Diversity Reporting Trends and Practices in Higher Education

Transcription

1 Diversity Reporting Trends and Practices in Higher Education Prepared for University of Alaska Anchorage September 2012 In the following report, Hanover Research presents national trends and practices in the collection of race/ethnicity data, benchmarking, and longitudinal reporting by colleges and universities, in light of new reporting categories mandated by the U.S. Department of Education. Special attention is paid to institutions with significant American Indian or Alaska Native student populations.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary and Key Findings... 3 INTRODUCTION... 3 KEY FINDINGS... 5 Section I: Trends and Practices in Data Collection, Benchmarking, and Longitudinal Data Reporting... 7 INSTITUTIONAL RACE/ETHNICITY DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING... 7 BENCHMARKING AND LONGITUDINAL DATA REPORTING Different Internal/External Reporting Bridging Methodologies Mapping Methodology ADDRESSING NO RESPONSE Section II: Trends And Practices Among Institutions with Large Native American Populations INSTITUTIONAL TRENDS Fort Lewis College University of Alaska Southeast Southeastern Oklahoma State University Appendix Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS INTRODUCTION In this report, Hanover Research addresses pertinent race/ethnicity data collection and reporting issues brought about by the shift in requirements by the U.S. Department of Education. In 1997 the Office of Management and Budget issued Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, which included new reporting categories.0f1 These new reporting rules, shown in the figure below, are now the standard for federal reporting including to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and 2 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).1F These changes require institutions to ask a two part question regarding ethnicity (Hispanic/non Hispanic) and race (American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White). Changes made to racial and ethnic categories from the previous system to the new (1997) can be seen in the table below.2f 3 Previous and New IPEDS Race and Ethnicity Reporting Categories PREVIOUS REPORTING CATEGORIES Non Resident Alien Race and Ethnicity unknown Black, non Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic White, non Hispanic Source: National Center for Education Statistics NEW (1997) REPORTING CATEGORIES Nonresident Alien Race and Ethnicity unknown Hispanics of any race For non Hispanics only: American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races 1 Changes to Race/Ethnicity Reporting to IPEDS. National Center for Education Statistics Research Analysis Workgroup: Recommendations for the Standard Reporting of Multi Race Data. Maryland Higher Education Commission. July p.6. df 3 Changes to Race/Ethnicity Reporting to IPEDS. Op. cit Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 3

4 Much concern has been voiced over the changes to the collection and reporting rules, most notably regarding how the Two or more races category will obscure differences in 4 race/ethnicity, essential information for certain institutional funding.3f To illustrate this issue with an example provided by the U.S. Department of Education, a respondent could indicate in the first question that he or she is not Hispanic/Latino and then select American Indian or Alaska Native and White for the second question. The institution would then classify this individual as Two or more races for federal reporting purposes.4f5 A similar issue can be found with the Hispanic/Latino category. A respondent could select Hispanic/Latino for the first question and then American Indian or Alaska Native for the second question. The individual would then be classified as Hispanic/Latino under the new requirements. While discussing the potential problems with these classifications in a presentation to a State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) Network Conference, Sapp, Yoakum, and L Orange explain that the number of American Indian or Alaska Native, Black, Asian, and White students reported by institutions would decrease, as more students are recorded under Hispanic/Latino or the broad Two 6 or more races category.5f U.S. Department of Education Race/Ethnicity Response Categories Source: Maryland Higher Education Commission 4 Glenn, D. Scholars Urge Colleges to Retain Data on Race that New Federal Rules Would Blur. The Chronicle of Higher Education. May 29, Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education. Federal Register. October 19, /101907c.html 6 Sapp, M., C. Yoakum, and H.P. L Orange. Race Ethnicity Reporting Changes and Their Impact. State Higher Education Executive Officers 2008 Network Conference. April p PPT 2012 Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 4

