Appendix: Performance and Efficiency Measure Summary

What is the summary analysis of the performance and efficiency measures for 2004–05?

The Summary table displays aggregated project data by categories according to a variety of
project and institutional characteristics. The categories demonstrate some similarities and
differences between the projects and their institutional environment. A grantee may want to
compare its performance results to those of other projects with similar characteristics. A
detailed explanation for each category can be obtained in the Glossary.
The project characteristics are postsecondary persistence rate, bachelor’s degree completion
rate, associate’s degree/transfer rate, efficiency measure (gap), federal funding, number of
students served by the project, success rate and cost per student served.

The institutional characteristics are derived from data reported by the grantee institutions to the
Department’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which can be found
at http://www.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. The institutional characteristics are sector; percent
undergraduate, full-time enrollment; undergraduate enrollment; percent of students’ receiving
federal aid; geographic region; degree of urbanization; retention rate and graduation rate. In a
few cases, institutions classified as four-year institutions in IPEDS are reclassified as two-year
institutions because the project serves only students pursuing two-year degrees, less-than two-
year degrees, or preparing to transfer to a four-year institution.

The “high,” “medium” and “low” categories for the characteristics provide additional information
on the character and spread of the results. The “high”/“low” categories each contain the 25
percent of grantees with the highest and lowest values for that characteristic. The “medium” or
middle category contains the remaining grants, those between the 25th and 75th percentile.

The average value of the performance and efficiency measures for those grants in each
category is presented. The maximum number of grants evaluated in each category, average
total funding, average numbers of students served, average cost per successful outcome,
average success rate, average cost per student served, total funding per category and average
number of successful outcomes are also presented for each category.

1 of 22
 Appendix: Performance and Efficiency Measure Summary

Statistically significant results of the summary analysis

Bivariate Pearson correlations between all of the project characteristics and the institutional
characteristics were analyzed. Only correlation values greater than 0.5 and significance levels
at the 0.01 level (two-tail) are described as a strong association. Projects that serve more
students receive more funding and serve them at a lower average cost per student. Projects
that serve more than 249 students receive an average of $353,480 in federal funding and spend
on average $1,016 per student served, whereas projects that serve fewer than 160 students
receive an average of $245,036 and spend on average $1,746 per student served.
Performance (persistence rate, graduation rate and efficiency measure), however, does not
show a strong association to the unit cost per student. This suggests that different student
populations may require different levels of resources.

On average, projects with the highest bachelors’ degree completion rates are at four-year
institutions with the highest full-time retention and graduation rates (see tables 1 and 2).

Table 1. Comparison of SSS Project Bachelor's

Degree Completion Rates to Four-year
Institution's Full-time Retention Rates

100%
Average SSS project
bachelor's degree
completion rate

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

Institutional full-time retention rate

Table 2. Comparison of SSS Project Bachelor's

Degree Completion Rates to Four-year
Institution's Graduation Rates

100%
SS project
r's degree
tion rate

80% 2 of 22
60%
40%
 Appendix: PerformanceInstitutional full-time
and Efficiency retention
Measure rate
Summary

Table 2. Comparison of SSS Project Bachelor's

Degree Completion Rates to Four-year
Institution's Graduation Rates

100%
Average SSS project
bachelor's degree
completion rate

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

Institutional graduation rate

Explanation of data variability in the summary analysis

Inspection of the summary analysis table indicates that variability in success rates across
projects is not consistent with variability in the project persistence rates. Projects in the highest
quartile persistence rates (greater than 88 percent) and lowest quartile persistence rates (less
than 63 percent) have similar success rates (between 85 and 89 percent, on average). Projects
in the highest quartile success rates (greater than 94 percent) and lowest quartile success rates
(less than 80 percent) have average persistence rates of 79 percent and 67 percent,
respectively on average. The discrepancy may be a function of

-- The higher variability between persistence rates, in part because The cohorts are smaller
and
-- The fact that persistence and success rates are calculated from a different cohort of
students as described earlier.

