Attachment A
College Cost Study Statement of Work

I. Introduction

I.A. Purpose of Study

The United States Department of Education has a requirement for the College Cost Study. The first phase will be a Feasibility Study. The purpose of the first phase is to assess the possibility of formulating a model, collecting data, and undertaking the statistical analysis to address the questions Congress has requested. If the results of the first phase suggest that it is in the Government’s interest to conduct the second phase, then a much larger scale data collection will be undertaken in the optional second phase of the study. The optional second phase of the study will involve a Full-Scale Data Collection effort. The method of data collection will be a computer assisted institutional data collection protocol (IDCP) that will collect data primarily found in the administrative records of the sampled institutions, augmented by interviews with institutional personnel. This study will culminate in a Congressionally mandated report to be delivered to Congress by September 30, 2002. In addition documented data files will be produced.

The work will be monitored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

I.B. Enabling Legislation

As part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Congress authorized in Part C—Cost of Higher Education, Section 131c, a study:

"(1) In general.-- The Commissioner of Education Statistics shall conduct a national study

of expenditures at institutions of higher education. Such study shall include

information with respect to—

The change in tuition and fees compared with the consumer price index and other appropriate measures of inflation;
    1. Faculty salaries and benefits;
    2. Administrative salaries, benefits and expenses;
    3. Academic support services,
    4. Research;
    5. Operations and maintenance; and
    6. Institutional expenditures for construction and technology and the potential cost of replacing instructional buildings and equipment.

(2) Evaluation.--The study shall include an evaluation of—

A. Changes over time in the expenditures identified in paragraph (1);

B. The relationship of the expenditures identified in paragraph (1) to college costs; and

C. The extent to which increases in institutional financial aid and tuition discounting practices affect tuition increases, including the demographics of students receiving such discounts, the extent to which financial aid is provided to students with limited need in order to attract a student to a particular institution, and the extent to which Federal financial aid, including loan aid, has been used to offset the costs of such practices.

(3) Final report.--The Commissioner of Education Statistics shall submit a report regarding the

findings of the study required by paragraph (1) to the appropriate committees of Congress not later than September 30, 2002.

 

I.C. Background of Study

In the last 13 years Congress has mandated three studies of the relationship between college costs and prices. In 1986, the Secretary of Education was charged with describing price increases, determining their causes and identifying procedures to minimize increases. The second mandate, which occurred in 1997, set up the Higher Education Cost Commission and charged it to undertake a comprehensive review of college costs and prices. The latest Congressional mandate was included in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244).

The 1998 Congressional mandate relied substantially on the Commission's findings. These findings include the following points:

1. There is a need for a common set of well-defined terms to use in a discussion of prices and costs.

2. The current national data are insufficient to provide clear information on trends in college costs and prices to help identify specific factors driving cost and price increases.

3. Institutions should become more straightforward in describing where they get their money and how they spend it.

4. The U.S. Department of Education (should) collect and make available for analysis not only annual tuition and net price data but also information on the relationship between tuition and instructional expenditures.

5. The IPEDS data collection system should be modified to allow for collection and reporting of information that calculates costs, prices, and subsidies the way the Commission has approached them. The redesigned survey (the IPEDS Finance survey) should include:

· Estimates of direct instructional costs by level of instruction;

· Capital expenditures;

· The replacement value of capital assets;

· Improved data on faculty compensation and workload, and

· Factors related to administrative efficiency.

I.D. The Use of IPEDS Finance Data

A variety of data sources could provide data for this study. The web collection of data on tuition and fees and student financial aid may be used as one data source. The use of NPSAS (National Postsecondary Student Aid Study) data collection for similar data may be used as an additional source. Finally, the data collected by IPEDS finance could be a major third source of data for this study. There are a number of issues raised by the use of IPEDS finance data that the Congressional Commission raised. These issues remain a concern for this study. They are as follows:

  1. Different types of institutions use different accounting models today so the data provided under the different accounting models will measure the same concept differently.
  2. The data reported by institutions on their IPEDS finance form are not consistent with the data they report in their General Purpose Financial Statements.
  3. Different institutions include different revenues and expenses in what they report to IPEDS in the same revenue and expense categories. For example, some institutions included depreciation in reporting instructional expenditures others did not. Comparing instructional expenditures across institutions was therefore made more difficult.
  4. Congress has requested that NCES collect information on expenditures that IPEDS does not currently collect. This includes: expenditures for construction, technology, and the potential cost of replacing instructional building and equipment.
  5. In addition, the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) is in the process of adopting new methods of classifying revenues and expenses. To the extent that the proposed NACUBO reclassifications will be widely adopted in the future, it makes sense to have this study conducted with that framework in mind.

Conceptual framework.- The College Cost Study aims to discern, from a national sample of postsecondary institutions, the relation between the costs of education to institutions and the prices (including subsidies such as financial aid) paid for that education by students.

On the cost side, the study considers all the elements that contribute to capitalization and operation of the institution, collecting financial and other data in whatever way the institution keeps them and rendering the information into a common framework.

On the price side, the study assigns prices to all the elements that contribute to a student’s quality of life while attending a college or university, and also considers the extent to which subsidies modify these prices. Although deriving a common framework is not as much of an issue, the need to define a typical student (a full-time undergraduate) is an issue that impacts the study significantly.

For both elements, the feasibility study goal is to determine if data can be collected for three academic years in the past decade to permit an examination of the relationship between changes in costs and tuition and fees. (If such data are generally not available then data from the three most recent years, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-2000, will be used) and from this examination infer trends over time.

Part of a study of the trends in postsecondary education expenses involves the collection of data on the quantities, qualities, and prices of inputs to the higher education process. Data on the quantities and prices of human inputs are generally available and represent a large proportion of total postsecondary expenses. Data on the quantities, quality, and prices of non-human inputs are not generally obtainable from institutions' general ledger or journal of accounts. Obtaining information on non-labor prices, quantities purchased, and quality is one of the present study's challenges.

As part of the overall redesign of IPEDS, the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC) established a working group on the IPEDS Finance Survey. In addition to overall comments and recommendations that the group made concerning the IPEDS Finance Survey, the working group responded to two congressional requests: (1) concerning the collection of data on the prices of attendance at colleges and universities; and (2) concerning the conduct of the College Cost Study. The NPEC IPEDS Finance working group was divided into three subgroups. Each group was charged with articulating problems associated with different aspects of the Congressional mandate. One group was charged with the measurement of items a-f, another with item g and a, third with the evaluation section of the study. The results of each group’s work can be found in Appendix B of the RFP.

I.E. Study Methodology

This NCES procurement differs from most other NCES procurements in that the primary purpose of this procurement is to collect data to address a single major Congressional question: To what extent are the observed increases in tuition and fees over the past two decades related to increases in institutional expenses? Congress addressed this question to NCES because the Cost Commission found that the existing data were insufficient to address the question and additional data must be collected to properly address the question. The findings of this study may impact the nature of the IPEDS finance data collection in the future.

This study shall undertake the following specific methodological steps:

    1. refine the articulation of the Congressional issues as presented in the proposal;
    2. summarizing the literature relevant to the Congressional issues;
    3. refine the model(s) proposed in his/her proposal and, if necessary, propose the development of additional or alternative models;
    4. identify variables in each model for which data need to be collected;
    5. define each variable and how it should be measured;
    6. develop items to be used by the IDCP in the data collection process;
    7. describe the statistical processes to be used to provide unbiased, efficient, consistent estimates of the policy relevant parameters.
    8. estimate the values of the parameters and their standard errors in the reduced-form models using the appropriate statistical;
    9. make appropriate statistical comparisons among reduced-form parameter estimates to address Congressional issues; and
    10. State the assumptions upon which the conclusions rest.

 

Since the fundamental question for this study is the question of what factors are associated with the increase in tuition and fees in recent years, the question focuses on the factors that determine the "price" of postsecondary education. Hence, the methodology for this study that ought to receive serious consideration is economic methodology. The economic methodology frequently involves a set of simultaneous equations with one or more equations being:

1. Behavioral equations;

2. Equilibrium equations; and

3. Definitional equations (accounting identities).

Frequently it is the magnitude of the estimates of the parameters of these equations, especially the parameters of the behavioral equations, that are used to address policy questions. While it is recognized that this general approach to the study is not the only approach that could be used, it should be given serious consideration.

 

I.F. Quality Control

NCES is firmly committed to determining how well each project meets the project goals, the quality of data collected, and implications for future projects. Project quality control should be integrated into every phase of the project. For instance, potential problems should be identified early so that possible solutions are tested as part of the initial data collection. Non-response analyses should be conducted as part of the final weighting process, and survey methodology and sample design effects should be presented for use by all data users. Thus, in this as in other Center projects, statistical quality control shall be incorporated into each stage as appropriate.

 

I.G. Optional Phase II Data Collection

 

The product of phase I, shall be a report which shall discuss the problems that may occur in undertaking a full-scale data collection to address the Congressional mandate. Based on the findings of the report from the initial phase, TRP input, and the availability of funds, NCES will recommend to Congress whether or not to undertake the second phase of the study.

This procurement consists of two phases: phase I is a feasibility study and phase II is an optional full scale data collection. The reason for this structure is that:

    1. It is not clear to NCES:
    1. what problems will arise in addressing the Congressional issues or questions;
    2. what models should be use,
    3. what data should be collected,
    4. where these data will be found, if at all, among an institution’s records,
    5. whether the data can be collected and the model variables measured in a consistent fashion, and

f. what are the best type of statistical analyses to conduct in answering the Congressional questions with the data collected.

 

(2) NCES is not certain of the availability of funds to carry out the second phase of the procurement.

I.H. NCES Standards

All work conducted under this contract must at minimum meet the standards and guidelines set forth in the publication Standards and Policies, June 1992 (NCES 92-021) and as amended by standards implemented since that time. Copy of this publications are available on request from Dr. Marilyn McMillen at (202) 219-1781, or by mail: National Center for Education Statistics, 555 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington DC 20208-5654. In addition, all final reports for major products must at minimum meet the standards and guidelines in the OERI Publication Guide October, 1990. Copy of this publication is available on request from Cynthia Dorfman at (202) 219-1892.

 

  1. Scope of Work

Independently and not as an agent of the United States Government, the Contractor shall provide all personnel, materials, services, and facilities necessary for the project and perform the tasks as described below.

The College Cost Study shall be an incrementally funded 36 month contract consisting of two phases, referred to as the Feasibility Study, and an optional phase, the Full-Scale Data Collection.

