Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2017-18 through 2019-20
Supporting Statement Part A
OMB Paperwork Reduction Act Submission
OMB No. 1850-0582 v.20
National Center for Education Statistics
Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education
Table of Contents
Summary 1
Proposed Changes to the IPEDS Data Collection for 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 1
Background 1
Detailed Proposed Changes to Forms by IPEDS Survey Component 2
Burden Calculations 4
Section A. Justification 5
A.1. Purpose of this Submission 5
A.1.a. The Design of IPEDS 5
A.1.b. Proposed Modifications 5
A.1.c. Need for Clearance at This Time 6
A.1.d. Statutory Requirements for IPEDS Data 7
A.2. Purpose and Use of IPEDS Information 8
A.2.a. Institutional Characteristics 8
A.2.b. Completions and Compliance Report 8
A.2.c. Enrollment 9
A.2.d. Student Financial Aid 10
A.2.e. Graduation Rates 11
A.2.f. Finance 11
A.2.g. Human Resources 11
A.2.h. Admissions 12
A.2.i. Academic Libraries 12
A.2.j. Outcome Measures 12
A.3. Use of Technology and Other Technological Collection Techniques 12
A.4. Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication 13
A.5. Methods Used to Minimize Burden on Small Businesses/Entities 14
A.6. Frequency of Data Collection 14
A.7. Special Circumstances 14
A.8. Consultations outside the Agency 14
A.9. Paying Respondents 14
A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality 14
A.11. Justification for Sensitive Questions 15
A.12. Estimate of Burden 15
A.13. Estimate of Cost Burden 18
A.14. Cost to the Federal Government 18
A.15. Reasons for Change in Burden 18
A.15.1 Fall Collection 18
A.15.2 Winter Collection 20
A.15.3 Spring Collection 22
A.16. Publication Plans/Project Schedule 24
A.16.a. Schedule of Activities 24
A.16.b. Distribution Methods 25
A.17. Request to Not Display Expiration Date 27
A.18. Exceptions to the Certification 27
Tables
Table 1. IPEDS TRP meetings relevant to proposed changes 1
Table 2. Proposed changes to the Institutional Characteristics (IC) Form 2
Table 3. Proposed changes to the Outcome Measures (OM) Form 4
Table 4. Response rates for IPEDS preparation time item, 2014 15
Table 5. Estimated average preparation hours for experienced and new IPEDS keyholders, and average premium for new keyholders, 2014 16
Table 8. Estimates of burden hours and costs to institutions 18
Table 9. Burden hours, Institutional Characteristics 19
Table 10. Burden hours, Completions 19
Table 11. Burden hours, 12-month Enrollment 19
Table 12. Burden hours, Student Financial Aid 20
Table 13. Burden hours, Outcome Measures 21
Table 14. Burden hours, Graduation Rates 21
Table 15. Burden hours, Graduation Rates 200 22
Table 16. Burden hours, Admissions 22
Table 17. Burden hours, Fall Enrollment 22
Table 18. Burden hours, Finance 23
Table 19. Burden hours, Human Resources 23
Table 20. Burden hours, Academic Libraries 24
Table 21. IPEDS 2017-18 planned data collection schedule 24
Table 22. IPEDS 2017-18 data collections communications/follow-up schedule 25
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) seeks authorization from OMB to make a change to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection. Current authorization expires 08/31/2019 (OMB# 1850-0582). NCES is requesting a new clearance for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 data collections to enable us to make a change to two of the IPEDS data collection components and to continue the IPEDS collection of postsecondary data over the next 3 years.
IPEDS is a web-based data collection system designed to collect basic data from all postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions. IPEDS enables NCES to report on key dimensions of postsecondary education such as enrollments, degrees and other awards earned, tuition and fees, average net price, student financial aid, graduation rates, student outcomes, revenues and expenditures, faculty salaries, and staff employed. The IPEDS web-based data collection system was implemented in 2000-01, and it collects basic data from approximately 7,300 postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions that are eligible to participate in Title IV Federal financial aid programs. All Title IV institutions 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. Approximately 200 non-title IV institutions elect to respond. IPEDS data are available to the public through the College Navigator and IPEDS Data Center websites.
This clearance package includes a number of proposed changes to the data collection.
The proposed changes were first suggested during the public comment period associated with the last IPEDS clearance, for years 2016-17 through 2018-19 (OMB# 1850-0582), which took place during the early 2016. These proposed changes were further discussed and formulated during the IPEDS Technical Review Panel (TRP) that took place in August 2016. Meetings of the IPEDS TRP are convened by RTI International, the current contractor for the IPEDS web-based data collection system. In general, the subject areas for the meetings are determined by legislation, emerging areas of concern in postsecondary education, and an ongoing goal of decreasing reporting burden while retaining the federal data necessary for use by policy makers and education analysts. Detailed summaries of each meeting are posted online (https://edsurveys.rti.org/IPEDS_TRP/TRP.aspx) and comments on panel suggestions are solicited. Cumulatively, four meetings of the TRP have impacted the changes included in this clearance package, as summarized in table 1.
Other changes are proposed based on NCES review of data quality reports and feedback from institutions and other stakeholders. The reasons behind the proposed changes are included in the following section, by survey component.
Table 1. IPEDS TRP meetings relevant to proposed changes |
||
Topic (Date) |
Summary |
Survey components affected |
Selected outcomes of the Advisory Committee on Measures of Student Success (February and October 2012) |
The Committee on Measures of Student Success recommended that the Department of Education (ED) broaden the coverage of student graduation data to reflect the diverse student populations at 2-year institutions and improve the collection of student progression and completion data. In response, ED released an action plan for improving measures of postsecondary student success in support of the Administration’s college completion agenda and based on those recommendations. Two IPEDS TRP meetings were convened to address these needs. The first panel suggested that NCES clarify the definition of a degree/certificate-seeking student for IPEDS reporting purposes and collect certain outcome information in IPEDS for first-time, part-time students. The second panel suggested that NCES collect certain outcome information in IPEDS for non-first-time students similar to information that was proposed by the first panel for first-time, part-time students. The panel also suggested that similar outcome information be collected for first-time, full-time students. |
|
Outcome Measures (September 2014) |
As of the date of TRP 45, the specifics regarding data elements, metrics, and data collection had not yet been finalized or released to the public. At the time, ED was in the planning stages of the forthcoming Postsecondary Institutional Rating System (PIRS), which was to create an effective postsecondary rating system used measures on access, affordability, and outcomes. This TRP was asked to revisit the Outcome Measures component and consider any changes that would help inform policymakers, consumers, and other stakeholders, and further improve outcome data in IPEDS. This TRP considered a number of issues related to the Outcome Measures survey component. A few of the topics the TRP discussed were: collecting multiple cohort years, time-to-degree durations, time intervals, and subsequent awards earned from other institutions. In addition, the TRP deliberated on the addition of collecting outcomes by demographics and using Federal Student Aid (FSA) data. In these discussions, the issue of identifying Pell students and tracking their outcomes was identified as an important need to policymakers, researchers, and the public. |
|
Outcome Measures (August 2016) |
This TRP discussed the initial NCES proposal of adding a Pell Grant recipient cohort to the Outcome Measures survey component as well as additional suggestions, which were proposed through the IPEDS public comment period for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 data collection. Specifically, the TRP discussed whether: (1) all non-degree-granting institutions report to Outcome Measures, (2) academic reporting institutions should report on a full-year cohort instead of fall-census cohort, (3) the Pell Grant recipient cohort should include students receiving Pell at entry or over the course of the eight-year period, (4) the four Outcome Measure cohorts should each have a sub-Pell Grant cohort instead of a single, total Pell Grant recipient cohort, and (5) the new award year at 4 years after entry should be added, and (6) institutions should report the award type [certificate, associate or bachelor] at each status year after entry – 4 years, 6 years, and 8 years. |
|
Institutional Characteristics (IC, includes Header and Identification). Feedback from the IPEDS Help Desk suggests that the current format of the distance education questions on courses and programs should be combined into one question to decrease repetition and clarify what is being asked.
Table 2. Proposed changes to the Institutional Characteristics (IC) Form |
|||
Change |
Implementation year |
Source |
Estimated burden |
|
2017-18 |
NCES Review |
No additional |
Outcome Measures (OM). The proposed changes to the 2017-18 OM survey component are primarily based on recommendations made during the August 23-24, 2016 Technical Review Panel (TRP) meeting, Outcome Measures 2017-18: New Data Collection Considerations. The August TRP was convened as a result of the public comments to the proposed changes for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 data collections received during the 60-day and 30-day comment periods. The initial proposed change for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 collections was the addition of a fifth cohort, Pell Grant recipients; however, this proposed change received several comments against adding only a single cohort for Pell recipients.
Starting in the 2016-17 data collection year, the Graduation Rate (GR) survey component will collect the 150% graduation rates for first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who were Pell Grant recipients and Stafford borrowers who did not receive a Pell. To provide more Pell Grant recipient information on other types of undergraduates (e.g., non-first-time and part-time), NCES proposes to collect additional information on Pell Grant recipients through the following changes starting with the 2017-18 data collection year:
(1) All academic reporting institutions will begin reporting on a full-year cohort instead of fall-census date cohort. This proposed change would align the cohort coverage for all institutions and capture all cohort-eligible students who enter an institution at any point during the year. While some of the August TRP panelists cited a few concerns (i.e., loss of integration with the other IPEDS survey components and the increase in burden on institutions to track several cohorts for GR and OM), the change is critical if the Pell Grant cohorts (proposed change #2) are added to OM. One of the primary purposes for the creation of OM is to tell a better completion story for institutions with small full-time, first-time student populations. Thus, for academic reporter institutions that enroll more nontraditional students or who enroll students outside of the fall semester, the full-year cohort better reflects the population of entering students. NCES is proposing that this year be defined as July 1-June 30, which matches the current collection period for 12 Month Enrollment but would be a change to OM for program reporters. The intent of the collection period is to include within a cohort students that are most similar, and NCES welcomes any comments on the time period proposed.
One concern for academic reporters reporting on a full-year cohort is the question of how to report students who change their attendance status during the first full-year. NCES proposes that all students be assigned to a cohort at the point of entry to the institution. This guidance is similar to the GR and current OM guidance - once a student enters a cohort, the student remains in that cohort.
(2) Institutions will report a Pell Grant sub-cohort for each of the four Outcome Measure cohorts (i.e., full-time, first-time; part-time, first-time; full-time, non-first-time; and part-time, non-first-time), and NCES will calculate the respective sub-cohorts for non-Pell Grant recipients. Comments received through the public comment periods and the suggestions received during the August TRP overwhelmingly recommended not aggregating all Pell Grant recipients into a single cohort that combines attendance statuses and prior postsecondary experiences. Disaggregating Pell Grant recipients for each of the four cohorts allows for a more nuanced analysis and facilitates more meaningful comparisons across institutions.
(2a) Students who received a Pell Grant any time during the full cohort entry year will be included in one of the Pell Grant cohorts. Students who received a Pell Grant after the full-year are not included in the cohort. Initially, NCES proposed to count all students who received a Pell Grant at any time over the 8-year period in the Pell Grant OM cohort. While Pell at entry would undercount the number of Pell Grant recipients, TRP panelists noted that Pell at entry would provide a better measure of social capital at entry to improve comparisons, align the instructions with Pell graduation rates in the Graduation Rates survey component, and allow for less bias as most attrition occurs early in enrollment.
Recipients of Pell Grant dollars (disbursed) at that institution will be included in the Pell Grant sub-cohorts. Students who were awarded but did not receive a disbursement are not included.
(3) Institutions will begin reporting on a new award status at 4 years after entry. Currently, institutions report on an award status at 6 and 8 years after entry. Several comments from the public comment periods recommended that an award status at 4 years after entry should be collected to be in alignment with GR’s collection at 150% of normal time, which satisfies the Higher Education Act requirements, as amended.
(4) Institutions will begin reporting on the highest award (i.e., certificate/or equivalent, associate’s or bachelor’s) received at each status year after entry – 4 years, 6 years, and 8 years. The award statuses at 4, 6, and 8 years will be mutually exclusive (i.e., each student will be reported once at each status year, by the highest award level earned at that time). This change is different from previous OM instructions to report on the first award earned.
While some commenters recommended that award type should be reported on award intent, the TRP strongly suggested that NCES collect data on award received because of the limitations associated with data on award intent. Students’ intent at entry may change, be unknown, or be unrealistic. Institutions with missions to prepare students for transfer would assign students to an award level that may not match actual intent. Finally, reporting on award sought could be manipulated to improve an institution’s metrics.
In sum, NCES has received thoughtful public comments and expert suggestions for improving the OM survey to collect more information on Pell Grant recipients, as several TRPs (#s 24, 37, 40, 45, and 50) have encouraged NCES to collect information on this vulnerable population. Data from the Federal Student Aid Data Center show that in 2014-15, the federal government disbursed $30.3 billion in Pell Grants to 8.4 million full- and part-time undergraduate students. In contrast, $13.1 billion was disbursed to 5.5 million students 10 years ago, reflecting a 10-year growth of the Pell Grant program by 131 percent in federal dollars to 50 percent more students. The Pell Grant program is a large commitment of public dollars to increase opportunities for the future workforce. The increased demands for accountability and transparency require measurement of the Pell Grant program. NCES notes that several of the public comments and the August TRP panelists aired concerns of the potential unintended consequences of evaluating an institution’s performance by metrics of how it educates Pell Grant recipients. While these concerns are important to keep in mind in evaluating the data, it is imperative for the federal government to have comparable and comprehensive institutional data on the Pell Grant recipient population.
Table 3. Proposed changes to the Outcome Measures (OM) Form |
|||
Change |
Implementation year |
Source |
Estimated burden |
Similar to program reporters, all reporting institutions to the OM survey will be given the same instructions when creating their OM cohort: Institutions will report using a full-year cohort. Institutions will report on students that enrolled during the period between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. Students will be assigned to the appropriate cohort upon entry, and will remain in the assigned cohort. |
2017-18 |
Public Comments from 60-day and 30-day comment periods and from Outcome Measure TRP 50 |
Substantial |
Students who received a Pell Grant (dollars disbursed) are included in the Pell Grant sub-cohorts. Institutions should not include students who were awarded a Pell Grant, but did not receive a disbursement. Institutions will identify and include Pell Grant recipients who enrolled and received a Pell Grant within the cohort coverage period of July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. Students who enrolled but did not receive a Pell Grant during the cohort coverage period, but received a Pell Grant after June 30, 2010 are not included in the Pell Grant sub-cohorts. |
2017-18 |
Public Comments from 60-day and 30-day comment periods and from Outcome Measure TRP 50 |
Substantial |
Institutions will report the award status at 4-, 6- and 8-years. There is no change to enrollment status reporting requirements at 8 years after entry. |
2017-18 |
Public Comments from 60-day and 30-day comment periods and from Outcome Measure TRP 50 |
Substantial |
For each of the OM cohorts, a non-Pell Grant recipient sub-cohort will be calculated by subtracting the Pell Grant recipient sub-cohort from the total of the same OM cohort. Collect the status update from both 2- and 4-year degree-granting institutions at 8 years after the cohort enters the institution with award information collected for both the 6- and 8-year timeframes. Pell Grant recipient data collection will begin in 2017-18. Institutions will report on their 2009-10 cohorts. Note: Data will not be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, or gender. Note: No outcome data will be collected from non-degree-granting institutions. |
2017-18 |
Public Comments from 60-day and 30-day comment periods and from Outcome Measure TRP 50 |
Substantial |
The collection of voluntary information on the time it took institutions to submit their IPEDS data was implemented in the 2012-13 data collection. The information provided during the 2014-15 data collection was used for the burden calculations in this clearance package. Detailed findings and calculations can be found in section A.12 of this document.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is seeking clearance for the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collections. Current clearance covers the 2016-17 through 2018-19 collections and is due to expire on August 31, 2019. We are requesting to make a change to two of the IPEDS data collection components (see above) and to conduct the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 data collections.
Related Background Information. IPEDS was developed to address technical problems with previous postsecondary education statistical programs, including the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) and the Vocational Education Data System (VEDS). IPEDS was designed to collect accurate, reliable, and timely data from the entire postsecondary universe. Although it was based on the HEGIS model, which provides institution-level data submitted either directly to NCES by the institution or through a central or state coordinating office, the IPEDS design allows for varying institution types. The institution-level data collection allows for aggregation of results at various levels and permits significant controls on data quality to be exercised by NCES.
IPEDS Components. The IPEDS system consists of several components that obtain and disseminate information on who provides postsecondary education (institutions), who participates in it and completes it (students), what programs are offered and what programs are completed, and the resources involved in the provision of institutionally based postsecondary education, both human and financial. The approved components include:
Institutional Characteristics (IC);
Completions (C);
Fall Enrollment (EF);
12-month Enrollment (E12);
Admissions (ADM);
Student Financial Aid (SFA);
Graduation Rates (GR);
Graduation Rates 200 (GR200);
Outcome Measures (OM)
Human Resources (HR);
Finance (F); and
Academic Libraries (AL).
1. Data Collection Method. We are proposing to continue using the IPEDS web-based system of collection for all components. This collection is organized into three phases based on data availability at the institutions: Fall, Winter, and Spring.
The Fall collection includes:
Institutional Characteristics
Completions
12-month Enrollment
The Winter and Spring components open simultaneously to allow respondents to submit Spring data early, if they wish to do so:
Winter collection components:
Student Financial Aid
Graduation Rates
Graduation Rates 200
Outcome Measures
Admissions
Spring collection components:
Fall Enrollment
Finance
Human Resources
Academic Libraries
Institutions are able to enter data manually on a web-based form or to upload a file containing the data. In many instances, prior-year data are provided for comparison purposes. The data are edited as they are entered into the system, and respondents must either correct any errors identified or enter an explanation to submit their response to NCES. This process shortens data processing time, increases data quality, and reduces burden on institutions by precluding the need for repeated callbacks from NCES contractors. The IPEDS system is accessible to persons with disabilities.
2. Data Content. We are proposing considerable additions in data content over the next 3 years. The formats for reporting IPEDS data are very similar to those used for the 2001-02 through 2016-17 data collection cycles.
We anticipate that the IPEDS Technical Review Panel (TRP) may recommend consideration of additional data items; however, no major changes (additional items) will be made to the IPEDS forms without prior notification to OMB and subsequent approval. The IPEDS TRP was formed to assist NCES contractors in a variety of ways including: making suggestions for updating the surveys with items that are more relevant to current postsecondary issues; discussing universe definitions; suggesting ways IPEDS can better serve the institutions and respondents; discussing outcomes and products; and discussing current issues. The TRP generally meets three times a year (on an irregular basis) to discuss various topics of interest to the community of IPEDS data providers and data users. How the panels work:
issue/topic is identified;
panelists with expertise on the topic are invited to attend the meeting;
a background paper is prepared by a consultant and distributed to panel members for review prior to the meeting;
meetings are held and the topics are discussed at length;
discussion and any suggestions are summarized and posted to the IPEDS website;
the contractor accepts comments from the public on the topic;
when comments are received, they are summarized and sent to NCES; and
a document is posted to the website that includes a summary of comments and NCES/IPEDS’ intent to respond and/or implement actions as a result of the comments.
Clearance helps ensure that IPEDS maintains a consistent set of data items to collect data from the various institutions at the needed time and with the needed detail. This is important because the utility and quality of data collected in one component in some cases are dependent upon, and in all cases are enhanced by, data collected in other components. Internal consistency and the inherent relationships among IPEDS components also permit reliability indicators to be established for many of the IPEDS data elements. Having the capability for assessing reliability on an ongoing basis and, in turn, being able to address individual and systemic problems as they occur will result in significantly better postsecondary education data. Moreover, the concept of a data system rather than a series of standalone, independent survey components, enables elimination of duplication of effort, thereby reducing response burden. The web-based data collection system will continue to allow NCES to comply with the Higher Education Act (HEA), which required the redesign of the data collection system, so as to improve the timeliness and quality of IPEDS data, by increasing the efficiency of data collection.
Additionally, clearance will update the IPEDS burden estimates, reflecting revisions resulting from institutional estimates and NCES and General Accounting Office (GAO) studies. The GAO report suggested that NCES consider basing estimates on institutional characteristics and IPEDS keyholder experience, as these items have a more significant impact on variations in time burden than do the actual forms. Based on the GAO recommendations, NCES developed new time burden estimates for the previous clearance request that took into account the type of institutions and keyholder experience. These new estimates are now updated using institutional estimates submitted voluntarily during the 2012-13 and 2014-15 data collections.
General Mandate. IPEDS, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, plays a major role in responding to the Center's Congressional mandate under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C., § 9573).
Mandatory Reporting for Institutions with Program Participation Agreements. The completion of all IPEDS surveys, in a timely and accurate manner, is mandatory for all institutions that participate in or are applicants for participation in any federal financial assistance program authorized by Title IV of the HEA of 1965, as amended. The completion of the surveys is mandated by 20 USC 1094, Section 487(a)(17) and 34 CFR 668.14(b)(19).
Vocational Education Data. IPEDS responds to certain of the requirements pursuant to Section 421(a)(1) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act. The data related to vocational program completions are collected from those postsecondary institutions known to provide occupationally specific vocational education.
Data on Race/Ethnicity and Gender of Students. The collection and reporting of racial/ethnic data on students and completers are mandatory for all institutions that receive, are applicants for, or expect to be applicants for federal financial assistance as defined in the Department of Education (ED) regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (34 CFR 100.13), or defined in any ED regulation implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. NCES has implemented the new reporting requirements for race/ethnicity, and use of the new race/ethnicity aggregate reporting categories was mandatory as of the collection of 2010-11 data.
Data on Race/Ethnicity and Gender of Staff. The collection and reporting of racial/ethnic data on the Human Resources (HR) component are mandatory for all institutions that receive, are applicants for, or expect to be applicants for federal financial assistance as defined in the ED regulations implementing Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (34 CFR 100.12). The collection of data are also mandated by Public Law 88-352, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (29 CFR 1602, subparts O, P, and Q).
Student Right-to-Know. Sections 668.41, 668.45, and 668.48 of the Student Assistance General Provision were amended to implement the Student Right-to-Know Act, as amended by the Higher Education Amendments of 1991 and further by the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1993 and 1999. These final regulations require an institution that participates in any student financial assistance program under Title IV of the HEA of 1965, as amended, to disclose information about graduation or completion rates to current and prospective students. Data must also be reported to the Secretary of Education; this is accomplished through the IPEDS Graduation Rates (GR) survey component.
Consumer Information. Section 101 of the HEA amendments of 1965 (PL 105-244) requires that NCES collect the following information from institutions of higher education: tuition and fees; cost of attendance; average amount of financial assistance received by type of aid, and the number of students receiving each type.
Section 132 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (PL 110-315) requires that ED “make publicly available on the College Navigator website, in simple and understandable terms,” information regarding enrollments, degree completions, admissions, net price, college costs, students with disabilities, graduation rates, and many additional consumer information items.
IPEDS provides NCES with the basic data needed to describe the size of the postsecondary enterprise in terms of students enrolled, staff employed, dollars expended, and degrees earned. The IPEDS universe also provides the institutional sampling frame used in most other postsecondary surveys such as the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Each of these surveys uses the IPEDS institutional universe for its first stage sample and relies on IPEDS data on enrollment, completions, or staff to weight its second stage sample.
In addition to use within NCES and other areas of ED, IPEDS data are heavily relied on by Congress, other federal agencies, state governments, education providers, professional associations, private businesses, media, military, and interested individuals. Finally, IPEDS data are used in the IPEDS Data Feedback Reports, annual reports that are sent to all postsecondary institutions. They contain data and figures comparing each institution to a group of “comparison” institutions, using a variety of IPEDS data variables and derived variables, and are electronically mailed to the Chief Executive Officer of each institution. The reports serve as a means of highlighting the utility of IPEDS data, as well as providing comparative data for institutions to use in meeting their institutional goals relative to their postsecondary “peers.”
Additional uses of IPEDS data, specific to individual survey components, include those listed below.
Institutional Characteristics (IC) data are the foundation of the entire IPEDS system. These data elements constitute the primary information that is necessary to interrelate and understand other descriptive kinds of statistical data about education, such as enrollments, staff, graduates, and finance. The information is essential to: (1) establishing the universe control file for IPEDS and (2) developing data collection sampling frames. The IPEDS universe is used as the sampling frame for many other NCES studies, including the NPSAS.
In addition to the need for these data within NCES and ED (Title III and HEA programs and the Office for Civil Rights use data from IPEDS), other federal agencies rely on the database and the resulting list of postsecondary institutions. NCES has utilized IPEDS data in fulfilling past information requests from the Air Force; the Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Department of Defense (including recruiting offices of all Armed Services); the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Labor; the National Science Foundation; the Veterans Administration; the Social Security Administration; and members of Congress. NCES continues to fulfill information requests as they are received, and has also significantly increased the volume of IPEDS data available on its public websites, allowing end users increased access to current and historic IPEDS data.
Much of the data collected through the IC survey component are of special interest to consumers, and are made available through College Navigator, a web-based college search tool (see http://collegenavigator.ed.gov).
Additionally, NCES makes available on College Navigator data provided by the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) and the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) for the purpose of disseminating relevant information to consumers. These enhancements include information on accreditation, varsity athletics, cohort default rates, 90/10 data, and campus security data.
IPEDS information on the number of students who complete a postsecondary education program by type of program and level of award constitutes the only national source of information on the availability and location of highly trained manpower. Types of programs are categorized according to the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP). The CIP is a taxonomic coding scheme that contains titles and descriptions of instructional programs, primarily at the postsecondary level. Business and industry, the military, and other groups that need to recruit individuals with particular skills use these data extensively. The data also help satisfy the mandate in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act for information on completions in postsecondary vocational education programs.
Information on completions in postsecondary education programs has been used extensively, as in the following examples.
ED and OPE use these data to respond to public inquiries regarding degrees awarded by different types of institutions, and for reference guides in preparation for budget justifications.
The Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) use these data in preparing the Occupational Outlook Handbook and in matching projections of labor supply and demand.
State Occupational Information Coordinating Committees also use these data on an annual basis for assisting citizens in career planning and in making state and local area estimates of trained manpower.
The Congressional Research Service and Library of Congress use these data to supply information to members of Congress to assist them in assessing the changing and developing needs of the nation with respect to manpower and postsecondary education.
The Department of Agriculture and Office of Higher Education Programs use these data to include program data on agriculture and home economics in various reports.
The National Science Foundation and Division of Science Resource Studies rely heavily on IPEDS Completions survey data, in conjunction with their own surveys, to study degree production, particularly in science, mathematics, and engineering.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) uses these data to provide guidance to other federal agencies in its recruiting efforts.
The Office for Civil Rights (Department of Education) uses these data in reviewing institutional compliance with antidiscrimination statutes.
The Department of Justice uses these data when court suits are brought in civil rights cases.
The Department of Defense uses these data to identify institutions training significant numbers of individuals in occupational programs, particularly those with military-related skills.
Private firms use these data for recruiting trained manpower and large corporations use the racial/ethnic completions data to identify the potential pool of new employees for equal opportunity employment (EEO) requirements.
States also use data by program to compare changes in degree patterns among states and for manpower planning and projections.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has used these data in developing its institutional classification schemes.
Enrollment is probably the most basic parameter in postsecondary education because it indicates access to an educational experience that is potentially both economically and socially advantageous. Because enrollment patterns differ greatly among the various types of postsecondary institutions, there is a need for both different measures of enrollment and several indicators of access. Aspects of enrollment data collection are described below.
1. Fall Enrollment and Compliance Report. Fall enrollment is the traditional measure of student access to higher education, and IPEDS continues this important statistical series. ED uses fall enrollment data in program planning and for setting funding allocation standards for such legislatively controlled programs as the College Work-Study Program and others. NCES collects fall enrollment data through this component of IPEDS to update its annual college projections, its mandated annual Condition of Education report, and the Digest of Education Statistics. The Bureau of the Census, the National Science Foundation, and most state education agencies depend heavily on annual fall enrollment data for such uses as economic and financial planning, manpower forecasting, and policy formulation. Educational and professional associations also use IPEDS enrollment data for a wide variety of purposes. The race/ethnicity and gender data by level are necessary for the Office for Civil Rights (ED) to perform functions mandated by Title VI and Title IX.
2. Residence of First-Time Students (required in even-numbered years). IPEDS collects data on the counts of first-time freshmen by state of residence, including data on the number who graduated from high school the previous year. These data are used to monitor the flow of students across state lines and calculate college-going rates by state. The primary purpose of these data is to provide states with more complete information about the attendance of their residents in college than states can collect in their own surveys. States can then use resulting data to estimate the college-going rates of their high school graduates, examine problems caused by excessive student out-migration or in-migration, and determine the types of institutions that attract their citizens to other states. Such data are critical for postsecondary education planning at the state level.
States and various associations have made it clear that only a national agency can collect the data needed to examine residence and migration patterns. There are a number of national- and state-level issues that can be addressed by collecting and disseminating residence data. These needs include the following:
planning/budgeting for institutional support (public and private);
planning for shifting institutional demand by region, state, and institution;
monitoring or establishing out-of-state quotas; and
reassessing state support to private institutions serving large numbers of in-state students.
3. Age Data (required in odd-numbered years). In 1987, NCES began collecting fall enrollment by age of student on a biennial basis. These data offer insight into the relationship between the changing demographics of college-going cohorts and enrollment in different types of postsecondary institutions; they permit detailed projections of enrollment by institutional type and by age. Because a student's dependency status is strongly related to age, the data can also be used to provide estimates of the number of independent/dependent students attending a postsecondary institution, which should be useful in financial aid modeling and projections. In addition, the Department of Defense U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command has indicated a strong need for these data to identify institutions with a sufficient number of recruitment-age students to make recruiting efforts cost effective.
4. Total Entering Class. NCES began collecting total entering class data in the 2002-03 data collection, based on a recommendation from the TRP. These data are collected to address concerns that the cohort used by the GR component is not representative of an institution’s entering class because the GR cohort is composed only of full-time, first-time students. The collection of a total entering class allows for a more accurate picture of incoming students, and permits the calculation of the fall GR cohort as a proportion of the total entering student body.
5. Retention Rates. NCES began collecting retention rates data in the 2003-04 data collection, based on a need identified by the TRP. Retention rates data provide an indicator of postsecondary performance that is broader in scope than completions data or graduation rates data, and is a critical measure of success as viewed by many 2-year and 4-year institutions.
6. Unduplicated 12-Month Head Count. The collection of unduplicated head count data for students enrolled over a 12-month period provides a way of looking at enrollment that is especially valuable for institutions that utilize nontraditional calendar systems and institutions that offer short programs. An enrollment figure that encompasses an entire year provides a more complete picture of the services being provided by these schools.
7. Instructional Activity. The collection of instructional activity data, as measured in total credit and/or contact hours delivered by institutions during a 12-month period, provides an overall indicator of the scope of educational activity provided by the institutions. NCES uses the total instructional activity measure as a basis for computing a total student full-time equivalency (FTE). FTE is commonly used by postsecondary institutions as a measure of size and performance, and is one of the best available indicators for the measurement of educational endeavors.
The Student Financial Aid component was added to IPEDS to respond to the request for information on the cost and price of higher education in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Data collected through this component allow prospective students to compare average amounts of financial aid received by full-time, first-time degree, or certificate-seeking undergraduates by type of aid received across institutions. Data collected here are also used to calculate institutional net prices, as required in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008. These data are posted on College Navigator.
The GR component provides a structure for calculating comparable graduation rate statistics across institutions. The data also provide much needed information to researchers as an outcome measure of institutional productivity, and offer insight into the relationship between the changing demographics of college-going cohorts within different types of institutions. The information collected in this component is used by institutions to help satisfy regulations regarding the Student Right-to-Know Act to disclose 150 percent of normal time graduation rates. The GR200 component collects consumer information on 200 percent graduation rates to meet requirements in the HEOA.
Finance data are needed for reporting and projecting the revenues and expenditures of a national activity representing a significant component of the gross national product (GNP). To enhance the comparability and utility of the finance data, IPEDS redesigned the data collection instruments to conform to the accounting standards governing both public and private institutions.
ED’s Title III (Institutional Aid) grant program relies on the finance data to help determine whether an applicant college or university is eligible to receive a grant. These data are needed annually. The GAO published a report, Postsecondary Education Financial Trends in Public and Private Nonprofit Institutions for the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, that used IPEDS finance data. The National Science Foundation is a regular user of IPEDS finance data. The Bureau of the Census relies on this form to collect data required in its census of governments. NCES and the Census Bureau worked closely to ensure that one instrument satisfied the needs of both agencies. The Bureau of Economic Analysis also contributed significantly to this endeavor. OMB asked NCES to collect these data because the Bureau's survey universe was a subset of the IPEDS universe. The Bureau of the Census also uses the data from other parts of the survey to:
develop estimates of state and local governments' finances to provide to the Bureau of Economic Analysis for calculation of the GNP; and
collect supplemental data that their census of governments does not collect.
The BLS and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service are secondary users of NCES/Census finance data. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has used finance data to determine states' or institutions' compliance with antidiscrimination laws. From these data, OCR was able to determine whether predominantly black, publicly controlled institutions were being discriminated against through funding decisions made by state boards of higher education. The Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce uses financial statistics to prepare totals and forecasts on total nonfarm expenditures for structures and equipment, and to develop GNP accounts. Increasing numbers of state agencies use the NCES Finance report to assemble data to plan and evaluate their higher education policies.
Among associations, the American Council on Education (ACE), the Association for Institutional Research, the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and The Delta Cost Project are frequent users of Finance data. Researchers from these and other organizations use the data to assess the economic future of the nation's colleges and universities.
HR data provide another basic measure of postsecondary education because they indicate the extent of the human infrastructure and knowledge base represented at institutions of higher learning. Because the size and type of staffing patterns vary greatly across postsecondary education, there is a need to measure different aspects of the human capital in postsecondary institutions.
The HR section that collects race, ethnicity, and gender data (previously referred to as the fall staff section) replaces the former EEO-6 survey, and is used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in place of its data collection efforts. Under Public Law 88-352, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, all institutions of higher education that have 15 or more (full-time) employees are required to keep records and to make such reports biennially to EEOC. NCES now collects the data and provides them to EEOC as required in its regulations. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the Department of Labor also use these data. The filing of race, ethnicity, and gender data on staff is mandated under Section 709(c) of Title VII.
The data provide information on staffing levels at the institutions for various occupational categories, and are used extensively in peer institution analysis, manpower utilization studies, and in examining the health of the institutions. Good-quality data on racial/ethnic composition of postsecondary employees are useful to EEOC and OCR for monitoring compliance with Title VII.
On an annual basis, institutions also classify all of their employees by full- or part-time status, faculty status, and occupational category; in addition, medical school staff are reported separately.
Salary outlays for full-time instructional staff and other full-time employees are also collected annually. These data are used by:
the ED Grants and Contracts Service, which makes frequent use of the salary data collected by NCES to set standards for expected salary outlays during grants and contracts negotiations processes; and
the BLS, Department of Labor, which includes salary data when developing its Occupational Outlook Handbook.
The House Labor and Human Resources Committee, the OCR, and the Bureau of the Census have requested trend data. State agencies rely on salary data to determine budgets for their state-supported institutions and to make comparative studies with other states.
Institutions use salary data to establish their own compensation packages, and institution officials study the compensation packages offered by their peers and/or competitors prior to developing their salary schedules.
The Admissions survey component was broken out from the Institutional Characteristics survey component starting with the 2014-15 data collection. This change was proposed by the TRP so that all institutions would report data for the most recent Fall period. As a result, admissions data are less confusing for IPEDS data users, given that only one reporting period is represented in each data file. Additionally, the change enabled admissions data to be used for the Trend Generator, and data on College Navigator will represent the same Fall period.
The AL survey component was reintegrated into IPEDS are a result of TRP #35, replacing the Academic Libraries Survey (ALS), which had been a standalone, biennial data collection conducted by NCES. This change allowed for refinements and improvements in the quality of the data collected, and reduced burden for the institutions. Although fewer data elements are collected in the Academic Libraries component, compared to the prior ALS, they are now collected annually and they align with key elements collected in other IPEDS components.
The OM survey component was added as the result of two TRPs (e.g., #37 and #40) and based on recommendations provided by the ED Committee on Student Success, which concluded its work in 2011. The first collection of this survey component was during the 2015-16 data collection year. This component improves the quality and availability of student success data for consumers, institutions, policymakers, and researchers. It will do so by making data available for student outcomes going beyond the historical limitation of the cohort of traditional full-time, first-time students.
The IPEDS web-based data collection system uses advanced technology to reduce respondent burden and to improve the timeliness and quality of the reported data. NCES has taken several actions to facilitate the cooperation of postsecondary institutions responding to IPEDS. These actions include the following:
Developing a fully automated web-based data collection for all components of IPEDS data. The data collection is organized into three modules, taking full advantage of data availability schedules.
Customizing survey components based on screening information so that institutions are prompted to respond only to those items relevant to their institution. For example, if a private institution does not have a differential tuition charge for out-of-state students, they will be prompted for one tuition charge. Additionally, many data items (answered previously) will be available to the respondent on the collection instrument, so that only those items that have actually changed since the previous report need to be completed or updated.
The system allows for direct data entry as well as file upload and batch import. Edit checks and data verification procedures are built into the system, thus improving the efficiency of data collection by resolving errors at the time of data submission. Processing time and cost are thus reduced. All administrative functions are provided through the Web, including nonresponse follow up, distribution of passwords, and other activities and correspondence. IPEDS also provides a Help Desk, which is available to respondents during and after data collection to respond to questions, assist with data entry and error resolution, and provide general assistance with many other types of requests.
Data release is timelier. The system is designed to migrate reported/edited data to an SQL server as soon as the administrative functions have been performed and NCES has cleared the data. Institutions whose data have been migrated to the SQL server have immediate access to data for other institutions that have also completed the process through the IPEDS Data Center. This means that data may be available before survey closeout for peer analysis. National data will become available within a matter of months after closeout.
Enabling institutions to provide data to their state and to NCES simultaneously. NCES works closely with state coordinators, many of who submit IPEDS reports for institutions in their state. Increasingly, states obtain data from institutions electronically on a student unit record basis (data per student). Other states collect institutional data using either IPEDS forms or their own state forms, which are compatible with IPEDS. Data are then extracted from the state database in the IPEDS format and file uploaded to the collection system. Thus institutions can provide data to their state and to NCES simultaneously.
NCES will continue to encourage respondents to prepare IPEDS data in a format for uploading to the web-based collection instrument by providing detailed file specifications and instructions as well as "do's" and "don'ts" for data submission. Three upload formats are available for institutions to use: fixed length, key value pair, and XML.
NCES devotes considerable effort to ensure that IPEDS does not duplicate other data collection activities involving postsecondary education providers. In developing IPEDS, NCES continues to assess the data collection efforts of other federal agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Census Bureau, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Veterans Administration) through an examination of their forms. In addition, NCES has in-depth discussions with the Department of Labor, as well as other Education Department offices (e.g., OCR, FSA, OPE, OVAE) to ascertain their needs for data and the role IPEDS can play in meeting those needs. Through meetings, workshops, and TRPs, NCES works closely with other stakeholders including the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), the American Council on Education (ACE), the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), and others. Duplication is avoided as various federal agencies, groups within ED, and other agency representatives share access to IPEDS data.
Certain providers of postsecondary education included in the IPEDS universe of Title IV eligible institutions—operators of proprietary (private for-profit) schools—are small businesses. NCES has taken several actions to reduce reporting burden for these entities. These actions include: requesting a reduced set of data items from schools offering only certificates below the baccalaureate level; and maintaining a close liaison with the APSCU, which represents proprietary postsecondary institutions, to ensure the appropriateness of data being requested and the feasibility of collecting it.
The survey components proposed for this request are those that will be collected beginning with the Fall 2017 collection and extending through the Spring 2020 collection (table 45), which will cover three full survey cycles. The survey data items are similar to those used through the 2016-17 collection, with the additional items and modifications to improve clarity and enhance the use of the data as described in this submission.
None of the special circumstances described apply to these collections.
IPEDS was developed in conjunction with providers and users of postsecondary education data. Continuing a pattern that began with the initial development of the project in 1983, opportunities are taken throughout the year to discuss the project with data respondents, Federal agencies, data users, and any other interested parties.
NCES has a strong relationship with many stakeholder groups that provide feedback on proposals for IPEDS. Identified below are organizations that have played a major consultative role:
An IPEDS Technical Review Panel (TRP) was formed to assist in survey revisions and to discuss universe definitions. Representatives include state coordinators, federal representatives, educational association members, and institutional researchers and registrars from all postsecondary education sectors.
The National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC) is responsible for IPEDS research and development activities. NPEC's mission is to promote the quality, comparability, and utility of postsecondary data and information that support policy development at the federal, state, and institution levels. The NPEC IPEDS R&D Panel achieves this goal by developing an R&D agenda for IPEDS, identifying topics that will help improve the quality, comparability, and utility of IPEDS data for the postsecondary education community, consumers, and policymakers, as well as providing expertise to NCES on related IPEDS R&D projects.
Annual meetings are held with IPEDS coordinators to obtain state input on IPEDS operations, survey revisions, analysis plans, and data needs.
IPEDS workshops and presentations are made at various conferences and annual or regional meetings of educational and professional associations. IPEDS staff discuss proposed modifications or problem areas and receive input from the data providers as part of the data collection training.
The Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), the American Library Association (ALA), and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) have a joint advisory task force that reaches out to IPEDS regularly with suggestions.
There are no payments or gifts offered to respondents.
IPEDS data are not collected under any pledge of confidentiality.
The PRA language for IPEDS is made available on the institutional burden page for the data collection. The statement for the 2016-17 collection reads as follows (it is updated annually to reflect approval by OMB of the new respondent burden hour estimates):
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1850-0582.
Summary of ranges and averages of time burden estimates by institution type and keyholder experience |
|
|||
|
2016-17 |
|||
|
Range |
Average |
||
4-year institution |
|
|||
New keyholder |
142 - 304 hours |
213 hours |
||
Returning keyholder |
95 - 199 hours |
140 hours |
||
2-year institution |
|
|
|
|
New keyholder |
132 - 282 hours |
198 hours |
||
Returning keyholder |
90 – 188 hours |
133 hours |
||
<2-year institution |
|
|
|
|
New keyholder |
61-136 hours |
94 hours |
||
Returning keyholder |
40 - 89 hours |
61 hours |
||
These IPEDS reporting burden estimates include the time it takes to review instructions, query and search data sources, complete and review the components, and submit the data through the Data Collection System. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, National Center for Education Statistics, PCP, 550 12th St., SW, 4th floor, Washington, DC 20202. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission, please direct them to ipedshelp@rti.org.
These collections contain no questions of a sensitive nature.
Annual Burden Calculation. Table 6 displays the estimated burden to respondents for the upcoming 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 collection years for which we are seeking approval in this submission, including the proposed changes. The estimated number of responding institutions reflects those that are required to respond (approximately 7,300 Title IV eligible institutions) plus those that voluntarily respond (approximately 200 per data collection year). Table 7 shows estimated burden time ranges for institutions based on type of institution and keyholder experience.
NCES currently asks institutions to report the time it takes them to complete each survey component once every 2 years. The results of this data collection were used in establishing burden estimates for all components. The response rates for self-reported preparation times are shown in table 4.
Response rates for the preparation time question are high enough to incorporate these data into burden estimate calculations. The response rates for the Completions component are lower than for the other two Fall components because more data are uploaded by states and systems for this survey component; the item does not appear on the import layouts.
NCES anticipated using the keyholder reported times in two ways:
to gauge whether the recalculated burden estimates from the previous clearance submission are realistic compared with what keyholders report; and
to determine whether the new keyholders require more time and whether a 50 percent additional time premium is an accurate estimation for them.
Table 4. Response rates for IPEDS preparation time item, 2014 (2015 for Outcome Measures) |
||
|
Returning keyholders |
New keyholders |
Institutional Characteristics (IC) |
77.9% |
82.9% |
Completions (C) |
52.3% |
58.9% |
12-month Enrollment (E12) |
73.8% |
81.6% |
Student Financial Aid (SFA) |
73.1% |
79.1% |
Outcome Measures (OM) |
43.1% |
41.9% |
Graduation Rates (GR & GR200) |
76.1% |
82.4% |
Admissions (ADM) |
73.4% |
86.0% |
Fall Enrollment (EF) |
73.3% |
77.6% |
Finance (F) |
72.8% |
78.7% |
Human Resources (HR) |
74.5% |
82.8% |
Academic Libraries (AL) |
76.6% |
86.0% |
The actual time to prepare and complete the survey components is reported by keyholders by responding to the voluntary question “How long did it take to prepare this survey component?” Through conversations with respondents and based on feedback from the industry, we believe that respondents sometimes include only the time it took for the keyholder to pull the data from institutional systems, organize it, and submit it into the IPEDS collection system, but that the time spent briefing superiors and others within the institution and the time spent by other technical staff preparing queries and organizing data is sometimes omitted.
To include time for these additional data-submission related activities, we added a 75 percent time premium to the time estimates reported by IPEDS keyholders. A proportion of time estimate (75%), not a constant, was used because we believe the time spent interacting with others at the institution is directly correlated with the amount of time spent preparing the response to the IPEDS survey. That is, new keyholders and those at more complex institutions may need additional time to discuss the IPEDS survey with others at their respective institution compared to keyholders that are more experienced or are at smaller institutions (estimates provided by new keyholders are higher than those of returning keyholders and time estimates from 4-year institutions are higher than burden time estimates from 2-year institutions, which are higher than burden time estimates from <2 year institutions). In addition, the amount of time needed to brief institutional constituents is related to the complexity and length of the survey.
The preparation times reported by keyholders support the observation that it takes new keyholders longer to prepare and submit their IPEDS components. Although the premiums reported for the Fall vary from component to component, and are somewhat less than the 50 percent used in IPEDS burden calculations, NCES continues to use the 50 percent time premium for new keyholders in the this submission to ensure that burden estimates remain equal or greater to what is needed by respondents. Table 5 summarizes the estimated preparation hours based on reported time estimates by experienced and new keyholders, and shows the average premium for new keyholders. Outcome Measures was reported similarly by new and returning keyholders, as it was a new survey component. As it will again be basically a new survey starting in 2017-18, it is treated similarly for returning and new keyholders with a much lower time premium.
Table 5. Estimated average preparation hours for experienced and new IPEDS keyholders, and average premium for new keyholders, 2016 |
|||||||
|
Total preparation hours, experienced keyholders |
Number of experienced keyholders responding |
Average preparation hours, experienced keyholders |
Total preparation hours, new keyholders |
Number of new keyholders responding |
Average preparation hours, new keyholders |
Average premium for new keyholders |
IC |
34,800 |
6,000 |
5.8 |
12,450 |
1,500 |
8.3 |
43.1% |
C |
58,800 |
6,000 |
9.8 |
21,450 |
1,500 |
14.3 |
45.9% |
E12 |
32,400 |
6,000 |
5.4 |
11,850 |
1,500 |
7.9 |
46.3% |
SFA |
111,000 |
6,000 |
18.5 |
37,500 |
1,500 |
25.0 |
35.1% |
GR |
39,520 |
5,200 |
7.6 |
13,600 |
1,200 |
11.3 |
49.1% |
GR200 |
16,120 |
5,200 |
3.1 |
5,640 |
1,200 |
4.7 |
51.6% |
OM |
153,230 |
3,980 |
38.5 |
35,880 |
920 |
39.0 |
1.2% |
ADM |
6,825 |
1,950 |
3.5 |
2,675 |
550 |
4.9 |
39.0% |
EF |
72,000 |
6,000 |
12 |
24,000 |
1,500 |
16.0 |
33.3% |
F |
73,200 |
6,000 |
12.2 |
28,050 |
1,500 |
18.7 |
53.3% |
HR |
153,000 |
6,000 |
25.5 |
57,000 |
1,500 |
38.0 |
49.0% |
Table 6. Summary of estimated response burden by survey component: 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 |
|||||||
|
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
|||
Survey component |
Number of institutions (respondents) |
Avg hours per institution |
Total hours |
Avg hours per institution |
Total hours |
Avg hours per institution |
Total hours |
IC |
7,500 |
6.3 |
47,250 |
6.3 |
47,250 |
6.3 |
47,250 |
C |
7,500 |
10.7 |
80,250 |
10.7 |
80,250 |
10.7 |
80,250 |
E12 |
7,500 |
5.9 |
44,250 |
5.9 |
44,250 |
5.9 |
44,250 |
SFA |
7,500 |
19.8 |
148,500 |
19.8 |
148,500 |
19.8 |
148,500 |
GR |
6,400 |
8.3 |
53,120 |
8.3 |
53,120 |
8.3 |
53,120 |
GR200 |
6,400 |
3.4 |
21,760 |
3.4 |
21,760 |
3.4 |
21,760 |
OM |
4,900 |
38.6 |
189,110 |
32.0 |
156,800 |
32.0 |
156,800 |
ADM |
2,500 |
3.8 |
9,500 |
3.8 |
9,500 |
3.8 |
9,500 |
EF |
7,500 |
12.8 |
96,000 |
12.8 |
96,000 |
12.8 |
96,000 |
F |
7,500 |
13.5 |
101,250 |
13.5 |
101,250 |
13.5 |
101,250 |
HR |
7,500 |
28 |
210,000 |
28 |
210,000 |
28 |
210,000 |
AL |
4,900 |
10.5 |
51,450 |
10.5 |
51,450 |
10.5 |
51,450 |
Total |
77,600 responses from 7,500 respondents |
— |
1,052,420 |
— |
1,020,130 |
— |
1,020,130 |
Table 6 shows that in the first year of data collection there will be 77,600 responses from 7,500 institutions, resulting, on average, in 1,052,420 estimated annual burden hours across all respondents. In the 2nd two years of the data collection, there will be 77,600 responses from 7,500 institutions, resulting, on average, in 1,020,130 estimated annual burden hours each year across all respondents. Therefore, across the three years, the average annual time burden for IPEDS data collection is 1,030,893 hours across all respondents.
