In recent years, the scale and scope of for-profit colleges have changed considerably. Traditionally focused on certificate and programs ranging from cosmetology to medical assistance and business administration, for- profit institutions have expanded their offerings to include bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral level programs. Both the certificate and degree programs provide students with training for careers in a variety of fields. Proponents of for-profit colleges argue that they offer certain flexibilities that traditional universities cannot, such as, online courses, flexible meeting times, and year-round courses. Moreover, for-profit colleges often have open admissions policies to accept any student who applies. Currently, according to Education about 2,000 for-profit colleges participate in Title IV programs and in the 2008–2009 school year, for- profit colleges received approximately $24 billion in Title IV funds. Students can only receive Title IV funds when they attend colleges approved by Education to participate in the Title IV program. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, provides that a variety of institutions of higher education are eligible to participate in Title IV programs, including: Public institutions—Institutions operated and funded by state or local governments, which include state universities and community colleges. Private nonprofit institutions—Institutions owned and operated by nonprofit organizations whose net earnings do not benefit any shareholder or individual. These institutions are eligible for tax- deductible contributions in accordance with the Internal Revenue code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)). For-profit institutions—Institutions that are privately owned or owned by a publicly traded company and whose net earnings can benefit a shareholder or individual. Colleges must meet certain requirements to receive Title IV funds. While full requirements differ depending on the type of college, most colleges are required to: be authorized or licensed by the state in which it is located to provide higher education; provide at least one eligible program that provides an associate’s degree or higher, or provides training to students for employment in a recognized occupation; and be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education. Moreover, for-profit colleges must enter a “program participation agreement” with Education that requires the school to derive not less than 10 percent of revenues from sources other than Title IV funds and certain other federal programs (known as the “90/10 Rule”). Student eligibility for grants and subsidized student loans is based on student financial need. In addition, in order for a student to be eligible for Title IV funds, the college must ensure that the student meets the following requirements, among others: has a high school diploma, a General Education Development certification, or passes an ability-to-benefit test approved by Education, or completes a secondary school education in a home school setting recognized as such under state law; is working toward a degree or certificate in an eligible program; and is maintaining satisfactory academic progress once in college. In August 2009, GAO reported that in the repayment period, students who attended for-profit colleges were more likely to default on federal student loans than were students from other colleges. When students do not make payments on their federal loans and the loans are in default, the federal government and taxpayers assume nearly all the risk and are left with the costs. For example, in the Direct Loan program, the federal government and taxpayers pick up 100 percent of the unpaid principal on defaulted loans. In addition, students who default are also at risk of facing a number of personal and financial burdens. For example, defaulted loans will appear on the student’s credit record, which may make it more difficult to obtain an auto loan, mortgage, or credit card. Students will also be ineligible for assistance under most federal loan programs and may not receive any additional Title IV federal student aid until the loan is repaid in full. Furthermore, Education can refer defaulted student loan debts to the Department of Treasury to offset any federal or state income tax refunds due to the borrower to repay the defaulted loan. In addition, Education may require employers who employ individuals who have defaulted on a student loan to deduct 15 percent of the borrower’s disposable pay toward repayment of the debt. Garnishment may continue until the entire balance of the outstanding loan is paid. In order to be an educational institution that is eligible to receive Title IV funds, Education statutes and regulations require that each institution make certain information readily available upon request to enrolled and prospective students. Institutions may satisfy their disclosure requirements by posting the information on their Internet Web sites. Information to be provided includes: tuition, fees, and other estimated costs; the institution’s refund policy; the requirements and procedures for withdrawing from the institution; a summary of the requirements for the return of Title IV grant or loan assistance funds; the institution’s accreditation information; and the institution’s completion or graduation rate. If a college substantially misrepresents information to students, a fine of no more than $25,000 may be imposed for each violation or misrepresentation and their Title IV eligibility status may be suspended or terminated. In addition, the FTC prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” that affect interstate commerce. Our covert testing at 15 for-profit colleges found that four colleges encouraged fraudulent practices, such as encouraging students to submit false information about their financial status. In addition all 15 colleges made some type of deceptive or otherwise questionable statement to undercover applicants, such as misrepresenting the applicant’s likely salary after graduation and not providing clear information about the college’s graduation rate. Other times our undercover applicants were provided accurate or helpful information by campus admissions and financial aid representatives. Selected video clips of our undercover tests can be seen at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T. Four of the 15 colleges we visited encouraged our undercover applicants to falsify their FAFSA in order to qualify for financial aid. A financial aid officer at a privately owned college in Texas told our undercover applicant not to report $250,000 in savings, stating that it was not the government’s business how much money the undercover applicant had in a bank account. However, Education requires students to report such assets, which along with income, are used to determine how much and what type of financial aid for which a student is eligible. The admissions representative at this same school encouraged the undercover applicant to change the FAFSA to falsely add dependents in order to qualify for grants. The admissions representative attempted to ease the undercover applicant’s concerns about committing fraud by stating that information about the reported dependents, such as Social Security numbers, was not required. An admissions representative at another college told our undercover applicant that changing the FAFSA to indicate that he supported three dependents instead of being a single-person household might drop his income enough to qualify for a Pell Grant. In all four situations when college representatives encouraged our undercover applicants to commit fraud, the applicants indicated on their FAFSA, as well as to the for-profit college staff, that they had just come into an inheritance worth approximately $250,000. This inheritance was sufficient to pay for the entire cost of the undercover applicant’s tuition. However, in all four cases, campus representatives encouraged the undercover applicants to take out loans and assisted them in becoming eligible either for grants or subsidized loans. It was unclear what incentive these colleges had to encourage our undercover applicants to fraudulently fill out financial aid forms given the applicants’ ability to pay for college. The following table provides more details on the four colleges involved in encouraging fraudulent activity. The undercover applicant suggested to the representative that by the time the college would be required by Education to verify any information about the applicant, the applicant would have already graduated from the 7-month program. The representative acknowledged this was true. This undercover applicant indicated to the financial aid representative that he had $250,000 in the bank, and was therefore capable of paying the program’s $15,000 cost. The fraud would have made the applicant eligible for grants and subsidized loans. Admissions representative suggested to the undercover applicant that he not report $250,000 in savings reported on the FAFSA. The representative told the applicant to come back once the fraudulent financial information changes had been processed. This change would not have made the applicant eligible for grants because his income would have been too high, but it would have made him eligible for loans subsidized by the government. However, this undercover applicant indicated that he had $250,000 in savings—more than enough to pay for the program’s $39,000 costs. Financial aid representative told the undercover applicant that he should have answered “zero” when asked about money he had in savings—the applicant had reported a $250,000 inheritance. The financial aid representative told the undercover applicant that she would “correct” his FAFSA form by reducing the reported assets to zero. She later confirmed by email and voicemail that she had made the change. This change would not have made the applicant eligible for grants, but it would have made him eligible for loans subsidized by the government. However, this applicant indicated that he had about $250,000 in savings—more than enough to pay for the program’s $21,000 costs. Admissions representative encouraged applicant to change the FAFSA to falsely add dependents in order to qualify for Pell Grants. Admissions representative assured the undercover applicant that he did not have to identify anything about the dependents, such as their Social Security numbers, nor did he have to prove to the college with a tax return that he had previously claimed them as dependents. Financial aid representative told the undercover applicant that he should not report the $250,000 in cash he had in savings. This applicant indicated to the financial aid representative that he had $250,000 in the bank, and was therefore capable of paying the program’s $68,000 cost. The fraud would have made the undercover applicant eligible for more than $2,000 in grants per year. Admissions or financial aid representatives at all 15 for-profit colleges provided our undercover applicants with deceptive or otherwise questionable statements. These deceptive and questionable statements included information about the college’s accreditation, graduation rates and its student’s prospective employment and salary qualifications, duration and cost of the program, or financial aid. Representatives at schools also employed hard-sell sales and marketing techniques to encourage students to enroll. Admissions representatives at four colleges either misidentified or failed to identify their colleges’ accrediting organizations. While all the for-profit colleges we visited were accredited according to information available from Education, federal regulations state that institutions may not provide students with false, erroneous, or misleading statements concerning the particular type, specific source, or the nature and extent of its accreditation. Examples include: A representative at a college in Florida owned by a publicly traded company told an undercover applicant that the college was accredited by the same organization that accredits Harvard and the University of Florida when in fact it was not. The representative told the undercover applicant: “It’s the top accrediting agency—Harvard, University of Florida—they all use that accrediting agency….All schools are the same; you never read the papers from the schools.” A representative of a small beauty college in Washington, D.C. told an undercover applicant that the college was accredited by “an agency affiliated with the government,” but did not specifically name the accrediting body. Federal and state government agencies do not accredit educational institutions. A representative of a college in California owned by a private corporation told an undercover applicant that this college was the only one to receive its accrediting organization’s “School of Excellence” award. The accrediting organization’s Web site listed 35 colleges