The first phase shall have four major components. The first component shall encompass all initial management and review tasks, including overall phase I quality control. This component shall encompass the entire period of phase I. The second component shall involve the continuing development of the models and the identification of data elements proposed in the proposal. The third component shall involve the conduct and reporting of data collection from data element development through Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance, and data collection. The fourth component shall involve initial data collection reporting, and submission of an outline, drafts, and a final of a feasibility report.

Pending on the results of the phase I study and the availability of funds, the Government will decide whether or not to exercise the second phase option. The second phase shall also consist of four components. The first component shall encompass the initial management and review tasks, including overall phase quality control for the optional phase. This component shall encompass the entire period of that phase. The second component shall involve the refinement of the models and data elements developed in phase I. The third component shall involve the conduct of the full-scale data collection and shall include refined data collection procedures based on the analysis of the feasibility study results, data file development, and methodology reporting. The fourth component shall be comprised of derivation of sample weights, creation of derived variables, and the preparation of a Congressional report. The following tasks are among those needed to adequately complete the College Cost Study. While this list is not exhaustive, when coupled with the detailed specifications for the deliverables, it should serve to illuminate the complexity of the overall study and provide guidance in its conduct.

 

 

 

PHASE I: FEASIBILITY STUDY

 

There are many unknowns associated with this study. There is no well-accepted model or model(s) for use in describing the relationship between costs and price in postsecondary education. Hence, data for such models have yet to be specified and no attempt has therefore occurred to collect such data. Prior to the data collection for a large-scale study, a number of questions must be raised and answered. Answers to the following questions and others to be specified represent the goals of the feasibility study:

1. What models seem most promising in addressing the Congressional mandate?

    1. What variables must be collected in order to estimate the parameters of these models?
    2. Can all the variables be measured in the manner consistent with the model?
    3. What are the different sources from which the data must be collected and do these sources vary substantially among institutions?
    4. What data must be collected at the institutional level and what at the student level?
    5. How will student level data be integrated with institutional level data? How will data on the tuition and fees charged each student be integrated with tuition and fee revenues reported by the institution, especially if different periods of time are taken into consideration?
    6. If the model developed to answer the Congressional questions requires economic change data instead of financial flows data, how must data collected from public institutions be used so that estimates using that data will not be biased?
    7. How will technology be measured?
    8. What production function will be used to relate costs of production to the supply of educational services and the prices for those services?
    9. How will equilibrium be depicted for public institutions and how will it differ from that depicted for private institutions?
    10. What three years are the best years to collect data, given the availability of data and its quality as well as the need to use data from a time period long enough to capture important changes in tuition and fee prices?

These and many other questions must be addressed prior to making a decision to undertake the full-scale data collection effort of phase II.

 

Task 1. Management

The contractor shall manage the collection of data for PHASE I of the College Cost Study in an efficient manner that fosters communications with contractor staff, and the NCES Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR).

 

Subtask 1.1 Post Award Conference

Within the first week after contract award, the contractor's project director and other key project staff as identified in the proposal shall hold a meeting with the NCES COTR, other appropriate NCES staff, and the government’s contracting officer and specialist for the contract. The purpose of this meeting is to review the contract tasks, to identify potential problems and possible solutions, and to discuss areas of concern related to the proposed project staffing plan and other management requirements. The primary purpose of this meeting is to refine the management, staffing, and scheduling plans. These refinements are not to alter the specifications of the contract, but to provide management information for use by both the contractor and the government in monitoring the work to be performed. This conference is also intended to help the contractor to make use of the experience and materials that NCES staff has gained over the years.

Deliverables: Minutes of Post Award Conference in Washington, D.C. lasting 2-6 hours (specification of this deliverable is in section III.1)

 

Subtask 1.2 Schedules

Due to the variation among institutions in the data that they retain, where the data are retained, and the form in which the data retained, the contractor shall develop and maintain a detailed schedule for all activities of the project. The schedule shall be updated monthly.

Deliverables: Monthly Schedules (III.2)

 

 

 

Subtask 1.3 Technical Review Panel

To obtain peer review of project plans and products, and to foster communication with potential users of the data, the contractor shall establish a Technical Review Panel (TRP) of 12 consultants and conduct 2 meetings in phase I. The first meeting in phase I will give the TRP the opportunity to review and comment on:

    1. The articulation of the Congressional issues;
    2. the proposed models to address these issues;
    3. proposed data elements;
    4. the proposed measurement of the data elements; and.
    5. The proposed statistical analysis to address the issues.

The second meeting will be to review the results of the feasibility study, to comment on its results, and discuss exercising the option to undertake the full-scale data collection.

The 1½ to 2-day meetings shall be held in Washington, DC metropolitan area. The contractor shall prepare packets, ship packets to TRP members, prepare and provide meeting materials, and prepare minutes of TRP meetings. The TRP shall work with the contractor to improve plans, products, and user-friendliness; however, the TRP does NOT report to or advise NCES.

Deliverables: List of potential TRP panelists (III.3)

Pre-meeting information packets (III.4)

Meeting agendas (III.5)

Meeting materials (III.6)

Meeting minutes (III.7)

 

Subtask 1.4 Monthly Reports

The contractor shall report monthly on the progress made in accomplishing the project tasks and subtasks, the consumption of funds on a task by task and subtask basis, expected funds needed to complete each task and subtask, problems encountered, possible solutions to problems, and plans for the next three months.

Deliverables: Monthly Reports (III.8)

 

Subtask 1.5 Integrated Monitoring System (IMS)

The contractor shall develop and maintain an Integrated Monitoring System (IMS) to foster communications with staff, the NCES COTR, and the government contracting officer and specialist. The contractor shall design the IMS to routinely produce, organize and store information about the project and provide access to this information for the NCES COTR. All written documents that are deliverables of this contract, except as noted, shall be made available over the IMS and shall not be considered delivered until they are placed on the IMS.

Deliverables: Document Archive (III.9)

Institutional Data Collection Protocol Interface (III.10)

Production Reports (III.11)

Confidentiality Reports (III.12)

Quality Control Reports (III.13)

Electronic Code books and Data Analysis System (III.14)

 

Task 2. Model Development and Item Specification

In this task the contractor shall submit a memo to NCES describing the plans the contractor has for the development and refinement of additional models and variable specifications. NCES will review and comment on this plan. Based on NCES comments the contractor shall submit a report that will be the product of the plan. The report shall be reviewed by the TRP and revised to respond to their comments and be included in the OMB package.

Subtask 2.1 Identification of Models, variables, and items selected for additional development

The contractor shall submit a memo to NCES identifying those models that they plan to continue to develop and whose variables they wish to continue work on identifying and specifying. The memo must demonstrate the direct link between a policy issue and the parameter estimates of a model as well as the link between the data collection and the model. NCES will review and comment on this memo. Finally, the memo shall contain a brief review of the literature associated with the Congressional issues to be addressed.

Deliverables: Memo on plans for model development and variable and item specification. (III.14)

 

Subtask 2.2 Report on model development and variable and item specification.

The contractor shall submit a report describing the models proposed to be used in the analysis and the variables to be collected and parameters to be estimated to address the research issues. The product of this task shall provide input to the OMB clearance package. The following steps shall be undertaken in the report:

    1. refine the articulation of the Congressional issues as presented in the proposal;
    2. summarizing the literature relevant to the Congressional issues;
    3. refine the model(s) proposed in his/her proposal and, if necessary, propose the development of additional or alternative models;
    4. identify variables in each model for which data need to be collected;
    5. define each variable and how it should be measured;
    6. develop items to be used by the IDCP in the data collection process;
    7. describe the statistical processes to be used to provide unbiased, efficient, consistent estimates of the policy relevant parameters.
    8. estimate the values of the parameters and their standard errors in the reduced-form models using the appropriate statistical;
    9. make appropriate statistical comparisons among reduced-form parameter estimates to address Congressional issues; and
    10. State the assumptions upon which the conclusions rest.

 

Deliverables: Report on models, the variable and item specifications and statistical techniques to be used. (III.15)

 

 

Task 3. Feasibility Study Data Collection (1DC)

The contractor shall develop all systems for the feasibility study data collection, prepare materials for IMCD/OMB forms clearance, prepare training materials and train staff in the methods of data collection. The contractor shall collect data for three fiscal years during the decade of the 90’s and report on the quality of the data collection systems.

Subtask 3.1 Sample Definition and Initial Contact

The contractor shall receive from NCES a sample of 750 institutions to participate in the feasibility and full-scale studies. For the feasibility study a subsample of approximately 150 of these institutions shall be selected by NCES to be visited by the contractor and the remaining roughly 600 institutions shall be contacted but not visited. The 150 institutions to be visited by the contractor and shall consist of approximately 50 public 2-year schools, 50 4-year public schools and 50 4-year private, not-for-profit schools. The 4-year schools shall be ordered by Carnegie classification (Research I and II, Doctoral I and II, Comprehensive I and II, and Liberal Arts I and II). Specialized institutions shall be excluded from the study sample as well as schools with a parent-child relationship. Within each group, institutions shall be sampled systematically by size of expenditures/expenses. The sample shall consist of institutions that are participating in the NPSAS sample, in order to take advantage of NPSAS’ collection of student financial data.

During or upon completion of the visits to the 150 institutions the contractor will have acquired a sense of where institutions keep data for this study as part of their administrative records. The contractor shall then contact the remaining 600 of the 750 institutions in the overall sample and ask that copies of these administrative records be sent to the contractor. These records shall be examined to determine if the information needed for this study can be found on these records or if they are located

elsewhere. Should NCES decide to undertake phase II, the contractor will have a better sense of the availability of data from the remaining 600 institutions. The onsite visits in phase II at the remaining 600 institutions will be better informed and more efficiently conducted based on what was learned from the collection of administrative records from these 600 institutions.

NCES will deliver the sample of institutions to the contractor within thirty [30] days of the start of the contract.

The contractor shall contact the CEO of each selected institution and schedule the institution’s participation in the study. The contractor shall schedule onsite visits for April – May 2000. Information on contacts and scheduling will be placed in the IMS as such information becomes available.

Deliverable: Scheduling plans for onsite visits (III.16)

 

Subtask 3.2 Data Collection Forms Clearance

The contractor shall prepare the Information Management Clearance Division/OMB (IMCD/OMB) Forms Clearance package for submission. The package shall request clearance For Both The Feasibility Study And The Full-Scale Data Collections (Should NCES Decide To Exercise That Option).

