Mrs. GREEN. Very well, and without objection your statement will be made a part of the record.

(The statement of Dr. Frost follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD FROST, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM

I. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

UPWARD BOUND is a pre-college program, operated largely by colleges and universities, for poverty high school students. It is designed to remedy poor preparation and motivation in secondary school, and thus increase a youngster's promise of acceptance and success in a post-secondary institution.

A typical Upward Bound Program consists of two parts-(a) an intensive residential summer academic session on a campus and (b) an effective "followup" system during the academic year, so that the gains of the summer sessions are consolidated through tutoring, after-school or weekend sessions, and so on. Once a program begins, institutions must be prepared to work with the UPWARD BOUND students all the way to the college doorstep.

In operating UPWARD BOUND programs, educational institutions commit themselves to assisting each UPWARD BOUND "graduate" get on to an appropriate post-secondary educational institution with the financial assistance he will need.

Because we have surmised that "one summer of happiness" is not enough time to repair educational and motivational deficiencies, the focus of the program is on 10th and 11th graders.

At the base of the whole idea is a very simple assumption-persons now in poverty and likely to stay there will get out and stay out of poverty if they obtain the marketable skills that post-secondary education can give them.

II. RESULTS ACHIEVED

A. Data from six of the first (1965) Upward Bound demonstration projects show that 80% of the students continued their education, with 78% going on to an accredited college. Only 12 percent of these UPWARD BOUND alumni dropped out during their freshman year of college, less than half the customary dropout rate for such students. (Previous studies put the dropout rate in predominantly Negro colleges at one-third the freshman class.) Although they were having a tough time competing academically, those students from the lowest economic status were those who most often improved their grade level in the second semester. Also 20% of the UPWARD BOUND students in college improved their academic standing in the second semester over the first semester.

It is estimated that only 8% of the American high school graduates whose family income meet OEO's poverty lines go on to continue their education after high school. The rate so far in Upward Bound is 75-80%. This not only multiplies the college-going rate of the American poor by 9-10 times, it exceeds the college going rate of all American high school graduates, rich and poor, which is esti mated at 65%.

B. A 10% representative sample of all UPWARD BOUND students in the U.S., funded in Fiscal year 1966, tested at the beginning and end of the summer phase of the on-campus program showed significant improvement in six psycholo gical measurements:

1. Motivation for college

2. Possibility of graduating from college

3. Self-evaluation of intelligence

4. Self-responsibility

5. Interpersonal understanding

6. Self-esteem

(The students, in 21 of the total 216 programs, were selected as representative of all urban and rural, small and large UPWARD BOUND projects, and all racial and ethnic backgrounds.)

III. ONGOING EVALUATION OF UPWARD BOUND

A. Characterization of 1966 Summer Upward Bound Programs. This study, conducted by Dr. David Hunt and Dr. Robert Hardt of the Youth Development

Center of Syracuse University, showed the results of attitudinal tests given to all of the Upward Bound students in 21 target programs. The tests were given twice, during the first week of the summer program and during the last week. The 21 target programs were chosen as a group which were representative of all of the programs.

B. Report to the Director of Upward Bound : Program for Pre-College Centers: Evaluation of the 1965 and 1966 Upward Bound Programs of the Pre-College Centers located at Dillard, Fisk, Howard, Morehouse, Texas Southern, and Webster Universities. This report followed the progress of both the original 1965 Upward Bound students and those selected in 1966 at the six colleges which used materials developed by Educational Services, Incorporated. The original group consisted of students who had graduated from high school in June of 1965. Many of the 1966 summer group entered college last Fall.

C. National and Regional Profile of Programs, Students, Staff and Advisory Committee. This was a compilation made by the consultant agency for Upward Bound, Educational Projects, Inc. (EPI) based on a Summer Summary Questionnaire sent to all fiscal year 1966 Upward Bound Projects, in June 1966.

D. National and Regional Profile of Student Retention and Attrition, Causes of Attrition, Follow-up Program Plans, and Staff Medical Examination and Treatment Costs, Student Stipend Distribution. This was a compilation made by EPI based on the 1966-1967 Academic Summary Questionnaire #1 which was sent to all Funded 1967 Upward Bound projects early last Fall.

E. Careful in depth site visits for each program are on file for both the summer phase and the academic year phase. The reports are written by persons who have had prior knowledge of OEO and pre-college programs.

IV. DATA ON 1966-67 UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM

Profile of Upward Bound Programs

1. Total number of Upward Bound projects---.

2. Total number of students__

3. Total community action 205 funds in fiscal 1966–.

4. Federal cost per program__

5. Federal cost per student funded--

6. Range of Federal grants:

(a) Smallest (Princeton) --

(b) Largest (Texas Southern).

7. Average enrollment per program.....

8. Range of enrollment:

(a) Smallest (Princeton had 60-we financed 12)

(b) Largest (Texas Southern) -----

9. Location of programs:

(a) In public institutions of higher education_.

(b) In private institutions of higher education_

(c) In public secondary schools (BIA school in Alaska) –.
(d) In private secondary schools---

PROFILE OF 20,000 UPWARD BOUND STUDENTS

A large percentage of the 20,000 high school students enrolled in Upward Bound in the summer of 1966 come from families below OEO's minimum poverty level; and are severely handicapped culturally when compared with the U.S. high school population.

Indications of the level of deprivation of the more than 20,000 students enrolled in Upward Bound in the summer of 1966 are:

Mean family income, $3,501.86 (OEO considers $4,000 a poverty level for family of 6).

Size of family, 53% have 6 or more members in a family.

Parental guidance, 55% of students were living with only one parent (30% living with mother) or with no parent.

Comparison with a national high school sample graphically points up the deprivation of Upward Bound students:

Older siblings of Upward Bound students have a high secondary school dropout rate and extremely low college attendance record. Only 5% of older siblings are college graduates, while 30% of the older brothers, and 26% of the older sisters have already dropped out of school without a high school diploma.

Student data from Upward Bound

1. Total number applying to the 224 Upward Bound project schools--. 2. Total number enrolled__

34, 529

20, 139

16.1

48.6

51. 3

33.0

51.9

4.1

7.3

3.4

(grade)

10

(C)

2.46

370

152

(c) American Indian__.

(d) Spanish American

(e) Other (e.g., oriental).

6. Grade level completed upon entry to program:

Mean grade level completed---.

7. High school grade point average upon entry to program:
Mean grade point average (73% C or lower).
Only 43% were in academic course in high school.
8. Total number who had "dropped out of high school".
9. Total number entering from Job Corps Centers‒‒‒‒‒‒‒

Upward Bound students were drawn from the largest metropolitan areas (40% lived in cities of over 100,000 population;) and the most isolated rural regions (25% lived in communities with less than 2,500 population.) Most attended densely populated high schools, with 55% reporting their high school enrollment in excess of 1,000 students. Eight percent attended schools with fewer than 300 students.

Nearly four out of five Upward Bound students first heard about the program through school contacts: 47% from a school counselor, 16% from a teacher, 10% from a principal and 8% from a school friend.

Although most of their parents looked favorably upon their being enrolled in the special academic program (80% according to the students), their neighborhood friends were much more skeptical (only 43% were reported to favor students' joining the program.)

Source: Questionnaire distributed by OEO to Upward Bound Project Directors, combined with data from the Syracuse University Youth Development Center.

V. RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN THE USOE

(A) EOG-NDEA Loans and Work-Study. Obviously Upward Bound's "graduates" are prime contenders for these financial aids at the college level. To emphasize that fact, Commissioner Howe sent a letter to all Presidents' and Admissions Offices of institutions receiving federal financial aid funds, pointing out that thousands of Upward Bound students were now coming "around the track" and would be obvious candidates for financial help. Whether and to what

extent colleges and universities, due to the matching provisions of EOG, are willing to spend money on students with less conventionally measured "qualifications" or "promise", OEO does not know. The signals so far from around the country are mixed.

Other important issues are raised. Should the poorest students carry the highest educational debts? Should less well prepared students be forced to put in many work-study hours per week? Will colleges invest their dollars in the student taking a lighter load and going for five years?

(B) Talent Search (Sec. 408, Higher Education Act).

Upward Bound has worked closely with Talent Search in OE. UB representatives sit on Talent Search's panels reviewing proposals. UB has commented on Talent Search's Guidelines prior to their issuance.

There are five significant differences between UB and TS:

(1) All UB programs contain a major academic, instructional component designed to remedy educational deficiencies. No TS programs do. All UB programs bring the high school student to the campus for an entire summer and off and on during the year. No TS programs do.

(2) TS programs are a crucial "broadcasting" of news about college-going, financial aid, and related matters. UB's "sphere of influence" is smaller and more concentrated on a particular batch of heavily involved students.

(3) UB, being in OEO, has the needed flexibility to fund a variety of curricula and types of programs. TS, in a more established agency, must be folded into established workways which have proven useful and workable but, necessarily, don't provide the flexibility OEO can give Upward Bound.

(4) UB is directly tied to OEO's local community action agencies and, through these, can mobilize local resources more easily in health, dental care, family support, other tutoring programs, etc.

(5) OEO views Talent Search as a very important complementary program which reaches many more students than UB can reach. It is our own view that neither program is a substitute for the other. The relationship between TS and UB staffs has been excellent.

Dr. FROST. Upward Bound is the academic instructional precollege program run by the war on poverty, making grants to colleges and universities who take high school youngsters on to the college campuses in the summer for academic and motivational beef-up, if you will, youngsters who are not now headed for college and who, the colleges think, with this kind of intervention and work, could be moved into higher education.

The program was started in 1965 with 18 pilot programs and then in 1966 became full-blown with 216 Upward Bound programs. There are now 20,000 Upward Bound youngsters in these 216 programs. They go from Guam to Maine and there will be programs this summer in every State.

Most of these youngsters, all of them in fact that we support, are not only at the OEO poverty criteria but even lower. The mean family income of these youngsters is $3,500 for a family of six and OEŎ considers $4,000 the poverty level for a family of six. The average age is 16.

They come into the program as 10th graders and we work with them in the summer programs and all year round with further direction in the form of tutoring and back to campus visits.

Once in the program, the college tries to keep him there through the summer between high school graduation and when he might go to college. Some have called it the Headstart program for teen-age poverty youngsters.

Madam Chairman, unless you wish more detail, I would stop with that kind of summary.

Mrs. GREEN. I notice you gave statistics on how many of the youngsters from low-income families went to college and that the percent

age is increasing. Do you have any information on how many of them stayed in college or how many became dropouts?

Dr. FROST. What I have, Madam Chairman, is the first data on the group in 1965. We took a sample of six of those and tracked those six.

Mrs. GREEN. Six youngsters?

Dr. FROST. No, six colleges; a total of 953 youngsters and we are now tracking them. They are currently sophomores.

I can file this with you as soon as I can get a copy made. The data is not easy to come by as colleges-for us at least they have a difficult time remerbering this youngster was an Upward Bound student but we are making progress. It looks as though they are going to stay in college at about the same rate as other youngsters going to college. This is a messy business as far as data is concerned. You know many youngters start at a college but don't finish in that college but some finish college even though not at the college where they started. I am working to firm up this data but it looks as though they have a staying power about the same as other youngsters going to such colleges.

Mrs. GREEN. What are your figures?

Dr. FROST. We know data on 819 of the 953. We can extrapolate on the others. There was an initial college going rate of 80 percent, 23 percent of those who went withdrew during or at the end of the first

year.

Fifty-one percent of them came back for their sophomore year. Of those, we knew as of February, Mrs. Green, that 18 percent were on probation. We knew nothing about 37 percent as to whether they were on probation and we knew 45 percent were in good standing.

The summary of this data is that the sample was 953, 762, or 80 percent started college, 23 percent were not there after the freshman year, and then over the summer we lost more and 51 percent of them went back so the whole number of the original college going group still in college is about 40 percent and I think that that is comparable to the kind of figures you expect with the regular college-going populations in these colleges but I want to say clearly I am not clear on this general data and I am working with the Office of Education to get some data.

I think it is fair to compare these youngsters with regular going college students. I don't know whether we can get retention rates for other poorer young American youngsters who were not in this program.

Mrs. GREEN. These statistics are for what year, 1966?

Dr. FROST. These youngsters started in Upward Bound in the pilot summer, a sample of them, and they are therefore currently in their sophomore year. They went through their freshman year last year and are now in their sophomore year.

The data I have was taken in February 1967, and we are waiting for the spring performance records of this group.

Mrs. GREEN. Do you have figures on the number that stayed in college university programs on their own before this program was in operation in the Office of Economic Opportunity?

Dr. FROST. No, I do not; nor do I know of any other program where the poverty criteria were so strictly enforced and an Upward Bound