XML 47 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Regulation | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2019
Regulation [Abstract] |
Regulation | Regulation The Company, the Universities, Hackbright, and NYCDA are subject to significant state regulatory oversight, as well as accreditor and federal regulatory oversight, in the case of the Company and the Universities. While the Department of Education has recently issued revisions to its regulations, Congress is also considering reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (“HEA”). If Congress enacts amendments to the HEA, they may supersede the Department’s regulations in various respects and require further changes to those regulations. Gainful Employment Under the HEA, a proprietary institution offering programs of study other than a baccalaureate degree in liberal arts (for which there is a limited statutory exception) must prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. The Department of Education published final regulations related to gainful employment that went into effect on July 1, 2015 (the "2015 Regulations"), with the exception of new disclosure requirements, which generally went into effect January 1, 2017, but which were delayed, to some extent, until July 1, 2019. The 2015 Regulations included two debt-to-earnings measures, consisting of an annual income rate and a discretionary income rate. The annual income rate measured student debt in relation to earnings, and the discretionary income rate measured student debt in relation to discretionary income. A program passed if the program’s graduates:
• | have an annual income rate that does not exceed 8%; or
• | have a discretionary income rate that does not exceed 20%.
In addition, a program that did not pass either of the debt-to-earnings metrics and had an annual income rate between 8% and 12%, or a discretionary income rate between 20% and 30%, was considered to be in a warning zone. A program failed if the program’s graduates had an annual income rate of 12% or greater and a discretionary income rate of 30% or greater. A program became Title IV-ineligible for three years if it failed both metrics for two out of three consecutive years, or failed to pass at least one metric for four consecutive award years. On January 8, 2017, Strayer University and Capella University received final 2015 debt-to-earnings measures. None of Strayer University or Capella University programs failed the debt-to-earnings metrics. Two active Strayer University programs, the Associate in Arts in Accounting and Associate in Arts in Business Administration, and one active Capella University program, the Master of Science in Marriage and Family Counseling/Therapy, were “in the zone,” which means each of those three programs remained fully eligible. The Department has announced that because it no longer has a data-sharing agreement with the U.S. Social Security Administration to receive earnings data, it is unable to calculate any subsequent debt-to-earnings measures under the gainful employment regulations in 2019. On July 1, 2019, the Department of Education released final gainful employment regulations, which contain a full repeal of the 2015 Regulations, including all debt measures, reporting, disclosure, and certification requirements. Per the Department of Education's Master Calendar, these rules go into effect July 1, 2020. However, the Secretary used her authority under the HEA to allow institutions to implement the new rules early as of July 1, 2019. Those institutions that implement early are not required to report gainful employment data for the 2018-2019 award year, are not required to comply with gainful employment disclosure and template publication requirements, and are not required to comply with the regulation’s certification requirements with respect to programmatic accreditation and program satisfaction of prerequisites for professional licensure/state certification. Both Capella University and Strayer University have elected to implement the July 2019 regulations early and have documented their decision to do so as required by the Department of Education. Borrower Defenses to Repayment Pursuant to the HEA and following negotiated rulemaking, on November 1, 2016, the Department published final regulations that, among other things, specify the acts or omissions of an institution that a borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a loan made under the Federal Direct Loan Program (the “2016 BDTR Rule”) and the consequences of such borrower defenses for borrowers, institutions, and the Department. Under the 2016 BDTR Rule, for Direct Loans disbursed after July 1, 2017, a student borrower may assert a defense to repayment if: (1) the student borrower obtained a state or federal court judgment against the institution; (2) the institution failed to perform on a contract with the student; and/or (3) the institution committed a “substantial misrepresentation” on which the borrower reasonably relied to his or her detriment. Borrowers assert these defenses through claims submitted to the Department, and the Department has the authority to issue a final decision. In addition, the regulation permits the Department to grant relief to an individual or group of individuals, including individuals who have not applied to the Department seeking relief. If a defense is successfully raised, the Department has discretion to initiate action to collect from an institution the amount of losses incurred based on the borrower defense. The 2016 BDTR Rule also amends the rules concerning discharge of federal student loans when a school or campus closes and prohibits pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers for borrower defense-type claims. On January 19, 2017, the Department issued a final rule updating the hearing procedures for actions to establish liability against an institution of higher education and establishing procedures for recovery proceedings under the 2016 BDTR Rule. Although the 2016 BDTR Rule was scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2017, on June 16, 2017, the Department delayed indefinitely the effective date of selected provisions of the 2016 BDTR Rule and announced its intention to conduct negotiated rulemaking proceedings to revise the regulations. On October 24, 2017, the Department published an interim final rule to delay the effective date of the selected provisions until July 1, 2018. On February 14, 2018, the Department published a final rule to delay the effective date of the selected provisions until July 1, 2019. On September 12, 2018, a federal judge ruled that the Department’s various delays of the 2016 BDTR Rule were contrary to law. On October 16, 2018, in a related case, the judge denied a request to delay implementation of portions of the 2016 BDTR Rule. As a result, the 2016 BDTR Rule came into effect. In March 2019, the Department issued guidance, clarifying that institutions should handle reporting for events, actions, or conditions that occurred after July 1, 2017 by making required reports to the Department no later than May 14, 2019. The Department also indicated that institutions must implement the prohibitions related to dispute resolution, including by making any required modifications to enrollment agreements or by beginning to implement required notification procedures by May 14, 2019. The Company believes that the Universities are in compliance with these requirements. On September 23, 2019, the Department published final Borrower Defense to Repayment regulations (the “2019 BDTR Rule”), which will govern borrower defense to repayment claims in connection with loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2020. The 2016 BDTR Rule continues to apply in the interim. Under the 2019 BDTR Rule, an individual borrower can assert a defense to repayment and be eligible for relief if she or he establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the institution at which the borrower enrolled made a misrepresentation of material fact upon which the borrower reasonably relied in deciding to obtain a Direct Loan, or a loan repaid by a Direct Consolidation Loan; (2) the misrepresentation directly and clearly related to the borrower’s enrollment or continuing enrollment at the institution or the institution’s provision of education services for which the loan was made; and (3) the borrower was financially harmed by the misrepresentation. The Department will grant forbearance on all loans related to a claim at the time the claim is made. The 2019 BDTR Rule defines a “misrepresentation” as: a statement, act, or omission by an eligible school to a borrower that (a) is false, misleading, or deceptive, (b) was made with knowledge of its false, misleading, or deceptive nature or with a reckless disregard for the truth, and (c) directly and clearly relates to either (1) enrollment or continuing enrollment at the institution; or (2) the provision of educational services for which the loan was made. “Financial harm” is defined as the amount of monetary loss that a borrower incurs as a consequence of a misrepresentation. The Department will determine financial harm based upon individual earnings and circumstances, which must include consideration of the individual borrower’s career experience subsequent to enrollment and may include, among other factors, evidence of program-level median or mean earnings. “Financial harm” does not include damages for nonmonetary loss, and the act of taking out a Direct Loan, alone, does not constitute evidence of financial harm. Financial harm also cannot be predominantly due to intervening local, regional, national economic or labor market conditions, nor can it arise from the borrower’s voluntary change in occupation or decision to pursue less than full-time work or not to work. The 2019 BDTR Rule contains certain limitations and procedural protections. Among the most prominent of these restrictions, the regulation contains a three-year limitation period of claims, measured from the student’s separation from the institution, does not permit claims to be filed on behalf of groups, and requires that institutions receive access to any evidence in the Department's possession to inform the institution's response. The 2019 BDTR Rule permits the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a condition of enrollment, so long as the institution provides plain-language disclosures to students and places the disclosure on the institution’s website. The regulations also allow for a borrower to choose whether to apply for a closed school loan discharge or accept a teach-out opportunity, and they provide that once a borrower has accepted a teach-out plan the student would not be eligible for a closed school loan discharge unless the institution fails to adhere to the terms of the teach-out plan. In addition, the closed school discharge window is expanded from 120 days to 180 days prior to the school’s closure, though unlike the 2016 BDTR Rule, the 2019 BDTR Rule does not include an automatic closed school loan discharge if the student does not enroll in another institution within three years of the date after the school closes. The 2019 BDTR Rule also makes changes to the Department’s financial responsibility requirements, including establishing a more limited set, as compared to the 2016 BDTR Rule, of mandatory and discretionary triggering events that have, or could have, a materially adverse impact on the institution’s financial condition and therefore warrant financial protection. An institution determined not to be financially responsible because of one or more triggering events may be required to issue an irrevocable letter of credit for not less than 10% of the Federal Student Aid program funds received by the school for the most recently completed fiscal year and/or will be issued a provisional Program Participation Agreement. The 2019 BDTR Rule further updates the definitions of terms used to calculate an institution’s composite score and otherwise amends the composite score methodology to reflect changes in FASB accounting standards pertaining to new leases. Institutions are required to accept responsibility for the repayment of amounts discharged by the Secretary pursuant to the borrower defense to repayment, closed school discharge, false certification discharge, and unpaid refund discharge regulations. The 2019 BDTR Rule may require the repayment of funds and the purchase of loans by the school if the Secretary determines that the school is liable as a result of a successful claim for which the Secretary discharged a loan, in whole or in part. The provisions of the regulation are effective July 1, 2020. Current Negotiated Rulemaking On July 31, 2018, the Department announced its intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA. As described in the July 31 announcement and further detailed in a subsequent announcement on October 15, the Department indicated the proposed topics for negotiation include:
• | Requirements for accrediting agencies in their oversight of member institutions and programs.
