Item 1. Business.
Overview
We are a provider of postsecondary education primarily focused on the needs of working adults and other non-traditional students. We own and operate National American University, a regionally accredited, proprietary, multi-campus institution of higher learning founded in 1941. Since 1998, we have been offering academic and degree programs online. Using both campus-based and online instruction, we provide associate, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degree and diploma programs in business-related disciplines, such as accounting, management, business administration, information technology and healthcare-related disciplines, such as nursing and healthcare management. Our mission is to prepare students of diverse interests, cultures and abilities for careers in our core fields in a caring and supportive environment.
We currently have 37 educational sites (two of which are pending regulatory approvals - Houston, Texas and the Roueche Graduate Center in Austin, Texas) in the states of Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and Texas; distance learning service centers in Indiana and Texas; and distance learning operations and central administration offices in Rapid City, South Dakota. Several of our educational sites are hybrid learning centers, which utilize small physical facilities in strategic geographic areas, allowing our students to meet face-to-face with staff for assistance with their educational choices and related services while completing the majority of their coursework online. Working adults and other non-traditional students are attracted to the flexibility of our online programs and the convenience of our hybrid learning centers.
In addition to our university operations, we operate a real estate business known as Fairway Hills Developments, or Fairway Hills. Our real estate business rents apartment units and develops and sells condominium units in the Fairway Hills Planned Residential Development area of Rapid City, South Dakota.
Our enrollment increased from approximately 11,220 students as of May 31, 2012 to approximately 11,470 students as of May 31, 2013, and then decreased to approximately 10,850 students as of May 31, 2014, representing an annual growth rate of approximately 2.2% from 2012 to 2013 and a decrease of 5.4% from 2013 to 2014. We believe our recent decline in student enrollment and revenue is the result of the current economic environment in which we operate and similar to our peers, we have experienced declining enrollments. Notwithstanding the unfavorable economic environment, we believe we have an opportunity to increase profit by controlling costs and further leveraging our online offerings and hybrid learning centers. During the same periods, our revenue grew from $118.9 million for the fiscal year ended 2012, to $129.2 million for fiscal year ended 2013, and then decreased to $127.8 million for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, representing an annual increase of 8.6% and a decrease of 1.1%, respectively. Income before income taxes for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2012 was $8.8 million, compared to $9.2 million for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2013, and $5.8 million for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014.
Revenue for the NAU segment grew from $117.8 million in 2012 to $127.9 million in 2013 and then decreased to $126.2 million in 2014, representing an increase of 8.5% between 2012 and 2013 and a decrease of 1.3% from 2013 to 2014. Income before income taxes for the NAU segment was $9.1 million in 2012, increasing to $9.7 million in 2013 and then decreasing to $5.9 million in 2014. Total assets for the NAU segment grew from $70.4 million in 2012 to $74.8 million in 2013, and $76.4 million in 2014.
Revenue for the other segment, consisting of our real estate business, increased from $1.1 million in 2012 to $1.3 million in 2013 and $1.6 million in 2014, representing an increase of 22.4% between 2012 and 2013 and 20.6% from 2013 to 2014. Loss before taxes for the other segment increased from $0.3 million in 2012 to $0.5 million in 2013 and then decreased to $0.1 million in 2014. Total assets for the other segment increased from $12.7 million in 2012 to $13.0 million in 2013 and then decreased to $12.1 million in 2014.
University History
Originally founded in 1941, NAU, then operating under the name National School of Business, offered specialized business training to college students. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the university progressed from a two-year business school to a four-year college of business and embarked on a recruitment of qualified graduates of one- and two-year programs from accredited business schools in the eastern United States. Such programs allowed students to continue their education and receive appropriate transfer credit for their previous academic achievements. In 1974, the university, then known as National College, added its first branch educational site in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, followed later that year by educational sites in Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado, and Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. The university offered conveniently scheduled courses that would lead to a degree appealing to working adults and other non-traditional students.
Since 1974, we have continued to expand educational sites, add online education programs and develop graduate degree programs. We have also developed professional programs in nursing and allied health that allow students to pursue degrees in these areas in a flexible learning environment. In addition, we have leveraged our online expertise into affiliations with other educational institutions that lack such online capabilities. Through these affiliations, which have resulted in increased revenue with little additional cost, we provide other institutions with curricula development, faculty, consulting and technology support services to enable them to deliver academic programs online.
Corporate Information
National American University Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Camden Learning Corporation, was organized under the laws of the State of Delaware on April 10, 2007, as a blank check company to acquire one or more domestic or international assets of an operating business in the education industry. On November 23, 2009, as a result of the merger transaction with Dlorah, Inc., a South Dakota corporation, which owns and operates NAU, Dlorah became our wholly owned subsidiary. For accounting purposes, Dlorah was the acquirer and accounted for the transaction as a recapitalization. Accordingly, the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K reflect the results of Dlorah. We conduct substantially all of our business and generate substantially all of our revenue through Dlorah. Our primary business is the operation of National American University, which generated 98.8% of our revenue in fiscal year 2014. We also have multi-family residential real estate operation in Rapid City, South Dakota, which generated 1.2% of our revenue in fiscal year 2014. We maintain a website at www.national.edu. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We make available on our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Our Core Values
Since our inception, we have been guided by the following core values, which we believe have contributed to our success in obtaining and retaining students and faculty:
•
provide a caring and supportive learning environment;
•
offer high quality instructional programs and services; and
•
offer technical and professional career programs.
These core values have remained our foundation as we expanded from a single education site offering specialized business training to a multi-state diversified educational institution. We promote understanding and support of our mission and core values through participation of students, faculty, staff administrators and the board of governors in the governance and administrative structures of the university. We have adopted and implemented policies and procedures within these structures to ensure that we adhere to our core values and operate with integrity as we fulfill our mission.
Our commitment to these core values is evidenced in the daily interactions among our students, faculty, staff and administrators. A recent comprehensive institutional student survey found that the four characteristics receiving the highest student satisfaction rating cumulatively across the university were:
•
the overall ease of the registration process;
•
the ability to learn on your own;
•
the caring and supportive attitude by faculty toward students; and
•
the opportunity to develop knowledge of subjects in the program’s emphasized areas.
Approach to Academic Quality
We have identified a number of key elements to promote a high level of academic quality, and they include:
Performance-based, career-oriented curricula. We create performance-based curricula designed to enable all students to gain the foundational knowledge, professional competencies and demonstrable skills, including technical and technological skills, required to be successful in their chosen fields. We design our curricula to address specific career-oriented objectives we believe working adult and other non-traditional students are seeking. We have invested significant human and financial resources in the implementation of this curricula development to support faculty and students in achieving prescribed student learning outcomes. Our performance-based curricula is designed and delivered by our faculty members who are committed to delivering a high quality, current and relevant education to prepare our students for their careers.
Qualified faculty. We seek to hire and retain qualified faculty members with relevant practical experience and the necessary skills to provide a high-quality education for our students. A substantial percentage of our faculty members hold graduate degrees. We seek faculty members who are able to integrate relevant, practical experiences from their professional careers into the courses they teach. We also invest in the professional development of our faculty members by providing training in campus and online teaching techniques, hosting events and discussion forums that foster sharing of best practices and continually assessing teaching effectiveness through administrative reviews and student evaluations.
Standardized course design. We employ a standardized curriculum development process to promote consistent active learning experiences in our online courses, and are implementing this curriculum through blended instructional delivery at the campus locations. We continue to review our programs in an effort to ensure they remain consistent, up-to-date and effective in producing the desired student learning outcomes. We also regularly review student survey data to identify opportunities for course modifications and enhancements.
Effective student services. We establish teams of academic and administrative personnel who act as the primary support for our students, beginning at the application stage and continuing through graduation. In recent years, we have also concentrated on improving the technology used to support student learning, including enhancing our online learning platform and student services. As a result, many of our support services, including academic, administrative, library and career services are accessible online, generally allowing users to access these services at a time and in a manner convenient to them.
