XML 20 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Regulatory | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2013
Text Block [Abstract] |
Regulatory | 9. Regulatory The University is subject to extensive regulation by federal and state governmental agencies and accrediting bodies. In particular, the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the “Higher Education Act”), and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Department of Education, subject the University to significant regulatory scrutiny on the basis of numerous standards that schools must satisfy in order to participate in the various federal student financial assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. To participate in the Title IV programs, an institution must be authorized to offer its programs of instruction by the relevant agency of the state in which it is located, accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Department of Education and certified as eligible by the Department of Education. The Department of Education will certify an institution to participate in the Title IV programs only after the institution has demonstrated compliance with the Higher Education Act and the Department of Education’s extensive regulations regarding institutional eligibility. An institution must also demonstrate its compliance to the Department of Education on an ongoing basis. As of June 30, 2013, management believes the University is in compliance with the applicable regulations in all material respects. Because the University operates in a highly regulated industry, it, like other industry participants, may be subject from time to time to investigations, claims of non-compliance, or lawsuits by governmental agencies or third parties, which allege statutory violations, regulatory infractions, or common law causes of action. While there can be no assurance that regulatory agencies or third parties will not undertake investigations or make claims against the University, or that such claims, if made, will not have a material adverse effect on the University’s business, results of operations or financial condition, management believes the University is in compliance with applicable regulations in all material respects. In connection with its administration of the Title IV federal student financial aid programs, the Department of Education periodically conducts program reviews at selected schools that receive Title IV funds. In July 2010, the Department of Education initiated a program review of the University covering the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 award years. As part of this program review, a Department of Education program review team conducted a site visit on the University’s campus in July 2010 and reviewed, and in some cases requested further information regarding, the University’s records, practices and policies relating to, among other things, financial aid, enrollment, enrollment counselor compensation, program eligibility and other Title IV compliance matters. While the University never received a formal exit interview, which it had understood to be the typical step prior to the Department of Education’s issuance of a preliminary program review report, on August 24, 2011, the University received from the Department of Education a written preliminary program review report that included five findings, two of which involve individual student-specific errors concerning the monitoring of satisfactory academic progress for two students and the certification of one student’s Federal Family Educational Loan as an unsubsidized Stafford loan rather than a subsidized Stafford loan. The other three findings are as follows:
| • |  | Incentive compensation issue. During a portion of the period under review, the University had in place a compensation plan for its enrollment counselors that was designed to comply with the regulatory “safe harbor” in effect during such period that allowed companies to make adjustments to fixed compensation for enrollment personnel, provided that any such adjustment (i) was not made more than twice during any twelve month period, and (ii) was not based solely on the number of students recruited, admitted, enrolled, or awarded financial aid. The plan at issue provided for enrollment counselor performance to be reviewed on a number of non-enrollment related factors that could account for a substantial portion of any potential base compensation adjustment. The preliminary program review report does not appear to set forth any definitive finding regarding the plan, but the Department of Education requested additional information from the University regarding its enrollment counselor compensation practices and policies in effect during the period under review. The University continues to believe that the plan at issue, both as designed and as applied, did not base compensation solely on success in enrolling students in violation of applicable law.
| • |  | Gainful employment issue. The preliminary program review report sets forth the Department of Education’s position that the University’s Bachelor of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies program was not an eligible program under Title IV because it did not provide students with training to prepare them for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. This “gainful employment” standard has been a requirement for Title IV eligibility for programs offered at proprietary institutions of higher education such as the University although, pursuant to legislation passed in 2008 and effective as of July 1, 2010, this requirement no longer applies to designated liberal arts programs offered by the University and certain other institutions that have held accreditation by a regional accrediting agency since a date on or before October 1, 2007 (we have held a regional accreditation since 1968). The University believes that its Interdisciplinary Studies program, which it first offered in Fall 2007 in response to a request by one of its employer-partners, was an eligible program under the “gainful employment” standard in effect prior to July 1, 2010.
| • |  | Inadequate procedures related to non-passing grades. The preliminary program review report sets forth the Department of Education’s position that, during the period under review and prior to the time the University converted from a term-based financial aid system to a non-term, borrower-based financial aid system in mid-2010, the University failed to have an accurate system to determine if students with non-passing grades for a term had no documented attendance for the term or should have been treated as unofficial withdrawals for the term, thereby potentially requiring the University to return all or a portion of the Title IV monies previously received with respect to such students. As part of the process of reviewing and responding to this finding, the Department of Education requested that the University conduct a further review of student files and provide additional information to the Department of Education following the completion of such review. The University recently completed, and submitted, the extensive file review requested by the Department of Education. The University remains confident in the legal sufficiency of its policies that were in place during the period under review.
The University has provided responses on these issues as required by the Department of Education and is continuing its efforts to communicate with the Department of Education to resolve the issues raised in the preliminary program review report. As it relates to the inadequate procedures related to non-passing grades and unofficial withdrawal issue, the University remains confident in the legal sufficiency of its policies that were in place during the period under review, which was prior to the time the University converted from a term-based financial aid system to a non-term, borrower-based financial aid system. In the course of its file review, however, the University determined that certain Pell grants received by the University for students that later unofficially withdrew should have been returned under applicable return to Title IV rules as those rules are currently being interpreted by the Department of Education. In addition, the University was not able to demonstrate in all cases that its faculty followed its established grading policy as it relates to students that stopped attending prior to the end of the semester but did not formally withdraw. In an effort to resolve this issue and conclude the program review, the University has made an offer to the Department of Education pursuant to which the University would assume that each of the students in question should have been unofficially withdrawn, even though an unofficial withdrawal may not have been warranted in each individual case, and to return the funds required by the Title IV regulations with respect to those students based on that assumption. Although when the University makes a return to Title IV the applicable student is obligated to repay the University for the amounts returned, if the University’s offer to the Department of Education is accepted, the University has determined that it will not seek reimbursement from these students once the returns are made. At this point, the Department of Education has not yet responded to the University’s offer. During the year ended December 31, 2012 and the six months ended June 30, 2013, the University reserved $3,450 and $2,550, respectively, related to these refunds. The University is unable, at this time, to determine whether additional returns to Title IV will be required in connection with this finding. The University cannot presently predict whether or if further information requests will be made, how the foregoing issues will be resolved, when the final program review determination letter will be issued, or when the program review will be closed. At this time, the Department of Education has not specified the amount of any potential refunds or penalties that it may seek or assess. The University’s policies and procedures are planned and implemented to comply with the applicable standards and regulations under Title IV and it is committed to resolving any issues of non-compliance identified in the final program review determination letter and ensuring that it operates in compliance with all Department of Education requirements. If the Department of Education were to make significant findings of non-compliance in the final program review determination letter, then, after exhausting any administrative appeals available to the University, it could be required to pay a fine, return Title IV monies previously received, or be subjected to other administrative sanctions. While it cannot currently predict the final outcome of the Department of Education review, any such final adverse finding could damage the University’s reputation in the industry and could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

X
- Definition Regulatory. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | lope_RegulatoryTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | lope_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_TextBlockAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration