National Student Legal Defense Network

What it reported doing in 2024

Pursuant to rev proc. 92-59, 1992-c c.b.411, the organization is providing a list of cases litigated during 2024.during 2024, the organization litigated six lawsuits against the u.s. Department of education pursaunt to the freedom of information act ("foia"), 5 U.S.c. 552, et seq., covering thirty-one requests submitted under foia. As a matter of practice, the organization seeks a "fee waiver" from the government in connection with each request, establishing that the requested disclosure under foia is "in the public interest." see 5 U.S.c. 552(a)(4)(a)(iii). The organization has never been required to pay fees in connection with any request. During 2024, the organization litigated the following additional matters, the selection of which was not made with a consideration of the expectation or possibility of a fee award. (1) baltezar v. Cardona & u.s. Department of education (u.s. District court, n.d. Cal.). This is a challenge under the administrative procedure act to the u.s. Department of education's 2019 repeal of the gainful employment rule, which was designed to protect students from career-oriented higher education programs that provided limited value comensurate to student debt burdens incurred. (2) dunagan v. Illinois institute of art (u.s. District court, n.d. Ill.). This is a putative class action against an institution of higher education that misled students about its status as an accredited institution. The suit seeks to hold responsible both the institution and the owners and executives who played an instrumental role in the deception. This is part of the organization's efforts to ensure that individual wrongdoers are held responsible for predatory conduct by institutions of higher education.(3) digital media solutions llc v. South university of Ohio et al. (u.s. District court, n.d. Ohio). This is a federal court receivership proceeding involving certain of the defendants in the dunagan matter described above. In 2022, student defense represented students to preserve their rights, and the rights of other students, against receivership entities. (4) detmer et al. V. La'james college of hairstyling, inc. Et al (Iowa district court for polk county). This is a certified class action against an institution of higher education that delayed disbursement of student credit balances, in violation of federal regulation and state law. (5) carroll et al. V. Walden university et al (u.s. District court, d. Maryland). This is a putative class action alleging violations of title vi of the civil rights act of 1964, the equal credit opportunity act, and state consumer protection laws. In addition to redressing wrongdoing, the case seeks to affirm the use of core civil rights statutes in the context of federal student lending.(6) arbitrations against lambda, inc. D/b/a/ lambda school or bloom institute of technology. In 2024, the organization represented eight individuals separately pursuing arbitrations against the lambda school for misrepresentations regarding student outcomes. The cases not only sought redress for the client, but also sought to highlight problems with regulations regarding unaccredited "boot camps and the use of "income share agreements" to finance higher education. Separately, in fuller et al. V. Bloom institute of technology (formerly d/b/a lambda school) and austen allred, et al. (u.s. District court, n.d. Cal), the organization litigated a similar claim as a putative class action and tested the extent of the mandatory arbitration clause that appeared in the "income share agreement." (7) dunn et al. V. Cardona & u.s. Department of education (u.s. District court, d. Mass). This lawsuit was filed in april 2022 to challenge, under the administrative procedure act, the u.s. Department of education's unreasonable delay in failing to adjudicate a 2016 group application for student loan discharges submitted by the attorney general of Massachusetts on behalf of a class of former students at kaplan career institute in

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 40.4%; rating input score 40
• Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
• Fundraising efficiency: $57.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Pass
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
  • Written employment contract: Missing
  • Compensation survey or study: Pass
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: Limited
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Fail
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 53.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.11; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 44.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 26.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings