Data Collection Is Failing Indigenous College Students: Report

Higher education data often treats Indigenous students as a monolith, according to a new report, masking disparities and student needs.

Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) researchers wrote in the new report “Layers of Identity: Rethinking American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) Data Collection in Higher Education” that higher education needs to be more attentive and deliberate about collecting data on Indigenous students.

There are 574 federally recognized tribes in the U.S., according to the report, and even more that are state recognized or not officially recognized at all.

IHEP senior research analyst Janiel Santos said Indigenous students are often grouped together in higher education data and analyses, discounting the vast diversity of their student experiences.

“All of them are diverse culturally, geographically, have varying sizes and have different backgrounds and history,” Santos told BestColleges. “And so these students are having very different experiences and how they’re going through higher education.”

Those data gaps lead to direct harm to students, report contributing author and IHEP board member Amanda R. Tachine, Navajo from Ganado, Arizona, and Náneesht’ézhí Táchii’nii (Zuni Red Running into Water clan) born for Tł’izilani (Many Goats clan), said in a press release.

“Current data collection methods fail to capture the full tapestry of who AI/AN students are,” Tachine said.

“This lack of high-quality data is perpetuating historical harms and enabling present-day erasure. Our research highlights the need for more nuanced data collection methods that accurately reflect and respect individual identities, tribal affiliations, and lived experiences, ultimately informing more equitable policies and support systems for AI/AN students.”

Small counts lead to a lack of data for researchers and policymakers, inconsistent classification of AI/AN students, and overgeneralized representations of their communities, according to the report.

Layers of Indigenous identity have long been poorly accounted for in federal data, according to the report, although recent changes have sought to make data collection more inclusive.

The authors use the term “American Indian and Alaskan Native” — AI/AN — when referring to people who would be categorized as AI/AN within federal data sets. The report notes that not all Indigenous individuals are counted in those data sets under current data collection methods.

The report says the AI/AN category is both a political and legal classification, and many people who identify as AI/AN hold tribal citizenships — affecting the way they navigate higher education.

Despite the complex layers of identity among Indigenous communities, those distinctions aren’t consistently incorporated into postsecondary education data. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity recently changed in a bid to better count Indigenous students.

The previous OMB standards defined AI/AN as a “person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.” But that was revised in March 2024.

The new standards remove the language “who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.”

They now define AI/AN as “individuals with origins in any of the original peoples of North, Central, and South America, including, for example, Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, Nome Eskimo Community, Aztec, and Maya.”

OMB also previously designated Hispanic or Latino/a individuals as people of “Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.”

That meant any AI/AN student with Hispanic ancestry was automatically categorized as Hispanic or Latino/a regardless of their tribal affiliation, according to the report, leading to the undercounting of the AI/AN population.

The new OMB standards remove the language “regardless of race,” so AI/AN students will no longer be automatically put into the Hispanic or Latino/a category in data collection.

The percentage of people who identify as AI/AN in addition to another race has been on the rise in recent years, but federal data often aggregated them despite their Indigenous identity. Students who identified as AI/AN in addition to another race have often been counted as “Two or More Races” in data sets even if they’re tribal citizens.

Santos said the revisions will offer “some improvements” but warned that a large number of students are being undercounted in data collection.

Federal agencies have roughly 18 months to develop an action plan and must comply with the OMB revisions by March 2029. Santos said the full scope of how individual agencies will undertake Indigenous data collection remains to be seen.

The IHEP brief urges all levels of government to work closely with tribes to accurately represent Indigenous students.

That relationship shouldn’t just fall to government agencies, Santos said. Colleges also need to build relationships with tribes to support students.

“Institutions should definitely be reaching out to local tribes that are within their area to first establish those relationships and really understand what the tribes need from them to make sure that they are supporting the students that they have on their campuses,” Santos said.

Santos also noted disparities in internet access for Indigenous students, saying that could also pose challenges to data collection.

Tribes should be represented on advisory boards and review panels, according to the report, and consulted in terms of how to best collect data. The report notes several ways to improve data on Indigenous students, particularly collecting data on tribal affiliation.

“Gathering these data points helps data users disaggregate information at a more granular level. Tribal-level data also allow stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding interventions, policies, and programs to support students’ academic success,” the report reads.

Santos said a number of states are implementing tribal affiliation data collection methods in secondary education, presenting a potential model for federal data collection.

“If we are able to see what is happening at tribal-level trends within a campus, that can help policymakers and higher ed leaders really assess what resources are needed and what interventions are needed because the students are experiencing higher ed in very different ways,” Santos said.