1 / 20

Profile of GEAR UP Grantees

Profile of GEAR UP Grantees. May 13, 2010. 3040 Cornwallis Road ■ P.O . Box 12194 ■ Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: 919-541-6000 ■ Fax: 919-541-7014. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Purpose of Report.

sidone
Download Presentation

Profile of GEAR UP Grantees

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Profile of GEAR UP Grantees May 13, 2010 3040 Cornwallis Road ■ P.O. Box 12194 ■ Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: 919-541-6000 ■ Fax: 919-541-7014 RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute

  2. Purpose of Report The purpose of the report is two-fold: • To provide the department basic descriptive information about GEAR UP grantees using Annual Performance Report (APR) data and Financial Status and Program Performance Closeout Report (Closeout) data, and • To discuss APR reporting challenges.

  3. Data Used in the Report The report used data from two sources • GEAR UP APR data includes • Grantee characteristics, • Attributes of students served, and • Services provided. • Most exhibits were based on 2007-08 APR data. • Exhibits that include longitudinal data were based on 2004-05 through 2007-08.

  4. Data Used in the Report • Closeout Report data includes cumulative information on • Funding received, • Students served, and • Students outcomes. • Closeout data was considered for projects whose first funding year was 1999-00 or 2000-01.

  5. Findings The first objective of the report was to provide basic descriptive information on the GEAR UP program. Key findings included:

  6. Distribution of GEAR UP grantees by type of grant, 2007-08 State 18.6% n = 40 Partnership 81.4% n = 175

  7. Partnership Grantees • In 2007-08, • 174 partnership grantees, • Received $187 million, and • Served 331,245 students.

  8. Percentage of partnership grantees providing service type to students during program year 2007-08

  9. Percentage of partnership grantees providing service type to parents during program year 2007-08

  10. State Grantees • In 2007-08, • 40 state grantees, • Received $114.9 million, and • Served 424,513 students.

  11. Percentage of state grantees providing service type to students during program year 2007-08

  12. Percentage of state grantees providing service type to parents during program year 2007-08

  13. 62.1 Tutoring related services 42.3 40.4 Computer-assisted lab 24.8 35.2 Mentoring 24.7 69.9 Counseling related services 62.9 34.9 College visit/college student shadowing 33.5 Service type 11.7 Partnership Job site visit/job shadowing 7.1 State 15.1 Summer programs 14.1 29.7 Educational field trips 23.5 44.2 Workshops 36.9 29.6 Family events 23.8 28.7 Cultural events 21.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Percentage of students in a project receiving service type during program year 2007-08, by type of grant

  14. Tutoring/homework assistance/academic enrichment 56 Computer-assisted lab 36 Mentoring 22 Counseling/advising/academic planning/career counseling 19 College visit/college student shadowing 10 Service type Job site visit/job shadowing 9 Summer programs 63 Educational field trips 12 Workshops 8 Family events 5 Cultural events 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Average number of hours service received Average number of hours service type received by student from partnership grantees during program year 2007-08

  15. Prealgebra by the end of the 7th grade 24.7 Prealgebra by the end of the 8th grade 44.4 Algebra 1 by the end of the 8th grade 21.7 Algebra 1 by the end of the 9th grade 47.3 Algebra 2 43.7 Student course completed 48.1 Geometry Any math course above geometry 29.1 Calculus 11.0 Chemistry 35.9 Physics 18.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Completion rate Student course completion rates for partnership grantees who first received funding during 1999-2000 or 2000-01 Note: includes students who were seniors during the grantee’s final year of funding. In most cases, this is the “cohort” who received 6 years of services.

  16. Completed high school 84.7 Immediately enrolled in a High school graduation and 56.2 postsecondary enrollment postsecondary institution Immediately enrolled in a four-year postsecondary 28.6 institution 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Student HS graduation & postsecondary enrollment outcome rates for partnership grantees who first received funding during 1999-2000 or 2000-01 Note: includes students who were seniors during the grantee’s final year of funding. In most cases, this is the “cohort” who received 6 years of services.

  17. Findings The second objective of the report was to discuss APR reporting challenges. Key findings included: • APR instructions were often vague and did not include specific examples. This resulted in variation within and between projects for several key data elements. One example includes reporting of GEAR UP partners:

  18. Had school district 75.9 partner Had community 78.7 organization partner Had faith-based 9.8 Type of active partners organization partner Had postsecondary 77.6 institution partner Had other organization 71.1 partner 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Distribution of GEAR UP partnership grantees by type of partners: 2007-08

  19. Findings • Delayed reporting of the number of course completions and grade level promotions hindered data quality. • Analysis of APR data showed instances where grantees reported current year rather than prior year outcomes. • Procedures that checked for consistent reporting within APR sections, across APR sections, and across APR years did not to seem to be in place.

  20. Findings • Design issues with student and parent surveys were identified: • baseline data ere not collected, • mandatory survey questions were vague, • APR provided only limited instructions to grantees on which funding years to administer the surveys, how to administer the surveys, and which students and parents to include. • Result was survey data that can not be compared between projects within a year or across years.

More Related