Continual academic oversight. The academic oversight and assessment functions for all of our programs are conducted through the provost’s office and other academic offices, which periodically evaluate the content, delivery method, faculty performance and desired student learning outcomes for our academic programs. We continually assess outcomes data to determine whether our students graduate with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the workplace. Our provost also initiates and manages periodic examinations of our curricula to evaluate and verify academic program quality and workplace applicability. Based on these processes and student feedback, we determine whether to modify or discontinue programs that do not meet our standards or market needs, or to create new programs.
Board of Governors. We maintain a separate board of governors to oversee the academic mission of the university. Among other things, the board of governors is responsible for determining the mission and purposes of the university, approving educational programs and ensuring the well-being of students, faculty and staff. A majority of the members of the board of governors are independent, and many have been members of our board of governors for a number of years. The oversight and guidance of our board of governors has been critical to our growth and the maintenance of our academic standards.
Industry and Outlook
We operate in the same market as for-profit and non-profit career-oriented schools, two-year junior colleges and community colleges. Competition is generally based on location, program offerings, modality, the quality of instruction, placement rates, selectivity of admissions, recruiting and tuition rates. We compete for enrollments by offering more frequent start dates, more flexible hours, better instructional resources, more hands on training, shorter program length and greater assistance with job placement. We also compete with other career schools by focusing on offering high demand, career-oriented programs, providing individual attention to students and focusing on flexible degrees for working adults and other non-traditional students. We believe we are able to compete effectively in our respective local markets because of the diversity of our program offerings, quality of instruction, strength of our brand, reputation and success in placing students with employers.
We also compete with other institutions that are eligible to receive Title IV program funding. These include four-year, non-profit colleges and universities, community colleges and for-profit institutions, whether they offer programs that are four years, two years or less. Our competition differs in each market depending on the curriculum offered. Also, because schools can add new programs in a relatively short period of time, typically within six to 12 months, new competitors within an academic program area can emerge quickly.
Certain institutions have competitive advantages over us. Non-profit and public institutions receive substantial government subsidies, government and foundation grants and tax-deductible contributions and have other financial resources generally not available to for-profit schools. In addition, some of our for-profit competitors have a more extended or dense network of schools and campuses, which may enable them to recruit students more efficiently from a wider geographic area. Furthermore, some of our competitors, including both traditional colleges and universities and other for-profit schools, have substantially greater financial and other resources and name recognition than we have, which may enable them to compete more effectively for potential students. We also expect to face continued competition as a result of new entrants to the online education market with similar programmatic offerings.
Competitive Strengths
We believe the following strengths enable us to compete effectively in the postsecondary education market:
Our hybrid learning centers allow for greater leverage of assets. Our hybrid learning centers provide students with the convenience of face-to-face interaction with local staff for assistance with their education planning. In addition, these centers provide an opportunity for students to take certain courses at our educational sites while taking the majority of their classes online. This approach provides students with a more flexible class experience and us with an opportunity to further leverage our fixed assets.
Our Doctorate in Education (Ed.D.) with nationally recognized leadership. Our Ed.D. program includes nationally renowned community college leaders; leaders and faculty who have served as presidents and chief officers of community colleges for more than 40 years and who have published numerous books and articles on leadership of community colleges in the last several decades. The addition of the program and its recognized faculty brings great visibility to the university and, in its first year of existence, has produced partnerships with community colleges and enrollments comparable to the largest community college leadership programs in the country. In addition, we have requested approval to offer a novel Master’s of Management in Education with multiple concentrations on financial, philanthropic, teaching and learning, institutional research, and other topics critical to the success of leaders of all types of colleges. We are establishing a name for the university in education-related programs.
Our nursing and allied health programs. We have developed nursing and allied health programs that provide students with an opportunity to obtain a professional degree. We recently received approval for a new baccalaureate nursing program in New Mexico and have applied for approval of the same program in Texas. We are expanding concentrations in our Master of Science in Nursing in areas of high need. Our current nursing programs include an Associate of Science in Nursing, generic Bachelor of Science in Nursing, practical nurse to Bachelor of Science in Nursing, online Registered Nurse to Bachelor of Science Nursing program and Master of Science in Nursing.
Our multiple accreditations and regulatory approvals. We are regionally accredited through the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and are a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. In addition, many of our programs maintain specialized or professional accreditation.
Our affiliations with other educational institutions. We began offering online academic programs in 1998, and since then we have developed significant expertise in curricula and technology related to online education. We have leveraged this knowledge by establishing a number of affiliations with other educational institutions. Through these relationships, we provide curriculum development services and technology support services to these other institutions. We believe these affiliations offer opportunities for revenue diversification, asset leverage and revenue growth.
Our commitment to high demand professional and technical programs. We are committed to offering quality, performance-based educational programs to meet the needs of employers. Our programs are designed to help our students achieve their career objectives in a competitive job market. Our programs are taught by qualified faculty members, who often have practical experience in their respective fields, offering students their “real-world experience” perspectives. We periodically review and assess our programs and faculty to ensure that our programs are current and meet the changing demands of employers.
Our focus on individual attention to students. We believe in providing individual attention to our students to ensure an excellent educational experience. We provide a number of student support services, including administrative, financial aid, library, career and technology support, to help maximize the success of our students. We also provide personal guidance to our students during the admissions process, academic advising, financial services, learner support and career services.
Our focus on flexible scheduling. We have designed our program offerings and our online delivery platform with flexible scheduling to meet the needs of working adults and other non-traditional students. We offer on-site day, evening and weekend classes, as well as online and blended degree and diploma programs. We believe working adults and other non-traditional students are attracted to the convenience and flexibility of our programs because they can study and interact with faculty and classmates during times and at places that suit their needs.
Our experienced executive management team with strong operating history. Our executive management team possesses extensive experience in the management and operation of postsecondary education institutions. Our president, Dr. Jerry Gallentine, has worked in education for over 45 years. Throughout his career, Dr. Gallentine has taught various courses as a professor and also served as a president of various higher learning institutions before guiding our growth and development since 1993. Dr. Ronald Shape, our chief executive officer, began his career in higher education with us in 1991. He began teaching courses in accounting, auditing and finance in 1995. Dr. Shape became our chief fiscal officer in 2002 and our chief executive officer in April 2009. Dr. Samuel Kerr is our chief operating officer. Dr. Kerr served as the provost and general counsel of NAU from 2008 until 2013 and has served as an adjunct faculty member of NAU since 2002. Dr. Kerr was the system vice president for administration and general counsel of NAU from 2004 to 2008 and served as vice president for human resources and general counsel from 2001 to 2004. Dr. Kerr served as managing partner of Banks, Johnson, Colbath & Kerr, Prof. L.L.C., from 1995 to 2001, where he acted as outside legal counsel to NAU from 1999 to 2001. Dr. Kerr began his career in education in 1983 as a high school English/journalism instructor. He also taught education courses for a local college. After graduating from law school in 1992, he started his legal practice in Rapid City, SD, in private practice. Dr. Lynn Priddy is provost and chief academic officer of the university. Dr. Priddy joined NAU in 2013; she began her career in education in 1986, serving as English faculty, director, dean, and vice president of institutions. In 1999, she joined the largest regional accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission of NCA, where she served fourteen years, the last five as vice president. Venessa D. Green is the chief financial officer and began her career with NAU in December 2004. Ms. Green has also served as an adjunct faculty member of NAU since December 2006 teaching in both the undergraduate and graduate disciplines. Ms. Green is a licensed certified public accountant in the State of South Dakota and has been a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the South Dakota Certified Public Accountant Society since 2007. Michaelle J. Holland is the president of campus operations. Ms. Holland began her career at NAU in 1991, left NAU to work for Lincoln School of Commerce as its campus president from 1999 to 2002, and then returned to NAU in June 2002. Dr. Robert A. Paxton was appointed to the president of online learning operations in January 2009 and is currently the president of external relations and strategic initiatives. From January 1995 to August 2008, Dr. Paxton served as president of Iowa Central Community College. Dr. Paxton served as vice president of instruction of Cowley County Community College and Area Vocational-Technical School, Arkansas City, Kansas, from June 1990 to December 1994 and as dean of student services from July 1988 to June 1990. Michael Buckingham was appointed president of our real estate operations in November 2009. Mr. Buckingham oversees the maintenance of all the facilities in the NAU system, as well as properties being developed by our real estate operations. Mr. Buckingham served as corporate vice president of Dlorah from 1992, and the president of Dlorah’s real estate operations from 1988, until the closing of the Dlorah merger.
Business Development and Expansion
Our expansion of academic program offerings has contributed to our growth. In response to workforce and student demand, we have expanded our undergraduate healthcare-related programming and our graduate programs in business and management. More than 15 new academic programs have been implemented since 2009, including: business administration programs with emphasis in entrepreneurship, supply chain management, and tourism and hospitality management; information technology programs with emphasis in computer security and forensics and database administration; and allied health programs in clinical laboratory technician, invasive cardiovascular technology, and occupational therapy assistant. Our new program offerings typically build on existing programs and incorporate additional specialized courses, which offer students the opportunity to pursue programs that address their specific educational objectives while allowing us to expand our program offerings with modest incremental investment.
Since opening our first branch campus in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in 1974, a central part of our growth strategy has been developing and opening educational sites in vibrant and growing communities with expanding workforces. In 2009, we opened our first hybrid learning center in Minnetonka, Minnesota, which offers blended online and on-campus degree programs. Since that time, we have opened several new hybrid learning centers. Although smaller than our traditional educational sites, these hybrid learning centers, in collaboration with our online operations, offer complete programs and services to our students. We believe our significant experience and success in expanding and supporting new educational sites and hybrid learning centers positions us well for continued expansion to meet market demand.
We began offering academic degree and diploma programs online in 1998, through what we refer to as our online campus. We were one of the first regionally accredited universities to be approved by the HLC to offer full degree programs under an Internet-based delivery methodology. We have invested heavily in the creation and evolution of a sophisticated and reliable online delivery system. The online campus has grown as an organizational structure, providing a scope of service consistent with the university’s other campuses. Careful consideration was afforded to preserving the student-centered philosophy of the university while capitalizing on the technological advancements in online delivery. The organization of the online campus continues to evolve in response to increasing enrollment and the expanding sphere of quality services available to our students.
Recognizing the current and future impact of globalization on higher education, we have worked actively to enroll international students. During the late 1990s, we started developing international affiliations with foreign colleges and universities. Such affiliations provide students from other countries the opportunity to study at universities in the United States to complete their studies. Many academically capable and motivated students from foreign countries desire to take coursework at American colleges or universities but are not able to do so for various reasons, including inadequate financial resources, family and work obligations in their home countries and immigration restrictions. To meet the needs of these students, we have developed relationships with foreign colleges and universities to offer their students an option to combine the curricula of their home country institution with our curricula offered through our online distance learning program so that those students can remain in their home country and attend a local college or university while taking courses offered by an accredited American university, without having to travel to the United States. We currently have affiliations with educational institutions in Paraguay and Greece.
Growth Strategies
Expand academic program offerings. We continue to focus on offering a variety of in-demand degree programs in multiple locations and delivery formats. On all levels, we consider changes in student demographics, demand for degree programs and employment outlook in our business development decision-making processes. Our planning process includes long-range planning, feasibility studies, market research and a variety of other research projects involving changing job markets. In that regard, we continue to focus on addressing current societal and economic trends and engaging in appropriate analysis and planning for the programs and markets we seek to develop. Our new program offerings typically build on existing programs and incorporate additional specialized courses, which offer students the opportunity to pursue programs that address their specific educational objectives while allowing us to expand our program offerings with modest incremental investment.
Increase our online academic program offering. We will continue leveraging our physical assets by offering additional academic programs online and encouraging existing and new students to use online services. For instance, in 2014 we launched a continuing education division to offer courses for personal and professional development.
Increase enrollment in existing academic programs. We will continue focusing on increasing enrollment in our core academic programs by continuing to refine our marketing and recruiting efforts to identify, enroll and retain students seeking degrees or diplomas in the academic programs we offer. We also will continue focusing on retaining students, so they may achieve their educational goals. We believe that the depth and quality of our existing core programs will provide opportunity for additional growth.
Expand relationships with private sector and government employers. We will seek additional relationships with healthcare systems, businesses and other employers, including governmental and military employers, through which we can market our program offerings to their respective employees. In that effort, we have established a national account with CuNet, a company consisting of professionals with significant sales and marketing experience that seeks to develop strategic relationships on a regional, national and international basis. These relationships provide enrollment opportunities for the university’s programs, build recognition among employers in our core disciplines and enable us to identify new degree and diploma programs that are in demand by students and employers.
Leverage infrastructure. We intend to continue making significant investments in our people, processes and technology infrastructure. We believe these investments have prepared us to deliver our academic programs to a larger student population with only modest incremental investment. We intend to leverage these investments as we seek to grow enrollment, which we believe will allow us to increase our operating margins over time.
Continue to expand affiliations with other educational institutions. We will continue seeking to expand the number of affiliations with other educational institutions to provide online program services. These services can meet the needs of other institutions while providing additional sources of revenue.
Pursue strategic acquisitions. We will consider acquisitions of educational institutions with the potential for program replication, new areas of study, new markets with attractive growth opportunities, further expansion of our online delivery capability and advanced degree programs.
Accreditation and Program Approvals
The quality of our academic programs is evidenced by our institutional and program-specific accreditations and approvals. We received initial accreditation from the HLC in 1985. Since then, we have continued to grow and expand by obtaining HLC approval for new geographic sites and graduate degree programs, and by expanding program delivery in international locations in cooperation with the institutions of higher learning that are located in such international locations.
In addition to institution-wide accreditation, numerous specialized commissions accredit or approve specific programs or schools, particularly in healthcare and professional fields. Accreditation or approval of specific programs by one of these specialized commissions signifies that those programs have met the additional standards of those agencies. For a list of our institutional and specialized or professional accreditation see “Regulatory Matters - Accreditation.”
We are approved for veteran’s training and for administering various educational programs sponsored by federal and state agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Social Security Administration and various state rehabilitation services.
Programs and Areas of Study
We offer Doctor of Education, Master of Business Administration, Master of Management, Master of Science in Nursing, Bachelor of Science, Associate of Applied Science and Associate of Science degrees, with a variety of program options leading to each of these degrees. Many of the degree programs offer the opportunity to focus on one or more emphasis areas. We also offer diploma programs consisting of a series of courses focused on a particular area of study for students seeking to enhance their skills and knowledge in the areas of computer support specialist, healthcare coding, MCITP network management, network and server administrator, therapeutic massage, and veterinary assisting.
As of May 31, 2014, we offered the following degree and diploma programs:
Graduate Degrees
Associate Degrees
Doctor of Education
Master of Business Administration
Master of Management
Master of Science in Nursing
Bachelor’s Degrees
Accounting
Business Administration
Business Administration with:
• Emphasis in Accounting
• Emphasis in Entrepreneurship
• Emphasis in Financial Management
• Emphasis in Human Resource Management
• Emphasis in Information Systems
• Emphasis in International Business
• Emphasis in Management
• Emphasis in Marketing
• Emphasis in Pre-Law
• Emphasis in Supply Chain Management
• Emphasis in Tourism and Hospitality Management
Criminal Justice
Health Care Management
Information Technology
Information Technology with:
• Emphasis in Computer Security and Forensics
• Emphasis in Database Administration
• Emphasis in Internet Systems Development
• Emphasis in Management Information Systems
• Emphasis in Network Administration/Microsoft
• Emphasis in Network Management/Microsoft
Licensed Practical Nursing to Bachelor of Science in Nursing
Management
Bachelor of Science in Nursing
Registered Nurse to Bachelor of Science in Nursing
Organizational Leadership
Paralegal Studies
Accounting
Applied Information Technology
Business Administration
Business Logistics
Clinical Laboratory Technician
Computer Security
Criminal Justice
Electronic Health Record Support Specialist
Health and Beauty Management
Health Information Technology
Information Technology
Invasive Cardiovascular Technology
Management
Medical Administrative Assistant
Medical Assisting
Medical Staff Services Management
Occupational Therapy Assistant
Associate of Science in Nursing
Paralegal Studies
Pharmacy Technician
Small Business Management
Therapeutic Massage
Veterinary Technology
Diplomas
Computer Support Specialist
Healthcare Coding
MCITP Network Management
Network and Server Administrator
Therapeutic Massage
Veterinary Assisting
As an extension of our mission and historical foundation of offering business and business related programming, we began offering our Master of Business Administration, or MBA, program at the Rapid City campus in 2000. We expanded the MBA program through online delivery upon HLC approval in 2001. In 2004, we received HLC approval to offer the MBA program through our Best of Both Worlds-Instructional Delivery Platform™ program format in Bolivia, United Arab Emirates, and Chile. In 2006, we received HLC approval to offer the Master of Management degree. In 2009, we received HLC approval to offer a Master of Science in Nursing degree program, and we have requested approval to expand the concentrations within this master’s to address emerging needs in nursing management, informatics, and care coordination. In 2013, we launched the Doctorate in Education (Ed.D.) and have requested to add the Master’s of Management in Education. Both programs establish new markets for the university. With nationally recognized faculty in higher education and an anticipated gap in senior leadership in higher education institutions, particularly community colleges, we plan to continue to seek opportunities to expand our graduate programming in these areas.
We are seeking to expand our programming in healthcare-related fields. Our undergraduate healthcare management program and Master of Management degree with emphasis in healthcare administration were developed to meet the healthcare industry’s need for healthcare professionals with strong business and management skills. We offer an Associate of Science in Nursing degree at our Zona Rosa, Missouri and Denver, Colorado campuses. In addition, we offer an Licensed Practical Nursing to Bachelor of Science in Nursing program at our Overland Park and Wichita education sites and the Bachelor of Science in Nursing at our Albuquerque, New Mexico; Bloomington, Minnesota; and Sioux Falls and Rapid City, South Dakota, educational sites to respond to the growing nationwide shortage of qualified nurses. We plan to offer additional Bachelor of Science in Nursing degrees at the Austin and Mesquite, Texas, Indianapolis, Indiana, and Denver, Colorado educational sites over the next several years. An online Registered Nurse to Bachelor of Science in Nursing program is offered through the distance learning campus. We have also developed an Associate of Applied Science in Clinical Laboratory Technician at our Zona Rosa, Missouri site to meet the growing demand of clinical laboratory technicians performing tests to aid physicians in diagnosing and treating patients. Associate of Applied Science programs in Occupational Therapy Assistant at the Denver, Colorado, and Independence, Missouri locations, and Invasive Cardiovascular Technology at the Austin, Texas location have also been added to meet healthcare needs. Additional allied health programs at the associate degree level are offered throughout the university based on local demand and workforce needs. With the expansion of undergraduate enrollment in healthcare-related programs and the emerging demand observed from our alumni and other constituencies, we plan to expand our healthcare-related graduate programs. The burgeoning national need for master’s qualified nursing administrators and nursing faculty, along with our experience in developing and delivering nursing programs at the associate and bachelor’s degree levels, led us to develop a Master of Science in Nursing degree, which was approved by the HLC in 2009. We plan to continue to expand the master of science in nursing program to include new concentrations and certificates to respond to external needs.
Third-Party Relationships
Collaborations
We work with local businesses and corporations in the geographic areas where our educational sites are located to offer a variety of courses and schedule formats to assist busy professionals. For certain programs, we offer customized courses and schedules and on-site classes. For example, for the nursing programs, we offer clinical experiences on-site at hospitals and other healthcare centers with which we have relationships to allow students to complete their clinical work on-site.
We also collaborate with a number of local and national entities to provide educational programs that they desire. Examples of these collaborations include military memoranda of understanding and governmental and educational alliances. Among these alliances is our affiliation with the Serviceman’s Opportunity College, which was developed in response to the special needs of adult continuing education for people in the armed forces.
Affiliations
We have utilized our expertise in curricula and online education technology to develop affiliations with a number of higher education institutions to develop and deliver online courses and programming for their students. We provide courseware development, technical support and online class hosting services to various colleges, technical schools and training institutions in the United States and Canada who do not have the capacity to develop and operate their own online curriculum for their students. We do not share revenues with these institutions, but charge fees for our services, enabling us to generate additional revenue by leveraging our current online program infrastructure.
Associate to Bachelor’s Degree Completion Program
Our associate to bachelor’s degree completion programs, also called the 2 + 2 degree completion programs, are based on strategic affiliations with various higher education institutions in the United States. These programs allow students with an associate degree to transfer into a bachelor’s degree.
Educational and Administrative Sites
Our central administration is located in Rapid City, South Dakota. We lease all of our educational and administrative sites from third parties. As of May 31, 2014, we operated in the following locations:
* - locations that are pending regulatory approval
** - online learning call centers
Our on-site programs not only offer students, faculty and staff an opportunity to participate in a more traditional college experience, but also provide online students, faculty and staff with a sense of connection to the university.
Faculty and Other Employees
Our faculty includes full-time faculty members, and adjunct campus-based and online faculty members. As of May 31, 2014, the university employed approximately 77 full-time and 578 part-time faculty members. Approximately 75% of our current faculty members hold a master’s degree in their respective field and approximately 22% of our faculty members hold a doctoral degree.
We follow a specific process for hiring faculty in accordance with published standards for faculty members based on state regulations, HLC requirements and specialized standards.
We recruit qualified faculty through postings on the university’s website, as well as placement of advertisements in local and national media. We review official transcripts to validate academic qualifications and faculty vitae to verify academic preparation consistent with the university’s qualification guidelines, as well as engagement in relevant professional activities.
We recognize that most efforts to train, evaluate and recognize faculty members must originate at the individual campus level. All faculty members complete an online faculty orientation, coordinated by the system academics office, which consists of seven modules addressing the university’s mission and core values, the instructor’s role at the university, learning concepts and theories, good practices in teaching and assessment, classroom management, and accreditation standards and regulatory requirements related to academics. Regularly scheduled webinars are also available for faculty development each quarter. In addition, the campus academic deans are responsible for local orientation and in-service programs for faculty, schedules for faculty appraisal, promotions and merit increase recommendations, as well as formal and informal efforts to retain faculty members. Central academics and regional and campus deans establish and uphold the university’s policies and practices for faculty appraisal. We provide ongoing and meaningful feedback on individual performance to our faculty members for their professional growth and for the continued advancement of the university.
Retention of quality adjunct faculty is a priority for us. To promote continuity within this vital teaching core, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to retain adjunct faculty. We have made strides in improving faculty compensation over the last several years, and we recognize that additional improvements may be required to attract and retain a qualified faculty.
Faculty and staff are encouraged to actively participate in a variety of academic and non-academic organizations. Faculty members participate in a wide variety of professional associations and activities at the local, state and regional level. We encourage our faculty to stay current on changes and trends within higher education, as well as their respective industries. Participation in professional organizations by faculty and staff bring current information relevant to the university’s mission and programming to students and the workplace.
In addition to our faculty, as of May 31, 2014, we employed 907 staff and administrative personnel in university services, academic advising and support, enrollment services, university administration, financial aid, information technology, human resources, corporate accounting, finance and other administrative functions. None of our employees is a party to any collective bargaining or similar agreement with the university.
Marketing, Recruitment and Retention
Marketing. We engage in a range of activities designed to generate awareness among prospective students. Such activities include building brand awareness via internet platforms, television and radio advertising, direct mail, email, and print. The goal of the marketing department is to distribute relevant content to our target audiences in order to gain brand awareness, create a desire to attend NAU by engaging our audiences, and support admissions in enrollment growth. NAU’s audience is primarily adult learners choosing to advance their education for personal and career-related goals.
Recruitment. Once a prospective student has indicated an interest in enrolling in one of our programs, the university’s lead management system identifies and directs an admissions representative to initiate prompt communication. The admissions representative serves as the primary, direct contact for the prospective student, and the representative’s goal is to help the student gain sufficient knowledge and understanding of the university’s programs so the prospective student can assess whether the university’s offerings satisfy his or her goals.
Retention. We utilize a learner services team to support students in advancing from matriculation through attainment of educational goals. The team members monitor various risk factors, such as the failure to buy books for a registered course, lack of attendance or failure to participate in online orientation exercises. Upon identifying an at-risk student, the university can interact with the student to assist him or her in continuing his or her program of study.
Student Support Services
Encouraging students to complete their degree programs is critical to our success. We invest great effort in developing and providing resources that simplify the student enrollment process, acclimate students to our programs and online environment and support the student educational experience. Many of our support services, including academic, administrative and library services, are accessible online, allowing users to access these services at a time and in a manner convenient for them.
The student support services we provide include:
Academic and learner support services. We provide students with a variety of services designed to support their academic studies. We offer students entrance orientation, academic advising, technical support, research services, writing services, ADA accommodations, access to counseling, and tutoring.
Administrative services. We provide students access to a variety of administrative services in person as well as telephonically and via the Internet. For example, students can review class schedules, apply for financial aid, pay tuition and access their unofficial transcripts online. The university’s financial service representatives provide personalized online and telephonic support to the students.
Library services. We provide a mix of online and on-campus library resources, services and instruction to support the educational and research endeavors of our students, faculty and staff, including physical and online libraries and online library resources available 24/7.
Career services. For those students seeking to change careers or explore new career opportunities, we offer career services support, including resume review and evaluation, career planning workshops and access to career services information for advice and support.
Technology support services. We provide online technical support to help students remedy technology-related issues. We also provide online tutorials and “Frequently Asked Questions” for students who are new to online coursework.
Admissions
Prospective students are required to complete an application to enroll in our programs. Upon the prospective student’s submission of an application, the admissions representative and student services personnel assist the applicant through the admissions process, arranging financial aid by financial services representatives, if needed, and registering for courses and preparing for matriculation. Prospective students also are required to complete placement tests, which enable the university to best serve the student by enrolling him/her in classes to build any missing skills, thereby increasing his/her chances of success.
Applicants to the university’s graduate programs must have an undergraduate degree from an accredited institution of higher learning in the United States or from an international institution of higher learning recognized by the ministry of education or other appropriate government agency, and
•
a minimum grade point average of 2.75 achieved for all undergraduate work or
•
a minimum grade point average of 2.9 achieved for the last one-half of the credits earned toward a Bachelor’s degree; or
•
a minimum grade point average of 3.0 in two or more graduate level courses taken at a regionally accredited institution of higher learning or recognized foreign equivalent.
Undergraduate applicants must have graduated from a recognized high school (or the Department of Education or state-required accepted equivalent) or submit an official transcript from an accredited higher education institution in the United States indicating completion of a postsecondary education program of at least two years that is acceptable for full credit toward a Bachelor’s degree, with a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.0.
Enrollment
Enrollments have decreased from approximately 11,470 students as of May 31, 2013 to approximately 10,850 students as of May 31, 2014, representing an annual decrease of approximately 5.4%. As of May 31, 2014, we had 6,481 students enrolled in our online programs, 2,686 students enrolled on-campus, and 1,690 students enrolled through our hybrid learning centers. The average age of our students is approximately 35 years.
The following is a summary of our student enrollment at May 31, 2014, and May 31, 2013, by degree type and by instructional delivery method:
Tuition and Fees
Our tuition rates vary by educational site. Total tuition varies based upon several factors, including the number of credit hours for each program, the degree level of the program, and geographic location.
Our students finance their education through a variety of sources, including government sponsored financial aid, private and NAU provided scholarships, employer provided tuition assistance, veteran’s benefits, private loans and cash payments. A substantial portion of our students rely on funds received under various government sponsored student financial aid programs, predominately Title IV programs. In the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, approximately 89.3%, 89.7%, and 84.7%, respectively, of our revenues (calculated on a cash basis) were attributable to funds derived from Title IV programs.
We have a refund policy for tuition and fees based upon quarter start dates. If a student drops or withdraws from a course during the first week of classes, 100% of the charges for tuition and fees are refunded. After the first week but during the first 60% of scheduled classes the percentage of tuition charges refunded for a student who totally withdraws from NAU is based on a daily proration based on a percent of the term completed thru the last day of attendance (LDA)**. If the last day of attendance is beyond 60% of the scheduled classes, tuition and fees are not refunded. Fees charged include specialty and program fees ranging from $25 to $551, depending on the program. A $75 administrative fee is assessed against each prorated refund. A refund minus a $75 administrative fee is made within 45 days of the day the student’s withdrawal is determined. If the student was a financial aid recipient, federal regulations establish a methodology for determining the amount of Title IV funds that must be returned to the financial aid programs for students not completing 60% of the enrollment period.
** Those students attending in the state of Oregon receive a prorated refund based on the LDA in each class.
Technology Systems
We remain focused on leveraging the use of technology to increase efficiencies in our academic programs and our general administrative operations. This commitment requires not only institutional budget expenditures, but also orientation and training in the use of this technology.
To service our online teaching we utilize Desire2LearnTM, or D2L, an Internet-based learning management system. The features of this product include content display and organization, synchronous and asynchronous chat, private messaging, quizzing, student surveys and assignment submission and student tracking and grading. The system is used to present online courses to both domestic and international students.
We have also developed and deployed an Internet-based application called TEAMS to meet the growing needs of our online course delivery. TEAMS closely integrates with the D2L learning management system to allow for automated loading of students into D2L courses and provides a single point to determine student and staff participation in the online courses. This application is designed to utilize the storage capability of a relational database to provide historical and real time information.
Recognizing the need to manage content used in the D2L learning management system, we implemented the Desire2Learn Learning Object Repository™ application to input, organize, manage and display course materials. This application provides an Internet-based, content entry and editing interface that allows content experts to create and edit course content. Additionally, it organizes text, images, documents and multimedia resources in a relational database, allowing the university to more easily identify and re-task existing content for new projects and courses through the use of Meta data. Finally, the application is integrated with the learning management system and is used to display and deliver content seamlessly through D2L to students.
Intellectual Property
We rely on a combination of copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, domain names and agreements with third parties to protect our proprietary rights. Through our extensive development of electronic instructional materials, on-campus and online courseware and related processes, we continue to accumulate intellectual property that has provided the basis for improving quality of instruction, programs and services to our students.
We rely on trademark and service mark protections in the United States and other countries for our name and distinctive logos, along with various other trademarks and service marks related to specific offerings. We own federal registrations for our principal trademarks, National American University® and NAU® in the United States. These marks are important symbols for us and are used on our educational services and educational materials and a range of other items, including clothing and other memorabilia. These brands appear in our advertising and are seen by members of the general public as well as our direct constituents. We also own domain name rights to “national.edu” and other derivatives of that name, as well as a number of “nau” related domain names.
We publish intellectual property policies in our faculty handbook and our employee handbook that outline the ownership of creative works and inventions produced by employees within the scope of their employment, compliance with copyright law and the use of our copyrighted materials. When we hire content experts to develop curriculum, we require them to execute our standard agreement to confirm that all materials created under the scope of the work become our exclusive intellectual property. These agreements also require the content experts to comply with all laws related to copyright and the use of copyrighted materials.