Table 7. Summary of ranges and averages of time burden estimates by institution type and keyholder experience |
||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
|||
|
Range |
Average |
Range |
Average |
Range |
Average |
4-year institution |
|
|
|
|||
New keyholder |
142 - 304 hours |
213 hours |
137 - 299 hours |
208 hours |
137 - 299 hours |
208 hours |
Returning keyholder |
95 - 199 hours |
140 hours |
88 - 192 hours |
133 hours |
88 – 192 hours |
133 hours |
2-year institution |
|
|||||
New keyholder |
132 - 282 hours |
198 hours |
127 - 277 hours |
194 hours |
127 - 277 hours |
194 hours |
Returning keyholder |
90 – 188 hours |
133 hours |
83 – 181 hours |
126 hours |
83 – 181 hours |
126 hours |
<2-year institution |
|
|||||
New keyholder |
61-136 hours |
94 hours |
61 - 136 hours |
94 hours |
61 - 136 hours |
94 hours |
Returning keyholder |
40 - 89 hours |
61 hours |
40 - 89 hours |
61 hours |
40 - 89 hours |
61 hours |
In all cases, if the data are readily accessible in machine-readable files, the time required is less than the estimated burden hours. Estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The number of institutions responding is estimated based on the 2017-18 universe; changes to these numbers for successive years are expected to be small.
To improve the accuracy of self-reported burden times, and to minimized the likely current burden time overestimation, NCES plans to develop and test a better question or a set of questions to properly measure the burden related to all aspects of completing the IPEDS survey. IPEDS keyholders’ answers to the current question: “How long did it take to prepare this survey component?” may be answered by some respondents only for the time localized to the respondent and not include the total person hours expended by the institution in relation to the IPEDS data submission. NCES will submit a separate generic clearance request to OMB for review to conduct cognitive interviews with institutional respondents to determine and evaluate a better set of questions that address the time use and burden constructs for IPEDS respondents. It will be submitted under the NCES clearance vehicle designed for cognitive and other developmental studies (OMB# 1850-0803). The cognitive interviews study will be conducted from January through March 2017 to develop a new set of time use and burden questions. Once testing is complete and NCES has created an improved measurement that will not require a proportional adjustment, we will submit a change request to OMB under the IPEDS clearance (OMB# 1850-0582) to implement the improved burden question in the 2017-18 IPEDS collection cycle.
The 2017-18 estimated total burden time cost to respondents is based on the estimated response burden -hours multiplied by the estimated hourly wage $41.02 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 Edition, Operations Research Analysts, http://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/operations-research-analysts.htm). The hourly wage is increased by an estimated 2.0 percent cost-of-living adjustment for each subsequent year. Total estimated costs per respondent for the 2017-18 through 2019-20 data collections are shown in table 8.
Table 8. Estimates of burden hours and costs to institutions |
|||
|
Estimated total burden hours for all institutions |
Estimated cost to all institutions |
Average estimated costs per institution |
2017-18 |
1,052,420 |
$41.02 |
$5,756 |
2018-19 |
1,020,130 |
$41.84 |
$5,691 |
2019-20 |
1,020,130 |
$42.68 |
$5,805 |
There are no capital or startup costs associated with this data collection.
We estimate a total cost to the government for the IPEDS 2017-18 through 2019-20 survey years of approximately $36,000,000. The total annual cost for this collection will be $12 million. On an annual basis, over the 3 survey years, the contract costs will average about $10 million per year. Federal S&E will be approximately $2,000,000 per year. More than 95 percent of this amount will be spent in direct support of the institutional training, and the collection, analysis, and reporting of the IPEDS data described herein. The contract amount includes all activities related to program support; data collection system maintenance; help desk support activities; programming and software modifications and documentation; training of contractor staff as well as institutional respondents; data collection, data review, and analysis; survey administration; imputations; file preparation, reporting, and data dissemination; TRP meetings; and activities including training, dissertation and research grants, and other related activities. The costs include personnel, fringe benefits, travel, supplies, computer-related activities, consultants, other direct and indirect costs, plus overhead and G&A.
The time estimates and costs associated with the activities described above and in the IPEDS Statement of Work for the RFP are based on recent experience with the contractors that currently support the IPEDS operations (RTI, AIR, and others). IPEDS in-house staff costs are based on FY2016 pay schedules and on an estimated 1 percent pay increase for each of the subsequent fiscal years due to the uncertainty surrounding pay increases for federal employees.
This request is an associated increase in response burden due to the proposed changes to the OM data collection beginning with IPEDS 2017-18. Response burden can best be explained by looking at the burden hour estimates on a component-by-component basis.
Institutional Characteristics (IC). Detailed estimates for the IC component are presented in table 9. These estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience.
Table 9. Burden hours, Institutional Characteristics |
||||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
|||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
|
4-year schools |
3,200 |
8.0 |
12.0 |
8.0 |
12.0 |
8.0 |
12.0 |
|
2-year schools |
2,200 |
4.8 |
7.3 |
4.8 |
7.3 |
4.8 |
7.3 |
|
<2-year schools |
2,100 |
3.0 |
4.5 |
3.0 |
4.5 |
3.0 |
4.5 |
|
Total |
7,500 |
5.5 |
8.3 |
5.5 |
8.3 |
5.5 |
8.3 |
|
The burden estimates for 2017-18 through 2019-20 cover the changes to the form listed in table 2, and take into consideration respondent self-reported preparation time for this component.
Completions (C): Detailed estimates for the C component are presented in table 10. These estimates account for institution type, number of programs, and keyholder experience, and take into consideration respondent self-reported preparation time for this component. No changes have been requested for the C survey component.
Table 10. Burden hours, Completions |
||||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
|||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
|
4-year schools |
3,200 |
12.4 |
18.5 |
12.4 |
18.5 |
12.4 |
18.5 |
|
Fewer than 10 programs |
740 |
5.2 |
7.8 |
5.2 |
7.8 |
5.2 |
7.8 |
|
10-100 programs |
2,030 |
15.0 |
22.5 |
15.0 |
22.5 |
15.0 |
22.5 |
|
More than 100 programs |
430 |
25.5 |
38.3 |
25.5 |
38.3 |
25.5 |
38.3 |
|
2-year schools |
2,200 |
10.8 |
16.2 |
10.8 |
16.2 |
10.8 |
16.2 |
|
Fewer than 10 programs |
890 |
5.5 |
8.3 |
5.5 |
8.3 |
5.5 |
8.3 |
|
10-100 programs |
1,110 |
13.2 |
19.8 |
13.2 |
19.8 |
13.2 |
19.8 |
|
More than 100 programs |
200 |
24.0 |
36.0 |
24.0 |
36.0 |
24.0 |
36.0 |
|
<2-year schools |
2,100 |
4.6 |
6.9 |
4.6 |
6.9 |
4.6 |
6.9 |
|
Fewer than 3 programs |
970 |
2.9 |
4.4 |
2.9 |
4.4 |
2.9 |
4.4 |
|
3 to 9 programs |
990 |
4.7 |
7.1 |
4.7 |
7.1 |
4.7 |
7.1 |
|
10 or more programs |
140 |
13.9 |
20.8 |
13.9 |
20.8 |
13.9 |
20.8 |
|
Total |
7,500 |
8.6 |
13.0 |
8.6 |
13.0 |
8.6 |
13.0 |
|
12-month Enrollment (E12): Detailed estimates for the E12 component are presented in table 11. These estimates account for institution type, enrollment size, and keyholder experience, and take into consideration respondent self-reported preparation time for this component. No changes have been requested for the E12 survey component.
Table 11. Burden hours, 12-month Enrollment |
||||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
|||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
|
4-year schools |
3,200 |
6.4 |
9.7 |
6.4 |
9.7 |
6.4 |
9.7 |
|
800 or fewer students |
1,240 |
4.5 |
6.7 |
4.5 |
6.7 |
4.5 |
6.7 |
|
801-3,000 students |
970 |
6.6 |
9.9 |
6.6 |
9.9 |
6.6 |
9.9 |
|
>3,000 students |
990 |
8.5 |
12.7 |
8.5 |
12.7 |
8.5 |
12.7 |
|
2-year schools |
2,200 |
4.1 |
6.2 |
4.1 |
6.2 |
4.1 |
6.2 |
|
500 or fewer students |
1000 |
3.7 |
5.5 |
3.7 |
5.5 |
3.7 |
5.5 |
|
501-1,500 students |
360 |
7.3 |
11.0 |
7.3 |
11.0 |
7.3 |
11.0 |
|
>1,500 students |
840 |
7.5 |
11.3 |
7.5 |
11.3 |
7.5 |
11.3 |
|
<2-year schools |
2,100 |
4.9 |
7.4 |
4.9 |
7.4 |
4.9 |
7.4 |
|
100 or fewer students |
1050 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
|
101 to 250 students |
670 |
6.2 |
9.2 |
6.2 |
9.2 |
6.2 |
9.2 |
|
>250 students |
380 |
7.1 |
10.6 |
7.1 |
10.6 |
7.1 |
10.6 |
|
Total |
7,500 |
4.9 |
7.4 |
4.9 |
7.4 |
4.9 |
7.4 |
|
Student Financial Aid (SFA): Detailed estimates for the SFA component are presented in table 12. Estimates account for institution type, enrollment size, and keyholder experience.