as having received that award. Representatives from 13 colleges gave our applicants deceptive or otherwise questionable information about graduation rates, guaranteed applicants jobs upon graduation, or exaggerated likely earnings. Federal statutes and regulations require that colleges disclose the graduation rate to applicants upon request, although this requirement can be satisfied by posting the information on their Web site. Thirteen colleges did not provide applicants with accurate or complete information about graduation rates. Of these thirteen, four provided graduation rate information in some form on their Web site, although it required a considerable amount of searching to locate the information. Nine schools did not provide graduation rates either during our in person visit or on their Web sites. For example, when asked for the graduation rate, a representative at a college in Arizona owned by a publicly traded company said that last year 90 students graduated, but did not disclose the actual graduation rate. When our undercover applicant asked about graduation rates at a college in Pennsylvania owned by a publicly traded company, he was told that if all work was completed, then the applicant should successfully complete the program—again the representative failed to disclose the college’s graduation rate when asked. However, because graduation rate information was available at both these colleges’ Web sites, the colleges were in compliance with Education regulations. In addition, according to federal regulations, a college may not misrepresent the employability of its graduates, including the college’s ability to secure its graduates employment. However, representatives at two colleges told our undercover applicants that they were guaranteed or virtually guaranteed employment upon completion of the program. At five colleges, our undercover applicants were given potentially deceptive information about prospective salaries. Examples of deceptive or otherwise questionable information told to our undercover applicants included: A college owned by a publicly traded company told our applicant that, after completing an associate’s degree in criminal justice, he could try to go work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Central Intelligence Agency. While other careers within those agencies may be possible, positions as a FBI Special Agent or CIA Clandestine Officer, require a bachelor’s degree at a minimum. A small beauty college told our applicant that barbers can earn $150,000 to $250,000 a year. While this may be true in exceptional circumstances, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that 90 percent of barbers make less than $43,000 a year. A college owned by a publicly traded company told our applicant that instead of obtaining a criminal justice associate’s degree, she should consider a medical assisting certificate and that after only 9 months of college, she could earn up to $68,000 a year. A salary this high would be extremely unusual; 90 percent of all people working in this field make less than $40,000 a year, according to the BLS. Representatives from nine colleges gave our undercover applicants deceptive or otherwise questionable information about the duration or cost of their colleges’ programs. According to federal regulations, a college may not substantially misrepresent the total cost of an academic program. Representatives at these colleges used two different methods to calculate program duration and cost of attendance. Colleges described the duration of the program as if students would attend classes for 12 months per year, but reported the annual cost of attendance for only 9 months of classes per year. This disguises the program’s total cost. Examples include: A representative at one college said it would take 3.5–4 years to obtain a bachelor’s degree by taking classes year round, but quoted the applicant an annual cost for attending classes for 9 months of the year. She did not explain that attending classes for only 9 months out of the year would require an additional year to complete the program. If the applicant did complete the degree in 4 years, the annual cost would be higher than quoted to reflect the extra class time required per year. At another college, the representative quoted our undercover applicant an annual cost of around $12,000 per year and said it would take 2 years to graduate without breaks, but when asked about the total cost, the representative told our undercover applicant it would cost $30,000 to complete the program—equivalent to more than two and a half years of the previously quoted amount. If the undercover applicant had not inquired about the total cost of the program, she would have been led to believe that the total cost to obtain the associate’s degree would have been $24,000. Eleven colleges denied undercover applicants access to their financial aid eligibility or provided questionable financial advice. According to federal statutes and regulations, colleges must make information on financial assistance programs available to all current and prospective students. Six colleges in four states told our undercover applicants that they could not speak with financial aid representatives or find out what grants and loans they were eligible to receive until they completed the college’s enrollment forms agreeing to become a student and paid a small application fee to enroll. A representative at one college in Florida owned by a publicly traded company advised our undercover applicant not to concern himself with loan repayment because his future salary—he was assured—would be sufficient to repay loans. A representative at one college in Florida owned by a private company told our undercover applicant that student loans were not like car loans because “no one will come after you if you don’t pay.” In reality, students who cannot pay their loans face fees, may damage their credit, have difficulty taking out future loans, and in most cases, bankruptcy law prohibits a student borrower from discharging a student loan. A representative at a college owned by a publicly traded corporation told our undercover applicant that she could take out the maximum amount of federal loans, even if she did not need all the money. She told the applicant she could put the extra money in a high-interest savings account. While subsidized loans do not accrue interest while a student is in college, unsubsidized loans do accrue interest. The representative did not disclose this distinction to the applicant when explaining that she could put the money in a savings account. Six colleges engaged in other questionable sales and marketing tactics such as employing hard-sell sales and marketing techniques and requiring enrolled students to pay monthly installments to the college during their education. At one Florida college owned by a publicly traded company, a representative told our undercover applicant she needed to answer 18 questions correctly on a 50 question test to be accepted to the college. The test proctor sat with her in the room and coached her during the test. At two other colleges, our undercover applicants were allowed 20 minutes to complete a 12-minute test or took the test twice to get a higher score. At the same Florida college, multiple representatives used high pressure marketing techniques, becoming argumentative, and scolding our undercover applicants for refusing to enroll before speaking with financial aid. A representative at this Florida college encouraged our undercover applicant to sign an enrollment agreement while assuring her that the contract was not legally binding. A representative at another college in Florida owned by a publicly traded company said that he personally had taken out over $85,000 in loans to pay for his degree, but he told our undercover applicant that he probably would not pay it back because he had a “tomorrow’s never promised” philosophy. Three colleges required undercover applicants to make $20–$150 monthly payments once enrolled, despite the fact that students are typically not required to repay loans until after the student finishes or drops out of the program. These colleges gave different reasons for why students were required to make these payments and were sometimes unclear exactly what these payments were for. At one college, the applicant would have been eligible for enough grants and loans to cover the annual cost of tuition, but was told that she needed to make progress payments toward the cost of the degree separate from the money she would receive from loans and grants. A representative from this college told the undercover applicant that the federal government’s “90/10 Rule” required the applicant to make these payments. However, the “90/10 Rule” does not place any requirements on students, only on the college. At two colleges, our undercover applicants were told that if they recruited other students, they could earn rewards, such as an MP3 player or a gift card to a local store. In some instances our undercover applicants were provided accurate or helpful information by campus admissions and financial aid representatives. In line with federal regulations, undercover applicants at several colleges were provided accurate information about the transferability of credits to other postsecondary institutions, for example: A representative at a college owned by a publicly traded company in Pennsylvania told our applicant that with regard to the transfer of credits, “different schools treat it differently; you have to roll the dice and hope it transfers.” A representative at a privately owned for-profit college in Washington, D.C. told our undercover applicant that the transfer of credits depends on the college the applicant wanted to transfer to. Some financial aid counselors cautioned undercover applicants not to take out more loans than necessary or provided accurate information about what the applicant was required to report on his FAFSA, for example: One financial aid counselor at a privately owned college in Washington D.C. told an applicant that because the money had to be paid back, the applicant should be cautious about taking out more debt than necessary. A financial aid counselor at a college in Arizona owned by a publicly traded company had the undercover applicant call the FAFSA help line to have him ask whether he was required to report his $250,000 inheritance. When the FAFSA help line representative told the undercover applicant that it had to be reported, the college financial aid representative did not encourage the applicant not to report the money. In addition, some admissions or career placement staff gave undercover applicants reasonable information about prospective salaries and potential for employment, for example: Several undercover applicants were provided salary information obtained from the BLS or were encouraged to research salaries in their prospective fields using the BLS Web site. A career services representative at a privately owned for-profit college in Pennsylvania told an applicant that as an entry level graphic designer, he could expect to earn $10–$15 per hour. According to the BLS only 25 percent of graphic designers earn less than $15 per hour in Pennsylvania. Some Web sites that claim to match students with colleges are in reality lead generators used by many for-profit colleges to market to prospective students. Though such Web sites may be useful for students searching for schools in some cases, our undercover tests involving four fictitious prospective students led to a flood of calls—about five a day. Four of our prospective students filled out forms on two Web sites, which ask questions about students’ interests, match them to for-profit colleges with relevant programs, and provide the students’ information to the appropriate college or the college’s outsourced calling center for follow-up about enrollment. Two fictitious prospective students expressed interest in a culinary arts certificate, one on Web site A and one on Web site B. Two other prospective students expressed interest in a bachelor’s in business administration degree, one on each Web site. Within minutes of filling out forms, three prospective students received numerous phone calls from colleges. One fictitious prospective student received a phone call about enrollment within 5 minutes of registering and another 5 phone calls within the hour. Another prospective student received 2 phone calls separated only by seconds within the first 5 minutes of registering and another 3 phone calls within the hour. Within a month of using the Web sites, one student interested in business management received 182 phone calls and another student also interested in business management received 179 phone calls. The two students interested in culinary arts programs received fewer calls—one student received only a handful, while the other received 72. In total, the four students received 436 phone calls in the first 