Taking a Closer Look at Talent Search

Federal policymakers have long recognized the importance of raising the college aspirations and improving the academic preparation of students from low-income families so they can enroll in and succeed in college. However, the multiple college outreach and early intervention programs that the government currently supports suffer from significant overlap and redundancies.

To achieve this goal more effectively, policymakers need to develop a more coherent and coordinated strategy than what currently exists. But before they can start, they need a better understanding of the current programs to identify what is working and what is not. To help with this effort, we are taking  a closer look at the strengths and weakness of each of the programs.

Today, we will start by examining Talent Search, which aims to help disadvantaged middle-school and high-school students who have “college potential” pursue a higher education. Talent Search, which is part of the federal TRIO programs, has a long track record of helping highly-motivated low-income students prepare for and enroll in college and apply for federal financial aid. But by focusing on students who are already likely to attend college, the program provides little assistance to low-income students whose potential has not yet been recognized.

Congress established Talent Search in 1965 as part of the original Higher Education Act. Today, the program, which has an annual budget of around $142 million, serves nearly 360,000 students, three quarters of whom are both low-income and the first in their families to go to college. More than two-thirds of the participants are in high school, with most entering the program in the ninth or tenth grade.

The colleges and community agencies that run these projects recruit students based largely on recommendations from guidance counselors and teachers. As a result, the participants tend to be students who have clearly demonstrated that they have more academic potential and motivation than their peers.

The projects provide information and counseling to students, and help them fill out applications for college admissions and financial aid. Participating students go on trips to college campuses and get help preparing for college-admissions tests. In addition, many of the projects provide tutoring to participants struggling in core subject areas.

The program typically takes a “pull out” approach to delivering its services, meaning that project staff members generally pull students out of their classes to meet with them. A large-scale evaluation of the program that Mathematica Policy Research Inc. conducted for the Department of Education in 2004 said that this approach has proven to be “problematic,” and “by some accounts was becoming increasingly so.” With schools under pressure “to ensure students meet certain academic standards” and pass state exams, some teachers are reluctant “to release students for extracurricular activities such as Talent Search,” the evaluation stated.

Overall, Talent Search is considered to be a “light touch” program in that it offers a limited number of services to individual students, and participation in most of the activities is optional. The program spends on average $394 per student, which is by far the lowest of all the government’s college outreach programs. In contrast, the far-more intensive Upward Bound program, which is also part of TRIO, costs nearly $5,000 per participant in federal funds.

Some researchers who have studied Talent Search have questioned the effectiveness of its “low intensity” approach, noting that nearly half of the high schools students who participate receive less than 10 hours of service from the program each year. “Overall, the program still adheres to the original assumption that small amounts of service, delivered at crucial times, can make a difference in students’ decisions concerning college preparation and enrollment,” Mathematica’s 2004 evaluation states. “However, there is no solid evidence on which to judge whether the light touch program model is effective overall or for various subgroups.”

A more recent Mathematica evaluation of Talent Search projects in Florida, Indiana, and Texas produced more promising results. That study, which was published in 2006, found that students participating in the program were significantly more likely to complete high school, enroll in college, and apply for financial aid than non-participants in all three states. For example, in Texas, participants in Talent Search were 14 percent more likely to complete high school, 18 percent more likely to enroll in college, and 28 percent more likely to apply for federal financial aid than their peers. The study’s authors were uncertain, however, about how much credit to give the program for these achievements, especially in the area of high school completion. “If Talent Search staff targeted students with higher college aspirations than otherwise similar students, the analysis will overestimate the effects of participation on outcomes,” the evaluators wrote.

At Ed Money Watch, we have argued that if policymakers believe that raising the college aspirations and improving the academic preparation of disadvantaged students continues to be a valid public policy goal, they need to develop more effective strategy than what currently exists. To do so, it is important they understand the strengths and weaknesses of the existing programs.

Based on our research, here are what we believe to be Talent Search’s most promising aspects:

• A long track record of helping low-income students who have shown academic promise and have college aspirations achieve their goals

• A relatively low cost to the government

The program, however, has a number of significant drawbacks that limit its scope and reach:

• By serving students predominantly in high school, the program is missing an opportunity to have a greater impact. This is important because many higher education researchers agree the middle school years are a crucial time for students to develop college aspirations and to start taking the appropriate courses. Getting low-income students on the college track as early a possible appears to be critical in determining whether or not they pursue a higher education.

• By focusing on students with “college potential,” the program offers little help to disadvantaged students whose potential has not yet been recognized

• The program’s “light touch” may not be effective in helping students who are not already motivated to go to college.

• The program’s pull-out approach to delivering services can be disruptive for participants.

Stay tuned in the coming weeks as we take a closer look at the government’s other college outreach and early intervention programs.