Table 12. Burden hours, Student Financial Aid |
|||||||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
||||||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
||||
4-year schools |
3,200 |
21.7 |
32.6 |
21.7 |
32.6 |
21.7 |
32.6 |
|
|||
800 or fewer students |
1,240 |
16.9 |
25.3 |
16.9 |
25.3 |
16.9 |
25.3 |
|
|||
801-3,000 students |
970 |
18.7 |
28.0 |
18.7 |
28.0 |
18.7 |
28.0 |
|
|||
>3,000 students |
990 |
30.9 |
46.3 |
30.9 |
46.3 |
30.9 |
46.3 |
|
|||
2-year schools |
2,200 |
19.4 |
29.1 |
19.4 |
29.1 |
19.4 |
29.1 |
|
|||
500 or fewer students |
1000 |
15.3 |
23.0 |
15.3 |
23.0 |
15.3 |
23.0 |
|
|||
501-1,500 students |
360 |
22.9 |
34.4 |
22.9 |
34.4 |
22.9 |
34.4 |
|
|||
>1,500 students |
840 |
27.7 |
41.5 |
27.7 |
41.5 |
27.7 |
41.5 |
|
|||
<2-year schools |
2,100 |
10.9 |
16.3 |
10.9 |
16.3 |
10.9 |
16.3 |
|
|||
100 or fewer students |
1050 |
10.7 |
16.1 |
10.7 |
16.1 |
10.7 |
16.1 |
|
|||
101 to 250 students |
670 |
19.1 |
28.7 |
19.1 |
28.7 |
19.1 |
28.7 |
|
|||
>250 students |
380 |
12.3 |
18.4 |
12.3 |
18.4 |
12.3 |
18.4 |
|
|||
Total |
7,500 |
18.0 |
27.0 |
18.0 |
27.0 |
18.0 |
27.0 |
|
|||
Outcome Measures (OM): Detailed estimates for the OM component are presented in table 13. Estimates account for institution type, enrollment size, and keyholder experience.
Table 13. Burden hours, Outcome Measures |
|||||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
||||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
||
4-year schools |
2,500 |
38.5 |
36.6 |
28.9 |
36.6 |
28.9 |
36.6 |
||
800 or fewer students |
720 |
32.9 |
21.7 |
24.6 |
21.7 |
24.6 |
21.7 |
||
801-3,000 students |
850 |
34.4 |
30.6 |
25.8 |
30.6 |
25.8 |
30.6 |
||
>3,000 students |
930 |
48.1 |
59.9 |
36.1 |
59.9 |
36.1 |
59.9 |
||
2-year schools |
2,000 |
37.4 |
38.9 |
28.0 |
38.9 |
28.0 |
38.9 |
||
500 or fewer students |
860 |
21.1 |
25.3 |
15.9 |
25.3 |
15.9 |
25.3 |
||
501-1,500 students |
340 |
30.0 |
34.7 |
22.5 |
34.7 |
22.5 |
34.7 |
||
>1,500 students |
800 |
52.4 |
51.4 |
39.3 |
51.4 |
39.3 |
51.4 |
||
Total |
4,500 |
38.1 |
37.4 |
28.6 |
37.4 |
28.6 |
37.4 |
||
The burden estimates for 2017-18 through 2019-20 cover the proposed changes to begin in 2017-18. The proposed changes for the OM survey form are listed in table 3.
Graduation Rates (GR): Detailed estimates for the GR component are presented in table 14. Estimates account for institution type, enrollment size, and keyholder experience.
Table 14. Burden hours, Graduation Rates |
|||||||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
||||||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
||||
4-year schools |
2,500 |
9.4 |
14.0 |
9.4 |
14.0 |
9.4 |
14.0 |
|
|||
800 or fewer students |
720 |
6.9 |
10.4 |
6.9 |
10.4 |
6.9 |
10.4 |
|
|||
801-3,000 students |
850 |
8.3 |
12.5 |
8.3 |
12.5 |
8.3 |
12.5 |
|
|||
>3,000 students |
930 |
12.0 |
18.0 |
12.0 |
18.0 |
12.0 |
18.0 |
|
|||
2-year schools |
2,100 |
9.2 |
13.8 |
9.2 |
13.8 |
9.2 |
13.8 |
|
|||
500 or fewer students |
890 |
5.9 |
8.8 |
5.9 |
8.8 |
5.9 |
8.8 |
|
|||
501-1,500 students |
360 |
11.6 |
17.4 |
11.6 |
17.4 |
11.6 |
17.4 |
|
|||
>1,500 students |
850 |
16.2 |
24.3 |
16.2 |
24.3 |
16.2 |
24.3 |
|
|||
2-year schools |
1,800 |
3.2 |
4.7 |
3.2 |
4.7 |
3.2 |
4.7 |
|
|||
100 or fewer students |
870 |
3.0 |
4.6 |
3.0 |
4.6 |
3.0 |
4.6 |
|
|||
101 to 250 students |
590 |
7.8 |
11.7 |
7.8 |
11.7 |
7.8 |
11.7 |
|
|||
>250 students |
340 |
7.9 |
11.8 |
7.9 |
11.8 |
7.9 |
11.8 |
|
|||
Total |
6,400 |
8.8 |
13.2 |
8.8 |
13.2 |
8.8 |
13.2 |
|
|||
Graduation Rates 200 (GR200): Detailed estimates for the GR200 component are presented in table 15. Estimates account for institution type, enrollment size, and keyholder experience.
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
|||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
|
4-year schools |
2,500 |
3.4 |
5.1 |
3.4 |
5.1 |
3.4 |
5.1 |
|
800 or fewer students |
720 |
2.8 |
4.2 |
2.8 |
4.2 |
2.8 |
4.2 |
|
801-3,000 students |
850 |
1.9 |
2.9 |
1.9 |
2.9 |
1.9 |
2.9 |
|
>3,000 students |
930 |
4.4 |
6.6 |
4.4 |
6.6 |
4.4 |
6.6 |
|
2-year school |
2,100 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
|
500 or fewer students |
890 |
2.3 |
3.5 |
2.3 |
3.5 |
2.3 |
3.5 |
|
501-1,500 students |
360 |
4.0 |
6.1 |
4.0 |
6.1 |
4.0 |
6.1 |
|
>1,500 students |
850 |
5.0 |
7.4 |
5.0 |
7.4 |
5.0 |
7.4 |
|
<2-year schools |
1,800 |
1.9 |
2.8 |
1.9 |
2.8 |
1.9 |
2.8 |
|
100 or fewer students |
870 |
1.8 |
2.7 |
1.8 |
2.7 |
1.8 |
2.7 |
|
101 to 250 students |
590 |
2.4 |
3.6 |
2.4 |
3.6 |
2.4 |
3.6 |
|
>250 students |
340 |
3.5 |
5.3 |
3.5 |
5.3 |
3.5 |
5.3 |
|
Total |
6,400 |
3.5 |
5.5 |
3.5 |
5.5 |
3.5 |
5.5 |
|
Admissions (ADM): Detailed estimates for the ADM component are presented in table 16. Estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience.
Table 16. Burden hours, Admissions |
|||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
4-year schools |
2,100 |
2.9 |
4.4 |
2.9 |
4.4 |
2.9 |
4.4 |
2-year schools |
250 |
3.3 |
5.0 |
3.3 |
5.0 |
3.3 |
5.0 |
<2-year schools |
150 |
1.6 |
2.4 |
1.6 |
2.4 |
1.6 |
2.4 |
Total |
2,500 |
2.9 |
4.3 |
2.9 |
4.3 |
2.9 |
4.3 |
Fall Enrollment (EF): Detailed estimates for the EF component are presented in table 17. These estimates account for institution type and enrollment and keyholder experience.
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
|||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
|
4-year schools |
3,200 |
16.0 |
23.9 |
16.0 |
23.9 |
16.0 |
23.9 |
|
800 or fewer students |
1,240 |
6.9 |
10.4 |
6.9 |
10.4 |
6.9 |
10.4 |
|
801-3,000 students |
970 |
15.8 |
23.7 |
15.8 |
23.7 |
15.8 |
23.7 |
|
>3,000 students |
990 |
28.4 |
42.6 |
28.4 |
42.6 |
28.4 |
42.6 |
|
2-year school |
2,200 |
11.9 |
17.9 |
11.9 |
17.9 |
11.9 |
17.9 |
|
500 or fewer students |
1000 |
7.9 |
11.8 |
7.9 |
11.8 |
7.9 |
11.8 |
|
501-1,500 students |
360 |
14.6 |
21.9 |
14.6 |
21.9 |
14.6 |
21.9 |
|
>1,500 students |
840 |
23.3 |
35.0 |
23.3 |
35.0 |
23.3 |
35.0 |
|
<2-year schools |
2,100 |
4.6 |
6.9 |
4.6 |
6.9 |
4.6 |
6.9 |
|
50 or fewer students |
1050 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
3.9 |
5.8 |
|
51 to 250 students |
670 |
4.7 |
7.1 |
4.7 |
7.1 |
4.7 |
7.1 |
|
>250 students |
380 |
10.3 |
15.4 |
10.3 |
15.4 |
10.3 |
15.4 |
|
Total |
7,500 |
15.0 |
22.5 |
15.0 |
22.5 |
15.0 |
22.5 |
|
Finance (F): Detailed estimates for the F component are presented in table 18. Estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience.
