CIP Code Report

August 17, 2020

To: Phil Reid, Vice Provost for Academic and Student Affairs, Chair
Data Governance Steering Committee

From: Kima Cargill, Associate Dean, Graduate School, (co-chair)
Helen B. Garrett, University Registrar, Enrollment Management, (co-chair)
Rick Fenger, Chief Data Strategist for Research, ORIS
Stephanie Harris, Institutional Analyst, Institutional Data & Analysis
Jodi McKeeman, Business Systems Analyst, UW-IT
Ann Nagel, Associate Vice Provost, Office of Privacy, Academic and Student Affairs and Chair of Data Governance Operational Committee
Matt Saxton, Associate Dean, Information School
Matt Winslow, Senior Associate Registrar, Policy and Procedure

RE: Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Code Task Force Final Report and Recommendations

Executive Summary

The CIP Code Task Force met three times in the summer of 2020 to address the gaps in the current CIP Code assignment, change, and maintenance processes with a goal of moving from a data governance maturity level of 2, repeatable, to an end-state of 3, defined. This discovery process included a holistic review of the CIP Code assignment/alignment process, and included a review of the approval processes, implementation processes, communication, and potential downstream impacts.

As a result of our exploration we have arrived at a series of recommendations to improve the current workflow of requests from inception to implementation, to provide a mechanism for a holistic review of the requests on a monthly basis, and to highlight for academic units and curriculum development bodies the importance of assigning CIP codes with new curricular and continuing curricular offerings.

Our recommendations meet the goals set forth in the original charge letter. As a reminder, the charge letter expectations were (Charge Letter in Appendix A):

• Determine the current state of each of these business and technical processes.
• Given the desired end-state maturity level:
  • Research and suggest process improvements
  • Recommend implementation strategies to reach the future state

Response-Current State:

CIP Code Overview:

Classification of Instructional Program Codes (CIP) Codes are managed by the National Center for Education Statistics and information on CIP Codes can be accessed at:
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/Default.aspx?y=56

What is the CIP?
The Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) provides a taxonomic scheme that supports the accurate tracking and reporting of fields of study and program completions activity. CIP was originally developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1980, with revisions occurring in 1985, 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2020. Information on the 1985, 1990, 2000 and 2010 CIP can be accessed on the resources page under the section heading Archive and Historical. On the 2020 CIP Website, you can view both the 2020 CIP and the 2010 CIP. The default option is to view the 2020 CIP, which is the most recent version of the CIP. To view the 2010 CIP on this webpage, look for the Change Year Box, click on the down arrow and select 2010.

The Office of Planning and Budgeting (OPB) reports CIP codes to the Office of Financial Management in Washington State with the provision of our student data sharing agreement, report CIP codes with some of their IPEDS reporting, when providing data for certain ranking surveys, and the National Science Foundation uses CIP codes for grants management.

CIP Code Request Processes

The current state for the management of requests to assign a CIP code to a new program or to assign a new CIP code to an existing program differs by program level. At the undergraduate level, requests are overseen by the Office of the University Registrar, are part of the 1503 process and use the Kuali Curriculum Management software. Similarly, changes to previously assigned undergraduate or graduate CIP codes are overseen by the Office of the University Registrar at UW-Seattle and utilize the Kuali Curriculum Management (CM) software (but are not part of the 1503 process).

Step-by-step instructions on how to request a change to a programs assigned CIP Code can be found at:
https://registrar.washington.edu/curriculum/guides/credential-cip/

By contrast, requests to assign new CIP Codes at the graduate level are overseen by the Office of Academic Affairs and Planning at the Graduate School. Step-by-step instructions on this can be found at:
https://grad.uw.edu/for-faculty-and-staff/creating-modifying-programs/guidelines-for-new-degree-programs/

The task force reviewed these processes and observed there were inconsistencies between the approval process at the department level between undergraduate and graduate programs, and between new requests happening at the curricular level and for changes by the various deans and chairs. It was also noted that the CM workflow requires a dean for an academic program (not a chair or associate dean) to be the final approver for the new or for an alternate CIP code request. The task force wondered about the rigour of the review with the current process and if there was a gap in the process, as a result.

There is also concern that while the process to request a CIP Code is clearly outlined on the website, there are not clearly stated criteria for how such requests should be reviewed from a curricular or more holistic viewpoint. CIP Codes are meant to represent the curricular aspects of a major and are not intended to serve an individual student or program for funding purposes or to facilitate post-graduation employment opportunities for international students.

The Task Force is concerned that there are a number of CIP codes being used that have not been reviewed for years or decades. In many cases, the accompanying curriculum has evolved considerably and may no longer be in alignment with the original CIP code.

“STEMification” of CIP Code Requests

It was noted that in the past two years of recording the requests there were 31 requests for CIP Code changes and 24 were to move to a STEM CIP Code from a non-STEM CIP code. This created a conversation around the “STEM-ification” of the CIP Code process and again caused us to observe that this needed some attention.

The incentive for an academic unit to request a STEM CIP Code is currently tied to the ability for an academic unit to apply for certain STEM grants, for students in majors with STEM CIP Codes they can qualify to participate after graduation in Optional Practical Training (OPT) and Curricular Practical Training (CPT) programs, and state legislators often ask for student/FTE enrollment data for students enrolled in STEM programs during the state budget cycle. The current processes and instructions are not explicit that academic units should not request CIP Codes to benefit specific students and/or to ask for these to be changed retroactively, again to benefit particular students.

At the same time, the task force is aware that higher education, and all of society, has rapidly moved toward science and technology. In many regards the increase in STEM CIP Codes may simply reflect advances and innovations in science and information technology, not to mention that the University of Washington has bolstered these areas of its curriculum, research and faculty.

Transparency of CIP Code Identification

Finally, there is not an easy mechanism for departments and students to validate their program’s CIP code and their STEM indicator. Systemically we discovered that there are at least four known systems that store CIP data for different purposes and it’s up to each unit to keep in sync which becomes a particular challenge every 10 years when NCES updates the list of CIP Codes. See https://wiki.cac.washington.edu/display/CM/2020+CIP+Code+Updates

Recommendations:

CIP Code Request Processes

1. Create a workflow from inception of the request through implementation that is both a visual diagram to be featured on the CIP Code website and that will serve to unify a single approach for new and change requests for undergraduate, professional, and graduate programs.
2. Create a marketing/communication plan to distribute the updated CIP Code website, complete with the visuals in recommendation #1 to the Board of Deans and Chancellors, and to the three Tri Campus faculty curriculum committees. This campaign should address the holistic purposes for CIP Codes and serve to unify the process beyond just providing information on the technical aspects of requesting a new or changed CIP Code.
3. Create a CIP Code Stakeholder Review Board to be the final step in the CIP Code request process. This group would function much like the UW Curriculum Committee with representatives from all three campuses appointed by the Faculty Senate. The review board would meet monthly to review requests that have come in since the last meeting. They would look at the request from a global perspective and create a historical body of knowledge related to the effective management of the CIP Code request and maintenance. This body would help ensure the request is consistent with the policy and, as needed, collaborate with the dean to clarify any issues related to the validity and purpose of the request. The review board would be logistically staffed by the Office of the University Registrar, serving in an ex officio capacity. Subject Matter Experts (SME) would be invited to attend if there were a need for such expertise to discuss a particular CIP Code request.

   The criteria for membership on the CIP Code Stakeholder Review Board could include:

   • Representation from undergraduate and graduate programs
   • Representation from at least one STEM program and one non-STEM program
   • Individuals who are willing to look at the requests globally with an eye for enhancement of the CIP Code program when necessary
   • Individuals willing to create and enhance the historical and thematic repository of discussions related to CIP Code management

   Amendment: After discussing these recommendations with the Data Governance Steering Committee, and analyzing our recommendations for the criteria for membership on the CIP Code Stakeholder Review Board, Kima and Helen, co-chairs, would like to recommend that the Curriculum Management Oversight Committee (CMOC) assume the role of the CIP Code Stakeholder Review Board. The CMOC is well-established and serves in an advisory capacity to the Office of the University Registrar and the UW-IT Student Team who manage the Kuali Curriculum software. As you know, Kuali is the software used to manage the CIP Code request and fulfillment process, so we felt that the CMOC was a natural and already established committee that could fulfill this role on a monthly basis. The CMOC has representation from all three registrars, faculty from all three campus curriculum bodies, and two members from the Graduate School. See attached slide indicating the current membership. While the CMOC reports up to the University Registrar and meets once a quarter, we think we could easily conduct meetings once a month to review any pending CIP Code changes and requests.

4. Establish a CIP Code policy or protocol that:
   • Does not allow a CIP Code request to be applied retroactively unless there is evidence of institutional error. All CIP Code requests once approved take effect in the next subsequent quarter.
   • Does not allow a CIP Code to be changed or created for the sole purpose of supporting an individual student’s need to remain eligible for CPT or OPT or for any particular individual gain.
   • Articulates the roles and responsibilities of the Dean, CIP Code Stakeholder Review Board, Graduate School, and the Office of the University Registrar in the CIP Code creation and management process
   • Declares the authoritative source systems for CIP Codes
   • Clearly identifies the steps an academic unit would take to request a new or a different CIP Code for the academic programs.
5. Move the Data Governance Maturity Model for the CIP Code management process from a Maturity Level of 2 to a Maturity Level of 3:
   

   Maturity Level 3

   Defined

   To be considered “defined,” major data driven initiatives pursued through the data governance committees will be proactive, rather than reactive, and involve relevant data stewards, but are not connected to the UW strategy and priorities

   This move is justified when the following are implemented:

   • Informing academic units on how the CIP Code request process works,
   • Establishing the CIP Code Stakeholder Review Board,
   • Creating enhanced reporting and look up tools, and
   • Delineating boundaries around when CIP Code changes will be made and for what reasons.

Transparency of CIP Code Identification

6. Introduce the newly created self-service CIP Code look-up tool to the academic units and suggest to curriculum committees and academic units that they perform a self-audit or review of current CIP Codes. This would be done so that they are aware of which CIP Codes they currently have in place.
7. Clearly identify how individuals and departments can identify CIP Codes:
   • National Catalog: Nationally defined resources: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/Default.aspx?y=56
   • CIP Look-up Tool: Create a new self-service CIP Code look-up tool for academic units and students to easily identify the CIP Codes associated with each University of Washington major.
   • Data Solutions: Enterprise Data Warehouse, BI Portal Data Solutions and Reports
   • Ongoing Data Management: Assist with mapping and managing CIP Code data in relationship with additional University data
8. Partner with the UW-Information Technology and the Office of Planning and Budgets to address the challenge that there are currently four known systems that store CIP Code data for different purposes and it’s up to each unit to keep in sync. Strive to create one source of truth for the CIP Codes that can meet the needs of the four systems currently storing the CIP Code data. See https://wiki.cac.washington.edu/display/CM/2020+CIP+Code+Updates
9. Implement a data management approach to ensure access, transparency and ability to improve CIP data as the institutional data matures. Identify opportunities to provide data management facilities to help map and manage CIP in relation to other data via data stewards in the business.

---

Appendix A
Provost’s CIP Code Task Force Charge Letter
April 20, 2020

Data Governance Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Code Task Force
Kima Cargill, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Planning, Graduate School, Co-Chair
Helen Garrett, University Registrar and Chief Officer Enrollment Information Services, Co-Chair

Rick Fenger, Assistant Director, Decision Support Services, ORIS
Stephanie Harris, Institutional Analyst, Institutional Data & Analysis
Jodi McKeeman, Business Systems Analyst, UW-IT
Ann Nagel, Associate Vice Provost, Office of Privacy, Academic and Student Affairs and Chair of Data Governance Operational Committee
Matt Saxton, Associate Dean, Information School
Matt Winslow, Senior Associate Registrar, Policy and Procedure

Dear Colleagues:
Thank you for your willingness to serve on the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Code Task Force charged with addressing the gaps in the current CIP Code assignment, change, and maintenance processes. This group will begin its work in June 2020 and report findings and recommendations to the Data Governance Steering Committee in August 2020.

As you are aware, the CIP code system facilitates the organization, classification, and reporting of student enrollment and program completion by a field of study. CIP Codes are used to classify programs as ‘high-demand’ or ‘STEM’ for funding and grants, they impact international student visa status, are required for state and federal mandated reporting, and are used in national institutional rankings.

We know of three possible times when a program may need to engage in this process to develop, change, or update their CIP Code:

1. When the Federal government releases new and updated CIP Codes, we must update affected programs in our data systems. An update is currently underway for 2020.
2. When a program finds that they more closely align with a different CIP Code than the current one assigned.
3. When a new program is approved and must determine which CIP Code they should use.

Data Governance uses a maturity model for major initiatives to identify current and desired end-state maturity levels for each major project. Given competing priorities and resources, not all projects will aim for full maturity. The goal for this task force is to take the UW’s process for assigning, changing and maintaining CIP Codes from a data governance maturity level of 2, repeatable, to an end-state of 3, defined (see Appendix for the complete maturity model).

To this end, this Task Force is charged with addressing the following:

1. Determine the current state of each of these business and technical processes.
2. Given the desired end-state maturity level:
   • Research and suggest process improvements.
   • Recommend implementation strategies to reach the future state.

This discovery should include a holistic review of the CIP Code assignment/alignment process, including, but not limited to, approval processes, implementation processes, communication, and potential downstream impacts. Actual implementation will be phase two and, as such, is beyond the scope of this Task Force.

To help answer questions and provide guidance, as needed, your co-chairs will meet briefly and regularly with Marisa Nickle, Ann Nagel and me in our Data Governance roles.

A report with findings and recommendations should be provided to the Data Governance Steering committee no later than August 2020. Thank you again for your willingness to help with this critical work.

Sincerely,

Phil Reid
Vice Provost, Academic and Student Affairs
Professor of Chemistry

Appendix A (cont’d)

Maturity Model for Major Data Gov Initiatives
The maturity model is used to help measure the value of major data governance initiatives (e.g. data map, data stewardship, country codes). For major data governance initiatives, the data governance committees evaluate the maturity level at the initial (current) state, intended future state, and progress towards the intended future state. These metrics help the establish the baseline, create clarity on where we are going, and align expectations with the steering and operational committee, related governance groups, and our colleagues across all three campuses. The metrics along with other high-level and pertinent information about each initiative will be published on the data governance website.
Maturity Level 5	Optimized	Continuous improvement on major data governance initiatives considered “optimized” help the UW leverage data and data resources to respond to opportunity and change in a consistent and cohesive manner
Maturity Level 4	Managed	Major data driven initiatives pursued through the data governance committees will be considered “managed” if they are connected to the UW strategy. Policies, best practices and supporting resources help ensure there’s a common understanding of data governance and management principles across the UW
Maturity Level 3	Defined	To be considered “defined,” major data driven initiatives pursued through the data governance committees will be proactive, rather than reactive, and involve relevant data stewards, but are not connected to the UW strategy and priorities
Maturity Level 2	Repeatable	Data driven initiatives are considered “repeatable” if they are regularly planned, executed, and measured in silos
Maturity Level 1	Initial	“Initial” data driven initiatives are ad hoc, inconsistent, undefined, and/or lead to incongruent results

Developed by Ann Nagel for Data Governance Operational Committee based on:
1) Various conversations at UW with the Data Governance Task Force, Data Custodians, and Data Governance Committee Members
2) High-level review of maturity models published by EAB, Carnegie Mellon, DataVersity, Prosci, Wikipedia, AICPA, Department of Defense, Marisa Sanchez Organization Dev & Change Mgmt Consulting

Adopted by Data Governance Operational Committee at the 3/5/2020 meeting