Real Estate Operations
Our real estate operations conduct business through various projects and associations, including Fairway Hills I and II, Park West, Vista Park, Fairway Hills Park and Recreational Association, the Vista Park Homeowners’ Association and the Park West Homeowners’ Association. Fairway Hills I and Fairway Hills II are apartment buildings consisting of a total of 52 rental apartments of which 99% were leased as of May 31, 2014. Park West consists of 48 apartment units and is owned by a partnership that is 50% owned by us and 50% owned by members of the Buckingham family (including Robert Buckingham, chairman of our board of directors, and his siblings and the spouses and estates of his siblings). Park West apartment units are being converted to, and sold as, condominiums. While the conversion of the Park West building is not yet complete, as of May 31, 2014, 6 of the 48 available units in Park West have been sold. Currently, prices for Park West condominium units start at $139,000.
In addition, in 2008, we began construction of a condominium development called Vista Park. Fairway Hills completed construction of a 24-unit condominium complex known as Vista Park Phase I by May 31, 2014 and has sold 13 of the available units. Prices for Vista Park condominium units start at $160,000. We currently have plans to build three additional condominium complexes (Phases II, III and IV) in Vista Park, but construction of these additional phases is not expected to begin until after the sale of a substantial number of the currently available condominiums in Vista Park Phase I. In total, and upon completion of all four phases of development, the Vista Park condominium complexes would consist of 96 condominium units.
In connection with the development of Vista Park and the conversion of Park West apartments, Fairway Hills has created two homeowners’ associations, the Vista Park Homeowner’s Association and the Park West Homeowner’s Association, each of which is a non-profit corporation, to manage and sell the condominiums. In addition, the Fairway Hills Park and Recreational Association, which is also a non-profit corporation, was created to operate as a homeowner’s association covering substantially all of the Fairway Hills development.
Environmental
Our facilities and operations are subject to a variety of environmental laws and regulations governing, among other things, the use, storage and disposal of solid and hazardous substances and waste, and the clean-up of contamination at our facilities or off-site locations to which we send or have sent waste for disposal. If we do not maintain compliance with any of these laws and regulations, or are responsible for a spill or release of hazardous materials, we could incur costs for clean-up, damages, and fines or penalties.
Compliance with Applicable Laws
We strive to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. We have a designated university compliance officer and maintain an institutional compliance program that has:
•
A university compliance committee made up of representatives of departments and chaired by the university compliance officer;
•
Monitors compliance and, when gaps or violations occur, develops responses to correct deficiencies in a timely manner; and
•
Communicates institutional principles designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote ethical conduct.
Further, audits are periodically conducted to ensure compliance with applicable laws, including the following:
•
Federal Title IV student financial assistance program compliance attestation examinations are conducted annually to determine compliance and to identify any deficiencies requiring correction;
•
An audit of 401(k) retirement plans is conducted annually for compliance with applicable laws and fiduciary duties; and
•
Annual financial statements audited by an independent auditor.
REGULATORY MATTERS
We are subject to extensive regulation by state education agencies, accrediting commissions and the United States federal government through the U.S. Department of Education (the “Department of Education”) under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, (the “Higher Education Act”). The regulations, standards and policies of these agencies cover substantially all of our operations, including the educational programs, facilities, instructional and administrative staff, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, finances, results of operations and financial condition.
As an institution of higher education that grants degrees and diplomas, we are required to comply with the requirements of state education authorities. In addition, to participate in the federal programs of student financial assistance for our students, we are required to be accredited by an accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education. Accreditation is a non-governmental process through which an institution submits to qualitative review by an organization of peer institutions, based on the standards of the accrediting commission and the stated aims and purposes of the institution. The Higher Education Act requires accrediting commissions recognized by the Department of Education to review and monitor many aspects of an institution’s operations and to take appropriate action if the institution fails to meet the accrediting commission’s standards.
Our operations are also subject to regulation by the Department of Education due to our participation in Title IV programs. To participate in Title IV programs, a school must receive and maintain authorization by the appropriate state education agency or agencies, be accredited by an accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education and be certified as an eligible institution by the Department of Education. Prior to July 1, 2010, Title IV programs included educational loans provided directly by the federal government, grant programs for students with demonstrated financial need, and educational loans issued by private banks with below-market interest rates that were guaranteed by the federal government in the event of a student’s default on repayment of the loan. As of July 1, 2010, all educational loans under Title IV are provided directly by the federal government.
We plan and implement our business activities to comply with the standards of these regulatory agencies. Our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief operations officer also provide oversight designed to ensure that we meet the requirements of this regulatory environment.
State Authorization and Regulation
We are subject to extensive regulations by the states in which we are authorized or licensed to operate. State laws and regulations typically establish standards in areas such as instruction, qualifications of faculty, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, financial operations and other operational matters, which can be different than and conflict with the requirements of the Department of Education and other applicable regulatory bodies. State laws and regulations may limit our ability to offer educational programs and offer certain degrees. Some states may also prescribe financial regulations that are different from those of the Department of Education and many require the posting of surety bonds.
In addition, several states have sought to assert jurisdiction over educational institutions offering online degree programs that have no physical location or other presence in the state but that have some activity in the state, such as enrolling or offering educational services to students who reside in the state, employing faculty who reside in the state or advertising or recruiting prospective students in the state. State regulatory requirements for online education vary among the states, are not well developed in many states, are imprecise or unclear in some states and can change frequently. We have determined that our activities in certain states constitute a presence requiring licensure or authorization under the current requirements of the state education agency in these states, and in other states we have approvals as we have determined necessary in connection with our marketing and recruiting activities. We review the licensure requirements of other states to determine whether our activities in those states constitute a presence or otherwise require licensure or authorization by the applicable state education agency and submit additional applications for licensure or authorization when necessary. We are required by the Higher Education Act to be authorized by applicable state educational agencies in South Dakota and other states where we are located to participate in Title IV programs. See “Regulatory Matters - Regulation of Federal Student Financial Aid Programs - State Authorization.” We do not believe that any of the states in which we are currently licensed or authorized, other than South Dakota, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas, are individually material to our operations. If we fail to comply with state licensing requirements, we may lose our state licensure or authorizations. If we lose state licensure in a state in which we have a physical location, or in a state where we are required to maintain authorization for online education activities, we would also lose Title IV eligibility in that state. If we are found not to be in compliance with state requirements for online learning, and a state seeks to restrict one or more of our business activities within its boundaries, we may not be able to recruit students from that state and may have to cease providing educational programs to students in that state or may be subject to other sanctions, including fines or penalties. Compliance with these new and changing laws, regulations or interpretations related to state authorization and offering programs via online delivery could increase our cost of doing business and affect our ability to recruit students in particular states, which could, in turn, adversely affect enrollments, revenues and our business.
State Professional Licensure
Many states have specific licensure requirements that an individual must satisfy to be licensed as a professional in specified fields, including fields such as education and healthcare. These requirements vary by state and by field. A student’s success in obtaining licensure following graduation typically depends on several factors, including the background and qualifications of the individual graduate, as well as the following factors, among others:
•
whether the institution and the program were approved by the state in which the graduate seeks licensure, or by a professional association;
•
whether the program from which the student graduated meets all requirements for professional licensure in that state;
•
whether the institution and the program are accredited and, if so, by what accrediting commissions; and
•
whether the institution’s degrees are recognized by other states in which a student may seek to work.
Many states also require that graduates pass a state test or examination as a prerequisite to becoming certified in certain fields, such as nursing. Many states also may require a criminal background clearance before granting certain professional licensures or certifications. Our catalog informs students that it is incumbent upon the student to verify whether a specific criminal background clearance is required in their field of study prior to beginning course work.