Table 18. Burden hours, Finance |
||||||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
|||||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
|||
4-year schools |
3,200 |
18.1 |
18.4 |
18.1 |
18.4 |
18.1 |
18.4 |
|||
GASB |
750 |
41.1 |
44.9 |
41.1 |
44.9 |
41.1 |
44.9 |
|||
FASB not for profit |
1,690 |
13.7 |
13.2 |
13.7 |
13.2 |
13.7 |
13.2 |
|||
FASB for profit |
760 |
5.4 |
10.7 |
5.4 |
10.7 |
5.4 |
10.7 |
|||
2-year schools |
2,200 |
13.6 |
13.7 |
13.6 |
13.7 |
13.6 |
13.7 |
|||
GASB |
1,060 |
21.8 |
18.3 |
21.8 |
18.3 |
21.8 |
18.3 |
|||
FASB not for profit |
170 |
7.1 |
7.2 |
7.1 |
7.2 |
7.1 |
7.2 |
|||
FASB for profit |
970 |
6.5 |
7.1 |
6.5 |
7.1 |
6.5 |
7.1 |
|||
<2-year schools |
2,100 |
5.6 |
8.1 |
5.6 |
8.1 |
5.6 |
8.1 |
|||
GASB |
250 |
9.6 |
12.6 |
9.6 |
12.6 |
9.6 |
12.6 |
|||
FASB not for profit |
100 |
4.8 |
12.6 |
4.8 |
12.6 |
4.8 |
12.6 |
|||
FASB for profit |
1,750 |
5.1 |
6.9 |
5.1 |
6.9 |
5.1 |
6.9 |
|||
Total |
7,500 |
13.0 |
14.3 |
13.0 |
14.3 |
13.0 |
14.3 |
|||
Human Resources (HR): Detailed estimates for the HR component are presented in table 19. Estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience.
Table 19. Burden hours, Human Resources |
|||||||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
||||||||
|
Number
of institutions |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
||||
4-year schools |
3,200 |
23.3 |
35.0 |
23.3 |
35.0 |
23.3 |
35.0 |
||||
2-year schools |
2,200 |
10.5 |
15.7 |
10.5 |
15.7 |
10.5 |
15.7 |
||||
<2-year schools |
2,100 |
1.4 |
2.2 |
1.4 |
2.2 |
1.4 |
2.2 |
||||
Total |
7,500 |
12.4 |
18.6 |
12.4 |
18.6 |
12.4 |
18.6 |
||||
Academic Libraries (AL): Detailed estimates for the AL component are presented in table 20. Estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience.
Table 20. Burden hours, Academic Libraries |
|||||||
|
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
||||
|
Number of institutions (Title IV and non-Title IV) |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
Burden for returning keyholder |
Burden for new keyholder |
4-year schools |
3,100 |
10.7 |
16.1 |
10.7 |
16.1 |
10.7 |
16.1 |
2-year schools |
1,800 |
7.7 |
11.5 |
7.7 |
11.5 |
7.7 |
11.5 |
Total |
4,900 |
9.6 |
14.4 |
9.6 |
14.4 |
9.6 |
14.4 |
All Collections: All Survey Components. To provide better estimates of burden on an ongoing basis, NCES will ask IPEDS keyholders to voluntarily report the time required to complete each survey component every other year, with the exception of when a new component or major change is implemented. In those cases, NCES will ask for burden estimates the first and second years of data collection, and then they will be moved to the same years as the other components. NCES estimates a burden of 0.2 hour to track, record, and report this time for the following components: Institutional Characteristics and Admissions, Completions, 12-month Enrollment, Graduation Rates, Graduation Rates 200, Outcome Measures, and Fall Enrollment. NCES estimates it will take 0.4 hour for Student Financial Aid, Finance, Human Resources, and Academic Libraries, because these four components typically involve additional offices at the institution and require keyholders to get time estimates from others at the institution.
Table 21. IPEDS 2017-18 planned data collection schedule |
|
Date |
Activity |
Early-August 2017 |
Open Registration |
Early September 2017 |
Fall Data Collection opens
|
Mid-October 2017 |
Fall Data Collection closes |
Early December 2017 |
Winter and Spring Data Collection opens
|
Early-January 2017 |
Begin cognitive interviews to develop questions for measuring actual response burden |
Mid-February 2018 |
Winter Data Collection closes
|
Mid-April 2018 |
Spring Data Collection closes
|
June 2018 |
Noncompliance Report due to Office of Federal Student Aid |
No later than January 2018 |
Public release of data in IPEDS Data Center of data collected in Fall 2017 |
No later than May 2018 |
Public release of data in IPEDS Data Center of data collected in Winter 2017-18 |
No later than July 2018 |
Public release of data in IPEDS Data Center of data collected in Spring 2018 |
Survey activity will include the registration period followed by a collection cycle that varies in length depending on the collection. Registration must take place (only once) before data can be entered into the system. Data can be entered directly or through file or batch upload. However, respondents must resolve all errors/flags before data can be locked. This lock must take place before the collection period closes if data are to be considered as submitted in a timely fashion. Once the collection closes for institutions, coordinators have a 2-week period for review. Once complete, the survey administrators (Help Desk) review the data, additional error resolution is performed, and a preliminary file is created for review by NCES. Following NCES approval of this file, a publication is prepared, and preliminary data are released to the public. Then, imputations are run. Following NCES approval of the imputed file, the publication is revised, and these provisional data are released to the public.
Frequent communications occur with the institution over the course of the data collection to ensure compliance with this statutorily mandated collection. The planned 2017-18 communications and follow-up schedule is detailed in table 22.
Table 22. IPEDS 2017-18 data collections communications/follow-up schedule |
|||
Collection |
Correspondence type |
When |
Why |
Registration |
Email to keyholder |
Early August |
UserID + password |
Letter to CEO |
Early August |
UserID + password; importance of keyholder selection; thank you |
|
Email, Mailed packet |
At registration |
Welcome to new keyholders |
|
Letter to CEO |
Late August |
No registered keyholder |
|
Letter & phone call to CEO |
Mid-September |
No registered keyholder |
|
Each collection: Fall Winter Spring |
Email to keyholder |
Open |
Collection open |
Email to keyholder |
Close – 4 wks |
No data entered |
|
Email to new keyholder |
Close – 4 wks |
All surveys not locked |
|
Thank you email to CEO |
Close – 3 wks |
All surveys locked |
|
Phone call to CEO/keyholder |
Close – 2 wks |
No data entered |
|
Phone call to new keyholder |
Close – 2 wks |
All surveys not locked |
|
Email to keyholder |
Close – 2 wks |
All surveys not locked |
|
Email to keyholder |
Close – 1 wk |
All surveys not locked |
|
Additional for Spring |
Email to keyholder |
Late March |
No data entered since Winter |
Email – This week in IPEDS |
Twice in February |
Reminder that Spring surveys are open |
|
NCES distributes IPEDS data to users in a timely fashion and in a format that is easy to use. Specifically, IPEDS will be distributed in the following ways.
1. Data Dissemination Tools.
Use the Data: The Use the Data portal is the primary method of disseminating IPEDS data to the postsecondary education, policy, and research communities. This portal allows data users to create different reports and datasets, depending on their individual needs. Users can create reports that highlight a particular institution and compare it with other institutions, or they can simply create a report about a group of institutions.
Data Trends: View trends on most frequently asked subject areas including Enrollment, Completions, Graduation Rates, Employees and Staff, Institutional Revenues, and Financial Aid.
Look Up an Institution: Look up information for one institution at a time. Data can be viewed in two forms: institution profile (similar to College Navigator) and reported data (institution's response to each survey question).
Data Feedback Report: Download, print, or customize an institution's Data Feedback Report, a report that graphically summarizes selected institutional data and compares the data with those of peer institutions.
Statistical Tables: Create simple descriptive statistics (e.g., total, count, average, median, standard deviation, percentiles) on selected IPEDS institutions and variables.
Summary Tables: Customize a summary table for a select subgroup of institutions on the following popular topics: tuition and fees, room and board, student financial aid, admissions, test scores, student enrollment, degree/certificate awarded, and graduation rates.
Compare Institutions: Download IPEDS data files for more than 7,000 institutions and up to 250 variables. Step-by-step process guides users through the process of selecting institutions and variables. Data files are provided in comma separated value (*.csv) format.
Survey Data: Download the complete data file for each survey or create a custom data file across multiple surveys. IPEDS data files and data dictionaries are zipped *csv format, including read programs for easily importing data into a statistical software package (SPSS, STATA, and SAS).
College Navigator: In response to the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, NCES developed a searchable website to provide up-to-date statistics on a broad range of postsecondary institutions for easy access by consumers. The site presents general information about each institution and its mission, as well as data on institution prices and average net price, admissions, financial aid, enrollment, program offerings, degrees and awards conferred, graduation and retention rates, accreditation, varsity athletic teams, campus security, and cohort default rates. College Navigator is designed to help college students, future students, and their parents understand the differences among colleges and how much it costs to attend college. The site also provides direct links to each institution's home page and net price calculator, the College Affordability and Transparency Center; Federal Student Aid’s Prepare for College website and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA); and the Occupational Outlook Handbook. Visit http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ for more information.
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) on the Web: The Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) now uses IPEDS data on graduation and retention rates, college costs, and net prices in its online FAFSA application. When students look up schools to which they want their FAFSA information sent, they are presented with information on these schools based on IPEDS data.
Tabulated Data: IPEDS data are tabulated and are available through the Tables Library.
2. Survey Reports. NCES releases data in a wide variety of formats, including basic tables, descriptive reports, and more detailed analyses. A few of these types of reports are detailed below.
First Look Reports: Concurrent with the preliminary and provisional release of the data file for each IPEDS collection cycle, a predetermined set of tables called is produced and disseminated to the public. These tabulations include 1-year data tables and selected findings.
Descriptive Survey Reports: Shortly after First Look reports are produced, reports highlighting additional findings from the survey may be produced for various components. These reports are widely distributed to policymakers as well as the general public.
Analytic Reports: Comprehensive reports are produced periodically to analyze major policy issues, such as trends in minority enrollment and degrees, trends in faculty salaries, and trends in degrees by field of study.
Other NCES Reports: The Digest of Education Statistics, Projections of Education Statistics, and the Condition of Education contain major sections based on IPEDS data. These publications have large distributions to a broad spectrum of users of postsecondary education statistics.
ED is not seeking approval to forego displaying the OMB approval expiration date.
There are no exceptions to the certification statement.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | IPEDS OMB 2008-2011 |
| Author | Janice Kelly-Reid |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-22 |