Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Using IPEDS for Panel Analyses: Core Concepts, Data Challenges, and Empirical Applications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

Part of the book series: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research ((HATR,volume 29))

Abstract

Responding to demands from policymakers, higher education researchers increasingly utilize econometric modeling techniques to evaluate policies. In particular, researchers have applied panel methods to panel datasets derived from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and its predecessor the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS). Analyses may yield biased results when panel datasets are not properly constructed, potentially leading to misguided policy recommendations. This chapter provides guidance about how to create institution-level panel datasets that are appropriate for specific research questions. We first provide an overview of institution-level data sources. Second, we describe change over time in the HEGIS/IPEDS sampling universe and the unit of analysis (e.g., institution, campus) represented by each observation. Third, we discuss parent-child reporting, which occurs when institutions complete some IPEDS survey components (e.g., Completions) at the campus level and other survey components at the institution level. Parent-child reporting affects many empirical applications of IPEDS panel data and affects what research questions can be answered using premade panel data from the Delta Cost Project. Fourth, we discuss solutions to common data challenges. Finally, we discuss what kinds of research questions can be addressed using IPEDS data and data from the Delta Cost Project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Institutions is a term formerly used in HEGIS and IPEDS to define an institution that was accredited at the college level by an agency or association recognized by the US Department of Education. These schools offered at least a one-year program of study creditable toward a degree, and they were eligible for participation in Title IV federal financial aid programs.

  2. 2.

    Students and employees affiliated with organizations that are members of ICPSR can download ICPSR data at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/membership/index.html

  3. 3.

    To date, ICPSR has not completed the process of checking data and creating datasets in different programming languages (e.g., SAS, SPSS, and Stata). However, the raw text files and survey instruments are available for all years.

  4. 4.

    http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/

  5. 5.

    http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

  6. 6.

    http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/

  7. 7.

    http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/resource/

  8. 8.

    Note that survey forms typically differ by institutional sector (i.e., institutional control and award level).

  9. 9.

    http://nces.ed.gov/ncestaff/survdetl.asp?surveyid=010

  10. 10.

    For financial data, see http://federalstudentaid.ed.gov/datacenter/index.html

  11. 11.

    http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012834.pdf

  12. 12.

    The HEGIS sample universe included all “institutions of higher education.” An institution of higher education referred to institutions that were accredited at the institution level, were eligible for Title IV financial aid, and “offered at least a one-year program of study” (U.S. Department of Education. NCES, 2013b). What HEGIS refers to as an institution of higher education, we refer to as a Title IV institution.

  13. 13.

    Additionally, HEGIS collected limited data (e.g., IC, some Finance data) on system offices.

  14. 14.

    The formal language for this rule is as follows: “Please note that each institution, branch, campus, or other entity separately certified by the accreditation and institutional eligibility unit of the U.S. Office of Education, with its own FICE code, and listed separately in the Education Director of Higher Education, should be reported on a separate survey form and not included or combined with any other such certified unit. Branches, campuses, and other organizational entities not separately certified should be included with the appropriate institution or branch report” (U.S Department of Education. NCES 1976, p. 46).

  15. 15.

    However, from 1986–1987 to 1999–2000, certain Title IV institutions were not required to complete all IPEDS survey components as discussed in the Sampling Universe section.

  16. 16.

    The variable “net assets” became available only after Rutgers transitioned from “common” accounting standards to “GASB 34/35” accounting standards in the 2001–2002 academic year.

  17. 17.

    Non-degree-granting private nonprofit and private for-profit institutions (sectors 8 and 9) did not complete the Finance component for academic years 1986–1987 to 1998–1999. The number of observations in Finance data increased dramatically in 1999–2000 when a separate Finance survey form was created for for-profit institutions (Fuller 2011).

  18. 18.

    This step should be conducted separately for each survey component. With respect to the Finance component, the researcher would sort un-collapsed Finance data by UNITID and parent_UNITID (idx_f) and “fill down” the parent_UNITID variable for all years of data for campuses that have ever had a non-missing parent_UNITID variable. The variable parent_UNITID should be equal to UNITID for any campus that has ever been a parent. Finally, the researcher can group all observations that have ever been in the same parent-child relationship (for a particular survey component) by sorting by parent_UNITID, year, and UNITID.

  19. 19.

    At the time this manuscript was prepared, Delta Cost Project (n.d.) could not be downloaded from the DCP website.

  20. 20.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barat_College

  21. 21.

    A “one-to-one” merge means that the “matching variable” uniquely identifies observations in both the current dataset and the using dataset. A “many-to-one” merge means that there may be duplicate observations of each matching variable in the current dataset but the matching variable uniquely identifies observations in the other dataset.

  22. 22.

