This report by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) was commissioned by the University of California to inform deliberations of the Outreach Task Force on strategies to enhance University participation by students who are disadvantaged or from groups that have been historically underrepresented. The report reviews evaluations of current outreach programs, identifies effective practices, and makes recommendations for the improvement of programs and of the methods used to evaluate programs. 

The report presents an analysis of what has been learned about outreach programs in order to inform deliberations relative to the following questions: 

1. What do we know about the effectiveness of current efforts to increase the numbers of underrepresented and disadvantaged students who are well-prepared for higher education? Are there certain practices of program components that rate most effective in college preparation programs? 

2. How might the evaluations of outreach programs be improved? 

3. What essential principles should be considered in designing college preparation programs for disadvantaged students? 

4. What are the implications of these findings for policy decisions on strategies of future outreach efforts? 

Chapter II of the report presents information on the flow of students in the K-17 education "pipeline." This information provides parameters on the problem of improving college preparation of disadvantaged students. The data shows that as students reach high school, the performance gap between Black and Latino students and their white and Asian counterparts continues to widen, and their chances for admission to four-year institutions continue to diminish.

Also in Chapter II is a discussion of the "barriers" to University participation of disadvantaged students. The following are frequently cited barriers: lack of information about higher education opportunities; insufficient counseling and advisement; tracking of students in courses that do not prepare them for college; admissions test requirements; course-taking patterns; under-prepared teachers; low aspirations/expectations/motivation; and the costs of higher education. 

Chapter III provides a broad review of programs, focusing on the evaluation findings pertaining to program effectiveness and efficiency. The review is organized by clusters of programs with brief summaries of evaluation findings for examples of various types of programs -- University of California systemwide programs as well as other programs in California and nationally.

Four clusters of programs are included: 1) programs which are primarily student-centered; 2) programs which combine student-centered approaches with enhanced student financial aid; 3) programs which combine student-centered and school-centered strategies; and 4) programs which are school-centered. 

In Chapter IV we discuss effective practices and suggest essential principles for designing student-centered and school-centered programs. The following essential principles about student-centered strategies are discussed: 

1. Student-centered programs provide a "bridge" to higher education for minority students. 

2. Strategically timed interventions can make a difference. 

3. Comprehensive student-centered interventions seem more effective than single-component strategies. 

4. Student-centered interventions are more effective when sustained over time. 

5. Outreach programs are more effective when they are well-integrated with K-12 schools, instead of operating at the margins. 

6. Some components of student-centered programs seem effective and especially feasible for higher education institutions to provide. These include the following: 

The following essential principles are discussed about school-centered strategies: 

1. School-centered programs can provide staff development that helps teachers support students' success in college-preparatory courses; 

2. School-centered programs can improve the quality of curriculum and teaching in core academic subjects; 

3. School-centered strategies can help enhance the academic culture of K-12 schools; 

4. Professional development programs can help improve the quality of teaching in low-performing schools. 

In Chapter V is a review of current program evaluation strategies with suggestions to improve future evaluations. Five essential principles about evaluation of outreach programs are discussed. These are: 

1. A student information system is needed for program evaluation. 

2. Program goals and intended outcomes must be defined. It is suggested that a useful distinction can be made between short-term, intermediate-term and long-term outcomes. 

3. Program interventions must be clearly described and implemented. 

4. Evaluations must be carefully designed to attribute results to interventions. 

5. Evaluations should connect outcomes and cost.

Chapter V also recommends a research agenda for evaluating program effectiveness that includes a multi-level, multi-method approach. 

In Chapter VI we discuss implications for the University's outreach policies. Strategies to enhance diversity at the University are discussed in terms of short-term, intermediate-term and long-term strategies. Four short-term strategies are suggested. These are: 1) increasing the eligibility pool by focusing on students who are "almost" eligible for admissions and encouraging these students to take admissions tests; 2) focusing recruitment efforts on underrepresented students who already meet eligibility requirements; 3) increasing community college transfer; and 4) better feedback to high schools about postsecondary performance of their students. 

Intermediate-term strategies would focus on enhancing the effectiveness of current student-centered programs -especially EAOP and MESA, which are the University's largest programs, but also some of the other promising comprehensive programs' such as AVID and High School Puente. It is recommended that the University institute professional development activities focusing on the effective implementation of key components of student-centered programs. 

Long-term strategies should focus on school-centered programs including professional development efforts and assistance to low-performing schools in an improvement strategy. 

The state of California needs to mount a massive effort to build the capacity ofthe K-16 education system to provide an "opportunity to learn" to all students. The University needs to define its systemwide role within that plan, and each of the University's campuses needs to play a part. The University must develop a framework for program coordination and service delivery as well as a framework for program evaluation so that there will be a coherent approach to increasing the number of underrepresented, disadvantaged students who attend and are successful at the University.