Contacting Institutions

The institution sample for NPSAS:08 consisted of 1,960 institutions, 1,940 of which were eligible to participate in the study. In addition, in six states—California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and Texas—institutions were oversampled to provide state-level representative data. Each of the oversampled states in NPSAS:08 was part of the 12-state oversample selected for NPSAS:04.

Before institutions were contacted, endorsements were obtained from 26 major professional associations (for the complete list of endorsements, see appendix D). This list included organizations that had previously endorsed NPSAS, as well as new organizations, such as the State Higher

Education Executive Officers and the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Regional organizations in the oversampled states and organizations representing schools in the for- profit and less-than-2-year sectors were specifically targeted for inclusion as endorsing organizations. Endorsements were featured on all project letterhead, on all pamphlets, and on the NPSAS:08 website. In addition, several of these organizations continued to promote the study throughout the data collection period in newsletters and other communications.

Early notification of sampled institutions had previously been found to have been effective in encouraging institutions to meet the requested deadlines in the previous round of NPSAS

(NPSAS:04). The early notification allowed schools time to arrange resources for participation within the schedule constraints of the study and time for any required internal review and approval procedures. The time also allowed institutions to address any potential obstacles to their

participation. In accordance with these considerations, the start of the fall term was judged ideal for initiating contact with the institutions. The process of recruiting institutions and initiating

coordinator contacts for NPSAS:08 began in September 2007. The earliest due dates for providing student lists occurred in January 2008. (Sample augmentation slightly delayed the initiation of contact with some institutions added for state representativeness.) For NPSAS:08, the collection of student enrollment lists proceeded in four stages: (1) training, (2) initial contact, (3) recruitment of institutions, and (4) collection of student lists.

Training. Institutional contactors were trained before the start of institutional recruitment on their role and responsibilities for NPSAS:08. During training, they received an overview of the study, detailed telephone scripts and frequently asked questions, and guidance on instructing institutions on how to complete the student enrollment list. In addition, institutional coordinators were trained in how to effectively gain the cooperation of institutions.

Initial contact. The first step in the institutional contacting process was to verify the contact information for the chief administrator, to whom the initial mailing would be directed. Institutional eligibility was also confirmed at this time. Institutions flagged as potentially ineligible— including closed institutions and institutions that indicated they were not Title IV eligible or open to the general public—were reviewed by project staff. Instances of sampled institutions that had merged with other institutions (sampled or not sampled), possible mission changes that might have affected the institution’s sampling strata, and changes in name or address were also reviewed.

Recruitment of institutions. The recruitment of institutions began in September 2007. Chief administrators at sampled institutions for NPSAS:08 were sent the following materials (for a copy of all NPSAS:08 data collection materials, see appendix E):

• a cover letter, printed on NCES letterhead, providing background information on NPSAS and requesting that the chief administrator designate an institutional coordinator;

• a NPSAS:08 brochure summarizing the objectives of NPSAS and providing background information and selected findings;

• a copy of the NPSAS brochure sent to sampled students; and

• a flowchart containing the projected timeline of activities for NPSAS:08.

A mailing to the chief administrator’s office requested the appointment of an institutional coordinator whose role would be to respond to requests for data and coordinate data production and delivery. Institutional contactors followed up with the chief administrator’s office and obtained the name of an institutional coordinator by telephone when the institution had not logged into the website to designate one. Telephone prompts were supplemented with e-mail and, when necessary, mail prompts. Once an institutional coordinator was designated, he or she received a letter

introducing the study and the role, together with the same brochures and time line sent to the chief administrator.

A website was developed to be used by institutions selected for participation in NPSAS:08 (figure 5). In addition to providing general information about NPSAS:08, this website served as a central repository for all study documents and instructions. Additionally, the institutions were able to securely upload student enrollment lists at the site.

Figure 5. The NPSAS:08 institutional website home page: 2008

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08) website.

Visitors to the home page were provided the following links:

• About NPSAS linked to information on the study’s mandate and research objectives, with a link provided to NCES reports from previous study cycles.

• Early contact linked to information about the initial stage of institutional contacting for NPSAS:08.

• Endorsements linked to a complete list of all 26 endorsing organizations.

• Forms/Instructions page linked to lists of the institutional forms required for participation in the NPSAS:08 study and the instructions for completing them.

• Frequently asked questions (FAQs) linked to questions and answers concerning all stages of data collection for both components of NPSAS:08.

• Legal authority linked to the legislation that mandates and authorizes the data collection effort for NPSAS and that protects the confidentiality of the data.

The webpage contained a status screen that indicated the stages of institutional data collection that were completed (denoted by a check mark). This allowed institutions to easily recognize and select those stages that were not yet completed.

Once designated, the institutional coordinator was asked to complete an Institution Registration Page (IRP). The form asked for basic information about the institution, such as term structure, and confirmed the deadline for providing a student list, which was initially set for 2 weeks after the start of the term which included the date April 30.18

Collection of student lists. Calls to institutional coordinators were conducted to prompt timely completion of the IRP and delivery of the student enrollment lists. Institutional coordinators also received telephone, e-mail, and mail prompts reminding them of upcoming deadlines. A help desk telephone number and e-mail address were also provided for institutions that required assistance on project tasks.

The IRP also gave the institutional coordinator the opportunity to review the data elements requested on the list and to alert project staff to any potential difficulties (e.g., institutional prohibitions against releasing certain items or policies requiring an institutional review board [IRB] review of data collection).

On request, institutions were provided with a letter affirming RTI’s IRB had approved the study. Institutional review at the institutional level was not required for participating institutions because RTI had received approval from its own IRB; however, supporting materials were provided to institutions that wanted to conduct their own review before participating. A customized packet was prepared for each requesting institution and mailed to the coordinator. The packet included copies of questionnaires and complete descriptions of relevant survey procedures, including information about confidentiality and informed consent.

Because the six-state oversample was selected after the field test data collection, 20 institutions within the six-state oversample were sampled for both the field test and the full-scale studies. After initial contact, mailings alerted the schools to their inclusion in the full-scale sample, and project staff further addressed any concerns about burden by offering support and assistance and by working with the institution on a realistic schedule.

Both state systems and large for-profit systems with centralized record keeping were given the option of reporting for their constituent institutions, whenever feasible,at thesystem level. This provision greatly increased the efficiency of data collection and reduced burden for individual institutions. The project coordinator worked with these systems directly to manage any unique requests.