates, had obtained a high school equivalency certificate, or were high school seniors. Data are reported by grantees, and a variety of data quality checks are used to assess the completeness and reasonableness of the data submitted. The overall number of "college-ready" participants decreased from FY 2004 to 2005. Due to improvements in the Annual Performance Report format for FY 2007 data, overall accuracy of data in EOC should increase. This change will result in more comparable data across projects.

Measure: Percent of participants that are both low-income and potential first-generation college students.

Explanation:The statute requires each project to provide an assurance not less than two-thirds of the persons participating in the project are low-inome individuals who are first-generation college students.

Measure: Cost per EOC participant who enrolls in college, re-enrolls in college, or enrolls in continuing education.

Explanation:The Department developed an efficiency measure for EOC in the spring of 2007 and will develop targets after examining actual data for the measure.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Educational Opportunity Center (EOC) program is to provide counseling and information on college admissions to qualified adults who want to enter or continue a program of postsecondary education. EOC is one of the Federal TRIO programs, which include, in addition to EOC, Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, and McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement. The goal of TRIO is to increase college and postgraduate completion rates for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. An important objective of the EOC program is to counsel participants on financial aid options and to assist in the application process. The goal of the EOC program is to increase the number of adult participants who enroll in postsecondary education institutions. The target population is primarily comprised of individuals who are at least 19 years of age and who have expressed an interest in enrolling in or returning to college. Services include disseminating information on higher education opportunities in the community; academic advice, personal counseling, and career workshops; help in completing applications for college admissions, testing, and financial aid; tutoring; and mentoring.

Evidence: Section 402F of the Higher Education Act (HEA) states that the purpose is to "(1) To provide information with respect to financial and academic assistance available for individuals desiring to pursue a program of postsecondary education; and (2) To provide assistance to such persons in applying for admission to institutions at which a program of postsecondary education is offered, including preparing necessary applications for use by admissions and financial aid officers." Section 402F(c)(2) requires that at least two-thirds of participants must be low-income individuals who are first generation college students and requires that participants be, in most circumstances, at least 19 years old. Section 402F of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides ten examples of permissible services, which may be summarized as follows: Academic advising; Personal counseling; Career workshops; Information on postsecondary education opportunities; Information on student financial assistance; Assistance in completing applications for college admission, testing and financial aid; Coordination with nearby postsecondary institutions; Media activities designed to involve and acquaint the community with higher education opportunities; Tutoring; and Mentoring.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: EOC primarily focuses on low-income, first-generation adult students. Low-income and first-generation students neither enroll in nor complete college at as high a rate as higher-income students or students whose parents attended college.

Evidence: Data from the report "Coming of Age in the 1990s: The Eighth-Grade Class of 1988 12 Years Later" indicate that nearly half of low-income students (48%) do not attend postsecondary education. This reflects a rate more than twice that of middle-income students (23%) and more than 10 times that of high-income students (4%). In addition, data indicate that nearly half (44%) of students whose parents never attended college also do not attend college. For students whose parents had some college, only about one-fourth (23%) do not attend college. And, for students whose parents had bachelor's degrees or higher, about 5% do not attend college. [National Center on Education Statistics (NCES), 2002, Table 2]. (See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002321.pdf)

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Educational Opportunity Centers provide help in applying for financial aid along with various types of counseling and tutoring. The EOCs complement existing TRIO efforts by targeting students not served under other parts of the TRIO program. While the TRIO Talent Search program provides some of the same services provided by EOCs, Talent Search services are predominantly provided to middle and high school students, while EOC serves prospective adult college students. To maximize federal resources in both programs, EOC services often concentrate on displaced or under-employed workers and recipients of EOC services must be 19 years of age, unless there is no Talent Search project in the target area. The Labor Department's One Stop Career Centers assist students (as well as workers and other individuals) with educational, employment, and career-related information. However, the main focus is not on helping participants enroll in college. The Education Commission of the States (ECS) has been involved in many educational improvement activities including a project, Closing the College Participation Gap, which is designed to assist state leaders in increasing student access to higher education. This effort, however, was limited to the community college sector.

Evidence: The statutory distinctions between Talent Search and EOC appear in Sections 402F(EOC) and 402B of the Higher education Act of 1965. Section 402F(c)(3) requires an assurance that individuals participating in the project proposed in an EOC application do not have access to services from another project funded under this section or under section 402B," the Talent Search program. Information on the Department of Labor's One Stop Career Centers can be found on the web at http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/training/onestop.htm. The ECS website, which can be found at http://www.ecs.org/html/project.asp?projectID=31.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: EOC has no major design flaws. Furthermore, there is no evidence that other approaches, such as leveraging community resources, would be more effective in providing support services and improving college enrollment rates. However, one potential impediment to ensuring that the highest quality projects are funded is the statutory requirement (Sec. 402A(c)(2)) to consider prior experience in making awards, which can hinder new applicants' ability to obtain funding. The regulations (§ 644.22) require awarding up to 15 points for prior experience. (That is, prior grantees can earn a maximum of 115 points, but other applicants can receive a maximum of 100 points.) Three of the prior experience points are awarded for serving the required number of participants and ensuring that at least two-thirds of the participants are low-income, potential first-generation college students. An additional 6 points are awarded based on the extent to which the applicant met its objectives under the prior grant regarding the provision of assistance to individuals in applying for postsecondary admissions or financial aid, and 6 points are awarded based on the extent to which the applicant met its objectives regarding admission or re-entry of participants to postsecondary institutions. While the prior experience points present a challenge for new applicants, as well as limit the Department's ability to re-direct services if population changes alter the geographical areas with greatest need for services, they do help ensure continuity of services for programs that have proven track records. To ensure that the prior experience points are fairly applied, program staff award points only when projects meet the relevant performance objectives. In 2006, 28.5% of incumbent grantees received 14 or 15 points. An impediment to efficient program administration is the statutory requirement that grants be made for 4 years, except that applicants scoring in the top 10 percent receive 5-year awards. The Program Office runs competitions for EOC every 4 years, and all grantees that want a new award must compete at that time. Therefore, the variable length in grant periods has resulted in incumbent applicants on a 5 year grant cycle receiving award for projects that will have starting dates well after the selection date and for grantees to be on multiple award cycles.

Evidence: Grant duration: Sec. 402A(b)(2) and 34CFR 644.5. Prior experience points: Sec. 402A(c)(2) and 34CFR 644.22. Serving at least 1,000 students: 34CFR 644.32b. Program grant competition files.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: EOC is well targeted to disadvantaged individuals. Individuals are eligible to participate in EOC projects if they are citizens, permanent residents, or intend to become permanent residents; are at least 19 years old; and want to enroll or are enrolled in postsecondary educational programs. At least two-thirds of individuals served by each project must be low-income students who are potential first-generation college students, and participants may not receive services under more than one EOC project or under a Talent Search project. EOC's Interim Report on the Educational Opportunity Centers (2006) indicates that the program is exceeding the statutory goal and that 75% of participants in 2003-04 were both low-income and potentially first-generation college students.

Evidence: Statute requiring two-thirds low income/first generation: HEA Section 402F (c) (1). Finding of 75% low income/first generation: Interim Report on the Educational Opportunity Centers, American Institutes for Research, 2006). The report is available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/eocinterimreport2002-04.doc

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has one established long-term outcome measure with data measured against targets, one new long-term output measure for which outyear targets have been established, and a new efficiency measure for which targets have not yet been set. The primary goal of the EOC program is to increase the number of low-income, first generation individuals who enroll in postsecondary institutions. In addition, the program seeks to increase the retention rate of participants who are already enrolled in college, and to increase the readiness of individuals who are not yet qualified for college admission. The most recent estimate is that approximately 58% of the recipients of EOC services were "college ready" individuals, 23% were enrolled in postsecondary institutions, and 18% were individuals who needed assistance in identifying resources to enable them to meet college admissions requirements (e.g., a GED program). (For EOC projects, a "college ready" participant is a person who has graduated from high school or a high school equivalency program, or who is a high school senior, and who the grantee has determined possesses the skills necessary to succeed in postsecondary education.) Because the majority of the participants (58%) are "college ready" individuals whose goal is to begin college, the program selected college enrollment as its program outcome measure, and has measured the percentage of EOC participants enrolling in college since 2000. In addition, the program recently developed an additional long-term measure, the percentage of EOC participants who are low income (fall within 150% of poverty line) and potential first generation college students. This measure tracks the extent to which the program maintains its focus on serving the neediest population.

Evidence: The college enrollment measure was published along with the Department's 2008 Budget on February 5, 2007 and is available on the Web at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2008plan/g3heatrioed.doc. The application package is available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/2006-066a.doc.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Department has ambitious annual targets through 2012 for the college enrollment measure, and in 2007 established targets through 2012 for the new measure of the percentage of EOC participants who are both low-income and potential first generation college students. As noted above, data from the NCES National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 indicate that approximately 48% of low-income students do not go on to college by the time they are approximately 25 years of age. EOC, because it serves a population of individuals who have expressed an interest in attending college, would be expected to have a higher percentage of college enrollees, and has a long-term target that is 13 points higher than this figure. This long-term target of 61% of EOC participants enrolling in college by in 2012 was derived by assuming continued increases of .5% each year from the 2004 target of 57%. The recently established target for the percentage of EOC participants who are low-income and potential first generation college students is 75% for 2012. Targets for this new measure were set in March 2007 upon review of the program data from 2000-2005. Maintaining the current performance level at a rate significantly exceeding the statutory requirement is ambitious.

Evidence: EOC's 2008 Program Performance Plan, which includes the college enrollment target, is available on the Web at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2008plan/g3heatrioed.doc. The new measure will be included in future plans.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of EOC in achieving its goals, the Department uses the same measures to monitor annual performance as are used to measure long-term performance. These measures focus on student outcomes in terms of improving access to quality postsecondary education for low-income first generation students and effective targeting. The measures are the percentage of EOC participants enrolling in college and the percentage of EOC participants who are low income (fall within 150% of poverty line) and potential first generation college students.

Evidence: The college enrollment measure was published along with the Department's 2008 Budget on February 5, 2007 and is available on the Web at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2008plan/g3heatrioed.doc. The application package is available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/2006-066a.doc.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: As noted above, EOC uses the same measures for assessing annual and long-term performance. The program has set targets through 2012 for both measures. The annual targets for percentage of EOC participants enrolling in college require continual program progress to achieve increases of 0.5% each year. The recently established target for the percentage of EOC participants who are low-income and potential first generation college students is 75%, each year. Targets for this new measure were set in March 2007 after review of the program data from 2000-2005. Maintaining of the current performance level at a rate significantly exceeding the statutory requirement is ambitious.

Evidence: The college enrollment measure was published along with the Department's 2008 Budget on February 5, 2007 and is available on the Web at http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2008plan/g3heatrioed.doc.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All EOC projects work toward the annual and long-term goals of the program. The program objectives were clearly articulated in the 2006 Application Package and through technical assistance. Annual performance reports (APRs) are required of all grantees and their performance is measured on the basis of how well they meet program performance goals.

Evidence: Program regulations clearly articulate the program goals (34 CFR 644.10 and 644.22) and indicate that grant awards, continuation funding, and prior experience points are awarded partly on the basis of how well projects achieve their goals. The Application Package is available on the Web at http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/2006-066a.doc. The Annual Performance Report is available on the Web at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/tseocaprform0506.doc.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Department has not conducted recent independent evaluations for EOC. In 2005, the Department developed a multi-year strategy for conducting future TRIO evaluations for all of its major programs in a logical order that built on the efforts of each study in order to best evaluate the programs overall. The resulting TRIO Evaluation Plan included a proposal for an EOC evaluation to begin in FY 2007. The purpose of the study was to identify highly successful projects and project features and to establish testable models. However, to date evaluations of other TRIO programs have taken priority.

Evidence: August 2005 TRIO Evaluation Plan

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: ED has not satisfied the first part of the question because program performance changes are not identified with changes in funding levels. However, ED has satisfied the second part of this question in that the ED's budget submissions show the cost of the program.

Evidence: FY 2008 Budget Request to Congress: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/index.html?src=rt

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has taken numerous activities to strengthen the EOC program: - In order to more completely measure program performance, in 2007 program staff developed an additional performance measure, the percentage of EOC participants who are both low income (fall within 150% of poverty line) and potential first generation college students. This measure will help ensure that EOC remains targeted on the most needy participants. - The FY 2006 application package included four program objectives that each project had to address: (1) enrollment in a continuing education program; (2) applying for student financial aid; (3) postsecondary education admission; and (4) postsecondary education enrollment. Each applicant was required to propose a target percentage for each of these objectives, and peer reviewers assigned points based upon the extent to which the proposed objectives were judged ambitious but attainable. These objectives help ensure that each project maintains its focus on the key goals of the program.

Evidence: FY 2006 grant application package, which is available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/2006-066a.doc.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: ED requires grantees to submit regular and timely performance reports. The information collected is used to improve program performance and to provide technical assistance to grantees to assist them in meeting their proposed goals and objectives. Also, EOC improved the FY 2006 application package by including four standard program objectives that focus on the most important aspects of the program. The program staff has had concerns about data comparability across EOC grantees, and is working on data quality improvements to improve the quality of the school year 2006-07 data collected from grantees. Among the improvements is the elimination of the term "college ready" and, in its place, the provision of a specific definition of which participants should be counted as being ready for college. This change will result in more comparable college enrollment data across projects. Also, TRIO continues to use information on grantee performance to inform the award of continuation grants and has kept aware of management issues by maintaining regular contact with grantees. TRIO publishes a quarterly newsletter to improve communication with grantees.

Evidence: The FY 2006 EOC application package is available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/2006-066a.doc. TRIO newsletters are available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/newsletters.html.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: ED's managers are subject to the Education Department Performance Appraisal System (EDPAS), which links employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals and action steps and is designed to measure the degree to which a manager contributes to improving program performance. EOC managers' EDPAS agreements are linked with the performance of projects or the program. The EDPAS standards for TRIO program managers require that they develop strategies for implementing program initiatives related to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Department's Strategic Plan. TRIO program specialists are held accountable for assessing project performance, calculating prior experience points, and monitoring the progress of projects in achieving program goals and objectives. EOC projects receive continuation funding on the basis of their reported progress in achieving the program goals.

Evidence: Signed EDPAS agreements, which are maintained by the program office.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely matter, i.e., all awards are made before the end of the fiscal year and no funds are lapsed. One recent Department of Education Office of Inspector General (OIG) report found that the Office of Postsecondary Education (the parent office for the TRIO programs) did not always effectively respond to and resolve individual drawdowns on the Excessive Drawdown Reports. In response to this report, OPE stated it is implementing corrective actions to ensure that drawdowns listed on the Excessive Drawdown Reports are thoroughly researched, the results of this research are documented, and timely responses are submitted to ED's Office of the Chief Financial Officer. In addition, TRIO has focused attention on appropriate financial management procedures and implemented improvement to EOC's funds management. TRIO staff monitor the financial records of EOC grantees using the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS) and reports on excessive drawdown or inactivity. Department program staff send a memo explaining the consequences of excessive drawdowns to all TRIO grantees. In addition, staff have begun monitoring grantees that are not spending funds as quickly as anticipated. Grantees must submit a written request before any accounts are reopened after the close of a grant cycle.

Evidence: Department financial records. Program office files. The OIG Reports dealing with financial control issues (excessive drawdowns) is: ED-OIG/A19F0025, December 2006 - Controls Over Excessive Cash Drawdowns by Grantees. This OIG Audit Report can be accessed on the Web at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a19f0025.pdf

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has an efficiency measure but no baseline or targets have been set. All TRIO grants are competitively awarded. TRIO developed a common efficiency measure, the annual cost per successful outcome, to assess the cost effectiveness of each TRIO program and project on an annual basis. In June 2005, TRIO began a pilot effort to implement its efficiency measures. The implementation strategy includes communication with grantees, calculating efficiency data in a variety of ways, and publishing efficiency data and setting targets for improved efficiency. TRIO staff members are working with projects to focus on methods for comparing and improving efficiency levels over time. For EOC, the most important program outcomes are college enrollment, college re-enrollment, and continuing education Therefore, in 2007, the program established an efficiency measure to assess the cost per EOC recipient enrolling in college, re-enrolling in college, or continuing his or her high school (or GED) education. The Department plans to conduct an EOC efficiency analysis in 2008. Additionally, prior experience points serve as a performance incentive for grantees.

Evidence: The EOC application package is available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/2006-066a.doc. Program office files.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Department urges TRIO projects to coordinate with other Federal and non-Federal projects to create a pipeline of services to students in high school through college. Some project directors oversee multiple TRIO projects, which enhances coordination across TRIO programs at the institution. Additionally, Department TRIO staff members administer the Child Care Access Means Parents In School (CCAMPIS) program and works closely with the GEAR UP and Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Service (IDUES) program staffs. EOC projects are often linked with Upward Bound, GEAR UP, and Student Support Services projects, including a number of institutions that are the recipients of multiple such grants. The spring 2005 TRIO newsletter includes information about IDUES and CCAMPIS activities. Applicants are awarded points in the grant competition for showing evidence of coordination with other programs for disadvantaged students. The summer 2005 TRIO newsletter provided guidance on coordination.

Evidence: Summer 2005 newsletter: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/trionewslettersummer2005.doc Spring 2005 newsletter: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/trionewsletterspring2005.doc Grant files.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The TRIO program office follows Departmental guidelines for financial management and no internal control weaknesses have been found. TRIO personnel also use the Department's electronic system for monitoring cash flows and identifying potentially excessive drawdown. Program personnel have the ability to put grantees on probation, which requires prior approval for drawing down of funds.

Evidence: The IG audit of TRIO's financial controls found no evidence of erroneous payments or other such material weaknesses.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: TRIO developed a plan for responding to IG audit concerns regarding insufficient grantee monitoring and unclear reporting requirements. Additionally, the program developed an efficiency measure for EOC. A full-time TRIO staff member is now dedicated to project oversight, which provides the programs with better and more timely information on grantee performance. The spring 2005 TRIO newsletter includes information on resources that can be used to improve projects. For example, one of the resources was the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), an organization well known for its commitment to developing and disseminating program standards. CAS developed Standards and Guidelines for TRIO and Other Educational Opportunity Programs.

Evidence: Program files. Efficiency measure (see measures section).

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: All EOC grants are awarded competitively through competitions announced in the Federal Register and on ED's website. Extensive information about the program, including information on ED grant procedures, is available on the website to enable potential grantees to learn about program requirements and accomplishments and to understand application procedures. In addition, the TRIO program office provides outreach and technical assistance to potential grantees. A clear, competitive process is implemented based on an approved Technical Review Plan, which outlines, step-by-step, the procedures to be used in the review process. Although the statute and regulations provide up to 15 bonus points for prior experience, TRIO has tightened the process for awarding those points to ensure that the competitive preference given to existing grantees is based on demonstrated performance. The percentage of EOC grantees receiving 14 or more (of the 15 priority points) declined from 74.4% in 2002 to 28.5% in 2006.

Evidence: TRIO Program office grant files. The Department notice inviting applications for the 2006 competition, which was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2005.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Department implemented new procedures for improving the monitoring of grant expenditures based on IG concerns. GAPS, performance reports, financial status reports, and other internal reports are used to ensure that all related grant financial management practices are followed. Performance reports are reviewed to ensure that the information requested provides quality data and evidence of the success of the program, as well as of success in the individual projects. TRIO staff members attend meetings of new project directors to provide program information.

Evidence: Program files: The TRIO program staff office review all reports (APRs, partnership agreements, interim performance reports, audits) that grantees are required to submit and make follow-up calls to clarify questions and concerns. A full-time TRIO staff member is now dedicated to project oversight.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The TRIO program office collects and compiles data from performance reports on an annual basis and produces a program profile report biennially, most recently in the 2006 interim EOC Report. Disaggregated grantee-level data have not been available to the public for EOC. TRIO plans to make the data available to the public in 2008. By that time, the data should be comparable across projects. This is, in large part, due to revisions to the Annual Performance Report to ensure that the same definition of "college ready" is used throughout the program.

Evidence: Program profile reports prepared by independent contractors are available on TRIO's website (www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio). An interim EOC report was released in 2006 (http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioeoc/eocinterimreport2002-04.doc). The reports include complete performance data aggregated at the program level. Data also are disaggregated by type of institution.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: EOC exceeded its long-term performance goal in 2004 for its primary performance measure, college enrollment. However, it narrowly failed to meet the performance goal for this measure in 2005. Thus, there has been uneven annual progress toward the long-term goal. Targets have been developed for the recently established second measure, percentage of project participants who are both low-income and potential first-generation students.

Evidence: For enrollment in college, 2004 goal was 57%; actual 2004 performance was 57.4%. The 2005 goal was 57.5; actual 2005 performance was 56.9. The long-term performance goal is 61% for 2012.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The annual measures and long-term measures are the same. EOC exceeded its annual performance goal in 2004 for its primary performance measure, college enrollment. However, it narrowly failed to meet the performance goal for this measure in 2005. The program office has established targets for the recently established measure of enrollment of low-income potentially first-generation students.

Evidence: For enrollment in college, 2004 annual goal was 57%; actual 2004 performance was 57.4%. The 2005 annual goal was 57.5; actual 2005 performance was 56.9. Targets are currently increasing by .5 percent each year. Performance goals for 2006 and 2007 are 58% and 58.5%, respectively.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Department developed an efficiency measure for EOC--cost per EOC recipient enrolling in college, re-enrolling in college, or enrolling in continuing education--in 2007. However, no targets have been established yet to judge performance against.

Evidence: See efficiency measure in the performance measures section.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While there are other programs that provide somewhat similar services, as discussed below, at this time we do not have sufficient data on the EOC program to compare program performance and have scored this item as NA. The Educational Opportunity Centers provide help in applying for financial aid along with various types of counseling and tutoring. The EOCs complement existing TRIO efforts by targeting students not served under other parts of the TRIO program. While the TRIO Talent Search program provides some of the same services provided by EOCs, Talent Search services are predominantly provided to middle and high school students, while EOC serves prospective adult college students. To maximize federal resources in both programs, EOC services often concentrate on displaced or under-employed workers and recipients of EOC services must be 19 years of age, unless there is no Talent Search project in the target area. Given this difference between the two programs, one would not expect EOC participants to enroll at the same rate as Talent Search participants. And, although EOC's college enrollment has been less than the rate of Talent Search, EOC's college enrollment rate does appear to be successful when compared to the performance of all low-income high school completers and all high school completers. Data from the NCES National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 indicate that approximately 48% of low-income students do not go on to college by the time they are approximately 25 years of age. EOC, because it serves a population of individuals who have expressed an interest in attending college, could be expected to have a higher percentage of college enrollees, but it is difficult to determine how much higher. (Actual performance ranges from 57% to 66%, and the long-term performance target is 61%.)

Evidence: Over the period 2000-2005, from 57 to 66 percent of "college ready" participants (i.e., those not already enrolled in college, who (1) were high school seniors; (2) were high school graduates; or (3) had obtained a high-school equivalency certificate) receiving EOC services have enrolled in college, a performance level nearly comparable with all high school completers (63 to 67 percent from 2000 - 2005) and well above that of low-income high school completers (44 to 57 percent from 2000 - 2005). (NCES, 2006, the Condition of Education, Indicator 29, Immediate Transition to College, p. 172.)

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The Department has not conducted recent independent evaluations of EOC. As discussed in response to Question 2.6, in 2005, the Department developed a multi-year strategy for conducting future TRIO evaluations for all of its major programs in a logical order that built on the efforts of each study in order to best evaluate the programs overall. The resulting TRIO Evaluation Plan included a proposal for an EOC evaluation to begin in FY 2007. The purpose of the study was to identify highly successful projects and project features and to establish testable models. However, funding was not available for this survey.

Evidence: August 2005 TRIO Evaluation Plan (Department files)