Technical Review Panel

The Technical Review Panel met to provide feedback on how to improve the utility of the IPEDS data tools. The Technical Review Panel identified strengths and suggestions for improvement for the tools themselves and for the resources available to help users use the tools. (Comments due July 9, 2024)

The Technical Review Panel met to discuss how IPEDS might improve its data collection to better capture transfer-in and non-first-time students and their outcomes. (Comments due January 31, 2024)

The Technical Review Panel met to set the direction for an IPEDS Finance working group. The Technical Review Panel discussed the mission, purpose, goals, composition, governance, expectations, and priorities for the working group.

The Technical Review Panel discussed how to clarify terminology and definitions around nondegree credentials to provide guidance to data reporters. The Technical Review Panel also explored potential avenues to collect data from institutions on noncredit credentials.

The Technical Review Panel discussed the extent to which the IPEDS Finance survey component meets existing informational needs and how to improve it. This summary provides feedback on how discussed potential changes to the survey component would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel discussed the recent legislative changes relating to the reinstatement of Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated students, and considered the implications for the IPEDS data collection. This summary provides an overview of the information presented to the panel and the primary takeaways that emerged during the associated discussion.

The Technical Review Panel discussed ways in which the IPEDS Admissions survey component meets existing needs and how it might be improved. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel discussed ways in which the IPEDS surveys might be improved to better capture information on dual enrollment. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel discussed ways in which the IPEDS surveys might be improved to better capture noncredit enrollment and activity. Before making immediate changes, panelists suggested revising and improving the current instructions and reporting guidance to ensure accurate reporting. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel discussed ways in which the IPEDS Student Financial Aid survey meets existing needs and how it might be improved. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel discussed emerging issues that may impact analyses, The Technical Review Panel discussed emerging issues that may impact analyses, trends, and consumer tools based on the IPEDS data. Areas of focus included cost of instruction, cost of attendance, student borrowing and repayment, free college programs, and issues affecting smaller institutions. This summary provides an overview of the information presented to the panel and highlights several broad themes that emerged from the discussion.

The Technical Review Panel reviewed a series of data visualizations created using IPEDS data and provided feedback for NCES to consider as it continues the development process. This summary provides an overview of the information presented to the panel and the primary themes and takeaways that emerged during the associated discussion.

The Technical Review Panel discussed ways in which other organizations effectively use data visualization in order to inform NCES as it considers its approach to implementing and utilizing data visualization tools with IPEDS data. This summary provides an overview of the information presented to the panel and the primary themes and takeaways that emerged during the associated discussion.

The Technical Review Panel discussed ways in which the IPEDS Finance survey meets existing needs and how it might be improved – both in terms of revising, eliminating, or adding data and developing new metrics. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel discussed proposed changes for the CIP 2020. The majority of changes include the addition of new six-digit CIP codes, which reflect availability of new instructional programs at IPEDS-reporting institutions that have emerged since the last CIP update in 2010. This summary provides feedback on whether the proposed new CIP codes should be added to CIP 2020.

The Technical Review Panel discussed feasible and minimally burdensome ways to collect and clarify dual enrollment data in IPEDS and considered potential changes to improve information for stakeholders. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel discussed current trends in the higher education field. Areas of focus included using IPEDS data with other data sources, the institutional research and information technology structure, monitoring data developments in student financial aid, institutional performance measures, and collecting and analyzing data on transfer students. This summary highlights several broad themes that emerged from the discussion.

The Technical Review Panel discussed the collection and reporting of distance education in IPEDS and considered potential changes to improve information for stakeholders. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions. Comments from interested parties are due to Janice Kelly-Reid, IPEDS Project Director at RTI International, at ipedsTRPcomment@rti.org by September 9, 2017.

The Technical Review Panel discussed the purpose and classification of subbaccalaureate certificates in IPEDS and considered potential changes to the Completions component to reflect the current postsecondary landscape. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel engaged in a substantive discussion on the collection and reporting of gender data in IPEDS. Areas of focus included the purpose and intended uses of data on gender, current practices, and possible suggestions for changes that could be considered for the data collection. This summary provides feedback on the institutional capacity to collect and report data on gender and identifies topics for further research.

