Att_IPEDS 2011-2014 Part B

SECTION B. Description of Statistical Methodology

B.1. Respondent Universe

The primary universe of interest for IPEDS consists of approximately 7,000 institutions (according to our most recent count) that are eligible to participate in Title IV student financial aid programs. By law, these schools are required to respond to IPEDS. (Section 490 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (P.L. 102-325). IPEDS allows other (non-title IV) institutions to participate on a voluntary basis. About 200 elect to respond. Title IV schools are shown by highest level of offering (4-year award or above, 2-year award, less than 2-year award) and by control (public, private not-for-profit, private for-profit):

Table 31. Title IV Institutions in the IPEDS Universe

Estimated Counts for 2011-12 Collection

Private Private

Total Public not-for-profit for-profit

Total 7,000 2,100 1,900 3,000

4-year 2,900 600 1,600 700

2-year 2,300 1,100 200 1,000

Less than 2-yr 2,000 400 100 1,500

B.2. Statistical Methodology

There is no sampling done for any of the IPEDS survey components.

Because of the institutional compliance requirements outlined in sections A.1 and A.2, in Part A of this submission, sampling is not an option. This has been discussed at length at meetings of our Technical Review Panel, with other areas of the Department of Education, including the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Postsecondary Education, the office of Federal Student Aid, and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, and with other Federal Agencies such as Census, BEA and EEOC.

B.3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates

IPEDS response rates for institutions receiving federal financial aid are nearly 99.9%. There were only 47 institutions that did not respond to one or more of the IPEDS surveys in 2009-10. IPEDS targets the Title IV institutions (others may respond, but no follow-up is done) and the web-based survey system incorporates an automated e-mail module that automatically generates follow-up e-mail to “keyholders” (individuals appointed by the CEOs as responsible for IPEDS data submission). As shown in section A.16, Table 30, frequent communications occur with the institution over the course of the data collection to ensure compliance with this statutorily mandated collection. Follow-up e-mails are generated if the institution does not attempt to enter data or if, at 2 weeks and one week before closeout, the case is not locked. The CEOs of non-responding institutions are also contacted by standard mail with follow up phone calls if, two weeks prior to closeout, the school has not entered any data. This has proven to be very successful in past years. In addition, the names of institutions that do not respond to the IPEDS surveys, and a history of all regular contact with these institutions, is provided to the Federal Student Aid office for appropriate action.

B.4. Tests of Procedures and Methods

The data collection procedures and data items described in this submission have been tested in a number of ways. Most of the data elements requested have already been collected in previous IPEDS surveys and prior to that, similar data elements had been collected for over 20 years in HEGIS.

However, data quality is an overriding concern that NCES must continue to assess and evaluate. One approach is to assess relevant data from different IPEDS components and from different survey years to evaluate the consistency and reliability of reported data. These interrelationships among surveys and relationships over time were used to develop the automated tests used to edit each IPEDS data submission. Edit checks currently help to identify potential problems and provide opportunities to correct them early in the data collection. As the number of institutions that automate their responses to IPEDS increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to fully validate their responses. However, by implementing a web-based data collection effort that requires error resolution and correction prior to data submission, NCES has been gathering cleaner data in a more timely fashion. The web-based system still accommodates intermediate reporting units such as community college boards, state university systems offices, and corporate offices.

The web-based data collection method was tested in a successful pilot collection of Institutional Price and Student Financial Aid information in August 1999, and has been in full-scale implementation since the Fall of 2000. Throughout the implementation of the web-based system, as a result of discussions with data providers and associations that use the data, NCES has revised the data collection items, definitions, and instructions based on the recommendations of our constituents, and following appropriate public comment periods.

B.5. Reviewing Individuals

Listed below are individuals who have reviewed, in whole or in part, the IPEDS surveys, and/or participated in Technical Review Panel meetings charged with revising and refining the surveys and data items collected.

Representatives from the National Center for Education Statistics

1. Samuel Barbett, Statistician (502-7305)

2. Craig Bowen, Research Scientist (219-7128)

3. Michelle Coon, Statistician (502-7357)

4. Archie Cubarrubia, Statistician (502-7601)

5. Tara Lawley, Statistician (502-7476)

6. Andrew Mary, Statistician (502-7337)

7. Elise Miller, IPEDS Program Director (502-7318)

8. Janice Plotczyk, Statistician (502-7459)

9. Sabrina Ratchford, Statistician (502-7436)

10. Jessica Shedd, Research Scientist (502-7446)

11. Thomas Weko, Associate Commissioner (502-7643)

Representatives from Agencies, Other Federal Offices, and Postsecondary Institutions/Systems

1. Patrick Alles, Independent Colleges of Indiana

2. Gary Andeen, Oregon Independent Colleges Association

3. Craig Bach, Kaplan Higher Education

4. David Bergeron, Office of Postsecondary Education (ED)

5. Victor Borden, Indiana University

6. Chris Brewer, Tennessee Higher Education Commission

7. Julie Carpenter-Hubin, Ohio State University

8. Mark Chisholm, University of New Mexico

9. Margaret Cohen, George Washington University (Washington, DC)

10. Robert Collins, Apollo Group/University of Pheonix

11. Bryan Cook, American Council on Education

12. Mary Ann Coughlin, Springfield College (Massachusetts)

13. Keith Greiner, Iowa College Student Aid Commission

14. Tammy Halligan, Career College Association

15. Denise Hammon, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts

16. Albert Hermsen, Wayne State University (Michigan)

17. Marsha Hirano-Nakanishi, California State University System

18. Gigi Jones, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities

19. Christine Keller, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities

20. Sandra Kinney, Technical College System of Georgia

21. Hans L’Orange, State Higher Education Executive Officers

22. Joseph Marks, Southern Regional Education Board

23. Tod Massa, State Council of Higher Education for Virginia

24. Lesley McBain, American Association of State Colleges and Universities

25. Charles McGrew, Council on Postsecondary Education

26. Soon Merz, Austin Community College (Texas)

27. Kimberly Pearce, Capella University

28. Patrick Perry, California Community Colleges Chancellors Office

29. Kent Philippe, American Association of Community Colleges

30. Brian Prescott, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education

31. Kenneth Redd, National Association of College and University Business Officers

32. Matthew Reed, The Institute for College Access and Success

33. Mary Sapp, University of Miami (Florida)

34. Michael Tamada, Occidental College (California)

35. Dawn Geronimo Terkla, Tufts University (Massachusetts)

4