5 Topics discussed in this report include trends and practices in data collection, benchmarking, and longitudinal data reporting. This report is divided into two sections: the first section discusses national trends and practices regarding the aforementioned issues, while the second section focuses on trends and practices among institutions with significant American Indian or Alaska Native populations. This information is intended to assist the University of Alaska Anchorage in identifying methods for upholding the integrity of its data collection, benchmarking, and longitudinal tracking of student minority populations. KEY FINDINGS The following key findings were gleaned from our research into diversity reporting trends and practices: There appears to be a common practice nationally and among institutions with large American Indian and Native Alaskan populations to collect additional data on prominent racial and ethnic subcategories in the student body. This information is used for internal reporting and for specific entities at the state level, but can be organized into the broader federally mandated categories. o The California State University application, for example, allows individuals to select specific nationalities, tribes, and/or races in addition to broader race and ethnicity categories that reflect the new federal requirements. In addition to the standard two part ethnicity and race questions as seen in the Census, the CSU application also requires a third follow up question where a single, primary federal race category can be chosen by applicants. o Several of the institutions profiled in this report with large American Indian and Native Alaskan populations gather information on students Native American tribe lineage, as well as the individual s share of Native American ancestry (more than one quarter; less than one quarter). These data are sometimes supplemented with Certificates of Indian Blood (CIB) information provided by students for tuition waivers. Longitudinal data reporting practices using the new race and ethnicity categories vary from institution to institution. While some institutions were found to simply postpone longitudinal reporting until a sufficient number of years of data with the new categories are collected, others map or bridge new data to old data, particularly for the new category of Two or more races. o Mapping and bridging is accomplished using various approaches deterministic and probabilistic methods of race category assignment have been proposed by the Office of Budget and Management, while other institutions have developed trumping or hierarchy rules that determine the primary race to be displayed in cases where two races are selected. Another method of linking old and new race data can be accomplished by matching increases in the new Two or more races category with corresponding decreases in old single race categories Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 5

6 Finally, the University of Florida resurveys students and employees to give them an opportunity to change how their race will be reported under the new system. Protocols to address cases in which there is no response to race/ethnicity questions vary by institution. It appears that many institutions have no protocol in place and report these data as Race and Ethnicity unknown. The University of Alaska Southeast uses a follow up method that electronically prompts students every six months to revisit the incomplete race and ethnicity questions. The University collects race and ethnicity data not only during the applications process but also through online and paper class registrations Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 6

7 9F 10F 1F 12F Hanover Research September 2012 SECTION I: TRENDS AND PRACTICES IN DATA COLLECTION, BENCHMARKING, AND LONGITUDINAL DATA REPORTING In this section, Hanover investigates national trends associated with the changes to federal diversity reporting, especially regarding how the Two or more races category will obscure 7 differences in race/ethnicity.6f Hanover will focus on how higher education institutions, officials, and observers have responded to the changes in the areas of data collection, benchmarking, and longitudinal data reporting. Examples are also provided regarding the issues of students declining to provide an answer during data collection as well as institutions providing their own race categories. INSTITUTIONAL RACE/ETHNICITY DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING Many institutions appear to collect ethnicity/race data in a manner different from the categories set forth by the U.S. Department of Education. This includes relying on an expanded selection of subcategories provided by the institution, which respondents can select from when answering race/ethnicity questions. These expanded categories vary by 8 institution and can be influenced by the relative prevalence of certain minorities.7f Institutions that choose to expand specific categories often do so in a manner that can be easily collapsed into the categories mandated by the U.S. Department of Education. Renn and Lunceford include an example from the California State University (CSU) System in their 2004 article, which has since been updated to reflect the most recent changes, to show how 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 the University System collects and categorizes race and ethnicity data.8f In the case of the California State University System, the collection data for certain Asian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander subcategories are in accordance with California Government code.13f14 However, the CSU System application for admission includes subcategories for all categories of race and ethnicity.14f 15 These subcategories can be 7 Glenn, D. Op. cit. 8 Renn, K., and Lunceford, C. Because the Numbers Matter: Transforming Postsecondary Education Data on Student Race and Ethnicity to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Nation. Educational Policy 18.5 (2004): 765. Online 9 Ibid., Merryfield, M. and Bui, E. Changes in Race and Ethnicity Collection and Reporting Requirements. The California State University Systemwide Human Resources. June 2, p PR pdf 11 Application for Undergraduate Admission The California State University pdf 12 CSU Mentor. Student Life. The California State University, Los Angeles Statistical Reports: CSU Enrollment by Ethnic Group, Fall 2011 Profile. The California State University. Dec 16, /f_eth11toc.shtml 14 Merryfield, M. and Bui, E. Op. cit. p Application for Undergraduate Admission Op. cit Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 7

