Part B IPEDS 2019-20 through 2021-22

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2019-20 to 2021-22

Supporting Statement Part B

OMB No. 1850-0582 v.24

Submitted by:

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

March 2019

SECTION B. Description of Statistical Methodology

B.1. Respondent Universe

In 2017-18, IPEDS collected data from 6,642 postsecondary institutions in the United States and the other jurisdictions that are eligible to participate in Title IV Federal financial aid programs. By law, 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 each year. Institution closures and mergers have led to a decrease in the number of institutions in the IPEDS universe over the past few years. Due to these fluctuations, combined with the addition of new institutions, NCES uses rounded estimates for the number of institutions in the respondent burden calculations for the upcoming years (estimated 6,400 Title IV institutions plus 200 non-title IV institutions for a total of 6,600 institutions estimated to submit IPEDS data during the 2019-20 through 2021-22 IPEDS data collections).

Table 1 provides the number of institutions that submitted data during the 2017-18 IPEDS data collection and the number of institutions estimated to submit data during the 2019-20 through 2021-22 IPEDS data collections, disaggregated by the type of institution (Title IV institutions are disaggregated by highest level of offering: 4-year award or above, 2-year award, less than 2-year award). Note that based on yet unpublished numbers from the 2018-19 data collection, NCES has decreased the estimates for the number of institutions that are expected to report to IPEDS in the 2019-20 through 2021-22 data collections.

Table 1. Actual 2017-18 and Estimated 2019-20 through 2021-22 Number of Institutions Submitting IPEDS Data

Institution Type	2017-18 Institution Counts*	Estimates Used in Burden Calculations for the 2019-20 to 2021-22 Collections
Total	6,842	6,600
Title IV institutions	6,642	6,400
4-year	2,902	2,800
2-year	1,932	1,800
Less than 2-yr	1,808	1,800
Non-Title IV institutions	200	200

* For Title IV institutions: Ginder, S.A., Kelly-Reid, J.E., and Mann, F.B. (2018). Postsecondary Institutions and Cost of Attendance in 2017–18; Degrees and Other Awards Conferred, 2016–17; and 12-Month Enrollment, 2016–17: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2018-060rev). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Table 2 provides the number of experienced and new keyholders that submitted data for a given IPEDS component during the 2017-18 IPEDS data collection, disaggregated by the type of institution. These experienced vs. new keyholder designation is drawn directly from self-reported data in the data collection system, where users indicate whether they are submitting data for the first time when they register.

Table 2. 2017-18 Counts of Experienced and New Keyholders Submitting IPEDS Data, by Institution Type and IPEDS Component

Survey component	Total		4-year institutions		2-year institutions		Less than 2-year institutions
	Experienced	New	Experienced	New	Experienced	New	Experienced	New
IC	5,474	1,368	2,382	595	1,569	392	1,523	381
C	5,474	1,368	2,382	595	1,569	392	1,523	381
E12	5,474	1,368	2,382	595	1,569	392	1,523	381
SFA	5,474	1,368	2,382	595	1,569	392	1,523	381
OM	3,166	792	2,016	505	1,150	287	0	0
GR	4,727	1,182	1,893	473	1,487	372	1,347	337
GR200	4,398	1,099	1,642	411	1,461	365	1,295	323
ADM	1,656	414	1,430	357	138	34	88	23
EF	5,474	1,368	2,382	595	1,569	392	1,523	381
F	5,474	1,368	2,382	595	1,569	392	1,523	381
HR	5,474	1,368	2,382	595	1,569	392	1,523	381
AL	3,239	810	2,099	525	1,139	285	0	0

* Note: These counts do not match any published numbers because they include the non-Title IV institutions that voluntarily submit data to IPEDS.

Table 3 provides the actual response rates, by survey component and the type of institution, for the 2017-18 IPEDS data collection. Because IPEDS is a mandated federal data collection, and institutions can be fined for non-response, all response rates approximate 100%.

Table 3. IPEDS 2017-18 Title IV Institutions Response Rates, by Institution Type and IPEDS Component

Survey component	4-year institutions	2-year institutions	Less than 2-year institutions
IC	100.00%	99.95%	99.94%
C	100.00%	99.90%	99.94%
E12	99.97%	99.90%	99.89%
SFA	99.36%	99.84%	99.61%
OM	99.33%	99.79%	N/A
GR	99.28%	99.89%	99.58%
GR200	99.42%	99.84%	99.57%
ADM	99.89%	100.00%	100.00%
EF	99.34%	99.84%	99.39%
F	99.18%	99.64%	99.11%
HR	99.35%	99.90%	99.44%
AL	99.34%	99.80%	N/A

B.2. Statistical Methodology

No sampling is utilized for any of the IPEDS survey components. Because of the institutional compliance requirements outlined in Part A sections A.1 and A.2 of this submission, and per extensive discussions at the IPEDS Technical Review Panel meetings, with other areas of the Department of Education, including the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Postsecondary Education, the office of Federal Student Aid, and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, and with other Federal Agencies such as Census, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), IPEDS must collect data from the universe of Title IV institutions.

B.3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates

IPEDS response rates for institutions receiving federal financial aid are consistently 99.8% and higher. IPEDS targets the Title IV institutions (others may respond, but no follow-up is done) and the web-based survey system incorporates an automated e-mail module that automatically generates follow-up e-mail to “keyholders” (individuals appointed by the CEOs as responsible for IPEDS data submission). As shown in Table 19 of Part A section A.16 of this submission, frequent communications occur with the institutions over the course of the data collection to ensure compliance with this statutorily mandated collection. Follow-up e-mails are generated if an institution does not attempt to enter data or if, at two weeks and one week before closeout, the components are not locked. The CEOs of non-responding institutions are also contacted by standard mail and with follow up phone calls if, two weeks prior to closeout, the school has not entered any data. New institutions and institutions with new keyholders receive additional telephone and email prompts. This has proven to be very successful in past years. In addition, the names of institutions that do not respond to the IPEDS surveys, and a history of all regular contact with these institutions, is provided to the Federal Student Aid office for appropriate action.

B.4. Tests of Procedures and Methods

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

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

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

B.5. Reviewing Individuals

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

Representatives from the National Center for Education Statistics

Aida Ali Akreyi, Survey Director¹

Samuel Barbett, Mathematical Statistician¹

Peggy Carr, Associate Commissioner, NCES¹

Elise Christopher, Project Officer, High School Longitudinal Studies¹

Christopher Cody, Survey Director¹

Michelle Coon, Technical Adviser¹

Amanda Dean, American Institutes for Research¹

Moussa Ezzeddine, Statistician¹

Tracy Hunt-White, Education Statistician¹

Gigi Jones, Education Research Scientist¹

Kashka Kubzdela, OMB Liaison¹

Tara Lawley, Team Lead, IPEDS Operations¹

Bao Le, Associate Education Research Scientist¹

Marie Marcum, Program Director, Administrative Data Division: Elementary and Secondary Branch

Andrew Mary, Statistician¹

Stefanie McDonald, IC/SFA Survey Director¹

Richard Reeves, IPEDS Program Director¹

David Richards, Education Statistician¹

Ross Santy, Associate Commissioner, Administrative Data Division, NCES¹

Marilyn Seastrom, Chief Statistician and Staff Director¹

Thomas Snyder, Director, Annual Reports and Information Staff¹

Ted Socha, Mathematical Statistician

Imani Stutely, Survey Director¹

Jie Sun, SAS Programmer¹

James L. Woodworth, Commissioner

Kelly Worthington, Administrative Data Division: Elementary and Secondary Branch

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

Seth Allen, Pomona College²

LaJanis Allen, Douglas J Aveda Institute²

Michelle Appel, University of Maryland²

Eric Atchison, Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning²

Frank Balz, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)²

Dianne Barker, Technical College System of Georgia

Sandy Baum, Urban Institute²

Angela Bell, Board of Regents of University System of Georgia²

Alexandra Bernadotte, Beyond 12

Jon Boeckenstedt, DePaul University

Sharon Boivin, Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking

Rachel Boon, Iowa Board of Regents

Victor Borden, Indiana University²

Eileen Brennan, Henry Ford College²

Camille Brown, SC Commission on Higher Education²

Julia Carpenter-Hubin, Ohio State University²

Meghan Carr, University of Missouri

E. Ann Carson, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ²

Benjamin Castleman , University of Virginia

Andrés Castro Samayoa, Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions

Stephanie Cellini, George Washington University²

Diane Cheng, The Institute for College Access & Success²

Henry Childers, University of Arizona

Matthew Chingos, Urban Institute

Marin Clarkberg, Cornell University

Cory Clasemann-Ryan, Ivy Tech Community College

John Clayton, Johnson County Community College

Melissa Clinedinst, National Association for College Admission Counseling²

Elizabeth Clune-Kneuer, Prince George's Community College²

William Congdon, Social and Behavioral Sciences Team

Bryan Cook, The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities²

Kim Cook, National College Access Network²

Mary Ann Coughlin, Springfield College²

Gloria Crisp, Oregon State University

Alicia Crouch, Kentucky Community and Technical College System

Archie Cubarrubia, Miami Dade College²

Alisa Cunningham, rpkGroup²

Cassandria Dortch, Congressional Research Service (CRS) ²

Rebecca Drennen, Berkeley College²

Julie Edmunds, SERVE Center at University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Marne Einarson, Cornell University

Gillian Emmons, Boston University²

Jaquelina Falkenheim, National Science Foundation

Gayle Fink, Bowie State University²

John Fink, Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University²

Nancy Floyd, North Carolina State University

Dan Foley, National Science Foundation

Marissa Fox, Career Education Corporation²

Donyell Francis, Technical College System of GA²

Khadish Franklin, The Pell Institute

Doug Franklin, University of Illinois Springfield²

Pam Frugoli, Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration

Brian Fu, U.S. Department of Education²

Chris Furgiuele, University of California Office of the President²

Tanya Garcia, Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce²

Marybeth Gasman, Penn Center for Minority-Serving Institutions²

Michael Gass, University of North Carolina at Asheville

Luke Gentala, Liberty University²

Eric Godin, Division of Florida Colleges

Carlos Gonzalez, Education Management Corporation (EDMC) ²

Mary Goodhue Lynch, Massasoit Community College²

Kurt Gunnell, Western Governors University²

Lou Guthrie, LED Fast Start - Louisiana Community & Technical College System

Lakia Hairston, P&A Scholars Beauty School²

Mark Hamburg, U.S. Department of Education (FSA)²

Eric Hardy, U.S. Department of Education, FSA

Thomas Harnisch, American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) ²

Stephen Haworth, Adtalem Global Education²

Heidi Hedegard, University System of New Hampshire System Office

Dennis Hengstler, University of Tennessee System Office

Nicholas Hillman, University of Wisconsin-Madison²

Teri Hinds, Student Affairs Administrators in higher Education (NASPA) ²

Braden Hosch, Stony Brook University²

Lisa Hudson, Sample Surveys Division: Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch, NCES²

John Ingram, Community College of Allegheny County

Michael Itzkowitz, Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)²

Manju Iyer , Lincoln Tech²

Matt Jans, Abt Associates

Carrie Jones, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Jolanta Juszkiewicz, American Association of Community Colleges

Darby Kaikkonen, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges²

James Karangu, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid²

Robert Kelchen, Department of Education Leadership, Management and Policy²

Jonathan Keller, Massachusetts Department of Higher Education²

Heather Kelly, University of Delaware²

Patrick Kelly, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) ²

Dawn Kenney, Central New Mexico Community College²

Wendy Kilgore, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO)

Stephen Kimata, University of Virginia²

Sandra Kinney, Georgia Institute of Technology²

Jeremy Kintzel, Missouri Department of Higher Education²

Kimberly Kirkpatrick, Louisiana Board of Regents²

Duane Knudson, Texas State University

Laurie Koehler, George Washington University

Tammy Kolbe, University of Vermont²

Sophia Laderman, SHEEO

Erez Lenchner, CUNY John Jay College²

Eric Lichtenberger, Illinois Board of Higher Education

Marc LoGrasso, Bryant & Stratton College²

Adam Looney, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Susan Lounsbury, Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)²

