How the Education Department can Strengthen IPEDS Data Quality

Over the last year, colleges and universities across the country bore the brunt of a rushed rollout for a new federal data collection. Unlike prior updates to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the new Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) was developed and implemented in a compressed timeline, without robust field engagement, clear and consistent guidance, or adequate time to prepare for reporting changes. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education recently convened a Technical Review Panel (TRP) to discuss strategies and practices for improving IPEDS data quality. As NCES considers how to strengthen the quality, consistency, and usability of IPEDS data, it should take steps to avoid the pitfalls of the ACTS collection.

Last week, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) submitted comments on the TRP’s recommendations for improving IPEDS data quality. In our comments, we highlight two key actions NCES can take to maintain and strengthen IPEDS data quality: improve data definitions and reporting guidance, and strengthen stakeholder engagement and transparency around substantive changes to IPEDS.

IPEDS provides comprehensive and essential data on more than 6,000 colleges and universities through a set of annual surveys. IPEDS data power tools like the College Scorecard, where students and families can compare costs and outcomes before making a financial commitment to a school. Institutions use IPEDS data for benchmarking and peer comparisons, while researchers and policymakers rely on IPEDS data to track trends across higher education and shape federal and state policy.

For decades, IPEDS has earned a reputation as a trusted source of postsecondary data by carefully vetting new survey elements and engaging practitioners, researchers, and data policy experts to ensure definitions and reporting requirements are practical and consistent. But, as we discuss in our comments, maintaining that standard requires clear guidance, meaningful stakeholder engagement, and adequate implementation support.

1. Improve data definitions and reporting guidance

Clear and consistent definitions and reporting guidance are essential to ensuring IPEDS data allows for apples-to-apples comparisons across institutions and over time.

NCES should provide examples demonstrating how IPEDS definitions should be applied in different institutional contexts. Much of the current IPEDS guidance is framed with a traditional four-year college in mind, which can make it difficult to apply to two-year colleges, institutions with rolling admissions, programs with different lengths, or schools that operate on quarter-based calendars. NCES can help by demonstrating how the same definition applies across institutions with different structures and academic models.

Additionally, institutions need a clearer roadmap of what they are expected to report each year. NCES should provide institutions with a comprehensive list of all individual data elements required for each reporting year, identify where each one is used, and where data must match between the surveys. This documentation would help institutions report data consistently and accurately.

2. Strengthen stakeholder engagement and transparency around substantive changes to IPEDS

NCES should engage stakeholders early in the process, offer meaningful opportunities for feedback, and provide sufficient lead time and reporting guidance to institutions before implementing substantive changes to IPEDS.

The implementation challenges associated with the new ACTS data collection underscore why early engagement matters. The guidance institutions needed to understand ACTS data elements was not released until November 13, 2025, and the data collection opened on December 18, 2025, giving institutions only five weeks to prepare. After the data collection opened, institutions encountered unclear and changing guidance, along with technical challenges and long processing times associated with new and untested submission tools.

We recommend that NCES:

• Bring practitioners and other stakeholders to the table early through technical review panels before substantive changes are made to IPEDS. Practitioners’ on-the-ground experience can surface unclear definitions, reporting challenges, and validation issues before a new or modified data collection launches.
• Meaningfully incorporate stakeholder feedback before finalizing changes to IPEDS. The public comment period closed on December 15, and the collection opened just three days later, leaving little time for NCES to review feedback and make changes. Public comments should be an opportunity to shape new or modified data collection.
• Provide institutions with detailed guidance and previews of data submission processes at least one year before launching a new or substantially modified IPEDS collection. This lead time gives institutions time to understand new requirements and definitions, prepare their data systems and reporting processes, coordinate across campus offices, test data extraction processes, conduct quality assurance, and, if needed, begin collecting data elements that they don’t currently collect.

Building these steps into the process can help identify and resolve issues before data collections begin, reducing institutional burden and producing more reliable data.

Students need high-quality, consistent, and comparable information about colleges when choosing a postsecondary pathway that best fits their goals. High-quality IPEDS data also help institutions, policymakers, and researchers evaluate and design policies to best support students’ access, affordability, and success in higher education.

Read IHEP’s full comment here.