Higher education institutions face heightened legal and regulatory scrutiny that is reshaping how they approach admissions; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives; foreign influence compliance; and data management. This article summarizes key regulatory developments and outlines practical strategies to help institutions align operations with evolving compliance expectations.
1. Key Regulatory Changes
Post-SFFA Compliance: Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) addressed university admissions practices, subsequent enforcement actions and private litigation theories reinforce that institutions should also evaluate whether race- or gender-conscious practices may exist in financial aid, scholarships, hiring, promotion, and vendor selection, and whether such practices present potential compliance risks.
Accreditation & Settlement-Driven Obligations: Accrediting bodies are adjusting their standards, and in some cases are making DEI-related reporting optional rather than mandatory, as in past years. Institutions should also be prepared for potential federal resolutions or settlement agreements that require ongoing, periodic reporting on admissions outcomes and formal assessments of campus climate.
Foreign Influence Reporting: There are also increased expectations for compliance relating to foreign influence. This includes strict adherence to disclosure requirements for foreign gifts and contracts under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, particularly where national security or export concerns may be implicated.
2. Admissions Data Analysis
Data Collection: Effectively collecting and preserving admissions data is critical to an institution’s ability to analyze and demonstrate compliance with SFFA. To help ensure data integrity, complete admissions data should be stored in a central database or data warehouse with appropriate access and change controls, including for graduate and professional schools. Demographic data should also be standardized using the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) definitions as a reference point.
Standardization: Admissions data can be challenging to analyze, as many fields are not standardized. Common challenges and mitigating strategies include:
- Standardize grade point averages to help improve comparability among applicants from different institutions and grading systems.
- Whenever possible, translate qualitative inputs into quantitative measures. For instance, if admissions essays are required, apply standardized scoring rubrics or automated systems to generate consistent numeric scores that can be analyzed independently of content.
- Limit the use of free-form text fields. Factors that materially influence admissions outcomes should, where possible, be converted into standardized numeric metrics. For instance, if Advanced Placement (AP) test scores are considered, rate the quality and breadth of scores using a defined numeric scale rather than narrative comments.
Multiyear Trend Analysis: When analyzing admissions data, whether in response to an investigation or as part of proactive compliance monitoring, institutions should start with a six-year trend analysis showing admissions outcomes by demographic categories. We recommend a minimum of three years before SFFA and three years after SFFA. If the analyses do not show a clear inflection following SFFA, institutions should scrutinize the various inputs that may have influenced outcomes. Monitoring these trends each admissions cycle can enable leadership to track changes in academic rigor and outcomes and develop clear compliance narratives.
3. Federal Investigations & Monitoring
When compliance concerns are raised, the quality of the investigation process is crucial. A defensible investigation typically includes the following key steps:
- Scoping & Planning
- Collecting & Preserving Data/Evidence
- Fact-Finding
- Reporting
- Remediation
Institutions should establish an Investigation Working Group consisting of individuals positioned to support an in-depth investigation. Depending on the specific issues raised, this may include representatives from the general counsel’s office, internal audit, information technology, and data governance. Outside counsel and outside forensic consultants provide critical guidance and credibility. If financial or donor-related issues are involved, finance and accounting leadership should also be considered for inclusion.
One of the most significant risks during this process is data loss. Institutions should coordinate with outside counsel to consider whether legal holds are suitable and with outside forensic consultants to consider forensic imaging. Routine processes, such as automatic deletion of emails or admissions data, can carry serious legal consequences. To help prepare, institutions should develop and maintain an investigation playbook that includes prearranged relationships with external advisors and clear lines of responsibility. Periodic tabletop exercises or mock drills can also help ensure that, when an actual investigation or inquiry arises, the institution can promptly preserve and access the necessary data.
How Forvis Mazars Can Help
Our experienced Higher Education Consulting, Data Analytics, and Forensics teams can provide in-depth support to help navigate these complex regulatory changes. We have extensive knowledge of the education system and can employ powerful tools, data, and analytics to help your institution prepare for what’s next. If you have any questions or need assistance, please reach out to a professional at Forvis Mazars.
Watch our on-demand webinar, “Understanding the Regulatory Environment: Admissions & Campus Climate,” for more information on these topics.