Because of the short time span between contract start and initial data collection, the contractor shall prepare an initial submission to IMCD/OMB in the first 30 days of the contract. These initial materials shall be based on a preliminary version of the Institutional Data Collection Protocol (IDCP). A revised submission will be based on revisions to the IDCP provided at the first meeting of the Technical Review Panel (TRP) and from NCES review of the revised IDCP after the first TRP meeting.

Deliverables: Data Elements and Justifications (III.17)

IMCD/OMB Forms Clearance Package (III.18)

SF-83 Materials (III.19)

Item Wording List (III.20)

 

Subtask 3.3 Training for data collection

The contractor shall recruit as needed, select and train sufficient interviewers to collect CCS data from 150 institutions over a two-month period, as well as supervisors and a team of headquarters-based expert staff analysts who shall carry out verification, clean-up and preliminary data analysis tasks. Prior to hiring data collectors for the feasibility study the contractor shall provide NCES with a description of the qualifications of the data collectors for NCES review and approval. In general these data collectors must have degrees in accounting with experience in college and university accounting. That experience must be sufficient to guide the data collectors in asking questions that need to be asked in collecting the required information.

Deliverable: Training materials for feasibility study data collection (III.21)

 

Subtask 3.4 Data Collection (1DC) for the Feasibility Study

The contractor shall collect the data from the sample. The target response rate shall be 98 percent of institutions and 95 percent of information domains for all institutions sampled. The contractor may provide reimbursement to each institution that participates in the study. The reimbursement shall be based on the magnitude of institutional expenditures overall and to a lesser extent on institutional expenditures per FTE. In no case will an institution receive more than $1,000 or less than $250 for participating in this study. The reimbursement shall reflect the amount of resources required by the institutions to provide data for the feasibility study. The contractor shall collect administrative record, from approximately 600 remaining institutions.

 

Deliverables: 1DC Protocol (III.22)

Debriefing Report (III.23)

Re-collection Report (III.24)

Data files (III.25)

Subtask 3.5 Reporting

The contractor shall prepare reports documenting all activities, methods, results and outcomes of the feasibility study data collection. The contractor shall provide proprietary raw data resulting from 1DC, and shall also prepare a preliminary Data Analysis System to analyze 1DC data, estimate table values and create tables. The 1DC Methods Summary report shall be incorporated into the Methodology Report to be prepared after 2DC if that option is exercised. If the phase II option is not exercised, the contractor shall prepare a limited methodology report for the initial phase of the study. The data in the preliminary DAS shall be treated as a pretest database and shall not be made available to the public even on a restricted basis.

Deliverable: 1DC Methods Summary, and Results Report (III.26)

Task 4, Reporting

Subtask 4.1 Feasibility Report

As 1DC data are collected and returned from the sampled institutions, a team of expert staff shall undertake preliminary analyses of the data obtained and of the situations detailed in trouble reports. The purposes of this subtask shall be:

    1. to adapt data from each institution to the general questions of the study;
    2. to verify that information obtained is correct and complete;
    3. to conduct initial analyses aimed at producing derived variables,
    4. to edit the data and impute values for up to 150 values for missing variables,
    5. to make sure that the data obtained from different institutions can be processed so that major questions of the study can be answered, and
    6. to make sure that the desired statistical analyses can be conducted.

As part of this report the contractor shall document all activities, methods, results and outcomes of the feasibility study data collection. An outline, three drafts and a final feasibility report shall be produced if optional phase II is not exercised. If it is exercised, then only an outline and two drafts shall be produced.

Among the questions that shall be addressed by this report are:

    1. For those years selected for this study, have costs in categories (a) through (g) (which were mentioned in the enabling legislation for this study) increased?
    2. If costs have increased, can such increases be attributable to increases in prices of factor inputs, increases in the quantities purchased, and/or increases in the qualities of the goods and services purchased?
    3. Can changes in tuition and fees be associated with changes in costs? If not, why not?
    4. Can an association be established between tuition discounting and institutional awards, on the one hand, and Federal and state student financial aid on the other?
    5. How can data collection be improved in 2DC to better address the Congressional mandate?
    6. What was learned about the quality and availability of data that would inform IPEDS about data collection in the future?
    7. What was learned from the feasibility study that should be considered in undertaking the optional phase II full-scale data collection effort.
    8. Which models seem best suited for addressing the Congressional issues?
    9. What assumptions must be made to undertake the analysis mandated by Congress using a full-scale data collection of phase II?

Deliverable: Feasibility Report (III.27)

 

 

 

 

 

PHASE II (OPTIONAL) FULL-SCALE STUDY

 

Task 5. Management

The contractor shall manage the collection of data for PHASE II of the College Cost Study in an efficient manner that fosters communications with contractor staff, and the NCES Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR)

Subtask 5.1 Schedules

Due to the number of institutions in the full-scale study and the variation among institutions in the data that they retain, where the data are retained, and the form in which the data retained, the contractor shall develop and maintain a detailed schedule for all activities of the project. The schedule shall be updated monthly.

Deliverables: Monthly Schedules (III.28)

 

Subtask 5.2 Technical Review Panel

To obtain peer review of project plans and products, and to foster communication with potential users of the data, the contractor shall continue working with the Technical Review Panel (TRP) established in phase I of this project. The first meeting in phase II will be to review and comment on the strategies associated with the second phase. The second meeting in phase II will be to comment on a draft of the report to Congress. The 1½ to 2-day meetings shall be held in Washington, DC. The contractor shall prepare packets, ship packets to TRP members, prepare and provide meeting materials, and prepare minutes of TRP meetings. The TRP shall work with the contractor to improve plans, products, and user-friendliness; however, the TRP does NOT report to or advise NCES.

Deliverables: Pre-meeting information packets (III.29)

Meeting agendas (III.30)

Meeting materials (III.31)

Meeting minutes (III.32)

Subtask 5.3 Monthly Reports for Phase II

The contractor shall report monthly on the progress made in accomplishing the project tasks and subtasks, the consumption of funds on a task by task and subtask basis, expected funds needed to complete each task and subtask, problems encountered, possible solutions to problems, and plans for the next three months.

Deliverables: Monthly Reports (III.33)

 

Subtask 5.4 Integrated Monitoring System (IMS)

The contractor shall continue to maintain the Integrated Monitoring System (IMS), developed and utilized in phase I, to foster communications with staff and the NCES COTR. The IMS shall continue to routinely produce, organize and store information about the project and provide access to this information for the NCES COTR. All written documents that are deliverables of this contract, except as noted, shall be made available over the IMS and shall not be considered delivered until they are placed on the IMS.

Deliverables: Document Archive (III.34)

Revised Institutional Data Collection Protocol Interface based on phase I

experience (III.35)

Production Reports (III.36)

Confidentiality Reports (III.37)

Quality Control Reports (III.38)

Electronic Codebooks and Data Analysis System (III.39)

 

Task 6 . Model Refinement and Item Specification

In this task the contractor shall refine the model(s) used in the feasibility on the basis of the results obtained from that study. In addition the contractor shall revise the data elements proposed and collected for the feasibility study, again based on the findings of that study. These revisions shall be discussed in a report to NCES. An outline and two drafts of this report shall be made available to NCES for review and comment. Once acceptable to NCES, a final report shall be submitted to the TRP for review and comment. For each model accepted by NCES, the contractor shall identify the data that must be collected to support the statistical analysis that will be used to address the Congressional issues. After responding to the TRP’s comments and being accepted by NCES, the models and data elements shall be incorporated into the OMB adjustment memo.

Subtask 6.1 Submit a report outline

The contractor shall submit a report outline to NCES identifying those models that they plan to continue to develop, and those variables they wish to continue work on identifying and specifying. The memo must demonstrate the direct link between a policy issue, and the parameter estimates of a model(s) as well as the link between the data collection and the model(s). NCES will review and comment on this memo. The outline shall give direction to phase II of the study.

Deliverables: Report outline on the development of models and variable specifications (III.40)

 

Subtask 6.2 Report on additional model development and variable specification.

The contractor shall submit two drafts describing the models proposed to be used in the analysis and the variables to be collected and parameters to be estimated to address the Congressional issues. The product of this task shall provide input to the OMB clearance package.

Deliverables: Two drafts and a final report on the models to be used in the study and the variables associated with the models and their specifications (III.41).

 

Task 7. Full-scale Data Collection (2DC)

The contractor shall modify all training and data collection systems as needed depending upon the results of the feasibility study. The contractor shall prepare an IMCD/OMB adjustment memo and shall collect data from 750 NPSAS institutions for three fiscal years in the decade based on the results of the feasibility study. The contractor shall prepare training materials and train staff in the methods of data collection that shall reflect what was learned from the feasibility study. The contractor shall report on the quality of the data collected.

 

Subtask 7.1 Sample definition and preliminary contact

Using the same sample of 750 postsecondary institution contacted in phase I, the contractor shall contact the CEO of each 750 selected institutions in the sample of NPSAS institutions and schedule their institution’s participation in the full-scale data collection effort. The sample shall consist or roughly 275 4-year private, not-for-profit institutions, 275 public 4-yr institutions, and 200 public 2-year institutions. The 4-year schools shall be ordered by Carnegie classification (Research I and II, Doctoral I and II, Comprehensive I and II, and Liberal Arts I and II). Specialized institutions shall be excluded from the study sample as well as schools with a parent-child relationship. Within each group, institutions shall be sampled systematically by size of expenditures/expenses. The sample shall consist of institutions that are participating in the NPSAS sample, in order to take advantage of NPSAS’ collection of student financial data.

The contractor will schedule onsite visits for March – May 2001. Information on contacts and scheduling will be placed in the IMS as it becomes available.

Deliverable: Scheduling plans for onsite data collection visits (III.42)

 

Subtask 7.2 IMCD/OMB Adjustment Memo Submission

The contractor shall prepare an IMCD/OMB Adjustment Memorandum, noting changes resulting from the feasibility study experiences.

Deliverables: Revised Data Elements and Justifications (III.43)

IMCD/OMB Data Elements Adjustment

Memorandum (III.44)

SF-83 Materials (III.45)

Final Item Wording List (III.46)

 

Subtask 7.3 Training for data collection

The contractor shall recruit as needed, select and train sufficient interviewers to collect CCS data from 750 institutions over a three-month period, as well as supervisors and a team of headquarters-based expert staff analysts who will carry out verification, clean-up, edit, and impute values for up to 150 variables, and carry out preliminary data analysis tasks. As many as possible of these persons shall have participated in 1DC.

Deliverable: Revised training materials (III.47)

 

Subtask 7.4 Full-scale Data Collection (2DC)

The contractor shall train data collection staff and collect the full-scale sample data with a target response rate of 98 percent of all sampled institutions and complete information for 95 percent of all information areas across all sampled institutions. The contractor shall provide reimbursement to each institution that participates in the study. The reimbursement shall be based on the magnitude of institutional expenditures overall and to a lesser extent on institutional expenditures per FTE. In no case will an institution receive more than $1,000 or less than $250 for participating in this study. The reimbursement shall reflect the amount of resources required by the institution to provide data to the feasibility study. The purpose of this additional collection is to increase understanding of where institutions keep the data needed for this study.

Deliverables: Revised IDC Protocol (III.48)

Debriefing Report (III.49)

Data files (III.50)

 

Subtask 7.5 Methodology Report

The contractor shall prepare a report documenting all activities, methods, and outcomes of both the feasibility study and full-scale data collections. The report shall incorporate the 1DC Methods Summary Report (deliverable III.26).

Deliverable: Methodology Report (III.51)

 

Task 8. Reporting

The contractor shall prepare the Congressionally-mandated report based on the second data collections.

Subtask 8.1 Analysis Plan

The contractor shall develop specifications for sample weights, derived variables, table shells, and report structure.

Deliverables: Derived variable specifications (III.52)

Table shells (III.53)

Congressional report outline (III.54)

 

Subtask 8.2 Data Analysis System

The contractor shall provide non-proprietary raw data from 2DC, and shall also create sample weights, derived variables and a Data Analysis System for the estimation of table values and creation of tables. An electronic codebook (ECB) shall also be produced.

Deliverable: Data analysis system and data files (III.55)

 

Subtask 8.3 Congressional Report

The contractor shall prepare the report based on the phase II data collection. This shall be the report that shall go to Congress. The contractor shall expect to produce one outline and at least three drafts as well as a final of the report.

Deliverable: Congressional report (III.56)

 

 

 

 

 

III. DELIVERABLE SPECIFICATIONS

The specifications for all major deliverables to be generated by the tasks described in section II are presented below. Several components of the Integrated Monitoring System (IMS) are described, but the IMS is more than merely the sum of its parts—it is more comprehensive than the components listed. The IMS shall link the NCES COTR with project information of all types.

Unless otherwise specified, deliverables shall not be physically delivered to the NCES COTR. Instead, the NCES COTR shall be notified of the deliverable's placement within the IMS. An important function of the IMS from the NCES COTR's viewpoint is the COTR’s capability to retrieve deliverables for the project through the IMS in a timely fashion. All written documents that are deliverables of this contract, except as noted, shall be made available over the IMS and shall not be considered delivered until they are placed on the IMS.

 

 

 

PHASE I: FEASIBILITY STUDY DELIVERABLES

 

III.1 Minutes of Post Award Conference in Washington, D.C. (Subtask 1.1)

These minutes document the post-award conference.

Delivery specifications:

As soon as the IMS is available, the Conference Minutes shall be placed within the IMS as Word files.

 

III.2 Monthly schedules (Subtask 1.2)

For all activities within the first phase of the project, the schedule shall detail the key staff assigned to each task and subtask, the projected start and end dates, and completion dates. The schedule shall be updated monthly. For any monthly schedule, all completion dates shall be entered and the future three (3) months’ activities shall be detailed. There are two static dates for phase I. Within phase I the feasibility study data collection must begin by April 2000, and the feasibility report must be ready to be shared with the TRP by August 2000. (For optional phase II there are two static dates: the full-scale data collection must begin by March 2001; and the accepted report to Congress must be delivered to IMS and to NCES by the end of April, 2002).

Delivery specifications:

Each month (concurrent with the monthly report) [1] an updated activity/date file (based on off-the-shelf scheduling software), and [2] an ASCII text file print-out of the updated schedule shall be placed within the IMS.

 

III.3 List of potential TRP panelists (Subtask 1.3)

Twenty (20) potential panelists shall be listed. Names, addresses, telephone numbers, affiliations, prior TRP memberships, and annotated resumes shall be included. Appendix A contains a list of potential TRP members for this project, many of whom have been selected from the NPEC IPEDS Finance Working Group.

Delivery specifications:

Six (6) weeks prior to the first TRP meeting the list of potential TRP panelists shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Selected TRP member information shall also be placed within the IMS.

III.4 Pre-meeting (TRP) information packets (Subtask 1.3)

These deliverables are materials (such as the Congressional research issues or questions, institutional price models, data element lists, collection problem reports, etc.) that shall be delivered to TRP members so that they can be prepared for discussion at the meetings. Four (4) TRP meetings (2 as part of phase I and 2 as part of phase II) of 1½ to 2-day duration shall be held in Washington, DC. Pre-meeting information packets will be received by TRP members one (1) week prior to TRP meetings.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks prior to each TRP meeting, Pre-meeting Information Packets shall be placed within the IMS as Word files for NCES review and comment.

 

III.5 (TRP) Meeting agendas (Subtask 1.3)

These deliverables provide structure for TRP meetings in terms of times, topics, and discussion leaders. The expected topics and approximate timing for the phase I TRP meetings are as follows:

First TRP meeting: (January 2000):

    1. Restatement of the Congressional issues within an analytical framework;
    2. Formulation of models to address the issues;
    3. Specification of variables needed to use the models to address the issues;
    4. Development of data collection (1DC) interview protocols and data collection methods.

The questions to be addressed shall include:
    • What models should be used and what data should be collected to show the relationship between costs and prices?
    • What models should be used and data collected to show the relationship between financial aid and prices?
    • How do these models drive the data collection?
    • What issues in data collection must be addressed, and how will they be addressed?

(examples: definitions of "faculty," "administration")

Second TRP Meeting : (October 2000):

    1. Presentation of a draft of the feasibility report;
    2. Discussion of the analysis done using the 1DC;
    3. Review of draft 1DC Methods Summary, and Results;
    4. Recommendations for changes for the full-scale Data Collection (2DC).

 

 

 

 

III.6 (TRP) Meeting materials (Subtask 1.3)

These materials include documents and drafts that are to be discussed at the TRP meetings.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks prior to each TRP meeting, the Meeting Materials shall be placed within the IMS as Word files for NCES review and comment.

 

III.7 (TRP) Meeting minutes (Subtask 1.3)

These minutes document the TRP discussions.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks after each TRP meeting, the Meeting Minutes shall be placed within the IMS as Word files.

 

III.8 Monthly Reports (Subtask 1.4)

The monthly report shall detail the progress made in accomplishing project tasks, problems encountered, and plans for the next three months. By attachment, the financial status of the project shall be described, including detailed monthly charges by named staff. For key staff, the reports shall indicate the amount of time each person spent that month on each active task and subtask. Costs incurred for the month but not yet billed to the contractor for that month shall be presented in the financial attachment as estimates, to be revised as billed in later month(s).

Delivery specifications:

Monthly (on or before the day corresponding to the contract award date) progress and financial reports shall be placed within the IMS as Word files.

 

III.9 (IMS) Document Archive (Subtask 1.5)

All documents (including dated drafts, E-mail communications, meeting notes, etc.) generated during the life of the project shall be stored in the document archive. The archive shall identify file name, dates, author(s), format, and key words corresponding to each document.

Delivery specifications:

The IMS shall be up tested and running within two weeks of contract award. Through assistance provided by the contractor to the COTR, the COTR shall be able to easily use the IMS within two weeks of contract award. Part I of deliverable III.12 shall be included in the IMS at the time that the COTR tests out the IMS. Monthly updates (corresponding to the monthly reports) using off-the-shelf software shall be delivered. A listing of each document's basic descriptors (i.e., file name, dates, author(s), format, and key words) shall be placed within the IMS as an ASCII text file.

 

III.10 Institutional Data Collection Protocol (IDCP) Interface (Subtask 1.5)

The instrumentation for the collection of CCS data shall consist of a PC-based, scripted, windowed, computer-assisted Institutional Data Collection Protocol system or interface, with preload and recursive fills as needed. The IDCP shall be capable of operating on a laptop PC.

The development of the interview protocol system shall be controlled and documented by an IDCP Interface (IDCPI). The main function of the IDCPI is to create IDCP screens from the data elements of the IDCP. The essential linkages are as follows:

[1] Major data collection categories and subcategories

[2] Data elements, where previously defined

[3] Derived variables, as previously defined

[4] Screens

[5] Sources (preloaded, prior variable, screen entry, text import)

[6] Range restrictions

[7] Sample restrictions

[8] Storage parameters

The IDCP shall be scripted to accept text from the IDCPI for categories [4] through [8] above. Project staff, not programmer supported staff, shall develop the text for the IDCPI that shall be translated into IDCP screens. Logic, range, and foot checks shall be proposed by the contractor, reviewed by NCES, and structured into the IDCP.

Look-up table software for IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) codes, major field of specialization codes, and a key word glossary shall be available through the IDCP. Look-up tables for categories of revenues and costs, as currently found in the Financial Accounting and Reporting Manual for Higher Education (FARM) (NACUBO, 1990 and later revisions), translated into entity-wide categories, shall also be available through the IDCP.

The final list of data elements for 1DC shall be provided by the contractor after consultation with the TRP, review by the NCES COTR, and IMCD/OMB approval. It shall be available one month before the start of initial data collection. Data shall be collected in 1DC for three fiscal years in the decade where those years will capture important changes in tuition and fees as well as costs and also provide high quality data.

The major categories for the IDCP will correspond to those established in the enabling legislation (see section I.B.1 above); the listing below of major categories and data elements represents approximately fifty percent of the data elements to be included in the 1DC final list. Data elements defined in the IPEDS are marked in terms of the component survey in which data is collected: IC, Institutional Characteristics; EF, Fall Enrollment; C, Completions; F, Financial Statistics; SA, Salaries, Tenure and Fringe Benefits of Full-time Instructional Faculty; S, Fall Staff. [Reference: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. IPEDS Glossary. Publication 95-822. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, August 1995 (revised)]. One additional special component survey is Institutional Price and Student Financial Aid (IPSFA), a special survey of student tuition, other costs and student aid, scheduled for August 1999. Where appropriate, interpretive notes are provided to support data element definitions. This list is provided primarily for illustrative purposes. The actual data to be collected shall be driven by the models used to address the Congressional issues or questions.