3 of 22
 Appendix: Performance and Efficiency Measure Summary

Variability in project graduation rates at 2- and 4-year institutions is also higher than variability in
success rates. Projects at 2-year institutions in the highest quartile graduation rates (greater
than 32 percent) and lowest quartile graduation rates (less than 10 percent) have similar
success rates (between 81 and 82 percent, on average). Projects at 4-year institutions in the
highest quartile graduation rates (greater than 44 percent) and lowest quartile graduation rates
(less than 19 percent) have similar success rates (between 87 and 93 percent, on average).
Projects in the highest quartile success rates (greater than 94 percent) and lowest quartile
success rates (less than 80 percent) have average graduation rates of 34 percent and 22
percent, respectively on average. The discrepancy may be a function of

-- The higher variability between persistence rates, in part because The cohorts are smaller
and
-- The fact that persistence and success rates are calculated from a different cohort of
students as described earlier.

4 of 22
Appendix Summary Table - TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

at 4-year institutions

at 2-year institutions
Average

Persistence N

Graduation N

Graduation N

Efficiency N
Average Average Average
Number of Average graduation and
graduation rate Efficiency Average numbers of costs per Average
grants per persistence transfer rate at
at 4-year measure (gap) total funding students student success rate
category rate 2-year
institutions served served
institutions

Overall 935 73% 712 31% 320 22% 357 $191 881 $281,316 222 $1,272 87%

Project persistence rate

High percent (> 88%) 171 95% 171 37% 70 21% 58 $140 166 $286,809 243 $1,183 89%
Medium percent 365 75% 365 30% 138 22% 172 $207 348 $284,422 228 $1,252 86%
Low percent (< 63%) 176 48% 176 21% 61 23% 91 $237 162 $279,198 212 $1,312 85%
Number of grants 712 712 269 321 676

Project graduation rate at 4-year institutions

High percent (> 44%) 80 84% 60 57% 80 $93 79 $302,388 259 $1,168 93%
Medium percent 160 76% 140 31% 160 $118 158 $304,217 252 $1,207 91%
Low percent (< 19%) 79 72% 68 11% 79 $188 73 $304,115 242 $1,261 87%
Number of grants 319 268 319 310

Project graduation and transfer rate at 2-year institutions

High percent (> 32%) 88 66% 79 42% 88 $298 85 $282,728 216 $1,316 82%
Medium percent 184 72% 168 20% 184 $271 172 $272,466 212 $1,290 83%
Low percent (< 10%) 87 63% 75 6% 86 $301 78 $267,747 211 $1,263 81%
Number of grants 359 322 358 335

Project efficiency measure

High efficiency (< $75) 223 79% 166 38% 104 22% 54 $37 223 $290,169 248 $1,169 97%
Medium efficiency 444 74% 346 29% 180 23% 141 $182 444 $279,861 219 $1,275 88%
Low efficiency (> $322) 214 66% 169 22% 30 23% 141 $524 214 $277,439 198 $1,399 73%
Number of grants 881 681 314 336 881

Total project funding

High funding (> $294,972) 223 74% 188 31% 117 25% 70 $158 223 $368,877 320 $1,152 88%
Medium funding 439 72% 363 32% 182 22% 180 $208 439 $265,786 197 $1,348 87%
Low funding (< $240,265) 219 74% 161 36% 21 21% 107 $216 219 $225,562 170 $1,326 86%
Number of grants 881 712 320 357 881

Number of students served by project

High number (> 249) 218 77% 198 31% 124 23% 75 $142 218 $353,480 348 $1,016 88%
Medium number 472 72% 389 33% 155 23% 210 $215 472 $263,723 196 $1,345 86%

5 of 22
Appendix Summary Table - TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

at 4-year institutions

at 2-year institutions
Average

Persistence N

Graduation N

Graduation N

Efficiency N
Average Average Average
Number of Average graduation and
graduation rate Efficiency Average numbers of costs per Average
grants per persistence transfer rate at
at 4-year measure (gap) total funding students student success rate
category rate 2-year
institutions served served
institutions

Low number (< 160) 191 67% 125 34% 41 21% 72 $253 191 $245,036 140 $1,746 87%
Number of grants 881 712 320 357 881

Project cost per student served

High cost (> $1,557) 220 67% 148 35% 62 23% 84 $271 220 $265,831 150 $1,768 87%
Medium cost 441 73% 346 32% 146 23% 173 $206 441 $279,136 208 $1,344 87%
Low cost (< $1,167) 220 77% 187 31% 106 22% 79 $136 220 $303,436 321 $946 87%
Number of grants 881 681 314 336 881

Project success rate

High success rate (>94%) 203 79% 141 39% 89 24% 46 $36 203 $286,424 229 $1,250 97%
Medium success rate 459 74% 366 30% 198 24% 141 $163 459 $281,341 220 $1,278 89%
Low success rate (<80%) 219 67% 174 22% 27 21% 149 $472 219 $278,805 218 $1,281 73%
Number of grants 881 681 314 336 881

Sector of institution
Private not-for-profit, 2-year 10 62% 9 28% 10 $486 10 $258,237 184 $1,387 74%
Public, 2-year 420 69% 357 22% 347 $275 420 $272,567 208 $1,311 83%
Public, 4-year or above 318 78% 238 32% 218 $121 318 $298,972 250 $1,201 91%
Private not-for-profit, 4-year or ab 133 75% 108 29% 102 $141 133 $269,799 199 $1,350 91%
Number of grants 881 712 320 357 881

Percent undergraduate, full-time institution enrollment

High percentage (> 85%) 210 77% 164 36% 156 42% 3 $117 210 $288,386 236 $1,217 91%
Medium percentage 430 71% 358 26% 157 23% 180 $196 430 $281,611 219 $1,288 87%
Low percentage (< 44%) 213 74% 170 21% 3 20% 158 $255 213 $271,516 211 $1,287 83%
Number of grants 853 692 316 341 853

2-year institution enrollment

Very small two-year 24 63% 23 20% 23 $564 24 $244,719 154 $1,574 74%
Small two-year 129 66% 116 25% 113 $330 129 $264,093 196 $1,352 80%
Medium two-year 164 72% 139 23% 138 $270 164 $274,468 212 $1,298 83%
Large two-year 59 68% 47 17% 44 $177 59 $279,051 233 $1,201 87%
Very large two-year 33 80% 26 16% 23 $181 33 $272,990 214 $1,263 87%
Number of grants 409 351 341 409

6 of 22
Appendix Summary Table - TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

at 4-year institutions

at 2-year institutions
Average

Persistence N

Graduation N

Graduation N

Efficiency N
Average Average Average
Number of Average graduation and
graduation rate Efficiency Average numbers of costs per Average
grants per persistence transfer rate at
at 4-year measure (gap) total funding students student success rate
category rate 2-year
institutions served served
institutions

4-year institution enrollment

Very small four-year 49 69% 47 21% 34 $167 49 $258,308 184 $1,398 89%
Small four-year 220 77% 187 28% 185 $136 220 $302,948 321 $946 87%
Medium four-year 166 80% 122 33% 124 $126 166 $295,802 245 $1,210 91%
Large four-year 124 82% 86 39% 80 $90 124 $307,258 275 $1,123 93%
Number of grants 559 442 423 559

Percent receiving federal aid at institution

High percent (> 55%) 205 70% 183 21% 67 20% 95 $229 205 $283,446 220 $1,283 85%
Medium percent 450 72% 372 32% 142 22% 213 $200 450 $276,787 216 $1,286 87%
Low percent (< 27%) 194 83% 135 43% 106 26% 33 $125 194 $286,805 237 $1,219 91%
Number of grants 849 690 315 341 849

Geographic region of institution

Far West 110 82% 74 40% 22 24% 43 $128 110 $283,328 227 $1,247 91%
Southwest 95 69% 84 29% 26 22% 49 $213 95 $275,114 227 $1,213 85%
Rocky Mountains 47 62% 40 23% 19 24% 21 $203 47 $272,871 223 $1,252 86%
Plains 110 70% 85 35% 40 29% 47 $237 110 $279,134 216 $1,292 84%
Great Lakes 115 75% 87 30% 51 24% 35 $193 115 $286,543 225 $1,272 87%
New England 47 83% 38 42% 18 21% 17 $214 47 $296,814 236 $1,259 85%
Mid East 100 76% 82 41% 50 16% 31 $112 100 $282,571 232 $1,221 92%
Southeast 232 69% 199 27% 78 21% 108 $248 232 $275,862 202 $1,361 85%
Outlying areas 25 79% 23 23% 16 24% 6 $89 25 $314,682 289 $1,103 93%
Number of grants 881 712 320 357 881