    A complication to creating a FICE-UNITID crosswalk is that FICE codes were assigned to each campus with separate institution-level accreditation but were assigned to each campus that offered a complete degree program. Therefore, each FICE code may represent more than one UNITID. For example, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNITID=X) and the University of Nebraska, Technical Agriculture (UNITID=X) have the same FICE code (FICE=X). If one FICE code is associated with more than one UNITID, then the FICE-UNITID crosswalk has duplicate observations for certain FICE codes. Merging HEGIS data (more than one observation per FICE code) by FICE code to a FICE-UNITID crosswalk with more than one observation per FICE code represents a “many-to-many” merge. This many-to-many merge would result in duplicate FICE-year observations for each FICE code associated with more than one UNITID. For example, for each year of HEGIS data, there would be two observations for the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Therefore, the FICE-UNITID crosswalk should only contain one UNITID for each FICE code. For a FICE code associated with two UNITIDs, one UNITID will be connected to the FICE code, creating a panel that spans HEGIS and IPEDS years, and the other UNITID will not be connected to a FICE code, implying that the campus did not exist prior to IPEDS. Therefore, we recommend that researchers create a parent-child relationship when more than one UNITID refers to the same FICE code. The UNITID associated with the FICE code in the FICE-UNITID crosswalk should be defined as the parent, and the UNITSIDs not associated with any FICE codes should be defined as children.

  23. 23.

    All organizations eligible for Title IV eligibility must report IPEDS data. Therefore, IPEDS data can identify whether an organization loses Title IV eligibility, but IPEDS data alone cannot identify whether the organization ceased to exist. Furthermore, for multicampus organizations, IPEDS data alone cannot distinguish between a branch campus that closes versus a branch campus that ceases to report data at the child level.

  24. 24.

    http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/deltacostproject/

  25. 25.

    http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/Default.aspx?y=55

  26. 26.

    http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/resources.aspx?y=55

References

  • AICPA. (1974). Audits of colleges and universities. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association for Institutional Research. (2003). AIR Alert # 16: Changes in IPEDS for institutions with multiple campuses AIR Alert. Tallahassee: Association for Institutional Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association for Institutional Research. (2013). Report mapping (IC-Header, 2012–13). Tallahassee: Association for Institutional Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S. G. (2002). Data on higher education in the United States: Are the existing resources adequate? American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1493–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S., Mulligan, K., Rotondi, M. B., & Apkarian, J. (2013). College and Universities 2000 Databases. Available from University of California, Riverside. http://www.higher-ed2000.ucr.edu/databases.html

  • Cellini, S. R., & Goldin, C. D. (2012). Does federal student aid raise tuition? New evidence on for-profit colleges. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R. (2012). Institutional characteristics and college student dropout risks: A multilevel event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 53(5), 487–505. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9241-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheslock, J. J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 208–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheslock, J. J., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2011). Multilevel analysis in higher education 1920 research: A multidisciplinary approach. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 26, 85–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. P. (1990). Error analysis of estimates for less-than-two-year postsecondary education institutions. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Research Service. (2007). Institutional eligibility for participation in Title IV student aid programs under the Higher Education Act: Background and reauthorization issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). The fundamentals of accreditation: What do you need to know? Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curs, B. R., & Jaquette, O. (2013, April). Does non-resident enrollment growth lead to declines in socioeconomic and racial diversity? Paper presented at the 2013 American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delta Cost Project. (2011). Delta Cost Project documentation of IPEDS database and related products. Washington, DC: Delta Cost Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delta Cost Project. (n.d.). Listing of “grouped” institutions in the Delta Cost Project IPEDS database. Washington, DC: Delta Cost Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, D. J., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector: Nimble critters or agile predators? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. R. (2010). Changes in institutional aid, 1992–2003: The evolving role of merit aid. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 789–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2004). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? (NBER Working Paper 10695). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., Zhang, L., & Levin, J. M. (2006). Crafting a class: The trade-off between merit scholarships and enrolling lower-income students. Review of Higher Education, 29(2), 195–211. doi:10.1353/rhe.2005.0082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, C. (2011). The history and origins of survey items for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, N. W. (2013). Community colleges and labor market conditions: How does enrollment demand change relative to local unemployment rates. Research in Higher Education, Advance Online Publication, 54(7), 765–780. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9294-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff, R. A., Chandler, M. O., & NCES. (1970). A taxonomy of instructional programs in higher education. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt, J. A., & Dickmeyer, N. (1980). An analysis of the utility of HEGIS finance data in conducting institutional and higher education sector comparisons. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaquette, O. (2011). In pursuit of revenue and prestige: The adoption and production of master’s degrees by U.S. colleges and universities. Ph.D. dissertation, Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaquette, O. (2013a). Why do colleges become universities? Mission drift and the enrollment economy. Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 514–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaquette, O. (2013b). In pursuit of revenue and prestige: the production of master’s degrees by U.S. universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaquette, O., & Curs, B. R. (2013, March). The effect of state appropriations on non-resident enrollments at public universities. Paper presented at the 2013 Association for Education Finance and Policy, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 812–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legal Information Institute. (2013). 34 CFR 668.14 – Program participation agreement. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/668.14

  • Long, B. T. (2004). How do financial aid policies affect colleges? The institutional impact of the Georgia HOPE scholarship. Journal of Human Resources, 39(4), 1045–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malitz, G. S. (1981). A classification of instructional programs (CIP). Washington, DC: Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malitz, G. S. (1987). A classification of instructional programs (CIP). Washington, DC: Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middaugh, M. F., Graham, R., Shahid, A., Carroll, C. D., & NCES. (2003). A study of higher education instructional expenditures the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. L., Hunt, S. E., & Carpenter, J. M. (1991). Classification of instructional programs (1990th ed.). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morphew, C. C. (2002). “A rose by any other name”: Which colleges became universities. Review 1984 of Higher Education, 25(2), 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2013). WebCASPAR integrated science and engineering resources data system. Retrieved June, 2013. https://webcaspar.nsf.gov

  • Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Penn State campuses. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.psu.edu/academics/campuses

  • Rojas, F. (2006). Social movement tactics, organizational change and the spread of African-American studies. Social Forces, 84(4), 2147–2166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, P. (2011). Suggestions for improvements to the collection and dissemination of federal financial aid data. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

    Google Scholar 

  • The University of Texas System. (2013). The University of Texas System. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.utsystem.edu/

  • Toutkoushian, R. K., & Hillman, N. W. (2012). The impact of state appropriations and grants on 1999 access to higher education and outmigration. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 51–90. doi:10.1353/rhe.2012.0063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. E., & Bowen, W. G. (1990). The flight from the arts and sciences: Trends in degrees conferred. Science, 250(4980), 517–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): An improved system. Washington, DC: NCES.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). IPEDS finance data comparisons under the 1997 financial accounting standards for private, not-for-profit institutes: A concept paper. Washington, DC: NCES.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Classification of instructional programs: 2000 edition. Washington, DC: NCES.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System data quality study. Washington, DC: NCES.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Changes to race/ethnicity reporting to ipeds. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/news_room/ana_Changes_to_10_25_2007_169.asp

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). IPEDS Finance DATA FASB and GASB: What’s the difference? Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/factsheets/fct_ipeds_finance_03072007_1.asp

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Introduction to the classification of instructional programs: 2010 edition (CIP-2010). Washington, DC: NCES.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Updated finance reporting solutions for jointly audited institutions. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/factsheets/fct_new_finance_03072007_2.asp

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013a). About IPEDS. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/about/

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013b). IPEDS glossary. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013c). IPEDS survey components and data collection cycle. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/resource/survey_components.asp

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013d). Report and recommendations from IPEDS Technical Review Panel #1: Data reporting structures and clustering. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/news_room/trp_Technical_Review_03132003_28.asp

  • U.S. Dept. of Education, & NCES. (1976). Higher education opening fall enrollment, 1976. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES.

    Google Scholar 

  • UA South. (2013). About UA South. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://uas.arizona.edu/about-ua-south

  • University of California. (2013). University of California. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/

  • University of Wisconsin System. (2013). Campuses. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.wisconsin.edu/campuses/

  • Webber, D. A., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (2010). Do expenditures other than instructional expenditures affect graduation and persistence rates in American higher education? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 947–958. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, G. C. (2003). Differentiation among US colleges and universities. Review of Industrial Organization, 24, 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2010). The use of panel data models in higher education policy studies. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 307–349). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. A., & Ness, E. C. (2010). Does state merit-based aid stem brain drain? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 143–165. doi:10.3102/0162373709359683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

 We thank Stephen DesJardins and Stephen Porter for their encouragement and valuable comments. Nicholas Hillman and Bradley Curs also provided guidance about data sources and statistical modeling. We thank Karina Salazar, Amanda Parkman, and Andrew Blatter for helpful editing. We would also like to thank current and former IPEDS staff—in particular Tara Lawley, Jessica Shedd, Allison Bell, Samuel Barbett, Colleen Lenihan, and Craig Bowen—answering the dozens of emails and phone calls that helped us understand the principles and intricacies of the IPEDS data. Thanks also to the Association of Institutional Research for providing dissertation funding to create the original HEGIS/IPEDS panel dataset this chapter is based on and to the Spencer Foundation for providing funding to improve this panel dataset.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Policy Studies & Practice, College of Education, University of Arizona, 1430 E. Second Street, Room 327A, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Ozan Jaquette Ph.D.

  2. Educational Policy Studies & Practice, College of Education, University of Arizona, 1430 E. Second Street, Room 3271B, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Edna E. Parra

Authors
  1. Ozan Jaquette Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edna E. Parra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ozan Jaquette Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Policy and Leadership Studies, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

    Michael B. Paulsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jaquette, O., Parra, E.E. (2014). Using IPEDS for Panel Analyses: Core Concepts, Data Challenges, and Empirical Applications. In: Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 29. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation