EOC core functions are to provide information with respect to nancial aid and academic assistance for persons desiring postsecndary education, and to provide assistance to such persons applyig for admissions.

However, in addition to these services, EOC may provide tutoring nd counselor services if these services are not available through alent Search or Special Services projects.

In conclusion, we feel that the National Coordinating Council's ecommendations for the proposed legislation will restructure these rograms, Talent Search and EOC, to avoid overlap, more clearly efine the participants, maximize the resources, and improve the elivery of the services to a more diverse population.

Thank you.

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Irma.

Mr. Fellenz.

STATEMENT OF PETER SCOTT FELLENZ, NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM PERSONNEL, STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY CENTERS FOR MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. FELLENZ. Congressman Ford, Congressman Buchanan, and other members of the subcommittee, it has been a few years since I have had 10 minutes before a committee, and I treat it as a serious challenge and a real opportunity. There is, to me, a sense of events going on here. I am very pleased to be part of the New England TRIO-based association, and to be representing and backing the work of the National Coordinating Council.

As an Educational Opportunity Center director, it has taken some time and struggle and thoughtfulness for EOC to reach its place as part of the TRIO program. I am glad that that is the outcome of the last few years' interaction.

The people who are appearing with me and the others who spoke previously this morning have my deepest professional respect, and that is not a light matter when you are dealing with clients' issues that can often be very frustrating. The sense of professionalism and cooperation in this group makes every day rewarding, and means that when I go back to Worcester, Mass., and to my state EOC project, I can share a sense of potency, control, development, and growth, knowing that I will be working with other professionals on a variety of issues.

I would also like to acknowledge that there are other people who, in one way or another, receive Federal support, and have been helping us all. These include the National Center for Educational Brokering, the College Board, the FIPSE-funded CHOICE project, and the Educational Commission of the States, which greatly contribute to professional development through their conferences and materials, and in many other ways, to the educational mission of the States.

These groups are able to put on conferences, and develop materials and networks of communication that we can readily use to share the state of the art while we spend most of our resources, as we should, concentrating on direct service for our clients. This sharing and support is always happening through these groups. And again, I wish to report so with enthusiasm.

Next, I would like to give you a brief review of the Educational Opportunity Center grant and how it operates in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

We have one of the larger EOC grants, approximately $380,000 We spread these funds across five direct service operations in store front, model-city areas of older urban centers of Massachusetts such as Boston, Lynn, Springfield, New Bedford, Fall River, and Worcester itself.

With these funds, we are able to set up a staff of approximately four professionals at each of the five sites. Each of the five loca tions provide services to 1,000 to 1,500 people, meaning that 5.00 to 7,500 people are assisted every year. About 75 percent of these people are adults living within low-income neighborhoods.

Our most typical adult client is somewhat more frequently a woman with a 10-year-old high school transcript with B's and C's on it, and having some vague idea, often through another friend. that post-secondary education is now possible. This client usually has little understanding that financial aid is available. With nc clear idea about those aids, she is thinking: "I am not eligible for any support." This person has heard a vague rumor that some help is out there; somebody referred them to us at EOC.

We are able, as promptly as possible, to fill out, statewide, perhaps 5 to 6,000 BEOG grants a year, helping those people to get that application in the mailbox that day if possible. It is also filled out in a competent manner so that they will not be faced with the additional frustration for having it returned for inadequate comple tion, as Sister Mary Agnes pointed out a few minutes ago.

Second, in terms of your question about evaluation, we did a followup study of our clients from 2 years previously, and found that 50 percent had either completed some program, or were still working toward the completion of that program in which they were enrolled.

When you consider the economic stress of many of our clients and their being out of high school, that 50 percent retention rate. to us, looks acceptable. While it could be better, I think it makes us more a part of the solution than a part of the problem.

I would like to take a minute to ask for your understanding and support of the sensible policy recommendations which the National Coordinating Council is putting before this committee.

As an Educational Opportunity Center director, I find it very reasonable to recommend that Talent Search concentrate on youth service and that the newer Educational Opportunity Centers concentrate on adult service. Such service patterns are a reflection not only of the legislation, but of the history of our two programs. Second, the eligibility criteria make sense. I would be willing to have someone review the 6,000 clients in our files. I am sure that we would be within a percentage point or two of having two-thirds of our clients within the proposed first-time or the 150 percent of poverty criteria.

Also, we support the recommendations to the National Coordi nating Council that the bulk of the postenrollment services, not all, but the bulk of them, be delivered through the expansion of the Special Services project.

All of the Massachusetts EOC staff are located in storefront perations. We have tried, under the current legislation, to stretch ur services in the postenrollment direction. We have found, howver, that a community-based agency is not the ideal place to provide most postenrollment services; that is, counseling and tutorng people once they are enrolled. It is not the best place to meet hose needs. The college campus-based service is better.

We do have flexibility within our recommendations to provide Dostenrollment service for adult learners with broad family and adult needs. This includes the special needs of part-time learners. I would also like your understanding on the question of EIC's, and the legislative future of Educational Information Centers. We nave found that the Educational Information Center programs funded in each of the 50 States have played a role in pulling together the various forces within each State.

The TRIO programs are operating in a different context than EIC's which are within State government. The State has the ability to pull together HEW and the labor resources which often have been very fragmented. They may also tie in higher education and vocational resources together within each of our States.

Therefore, we recommend a continuation of EIC legislation. We find that it does draw monies together. It may also loosen up some State monies that can help us to fill the gaps in present service. I would like to conclude by supporting the recommendation of our group for a substantial increase in the authorization ceiling for funding. Let me illustrate the need to do so. Massachusetts is fortunate to have one of the larger EOC grants of $380,000. In addition, the Boston area has a $130,000 Talent Search grant. With that half million dollars of such service money, we are jointly able to serve several areas of Boston and the urban centers I have mentioned, but we are still not able to target services for old industrial areas like Lowell/Lawrence/Haverhill, or Brocktonsouth of Boston. Nor can we serve Pittsfield, North Adams, the area of the Berkshires, or to target services for rurally isolated persons.

So my estimate is that we are able to do perhaps one-third of the job at the Talent Search and EOC level with half a million dollars, and that another $1 million in Massachusetts could be put to work, I believe, with some healthy arrogance, in 60 to 90 days.

We have evidence that four times as many agencies are bidding for this kind of money as the Office of Education is presently able to fund. That has also been the case in Massachusetts and throughout New England. I believe it is important to say that sometimes funding gets out there before agencies are ready to put it to work. Well, I do not think you have that case, nationally, with TRIO.

Finally, word about the Middle Income Assistance Act is getting out. People by the hundreds are coming out of the hills. They are coming out of the middle income neighborhoods. They are coming out in Worcester and other cities where we work.

I went down to one of our EOC Centers the other Saturday morning. The staff got me to bring out the coffee. They do not trust me to fill out the BEOG applications, but they trust me with the coffee.

We had 20 people in that EOC office on that Saturday morning. One gray-haired couple had three children starting college, or continuing in college. We managed to fill out three BEOG applications for them in half an hour to 45 minutes, and they had the greatest praise for my staff person and for our program.

I just looked them in the eye and said: "Those are Federal dollars that are paying my salary, the staff's salaries. We thank you personally for the compliment, but we would like you to have it stick in your mind that, we hope, these are good uses of Federal dollars, and that you spread that word."

So we are ready to work. We are working hard. I am excited about the program, and we appreciate your past understanding, and your future support and consideration.

Thank you.

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Fellenz.

I just have a few summary comments, Congressman Ford, regarding this panel.

The issue of money and the authorization level is extremely important. We have touched on what is needed and the rationale. I am sitting here as a member of two organizations: a member of the National Coordinating Council and also as a member of the Hispanic Higher Education Coalition. I would like to give you some quick points on why we feel the revised eligibility criteria and the authorization level makes sense.

First, the intent of the proposed revisions is to reach the working class, the lower, middle income class who are right on the margin of the current guide lines. This is a sizable group of people. There is data that we have reviewed.

This population should not be denied TRIO services based on the following rationale:

We find that first generation students are less likely to graduate than non-first generation students.

Second, first generation students generally come from families of a high incidence of poverty. And I can safely say that in the Hispanic community, we are talking about 95 percent of Hispanic families who do not have bachelor degrees, and who are also in the low-income communities. Poverty and educational attainment is the whole thrust for educational opportunity.

The first generation student concept includes large numbers of minorities. Similarly, there is a great number of minorities in the TRIO programs. It would not differentiate the current sort and number of students involved, and the first generation student program would create equitable participation for both male and female. It is much more definable, and it can be implemented at the Federal and local level with less interpretative discrepancies than the program which currently exists now, and which existed in the past.

Now, the authorization level, given the current unserved populations which are heavily documented in all of our testimony and the Office of Education has documented, and the expanded application of TRIO, as we have it in our document, justification for a $400 million authorization makes a great deal of sense, but beyond this, there are several points that the subcommittee should consider.

First, TRIO needs to match support with the expanded BEOG commitments, or mission. The scope of the BEOG grants expands the populations that TRIO may not be able to serve within the current law. Our proposed eligibility revision would take care of his, but a higher authorization is warranted to set the process noving.

Second: With the advent of proposition 13 and other similar measures in response to budget constraints, State and local educational programs may be curtailed.

This would create a vacuum, particularly in States with educational opportunity efforts supported by State and local funds. The Federal share will play an important role in stabilizing and encouraging educational opportunity support services during these difficult times.

Third, TRIO remains a low cost-program. All of our data and the documentation we have turned in have shown, if you compare our cost to other social interventions, that this is a very low cost program. An investment of $400 million creates an impact of three times that amount when you consider the range of services that we provide and all of the institutions of higher education, community organizations and agencies matching TRIO funds.

Fourth and last, a $400 million authorization is a national investment in the future of the American citizenry and the economy. TRIO continues to provide upward mobility, breaking the cycle of social dependency, and providing a mechanism for independence. If TRIO could continue providing such a foundation, many Americans will go on into the world of work and the affairs of a Democratic society in a more responsible and prepared manner, and this will only support the future economic and social development of this Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORD. Thank you very much.

Ms. Burks, on page 3 of your statement, you have a breakdown of the total number of students served by Talent Search . . . I do not know which year this was . . . 146,000, and it is now close to 200,000, but I am curious: if a program has been focused on youth, why is there a preponderance of female clients?

Ms. BURKS. I think that we have . . . just from the type of students we receive . . . we have a tendency to get more female students into the program, not that we, focus on the female, but they accept the services, I think, a bit more in those particular

areas.

I think that would show up in Upward Bound, too, especially in my section of the country, although this is a national study. We are not just focusing on females, but we just tend to get them. They are more acceptable, I think, of the services.

Mr. FORD. I am not questioning or aruging with it. I am just curious about the dynamic that causes that kind of disparity. When we look at the age, the age of the female students is higher than the age of males across the board. We have more women beyond the traditional age, for example, substantially more women beyond the traditional college age attending some kind of postsecondary education than we have men. But at the level of high school, it is running as close as it is ever going to be, a 50-50 sort of proposi