New AIR and Urban Institute Report Documents IR/IE Professionals' Experiences with the First ACTS Collection

A national study involving over 600 practitioners finds that the first ACTS cycle required substantial effort and raises concerns about data quality, while identifying specific ways to improve future collections.

Last winter, many institutions were asked to compile and submit seven years of detailed undergraduate and graduate admissions data for the US Department of Education's new Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) in about 90 days. A new report from AIR and the Urban Institute documents the experience of practitioners and what it could mean for the quality and value of the data collected.

Learning from the Initial ACTS Reporting: Documenting Practitioner Experiences and Recommendations for Future Reporting, by Bryan J. Cook (Urban Institute) and Christine M. Keller (AIR), draws on a survey of 596 institutional research, institutional effectiveness, and other professionals at four-year institutions. It also draws on two listening sessions at the 2026 AIR Forum and three virtual focus groups held this summer.

What We Heard from Practitioners

The report describes a reporting process that was unusually difficult from start to finish:

Burden well beyond federal estimates. The Department of Education estimated that ACTS would take 200 staff hours. More than half of respondents said their institutions spent at least 250 hours, and 28 percent spent 400 hours or more. Nearly all respondents (98 percent) said ACTS took more time than typical IPEDS reporting.
Data that often didn't exist in the form requested. Only 17 percent of respondents had all the undergraduate data ACTS asked for, and only 15 percent had all the graduate data. The data most often missing were student characteristics, admissions details, and financial aid information.
Shifting definitions and serious concerns about accuracy. Most respondents said ambiguous definitions (87 percent) and changing definitions (86 percent) added to their burden. Fifty-two percent were very or extremely concerned about the accuracy of the data they submitted.
A human toll. Focus group participants described 60- to 80-hour weeks, small or one-person offices carrying the whole load, and colleagues who were considering leaving the field.

Because of these conditions, the authors conclude that the first cycle of ACTS data should be interpreted with caution, especially when used for trend analysis or for comparisons across institutions.

Recommendations for Future Cycles

The report doesn't argue against using IPEDS to make college admissions more transparent. Instead, it offers the Department of Education a practical starting point for improving future ACTS collections, strengthening data quality, and reducing the burden on the people who report the data. The recommendations are:

Clarify ACTS definitions, align them with existing IPEDS reporting, and keep changes between cycles to a minimum.
Convene an ACTS Technical Review Panel.
Improve technical systems and validation tools. For example, show all validation errors at once rather than one at a time.
Integrate ACTS more fully with existing IPEDS surveys and infrastructure.
Strengthen privacy and transparency safeguards, including disclosure controls and clear documentation of what ACTS is for and what its data can and can't show.

With Gratitude

This study would not have been possible without the AIR members who completed the survey, joined listening sessions at the AIR Forum, and took part in focus groups. Thank you for sharing your experiences so candidly. We are also grateful to AIR's Data Policy Advisory Panel for its guidance, and to Lumina Foundation for supporting AIR's work on this project.