Mona Lucas, University of Connecticut²

Jennifer Ma, The College Board²

Marta Maldonado, Education Corporation of America²

Noah Mann, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)²

Tod Massa, State Council of Higher Education for Virginia²

Carolyn Mata, Georgia Independent College Association²

Michael Matier, Academic Analytics (AcA).²

Jordan Matsudaira, Cornell University

Lisa Mazure, Lansing Community College

Clare McCann, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD)²

Deborah McNeal, Coahoma Community College²

Allan Medwick, Urisdae Analytics²

Patrick Meldrim, Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association (TICUA)²

Susan Menditto, National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO)²

Soon Merz, Austin Community College²

Ivan Metzger, U.S. Department of Education

Erie Meyer, The White House

John Milam, Lord Fairfax Community College²

Abby Miller, Coffey Consulting, LLC²

Ben Miller, Center for American Progress²

Jack Miner, The Ohio State University

Ted Mitchell, U.S. Department of Education²

Julie Morgan, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation²

Christopher Mullin, Strong Start to Finish²

Denise Nadasen, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities²

Amanda Nagle , Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Ayushi Narayan, Council of Economic Advisers

Christopher Nellum, The Education Trust–West (ETW)²

Andrew Nichols, The Education Trust

Danyelle Norman, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU)

Jon O'Bergh, Office of the Under Secretary (OUS) ²

Karen O'Brien, Penn State University, University Budget Office²

Martha Oburn, Houston Community College²

Peter Oldershaw, American Institutes for Research/NCES²

Iris Palmer, New America

Anthony Parandi, Indiana Wesleyan University

Emily Parker, American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)²

Amelia Parnell, Student Affairs Professionals in Higher Education

Audrey Peek, American Institutes for Research²

Patrick Perry, California State University²

Kent Phillippe, American Association of Community Colleges²

Shawn Potter, Tulane University

Kristina Powers, K Powers Consulting Inc²

Brian Prescott, The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) ²

David Price, Ancora Education Inc. ²

Sam Quinney, U.S. Department of Education

Jason Ramirez, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities²

Kenneth Redd, National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) ²

Nerissa Rivera, Duke University²

Jamey Rorison, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

D'Juana Scarborough, Centura/AIM/Tidewater Tech Corporate²

Oliver Schak, Department of Education / OPEPD / PPSS²

Abigail Seldin, America Forward²

Rajat Shah, Lincoln Tech²

Jessica Sharkness, Tufts University

Learty Shaw, Georgia Institute of Technology

Daniel Shephard, U.S. General Services Administration

Lena Shi, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD)²

Christy Siegerdt, State University System of Florida - Board of Governors²

Donna Silber, Maricopa Community College District²

Sean Simone, NJ Longitudinal Data System²

Robert Sivinski, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)²

Sharon Snyder, Department of Homeland Security - ICE

Matthew Soldner, Institute of Education Sciences²

Mike Sperko, Kent State University²

Shafali Srivastava, National Center for Health Workforce Analysis

Jamienne Studley, Deputy Under Secretary of Education²

Jennifer Sutton, National Institutes of Health

David Tandberg, State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)

Jason Taylor, University of Utah

Jessica Teal, The White House

Charles Tegen, Clemson University²

Dawn Terkla, Tufts University²

Kimberly Thompson, University of Phoenix-Central Office²

Jessica Thompson, Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS)

Philip Tizzani, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Amelia Topper, Coffey Consulting, LLC

Christine Tracy, American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN)²

Red Tremmel, Tulane University

Jill Triplett, Spelman College

David Troutman, University of Texas System²

Jonathan Turk, American Council on Education (ACE)²

Laura Uerling, Roxbury Community College²

Mamie Voight, Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP)²

Lindsay Wayt, National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO)²

Jeffrey West, University of Utah²

Christina Whitfield, State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)²

Sabrina Williams, The White House

Michael Williams, Ruffalo Noel Levitz

Nathan Wilson, Illinois Community College Board²

Jennifer Zinth, Education Commission of the States

1 Individual attended multiple Technical Review Panels at different times and in differing capacities, as an NCES representative and as a representative for another organization.

2 Individual attended multiple Technical Review Panels at different times and in differing capacities, as a representative from more than one organization.