The Technical Review Panel considered a number of potential changes to the Outcome Measures survey component regarding data on Pell Grant recipients. This summary provides feedback on how changes would affect data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel reviewed IPEDS tools and publications and considered a number of potential changes to improve or enhance the products for users.

The Technical Review Panel discussed the impact of current institutional groupings on IPEDS data collection and dissemination and considered a number of potential changes to IPEDS variables and survey forms. This summary provides feedback on how potential institutional grouping solutions would impact data quality and identifies topics for further discussion.

Based on a review of the current IPEDS guidance related to study abroad students, the Technical Review Panel considered clarifications to the definition of study abroad programs and provided suggestions for clear guidance on various situations of study abroad and clear guidelines for counting study abroad students in the affected survey components.

Based on a review of the current Finance component, the Technical Review Panel considered a number of potential changes to the survey forms and materials. This summary provides feedback and suggestions on how changes would impact data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

Based on a review of the current Outcome Measures component, the Technical Review Panel considered a number of potential changes to the survey forms, and provided feedback and suggestions on how changes would impact data quality and reporting burden for institutions.

Based on a review of the current Human Resources component, the Technical Review Panel suggests that a number of changes be made to the survey forms, and that definitions and data items be clarified to improve the quality of the data being reported and reduce reporting burden for institutions.

The Technical Review Panel continued their discussion of issues associated with defining an institution for IPEDS. The panel suggests that IPEDS codify the definition by identifying and documenting common standards and practices for creating subentities. As a possible research solution, the panel suggests a crosswalk between OPEIDs in the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) data to address alignment issues and facilitate trend research using IPEDS and FSA data.

The Technical Review Panel discussed issues associated with defining an institution for IPEDS. After a review of the current definition, the panel suggested that TRP 43 continue the discussion and consider such issues as campus reporting and ownership structures (i.e., the way some institutions combine their data to report to IPEDS) and identify the parameters that should drive the definition of an IPEDS institution.

Based on a review of the current IPEDS data collection, the panel suggests managing the IPEDS response burden through the length and complexity of the IPEDS components as well as through employing additional training and outreach strategies.

To further broaden the coverage of student outcome data and improve the quality of data reported to IPEDS, the Technical Review Panel suggests collecting outcome information on the entering undergraduate cohort by enrollment status.

Based on a review of the current Finance component, the Technical Review Panel suggests that a number of changes be made to the FASB forms for for-profit institutions to increase data comparability across institutional sectors and utility to institutions and decisionmakers, while also ensuring data being reported are appropriate for the sector and accurately represent the institutions.

To create meaningful institutional comparison groups for consumer information tools such as the College Scorecard, the Technical Review Panel suggests using IPEDS data to define comparison groups. The pre-defined comparison group for each institution should be broad, based on the primary level of award granted by the institution. The Technical Review Panel also suggests that there be opportunity for consumers to create customized comparison groups to further enable them to make informed decisions related to college choice.

To broaden the coverage of student graduation rate data and improve the quality of data reported to IPEDS, the Technical Review Panel suggests collecting outcome information on a first-time, part-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate cohort and clarifying the definition of degree/certificate-seeking.

The Technical Review Panel suggests collecting information on veterans and military service members and the use of education benefits in order to capture data necessary for policy making and analysis, while also improving information available to veterans and military service members considering postsecondary education.

Based on a review of the current Academic Libraries Survey, the Technical Review Panel suggests that a number of data elements be integrated into IPEDS in order to retain federal data necessary for policy making and analysis, while also improving response rates and reducing reporting burden for institutions.

No changes to IPEDS were suggested by this Technical Review Panel. The TRP determined that at this time, a single job placement rate methodology could not be developed without further study because of limitations in data systems and available data. Further, it suggests that greater transparency about how rates are calculated be required as an interim step for institutions disclosing these rates.

Based on a review of the current IPEDS publications and web tools and several enhancements to these tools planned for 2011, the Technical Review Panel suggests a number of improvements to the IPEDS publications and online data dissemination tools to increase utility and usability, and ensure that IPEDS data continues to be disseminated in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

Based on a review of the current IPEDS Student Financial Aid component and net price calculations, the Technical Review Panel suggests that a number of changes be made to the survey forms, and that definitions and reporting elements be clarified to improve the quality of the data being reported, improve the calculation of average institutional net price, and reduce reporting burden for institutions, particularly program reporters.

Based on a review of the current IPEDS Human Resources component, the Technical Review Panel suggests that a number of changes be made to the survey forms in order to capture data more efficiently and effectively, while also reducing the reporting demands placed on institutions.

Based on a discussion of factors impacting IPEDS reporting burden, the Technical Review Panel acknowledged that reducing burden is a complex issue that must consider many factors, such as the complexity of the institution and the knowledge and experience of keyholders and other data providers about IPEDS and IPEDS resources. As a result, this TRP discussed tools and resources that might reduce reporting burden for institutions.

Based on a review of the current IPEDS Completions component, the Technical Review Panel suggests that a number of changes be made to the collection forms in order to better capture data on program completers, in addition to the data already being collected through this survey on degree and certificate completions.

The Technical Review Panel identified and discussed issues associated with the recommendations made by a former Technical Review Panel regarding the development of the state higher education spending chart.

The Technical Review Panel identified issues associated with the development of a State Higher Education Spending Chart necessary to meet the Higher Education Opportunity Act provisions.

The Technical Review Panel identified issues associated with the development of a multiyear tuition calculator and a net price calculator template necessary to meet the Higher Education Opportunity Act provisions.

The technical review panel suggests additions to the IPEDS 2009-2010 survey components that will collect sufficient data necessary to meet the Higher Education Opportunity Act requirements to report data on institutional average net price of attendance and institutional net price of attendance by income categories.

The Technical Review Panel suggests a number of additions to the IPEDS GRS survey forms to capture the outcomes of a part-time GRS cohort and a Pell Grant recipient subcohort.

Based on the evolving changes in delivery modes for postsecondary education and interest in capturing additional data on distance education, the technical review panel suggests modifying the current IPEDS definition of “Distance Education” and collecting additional distance education data within the IPEDS survey.

The report posted here reflects the suggestions of the TRP. However, due to required changes to IPEDS because of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), RTI and NCES have decided not to pursue these changes at this time and have not posted them for comment. A comment period on these proposed changes will be announced in the event RTI and NCES decide to explore the possibility of adding data on non-credit instructional activity to IPEDS in the future.

Suggested changes have not yet been implemented because NCES resources are currently dedicated to implementing requirements of the new Higher Education Opportunity Act.

Suggested changes have not yet been implemented because NCES resources are currently dedicated to implementing requirements of the new Higher Education Opportunity Act.

Based on review of the three versions of the IPEDS Finance component (GASB, FASB, and Private-For-Profit), the technical review panel suggests that a number of changes be made to the collection forms in order to improve comparability across versions and increase the utility of the data collected.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is proposing changes in how racial/ethnic data are reported. The IPEDS Technical Review Panel (TRP) met to discuss the preliminary guidance issued by ED and to propose an implementation schedule.

Based on review of the 2005 Data IPEDS Data Feedback Report, the technical review panel suggests a number of changes be made to future reports.

New Categories and Definitions for Classification of First-professional Degree Reporting in IPEDS

To modernize the PAS, making it more user-friendly, more intuitive to use, and more accessible to both experienced and inexperienced users, NCES is proposing a new user interface for the tool. In addition, the new tool will also incorporate new features, such as the ability to produce trend reports using multiple years of data for the same variable.

IPEDS plans to add a new institutional category variable to provide a different way of clustering schools for analytical purposes.

Based on the model implemented during 2004, IPEDS data feedback reports will again be distributed to all institution keyholders (via email) and to all institution Chief Executives.

Report suggests that IPEDS expand the report templates function being provided in the Peer Analysis System to include more templates for use by institutions.

IPEDS should expand the number of data tables published.

Options Suggested for Classification of First-professional Degree Reporting in IPEDS

IPEDS should revise the reporting requirement with regard to first-professional degree programs by institutions based on a revised definition and the acceptable inclusion of additional degree programs from the Classification of Instructional Programs.

NCES should create new derived and calculated variables based on relevant IPEDS data to address important policy issues.

IPEDS should revise its survey collection instruments to better address current issues of importance to postsecondary institutions.

IPEDS should revise its reporting requirements to eliminate (or minimize) combined reporting by institutions.

IPEDS should merge the three human resources components (Employees by Assigned Position, Salaries, and Fall Staff) into one component.