Search for a command to run...
A very wide gap exists in the ability of institutions to not only collect data and report on outcomes for enrolled veterans, but also to identify them in the first place. MILITARY VETERANS' EDUCATION BENEFITS, starting with the 1862 Morrill Act, have had a profound effect on higher education. For example, the increase in armed forces veterans on campuses clearly leads to a heightened awareness of issues related to disabilities, diversity, and civil rights at those institutions. Created largely by faculty and staff, countless on-campus veteran-specific initiatives were developed to increase veteran enrollment, persistence, and completion rates. Federal and individual state efforts to boost education attainment rates for veterans include direct financial support for veterans and their dependent, tuition and fee waivers, and subject-matter tutoring. Over the past two decades, higher percentages of veterans completed a high school diploma or equivalent compared to non-veterans, enrollment rates of veterans superseded those of non-veterans, and persistence rates for veterans appear to have remained healthy. However, despite the increasing financial and academic support available to veterans, conflicting federal reporting data suggest that lower percentages of veterans complete their programs of study than non-veterans (Cate 2013; Cunningham 2012; Sander 2014; Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges 2012.) On one hand, there is no empirical evidence that federal initiatives designed to help veterans complete higher education actually work. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Driven by this lack of evidence, this article seeks to explore whether preparatory projects for veterans increase veteran students' completion rates. More specifically, this article focuses on the long-standing, well-established Veterans Upward Bound (VUB) program under U.S. Department of Education oversight. Like the data gap that leads to conflicting federal reports of veterans' completion rates, there is a clear reporting chasm when it comes to the federal VUB program. This article reviews VUB program development, programming, and outcomes, as well as implications for data outcome reporting. For this study, the term postsecondary is interchangeable with higher education (universities, colleges, and vocational schools or vocational training). BACKGROUND The roots of VUB trace back to the Johnson administration, when a significant number of newly minted Vietnam era veterans came home eager to pursue a formal education. These veterans faced many challenges to academic success, including being at the heels of the turbulent '60s, having disabilities, or not being academically prepared, just to mention a few. During the early 1970s, civil-social unrest was still fresh on campuses across our nation, and armed forces veterans were not always welcome, either by other students or by faculty and staff. The 1970 Kent State fiasco involving the Ohio National Guard and students (and non-students) is only one example of the extreme campus unrest that added protest fuel to the Vietnam conflict fire. Particularly when coupled with an individual's race, ethnic background, or religion, being an armed forces veteran made academic success difficult at best (Cunningham 2012; Dershowitz 1991; Herbold 1994-95; Hutcheson, Gasman, and Sanders-McMurtry 2011). In particular, Vietnam veterans with service-connected disabilities faced the challenge of campus accessibility. Physical disabilities and mental health complications were prevalent among the many Vietnam era veterans who struggled to adjust to academic life. Although the 1964 Civil Rights Act was in place and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) was close at hand (with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act still to come), many campuses were slow to adapt to the physical and psychological needs of veterans. …