30 days after using the Web sites. Of these, only six calls—all from the same college—came from a public college. The table below provides information about the calls these students received within the first 30 days of registering at the Web site. During the course of our undercover applications, some college representatives told our applicants that their programs were a good value. For example, a representative of a privately owned for-profit college in California told our undercover applicant that the $14,495 cost of tuition for a computer-aided drafting certificate was “really low.” A representative at a for-profit college in Florida owned by a publicly traded company told our undercover applicant that the cost of their associate’s degree in criminal justice was definitely “worth the investment”. However, based on information we obtained from for-profit colleges we tested, and public and private nonprofit colleges in the same geographic region, we found that most certificate or associate’s degree programs at the for-profit colleges we tested cost more than similar degrees at public or private nonprofit colleges. We found that bachelor’s degrees obtained at the for-profit colleges we tested frequently cost more than similar degrees at public colleges in the area; however, bachelor’s degrees obtained at private nonprofit colleges nearby are often more expensive than at the for-profit colleges. We compared the cost of tuition at the 15 for-profit colleges we visited, with public and private non-profit colleges located in the same geographic area as the for-profit college. We found that tuition in 14 out of 15 cases, regardless of degree, was more expensive at the for-profit college than at the closest public colleges. For 6 of the 15 for-profit colleges tested, we could not find a private nonprofit college located within 250 miles that offered a similar degree. For 1 of the 15, representatives from the private nonprofit college were unwilling to disclose their tuition rates when we inquired. At eight of the private nonprofit colleges for which we were able to obtain tuition information on a comparable degree, four of the for-profit colleges were more expensive than the private nonprofit college. In the other four cases, the private nonprofit college was more expensive than the for-profit college. We found that tuition for certificates at for-profit colleges were often significantly more expensive than at a nearby public college. For example, our undercover applicant would have paid $13,945 for a certificate in computer aided drafting program—a certification for a 7-month program obtained by those interested in computer-aided drafting, architecture, and engineering—at the for-profit college we visited. To obtain a certificate in computed-aided drafting at a nearby public college would have cost a student $520. However, for two of the five colleges we visited with certificate programs, we could not locate a private nonprofit college within a 250 mile radius and another one of them would not disclose its tuition rate to us. We were able to determine that in Illinois, a student would spend $11,995 on a medical assisting certificate at a for-profit college, $9,307 on the same certificate at the closest private nonprofit college, and $3,990 at the closest public college. We were also able to determine that in Pennsylvania, a student would spend $21,250 on a certificate in Web page design at a for-profit college, $4,750 on the same certificate at the closest private nonprofit college, and $2,037 at the closest public college. We also found that for the five associate’s degrees we were interested in, tuition at a for-profit college was significantly more than tuition at the closest public college. On average, for the five colleges we visited, it cost between 6 and 13 times more to attend the for-profit college to obtain an associate’s degree than a public college. For example, in Texas, our undercover applicant was interested in an associate’s degree in respiratory therapy which would have cost $38,995 in tuition at the for-profit college and $2,952 at the closest public college. For three of the associate’s degrees we were interested in, there was not a private nonprofit college located within 250 miles of the for-profit we visited. We found that in Florida the associate’s degree in Criminal Justice that would have cost a student $4,448 at a public college, would have cost the student $26,936 at a for-profit college or $27,600 at a private nonprofit college—roughly the same amount. In Texas, the associate’s degree in Business Administration would have cost a student $2,870 at a public college, $32,665 at the for- profit college we visited, and $28,830 at the closest private nonprofit college. We found that with respect to the bachelor’s degrees we were interested in, four out of five times, the degree was more expensive to obtain at the for-profit college than the public college. For example in Washington, D.C., the bachelor’s degree in Management Information Systems would have cost $53,400 at the for-profit college, and $51,544 at the closest public college. The same bachelor’s degree would have cost $144,720 at the closest private nonprofit college. For one bachelor’s degree, there was no private nonprofit college offering the degree within a 250 mile radius. Three of the four private nonprofit colleges were more expensive than their for-profit counterparts. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the committee may have at this time. For additional information about this testimony, please contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-6722 or kutzg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. The following table provides details on each of the 15 for-profit colleges visited by undercover applicants. We visited each school twice, posing once as an applicant who was eligible to receive both grants and loans (Scenario 1), and once as an applicant with a salary and savings that would qualify the undercover applicant only for unsubsidized loans (Scenario 2). Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior Scenario 1 Admissions representative compares the college to the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. Admissions representative did not disclose the graduation rate after being directly asked. He provided information on how many students graduated. This information was available on the college’s Web site; however, it required significant effort to find the college’s graduation rate, and the college did not provide separate graduation rates for its multiple campuses nationwide. Admissions representative says that he does not know the job placement rate because a lot of students moved out of the area. Admissions representative encourages undercover applicant to continue on with a master’s degree after finishing with the bachelor’s. He stated that some countries pay teachers more than they do doctors and lawyers. Scenario 2 Admissions representative said the bachelor’s degree would take a maximum of 4 years to complete, but she provided a 1-year cost estimate equal to 1/5 of the required credit hours. According to the admissions representative the undercover applicant was qualified for $9,500 in student loans, and the representative indicated that the applicant could take out the full amount even though the applicant indicated that he had $250,000 in savings. Admissions representative told the undercover applicant that the graduation rate is 20 percent. Education reports that it is 15 percent. Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior Scenario 2 Upon request by applicant, the financial aid representative estimated federal aid eligibility without the undercover applicant’s reported $250,000 in savings to see if applicant qualified for more financial aid. The representative informed the applicant he was ineligible for any grants. Admissions representative misrepresented the length of the program by telling the undercover applicant that the 96 credit hour program would take 2 years to complete. However, she only provided the applicant a first year cost estimate for 36 credit hours. At this rate it would take more than 2.5 years to complete. Scenario 1 College representative told the undercover applicant that if she failed to pass the college’s required assessment test, she can continue to take different tests until she passes. The college representative did not tell the graduation rate when asked directly. The representative replied, “I think, pretty much, if you try and show up and, you know, you do the work, you’re going to graduate. You’re going to pass guaranteed.” The college’s Web site also did not provide the graduation rate. Undercover applicant was required to take a 12-minute admittance test but was given over 20 minutes because the test proctor was not monitoring the student. Scenario 2 Undercover applicant was encouraged by a financial aid representative to change the FAFSA to falsely increase the number of dependents in the household in order to qualify for a Pell Grant. The financial aid representative was aware of the undercover applicant’s inheritance and, addressing the applicant’s expressed interest in loans, confirmed that he could take out the maximum in student loans. The career representative told the undercover applicant that getting a job is a “piece of cake” and then told the applicant that she has graduates making $120,000 - $130,000 a year. This is likely the exception; according to the BLS 90 percent of architectural and civil drafters make less than $70,000 per year. She also stated that in the current economic environment, the applicant could expect a job with a likely starting salary of $13-$14 per hour or $15 if the applicant was lucky. Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior The financial aid representative would not discuss the undercover applicant’s eligibility for grants and loans and required the applicant to return on another day. Scenario 2 While one school representative indicated to the undercover applicant that he could earn up to $30 an hour as a massage therapist, another representative told the applicant that the school’s massage instructors and directors can earn $150-$200 an hour. While this may be possible, according to the BLS, 90 percent of all massage therapists in California make less than $34 per hour. Scenario 1 Admissions representative explains to the undercover applicant that although community college might be a less expensive place to get a degree, community colleges make students spend money on classes that they do not need for their career. However, this school also requires students to take at least 36 credit hours of non-business general education courses. Admissions representative did not disclose the graduation rate after being directly asked. He told the undercover applicant that it is a “good” graduation rate. The college’s Web site also did not provide the graduation rate. Admissions representative encouraged the undercover applicant to enroll by asking her to envision graduation day. He stated, “Let me ask you this, if you could walk across the stage in a black cap and gown. And walk with the rest of the graduating class and take a degree from the president’s hand, how would that make you feel?” Scenario 2 Admissions representative said the bachelor’s degree would take 3.5 to 4 years to complete. He gave the applicant the cost per 12 hour semester, the amount per credit, the total number of credits required for graduation, and the number of credits for the first year. When asked if the figure he gave multiplied by four would be the cost of the program, the representative said yes, although the actual tuition would have amounted to some $12,000 more. Admissions representative required the undercover applicant to apply to the college before he could talk to someone in financial aid. Admissions representative told the undercover applicant that almost all of the graduates get jobs. Flyer provided to undercover applicant stated that the average income for business management professionals in 2004 was $77,000-$118,000. When asked more directly about likely starting salaries, the admissions representative said that it was between $40,000 and $50,000. Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior Admissions representative told the undercover applicant that the college was accredited by “an agency affiliated with the government,” but did not specifically name the accrediting body. Admissions representative suggested to the undercover applicant that all graduates get jobs. Specifically he told the applicant that if he had not found a job by the time he graduated from the school, the owner of the school would personally find the applicant a job himself. Scenario 2 Admissions representative told our undercover applicant that barbers can earn $150,000 to $250,000 a year, though that would be extremely unusual. The BLS reports that 90 percent of barbers make less than $43,000 a year. In Washington, D.C., 90 percent of barbers make less than $17,000 per year. He said, “The money you can make, the potential is astronomical.” Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior Scenario 1 When asked by the undercover applicant for the graduation rate for two programs, the admissions representative did not answer directly. For example the representative stated that “I’ve seen it’s an 80 to 90% graduation rate” for one of the programs but said for that information “I would have to talk to career services.” She also said 16 or 17 students graduated from one of the programs, but couldn’t say how many students had started the program. The college’s Web site also did not provide the graduation rate. Admissions representative told our prospective undercover applicant that student loans were not like car loans because student loans could be deferred in cases of economic hardship, saying “It’s not like a car note where if you don’t pay they’re going to come after you. If you’re in hardship and you’re unable to find a job, you can defer it.” The representative did not explain the circumstances under which students might qualify for deferment. Borrowers who do not qualify for deferment or forbearance and who cannot pay their loans face fees, may damage their credit or have difficulty taking out future loans. Moreover, in most cases, bankruptcy law prohibits a student borrower from discharging a student loan. Scenario 2 Admissions representative suggested to the undercover applicant that he not report $250,000 in savings reported on the FAFSA. The representative told the applicant to come back once the fraudulent financial information changes had been processed. This change would not have made the undercover applicant eligible for grants because his income would have been too high, but it would have made him eligible for loans subsidized by the government. Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior Admissions representative falsely stated that the college was accredited by the same agency that accredits Harvard and the University of Florida. A test proctor sat in the test taking room with the undercover applicant and coached her during the test. The undercover applicant was not allowed to speak to a financial aid representative until she enrolled in the college. Applicant had to sign agreement saying she would pay $50 per month toward her education while enrolled in college. On paying back loans, the representative said, “You gotta look at it…I owe $85,000 to the University of Florida. Will I pay it back? Probably not…I look at life as tomorrow’s never promised….Education is an investment, you’re going to get paid back ten-fold, no matter what.” Admissions representative suggested undercover applicant switch from criminal justice to the medical assistant certificate, where she could make up to $68,000 per year. While this may be possible, BLS reports 90% of medical assistants make less than $40,000 per year. Scenario 2 When the applicant asked about financial aid, the 2 representatives would not answer but debated with him about his commitment level for the next 30 minutes. The representative said that student loans would absolutely cover all costs in this 2-year program. The representative did not specify that federal student loans by themselves would not cover the entire cost of the program. While there are private loan programs available, they are normally based on an applicant passing a credit check, and typically carry higher interest rates than federal student loans. The representative said paying back loans should not be a concern because once he had his new job, repayment would not be an issue. The representatives used hard-sell marketing techniques; they became argumentative, called applicant afraid, and scolded applicant for not wanting to take out loans. Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior Scenario 2 Admissions representative initially provided misleading information to the undercover applicant about the transferability of the credit. First she told the applicant that the credits will transfer. Later, she correctly told the applicant that it depends on the college and what classes have been taken. Admissions representative said the bachelor’s degree would take 3.5-4 years to complete, but only provided an annual cost estimate for 1/5 of the program. Scenario 2 Admissions representative did not provide the graduation rate when directly asked. Instead she indicated that not everyone graduates. Scenario 1 Admissions representative told the undercover applicant that she could take out the maximum amount of federal loans, even if she did not need all the money. She told the applicant she could put the extra money in a high-interest savings account. While subsidized loans do not accrue interest while a student is in college, unsubsidized loans do accrue interest. The representative did not disclose this distinction to the applicant when explaining that she could put the money in a savings account. Scenario 2 Admissions representative told the undercover applicant that the college is regionally accredited but does not state the name of the accrediting agency. The college’s Web site did provide specific information about the college’s accreditation, however. Admissions representative said financial aid may be able to use what they call “professional judgment” to determine that the undercover applicant does not need to report over $250,000 in savings on the FAFSA. Admissions representative did not disclose the graduation rate after being directly asked. He instead explained that all students that do the work graduate. This information was available on the college’s Web site; however, it required significant effort to find the college’s graduation rate, and the college did not provide separate graduation rates for its multiple campuses nationwide. Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior Scenario 1 Admissions representative told the undercover applicant that she has never seen a student decline to attend after speaking with financial aid. The admissions representative would not allow the applicant to speak with financial aid until she enroll in the college. If the undercover applicant was able to get a friend to enroll in the college she could get an MP3 player and a rolling backpack. As noted in the testimony, although this is not illegal, it is a marketing tactic. Financial aid representative told the undercover applicant that he should have answered “zero” when asked about money he had in savings—the applicant had reported a $250,000 inheritance. The financial aid representative told the undercover applicant that she would change his FAFSA form by reducing the reported assets to zero. She later confirmed by e-mail and voicemail that she had made the change. This change would not have made the undercover applicant eligible for grants, but it would have made him eligible for loans subsidized by the government. Scenario 1 Admissions representative said the program would cost between $50,000 and $75,000 instead of providing a specific number. It was not until the admissions representative later brought the student to financial aid that specific costs of attendance were provided. Scenario 2 Admissions representative did not disclose the graduation rate after being directly asked. The college’s Web site also did not provide the graduation rate. Admissions representative encouraged undercover applicant to change the FAFSA to falsely add dependents in order to qualify for grants. This undercover applicant indicated to the financial aid representative that he had $250,000 in the bank, and was therefore capable of paying the program’s $68,000 cost. The fraud would have made the applicant eligible for $2,000 in grants per year. Encouragement of fraud, and engagement in deceptive, or otherwise questionable behavior Scenario 1 Admissions representative said the program takes 18 to 24 months to complete, but provided a cost estimate that suggests the program takes more than 2.5 years to complete. The college’s Web site did not provide the graduation rate. Scenario 2 Undercover applicant would be required to make a monthly payment to the college towards student loans while enrolled. Admissions representative guaranteed the undercover applicant that getting a degree would increase his salary. The undercover applicant was not allowed to speak to a financial aid representative until he enrolled in the college. Scenario 2 Admissions representative misrepresented the length of time it would take to complete the degree. He said the degree would take 2 years to complete but provided a cost worksheet that spanned 3 years. The undercover applicant was told he was not allowed to speak to a financial aid representative until he enrolled in the college. After refusing to sign an enrollment agreement the applicant was allowed to speak to someone in financial aid. Admissions representative told undercover applicant that monthly loan repayment would be lower than it actually would. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: Enrollment in for-profit colleges has grown from about 365,000 students to almost 1.8 million in the last several years. These colleges offer degrees and certifications in programs ranging from business administration to cosmetology. In 2009, students at for-profit colleges received more than $4 billion in Pell Grants and more than $20 billion in federal loans provided by the Department of Education (Education). GAO was asked to 1) conduct undercover testing to determine if for-profit colleges' representatives engaged in fraudulent, deceptive, or otherwise questionable marketing practices, and 2) compare the tuitions of the for-profit colleges tested with those of other colleges in the same geographic region. To conduct this investigation, GAO investigators posing as prospective students applied for admissions at 15 for-profit colleges in 6 states and Washington, D.C.. The colleges were selected based on several factors, including those that the Department of Education reported received 89 percent or more of their revenue from federal student aid. GAO also entered information on four fictitious prospective students into education search Web sites to determine what type of follow-up contact resulted from an inquiry. GAO compared tuition for the 15 for-profit colleges tested with tuition for the same programs at other colleges located in the same geographic areas. Results of the undercover tests and tuition comparisons cannot be projected to all for-profit colleges. Undercover tests at 15 for-profit colleges found that 4 colleges encouraged fraudulent practices and that all 15 made deceptive or otherwise questionable statements to GAO's undercover applicants. Four undercover applicants were encouraged by college personnel to falsify their financial aid forms to qualify for federal aid--for example, one admissions representative told an applicant to fraudulently remove $250,000 in savings. Other college representatives exaggerated undercover applicants' potential salary after graduation and failed to provide clear information about the college's program duration, costs, or graduation rate despite federal regulations requiring them to do so. For example, staff commonly told GAO's applicants they would attend classes for 12 months a year, but stated the annual cost of attendance for 9 months of classes, misleading applicants about the total cost of tuition. Admissions staff used other deceptive practices, such as pressuring applicants to sign a contract for enrollment before allowing them to speak to a financial advisor about program cost and financing options. However, in some instances, undercover applicants were provided accurate and helpful information by college personnel, such as not to borrow more money than necessary. In addition, GAO's four fictitious prospective students received numerous, repetitive calls from for-profit colleges attempting to recruit the students when they registered with Web sites designed to link for-profit colleges with prospective students. Once registered, GAO's prospective students began receiving calls within 5 minutes. One fictitious prospective student received more than 180 phone calls in a month. Calls were received at all hours of the day, as late as 11 p.m. To see video clips of undercover applications and to hear voicemail messages from for-profit college recruiters, see http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T . Programs at the for-profit colleges GAO tested cost substantially more for associate's degrees and certificates than comparable degrees and certificates at public colleges nearby. A student interested in a massage therapy certificate costing $14,000 at a for-profit college was told that the program was a good value. However the same certificate from a local community college cost $520. Costs at private nonprofit colleges were more comparable when similar degrees were offered.