 

INFORMATION ABOUT THE INSTITUTION:

INSTITUTION NAME [IC, Preloaded]

IPEDS CODE [IC, Preloaded]

INSTITUTION CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION [IC, Preloaded]

INSTITUTION ADDRESS [IC, Preloaded]

NAME OF PRIMARY INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVE

TITLE OF PRIMARY INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVE

NAME OF SECONDARY INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVE

TITLE OF SECONDARY INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVE

INFORMATION ABOUT DATA COLLECTION:

PRIMARY INTERVIEWER NAME [Preloaded]

PRIMARY INTERVIEWER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER [Preloaded]

SECONDARY INTERVIEWER NAME [PRELOADED]

SECONDARY INTERVIEWER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER [Preloaded]

DATE CCS DATA COLLECTION BEGINS

DATE CCS DATA COLLECTION ENDS

GENERAL INSTITUTION CHARACTERISTICS:

ACADEMIC CALENDAR (Semester: Quarter: Other:) [IC]

STUDENT ENROLLMENT

Number of undergraduate students: (NUMBER) [EF]

Full-time: (NUMBER)

Part-time: (NUMBER)

Number of undergraduate students: (NUMBER)

Full-time: (NUMBER)

Part-time: (NUMBER)

Number of graduate students: (NUMBER)

Full-time: (NUMBER)

Part-time: (NUMBER)

Number of graduate students: (NUMBER)

Full-time: (NUMBER)

Part-time: (NUMBER)

NUMBERS OF FACULTY [S, except first-year faculty]

Numbers of first-year faculty, tenured, adjuncts, etc.

NUMBERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

TUITION AND FEES:

UNDERGRADUATE TUITION, [TF]

Note: The data element will be the published tuition for a first-time, full-time entering undergraduate student. If the institution has variable rates for tuition by program, the data element will be the tuition from the largest program; if there are variable rates by division, the data element will be tuition for entering juniors for the full academic year.

UNDERGRADUATE FEES, [TF]

Note: The data element will be the published mandatory fee collectable from all first-time, full-time entering undergraduate students.

OTHER STUDENT COSTS: [TF]

BOOKS, SOFTWARE, AND SUPPLIES

LODGING AND FOOD EXPENSES

TRAVEL

STUDENT FINANCIAL AID: [F,TF]

INSTITUTIONAL FUNDED AID

INSTITUTIONAL UNFUNDED AID

FEDERAL AND STATE LOANS

FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS

FACULTY SALARIES, BENEFITS AND EXPENSES: [SA]

NUMBERS OF FACULTY BY RANK AND FULL-TIME STATUS

FACULTY WORKLOAD

ANNUALIZED SALARIES BY DISCIPLINE, FACULTY RANK AND FULL-TIME STATUS (consider 9 or 12 month salary schedules)

FACULTY SUPPORT EXPENSES

ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES, BENEFITS AND EXPENSES:

NUMBERS OF ADMINISTRATORS BY RANK

TOTAL SALARIES, BENEFITS AND EXPENSES BY RANK

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT EXPENSES

ACADEMIC SUPPORT SERVICES:

NUMBERS OF STAFF

STAFF TOTAL SALARIES, BENEFITS AND EXPENSES BY RANK

OTHER EXPENSES

RESEARCH COSTS:

NUMBERS OF STAFF BY RANK

STAFF TOTAL SALARIES, BENEFITS AND EXPENSES BY RANK

OTHER EXPENSES

INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE:

NUMBERS OF STAFF BY RANK

STAFF TOTAL SALARIES, BENEFITS AND EXPENSES BY RANK

OTHER EXPENSES

INSTITUTIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR CONSTRUCTION:

TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION

COSTS PER SQUARE FOOT, PER CONSTRUCTION TYPE

RISK VARIABLES: REPLACEMENT VALUE OF PROPERTY

INSTITUTIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR TECHNOLOGY:

TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY

COSTS FOR MATERIALS PER TECHNOLOGY TYPE

COSTS FOR INSTALLATION PER TECHNOLOGY TYPE

COSTS FOR TRAINING PER TECHNOLOGY TYPE

COSTS FOR SUPPORT PER TECHNOLOGY TYPE

The remaining data elements shall be identified and defined at the start of the study, prior to the feasibility data collection, during the first TRP meeting and/or the IMCD/OMB clearance process. One reference source for data elements and discussion of postsecondary data issues is the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC). See appendix B for a summary of their concerns about the study.

A major effort within this project is the creation of derived variables. The variables that will have to be derived shall be driven by the models used in this study and should be carefully considered in preparing the final list of data elements for the TRP, for the IMCD/OMB clearance package, and for 1DC, so that data elements essential for the creation of derived variables are in fact collected. The following list represents some of the variables that should be generated during analysis. It is not an exhaustive list. The first version of the list of derived variables shall be provided by the contractor before 1DC; the list shall be revised after 1DC and before the second meeting of the TRP, and shall be revised again on the basis of TRP and other feedback before 2DC.

AVERAGE TOTAL PRICE/YEAR FOR FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS LIVING ON CAMPUS

AVERAGE TOTAL PRICE/YEAR FOR FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS LIVING OFF CAMPUS, INDEPENDENT OF PARENTAL SUPPORT

AVERAGE TOTAL COST/YEAR FOR PART-TIME UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

AVERAGE COST OF INSTRUCTION PER STUDENT CREDIT HOUR

AVERAGE ADMINISTRATIVE COST PER STUDENT CREDIT HOUR

NET PRICE – ACCESSIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY LEVELS

SUBSIDY LEVELS FOR FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

SUBSIDY LEVELS FOR PART-TIME UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

UNDERGRADUATE PRODUCTION COSTS

REVENUES (DOLLAR AND IN-KIND) BY SOURCE

FACULTY SALARIES, BENEFITS AND EXPENSES PER FTE

ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES, BENEFITS AND EXPENSES PER FTE, PER FACULTY

FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATOR COSTS PER STUDENT-HOUR

Delivery specifications:

Within four (4) weeks of contract award, the IDCP and IDCPI shall be established within the IMS using off-the-shelf database software. The IDCP shall be updated on a continual basis through 1DC IMCD/OMB forms clearance, the 1DC itself, and following examination of the 1DC results and the second TRP meeting. The IDCPI database software shall have the capability to produce lists of data elements, detailed data collection instructions such as item skip pattern instructions, preload designations, fill designations, and range checks; these lists shall be capable of being produced as ASCII text files. In addition, the IDCPI database software shall have the capability to produce translatable files compatible with the IDCP.

 

III.11 Production Reports (Subtask 1.5)

The status of all cases in the data collection system, by day of operations, shall be presented in daily production reports. Status categories such as the following shall be displayed:

[1] Institution not yet contacted

[2] Participation requested

[3] 1DC site visit scheduled

[4] 1DC data collection team currently onsite

[5] Feasibility study data collection completed

[6] Refuse to participate

Delivery specifications:

Six weeks before the beginning of Initial Data Collection, the spreadsheet with institutions as rows and the status categories as columns shall be loaded into the IMS. During data collection operations, the Production Report shall be updated daily.

 

III.12 Confidentiality Reports (Subtask 1.5)

Confidentiality Reports shall be in two (2) parts. Part 1 shall be a list of all project staff with access to restricted CCS data. Part 2 shall be a completed (signed and notarized) set of NCES Affidavits of Nondisclosure for all project staff listed in part 1.

Delivery specifications:

Within two (2) weeks of contract award, Part 1 shall be included within the IMS as a Word file. Each NCES Affidavit of Nondisclosure shall be completed at least three (3) working days prior to access to restricted CCS data. The completed NCES Affidavits of Nondisclosure shall be mailed to the NCES COTR in monthly batches corresponding to the monthly report. Part 1 shall be updated on a flow basis.

 

III.13 Quality Control Reports (Subtask 1.5)

The quality of data collection operations shall be monitored using a variety of approaches. Given the difficulty of foreseeing the sorts of problems that may occur in collecting data for which exact definitions may vary from one institution to another, the main monitoring tools shall be:

· daily reports from each interview team along with

· trouble notes which request immediate action by data collection supervisors.

· weekly summaries of data collection status upon which the overall assessment of quality will be based.

During data collection, an overall quality control spreadsheet will be placed in the IMS, with the institutions as rows and event categories such as the following as columns:

[1] Site visit not begun

[2] Site visit underway, no significant issue noted

[3] Site visit underway, trouble note issued, response pending

[4] Site visit underway, trouble note issued, resolved

[5] Site visit underway, data problem not viewed as resolvable

[6] Site visit concluded, no unresolved issues

[7] Site visit concluded, one or more unresolved issues

Delivery specifications:

One day before the beginning of 1DC operations, the spreadsheet with institutions as rows and the event categories as columns shall be loaded into the IMS. During 1DC operations, the Quality Control Report shall be updated daily. Field team daily reports, trouble notes, and weekly summaries shall be placed daily as produced in the IMS.

 

III.14 Memo on plans for model development and variable specification. (Subtask 2.1)

 

The contractor shall submit a memo describing the models proposed to be used in the analysis, the variables to be defined, measured, and collected, and the parameters of the models to be estimated to address the research issues. The product of this task shall provide input to the report on models and variable specifications.

Delivery specifications:

Within three weeks after contract award, the contractor shall submit a memo describing the plans the contractor proposes to undertake to further develop the specifications of the project. NCES will review and comment on the memo and when agreed upon, the contractor shall begin work on the report based on the agreed upon plan.

 

III.15 Report on models and the variable specifications. (Subtask 2.2)

The contractor shall submit a report describing the models proposed to be used in the analysis and the variables to be collected and parameters to be estimated to address the research issues. The product of this task shall provide input to the OMB clearance package.

Delivery specifications:

The first draft of the report shall be due to NCES by the sixth week after contract award. It shall contain the following information:

1. refine the articulation of the Congressional issues as presented in the proposal;

    1. summarizing the literature relevant to the Congressional issues;
    2. refine the model(s) proposed in his/her proposal and, if necessary, propose the development of additional or alternative models;
    3. identify variables in each model for which data need to be collected;
    4. define each variable and how it should be measured;
    5. develop items to be used by the IDCP in the data collection process;
    6. describe the statistical processes to be used to provide unbiased, efficient, consistent estimates of the policy relevant parameters.
    7. estimate the values of the parameters and their standard errors in the reduced-form models using the appropriate statistical;
    8. make appropriate statistical comparisons among reduced-form parameter estimates to address Congressional issues; and
    1. State the assumptions upon which the conclusions rest.

A second draft of this report shall be submitted to the COTR in response to the review and comments of NCES based on the first draft of the report. If the second draft is acceptable it shall be submitted to the TRP for review and comment. The second draft of the report shall be submitted to NCES three weeks after the receipt by the contractor of the comments from NCES on the first draft.

 

III.16 Scheduling plans for onsite visits (Subtask 3.1)

On the basis of the sampling plan provided by NCES, the contractor shall contact each of the institutions and schedule site visits for feasibility study data collection (1DC) for the period April– May 2000. Information about institutional responses and scheduling will be placed in the IMS as available.

Delivery specifications:

A spreadsheet with contact information with 1DC dates for columns and sample institutions for rows shall be created as soon as initial contacts with institutions are established, and shall be updated daily within the IMS. This deliverable may be combined with III.11 (the delivery of production reports).

 

III.17 Data Elements and Justifications (Subtask 3.2)

For the data elements included within the IDCP, justifications suitable for inclusion within the IMCD/OMB package shall be developed. These justifications will be based upon the articulation of Congressional issues, the review of the literature, the development of models, the identification of data elements for the models, the specification of how the data elements shall be measured, the estimation of model parameters, and the appropriate use of statistical analyses. Because of the short time span available between the start of the contract and initial data collection, it is essential that a preliminary version of the data collection protocol and materials for IMCD/OMB clearance (deliverables III.15 and III.17) be prepared in the first thirty days of the contract, so that the clearance process can be completed in time.

Delivery specifications:

One (1) month after the start of the contract, a draft of the 1DC Data Elements and Justifications shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. One (1) week after the first TRP meeting, a revised version of 1DC Data Elements and Justifications shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file for NCES inter-divisional review. One (1) week after NCES inter-divisional review, the final 1DC Data Elements and Justifications shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

 

III.18 IMCD/OMB Forms Clearance Package (Subtask 3.2)

The IMCD/OMB Forms Clearance Package shall include introduction, project justifications, purpose and use of data, descriptions of collection methods, descriptions of efforts to identify duplication, descriptions of the suitability of existing data, methods used to minimize burden, frequency of data collection, adherence to guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6, consultations, confidentiality, sensitive questions, estimates of costs, estimates of response burden, publication plans and schedules, statistical methodology, sampling, data elements and justifications, and sample notifications. This package shall request clearance for 1DC and 2DC activities.

A preliminary version of the Forms Clearance Package shall be created within the first thirty days of the CCS contract in order to comply with the 120-day OMB clearance period prior to 1DC.

Delivery specifications:

One (1) month after the start of the contract, a forms clearance package based on the preliminary IDCP shall be placed in the IMS as a Word file. One (1) week after NCES inter-divisional review of the Data Elements and Justifications, a revised IMCD/OMB Forms Clearance Package shall be placed in the IMS as a Word file. During the 120 day clearance period, as many as two (2) revisions (one in response to IMCD concerns, and one in response to OMB concerns) shall be placed in the IMS as Word files.

 

III.19 SF-83 Materials (Subtask 3.2)

Information needed to complete blocks #13 and #17 on Standard Form 83, which accompanies the IMCD/OMB clearance package, shall be delivered.

Delivery specifications:

One (1) month after the start of the contract, the SF-83 information based on the preliminary Data Elements and Justifications shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. One (1) week after NCES inter-divisional review of the Data Elements and Justifications, a revised version of the SF-83 information shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

 

III.20 Item Wording List (Subtask 3.2)

OMB and IMCD require documentation of the final IDCP screens used for data collection.

Delivery specifications:

One (1) week prior to the start of 1DC data collection an ASCII text file presenting all IDCP windows and coding structures shall be placed within the IMS.

 

III.21 Training materials for data collection (Subtask 3.3)

Materials used for the training of 1DC data collection staff and quality control monitors should include the computers that will be used in the field, with the Institutional Data Collection Protocol (IDCP) installed; supporting manuals and materials, including major data collection categories and data elements where known or definable in advance; glossaries, lists and explanations of data element codes including, for example, the types of transaction elements to be included in each expenditure category; and provisions for supervision and communication with central groups to resolve issues that may arise during data collection. Materials should also include mock interview sessions, and a variety of journals of accounts similar to that to be found during 1DC. One or more tests on the materials shall be administered to the trainees to insure that they perform at acceptable levels. Prior to administration of the test(s) acceptable levels of performance shall be defined.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) months prior to the start of 1DC a draft version of the training materials shall be placed within the IMS as a collection of Word files. One (1) month prior to the start of 1DC a revised version of the training materials shall be placed within the IMS as Word files, based on comments from the TRP and NCES. Two weeks prior to the completion of training the tests of the trainees shall be placed in the IMS for NCES review and approval.

 

III.22 Institutional Data Collection Protocol (IDCP) (Subtask 3.4)

Based on the accepted 1DC Data Elements, the IDCP shall be developed.

Delivery specification:

Two (2) months prior to the start of 1DC, the IDCP shall be loaded on a laptop computer and presented to NCES; at the same time, the IDCP shall be placed in the IMS.

 

III.23 Debriefing Report (Subtask 3.4)

The experiences of staff during initial data collection shall be documented in a Debriefing Report. The Debriefing Report will summarize the daily reports and trouble notes from each interview team, data collection supervisor response memos, and weekly summaries of data collection status as well as the overall quality control spreadsheet from the IMS.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks after termination of 1DC operations, the Debriefing Report shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

 

III.24 Re-collection Report (Subtask 3.4)

Because the institutional contexts and data structures from which data will be collected are known to be idiosyncratic, and since the contractor may learn of such idiosyncrasies during data collection, it may be necessary for interview teams to return to an institution during 1DC for additional data collection in a small number of cases (estimated 25). These visits shall be documented in the Re-collection Report.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks after termination of 1DC operations, the Re-collection Report shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

 

III.25 Feasibility Study Data Collection (1DC) data files (subtask 3.4)

The data collected during the 1DC shall be stored in a series of files, which shall be used for final document files for phase I if optional phase II is not exercised and as part of phase II reports if the option is exercised. The files shall also be used to conduct the analyses needed for the 1DC portion of a Methodology Report and derived variable analyses. The contractor shall specify appropriate measures that shall be taken to assure the quality of the data files.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) months following termination of 1DC operations, the 1DC data files shall be placed within the IMS as ASCII text files with fixed variable positions. The maximum record length shall be less than 1024 characters. One (1) month following acceptance of the Derived Variable Specifications (see subtask 4.1), an ASCII text file of derived variables based on 1DC data shall be placed within the IMS.

 

III.26 1DC Methods Summary, and Results (subtask 3.5)

All aspects of the Initial Data Collection activities and results shall be documented in this summary report. Sections shall include an introduction with a discussion of the history of the CCS in general and the CCS sample; a description of the collection systems developed; quality measures (quality control monitoring and re-collection); IDCP yields; results of the initial data collection; and significant problem areas. The report shall include recommendations for modifications to data collection procedures for the Second Data Collection (2DC). Since this is a feasibility study, the data files produced by this study will not be available to the public in either a public release or restricted file basis.

Delivery specifications:

Six (6) weeks following delivery of the 1DC data files and Preliminary Data Analysis Report, the 1DC Methods, Summary and Results Report shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

 

III.27 Feasibility Report (subtask 4.1)

This report will summarize the 1DC data collection from the perspective of analytic results and the work of the expert teams. It provides input for the second TRP meeting. Specifically, it will provide the TRP with sufficient information to enable the TRP to recommend alternatives in data collection for 2DC, if needed to better address Congressional concerns.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) months following termination of 1DC operations, the Feasibility Report will be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Up to two drafts and a final report shall be produced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHASE II: FULL-SCALE STUDY DELIVERABLES

 

III.28 Monthly Schedules (subtask 5.1)

For all activities within the second phase of the project, the schedule shall detail the key staff assigned, the projected start and end dates, and completion dates. The schedule shall be updated monthly. For any monthly schedule, all completion dates shall be entered and the future three (3) months’ activities shall be detailed. For optional phase II there are two static dates: the full-scale data collection must begin by March 2001; and the accepted report to Congress must be delivered to IMS and to NCES by the end of April, 2002.

Delivery specifications:

Each month (concurrent with the monthly report) [1] an updated activity/date file (based on off-the-shelf scheduling software), and [2] an ASCII text file print-out of the updated schedule shall be placed within the IMS.

 

III.29 TRP Pre-meeting information packets (subtask 5.2)

These deliverables are materials (such as the Congressional research issues or questions, institutional price models, data element lists, collection problem reports, etc.) that shall be delivered to TRP members so that they can be prepared for discussion at the meetings. Two TRP meetings as part of phase II shall take place as part of phase II. Each shall be of 1½ to 2-day duration and shall be held in Washington, DC. Pre-meeting information packets will be received by TRP members one (1) week prior to TRP meetings.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks prior to each TRP meeting, Pre-meeting Information Packets shall be placed within the IMS as Word files for NCES review and comment.

 

III.30 Meeting agendas (subtask 5.2)

These deliverables provide structure for TRP meetings in terms of times, topics, and discussion leaders. The expected topics and approximate timing for the phase I TRP meetings are as follows:

First TRP meeting (August 2001). The discussion shall include:

    1. proposed 2DC analysis, derived variables, final report structure, data file structure.
    2. What was learned from the feasibility study and the impact of this knowledge on:
    • The articulation of the Congressional issues;
    • The models to use in addressing the Congressional issues;
    • The variables to include in the models;
    • The measurement of the variables;
    • The data elements to collect
    • The years for which the data elements will be collected;
    • The statistical analysis to employ in addressing the issues

Second TRP meeting (January 2002). The discussion shall include:

    1. The full-scale data collection and analysis .
    2. The first draft of the report to Congress.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks prior to each TRP meeting, the meeting agendas shall be placed within the IMS as Word files for NCES review and comment.

 

III.31 Meeting materials (subtask 5.2)

These materials include documents and drafts that are to be discussed at the TRP meetings.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks prior to each TRP meeting, the Meeting Materials shall be placed within the

IMS as Word files for NCES review and comment.

 

III.32 Meeting minutes (subtask 5.2)

These minutes document the TRP discussions.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks after each TRP meeting, the Meeting Minutes shall be placed within the IMS as Word files.

 

III.33 Monthly Reports for Phase II (subtask 5.3)

The contractor shall report monthly on the progress made in accomplishing the project tasks and subtasks, the consumption of funds on a task by task and subtask basis, expected funds needed to complete each task and subtask, problems encountered, possible solutions to problems, and plans for the next three months.

Delivery specifications:

Monthly (on or before the day corresponding to the contract award date) progress and financial reports shall be placed within the IMS as Word files.

 

III.34 Document Archive (subtask 5.4)

All documents (including dated drafts, E-mail communications, meeting notes, etc.) generated during the life of the project shall be stored in the document archive. The archive shall identify file name, dates, author(s), format, and key words corresponding to each document.

Delivery specifications:

Monthly updates (corresponding to the monthly reports) using off-the-shelf software, shall be delivered. A listing of each document's basic descriptors (i.e., file name, dates, author(s), format, and key words) shall be placed within the IMS as an ASCII text file.

 

III.35 Revised Institutional Data Collection Protocol Interface based on phase I Experience (subtask 5.4)

The instrumentation for the collection of CCS data shall consist of a PC-based, scripted, windowed, computer-assisted Institutional Data Collection Protocol system or interface (IDCPI), with preload and recursive fills as needed. The IDCP shall be capable of operating on a laptop PC.

The development of the interview protocol system shall be controlled and documented by an IDCP Interface (IDCPI). The main function of the IDCPI is to create IDCP screens from the data elements of the IDCP. The essential linkages are as follows:

[1] Major data collection categories and subcategories

[2] Data elements, where previously defined

[3] Derived variables, as previously defined

[4] Screens

[5] Sources (preloaded, prior variable, screen entry, text import)

[6] Range restrictions

[7] Sample restrictions

[8] Storage parameters

The IDCP shall be scripted to accept text from the IDCPI for categories [4] through [8] above. Project staff, not programmer supported staff, shall develop the text for the IDCPI that shall be translated into IDCP screens. Logic, range, and foot checks shall be proposed by the contractor, reviewed by NCES, and structured into the IDCP.

Look-up table software for IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) codes, major field of specialization codes, and a key word glossary shall be available through the IDCP. Look-up tables for categories of revenues and costs, as currently found in the Financial Accounting and Reporting Manual for Higher Education (FARM) (NACUBO, 1990 and later revisions), translated into entity-wide categories, shall also be available through the IDCP.

The final list of data elements for 1DC shall be provided by the contractor after consultation with the TRP, review by the NCES COTR, and IMCD/OMB approval. It shall be available one month before the start of initial data collection. Data shall be collected in 1DC for three fiscal years in the decade where those years will capture important changes in tuition and fees as well as costs and also provide high quality data.

Major categories of data elements and data elements themselves will be based on those used in phase I but adjusted for the findings of phase I. A major effort within the project is the creation of derived variables. The Congressional issues, and the models shall drive the development of derived variables. The results of the feasibility study shall inform the development of derived variables. The contractor shall examine the derivation of derived variables and make suggested changes in that derivation and the development of additional derived variables as necessary to prepare for TRP review, and the OMB adjustment memo.

 

Delivery specifications:

Within three (3) weeks of the beginning of phase II, the IDCP and IDCPI shall be established within the IMS using off-the-shelf database software. The IDCP shall be updated on a continual basis through 2DC IMCD/OMB forms clearance, the 2DC itself, and following examination of the 2DC results and the first TRP meeting of phase II. The IDCPI database software shall have the capability to produce lists of data elements, detailed data collection instructions such as item skip pattern instructions, preload designations, fill designations, and range checks; these lists shall be capable of being produced as ASCII text files. In addition, the IDCPI database software shall have the capability to produce translatable files compatible with the IDCP.

 

 

III.36 Production Reports (subtask 5.4)

The status of all cases in the data collection system, by day of operations, shall be presented in daily production reports. Status categories such as the following shall be displayed:

[1] Institution not yet contacted

[2] Participation requested

[3] 2DC site visit scheduled

[4] 2DC data collection team currently onsite

[5] Second data collection completed

[6] Refuse to participate

Delivery specifications:

Six weeks before the beginning of Full-scale Data Collection, the spreadsheet with institutions as rows and the status categories as columns shall be loaded into the IMS. During data collection operations, the Production Report shall be updated daily.

 

 

III.37 Confidentiality Reports (subtask 5.4)

Confidentiality Reports shall be in two (2) parts. Part 1 shall be a list of all project staff with access to restricted CCS data. Part 2 shall be a completed (signed and notarized) set of NCES Affidavits of Nondisclosure for all project staff listed in part 1.

Delivery specifications:

Within one (1) week of the beginning of phase II, Part 1 shall be included within the IMS as a Word file. Each NCES Affidavit of Nondisclosure shall be completed at least three (3) working days prior to access to restricted CCS data. The completed NCES Affidavits of Nondisclosure shall be mailed to the NCES COTR in monthly batches corresponding to the monthly report. Part 1 shall be updated on a flow basis.

 

 

III.38 Quality Control Reports (subtask 5.4)

The contractor shall use the knowledge and experience acquired through the feasibility study to improve on the quality control procedures used in phase II. The quality of data collection operations shall be monitored using a variety of approaches. Given the difficulty of foreseeing the sorts of problems that may occur in collecting data for which exact definitions may vary from one institution to another, the main monitoring tools will have to be:

    • daily reports from each interview team along with
    • trouble notes which request immediate action by data collection supervisors.
    • weekly summaries of data collection status upon which the overall assessment of quality will be based.

During data collection, an overall quality control spreadsheet will be placed in the IMS, with the institutions as rows and event categories such as the following as columns:

[1] Site visit not begun

[2] Site visit underway, no significant issue noted

[3] Site visit underway, trouble note issued, response pending

[4] Site visit underway, trouble note issued, resolved

[5] Site visit underway, data problem not viewed as resolvable

[6] Site visit concluded, no unresolved issues

[7] Site visit concluded, one or more unresolved issues

Delivery specifications:

One day before the beginning of 2DC operations, the spreadsheet with institutions as rows and the event categories as columns shall be loaded into the IMS. During 2DC operations, the Quality Control Report shall be updated daily. Field team daily reports, trouble notes, and weekly summaries shall be placed daily as produced in the IMS.

 

 

III.39 Electronic Codebooks and Data Analysis System (subtask 5.4)

Electronic codebook software enhances the usage of data files. Users are presented lists of fully-labeled variables with associated frequency distributions (unweighted) and associated item definitions. Through an electronic codebook, users' selections of variables are converted into fully-labeled SPSS-PC and PC-SAS code for extraction of analysis files.

Delivery specifications:

Development of the electronic codebook for the CCS 2DC data files, as well as for the Data Analysis System (DAS), shall be documented within the project schedule.

 

III.40 Report outline on the development of models and variable specifications (subtask 6.1)

The contractor shall submit an outline describing the models proposed to be used in the analysis, the variables to be defined, measured, and collected, and the parameters of the models to be estimated to address the research issues. It is expected that this outline shall benefit from the findings of the feasibility study. The product of this task shall provide input to the report on models and variable specifications.

Delivery specifications:

Within three weeks after the beginning of phase II, the contractor shall submit a memo describing the plans the contractor proposes to undertake to further develop the specifications of the project. NCES will review and comment on the memo and when agreed upon, the contractor shall begin work on the report based on the agreed upon plan.

 

III.41 Two drafts and a final report on the models to be used in the study and the variables

associated with the models and their specifications (subtask 6.2)

The contractor shall submit a report describing the models proposed to be used in the analysis and the variables to be collected and parameters to be estimated to address the research issues. The product of this task shall provide input to the OMB adjustment memo.

Delivery specifications:

The first draft of the report shall be due to NCES by the sixth week after the beginning of phase II. It shall contain the following information:
    1. refine the articulation of the Congressional issues as presented in the proposal;
    2. summarizing the literature relevant to the Congressional issues;
    3. refine the model(s) proposed in his/her proposal and, if necessary, propose the development of additional or alternative models;
    4. identify variables in each model for which data need to be collected;
    5. define each variable and how it should be measured;
    6. develop items to be used by the IDCP in the data collection process;
    7. describe the statistical processes to be used to provide unbiased, efficient, consistent estimates of the policy relevant parameters.
    8. estimate the values of the parameters and their standard errors in the reduced-form models using the appropriate statistical;
    9. make appropriate statistical comparisons among reduced-form parameter estimates to address Congressional issues; and
    10. State the assumptions upon which the conclusions rest.

 

A second draft of this report shall be submitted to the COTR in response to the review and comments of NCES based on the first draft of the report. If the second draft is acceptable it shall be submitted to the TRP for review and comment. The second draft of the report shall be submitted to NCES three weeks after the receipt by the contractor of the comments from NCES on the first draft.

 

III.42 Scheduling plans for onsite data collection visits (subtask 7.1)

The contractor shall contact each of the institutions in the sample of 750 institutions provided by NCES and schedule site visits for the second data collection (2DC) for the period March – May 2001. Information about institutional responses and scheduling will be placed in the IMS as available.

Delivery specifications:

A spreadsheet with 2DC dates for columns and sample institutions for rows will be created as soon as contacts with institutions are established, and will be updated daily within the IMS.

 

III.43 Second Data Collection (2DC): Revised Data Elements and

Justifications (subtask 7.2)

Justifications shall be developed for any new or significantly revised data elements for 2DC.

Delivery specifications:

Four (4) weeks after the beginning of phase II, a revised version of the Data Elements and Justifications shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file for NCES inter-divisional review. One (1) week after inter-divisional review, the final 2DC Data Elements and Justifications shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

 

III.44 IMCD/OMB Data Elements Adjustment Memorandum (subtask 7.2)

There should not be a need to produce a complete IMCD/OMB Forms Clearance Package for 2DC. Instead, the contractor shall prepare an Adjustments Memorandum detailing changes to data elements and the IDCP. If necessary, modifications for the SF-83 will also be produced.

Delivery specifications:

Within one (1) week after NCES inter-divisional review of the Data Elements and Justifications, the IMCD/OMB Adjustments Memorandum shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. During the 120 day clearance period, two (2) revisions for IMCD and OMB concerns shall be placed within the IMS as Word files.

 

III.45 SF-83 Materials (Subtask 7.2)

Information needed to complete blocks #13 and #17 on Standard Form 83, which accompanies the IMCD/OMB clearance package, shall be delivered.

Delivery specifications:

One (1) month after the start of phase II, the SF-83 information based on the preliminary Data Elements and Justifications shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. One (1) week after NCES inter-divisional review of the Data Elements and Justifications, a revised version of the SF-83 information shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

 

 

III.46 Second Data Collection (2DC) Final Item Wording List (subtask 7.2)

OMB and IMCD require documentation of the final IDCP screens used for data collection.

Delivery specifications:

One (1) week prior to the beginning of 2DC operations, an ASCII text file presenting all IDCP windows and coding structures will be placed within the IMS.

 

III.47 Revised 2DC training materials (subtask 7.3)

Based on the experiences of 1DC and the reviews of the Feasibility Report and the 1DC Methods Summary and Results Report, the contractor shall modify the training materials and train data collectors, supervisory and expert analyst staff.

Delivery specification:

Two (2) months prior to the start of 2DC, the revised training materials shall be placed within the IMS as a collection of Word files. One (1) month prior to the start of 2DC a revised version of the training materials shall be placed within the IMS as Word files, based on comments from NCES and the TRP.

III.48 Revised Institutional Data Collection Protocol (IDCP) (subtask 7.4)

Based on the accepted 2DC Data Elements, the IDCP shall be revised as needed.

Delivery specification:

Two (2) months prior to the start of 2DC, the IDCP shall be loaded on a laptop computer and presented to NCES; at the same time, the IDCP shall be placed in the IMS.

III.49 Debriefing Report (subtask 7.4)

The experiences of staff during second data collection shall be documented in a Debriefing Report. The Debriefing Report will summarize the daily reports and trouble notes from each interview team, data collection supervisor response memos, and weekly summaries of data collection status as well as the overall quality control spreadsheet from the IMS.

Delivery specifications:

Two (2) weeks after termination of 2DC operations, the Debriefing Report shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

III.50 Second Data Collection (2DC) data files (subtask 7.4)

The data collected during the 2DC operations shall be stored in a series of files, which will be used for preparation of the final document files for the study as well as to conduct the analyses needed for the Methodology Report, the Congressional Report, and for derived-variable analyses. The contractor shall specify appropriate measures that shall be taken to assure the quality of the data files. Sample weights shall also be provided. The data files shall be offered in restricted-access versions. Because of the potentially proprietary nature of the data to be collected from individual institutions, the raw data files from which the derived variables will be created shall only be available to researchers who undertake to maintain the confidentiality of the data. (The documentation for the Data Files shall be an electronic codebook, see IMS specification.)

Delivery specifications:

One (1) month following termination of 2DC operations, the data files shall be placed within the IMS as ASCII text files with fixed variable positions. The maximum record length shall be less than 1024 characters. One (1) month following acceptance of the Derived Variable Specifications (see subtask 4.1), an ASCII text file of derived variables shall be placed within the IMS.

 

III.51 Methodology Report (subtask 7.5)

All aspects of the 1DC and 2DC collection activities and results shall be documented in the Methodology Report, which shall be prepared with the objective of becoming an NCES Working Paper. Chapters within the Methodology Report shall include an introduction with a discussion of the history of the CCS in general; a description of the initial data collection (1DC), incorporating the 1DC Methods, Summary, and Results Report (subtask III.26); a description of the collection systems developed; response rates for data elements; quality measures (quality control monitoring); IDCP system performance; sample weighting and design effects; and significant problem areas.

Delivery specifications:

One (1) month following delivery of the Data Files, the Methodology Report shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Following delivery this report shall be revised to reflect the concerns of (A) Division statistician review, (B) Associate Commissioner review, (C) Adjudication panel review, and (D) Chief statistician review.

 

III.52 Derived variable specifications (subtask 8.1)

Approximately 250 variables shall be specified as derivations from the collected CCS data for the three data years chosen. These derived variables shall be composites of one or more variables that have the potential for inclusion within the Congressional Report.

Delivery specification:

Two (2) weeks prior to the second TRP meeting of phase II, a first draft of the Derived Variable Specifications shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Three (3) weeks following the second TRP meeting of phase II, the second draft of the Derived Variable Specifications shall be placed within the IMS as an ASCII text file with PC-SAS or SPSS-PC code detailing each specification. Six (6) weeks following the second TRP meeting of phase II, the final Derived Variable Specifications shall be placed within the IMS as an ASCII text file with PC-SAS or SPSS-PC code detailing each specification, including adjustments for missing values within the data.

 

III.53 Table shells (subtask 8.1)

Sixty (60) shells for tables planned for inclusion within the Congressional Report shall be developed. Tables shall be specified with rows, columns, and sample processing rules for derived variables.

Delivery specification:

Two (2) weeks prior to the second TRP meeting of phase II, a first draft of the Table Shells shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Three (3) weeks following the second TRP meeting of phase II, the second draft of the Table Shells shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Six (6) weeks following the second TRP meeting of phase II, the final Table Shells shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file detailing adjustments for low frequencies within the data as well as processing rules for derived variables.

 

III.54 Congressional report outline (Subtask 8.1)

An annotated outline of the Congressional Report shall be developed. The outline shall include areas such as: introduction; project legislative, policy and research literature background, including justifications for the study; major questions of the study; sampling; behavioral models and how they were used to address the Congressional issues; major areas of data collection; data elements and justifications; descriptions of data collection methods, including interviewer training methods, the IDCP, approaches used to minimize burden, quality control, confidentiality and other issues; analytic approaches; and results and conclusions of the study. The outline will explicitly address the items listed in section 131c, paragraphs (1) and (2), of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (see section I.B.1). An outline of an Executive Summary of the report, suitable for transmission to Congress, shall also be prepared.

Delivery specification:

Two (2) weeks prior to the second TRP meeting of phase II, a first draft of the Descriptive Report Outline shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Three (3) weeks following the second TRP meeting of phase II, the second draft shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Six (6) weeks after the second TRP meeting of phase II, the final Descriptive Report Outline shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file.

 

III.55 Data Analysis System, data files, and ECB (Subtask 8.2)

Based on the 250 derived variables and the variables created during 2DC, a data analysis system shall be developed for the estimation of table values and creation of tables. An electronic code book (ECB)(a list of all variables, with descriptive statistics) shall also be delivered. Because of the potentially proprietary nature of the data to be collected from individual institutions, the complete raw data files from which the derived variables will be created shall only be available to researchers who undertake to maintain the confidentiality of the data.

Delivery specification:

One (1) month following the acceptance of the derived variables data file, the Data Analysis System (DAS) shall be placed within the IMS. One month after that the ECB shall be placed within the IMS.

 

III.56 Congressional report (Subtask 4.3)

As specified in the accepted Congressional Report Outline and using the accepted DAS to produce tables specified in the accepted Table Shells, the Congressional Report shall be developed. In addition to text describing group differences, this report shall include approximately 15 graphs and/or charts for the most interesting findings and a 2-page set of bullets serving as highlights.

Delivery specification:

Three (3) weeks prior to the second TRP meeting of phase II, a first draft of the Congressional Report shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. Six (6) months prior to the completion date of the contract, the revised Congressional Report shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file. During the six month period following delivery (the period of NCES publication review), this report shall be revised to reflect the concerns of (A) Division statistician review, (B) Associate Commissioner review, (C) Adjudication panel review, and (D) Chief statistician review. One (1) month following adjudication, the Congressional Report shall be placed within the IMS as a Word file with associated HTML and PDF files. A hard copy of the report shall also be delivered to the Government contracting officer for this project.

.

 

IV. Inspection and Acceptance Procedures

The contractor shall consult with the NCES COTR before making any major decisions or developing the required deliverables. To facilitate this communication, the contractor shall make frequent phone calls and visits to NCES to discuss potential project problems and progress. The contractor shall set up an electronic system for transferring information via electronic mail and microcomputers. In addition, the contractor shall provide the COTR access to files and systems within the Integrated Monitoring System and remote access for monitoring data collection.

The contractor shall prepare all reports following the guidelines referenced by NCES' standards. The NCES review process may take 2-6 months, depending on the type of report. It is paramount that schedules for publication releases be kept and that NCES standards for all phases of report production be followed. All materials must be approved before release. The contractor shall not release any data in raw or derived form to anyone without NCES's prior review and approval.

 

 

 

V. Additional Compliance Requirements

V.A. Protection of data

The confidentiality of individually identifiable information contained in documents, data, and other information supplied by the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (NCES/ED) or acquired in the course of performance under this contract, furnished under the provisions of section 406 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1), is a material aspect of the contract, and must be maintained, as provided in Paragraphs 4(A) through (F) of Section 406 of the General Education Provisions Act and 5 U.S.C. 552a. Therefore, the contractor shall maintain the confidentiality of all documents, data, and other information supplied by NCES/ED or acquired in the course of performance of this contract, except for any documents or other information specifically designated as non-confidential by NCES/ED. The contractor shall take such measures as are necessary to maintain the required security.

 

V.B. Control file maintenance

The contractor shall store and keep all computer files, including all locator information and other control files, in a secure place for six years or until conveyed to NCES and written permission is given by NCES through the Contracting Officer to otherwise dispose of the files.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

Appendix A.

Current (12/98) non-Federal members of the NPEC IPEDS Review Working Group on Finance, Cost and Financial Aid

Michael Middaugh, Chair; Asst. Vice President, Institutional Research and Planning, University of Delaware, 325 Hullihan Hall, Neward, DE 19716, 202-831-2021, -8530 (fax), middaugh@udel.edu

Claire Cotton, President, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, 11Beacon Street, Suite 1224, Boston, Massachusetts 02108-3093

L. Robert Kuhn, Associate Vice Chancellor of Budget and Planning, Louisiana State University and A&M College, 311 Thomas Boyd Hall, Baton Rouge LA 70803 504-388-1231, -5963 (fax), rkuhn@lsu.edu

J. Michael Mullen, Vice President of Administration, Northern Arizona University, P.O. Box 4088, Flagstaff AZ 86011-4088 520-523-2708, -4230 (fax), michael.mullen@nau.edu

Mark Putnam, Vice President and Secretary of the College, Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Avenue, Fanning Hall, New London CT 06320-4196 860-439-2221, -2101 (fax), mlput@conncoll.edu

Kala Stroup, Commissioner of Higher Education, Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education, 3515 Amazonas Drive, Jefferson City MO 65109 573-751-1876, 573-526-0984 (fax), cbhe400@admin.mocbhe.gov

Robert K. Toutkoushian, Executive Director, Office of Policy Analysis, University System of New Hampshire, 27 Concord Road, Myers Financial Center, Durham NH 03824 603-862-0966, 603-868-2756 (fax), r_toutkoush@usnh.unh.edu

Gordon Winston, Professor, Department of Economics, Williams College, Fernald House, Williamstown MA 01267 413-597-2271, -4045 (fax)

 

 

 

 

   
Printable view
Last Modified: 08/23/2003