8 collapsed into broader categories used by the CSU System for internal reporting, allowing for standardized internal longitudinal reporting, and can be further redefined for the mandated categories of the U.S. Department of Education. It is worth noting that CSU s previous 2002 system for data reporting and student applications used race/ethnicity categories that largely overlapped with the race/ethnicity categories used in the recent U.S. Census. Nevertheless, the current CSU undergraduate application remains similar to the Census in that it requires a two part question: first applicants indicate Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, followed by race categories. The previous 2002 CSU ethnicity/race reporting framework and race/ethnicity section of the Census form are provided in the Appendix Figures A.1 and A.2 for reference. Figure 1.1 below summarizes the detailed race and ethnicity fields that are included in CSU s undergraduate application; the ethnicity categories included in the System s internal reporting; and the current IPEDS categories. Figure 1.1: Race and Ethnicity Data Reporting of the California State University System 16 CSU SYSTEM STATISTICAL UNDERGRADUATE APPLICATION FIELDS15F 17 Hispanic or Latino (Subcategories provided: Argentinean, Bolivian, Chilean, Colombian, Costa Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Ecuadorian, Guatemalan, Honduran, Mexican, Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Puerto Rican, Salvadorian, Spaniard, Uruguayan, Venezuelan, Other Central American, Other South American, Other Hispanic or Latino [please specify]) REPORTS16F First Question Applicants indicate if Hispanic or Latino Mexican American, Mexican Other Latino INTEGRATED POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM (IPEDS) REPORTING Hispanic or Latino Second Question Applicants select one or more race categories as applicable, and only one subcategory per race category American Indian or Alaska Native (Subcategories provided: Achomawi/Achumawi, Cahto, Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Chumash, Costanoan/Ohlone, Cupeno, Gabrielino/Tongva, Hupa/Hoopa, Karuk, Kumeyaay, Luiseno, Maidu, Miwok, Mojave, Ohlone, Paiute, Pomo, Quechan, Serrano, Shoshone, Tolowa, Wappo, Washoe, Western Mono, Wintun, Wiyot, Yokuts, Yuki, Yurok, Latin American Indian, Other American Indian Tribes [please specify], Other Alaska Native Tribes [please specify]) American Indian or Alaska Native American Indian or Alaska Native 16 Application for Undergraduate Admission Op. cit. 17 Statistical Reports: CSU Enrollment by Ethnic Group, Fall 2011 Profile. Op. cit Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 8

9 16 CSU SYSTEM STATISTICAL UNDERGRADUATE APPLICATION FIELDS15F 17 Asian (Subcategories provided: Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Burmese, Cambodian, Chinese (except Taiwanese), Filipino, Hmong, Indo Chinese, Indonesian, Iwo Jiman, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Malaysian, Maldivian, Nepalese, Okinawan, Pakistani, Singaporean, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Other Asian [please specify]) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Carolinian, Chuukese, Fijian, Guamanian or Chomorro, I Kiribati, Kosraean, Mariana Islander, Marshallese, Native Hawaiian, Ni Vanuatu, Palauan, Papua New Guinean, Pohnpeian, Saipanese, Samoan, Solomon Islander, Tahitian, Tokealuan, Tongan, Yapese, Other Melanesian, Other Micronesian, Other Polynesian, Other Pacific Islander [please specify]) Black or African American (Subcategories provided: African American, Black, Haitian, Other African/Black [please specify]) White (Subcategories provided: European, Middle Easterner, North African, Other White [please specify]) REPORTS16F Asian American Filipino Pacific Islander African American (non Latino) White (non Latino) INTEGRATED POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM (IPEDS) REPORTING Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American White Two or More Selected Two or More Races Two or More Races Decline to State Unknown Race/Ethnicity Unknown No Response Unknown Race/Ethnicity Unknown Source: The California State University The CSU System also requires applicants to self identify using one of the broader Census/Department of Education categories. The application asks a third, final question regarding ethnicity and race: if the California State University is asked to report only ONE summary race/ethnicity description for you, please choose the ONE category below that you want us to report. 17F18 Applicants can then choose one of seven Census/IPEDS categories, including two or more races, or decline to state. However, according to the Texas Association for Institutional Research, institutions can only use responses to this type of 18 Application for Undergraduate Admission Op. cit Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 9

10 third question for internal purposes, and must use responses from the initial two part 19 questions for IPEDS and other federal reporting.18f The University of Hawai i System also has its own internal institutional classification system for race/ethnicity data. This system is specific to the demographics of the institution, including multiple subcategories for Asian ethnic groups prevalent on the Hawaiian Islands.19F20 Similar to the CSU System, these categories are reported differently within the University of Hawai i System than for the U.S. Department of Education, though the categories are easily collapsible into the federally required categories.20f21 For example, a number of race subcategories such as Chinese and Samoan are used for collection and reporting at the System level but are then collapsed into the federal race categories of Asian and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, respectively. BENCHMARKING AND LONGITUDINAL DATA REPORTING Institutions are also deciding how these changes will affect them when comparing data with ethnicity/race data at other institutions and analyzing trends within the institution. Pomona College in California has expressed concern that comparisons with peers would be difficult as institutions were in the process of transitioning to the new system. More fundamentally, the College stated that these changes introduce a discontinuity in all longitudinal Pomona trends. The new data collection mechanism and the new data categories make it impossible to compare data collected after this transition with data available from earlier reporting periods. 21F 22 As a solution to this incongruence of data, some institutions, including Pomona College, are simply postponing post 2009 longitudinal and peer analysis, until enough years of the new format are compiled and can be meaningfully compared, and peer comparisons will 23 not be presented for unstable transition years. 2F Similarly, in a presentation on race/ethnicity data, Arizona State University s diversity office notes that due to new federal reporting categories current data are not comparable to prior years. As such, the office provides the percentage increase between 2002 and Race/Ethnicity Code Changes: Basic Issues. Texas Association for Institutional Research, Data Advisory Committee, p.8. air.org/assets/pdf/tair%20dac%20race%20background%20paper.pdf 20 Enrollment Table 9: Distribution of Majors, by Ethnicity and Gender. The University of Hawai i System, Institutional Research & Analysis Office &ETHNICITY_GRP=ASIAN&MAJOR_TOGGLE=ALL_MAJORS&COUNT_TYPE=HC&ACADLVL=&drillThruLevel=1&aggl evel=null&reportid=enrt09&campuscontext=null&drillid=null&value=null&exporttype=&drillvalue=null&drillt arget=null 21 University of Hawai i, Changes in Reporting Race and Ethnicity Data for Students. The University of Hawai i System, Institutional Research Office %20Student.pdf 22 Race and Ethnicity Reporting. Pomona College. statistics/race ethnicity reporting.aspx 23 Ibid Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 10

11 for total minority (a figure which includes students of Two or more races ) but lists 24 N/A for the increase in individual race/ethnicity categories.23f Figure 1.2: Arizona State University Diversity Reporting Source: Arizona State University Some institutions are handling the categorization changes initiated by the U.S. Department of Education in a different manner when it comes to their longitudinal data reporting. The following subsections highlight some of these approaches. DIFFERENT INTERNAL/EXTERNAL REPORTING As was shown in the previous section on reporting, the California State University System continues to use the same internal statistical reporting system for race/ethnicity data as it has for a decade.24f25 With this internal statistical reporting system (Figure 1.1) already in place, little to no disruption in longitudinal data reporting occurs within the California State University System. Other institutions are also taking steps to ensure such analysis is enabled. Case Western Reserve University (Ohio) is another institution that reports data in a different manner for internal purposes than it does for federal reporting requirements. The website of the registrar states: 24 Undergraduate and Graduate Minority Enrollment. Arizona State University Statistical Reports: CSU Enrollment by Ethnic Group, Fall 1992 Profile. The California State University. March 9, /F92 Ethnicity TOC.shtml 2012 Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 11

12 internal and other reporting will be different from federal reporting. The university will be able to provide a maximum count for each racial/ethnic group [a] count that includes all individuals who selected a specific category, whether or not they are Hispanic/Latino or multi racial. This will allow us to show the full extent 26 of diversity on campus.25f Similar to Case Western s approach, in a presentation to the Association for Institutional Research (AIR), two officials from the University of New Mexico proposed an alternative internal reporting procedure that would give a fuller picture than the format used to meet federal requirements. Under this proposal, institutions would first report a minimum lower bound for student race/ethnicity categories which essentially mirrors the new federal reporting requirements (i.e., Hispanic or Latino, Two or more races, and the five individual race categories). The institutions would then present a maximum upper bound, similar to Case Western, that would combine any selection of race/ethnicity alone or in combination. 26F27 The University of New Mexico officials illustrated this approach with the tables below. Note that Figure 1.3 provides slightly more detailed reporting categories than are required by the federal guidelines (e.g., separate Hispanic/Latino Only and Hispanic plus One or More Races categories). Figure 1.3: Alternative Reporting Procedure Minimum Lower Bound Counts Non Resident Alien Unknown Race/ Ethnicity U.S. CITIZENS AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS Reported Only One Race/Ethnicity Native American Black/ Hawaiian/ Indian/ Asian African Other Alaska American Pacific Native Islander Source: Association for Institutional Research White Hispanic / Latino Only Hispanic Plus One or More Races Non Hispanic Plus One or More Races Total Figure 1.4: Alternative Reporting Procedure Maximum Upper Bound Counts American Indian/Alaska Native U.S. CITIZENS AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS ANY SELECTION OF RACE/ETHNICITY ALONE OR IN COMBINATION Asian Source: Association for Institutional Research Black/African American Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander White Hispanic/ Latino 26 Frequently Asked Questions Reporting on Race and Ethnicity. Case Western Reserve University Chisholm, M.P. and C.J. Bernhard. Federal Race and Ethnicity Report Regulations. Association for Institutional Research. May 7, Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 12

13 BRIDGING METHODOLOGIES Apart from maintaining two reporting formats (federal and internal), some institutions and agencies have developed bridging methodologies for aligning new and old data. For example, the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction developed a Race/Ethnicity Conversion Matrix with which researchers can take data from students who had selected multiple race categories under the new guidelines and convert them to the single categories 28 used in the old system.27f However, as the Texas Association for Institutional Research points out for institutions in Texas, this bridging is particularly problematic for responses of Two or more races. Instead of being assigned a meaningful category, all of the two or more races responses could be assigned to unknown, but that would result in the loss of information. 28F29 Bridging 30 methodologies to mitigate this loss of data include:29f Reassignment of two or more races data by linking them back to corresponding racial and ethnic categories. Linking old and new race data can be accomplished by matching similar, potentially corresponding changes in data between the new Two or more races category and the old single race categories. For example, if the combined number of students reporting two or more races is comparable to a corresponding combined decrease in the number of students categorized under the two individual race categories of Black/African American and White, students in the two or more races category can be linked back to the previously used Black only and White only categories. Assigning a proportion of the two or more races respondents into one or more of the five single race categories, using deterministic rules or probabilistic methods of assignment. Whole and fractional assignments are two ways of bridging data. For each Two or more races response, a whole number race assignment can be made, or fractional assignments can be made to multiple race categories using probabilities. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget provides guidance on 31 these bridging methodologies in its 2000 implementation guidelines document.30f Creating rules that determine which races will trump others for data recording purposes. For example, in cases where the respondent selects more than one race, Black would supersede all other races; Asian would supersede White; and Hispanic would supersede identities other than Black. These classification rules were 28 Managing an Identity Crisis Forum Guide to Implementing New Federal Race and Ethnicity Categories. National Forum on Education Statistics. October pp Race/Ethnicity Code Changes: Mapping/Bridging and Reporting Data. Texas Association for Institutional Research, Data Advisory Committee p.3. air.org/assets/pdf/tair%20dac%20race%20mapping Bridging.pdf 30 Ibid., Provisional Guidance on the Implementation of the 1997 Standards for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. OMB. P update.pdf 2012 Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 13

14 developed by the Consortium on Financing of Higher Education in order to enable standardized trend reporting among institutions. The Texas State Demographers Office recommended this methodology because it appears to provide values that are the most reasonable relative to population change in the Anglo, Black, and 32 Hispanic groups and within the Other group. 31F The Texas Association for Institutional Research also highlights using all inclusive reporting categories, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as a different way to present data. Using this display method, race distributions could be created for each individual racial group. This duplicative methodology for allocating responses to a single race category is demonstrated below in Figure 1.5. This display would provide data on how many respondents were in the single race categories, and how many were in multiplerace categories. 32F33 The mathematical difference between the bolded rows and italicized rows below would equal the number of respondents in the single race categories. The total entries in this table would be greater than the number of respondents, given that each respondent may be counted in one or more categories. CATEGORY Figure 1.5: All Inclusive (Duplicated Headcount) Data Display White/White + Any Combination White and other races/ethnicity Black/Black + Any Combination Black and other races/ethnicity Asian/Asian + Any Combination Asian and other races/ethnicity Hispanic/Hispanic + Any Combination Hispanic and any race American Indian/American Indian + Any Combination American Indian and other races/ethnicity Source: Texas Association for Institutional Research DESCRIPTION White alone, and any combination of White with Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian Any combination of White with Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian Black alone, and any combination of Black with White, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian Any combination of Black with White, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian Asian alone, and any combination of Asian with White, Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian Any combination of Asian with White, Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian Hispanic alone, and any combination of Hispanic with White, Black Asian, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian Any combination of Hispanic with White, Black Asian, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian American Indian alone, and any combination of American Indian with White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Hawaiian Any combination of American Indian with White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Hawaiian 32 Ibid., Ibid., Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 14

