Accurate and reliable reporting for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) has always mattered. Helping institutions produce high-quality data is central to AIR’s work.

For more than two decades, AIR has delivered IPEDS training designed to improve data quality and use. Throughout that time, AIR has also brought the perspectives of data practitioners to discussions about IPEDS redesigns, reporting requirements, and proposed collection changes.

Recent federal actions have renewed the focus on the quality of IPEDS data and the processes institutions use to produce, review, and validate those data. The White House, the U.S. Department of Education, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) are all placing greater emphasis on data accuracy, verification, and documentation.

For institutions, it is essential to look closely at not only whether reported data are accurate, but also whether the processes behind those data are well documented, reproducible, and understood across the institution.

Federal Attention to IPEDS Accuracy

In August 2025, President Donald Trump issued the presidential memorandum Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions. Although the memorandum focused primarily on admissions transparency, it also included broader directives related to IPEDS.

Among them, the Secretary of Education was directed to “increase accuracy checks of submitted data to ensure the validity of IPEDS data” and to take remedial action, consistent with applicable law, when institutions fail to submit required data or submit incomplete or inaccurate information.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon subsequently directed NCES to implement the memorandum. A Department announcement described a “rigorous audit process” for the newly collected admissions data, intended to improve the accuracy and consistency of institutional reporting.

These actions do not tell us precisely what future validation or oversight will look like. They do, however, make clear that the federal government is placing greater emphasis on the reliability of IPEDS data and on the processes used to support them.

Data Quality Requires More than the Right Number

The OIG has also been examining IPEDS data quality.

In an April 2025 inspection of NUC University, OIG reviewed whether data reported for the 2020–21 reporting period could be verified. Its findings were not limited to whether individual data points were correct. OIG also examined NUC’s institutional procedures for collecting, consolidating, assessing, and reporting information to IPEDS.

A correct figure is only part of the picture. The processes behind that number also matter: where it came from, which definitions and source systems were used, how it was calculated and reviewed, and whether it can be reproduced.

OIG’s August 2026 review of NCES internal controls over IPEDS further reinforced that point. OIG summarized inspections at five institutions, identified significant reporting errors at three, and recommended stronger monitoring of NCES controls intended to support IPEDS data quality.

Data quality and reporting are also identified among OIG’s major management challenges for the Department in fiscal year 2026.

Data Quality Is a Shared Responsibility

AIR’s recent work on IPEDS data quality reinforces an important point: accurate federal reporting depends on more than what happens inside an Institutional Research and Effectiveness office.

In preparation for IPEDS Technical Review Panel #72, AIR gathered input from nearly 400 practitioners about the sources of data quality challenges and the resources and support that could improve reporting. The resulting report, Voices from the Field: Institutional Capacity and Support Needs for High-Quality IPEDS Submissions, highlights the importance of strong institutional processes while also identifying factors outside an institution’s direct control.

Practitioners emphasized the value of clear definitions and instructions, sufficient lead time, stable technical specifications, usable import and validation processes, accessible training and support, and meaningful opportunities to understand and prepare for changes before implementation.

Institutions have an obligation to report carefully and accurately. Federal agencies have an important role in designing collections, instructions, systems, timelines, and quality-control processes that make accurate reporting possible.

Shared responsibility was a central theme in AIR’s comments on TRP #72, and it continues to shape our federal advocacy around IPEDS and other reporting requirements.

What This Means for Institutions

Federal officials are signaling greater expectations for the accuracy, documentation, and reproducibility of reported data. Although the form of enhanced accuracy checks remains uncertain, institutions should be prepared to explain and reproduce what they report.

These developments warrant a close look at whether institutions can:

• Clearly document the sources, definitions, calculations, and methodologies used in IPEDS reporting.
• Reproduce previously reported figures from underlying institutional data.
• Explain methodological decisions and how IPEDS definitions were interpreted and applied.
• Maintain appropriate review and validation procedures before data are submitted.
• Document corrections, changes in methodology, and significant year-to-year variations.
• Avoid having critical reporting knowledge reside with only one individual.

These are vital practices regardless of the federal oversight environment. They are the foundation of continuity, transparency, and confidence in institutional data.

A Complex Federal Reporting Environment

IPEDS is not the only federal collection that requires clear processes and coordination across institutional offices to produce high-quality data. Institutions are managing an increasingly complex federal reporting environment that includes the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS), Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (FVT/GE), the Student Tuition and Transparency System (STATS), and other new or changing federal data collections.

These requirements often draw on information held in multiple offices and systems, making institutional capacity, coordination, documentation, and clear federal guidance especially important.

AIR has heard repeatedly from practitioners that reporting challenges are rarely caused by a single issue. Staffing, institutional coordination, data availability, changing specifications, unclear instructions, and compressed implementation timelines can all affect the ability of institutions to produce consistent and accurate data.

As federal policymakers rely more heavily on institutional data for transparency, accountability, and public information, the systems used to collect those data must support accuracy from the beginning.

AIR’s Role

AIR brings practitioner experience into federal policy conversations so that decisions about reporting requirements and quality-control processes are informed by how the work is done at colleges and universities. Through research, public comments, and direct engagement with federal agencies, AIR translates that experience into practical recommendations. Our research and comments related to TRP #72 and AIR's national study with the Urban Institute on the initial ACTS reporting cycle are recent examples. Both documented practitioners’ experiences and used that evidence to recommend more accurate and workable federal data collections.

AIR also helps institutions strengthen their own practices. We provide free IPEDS training and resources for both new and experienced professionals, along with the IPEDS Knowledge Exchange on AIR Hub, where keyholders, coordinators, and others can ask questions and learn from peers.

For institutions that want more individualized assistance, AIR Data & Decisions® Consulting provides support with reporting processes, data structures, documentation, training, and institutional approaches to data quality.

Across this work, AIR’s goal is to help institutions build the processes, knowledge, and capacity needed to produce federal data that are accurate, useful, and trusted.

Christine M. Keller, Ph.D., is the Executive Director and CEO of the Association for Institutional Research (AIR), a non-profit higher education association that empowers professionals and institutions to use data, information, and analytics to inform better decision making.