• | Criteria used by the Secretary to recognize accrediting agencies, emphasizing criteria that focus on educational quality and deemphasizing those that are anti-competitive.
• | Simplification of the Department’s recognition and review of accrediting agencies.
• | Clarification of the core oversight responsibilities of each entity in the regulatory triad, including accrediting agencies, States, and the Department, to hold institutions accountable.
• | Clarification of the permissible arrangements between an institution of higher education and another organization to provide a portion of an education program (34 CFR 668.5).
• | The roles and responsibilities of institutions and accrediting agencies in the teach-out process (34 CFR 600.32(d) and 602.24).
• | Elimination of regulations related to programs that have not been funded in many years.
• | Needed technical changes and corrections to program regulations that have been identified by the Department.
• | Regulatory changes required to ensure equitable treatment of brick-and-mortar and distance education programs; enable expansion of direct assessment programs, distance education, and competency-based education; and clarify disclosure and other requirements of state authorization.
• | Protections to ensure that accreditors recognize and respect institutional mission, and evaluate an institution’s policies and educational programs based on that mission; and remove barriers to the eligibility of faith-based entities to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs.
• | Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (“TEACH”) Grant requirements and ways to reduce and correct the inadvertent conversion of grants to loans.
The Department also announced its intent to convene three subcommittees: one addressing proposed regulations related to distance learning and educational innovation, one addressing TEACH Grant conversions, and one to make recommendations to the committee regarding revisions to the regulations regarding the eligibility of faith-based entities to participate in the Title IV programs. The Department convened the distance learning and educational innovation subcommittee to address, among other topics, simplification of state authorization requirements, the definition of “regular and substantive interaction”, the definition of the term “credit hour”, direct assessment programs and competency-based education, and barriers to innovation in post-secondary education. In connection with this negotiated rulemaking process, the Department convened three public hearings and accepted written comments through September 14, 2018. Strayer University and Capella University submitted written comments on September 14, and negotiations concluded in April 2019. On April 3, 2019, the Accreditation and Innovation negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus on all topics being negotiated. This outcome means the Department, except in extraordinary circumstances, is bound to publish the consensus language as the notice of proposed rulemaking and accept public comment on that proposal. On June 12, 2019, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend the regulations governing the recognition of accrediting agencies, certain student assistance provisions including state authorization rules, and institutional eligibility, as well as make various technical corrections. Public comments were accepted through July 12, 2019, and the Department published final rules on those topics on November 1, 2019. The final regulations concerning accreditation and state authorization generally will be effective on July 1, 2020, except the Department announced that institutions may in their discretion implement early those regulations relating to state authorization and institutional information disclosures. The final regulations concerning state authorization for distance education are described more below. The final regulations also require an institution to make certain disclosures about educational programs leading to professional licensure, regardless of program modality. In addition, the final regulations revise in some respects the Department’s process for recognition and review of accrediting agencies, the criteria used by the Department to recognize accrediting agencies, and Department’s requirements for accrediting agencies in terms of their oversight of accredited institutions and programs. In the Spring 2019 update to its Unified Agenda, the Department of Education indicated that it plans to release notices of proposed rulemaking with draft rules regarding distance education and innovation issues, eligibility of faith-based entities and activities and TEACH grant conversions in December 2019. Under the HEA, if the Department publishes final rules on these topics by November 1, 2020, they would become effective July 1, 2021. State Education Licensure – Licensure of Online Programs The increasing popularity and use of the internet and other technology for the delivery of education has led, and may continue to lead, to the adoption of new laws and regulatory practices in the United States or foreign countries or to the interpretation of existing laws and regulations to apply to such services. These new laws and interpretations may relate to issues such as the requirement that online education institutions be licensed as a school in one or more jurisdictions even where they have no physical location. New laws, regulations, or interpretations related to doing business over the internet could increase the Company’s cost of doing business, affect its ability to increase enrollments and revenues, or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business. In April 2013, the Department announced that it would address state authorization of distance education through negotiated rulemaking. While four negotiated rulemaking sessions were conducted from February through May 2014, no consensus was reached. In June 2016, despite the lack of consensus at the negotiated rulemaking sessions, but as permitted by federal law, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment on the issue of state authorization for online programs. On December 19, 2016, the Department issued final regulations, which are described below and were scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2018. On May 25, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to delay until July 1, 2020 the effective date of the state authorization of distance education provisions of those final regulations based on concerns that were raised by regulated parties and to provide adequate time to conduct negotiated rulemaking to reconsider those provisions and, as necessary, develop revised regulations. On July 3, 2018, the Department published a final rule, which was made effective retroactively to June 29, 2018, to delay until July 1, 2020 the effective date of the state authorization of distance education provisions. Certain other portions of the 2016 final regulations, which relate to authorization of foreign locations, went into effect on July 1, 2018. On April 26, 2019, in litigation brought to challenge the Department’s delayed implementation of the 2016 final regulations, a judge found that the delay was improper and ordered that the rules regarding state authorization of programs offered through distance education take effect on May 26, 2019. The 2016 final regulations remain in effect until the new final rules, described below, take effect. As now in effect, the 2016 final regulations, among other things, require an institution offering Title IV-eligible distance education or correspondence courses to be authorized by each state in which the institution enrolls students, if such authorization is required by the state. Institutions can obtain such authorization directly from the state or through a state authorization reciprocity agreement. A state authorization reciprocity agreement is defined as an agreement between two or more states that authorizes an institution located and legally authorized in a state covered by the agreement to provide post-secondary education through distance education or correspondence courses to students in other states covered by the agreement and does not prohibit a participating state from enforcing its own laws with respect to higher education. On March 6, 2015, Capella University was approved as an institution participant in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (“SARA”). On December 2, 2016, Strayer University became a participant in SARA. As participants in SARA, Strayer University and Capella University may offer online courses and other forms of distance education to students in any participating SARA state in which they do not have a physical location or a physical presence, as defined by the state, without having to seek any new state institutional approval beyond the Universities’ home states (Washington, D.C. and Minnesota, respectively). There are currently 49 SARA member states - all but California. The 2016 final regulations also require institutions to document the state process for resolving complaints from students enrolled in programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses for each state in which such students reside. In addition, the 2016 final regulations require an institution to provide public and individualized disclosures to enrolled and prospective students regarding its programs offered solely through distance education or correspondence courses. The public disclosures include state authorization for the program or course, the process for submitting complaints to relevant states, any adverse actions by a state or accrediting agency related to the distance education program or correspondence course within the past five years, refund policies specific to the state, and applicable licensure or certification requirements for a career that the program prepares a student to enter. An institution is required to disclose directly to all prospective students if a distance education or correspondence course does not meet the licensure or certification requirements for a state. An institution is required to disclose to each current and prospective student an adverse action taken against a distance education or correspondence program and any determination that a program ceases to meet licensure or certification requirements. Under the 2016 final regulations, if an institution does not obtain or maintain state authorization for distance education or correspondence courses in any particular state that has authorization requirements, the institution may lose its ability to award Title IV funds for students in those programs who are residing in that state. On October 15, 2018, the Department announced its intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations on a variety of topics, including state authorization of distance education programs. The Department included state authorization of distance education programs in the Accreditation and Innovation negotiated rulemaking that took place in early 2019. The committee agreed to language that would retain the requirement that institutions are authorized - including the option to be authorized via a reciprocity agreement - to operate in any state in which a student is located for the purposes of Title IV eligibility. However, the consensus language removed many of the public and individualized disclosures to enrolled and prospective students regarding programs offered solely through distance education or correspondence courses. On June 12, 2019, the Department released a notice of proposed rulemaking reflecting the consensus language on this topic, with public comments accepted through July 12, 2019. On November 1, 2019, the Department published new final rules concerning, among other topics, state authorization of distance education programs, which are generally effective July 1, 2020. The Department announced that institutions may in their discretion implement early those portions of the regulations relating to state authorization and institutional information disclosures. The regulations revise the definition of “state authorization reciprocity agreement” such that it does not prohibit any member state from enforcing its own general-purpose state laws and regulations, but member states cannot impose additional requirements related to state authorization of distance education directed at all or a subgroup of educational institutions. The regulations also clarify that state authorization requirements related to distance education courses are based on the state where a student is “located,” as determined by the institution, and not the state of the student’s “residence.” The final rules maintain the consensus language developed during negotiated rulemaking, which remove certain disclosure requirements related to programs offered solely through distance education, and they replace those requirements with certain disclosure requirements applicable to all programs that lead to professional licensure or certification, regardless of the delivery modality of those programs. The Clery Act Strayer University and Capella University must comply with the campus safety and security reporting requirements as well as other requirements in the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the “Clery Act”), including changes made to the Clery Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. On October 20, 2014, the Department promulgated regulations, effective July 1, 2015, implementing amendments to the Clery Act. In addition, the Department has interpreted Title IX to categorize sexual violence as a form of prohibited sex discrimination and to require institutions to follow certain disciplinary procedures with respect to such offenses. Failure by Strayer University or Capella University to comply with the Clery Act or Title IX requirements or regulations thereunder could result in action by the Department fining Strayer University or Capella University, or limiting or suspending participation in Title IV programs, could lead to litigation, and could harm Strayer University or Capella University’s reputation. The Company believes that Strayer University and Capella University are in compliance with these requirements. Compliance Reviews The Universities are subject to announced and unannounced compliance reviews and audits by various external agencies, including the Department, its Office of Inspector General, state licensing agencies, guaranty agencies, and accrediting agencies. In 2014, the Department conducted four campus-based program reviews of Strayer University locations in three states and the District of Columbia. The reviews covered federal financial aid years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, and two of the reviews also covered compliance with the Clery Act, the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, and regulations related thereto. For three of the program reviews, Strayer University received correspondence from the Department in 2015 closing the program reviews with no further action required by Strayer University. For the other program review, in 2016, Strayer University received a Final Program Review Determination Letter identifying a payment of less than $500 due to the Department based on an underpayment on a return to Title IV calculation, and otherwise closing the review. Strayer University remitted payment, and received a letter from the Department indicating that no further action was required and that the matter was closed. In June 2019, the Department conducted an announced, on-site program review at Capella University, focused on Capella University’s FlexPath program. The review covered the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 federal financial aid years. The program review has not concluded. In general, after the Department conducts its site visit and reviews data supplied by the institution, it sends the institution a program review report. The institution has the opportunity to respond to any findings in the report. The Department then issues a Final Program Review Determination, which identifies any liabilities. The institution may appeal any monetary liabilities specified in the Final Program Review Determination. Program Participation Agreement Each institution participating in Title IV programs must enter into a Program Participation Agreement with the Department. Under the agreement, the institution agrees to follow the Department’s rules and regulations governing Title IV programs. On October 11, 2017, the Department and Strayer University executed a new Program Participation Agreement, approving Strayer University’s continued participation in Title IV programs with full certification through June 30, 2021. As a result of the August 1, 2018 merger, Capella University experienced a change of ownership, with the Company as its new owner. On January 18, 2019, consistent with standard procedure upon a Title IV institution’s change of ownership, the Department and Capella University executed a new Provisional Program Participation Agreement, approving Capella’s continued participation in Title IV programs with provisional certification through December 31, 2022. As is typical, the Provisional Program Participation Agreement subjects Capella University to certain requirements during the period of provisional certification, including that Capella must apply for and receive approval from the Department in connection with new locations or addition of new Title IV-eligible educational programs. NYCDA, Hackbright Academy and DevMountain NYCDA currently provides instruction through B2B relationships in various locations. Hackbright Academy currently provides on-ground courses in the San Francisco Bay Area. DevMountain currently provides on-ground courses in Lehi, Utah; Dallas, Texas; and Phoenix, Arizona, and in 2017, introduced its first online program in Web Development. NYCDA, Hackbright Academy and DevMountain are not accredited, do not participate in state or federal student financial aid programs, and are not subject to the regulatory requirements applicable to accredited schools and schools that participate in financial aid programs such as those described above. Programs such as those offered by NYCDA, Hackbright Academy, and DevMountain are regulated by each individual state.

X
- Definition Regulation Abstract + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | stra_RegulationAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | stra_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition Regulation Disclosure. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | stra_RegulationDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | stra_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration