# Integrated Postsecondar**y Edu**  **cation Data System (IPEDS) 2014**  **- 201**  **6 and 2013 carry** **over Supporting Statement**  **Part A**  **OMB Paper**

**wo rk Reduction**  **Ac t Submission**  

# OMB No. 1850 **- 0582 v.**  **13**

**Submitted by:** National Center for Education Statistics Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education **March 6 , 2013** 

## Table of Contents

Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1 A. Justification ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 14 A.1. Purpose of this Submission ................................ ................................ ......................... 14 A.2. Purpose and Use of IPEDS Information ................................ ................................ ..... 18 A.3. Use of Technology and Other Technological Collection Te chniques ........................ 24 A.4. Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication ................................ ................................ .. 25 A.5. Methods Used to Minimize Burden on Small Businesse s/Entities ............................. 25 A.6. Frequency of Data Collection ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 A.7. Special Circumstances ................................ ................................ ................................ 26 A.8. Con sultations Outside the Agency ................................ ................................ .............. 26 A.9. Paying Respondents ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26 A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality ................................ ................................ ...................... 26 A.11. Justific ation for Sensitive Questions ................................ ................................ ........... 27 A.12. Estimate of Burden ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 27 A.13. Estimate of Cost Burden ................................ ................................ ............................. 30 A.14. C ost to the Federal Government ................................ ................................ ................. 30 A.15. Reasons for Change in Burden ................................ ................................ ................... 31 A.16. Publi cation Plans/Project Schedule ................................ ................................ ............. 45 A.17. Request to Not Display Expiration Date ................................ ................................ ..... 48 A.18. Ex ceptions to the Certification ................................ ................................ .................... 48 B. Description of Statistical Methodology ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 B.1. Respondent Universe ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 B.2. Statistical Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 B.3. Methods to Maximize Response Rate ................................ ................................ ........... 1 B.4. Tests of Procedures and Methods ................................ ................................ ................. 2 B.5. Reviewing Individuals ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2

## 2 

# Summary The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) seeks authorization from OMB to continue its Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection. Current authorization expires 6/30/201 4 (OMB No. 1850 - 0582). We are requesting a new clearance for the 2014 - 15 and 2015
- 16 data collections to enable us to provide consistency in our collection of postsecondary data over the next three years and to offer institutions a “preview” year for changes to IPEDS data reporting forms. During the preview year, new items and associated reporting instructions will be available for preview through the Survey Materials web page, to give institutions one
-year advance notice of how new data items will be collected in the future. In addition, we are requesting to carry over the c learance for the 2013
- 14 data collection which was obtained on 1/4/13 , because this data collection occurs within the 3
-year period covered by this clearance request . 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, 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 7,500 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. About 200 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.

## 3

**Proposed Changes to the IPEDS Data Collection for 201 4**  **- 1**  **5 and 201**  **5 -**  **1 6**  **Background** Most of the proposed changes were suggested by the IPEDS Technical Review Panel (TRP). Meetings of the IPEDS TRP are convened by RTI International, the contractor for the IPEDS web
-based data collection system; 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 (https://edsurveys.rti.org/IPEDS_TRP/TRP.aspx) and comments on p anel suggestions are solicited . Five meetings of the TRP resulted in changes included in this clearance package, as summarized in the table below.

**Table 1**  **: IPEDS TRP Me**  **etings Relevant to Proposed Changes Topic (Date)**  **Summary Surve**  **y Components**  **Affected Academic**  **Libraries (** **August 20**  **11 )**  Based on a review of the current Academic Libraries Survey, which is not part of

IPEDS, 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.  Institutional Characteristics  New IPEDS c omponent on Academic Libraries to replace the existing Academic Libraries Survey **Data on Veterans (**  **November 20**  **11 )**  Since the Post- 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Program (Post - 9/11 GI Bill)

went into effect in August 2009, there has been dramatic growth in both the number of beneficiaries and benefits payments under the program to support study at postsecondary institutions. The increase in beneficiaries and federal dollars expended has led to demand for more information for (1) researchers to stu dy the impact of these programs on col lege participation and success; (2) institutional researchers and other data users to conduct peer comparison in serving these students; (3) veterans and military service members looking to use their educational benefi ts; and (4) policymakers to assess the effectiveness of benefits programs and return on investment. 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.  Institutional Characteristics  Student Financial Aid

**Selected Outcomes of the**  **Ad visory**  **Committee on Measures of**  **Student Success (**  **February and**  **October 201**  **2 )**  The Committee on Measures of Student Success recommended that the

Department of Education b roaden the coverage of student graduation data to reflect the diverse student populations at 2 - year institutions and i mprove the collection of student progression and completion data
. In response , the Department released an action plan for improving measures of postsecondary student success in support of the Admini stration’s college completion agenda and based on th os e recommendations. Two IPEDS Technical Review Panel meetings were convened to address these needs. The first panel suggested that NCES clarify the definition of a degree/certificate - seeking student fo r 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.  New Component on Outcome Measures

## 4 **Table 1**  **: IPEDS TRP Me**  **etings Relevant to Proposed Changes Topic (Date)**  **Summary Surve**  **y Components**  **Affected Finance for For** **** **Profit Institutions (** **August 201**  **2 )**  The for- profit sector has experienced dramatic growth in both the number of

institutions and enrollments since 2000. At the same time, demand for transparency around college costs and spending at all types of postsecondary institutions has increased. Policymakers and other stakeholders have expressed interest in topics like the distribution of instructional expenses by expense type and the percentage of total revenue from federal grants. However, the FASB forms for for- profit institutions collect considerab ly less detail than the FASB forms for nonprofit institutions and GASB forms, so there are limitations to accurately comparing these data statewide or aggregating them at the national level. Based on a review of the current Finance component, the Technica l Review Panel suggests that a number of changes be made to the FASB forms for forprofit institutions to increase data comparability across institutional sectors and utility to institutions and decision makers, while also ensuring data being reported are appropriate for the sector and accurately represent the institutions.  Finance

**Changes to IPEDS Data**  **Collection Calendar**  **(November 2007)** Wh en the IPEDS web - based data collection system wa s implemented in 2000, a

three - collection design was chosen. It was a good transition strategy from a paper- based system to a web - based system, and simplified development of the new technology. Based on the information available at the time, it aligned the collection of data from institutions to the times when the informat ion was available. It simplified the scheduling of IPEDS tasks at institutions and state offices. But the web - based environment makes it possible to be far more flexible than the three - collection format will allow, so the TRP was convened to explore the po ssibilities. The panel suggested numerous modifications to the IPEDS D ata Collection Calendar, many of which have been phased in since the panel met.  Institutional Characteristics



### Detailed descriptions of all proposed changes are included in the following section, by survey component.

**A Note about the Timing and Implementation of the Changes**  NCES will once again offer institutions a “preview” year for additions to IPEDS data reporting forms. During the preview year, new items and associated reporting instructions will be available for preview through the Survey Materials web page, to give institutions one - ye ar advance notice of how new data items will be collected in the futu re. The preview year for items in this clearance pac kage will be 2013 - 14
.

## 5

**Detailed Proposed Changes to Forms by IPEDS Survey** 

**Component I**  nstitutional Characteristics (IC) The first two changes below will provide important information about veterans and academic libraries ; these were proposed by the IPEDS TRP. The TRP suggested that an item concerning services available to veterans be placed on IC. The TRP also suggested that the Academic Libraries Survey be re
- integrated into IPEDS and a screening question to determine institutional level of reporting for a new Academic Libraries component be placed on IC. The estimated enrollment items on IC were added in 2006
- 07 to fill a perceived need for an early estimate of fall enrollment, due to the fact that the IPEDS Fall Enrollment component is not collected until the following Spring. However, NCES has determined that these data are not of particularly good quality. Their inclusion in the IPEDS Data Center is a source of confusion to many ( if not most) data users, and there is evidence that they are not being widely used. Further, these data are not displayed on College Navigator because they are estimates. The last proposed change listed relates to moving the collection of admissions da ta to a small, separate component in the Winter. This change was proposed by the IPEDS TRP ; mo ving the due date will enable all institutions to report data for the most recent Fall period. This, in turn, will make the IPEDS admissions data in the Data Center less confusing for data users, since only one reporting period will be represented in each data file. It will also mean that admissions data will be able to be used in the Trend Generator, which many data users have requested. As a result of TRP suggestions and public comments, NCES requests clearance on the following two new items on the Institutional Characteristics component, the deletion of estimated enrollment items, and the creation of a new Admissions component in the Winter data collection , c omprised entirely of items moved from the Institutional Characteristics component . **Table 2 : Proposed**  **Changes to the IC Form (a ll versions)**  **Change Implementation**  **Year Source**  **Estimated burden**  Add the following item to collect data on veterans:  Wh ich of the following are available to veterans, military service members, or their families? o Post- 9/11 GI Bill, Yellow Ribbon Program o Credit for military training o Dedicated point of contact for support services for veterans, military service members, and their families o Recognized student veteran organization o Member of Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges  URL for tuition policies specifically related to veterans and military service members 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Veterans

TRP Minimal

Add screening question for degree - granting institutions to determine level of reporting on new Academic Libraries component:  Wh at are your annual total library expenditures?  If annual total library expenditures = 0 there is no additional reporting.  If annual total library expenditures >0, the institution will submit the new Academic Libraries component, as described in the Academic Libraries section below. 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Academic

Libraries TRP Minimal

Delete Estimated Enrollment Items  Early estimates of full - time and part- time undergraduate students, first- time undergraduate students, and graduate students, as of October 15 or the institution’s official fall reporting date. 2014 - 15 NCES, public comments Slight

decrease

## 6 **Table 2 : Proposed**  **Changes to the IC Form (a ll versions)**  **Change Implementation**  **Year Source**  **Estimated burden**  Delete the following items that collect admissions information from IC , and create a separate small component in the W inter collection. Items will be collected only from institutions that do not have an open admission policy. Moving the collection of these items to the Wi nter collection will enable all institutions to report data for the most recent fall period.  Admissions requirements: Select the option (required, recommended, neither required nor recommended, don’t know) that best describes how your institution uses any of the following data in its undergraduate selection process: o Secondary school GPA o Secondary school rank o Secondary school record o Completion of college - preparatory program o Recommendations o Formal demonstration of competencies (e.g., portfolios, certificates of mastery, assessment instruments) o Admission test scores

 SAT/ACT  Other test (ABT, W onderlic, WISC - III, etc.)  TOEFL  Provide the number of first-time, degree/certificate - seeking students who applied, who were admitted, and who enrolled (either full - or part- time) at your institution for the most recent fall period. For each category, report men, women, and total as available. o Number of applicants o Number of admissions o Number (of admitted) that enrolled full - time o Number (of admitted) that enroll ed part-time  If test scores are required for admission for first- time, degree/certificate - seeking undergraduate students, provide the number and percentage of enrolled students submitting SAT and/or ACT scores, and the 25 th and 75 th percentile scores for e ach test listed: o SAT Critical Reading, Math, Writing o ACT composite, English, Math, W riting 2014 - 15 Calendar TRP None.

Change in when data are collected.

## 7

Student Financial Aid (SFA) TRP 36, Collecting Data on Veterans, focused on discussing possible ways to utilize existing data and collect new information on veterans and military service members to better address policy and research questions, as well as to provide more detailed information on the number and types of students using education benefits and how these students are being served by institutions. Many of the panel members either directly represented veterans organizations or represented institutions enrolling a large number of veterans and military service me mbers. Additionally, Executive Order 13607 requires the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs, as part of IPEDS and other data collection systems, to collect information on the amount of funding received pursuant to the Post
- 9/11 Bill and the Tuition Assistance Program, for posting on the College Navigator website. As a result of TRP suggestions , public comments, and Executive Order 13607, NCES requests clearance on the following items on the Student Financial Aid component.

**Table 3: Proposed Changes to the IPEDS SF**  **A Form (all forms) Change**  **Implementation Year**  **Source Estimated burden**  Add the following items: o Number of undergraduate and graduate students receiving Post- 9/11 GI Bill benefits and the total dollar amount of tuition and fee benefits awarded to them through the institution o Number of undergraduate and graduate students receiving DoD Tuition Assistance and the total dollar amount of DoD Tuition Assistance awarded to them through the institution 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Veterans TRP Moderate



## Outcome Measures (OM) The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 established the U.S. Department of Education’s Committee on Measures of Student Success to advise the Secretary of Education in assisting 2
-year degree
- granting institutions of higher education in meeting the completion or graduation rate disclosure requirements outlined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. The Committee completed its work in December 2011. In its final report to the Secretary, the Committee noted that the “current federal graduation rate measure is incomplete and does not adequately convey the wide range of student outcomes at 2
-year institutions.” In addition, the Committee observed that “data are not collected on other important outcomes achieved by students at 2 -year institutions.” The Committee recommended that the Department:  Broaden the coverage of student graduation data to reflect the diverse student populations at 2
-year institutions  Improve the collection of student progression and completion data  Improve technical guidance to institutions in meeting statutory disclosure requirements  Encourage institutions to disclose comparable data on employment outcomes and provide incentives for sharing promising practices on measuring student learning

## 8

Although its work focused on 2
-year institutions, the Committee suggested that its recommendations be considered and implemented for 4
-year institutions as well. The Committee’s final report is available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/cmss
- committee
-report- final.pdf . In April 2012, the Department released an action plan for improving measures of postsecondary student success in support of the Administration’s college completion agenda and based on the recommendations of the Committee on Measures of Student Success (http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/ous/files/2012/03/Action
-Plan
- for
Improving
-Measures - of

-Postsecondary
- Student
- Success -FINAL2.pdf ) . The Department’s action plan is desi gned to improve the quality and availability of student success data at the federal level for consumers, institutions, policymakers, and researchers. This plan also includes activities to help institutions, systems, and states increase their capacity for c ollecting and disseminating data on student success. Various offices within the Department are responsible for implementing the activities within the plan. In the plan, the Department has committed to “revise, where feasible under its current authority, existing data collection vehicles to include more comprehensive measures of student success for a broader group of students.” As par t of this activity, the NCES has taken steps to enhance graduation rate and transfer rate reporting in IPEDS . Using existing processes for considering changes to IPEDS , NCES examine d the feasibility of broadening measures by collecting outcome information for part
-time, degree/certificate
- seeking undergraduate students and non
- first
-time, degree/certificate
- seeking undergraduate students in IPEDS. IPEDS TRP 37 was convened in February 2012 to discuss the feasibility of collecting outcome information on first
-time, part
-time students. The TRP 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. IPEDS TRP 40 was convened in October 2012 to discuss the feasibility of collecting outcome information on non - first
-time students. The TRP sugges ted that NCES collect certain outcome information in IPEDS for non
first
-time students s imilar to information that TRP 37 proposed for first
-time, part
-time students. The TRP also suggested that similar outcome information be collected for first
-time, full
-time students. Institutions would report outcome information for four cohorts in mutually exclusive categories, as outlined below. The new outcome information that institutions would report to IPEDS is designed to provide consumers, policymakers, and researchers context for and an alternative to the graduation rates calculated for the purposes of the Student Right to Know and Campus S ecurity Act of 1990. To expedite the availability of data that will be useful to consumers, poli cymakers, and researchers, TRP 40 suggested that institutions report on student outcomes retrospectively. 

## If a prospective reporting model were used, outcome measures data would not be available until 2023. As a result of TRP suggestions and public comments, NCES requests clearance to implement a new Outcome Measures component in the Winter collection .

## 9 **Table 4: Proposed New Outcome Measures Component Change**  **Implementation Year**  **Source Estimated burden**  Collect outcome measures data from degree - granting institutions on 4 degree/certificate - seeking student cohorts as shown below. Academic reporting institutions will report on Fall cohorts; program and hybrid reporters will report on Full - year cohorts.  Full - time, first- time students  Part- time, first- time students  Full - time, non -first- time entering students  Part- time , non -first- time entering students **Note** : Data will not be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, or gender. **Note** : No outcome data will be collected from non - degree granting institutions. For each of the 4 cohorts, collect a status update using the following categories:  Received award  Did not receive award, still enrolled at reporting institution  Did not receive award, subsequently enrolled at another institution  Did not receive award, subsequent enrollment status unknown A total of students who did not receiv e an award will be calculated. Collect the status update from both 2 - year and 4 - year institutions 8 years after the cohort enters the institution. Outcome Measures data collection will begin in 2014 - 15. Institutions will report on their 2006 cohorts. 2 014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Outcome

Measures TRPs Substantial

## 10

Admissions (ADM) As detailed in the Institutional Characteristics section above, NCES proposes moving the collection of admissions data to a small, separate component in the Winter . This change was proposed by the IPEDS TRP so that all institutions will be able to report data for the most recent Fall period. This, in turn, will make the IPEDS admissions data in the Data Center less confusing for data users, since only one reporting period will be represented in each data file. It will also mean that admissions data will be able to be used in the Trend Generator, which many data users have requested. Finally, it will ensure that admissions data displayed on College Navigator will represent the same Fall period. NCES requests clearance to establish a separate Admissions component in the Winter collection . **Table 5 : Proposed**  **Separate A dmissions Component**  **Change Implementation**  **Year Source**  **Estimated burden**  Create separate small component in the W inter collection from items formerly in IC component. Items will be collected only from institutions that do not have an open admission policy. Moving the collection of these items to the Wi nter collection will enable all institutions t o report data for the most recent fall period.

 Admissions requirements: Select the option (required, recommended, neither required nor recommended, don’t know) that best describes how your institution uses any of the following data in its undergraduate s election process: o Secondary school GPA o Secondary school rank o Secondary school record o Completion of college - preparatory program o Recommendations o Formal demonstration of competencies (e.g., portfolios, certificates of mastery, assessment instruments) o Admission test scores

 SAT/ACT  Other test (ABT, W onderlic, WISC - III, etc.)  TOEFL  Provide the number of first-time, degree/certificate - seeking students who applied, who were admitted, and who enrolled (either full - or part- time) at your institution for the most recent fall period. For each category, report men, women, and total as available. o Number of applicants o Number of admissions o Number (of admitted) that enrolled full - time o Number (of admitted) that enrolled part -time  If test scores are required for admi ssion for first- time, degree/certificate - seeking undergraduate students, provide the number and percentage of enrolled students submitting SAT and/or ACT scores, and the 25 th and 75 th percentile scores for each test listed: o SAT Critical Reading, Math, Writ ing o ACT composite, English, Math, W riting 2014 - 15 Calendar TRP None.

Change in when data are collected.

## 11

Finance (F) TRP 39, Improving Finance Survey Forms for For
-Profit Institutions, centered around how to increase data comparability across institutional sectors and utility to institutions and decision makers, while also ensuring data being reported are appropriate for the sector and accurately represent the institutions. Members of the for
-profit sector were well represented on the panel. The for
-profit sector has experienced dramatic growth in both the number of institutions and enrollments since 2000. At the same time, demand for transparency around college costs and spending at all types of postsecondary institutions has increased. Policymakers and other stakeholders have expressed interest in topics like the distribution of instructional expenses by expense type and the percentage of total revenue from federal grants. However, the FASB forms for for
-profit institutions collect considerab ly less detail than the FASB forms for nonprofit institutions and GASB forms, so there are limitations to accurately comparing these data statewide or aggregating them at the national level. The panel examined the current finance survey forms item by item to consider which items are reported by GASB and nonprofit FASB institutions that could also be reported by the for
-profit institutions to increase comparability across the forms. This review of the finance forms also focused on possible additions to the FASB forms for for
-profit institutions that could help provide a more complete picture of financial conditions within higher education and address changing policy and research needs. As a result of TRP suggestions and public comments, NCES requests clearance on the following items on the Finance component. **Table 6 : Proposed Changes to the**  **For -**  **Profit Finance Form**  **Change Implementation**  **Year Source**  **Estimated burden** Make changes to Revenues information collected  Separate federal appropriations, grants, and contracts into two categories: o Federal appropriations o Federal grants and contracts  Separate state and local government appropriations, grants, and contracts into four categories: o State appropriations o State grants and contracts o Local ap propriations o Local grants and contracts  Add private gifts to be reported with private grants and contracts  Add the following two revenues categories:

o Hospital services o Independent operations revenue 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Finance

TRP Significant increase

## 12 **Table 6 : Proposed Changes to the**  **For -**  **Profit Finance Form**  Make changes to Expenses information collected:  Separate research and public service into two categories:

o Research o Public service  Separate academic support, student services, and institutional support into three categories: o Academic support o Student services o Institutional support  Add the following new functional expense categories:

o Operation and maintenance of plant o Hospital services o Independent operations  The following categories will be allocated across the functional categories and will also be reported as a total amount following the expense matrix used by public and private nonprofit institutions: o Salaries and wages o Employee fringe benefits o Operations and maintenance o Interest o Depreciation o All other  Add a new screening question:

o Wh at is your business structure? Based on the information provided, institutions with the business structure of either C Corporations or LLC will subsequently be asked to report income tax expenses as follows:  Total Federal income tax expenditures  Total state and local income tax expenditures 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Finance

TRP Significant increase

Make changes to Scholarships and Fellowships information collected:  Separate state and local grants (government) into two categories: o Grants by state government o Grants by local government 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Finance

TRP Significant increase
Make changes to Balance Sheet information collected:  Add the following new categories:

o Long - term investments o Property, plant, and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation o Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization o Debt related to property, plant, and equipment o Additional detail to align with financial statements o Land improvements o Buildings o Equipment
— includi ng art and library collections o Construction in progress o Other plant, property, and equipment o Total plant, property, and equipment o Accumulated depreciation 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Finance

TRP Significant increase



## Academic Libraries (AL) TRP 35, Reintegrating the Academic Libraries Survey (ALS) into IPEDS, considered the feasibility of reintegrating ALS into IPEDS, examined current ALS data elements, and discussed ways of improving data quality by clarifying definitions and better aligning key elements of the library component with data reported in other IPEDS components. Representation on the panel included individuals from academic libraries.

## 13

The current Academic Libraries Survey is collected from degree
- granting postsecondary institutions every other year in even
-numbered years; the current burden estimate is 8.1 hours. When implemented in IPEDS, the Academic Libraries component will be comprised of fewer items, collected annually; the TRP estimated that the burden would be 4 hours. As a result of TRP suggestions and public comments, NCES requests clearance to implement a new Academic Libraries component in the Spring data collection , to replace the existing ALS . **Table 7 : Proposed**  **New Academic Libraries Component Change**  **Implementation Year Source**  **Estimated burden**  Add items for degree - granting institutions if expenditures > 0:  Is the library collection entirely electronic? (Y/N)  Collect library collections counts, physical and digital/electronic, as applicable: o Books o Serial titles o Databases o Media Circulation, physical and digital/electronic, as applicable 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Academic Libraries TRP Moderate

Add items for degree - granting institutions if expenditures are > threshold:  Number of branch and independent libraries
—exclude main or central library  Total salaries and wages  Are staff fringe benefits paid out of the library budget? (Y/N)  Fringe benefit expenditures if paid by the library budget  One - time purchases of books, serial backfiles and other materials  Ongoing commitments to subscriptions  Other information resources  Preservation services  All other operations and maintenance expenditures  Total interlibrary loans and documents provided to other libraries  Total interlibrary loans and documents re ceived Does your library support virtual reference services? 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Academic Libraries TRP Moderate

## 14

All Survey Components In order to provide better estimates of burden on an ongoing basis, NCES will ask IPEDS keyholders to report voluntarily the time required to complete each survey component as follows: in the 2012
- 13 data collection , the 2014 - 15 data collection, and every third year thereafter . NCES estimates a burden of 0.2 hours to track, record and report this time for the following components: Institutional Characteristics and Admissions , Completions, 12 -month Enrollment, Graduation Rates, 200% Graduation Rates , Outcome Measures, and Fall Enrollment . NCES estimates it will take 0.4 hours 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 other s at the institution .



## Burden Calculations In the previous IPEDS request for clearance, submitted for the 2011
- 12 through 2013
- 14 data collections, based on an NCES - commissioned study of burden estimates and revisions across federal agencies, NCES proposed to ask respondents to voluntarily report the time required to prepare and complete each component of the IPEDS data collection at the end of the survey form. This voluntary collection was implemented in the 2012
- 13 data collection, and the results from the Fall data collection were used in establ ishing burden estimates for the Fall components. Results from the Winter and Spring data collections will be used in future estimates. D etailed findings and calculations can be found in section A.12, starting on page 27 .

## 15



# Section A **. Justification**  **A.1. Purpose of this Submission**  The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is seeking clearance for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the 2014 - 15 and 2015 - 16 collections. Current clearance covers the 2011 - 12 through 2013 - 14 survey years and is due to expire on June 30, 201 4 . We are therefore requesting (1) to carry over the clearance for the 2013
- 14 data collection, and (2) a new clearance to conduct the 2014
- 15 and 2015
- 16 data collections , and to provide institutions with a preview year (in 2013
- 14) of new data submission requirements for 2014
- 15 . 

## a. **The Design of IPEDS 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. These components include:  Institutional Characteristics (IC);  Completions (C);  Fall Enrollment (EF);  12 -month Enrollment (E12);  Student Financial Aid (SFA);  Graduation Rates (GR);  200% Graduation Rates (GR200);  Human Resources (HR); and  Finance (F) **b. Proposed Modifications**  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.

## 16 The Fall collection includes:  Institutional Characteristics  Completions  12 -month Enrollment The Winter and Spring components open simultaneously to allow respondents who wish to submit Spring data early to do so : Winter collection components:  S tudent Financial Aid  Graduation Rates  200% Graduation Rates  Outcome Measures

– NEW component  Admissions

– NEW component comprised of items moved from IC Spring collection components:  Fall Enrollment  F inance  Human Resources  Academic Libraries

– NEW component 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 three years. The formats for reporting IPEDS data are very similar to those used for the 2001
- 02 through 201 3 - 1 4 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 postse condary 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 (but not on a regular schedule) 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 in 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;

## 17  The contractor accepts comments from the public on the topic;  Once comments are received, they are summarized and sent to NCES;  Finally, 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. **c. Need for Clearance at this Time**  Clearance helps assure that IPEDS maintains a consistent set of data items in order to collect data from the various institutions at the needed time and with the needed detail. This is important since 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 on
- going 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 stand
- alone, independent survey components also allows for the elimination of duplication of effort and thus reduces response burden. The web
-based data collection system will continue to allow NCES to comply with the Higher Education Act, 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, cl earance will update the IPEDS burden estimates, reflecting revisions resulting from institutional estimates and NCES and GAO studies. The GAO report suggested that NCES consider basing estimates on institutional characteristics and IPEDS keyholder experience, as these have a more significant impact on variations in time burden than the actual forms do. Based on the GAO recommendations, NCES developed new time burden estimates for the previous clearance request that take into account the type of institution s and keyholder experience. These new estimates are now updated using institutional estimates submitted voluntarily during the 2012
- 13 data collection. **d. Statutory Requirements for IPEDS Data**  **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 Higher Education Act 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 .

## 18

**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) re gulations 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 is mandatory for 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 f or all institutions which receive, are applicants for, or expect to be applicants for Federal financial assistance as defined in the Department of Education (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 Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, to disclose information about graduation or completion rates to current and prospective students. Data must also b e reported to the Secretary of Education; this is accomplished through the IPEDS Graduation Rates (GRS) component. **Consumer Information** Section 101 of the Higher Education 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. **A.2. Purpose and Use of IPEDS Information**  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) and the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF). 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 usage within NCES and other areas of the Department o f Education, 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 IPED S Data Feedback Reports , annual reports that are sent to all postsecondary institutions. They contain data and figures comparing each individual institution to a group of “comparison” institutions, using

## 19

a variety of IPEDS data variables and derived varia bles, and are 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 use by institutions in meeting their institutional goals relative to their postsecondary “peers.” Additional uses of IPEDS data, specific to individual survey components, include: **a. Institutional Characteristics**  Institutional Characteristics 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 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). In addition to the need for these data within NCES and the Department of Education (Title III and Higher Education Act 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 utili zed 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 o f 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 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 di sseminating relevant information to consumers. These enhancements include: information on accreditation, varsity athletics, c ohort default rates, 90/10 data , and c ampus s ecurity data . **b. Completions and Compliance Report**  IPEDS information on the number of students who complete a postsecondary education program by type of program and level of award constitute s 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 nee d 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. For example:

 Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), use s these data to respond to public inquiries regarding degrees awarded by different types of institutions, and for reference guides in preparation for budget justifications.  Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), uses these data in preparing the **Occupational Outlook Handbook**  and in matching projections of labor supply and demand.

## 20

 State Occupational Information Coordinating Committees (SOICC) also make use of 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, Library of Congress, uses these data to supply information to Members of Congress in order to assist them in assessing the changing and developing needs of the Nation with respect to manpower and postsecondary education.  The Department of Agriculture, Office of Higher Education Programs, uses these data to include program data on agriculture and home economics in various reports.  The National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Studies, relies heavily on IPEDS Completions survey data, in conjunction with their own surveys, to study degree production, particularly in science, mathematics, and engineering fields.  The U.S. Office of Personnel Management uses these data to provide guidance to other Federal agencies in their recruiting efforts.  The Office for Civil Rights (Department of Education) uses these data in reviewing institutional compliance with anti
- discrimination statutes.  The Department of Justice uses these data when court suits are brought in civil rights cases.  The Department of Defen se uses these data to identify institutions training significant numbers of individuals in occupational programs, and with particular 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 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 utilized these data for use in developing their institutional classification schemes. **c. Enrollment**  Enrollment is probably the most basic parameter in postsecondary education since 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 acces s. Aspects of the enrollment 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. The Education D epartment 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 (Department of Education) to perform functions mandated by Title VI and Title IX. **2. Residence of First** **- Time Students**  (required in even
-numbered years) IPEDS also 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 the

## 21

States can collect in their own surveys. States can then use resulting data to make estimates about the college
- going rates of their high school graduates, examine problems caused by excessive student out
mi gration or in
-migration, and determine the types of institutions that attract their citizens into other states. Such data are critic al for postsecondary education planning at the state level. States as well as 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
-num bered 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 usef

ul 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 in order to address concerns that the cohort used by the Graduation Rates (GR) component is not representative of an institution’s entering class because the GR cohort is comprised only of full
-time , first
-time students. The collection of a total entering class allows for a more accurate picture of incoming students , and also permits the calculation of the fall GR cohort as a proportion of the total entering student body. **5. Retention Ra** **tes** 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 rate s 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 of students enrolled over a 12
-month period provides a way of looking at enrol lment that is especially valuable for institutions that utilize non
-traditional 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, as measured in total credit and/or contact hours delivered by institutions during a 12
-mo nth period, provides an overall indicator of the scope of educational activity

## 22

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. **d .**  **Student Financial Aid** The Student Financial Aid component was added to IPEDS to help 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 of 2008. These data are posted on College Navigator. **e .**  **Graduation Rates** The Graduation Rates 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 co llected 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 200% Graduation Rates component collects consumer information on 200 percent graduation rates to meet requirements in the HEOA. f. **Finance** Finance data are needed for reporting and projecting the revenues and expenditures of a national activity representing a significant component of the 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. The Department of Education's Title III (Institutional Aid) grant program relies on the finance data to help determine whether or not an applicant college or university is eligible to receive a grant. These data are needed annually. The Government Accountability Office published a report on 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 Census worked closely to ensure that one instrument satisfied the needs of both agencies. The Bureau of Economic Analysis also contributed significantly to this endeavor. The Office of Management and Budget 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 Gross National Product; and  collect supplemental data that their census of governments does not collect. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service are secondary users of NCES/Census finance data. The Office for Civil Rights has used finance data to determine states' or institutions' compliance with anti
- discrimination laws. From these data OCR was able to determine whether or not 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 non
- farm expenditures for structures and equipment, and to develop Gross National Product accounts. Increasing

## 23

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. g. **Human Resources**  Human resource 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, and required in odd
-num

bered years) replaces the former EEO
- 6 survey, and is used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in place of their data collection efforts. Under Public Law 88 - 352, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amende d 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 it to EEOC as required in their 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 in stitutions. 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 Department of Education's 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;  the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Department of La bor, which includes salary data when developing its Occupational Outlook Handbook . The House Labor and Human Resources Committee, the Office for Civil Rights, 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 the ir peers and/or competitors prior to developing their salary schedules. **A.3. Use of Technology and Other Technological Collection Techniques**  The IPEDS web
-based data collection system makes use of advanced technology to reduce respondent burden and to im

prove 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:

## 24

a. The development of 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. b. Survey components are customized 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 previous ly) 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 a SQL server as soon as the administrative functions have b een 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. c. 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. d. NCES will continue to encourage respondents to prepare IPEDS data in a format for uplo ading 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: a fixed length format, a key value pair format, and an XML format. **A.4. Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication**  NCES devote s considerable effort to assure 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 S cience 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 discuss ions 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 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

## 25

( 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 the Department of Education, and other agency representatives share access to IPEDS data. **A.5. Methods Used to Minimize Burden on Small Businesses/Entities**  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: a. requesting a reduced set of data items from schools offering only certificates below the baccalaureate level, and b. maintaining a close liaison with the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities , which represents proprietary postsecondary institutions, to assure the appropriateness of data being requested and the feasibility of collecting it. **A.6. Frequency of Data Collection**  The survey components proposed for this request are those that will be collected beginning with the Fall 201 4 collection and extending through the Spring 201 6 collection (see Table 3 3 ). The survey data items are similar to those used through 201 3 , with the additional items and modifications to improve clarity and enhance the use of the data as described in this submission . **A.7. Special**  **Circumstances** None of the special circumstances described apply to these collections. **A.8. Consultations Outside the Agency**  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. N CES 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: a. 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. b. 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 does this by developing a research and development 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. c. The American Council on Education established an advisory group consi sting of representatives from the various organizations involved in higher education issues. This group meets periodically with NCES

## 26

to discuss the IPEDS project. d. Annual meetings are held with IPEDS coordinators to obtain state input on IPEDS operations, survey revisions, analysis plans, and data needs. e . 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 . **A.9. Paying Respondents**  There are no payments or gifts offered to respondents. **A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality**  IPEDS data are not collected under any pledge of confidentiality. The PRA language for IPEDS is made available on homepage for the data collection center. The current statement for the 201 2 - 1 3 collection reads as follows; it is updated annually to refle ct 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 Time Burden Estimates by Institution Type and Keyholder Experience ,**  **2012 -**  **13 Data Collection**

Estimated Range Estimated Average **4 -** **year institution New Keyholder**  1 62 - 2 96 hours 2 34 hours **Returning Keyholder** 10 8 - 1 96 hours 1 56 hours **2 -** **year institution New keyholder**  1 24 - 2 34 hours 1 83 hours **Returning keyholder** 83 - 1 53 hours 1 21 hours **<2 -** **year institution New keyholder**  6 3 - 1 14 hours 80 hours **Returning keyholder** 4 9 - 7 5 hours 5 3 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: U.S. Department of Education, Information Management Team, Washington, DC 20202
-4537. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission, please direct them to ipedshelp@rti.org . **A.11. Justification for Sensitive Questions**  These collections contain no questions of a sensitive nature.

## 27 **A.12. Estimate of Burden**  **Annual	Burden	Calculation Table**  **1 0**  displays the estimated burden to respondents for the upcoming 201 3 - 1 4 data collection (already approved) and estimated burden to respondents for the two additional collection years for which we are se eking approval in this submission, including the proposed changes: 201 4 - 1 5 and 201 5 - 1 6 . The estimated number of institutions responding reflect those that are required to respond (approximately 7, 3 00 Title IV eligible institutions) and those that voluntari ly respond (approximately 200 per data collection year). **Table 1 1**  shows estimated ranges for institutions based on type of institution and keyholder experience. In the previous IPEDS request for clearance, submitted for the 2011
- 12 through 2013
- 14 data c ollections, based on an NCES - commissioned study of burden estimates and revisions across federal agencies, NCES proposed to ask respondents to voluntarily report the time required to prepare and complete each component of the IPEDS data collection at the end of the survey form. This voluntary collection was implemented in the 2012
- 13 data collection, and the results from the Fall data collection were used in establishing burden estimates for the Fall components. Results from the Winter and Spring data collections will be used in future estimates. Response rates for this item on the three Fall survey components are shown in the Table below.

**Table 8**  **. Response Rates for IPEDS Preparation Time Item, Fall 2012** Returning Keyholders New Keyholders Institutional Characteristics 75% 81% Completions 62% 67% 12 - mo nth Enrollment 75% 80% 

### Response rates for the preparation time items 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 due to the fact that more data are uploaded by states and systems for this component; the item does not appear on the import layouts. NCES anticipated using the keyholder reported times in two ways: 1. To gauge whether the recalculated burden estimates from the previous clearance submission are realistic, compared to what keyholders report; 2. To determine whether the 50% additional time premium established for new keyholders accurately represents what new keyholders experience. The times to prepare and complete the Fall components reported by both experienced and new keyholders are, on average, much lower than the recalculated burden estimates from the previous IPEDS clearance package. Rather than prematurely adjusting the IPEDS burden estimates down for 2014
- 15 and 201 5 - 1 6 , NCES proposes to review the way in which the item was presented and worded, and reframe the item for the 2014
- 15 IPEDS collection cycle to ensure that there is no respondent misunderstanding as to what their reported time should cover. In addition, a glossary term that defines respondent burden will be added to the IPEDS Glossary. The results from both 2012
- 13 and 2014
- 15 will be available for use in verifying burden estimates prior to the next clearance submission. As to the second point, the keyholder reported times do support the belief that it takes new keyholders longer to prepare and submit their IPEDS components. While the premiums reported for the Fall vary from component to component, and are somewhat less than the 50% used in IPEDS burden calculations, NCES proposes to retain the 50% premium for the current clearance submission, and reevaluate for the next submission, when there will be additional responses to take into account. The table below summarizes the preparation hours reported by experienced and new keyholders, and shows the average premium for new keyholders:

## 28

**Table 9. Reported and average preparation hours for experienced and new IPEDS keyholders, and ave rage**  **premium for new keyholders, Fall 2012**

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 19 , 452 4 , 819 4.04 4 , 720 851 5.55 37% C 18 , 909 3 , 976 4.76 4 , 886 710 6.88 45% E12 16 , 382 4 , 722 3.47 3 , 364 751 4.48 29% 

## Table **10 .**  **Summary of Estimated Response Burden**  **by Survey Component :** 

**201 3**  **- 1**  **4 ,**  **201 4**  **- 1**  **5 , 201**  **5 -**  **1 6** 

**Number of responding**  **institutions 2013**  **- 14** 

**(Collection A pproved)**  **201 4**  **- 1**  **5 201**  **5 -**  **1 6**  **Av g**  **hours per**  **institution Total** 

**hours Av**  **g hours**

**per institution**  **Total hours Av**  **g hours per**  **institution Total** 

**hours Institutional**  **Characteristics** 7, 5 00 8.1 60,750 5.7 42,750 5.7 42,750 **Completions** 7, 5 00 11.6 87,000 11.6 87,000 11.6 87,000 **12 -**  **m onth Enrollment**  7, 5 00 7.2 54,000 7.2 54,000 7.2 54,000 **Student Financial Aid** 7, 5 00 25.4 190,500 28.7 215,250 27.7 207,750 **Graduation Rates** 6 , 400 12.6 80,640 12.6 80,640 12.6 80,640 **200% Graduation Rates**  6 , 400 3.7 23,680 3.7 23,680 3.7 23,680 **Outcome Measures** 4 , 900 -- -- 30.1 147,490 15 73,500 **Admissions** 2 , 500 -- -- 3 7,500 3 7,500 **Fall Enrollment**  7, 5 00 14.2 106,500 14.2 106,500 14.2 106,500 **Finance** 7, 5 00 11 82,500 14.8 111,000 13.4 100,500 **Human Resources** 7, 5 00 21.1 158,250 21.1 158,250 21.1 158,250 **Academic Libraries** 4 , 900 -- -- 4.3 21,070 4.3 21,070 **Total** 77,600 -- 843, 820 -- 1,055,13 0 -- 963,140 

### Table 10 shows that each year there are 77,600 responses per year, from 7,500 institutions, resulting on average in 954,030 estimated annual burden hours across all respondents. **Table 1 1**  **: Summary of Ranges of Time Burden Estimates by Institution Type and K eyholder Experience**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection A** **pproved)** 

### 2014 **- 1**  **5 2015**  **- 1**  **6 4**  **- year institution**  **New Keyholder** 139 - 283 hours 183 - 357 hours 161 - 296 hours 

### Returning Keyholder 93 - 189 hours 122 - 240 hours 113 - 215 hours 

### 2 **- year institution**  **New keyholder** 107 - 226 hours 160 - 299 hours 137 - 265 hours 

### Returning keyholder 71 - 151 hours 101 - 202 hours 91 - 177 hours 

### <2 **- year institution**  **New keyholder** 63 - 113 hours 70 - 123 hours 66 - 119 hours 

### Returning keyholder 43 - 75 hours 49 - 83 hours 45 - 79 hours

## 29 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 i s estimated based on the 2011
- 12 universe; changes to these numbers for successive years are expected to be small. The total cost to respondents is based on the estimated response burden (hours) multiplied by $37.15 (in 2013 - 14 ), which includes average data analyst and associated computer costs (for running programs to extract data). The hourly wage is increase d by an assumed 2.0% cost
- of
- living adjustment for each subsequent year . Total estimated costs to respondents for the 2013 - 14, and 2014
- 15 through 201 5 - 1 6 are as follows:

**A.13. Estimate of Cost Burden**  There are no capital or startup costs associated with this data collection. **A.14. Cost to**  **the Federal Government** We estimate a total cost to the government for the IPEDS 2013 - 14 through 201 5 - 1 6 survey years of approximately $ 28, 8 00,000. The total annual cost for this collection will be $9.6 million. On an annual basis, over the three survey years, the contract costs will average about $8 million per year. Federal S&E will be approximately $1,6 00,000 per year. More than 95% 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; imputati ons ; file preparation, reporting, and data dissemination; Technical Review Panel 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 associ ated 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 International, IT Innovative Solutions, AIR, and others). IPEDS in
-house staff costs are based on FY2013 pay schedules and on an estimated 0% pay increase for each of the subsequent fiscal years due to the uncertainty surrounding pay increases for federal employees. **Table 1 2.**  **Estimated Total Burden Hours for A**  **ll Institutions Estimated Cost to A**  **ll Institutions**  **Av erage Estimated Costs**  **Per Institution 2013**  **- 14**  843,820 $31,347,913 $4,179 **2014 -**  **15** 1,055,130 $39,978,876 $5,331 **2015 -**  **16** 963,140 $37,225,361 $4,964

## 30 **A.15. Reasons for Change in Burden**  The significant increase in estimated annual burden to respondents presented in this package is due to :
 Continued refining of the previous burden estimates as a result of incorporating institutionally reported burden ; and

 A set of changes to the data collection, describe d in this submission, mostly in the areas of outcome measures, finance for for
-profit institutions, veterans benefits, and academic libraries, that will improve on the usefulness to IPEDS data users including policymakers, researchers, and consumer. The maj ority of these changes were suggested by the IPEDS Technical Review P anel and have been previously posted for public comment from the higher education community. The overall average change in response burden can best be explained by looking at the burden hour estimates on a component-by
- com

ponent basis.
**Fall Collection** Institutional Characteristics (IC) : Detailed estimates for the In stitutional Characteristics component are presented in the table below. These e stimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience , **Table 13. Burden Hours, Institutional Characteristics**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  7,500 8 10 5 8 5 8 **4 -**  **year schools** 3,100 10.5 15.75 7.5 11.25 7.5 11.25 **2 -**  **year school** 2,300 6.5 9.75 4.5 6.75 4.5 6.75 **<2 -**  **year schools** 2,100 4.5 6.75 3 4.25 3 4.25 

### The burden estimates for 2014
- 15 and 2015 - 16 cover the following changes to the form, and take into consideration respondent self
-reported preparation time for this component :

## 31 **Table 14**  **: Proposed Changes to the IC Survey Component (a**  **ll versions)**

**Change Implementation Year**  Add the following item to collect data on veterans:  Wh ich of the following are available to veterans, military service members, or their families? o Post- 9/11 GI Bill, Yellow Ribbon Program o Credit for military training o Dedicated point of contact for support services for veterans, military service members, and their families o Recognized student veteran organization o Member of Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges  URL for tuition policies specifically related to veterans and military service members. 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)

Add screening question for degree - granting institutions to determine level of reporting on new Academic Libraries component:  Wh at are your annu al total library expenditures?  If annual total library expenditures = 0 there is no additional reporting.  If annual total library expenditures >0, the institution will submit the new Academic Libraries component, as described in the Academic Libraries section below. 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)

Delete Estimated Enrollment Items  Early estimates of full - time and part- time undergraduate students, first- time undergraduate students, and graduate students, as of October 15 or the institution’s official fall reporting date. 2014 - 15 Delete the following items that collect admissions information, and create separate small component in the W inter collection. Items will be collected only from institutions that do not have an open admission policy. Moving the collection of these items to the W inter collection will enable all institutions to report data for the most recent fall period.

 Admissions requirements: Select the option (required, recommended, neither required nor recommended, don’t know) that best describes how your institution uses any of the following data in its undergraduate selection process: o Secondary school GPA o Secondary school rank o Secondary school record o Completion of college - preparatory program o Recommenda tions o Formal demonstration of competencies (e.g., portfolios, certificates of mastery, assessment instruments) o Admission test scores

 SAT/ACT  Other test (ABT, W onderlic, WISC - III, etc.)  TOEFL  Provide the number of first-time, degree/certificate - seeking students who applied, who were admitted, and who enrolled (either full - or part-time) at your institution for the most recent fall period. For each category, report men, women, and total as available. o Number of applicants o Number of admissions o Number (of a dmitted) that enrolled full - time o Number (of admitted) that enrolled part -time  If test scores are required for admission for first- time, degree/certificate - seeking undergraduate students, provide the number and percentage of enrolled students submitting SAT and/or ACT scores, and the 25 th and 75 th percentile scores for each test listed: o SAT Critical Reading, Math, Writing o ACT composite, English, Math, W riting 2014 - 15

## 32

Completions (C) : Detailed estimates for the Completions component are presented in the table below. 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 Completions survey component. **Table 15. Burden Hours, Completions**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  7,500 11 16 11 16 11 16 **4 -**  **year schools** 3,100 15 22 15 22 15 22 **Less than 10 programs** 1,130 5 7.5 5 7.5 5 7.5 **10 -**  **100 programs** 1,000 17 24.75 17 24.75 17 24.75 **More than 100 programs**  970 27 40.5 27 40.5 27 40.5 **2 -**  **year school** 2,300 11 16 11 16 11 16 **Less than 10 programs** 970 5 7.5 5 7.5 5 7.5 **10 -**  **100 programs** 430 14 21 14 21 14 21 **More than 100 programs** 900 21 31.5 21 31.5 21 31.5 **<2 -**  **year schools** 2,100 5 7 5 7 5 7 **Less than 3 programs**  920 3 3.75 3 3.75 3 3.75 **3 to 9 programs**  700 7 9 .75 7 9.75 7 9.75 **10 or more programs**  480 13 19.5 13 19.5 13 19.5

## 33

12
- m onth Enrollment (E
- 12): Detailed estimates for the 12 -month Enrollment (E12) component are presented in the table below. These e stimates 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 reque sted for the 12
- month Enrollment survey component. **Table 16. Burden Hours, 12**  **- month Enrollment**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  7,500 7 10 7 10 7 10 **4 -**  **year schools** 3,100 7 11 7 11 7 11

**800 or less students** 1,130 4 6 4 6 4 6 **801 -**  **3000 students**  1,000 6 9 6 9 6 9 **>3000 students** 970 12 18 12 18 12 18 **2 -**  **year school** 2,300 7 10 7 10 7 10

**500 or less students** 970 4 6 4 6 4 6 **501 -**  **15 00**  **students** 430 6 9 6 9 6 9 **> 1500**  **students** 900 10 15 10 15 10 15 **<2 -**  **year schools** 2,100 6 8 6 8 6 8

**100 or less students**  920 4 6 4 6 4 6 **101 to 250 students**  700 6 9 6 9 6 9 **>250 students**  480 8 12 8 12 8 12

## 34

**Winter Collection** Student Financial Aid (SFA ) : Detailed estimates for the Student Financial Aid component are presented in the table below. Estimates account for institution type , enrollment size, and keyholder experience. **Table 17. Burden Hours, Student Financial Aid**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  7,500 23.5 36 26.75 39.5 24.25 38.5 **4 -**  **year schools** 3,100 29 44 31.75 47 27 46

**800 or less students** 1,130 20.25 30.375 23.5 34.75 22.5 33.75 **801 -**  **3000 students**  1,000 30.25 45.375 33.5 49.75 32.5 48.75 **>3000 students** 970 36.25 54.375 39.5 58.75 38.5 57.75 **2 -**  **year school** 2,300 25 38 28 41.5 27 40.5

**500 or less students** 970 18.25 27.375 21.5 31.75 20.5 30.75 **501 -**  **15 00**  **students** 430 24.25 36.375 27.5 40.75 26.5 39.75 **>1500 students** 900 32.25 48.375 35.5 52.75 34.5 51.75 **<2 -**  **year schools** 2,100 14 21 18 26.5 17 25.5

**100 or less students**  920 12.25 18.375 15.5 22.75 14.5 21.75 **101 to 250 students**  700 14.25 21.375 17.5 25.75 16.5 24.75 **>250 students**  480 18.25 27.375 23.5 34.75 22.5 33.75 

### The burden estimates for 2014
- 15 and 2015 - 16 cover the following changes to the form:

**Table 1 8**  **: Proposed Changes to the SF A**  **Survey Component (all forms)** 

**Change Implementation Year**  Add the following items: o Number of undergraduate and graduate students receiving Post- 9/11 GI Bill benefits and the total dollar amount of tuition and fee benefits awarded to them through the institution o Number of undergraduate and graduate students receiving DoD Tuition Assistance and the total dollar amount of DoD Tuition Assistance awarded to them through the institution 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)

## 35

Graduation Rates (GR

): Detailed estimates for the Graduation Rates component are presented in the table below. Estimates account for institution type , enrollment size, and keyholder experience. No changes have been requested for the Graduation Rates survey component. **Table 19. Burden Hours, Graduation Rates**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  6,400 12 17.5 12 17.5 12 17.5 **4 -**  **year schools** 2,500 14 21 14 21 14 21

**800 or less students** 700 6 9 6 9 6 9 **801 -**  **3000 students**  900 16 24 16 24 16 24 **>3000 students** 900 20 30 20 30 20 30 **2 -**  **year school** 2 , 100 14 21 14 21 14 21

**500 or less students** 800 6 9 6 9 6 9 **501 -**  **15 00**  **students** 400 16 24 16 24 16 24 **>1500 students** 900 20 30 20 30 20 30 **<2 -**  **year schools** 1 , 800 6 8 6 8 6 8

**100 or less students**  800 4 6 4 6 4 6 **101 to 250 students**  600 6 9 6 9 6 9 **>250 students**  400 8 12 8 12 8 12 

### 200% Graduation Rates (GR200) : Detailed estimates for the 200% Graduation Rates component are presented in the table below. Estimates account for institution type , enrollment size, and keyholder experience. No changes have been requested for the 200% Graduation Rates survey component. **Table 2 0. Burden Hours, 200% Graduation Rates**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  6,400 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 **4 -**  **year schools** 2,500 4 6 4 6 4 6

**800 or less students** 700 2 3 2 3 2 3 **801 -**  **3000 students**  900 4 6 4 6 4 6 **>3000 students** 900 6 9 6 9 6 9 **2 -**  **year school** 2 , 100 4 6 4 6 4 6

**500 or less students** 800 2 3 2 3 2 3 **501 -**  **15 00**  **students** 400 4 6 4 6 4 6 **>1500 students** 900 6 9 6 9 6 9 **<2 -**  **year schools** 1 , 800 2 4 2 4 2 4

**100 or less**  **students** 800 2 3 2 3 2 3 **101 to 250 students**  600 2 3 2 3 2 3 **>250 students**  400 4 6 4 6 4 6

## 36

Outcome Measures (OM): Detailed estimates for the Outcome Measures component are presented in the table below. Estimates account for institution type , enrollment size, and keyholder experience. **Table 2 1. Burden Hours, Outcome Measures**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  4,900 -- -- 28 42 14 21 **4 -**  **year schools** 3 , 100 -- -- 28 42 14 21

**800 or less students** 1 , 130 -- -- 12 18 6 9 **801 -**  **3000 students**  1 , 000 -- -- 32 48 16 24 **>3000 students** 970 -- -- 40 60 20 30 **2 -**  **year school** 1 , 800 -- -- 28 42 14 21

**500 or less students** 970 -- -- 12 18 6 9 **501 -**  **15 00**  **students** 430 -- -- 32 48 16 24 **>1500 students** 900 -- -- 40 60 20 30 

### The burden estimates for 2014
- 15 and 2015 - 16 cover the following items on this new survey form:

**Table 2**  **2 : Proposed**  **New Outcome Measures Component**

**Change Implementation Year**  Collect outcome measures data from degree - granting institutions on 4 degree/certificate seeking student cohorts as shown below. Academic reporting institutions will report on Fall cohorts; program and hybrid reporters will report on Full - year cohorts.  Full - time, first- time students  Part- time, first- time students  Full - time, non -first- time entering students  Part- time, non -first- time entering students **Note** : Data will not be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, or gender. **Note** : No outcome data will be collected from non - degree - granting institutions. For each of the 4 cohorts, collect a status update using the f ollowing categories:  Received award  Did not receive award, still enrolled at reporting institution  Did not receive award, subsequently enrolled at another institution  Did not receive award, subsequent enrollment status unknown A total of students who did n ot receive an award will be calculated. Collect the status update from both 2 - year and 4 - year institutions 8 years after the cohort enters the institution. Outcome Measures data collection will begin in 2014 - 15. Institutions will report on their 2006 c ohorts. 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)

## 37

Admissions (ADM): Detailed estimates for the Admissions component are presented in the table below. Estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience. **Table 2 3. Burden Hours, Admissions**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  2,500 -- -- 2.5 4 2.5 4 **4 -**  **year schools** 2,000 -- -- 3 4.5 3 4.5 **2 -**  **year school** 300 -- -- 2 3 2 3 **<2 -**  **year schools** 200 -- -- 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 

### The burden estimates for 2014
- 15 and 2015 - 16 cover the following items, which will move from the Institutional Characteristics component to this new survey form:

**Table 2**  **4 : Proposed**  **Separate A dmissions Component** 

**Change Implementation Year**  Create separate small component in the W inter collection from items formerly in IC component. Items will be collected only from institutions that do not have an open admission policy. Moving the collection of these items to the W inter collection will enable all institutions to report data for the most recent fall period.

 Admissions re quirements: Select the option (required, recommended, neither required nor recommended, don’t know) that best describes how your institution uses any of the following data in its undergraduate selection process: o Secondary school GPA o Secondary school rank o Secondary school record o Completion of college - preparatory program o Recommendations o Formal demonstration of competencies (e.g., portfolios, certificates of mastery, assessment instruments) o Admission test scores

 SAT/ACT  Other test (ABT, W onderlic, WISC - III, e tc.)  TOEFL  Provide the number of first-time, degree/certificate - seeking students who applied, who were admitted, and who enrolled (either full - or part-time) at your institution for the most recent fall period. For each category, report men, women, and t otal as available. o Number of applicants o Number of admissions o Number (of admitted) that enrolled full - time o Number (of admitted) that enrolled part -time  If test scores are required for admission for first- time, degree/certificate - seeking undergraduate students, provide the number and percentage of enrolled students submitting SAT and/or ACT scores, and the 25 th and 75 th percentile scores for each test listed: o SAT Critical Reading, Math, Writing o ACT composite, English, Math, W riting 2014 - 15

## 38 **Spring Collection**  Fall Enrollment (EF

): Detailed estimates for the Fall Enrollment component are presented in the table below. These estimates account for institution type and enrollment, and keyholder experience . No changes have been requested for the Completions survey component. **Table 2 5. Burden Hours, Fall Enrollment**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  7,500 13 20 13 20 13 20 **4 -**  **year schools** 3,100 18 27 18 27 18 27

**800 or less students** 1,130 9 13.5 9 13.5 9 13.5 **801 -**  **3000 students**  1,000 18 27 18 27 18 27 **>3000 students** 970 27 40.5 27 40.5 27 40.5 **2 -**  **year school** 2,300 15 22 15 22 15 22

**500 or less students** 970 9 13.5 9 13.5 9 13.5 **501 -**  **1500 students**  430 13.5 20.25 13.5 20.25 13.5 20.25 **>1500 students** 900 20.5 30.75 20.5 30.75 20.5 30.75 **<2 -**  **year schools** 2,100 4 7 4 7 4 7

**50 or less students**  920 2 .5 3 .75 2.5 3.75 2.5 3.75 **51 to 250 students**  700 4 .5 6 .75 4.5 6.75 4.5 6.75 **>250 students**  480 7 10.5 7 10.5 7 10.5

## 39

Finance (F): Detailed estimates for the Finance component are presented in the table below. Estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience. **Table 2 6. Burden Hours, Finance**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  7,500 10.75 16.25 14 20.75 13 19.5 **4 -**  **year schools** 3,100 15 22 17.25 25.5 16 24 **GASB** 700 18 27 18 27 18 27 **FASB Not for Profit** 1,600 16 24 16 24 16 24 **FASB For Profit** 800 4 6 19 27 16 24 **2 -**  **year school** 2,300 11 17 18.25 26.75 17 25 **GASB** 1,050 18 27 18 27 18 27 **FASB Not for Profit** 200 16 24 16 24 16 24 **FASB For Profit** 1,050 4 6 19 27 16 24 **<2 -**  **year schools** 2,100 4 7 4 7 4 7 **GASB** 250 6 9 6 9 6 9 **FASB Not For Profit** 100 4 6 4 6 4 6 **FASB For Profit** 1,750 4 6 4 6 4 6 

### The burden estimates for 2014
- 15 and 2015 - 16 cover the following changes to the FASB For Profit form:

**Table 27**  **: Proposed Changes to the FA** **SB For Profit Finance Form** 

**Change Implementation Year**  Make changes to Revenues information collected:  Separate federal appropriations, grants, and contracts into two categories:

o Federal appropriations o Federal grants and contracts  Separate state and local government appropriations, grants, and contracts into four categories: o State appropriations o State gra nts and contracts o Local appropriations o Local grants and contracts  Add private gifts to be reported with private grants and contracts  Add the following two revenues categories:

o Hospital services o Independent operations revenue 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)

Make changes to Expenses information collected:  Separate research and public service into two categories:

o Research o Public service  Separate academic support, student services, and institutional support into three categories: o Academic support o Student services o Institutional support  Add the following new functional expense categories:

o Operation and maintenance of plant o Hospital services o Independent operations 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)

## 40 **Table 27**  **: Proposed Changes to the FA** **SB For Profit Finance Form**   The following categories will be allocated across the functional categories and will also be re ported as a total amount following the expense matrix used by public and private nonprofit institutions: o Salaries and wage s o Employee fringe benefits o Operations and maintenance o Interest o Depreciation o All other  Add a new screening question:

o Wh at is your busi ness structure? Based on the information provided, institutions with the business structure of either C Corporations or LLC will subsequently be asked to report income tax expenses as follows:  Total Federal income tax expenditures  Total state and local income tax expenditures Make changes to Scholarships and Fellowships information collected:  Separate state and local grants (government) into two categories:

o Grants by state government o Grants by local government 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year) Make changes to Balance Sheet information collected:  Add the following new categories:

o Long - term investments o Property, plant, and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation o Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization o Debt related to property, plant, and equipment o Additional detail to align with financial statements o Land improvements o Buildings o Equipment
— including art and library collections o Construction in progress o Other plant, property, and equipment o Total plant , property, and equipment o Accumulated depreciation 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)



### Human Resources (HR) : Detailed estimates for the Human Resources component are presented in the table below. Estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience. No changes have been requested for the Human Resources survey component. **Table 28. Burden Hours, Human Resources**  **2013 -**  **14 (Collection Approved)**  **2014 -**  **15 2015**  **- 16**  **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 Total**  7,500 19 29 19 29 19 29 **4 -**  **year schools** 3,100 32 48 32 48 32 48 **2 -**  **year school** 2,300 16 24 16 24 16 24 **<2 -**  **year schools** 2,100 6 9 6 9 6 9

## 41

Academic Libraries (AL): Detailed estimates for the Academic Libraries component are presented in the table below. Estimates account for both institution type and keyholder experience.

**Table 29.**  **Burden Hours, Academic Libraries 2013**  **- 14**  **(Collection Approved) 2014** **- 15**  **2015 -**  **16 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 Total**  4,900 -- -- 4 6 4 6 **4 -**  **year schools** 3 , 100 -- -- 4 6 4 6 **2 -**  **year school** 1 , 800 -- -- 4 6 4 6 

### The burden estimates for 2014
- 15 and 2015 - 16 cover the following items:

**Table 30**  **: Proposed New Academic Libraries Component** 

**Change Implementation Year**  Add items for degree - granting institutions if expenditures > 0:  Is the library collection entirely electronic? (Y/N)  Collect library collections counts, physical and digital/electronic, as applicable:

o Books o Serial titles o Databases o Media Circulation, physical and digital/electronic, as applicable 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)

Add items for degree - granting institutions if expenditures are > threshold:  Number of branch and independent libraries
—exclude main or central library  Total salaries and wages  Are staff fringe benefits paid out of the library budget? (Y/N)  Fringe benefit expenditures if paid by the library budget  One - time purchases of books, serial backfiles and other materials  O ngoing commitments to subscriptions  Other information resources  Preservation services  All other operations and maintenance expenditures  Total interlibrary loans and documents provided to other libraries  Total interlibrary loans and documents received Does your library support virtual reference services? 2014 - 15 (2013 - 14 preview year)



### All Collections: All Survey Components In order to provide better estimates of burden on an ongoing basis, NCES will ask IPEDS keyholders to report voluntarily the time required to complete each survey component as follows: in the 2012
- 13 data collection , the 2014 - 15 data collection, and every third year thereafter . NCES estimates a burden of 0.2 hours to track, record and report this time for the following components: Institutional Characteristics and Admissions, Completions, 12
-month Enrollment, Graduation Rates, 200% Graduation Rates, Outcome Measures, and Fall Enrollment. NCES estimates it will take 0.4 hours 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 other s at the institution .

## 42 **A.16. Publication Plans/Project**  **Schedule a.**  **Schedule of Activities TABLE**  **31 .**  **IPEDS 201 4**  **- 1**  **5 PLANNED**  **DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE** 

**Date Activit**  **y** No later than October 1, 201 3 Development of new and revised screens based on OMB approval of proposed changes and Development of training materials ; preview year 2013 - 14 April - July 201 4 Development of all 2014 - 15 survey materials ( screens, instructions, FAQs, import specifications) Early September 201 4 Fall Data Collection opens  Institutional Characteristics and Prices (201 4 - 1 5 data)  Completions (201 3 - 1 4 data)  12 - month enrollment (201 3 - 1 4 data) Mid October 201 4 Fall Data Collection closes Early December 201 4 Wi nter and Spring Data Collection opens  Student Financial Aid (201 3 - 1 4 data)  Graduation Rates (201 3 - 1 4 data)  Graduation Rates 200 (201 3 - 1 4 data)  Outcome Measures (NEW)(2013 - 14 data)  Admissions (New, excerpted from Institutional Characteristics) (Fall 2013 data)  Fall Enrollment (Fall 2014 data)  Finance (Fiscal Year 201 4 )  Human Resources (Fall 2014 data)  Academic Libraries (NEW ) (Fiscal Year 2014) Mid February 201 5 Wi nter Collection closes  Student Financial Aid (201 3 - 1 4 data)  Graduation Rates (201 3 - 1 4 data)  Graduation Rates 200 (201 3 - 1 4 data)  Outcome Measures (NEW)(2013 - 14 data)  Admissions (New, excerpted from Institutional Characteristics) (Fall 2013 data) Mid April 201 5 Spring Collection closes  Fall Enrollment (Fall 2014 data)  Finance (Fiscal Year 201 4 )  Human Resources (Fall 2014 data)  Academic Libraries (Fiscal Year 2014) June 201 5 Non - Compliance Report Due to Office of Federal Student Aid No later than January 201 5 Public release of data in IPEDS Data Center of data collected in Fall 201 4 No later than May 201 5 Public release of data in IPEDS Data Center of data collected in W inter 201 4 - 1 5 No later than July 201 5 Public release of data in IPEDS Data Center of data collected in Spring 201 5 

### Survey activity will include 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 bef ore 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 two
-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 201 4 - 15 Communication s and Follow
-up Schedule is detailed below.

## 43 **Table 32**  **. IPEDS 201**  **4 -**  **1 5**  **Data Collections Communications / Follow**  **- up Schedule**  **Collection Correspondence type**  **When Why**  Registration Email to keyholder Early August
- Registration open UserID + password Letter to CEO Early August
- Registration open 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/KH 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 S pring Email to keyholder Late March No data entered since W inter Email – This Week in IPEDS Twice in February Reminder that S pring surveys are open 

### b. **Distribution Methods** 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**  IPEDS Data Center : The IPEDS Data Center is the primary method of disseminating IPEDS data to the postsecondary education, policy, and research communities. The data center 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 to other institutions, or they can simply create a report about a group of institutions. Users follow a step
-by
- step approach to retrieve the data in the format of their choice. Institutions included in the report or dataset can be selected by name or abbreviation, by using variables or advanced grouping functions, or by uploading a previously saved group of institutions. Variables to be included in the report or dataset can be selected using the IPEDS variable tree, users can create their own variables using IPEDS variables, or they can upload a previously saved set of variables. Users can retrieve data for single or multiple institutions, rank or trend variables, create group statistics , generate pre - defined reports, and create custom data files as well as download survey data files. Throughout the data center, there is context help to aid users in understanding the different steps, as well as the IPEDS data. The data center is built to accommodate users from beginning to advanced levels. Trend Generator : The IPEDS Trend Generator is a quick and easy way to see IPEDS data over time. Users can create trends, see graphs, download data, and print. Trend data can be displayed at an aggregate level, or by institutional and student characteristics. Executive Peer Tool (ExPT) Now part of the IPEDS Data Center, NCES designed the ExPT to be used in conjunction with the IPEDS Datafeedback Reports (DFRs). Using the ExPT, users can duplicate DF Rs with different sets of comparison institutions, and incorporate additional indicators not included in the printed DFR. Custom reports generated with this tool can be saved as PDF files with full informational and methodological notes. A detailed online user guide is available. Visit http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/ExPT for more information on this tool.

## 44 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 their 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: (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) Analytic Reports: Comprehensive reports are produced perio dically 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. (d) 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. **A.17. Request to Not Display Expiration Date**  The Department is not seeking approval to forego displaying the OMB approval expiration date. **A.18. Exceptions to the Certification**  There are no exceptions to the certification statement.