15 A summary table demonstrating how responses of two or more races would be allocated to single race categories using the methodologies described here is provided in the Appendix, Figure A.3.3F34 These methodologies include deterministic whole and fractional assignments as recommended by the OMB; trumping rules for race categories as developed by the Consortium on Financing of Higher Education; and a comparison of the resulting allocations with the categories mandated by federal and state reporting guidelines. MAPPING METHODOLOGY Similar to bridging methodologies, some institutions are choosing to facilitate longitudinal data analysis by mapping the original responses of current students to new reporting categories. According to the Texas Association for Institutional Research, mapping is generally used for placing current students and employees into new categories to show where they would be categorized if they do not re identify. 34F35 At Pomona College, new race and ethnicity categories were introduced and used for entering students in 2009; therefore, the former race categories selected by previously enrolled students were mapped onto the 36 new reporting categories.35f The Race and Ethnicity Code Transition Team at the University of Florida implemented such a mapping system. To accomplish this, current students and employees had their race and ethnicity responses in the new system assigned ( mapped ) based on how they are classified in the existing administrative system. 36F37 However, during a resurvey process, these mapped responses were sometimes altered. During the resurvey process, students and staff were: shown how their existing classification was mapped to the new format. They should be given the option to leave the responses in the new format unchanged, change them, or uncheck the boxes to leave the response blank. Once individuals have answered the questions in the new format, their responses should always take precedence over the old data. In cases where they change their self identification 38 using the new format, the most recent response should take precedence.37f The University of Florida implemented these suggestions in 2009 and began resurveying individual faculty, staff, and students to give them the opportunity to identify their race 39 and ethnicities using new codes. 38F 34 Ibid., Race/Ethnicity Code Changes: Mapping/Bridging and Reporting Data. Op. cit. p Race and Ethnicity Reporting. Pomona College. statistics/race ethnicity reporting.aspx 37 Race and Ethnicity Code Transition Team Report and Recommendations. University of Florida, p Ibid., Fussel, P. V. Federal Changes in Reporting Race and Ethnicity of Faculty, Staff and Students Deadline May 22, The University of Florida, Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 15

16 ADDRESSING NO RESPONSE The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), responsible for compiling the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), provides institutions guidance in the circumstance of no response or an incomplete response for race/ethnicity data. If no response is given for either part of the race/ethnicity question, the NCES states that the response can be reported as race and ethnicity unknown. If a respondent only answers one part of the question, the response can be reported by the information given, whether it is ethnicity (Hispanic) or by any of the race categories selected. However, if a respondent indicates that they are not Hispanic ( no to first question) and does not indicate a race on 40 the second question, the response should be reported as race and ethnicity unknown. 39F If no information whatsoever is given for ethnicity/race, an institution could employ thirdparty identification of race and ethnicity, but only as a last resort. Specifically for postsecondary institutions, self reporting of race and ethnicity by students and staff is considered to be the desired method. 40F41 In their guideline on the new data collection process, the Association for Institutional Research states there is no need to use third party observation to supply race/ethnicity [ ] presenting the data collection form to students/employees is sufficient to ensure that individuals have had an opportunity to respond. 41F 42 While the NCES states third party observation is an acceptable technique for identifying those individuals who have not responded to the race/ethnicity question, some individual institutions are resistant to use such approaches. For example, the California State University System states in a letter regarding non responses in employees under the new reporting system: While the federal government permits employers to visually identify the race or ethnicity of employees who do not self identify, this practice may be offensive to many. Therefore, if individuals decline to provide their race or ethnicity information, campus representatives should not attempt to visually identify their race or ethnicity.42f 43 While most institutions collect racial/ethnic data through admission applications, a survey of 127 institutions found that 2 percent of the institutions collected these data when students register for courses.43f44 This may serve as an additional method of collecting data from students that did not answer the initial application questions. 40 U.S. Department of Education. FAQ Race/Ethnicity Ibid. 42 AIR Race Ethnicity FAQ. Association for Institutional Research. x 43 Margret, M. and Bui, E. Changes in Race and Ethnicity Collection and Reporting Requirements. Op. cit.p Renn, K., and Lunceford, C. Because the Numbers Matter: Transforming Postsecondary Education Data on Student Race and Ethnicity to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Nation. Educational Policy 18.5 (2004): 765. Online Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 16

17 47F Hanover Research September 2012 SECTION II: TRENDS AND PRACTICES AMONG INSTITUTIONS WITH LARGE NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATIONS Hanover will now focus on race and ethnicity reporting trends and practices among institutions with large Native American student populations. Hanover has compiled a list of four year, public or private not for profit, degree granting colleges and universities without Tribal College status.4f45 Figure A.4 in the Appendix presents all institutions meeting these criteria with at least seven percent of their total student population identifying as 46 American Indian or Alaska Native in fall 2010 (excluding UAA).45F While all institutions in this list were investigated for this section, this report presents information for three institutions that offer the most instructive examples regarding how colleges and universities with large Native American student populations handle diversity reporting issues. INSTITUTIONAL TRENDS Similar trends and practices in race/ethnicity data collection and reporting as those observed at the national level were found among the colleges and universities surveyed by Hanover with high percentages of Native Indian and Native Alaskan students. On the whole, institutions appear to use a variety of approaches to gather and report data on race/ethnicity and collect data on subcategories of races. Among this sample of institutions with higher percentages of American Indian or Alaska Natives, institutions tend to gather information and ask specific questions about students descent from American Indian tribes 47, 48 and Native Alaskans.46F Institutions choose to handle the shift in reporting categories and its impact on longitudinal data reporting in manners similar to national trends. Some institutions continue to report using categories similar to the previous federal/ipeds categories, especially for smaller reports such as departmental reports, as done by Northeastern State University. An internal report of students in the social work department displays data for the categories of: Caucasian, Native American, African American, Asian, Hispanic, and Non Resident Alien.48F49 In 45 Note that institutions with Tribal College status were excluded as they may face different issues with regard to race/ethnicity data reporting than other institutions. 46 Note that fall 2011 race/ethnicity data are unavailable at this time. Furthermore, American Indian or Alaska Native is the reporting category used by IPEDS that corresponds to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition. In fall 2010, IPEDS reported that seven percent of the University of Alaska Anchorage student population identified as American Indian or Alaska Native. 47 Application for Admission/Readmission. Southeastern Oklahoma State University Ferguson, T. L. Federal Ethnicity Reporting Change. University of Alaska Southeast. files/2009/04/fed reporting chance.html 49 Department of Social Work. CSWE Self Study Northeastern State University, p Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 17

18 comparison, in a 2012 Self Study, Northeastern State University uses the new 1997 IPEDS 50 categories to classify ethnicity and race breakdowns.49f In longitudinal data reports, some institutions decide to separate their ethnic and racial data in a stark manner, even for internal reporting. When East Central University transitioned from the old to new categories of race/ethnicity reporting, statistics in incongruent categories for prior years were not reported for federal reports.50f51 This is illustrated in the figure below. Figure 2.1: East Central University Reporting for Higher Education Opportunity Act Source: East Central University For internal reporting as well, East Central University first started internal reporting based on the new IPEDS data categories in fall F52 The report only includes a short footnote that the race codes comply with the U.S. Department of Education and do not include 53 additional data about minority students.52f Self Study, Appendix B. Northeastern State University. p Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) Student body Diversity. East Central University. %20ECU%20Student%20Right%20to%20Know_Student%20Body%20Diversity.pdf 52 Comparison of Fall 2009 US and International Student Enrollment. East Central University, Ibid Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 18

19 Another example of this shift in internal reporting is demonstrated in the University of North Carolina at Pembroke s fact book. Reporting seems to have changed from 2008 to 2009, as longitudinal race/ethnicity data had been collected and presented for each year from 1981 until 2008 using the old race categories.53f54 In 2009, the University began to simultaneously present new data based on the new IPEDS categories together with the 55 historical race/ethnicity data for the years 1981 to F Specific institutional examples of race and ethnicity data collection and reporting methods and issues are provided in the following profiles. FORT LEWIS COLLEGE Many institutions report different data internally than is reported to federal entities. One example of this trend is seen at Fort Lewis College, which reports new 1997 IPEDS race/ethnicity categories as well as additional categories in its fact sheet. These additional categories include: Native American Self Reported (includes Native Americans that either reported a second race and/or reported they are Hispanic); Native American/Alaskan Native with Certificate of Indian Blood (CIB); and the total number of Native American 56 Tribes/Alaskan villages represented.5f According to Richard Miller, Executive Director of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment at Fort Lewis College, officials at the college still have information on race/ethnicity on the computer system, regardless of how it is federally reported.56f57 This information is gathered from questions on race and ethnicity collected by the registrar, as well as information found on Certificates of Indian Blood provided by students descended 58 from Native American tribes.57f Miller states that because of state requirements, [the College] waives tuition for those students with a Certificate of Indian Blood. 58F59 These certificates provide Fort Lewis College with additional data on the Native American student population, as percent of students who select Native American will also provide a Certificate of Indian Blood. 59F60 Due to this tuition waiver, Fort Lewis College has collected this supplemental minority data for a long time, enabling longitudinal analysis of students race/ethnicity, especially Native 61 American students, from the past five to ten years.60f 54 FactBook Fall University of North Carolina at Pembroke. 09/pdf/5.enroll.hist.ug.pdf 55 Undergraduate Student Enrollment Summary by Ethnicity. University of North Carolina at Pembroke /pdf/Fall.2009.FactBook.4.pdf 56 Fort Lewis College Fact Sheet. Fort Lewis College, pdf 57 Miller, Richard. Telephone Interview. 5 Sept Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 19

20 Figure 2.2: Fort Lewis College Fact Sheet Source: Fort Lewis College Additionally, Miller notes that since the computer system captures any check the student provides, [Fort Lewis College] can use crosswalks to map student responses. 61F62 These crosswalks show the combination of ethnicities contained in reported groups, such as the two or more races category. This information, Miller notes, can be presented as a supplement to mandatory data. 62F63 In this manner, Fort Lewis College is able to maintain federal consistency, while accounting for those Native American and Alaskan Native minorities that can be lost in federal reporting. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SOUTHEAST The University of Alaska Southeast also recently addressed the changes to the federal race/ethnicity categories in a recent memo to its employees. While the University acknowledged this change would be occurring, it also states that it additionally asks those of Alaska Native ancestry to identify themselves in more detail. [The University does] this in order to complete statistical reporting for state grants, as well as for funding from 64 native corporations in the state that help their students afford a college education. 63F Diana Meador, manager of Institutional Effectiveness at the University of Alaska Southeast confirmed the tracking of Alaska Native student data in a phone interview with Hanover. Since it is difficult to track the race of students who select Two or more races, the University asks additional questions about the lineage of Alaska Native students. These 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ferguson, T. L. Federal Ethnicity Reporting Change. University of Alaska Southeast. files/2009/04/fed reporting chance.html 2012 Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 20

21 finer gradations are tracked for the University s internal use, where they are reported to 65 state entities.64f Meador states that these race/ethnicity data can be collected from students through the processes of admission, registration for classes on the web, and registrations that are processed on paper. 65F66 If the University does not receive an answer for the race/ethnicity questions from students, every six months an automated system will prompt the student to complete these questions.6f67 Meador states that this prompting of students is important for the University, as the incidence of students not responding has increased since given 68 the option of two or more races. 67F Internally, the University of Alaska Statewide System of Higher Education uses the methodology of unduplicated race when internally reporting race/ethnicity data. Unduplicated race allows each student to be counted only once, under a single race category. For example, if a student selects Alaska Native and White, they would be recorded as one Alaska Native student, for a total headcount of one. 68F69 Regardless of this unduplicated race methodology, the University of Alaska Statewide System presents the percent changes for race and ethnicity data longitudinally for all years before and after the race/ethnicity category change, while also highlighting the percent change since the change 70 in categories.69f 65 Meador, Diane. Telephone Interview. 30 Aug Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 UA in Review University of Alaska Statewide System of Higher Education, p in review/uar2011/uar11.pdf 70 Ibid Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 21

22 Figure 2.3: Race and Ethnicity Data, Race by Unduplicated Headcount Source: University of Alaska Statewide System of Higher Education SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY Southeastern Oklahoma State University reports 29 percent of the student population as American Indian or Alaska Native.70F71 The majority of students are American Indian, and this trend is reflected in the additional questions asked in the race/ethnicity section of its application for admission. Although these questions are not presented in the federally mandated two part format, it 72 can be noted that additional data concerning American Indian descent is collected.71f 71 IPEDS, see Appendix, Figure A Application for Admission/Readmission. Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Web. 29 Aug p students/documents/application_1112.pdf 2012 Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 22

23 Figure 2.4: Race and Ethnicity Questions on Admissions Application Source: Southeastern Oklahoma State University Kristie Luke, Registrar at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, indicates that all selections in the race and ethnicity questions by students are captured and retained by Southeastern.72F73 This information, specifically data on American Indian minorities, is then reported to the state regent s office. 73F74 It is at the state level that it is crucial for the institution to report minority data for purposes of funding. Additionally, Luke states that Southeastern retains these categories of separate ethnicity for internal purposes.74f75 As for 76 non responses, they are mainly left as unknown, but very few students don t reply. 75F However, Southeastern Oklahoma State University s internal longitudinal reporting uses race/ethnicity categories that are similar to the new 1997 IPEDS categories, with the exclusion of two or more races. These categories appear to have been used since 1999, according to an enrollment summary report from F77 The most recent enrollment 78 summary report (2012) continues to use the same race categories as the 2003 report.7f However, we found no record of changes to the reporting methodology or a decision to use a bridging or mapping methodology to align data from before and after the federal category changes. 73 Luke, Kristie. Telephone Interview. 30 Aug Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 Preliminary Enrollment Report: Spring Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Office of the Registrar p affairs/documents/2003_spring_preliminary enrollment report.pdf 78 Preliminary Enrollment Report: Spring Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Office of the Registrar p affairs/documents/spring 2012.pdf 2012 Hanover Research Academy Administration Practice 23