Degree of urbanization of institution

Large city 145 75% 98 31% 54 17% 36 $144 145 $290,695 231 $1,264 90%
Mid-size city 224 76% 177 36% 87 18% 77 $176 224 $284,308 237 $1,203 87%
Urban fringe of large city 105 78% 75 30% 34 21% 41 $174 105 $277,726 213 $1,300 88%
Urban fringe of mid-size city 45 74% 37 35% 18 20% 21 $226 45 $285,550 222 $1,286 85%
Large town 44 68% 39 32% 17 27% 19 $177 44 $274,973 214 $1,293 88%
Small town 212 69% 196 33% 73 26% 113 $237 212 $270,517 207 $1,312 85%
Rural 54 65% 50 22% 19 22% 29 $234 54 $270,757 190 $1,425 86%
Number of grants 829 672 302 336 829

7 of 22
Appendix Summary Table - TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

at 4-year institutions

at 2-year institutions
Average

Persistence N

Graduation N

Graduation N

Efficiency N
Average Average Average
Number of Average graduation and
graduation rate Efficiency Average numbers of costs per Average
grants per persistence transfer rate at
at 4-year measure (gap) total funding students student success rate
category rate 2-year
institutions served served
institutions

2-year institution full-time retention rate

High percent (> 62%) 96 71% 83 23% 79 $235 96 $272,949 216 $1,264 84%
Medium percent 212 71% 186 23% 186 $272 212 $272,251 209 $1,303 83%
Low percent (< 52%) 100 68% 81 21% 75 $309 100 $264,539 194 $1,365 82%
Number of grants 408 350 340 408

4-year institution full-time retention rate

High percent (> 80%) 117 88% 74 47% 80 $79 117 $299,451 253 $1,184 94%
Medium percent 211 77% 173 31% 155 $125 211 $289,627 236 $1,225 91%
Low percent (< 65%) 111 69% 92 20% 80 $198 111 $283,253 216 $1,314 87%
Number of grants 439 339 315 439

2-year institution graduation rate

High percent (> 30%) 104 72% 92 28% 90 $261 104 $266,493 193 $1,384 84%
Medium percent 203 71% 175 23% 166 $285 203 $271,624 210 $1,295 82%
Low percent (< 14%) 102 65% 84 15% 85 $258 102 $272,435 216 $1,262 83%
Number of grants 409 351 341 409

4-year institution graduation rate

High percent (> 55%) 111 84% 76 49% 83 $88 111 $294,883 249 $1,182 93%
Medium percent 218 78% 171 32% 154 $134 218 $287,866 225 $1,282 91%
Low percent (< 34%) 110 70% 91 19% 78 $159 110 $293,854 242 $1,215 88%
Number of grants 439 338 315 439

N is the number of projects

8 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

2-year institution enrollment

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are based on the IPEDS Carnegie
Classification 2005: Size and Setting Classification, but they use values from Grand total
(EF2004A, All students, Undergraduate total) and Grand total(EF2004A, Full-time students,
Undergraduate total). The five classifications for two-year institutions are

Very small two-year – Fall enrollment data show full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment,
where full-time equivalent enrollment was calculated as full-time plus one-third part-time, of
fewer than 500 students at these associate’s degree granting institutions;

Small two-year -- Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 500–1,999 students at these
associate’s degree granting institutions;
Medium two-year -- Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 2,000–4,999 students at
these associate’s degree granting institutions;
Large two-year -- Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 5,000–9,999 students at
these associate’s degree granting institutions; and
Very large two-year -- Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 students
at these associate’s degree granting institutions.

2-year institution full-time retention rate

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are determined by setting the high/low
categories equivalent to the highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the full-time
retention rate as reported in IPEDS (Full-time retention rate(EF2004D)). The full-time retention
rate is the percent of the fall 2003 full-time cohort minus exclusions from the fall 2003 full-time
cohort that re-enrolled at the institution as either full- or part-time in fall 2004. For 2-year
institutions the fall 2003 full-time cohort includes first-time degree/certificate-seeking students
enrolled in fall or summer 2003.

2-year institution graduation rate

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are determined by setting the high/low
categories equivalent to the highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the graduation
rate of first-time, full-time degree or certificate-seeking students, 2001 cohort, as reported in
IPEDS (DFR2004). This rate is calculated as the total number of completers within 150% of
normal time divided by the revised cohort minus any allowable exclusions.

9 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

4-year institution enrollment

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are based on the IPEDS Carnegie
Classification 2005: Size and Setting Classification, but they use values from Grand total
(EF2004A, All students, Undergraduate total) and Grand total(EF2004A, Full-time students,
Undergraduate total). The four classifications for two-year institutions are

Very small four-year -- Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of fewer than 1,000
degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions;

Small four-year -- Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 1,000–2,999 degree-seeking
students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions;
Medium four-year -- Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of 3,000–9,999 degree-
seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions; and
Large four-year -- Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment of at least 10,000 degree-
seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions.

4-year institution full-time retention rate

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are determined by setting the high/low
categories equivalent to the highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the full-time
retention rate as reported in IPEDS (EF2004D). The full-time retention rate is the percent of
the fall 2003 full-time cohort minus exclusions from the fall 2003 full-time cohort that re-
enrolled at the institution as either full- or part-time in fall 2004. For 4-year institutions the fall
2003 full-time cohort includes all first-time full-time bachelor's (or equivalent) degree-seeking
undergraduates enrolled in fall or summer 2003.

4-year institution graduation rate

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are determined by setting the high/low
categories equivalent to the highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the graduation
rate of first-time, full-time degree or certificate-seeking students, 1998 cohort, as reported in
IPEDS (DFR2004). This rate is calculated as the total number of completers within 150% of
normal time divided by the revised cohort minus any allowable exclusions.

10 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

11 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

Average costs per student served

This is the unweighted average Cost per student served, as reported in Table 4, for all the
grants in a given category. It is calculated by dividing the sum of the 2004-05 Funding
Obligated to Project for all the grants in a given category by the sum of the Number of
participants served in 2004-05 for all the grants in a given category.

Average graduation and transfer rate at 2-year institutions

This is the unweighted average Graduation and transfer rate, as reported in Table 3, for all the
grants in a given category. It is calculated by dividing the sum of the Number Received AA
Degree or Transferred in 2004-05 for all the grants in a given category by the sum of the
Number of 2002-03 Full-time Freshmen for all the grants in a given category. Only grants with
a Graduation and transfer rate of at least ten students in the cohort, Number of 2002-03 Full-
time Freshmen , are included.

Average graduation rate at 4-year institutions

This is the unweighted average Graduation rate, as reported in Table 2, for all the grants in a
given category. It is calculated by dividing the sum of the Number of Graduates in 2004-05 for
all the grants in a given category by the sum of the Number of 1999-00 Full-time Freshmen for
all the grants in a given category. Only grants with a Graduation rate of at least ten students in
the cohort, Number of 1999-00 Full-time Freshmen , are included.

Average numbers of students served

This is the average Number of participants served in 2004-05 , as reported in Table 4, for all
the grants in a given category. It is calculated as the sum of the N umber of participants served
in 2004-05 for all the grants in a given category divided by the number of grants in a given
category.

12 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

Average persistence rate

This is the unweighted average Persistence Rate, as reported in Table 1, for all the grants in a
given category. It is calculated by dividing the sum of the Number Enrolled at the Grantee
Institution in 2004-05 for all the grants in a given category by the sum of the Number of Full-
time Freshmen Served in 2003-04 for all the grants in a given category. Only grants with a
Persistence rate of at least ten students in the cohort, Number of Full-time Freshmen Served
in 2003-04, are included.

Average success rate

This is the unweighted average Success rate, as reported in Table 4, for all the grants in a
given category. It is calculated by dividing the sum of the Number of participants transferring to
another institution, graduating with a degree, or continuing at the same institution in 2004-05
for all the grants in a given category by the sum of the Number of participants served in 2004-
05 for all the grants in a given category. Note: For those grantees marked with an asterisk in
Table 4, the Number of participants served in 2004-05 used in this calculation was reduced by
the number of students whose academic status was unknown. The adjusted numbers of
students served are not displayed.

Average total funding

This is the average 2004-05 Funding Obligated to Project , as reported in Table 4, for all the
grants in a given category in the 2004-05 budget period. It is calculated by dividing the sum of
the 2004-05 Funding Obligated to Project for all grants in a given category by the Number of
grants in a given category.

13 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

Degree of urbanization of institution

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are based on the U.S. Department of
Education's National Center for Educational Statistics' (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System's (IPEDS) code (Degree of urbanization (Urban-centric locale)
(HD2004)) for the institution's locale:

Large city - A central city of a consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) or

metropolitan statistical area (MSA) with the city having a population greater than or equal to
250,000;
Mid-size city - A central city of a CMSA or MSA, with the city having a population less than
250,000;
Urban fringe of large city - Any incorporated place, Census-designated place (CDP), or non-
place territory within a CMSA or MSA of a Large City and defined as urban by the Census
Bureau;
Urban fringe of mid-size city - Any incorporated place, CDP, or non-place territory within a
CMSA or MSA of a Large City of a Mid-size City and defined as urban by the Census
Bureau;
Large town - An incorporated place or CDP with a population greater than or equal to
25,000 and located outside a CMSA or MSA;
Small town - An incorporated place or CDP with a population less than 25,000 and greater
than or equal to 2,500 and located outside a CMSA or MSA; and

Rural - Any incorporated place, CDP, or non-place territory designated as rural by the
Census Bureau.

14 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

Efficiency measure (gap)

This is the unweighted average efficiency measure (gap), as reported in Table 4, for all the
grants in a given category. It is calculated by dividing the product of the sum of the 2004-05
Funding Obligated to Project for all the grants in a given category and the difference between
the sum of Number of participants served in 2004-05* for all the grants in a given category and
the sum of the Number of participants transferring to another institution, graduating with a
degree, or continuing at the same institution in 2004-05 for all the grants in a given category
by the product of the sum of Number of participants served in 2004-05 for all the grants in a
given category and the Number of participants transferring to another institution, graduating
with a degree, or continuing at the same institution in 2004-05 for all the grants in a given
category. Note: For those grants marked with an asterisk in Table 4, the Number of participants
served in 2004-05* was reduced by the number of students whose academic status was
unknown in the 2004-05 APR. The adjusted numbers of students served is not displayed.

Efficiency N
This is the number of grants that meet the criteria for a given category and have an efficiency
measure (gap) value in Table 4. Efficiency N is a subset of Number of grants per category.

Geographic region of institution

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are based on the IPEDS' categories
(Geographic region(HD2004)):
Far West - AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, and WA;
Great Lakes - IL, IN, MI, OH, and WI;
Mid East - DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, and PA;
New England - CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT;
Outlying areas - AS, FM, GU, MH, MP, PR, PW, and VI;
Plains - IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, and SD;
Rocky Mountains - CO, ID, MT, UT, and WY;
Southeast - AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV; and
Southwest - AZ, NM, OK, and TX.

15 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

Graduation N at 2-year institutions

This is the number of grants that meet the criteria for a given category and have a Graduation
and transfer rate value in Table 3. Graduation N at 2-year institutions is a subset of Number of
grants per category. The Graduation and transfer rate must have at least ten students in the
cohort, Number of 2002-03 Full-time Freshmen .

Graduation N at 4-year institutions

This is the number of grants that meet the criteria for a given category and have a Graduation
rate value in Table 2. Graduation N at 4-year institutions is a subset of Number of grants per
category. The Graduation rate must have at least ten students in the cohort, Number of 1999-
00 Full-time Freshmen.

Maximum number of grants per category

This is the number of grants that meet the criteria for a given category.

Number of students served by project

These categories are determined by setting the high/low categories equivalent to the
highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the Number of participants served in 2004-
05 as reported in Table 4.

Overall
This category is the summary category for 935 TRIO SSS grants.

Percent receiving federal aid at institution

16 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are determined by setting the high/low
categories equivalent to the highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the percentage
of all full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who received any
financial aid as reported in IPEDS (Percentage receiving federal grant aid(SFA0405)).
Financial aid includes grants, loans, assistantships, scholarships, fellowships, tuition waivers,
tuition discounts, veteran's benefits, employer aid (tuition reimbursement) and other monies
(other than from relatives/friends) provided to students to meet expenses. This includes Title
IV subsidized and unsubsidized loans made directly to students.

17 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

Percent undergraduate, full-time institution enrollment

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are determined by setting the high/low
categories equivalent to the highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the percentage
of undergraduate students who are enrolled full-time. The percentage of undergraduate
students who are enrolled full-time is calculated by dividing the number of full-time
undergraduate students as reported in IPEDS (Grand total(EF2004A, Full-time students,
Undergraduate total)) by the number of undergraduate students as reported in IPEDS (Grand
total(EF2004A, All students, Undergraduate total)).

Persistence N
This is the number of grants that meet the criteria for a given category and have a Persistence
rate value in Table 1. Persistence N is a subset of Number of grants per category. The
Persistence rate must have at least ten students in the cohort, Number of Full-time Freshmen
Served in 2003-04.

Project cost per student served

These categories are determined by setting the high/low categories equivalent to the
highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the Cost per participant served as reported
in Table 4.

Project efficiency measure (gap)

These categories are determined by setting the high/low categories equivalent to the
highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the Efficiency measure (gap) as reported in
Table 4. The efficiency measure (gap) is calculated as the difference between Cost per
successful outcome and the Cost per participant served. Note: For those grants marked with
an asterisk in Table 4, the 2004-05 Funding Obligated to Project used to calculate Cost per
successful outcome in this calculation was reduced by the percentage of students whose
academic status was unknown. The adjusted total funding is not displayed.

18 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

Project graduation and transfer rate at 2-year institutions

These categories are determined by setting the high/low categories equivalent to the
highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the Graduation and transfer rate at two-year
institutions as reported in Table 3. Only grants with a Graduation and transfer rate of at least
ten students in the cohort, Number of 2002-03 Full-time Freshmen are included.

Project graduation rate at 4-year institutions

These categories are determined by setting the high/low categories equivalent to the
highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the Graduation rate at four-year institutions
as reported in Table 2. Only grants with a Graduation rate of at least ten students in the cohort,
Number of 1999-00 Full-time Freshmen , are included.

Project persistence rate

These categories are determined by setting the high/low categories equivalent to the
highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the Persistence rate as reported in Table 1.
Only grants with a Persistence rate of at least ten students in the cohort, Number of Full-time
Freshmen Served in 2003-04 , are included.

Project success rate

These categories are determined by setting the high/low categories equivalent to the
highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the Success rate as reported in Table 4.
Note: For those grants marked with an asterisk in Table 4, the Number of participants served in
2004-05 used to calculate the Success rate was reduced by the number of students whose
academic status was unknown. The adjusted numbers of students served are not displayed.

Sector of institution

19 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

These categories refer to the institution as a whole and are based on the IPEDS' sectors
(Sector of institution(HD2004)), which are nine institutional categories resulting from dividing
the universe according to control and level. The nine categories are administrative unit; public,
4-year or above; private not-for-profit, 4-year or above; private for-profit, 4-year or above;
public, 2-year; private not-for-profit, 2-year; private for-profit, 2-year; public, less-than 2-year;
private not-for-profit, less-than 2-year; private for-profit, less-than 2-year; and sector unknown.

Sum of number of grants

This provides the sum of the number of grants in each column. The sum will vary by column
for various reasons. , and Efficiency measure (gap). A Persistence rate could not be calculated
for a grantee if it did not serve full-time, first-year participants or if the grantee failed to submit
the APR for 2003-04 and/or 2004-05. Only grants with a Persistence rate of at least ten
students in the cohort, Number of Full-time Freshmen Served in 2003-04 are included. A
Graduation rate at 4-year institutions could not be calculated for a grantee funded for the first
time in the 2001-02 project year. A Graduation rate at 4-year institutions could not be
calculated for a grantee if usable student level APR data was not submitted for 1999-00 and/or
2004-05. A Graduation rate at 4-year institutions could not be calculated for a grantee who did
not submit student-level APR data in at least one of the years between 2000-01 and 2003-04.
Only grants with a Graduation rate of at least ten students in the cohort, Number of 1999-00
Full-time Freshmen, are included.

20 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

A Graduation and transfer rate at 2-year institutions could not be calculated for a grantee if
usable student level APR data were not submitted in 2002-03 and/or 2004-05. Only grants
with a Graduation and transfer rate of at least ten students in the cohort, Number of 2002-03
Full-time Freshmen are included. An Efficiency measure (gap) could not reliably be calculated
for a grantee if the project received $1 or less in funding for direct student services for 2004-
05, the academic status of more than 15 percent of the participants was unknown or uncertain,
the project did not report any successful outcomes for the 2004-05 performance period, the
project did not submit individual participant data in the APR, or the data were not submitted in
a useable format, or the project submitted contradictory participant data in the APR such that
outcomes could not be determined.

21 of 22
Appendix Glossary - Definitions used in TRIO SSS Grantee Level Performance and
Efficiency Measures Summary Analysis: 2004-05

Total project funding

These categories are determined by setting the high/low categories equivalent to the
highest/lowest 25th percentile of grants based on the 2004-05 Funding Obligated to Project as
reported in Table 4.

22 of 22