In August 2025, the Trump administration called for greater transparency in college admissions data, prompting the US Department of Education to create a new data collection called the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement, or ACTS. Colleges and universities had roughly 90 days to gather and submit seven years of detailed admissions data. This report draws on a survey of nearly 600 institutional research and institutional effectiveness professionals, along with in-person listening sessions and focus groups, to document how colleges and universities experienced the initial ACTS collection and what could be improved in future cycles.

Why This Matters

The compressed timeline for ACTS meant that colleges and universities built new reporting systems without stakeholder testing and technical review panels that typically shape new Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data requirements. Nearly all respondents said the collection took more staff time than regular IPEDS reporting. Many also raised concerns about the accuracy of the data submitted. Because ACTS data could inform decisions about institutional compliance with the US Supreme Court’s rulings on the use of race in admissions and may eventually reach the public, understanding how the data were collected and their limitations matters for anyone who uses the data.

What We Found

Colleges described an unusually difficult reporting process at every stage of the collection.

• Most institutions spent at least 250 staff hours on ACTS, well above the Department of Education’s original 200-hour estimate, and more than a quarter of institutions spent 400 hours or more.
• Only about one in six respondents had all the undergraduate data ACTS asked for. Older records on student characteristics, admissions, and financial aid were commonly incomplete or missing entirely.
• Just over half of survey respondents were very or extremely concerned about the accuracy of their submitted data. Definitions that were ambiguous and that shifted partway through the collection period undermined confidence further.
• Institutions also raised concerns beyond the technical burden, including legal exposure, student privacy, and staff well-being. Some worried about how the data could be used or misused, and others described significant stress within small offices responsible for reporting.

How We Did It

Researchers from the Urban Institute and the Association for Institutional Research surveyed 596 respondents at four-year colleges and universities required to submit ACTS data, most working in institutional research and institutional effectiveness. Two in-person listening sessions drew about 70 participants, and three virtual focus groups included 25 participants, all conducted after the ACTS reporting deadline had passed. A related study of institutional factors affecting IPEDS data quality, conducted for a separate federal review process, also informed the findings.