Accreditation
We have been institutionally accredited since 1985 by the HLC, a regional accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education. Our accreditation was last reaffirmed in 2008 for the maximum term of 10 years as part of a regularly scheduled reaffirmation process. In May 2010, a three-person team from the HLC visited the university’s central administration offices in Rapid City, South Dakota, in response to the university’s change of control request in connection with the November 2009 merger with Camden. The change of control request was approved with a visit scheduled in 2014-15. Accreditation is a private, non-governmental process for evaluating the quality of educational institutions and their programs in areas, including student performance, governance, integrity, educational quality, faculty, physical resources, administrative capability and resources and financial stability. To be recognized by the Department of Education, accrediting commissions must comply with Department of Education regulations, which require, among other things, that accrediting agencies adopt specific standards for their review of educational institutions, conduct peer review evaluations of institutions and publicly designate those institutions that meet their criteria. An accredited school is subject to periodic review by its accrediting commissions to determine whether it continues to meet the performance, integrity and quality required for accreditation.
There are six regional accrediting commissions recognized by the Department of Education, each with a specified geographic scope of coverage, which together cover the entire United States. Most traditional, public and private non-profit, degree-granting colleges and universities are accredited by one of these six regional accrediting commissions. The HLC, which accredits us, is the same regional accrediting commission that accredits other degree-granting public and private colleges and universities in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Accreditation by the HLC is important to us for several reasons, one being that it enables our students to receive Title IV financial aid. Other colleges and universities depend, in part, on an institution’s accreditation in evaluating transfers of credit and applications to graduate schools. Employers rely on the accredited status of institutions when evaluating candidates’ credentials, and students and corporate and government sponsors under tuition reimbursement programs consider accreditation as assurance that an institution maintains quality educational standards. If we fail to satisfy the standards of the HLC, we could lose our accreditation by that agency, which would cause us to lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.
The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2008, and Department of Education regulations that became effective July 1, 2010, require accrediting commissions to monitor the growth of institutions that they accredit. The HLC requires all affiliated institutions, including us, to complete an annual data report. If the non-financial data, particularly enrollment information, and any other information submitted by the institution indicate problems, rapid change or significant growth, the HLC staff may require that the institution address any concerns arising from the data report in the next self-study and visit process or may recommend additional monitoring. In addition, the Department of Education regulations that became effective July 1, 2010 require the HLC to notify the Department of Education if an institution accredited by the HLC that offers distance learning programs, such as us, experiences an increase in its headcount enrollment of 50% or more in any fiscal year. The Department of Education may consider that information in connection with its own regulatory oversight activities.
In addition to institution-wide accreditation, there are numerous specialized accrediting commissions that accredit specific programs or schools within their jurisdiction, many of which are in healthcare and professional fields. Accreditation of specific programs by one of these specialized accrediting commissions signifies that those programs have met the additional standards of those agencies. In addition to being accredited by the HLC at the institutional level, we also had the following specialized accreditations as of May 31, 2014:
Specialized or Programmatic Accreditation
Accrediting Body
Selected Business Degree Programs (Associate of Applied Science, Bachelor of Science, Master of Management, Master of Business Administration degrees)
International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education
Health Information Technology (online program)
Commission on Accreditation for Health Informatics and Information Management
Medical Assisting (Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; Bloomington, Minnesota; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Denver, Colorado; Independence, Missouri; Kansas City (Zona Rosa), Missouri; Overland Park, Kansas; Wichita, Kansas; Roseville, Minnesota; Sioux Falls, South Dakota, campuses)
Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs on the recommendation of the Medical Assisting Education Review Board
Pharmacy Technician (Bloomington, Minnesota; Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; Roseville, Minnesota; Sioux Falls, South Dakota campuses)
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
Veterinary Technology (Rapid City, South Dakota campus)
Committee on Veterinary Technician Education and Activities
Associate of Science Nursing Program (Kansas City (Zona Rosa), Missouri campus)
Missouri Board of Nursing Full Approval
Associate of Science Nursing Program (Denver, Colorado campus)
Colorado Board of Nursing Full Approval
Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (Albuquerque, New Mexico campus)
New Mexico Board of Nursing Initial Approval
Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (Bloomington, Minnesota campus)
Minnesota Board of Nursing Approval
Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (Rapid City, South Dakota; Sioux Falls, South Dakota campuses)
South Dakota Board of Nursing Interim Approval
Bachelor of Science in Nursing and Licensed Practical Nurse Bridge to Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (Overland Park, Kansas; Wichita West campuses)
Kansas State Board of Nursing Initial Approval
Online Registered Nurse to Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (Distance Learning)
South Dakota Board of Nursing Approval
Associate of Science in Nursing Program (Kansas City (Zona Rosa), Missouri campus)
Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing(former National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission) Initial Approval
Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (all NAU campuses that listed above - Albuquerque, Bloomington, Overland Park, Rapid City, Sioux Falls, and Wichita West campuses)
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Initial Accreditation
Licensed Practical Nurse Bridge to Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (Overland Park, Kansas; Wichita West campuses)
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Initial Accreditation
Online Registered Nurse to Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (Distance Learning)
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Initial Accreditation
Online Master of Science in Nursing Program (Distance Learning)
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Initial Accreditation
The American Bar Association has approved our paralegal studies program offered at the Rapid City and Sioux Falls, South Dakota campuses
If we fail to satisfy the standards of any of these specialized accrediting commissions, we could lose the specialized accreditation for the affected programs, which could result in materially reduced student enrollments in those programs.
Regulation of Federal Student Financial Aid Programs
To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, an institution must comply with specific requirements contained in the Higher Education Act and the regulations issued thereunder by the Department of Education. An institution must, among other things, be licensed or authorized to offer its educational programs by the state or states in which it is physically located (in our case, South Dakota, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas) and maintain institutional accreditation by an accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education.
The substantial amount of federal funds disbursed to schools through Title IV programs, the large number of students and institutions participating in these programs and allegations of fraud and abuse by certain for-profit educational institutions have caused Congress to require the Department of Education to exercise considerable regulatory oversight over for-profit educational institutions. As a result, for-profit educational institutions, including ours, are subject to extensive oversight and review. Because the Department of Education periodically revises its regulations and changes its interpretations of existing laws and regulations, we cannot predict with certainty how the Title IV program requirements will be applied in all circumstances.
Significant factors relating to Title IV programs that could adversely affect us include the following:
Congressional Action and Changes in Department of Education Regulations. Congress must reauthorize the Higher Education Act on a periodic basis, usually every five to six years, and the most recent reauthorization occurred in August 2008. In addition, Congress must determine funding levels for Title IV programs on an annual basis and can change the laws governing Title IV programs at any time.
Apart from Title IV programs, eligible veterans and military personnel may receive educational benefits for the pursuit of higher education. A reduction in federal funding levels for Title IV programs, or for programs providing educational benefits to veterans and military personnel, could reduce the ability of some students to finance their education. Any action by Congress that significantly reduces Title IV program funding or the ability of our students to participate in Title IV programs could have a material effect on our enrollments, business, financial condition and results of operations. Congressional action also may require us to modify our practices in ways that could increase administrative costs and reduce profit margins, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In recent years, Congress has placed increased focus, including by holding hearings and releasing reports, on the role that for-profit educational institutions play in higher education. The Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) also has undertaken a review of various aspects of the proprietary sector, including recruitment practices, educational quality, student outcomes, the sufficiency of integrity safeguards against waste, fraud and abuse in federal student aid programs and the degree to which proprietary institutions’ revenue is composed of Title IV and other federal funding sources. These hearings and the GAO review are not formally related to any rulemaking by the Department of Education, but could lead to new or additional regulatory focus on proprietary educational institutions.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (the “HELP Committee”) held a series of hearings on the proprietary education sector during 2010 and 2011 relating to student recruiting, accreditation matters, student debt, student success and outcomes, and other matters. On July 30, 2012, the majority staff of the HELP Committee released a report, “For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success.” While stating that proprietary colleges and universities have an important role to play in higher education and should be well-equipped to meet the needs of non-traditional students who now constitute the majority of the postsecondary educational population, the report was highly critical of these institutions. The findings and recommendations contained in this report could negatively impact our reputation and materially affect our business. The report may be used for future legislative proposals in Congress in connection with a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act or other proposed legislation that could change the participation of proprietary institutions, including us, in Title IV programs. The report could also lead to further investigations of proprietary schools and additional regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education.
In connection with the anticipated reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, on June 25, 2014, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation that would amend the Higher Education Act in a number of significant ways, including that a for-profit institution would lose eligibility to participate in Title IV funds if the institution derives more than 85% of its revenues from federal funds, including Title IV programs, revenue from the GI Bill and Department of Defense Tuition Assistance funds, and prohibiting postsecondary educational institutions, including us, from using federally-derived funds for marketing, advertising and recruiting expenses. Other members of Congress have proposed legislation that could similarly have an adverse effect on our business. For example, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the “Protect Student Borrowers Act,” which would assess penalties against institutions if their cohort default rate exceeds 15 percent. A bill introduced by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), titled the “Student First Act,” would require Department of Education program reviews of institutions engaging in “risky” behavior, such as serial forbearance and default rate manipulation, spending more than 20 percent of revenue on recruiting and marketing, and deriving more than 85 percent of revenue from federal student aid sources. Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) introduced the “Protecting Financial Aid for Students and Taxpayers Act,” which would prohibit institutions from using revenues derived from federal educational assistance funds for advertising, marketing, or recruiting. All of these bills may serve as a basis of discussion during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Congress and the executive branch have also focused on educational benefits for military personnel and veterans. On December 8, 2010, Senator Harkin’s staff released a memorandum entitled “Benefitting Whom? For-Profit Education Companies and the Growth of Military Educational Benefits.” On May 19, 2011, Senator Harkin spoke on the Senate floor regarding marketing practices employed by for-profit
colleges with respect to veterans. In September 2011, a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee conducted hearings covering the quality of education provided by proprietary institutions and treatment of educational benefits for military personnel for purposes of the 90/10 Rule (described below) on institutional eligibility for Title IV programs. On April 27, 2012, in response to alleged abusive recruiting practices by for-profit institutions, President Obama signed an executive order aimed at providing military personnel, veterans and their family members with the resources they need to make an informed decision about their educational prospects and other protections (the “Executive Order”). The Executive Order requires the Department of Education, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish and implement “Principles of Excellence” to apply to educational institutions receiving funding from federal military and veterans educational benefits programs. The goals of the “Principles of Excellence” are broadly stated in the Executive Order and relate to disclosures on costs and amounts of costs covered by federal educational benefits, marketing standards, state authorization, accreditation approvals, standard institutional refund policies, educational plans and academic and financial advising. Educational institutions were required to indicate whether or not they intend to comply with these Principles of Excellence by response to the Department of Veterans Affairs. NAU responded that we intend to comply with the Principles of Excellence, as veterans and service members are valued constituencies within our student and prospective student populations. Also, on May 16, 2012, the U.S. House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity conducted a hearing focusing on the Executive Order and on recruitment of veterans and active duty military personnel. Additional hearings in the future by these committees may continue to increase Congressional focus on for-profit educational institutions. We cannot predict whether, or the extent to which, these hearings and review will result in legislation or further rulemaking affecting our participation in Title IV programs. To the extent that any laws or regulations are adopted that limit our participation in Title IV programs or the amount of student financial aid for which the students at our institutions are eligible, our enrollments, revenues and results of operation could be materially affected.
On October 29, 2010, following a negotiated rulemaking process that had commenced in May 2009, the Department published final regulations (the “Final Rules”) pertaining to a number of Title IV program integrity issues. Negotiated rulemaking is a process whereby the Department of Education consults with members of the postsecondary education community to identify issues of concern and attempts to agree on proposed regulatory revisions to address those issues before the Department of Education formally proposes any regulations. If the Department of Education and negotiators cannot reach consensus on the entire package of draft regulations, the Department of Education is authorized to propose regulations without being bound by any agreements made in the negotiation process. The Final Rules became effective July 1, 2011.
Beginning in February 2014, the Department of Education held another round of negotiated rulemaking sessions related to proposed regulations to address program integrity and improvement issues for the Title IV programs, including but not limited to, cash management of Title IV program funds and the use of debit cards and the handling of Title IV credit balances, state authorization for programs offered through distance education or correspondence education, state authorization for foreign locations of institutions, clock to credit hour conversion requirements, the definition of “adverse credit” for borrowers of certain loans, and the application of repeat coursework provisions to graduate and undergraduate programs. During the March 2014 negotiating session, the Department of Education proposed draft regulatory language regarding state authorization for programs offered through distance education that would impose new requirements for students in such programs to be eligible for Title IV program funds and which, if ultimately promulgated into regulation, could materially decrease our revenue and liquidity, and adversely affect our overall business. Because the Department of Education and negotiators did not reach consensus on the entire package of draft regulations, the Department of Education is authorized to propose regulations without being bound by any agreements made in the negotiation process. We cannot predict the ultimate content or effective date of any new regulations that may emerge from this negotiated rulemaking process or the potential impact on NAU’s programs. However, any regulations that reduce or eliminate our students’ access to Title IV program funds, that require us to change or eliminate programs or that increase our costs of compliance could have an adverse effect on our business.
Gainful Employment. Under the Higher Education Act, proprietary schools are eligible to participate in Title IV programs in respect of educational programs that lead to “gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” Historically, this concept has not been defined in detail. On March 25, 2014, the Department of Education published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register containing proposed regulations to define whether certain educational programs, including all programs offered by NAU, comply with the Higher Education Act’s requirement of preparing students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. The proposed regulations would require each educational program covered by the rule to achieve threshold rates in three debt measure categories related to an annual debt to annual earnings ratio, an annual debt to discretionary income ratio, and a program cohort default rate. The proposed regulations would cause each educational program covered by the rule, which includes all of NAU’s educational programs, to fail the requirement of preparing students for gainful employment if its graduates’ student loan debt payments exceed 12% of their total earnings and 30% of their discretionary earnings. Programs whose graduates have debt-to-earnings ratios of 8% to 12% or debt-to-discretionary-earnings ratios of 20% to 30% would fall in a “zone”, and the institution would have to warn students that they might become ineligible for Title IV program funds. Programs that fail both debt-to-earnings tests twice in any three-year period or are in the zone for four consecutive years would be ineligible for Title IV program funds. With respect to the programmatic cohort default rate component, programs whose borrower cohort default rates exceed 30% for three consecutive years would be ineligible for federal student financial aid.
The debt-to-earnings ratios and programmatic cohort default rates are calculated under complex methodologies and definitions outlined in the proposed regulations and, in some cases, are based on data that may not be readily accessible to institutions. The proposed regulations also contain other provisions that, among other things, include disclosure, reporting and certification requirements. We are evaluating the potential impact of the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations were subject to comment by the public through May 27, 2014, after which the Department of Education will consider revisions to the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations may or may not reflect the Department of Education’s final regulations. New final Department of Education regulations published on or before November 1, 2014 typically would have an effective date of July 1, 2015, although it is unknown at this time whether these regulations might have an earlier or later effective date. We cannot predict the ultimate content or effective date of any new regulations that may emerge from this process or the potential impact on NAU’s programs. However, any regulations that reduce or eliminate our students’ access to Title IV program funds, that require us to change or eliminate programs or that increase our costs of compliance could have an adverse effect on our business.
Incentive Compensation. An educational institution that participates in Title IV programs may not make any commission, bonus or other incentive payments to any persons or entities involved in recruitment or admissions activities or in the awarding of financial aid. Historically, the Department of Education had recognized 12 “safe harbor” provisions that specify certain activities and arrangements that were deemed to be permissible incentive compensation. As a result of the Final Rules, these 12 safe harbors were eliminated effective as of July 1, 2011. The Department of Education effectively took the position that any commission, bonus or other incentive compensation based in any part, directly or indirectly, on securing enrollment or awarding financial aid is inconsistent with the prohibition against incentive compensation payment in the Higher Education Act. The Department of Education contends that institutions do not need to rely on these safe harbors and can instead determine if compensation is permissible under the Higher Education Act by considering (1) whether it is a commission, bonus or other incentive payment (meaning an award of money or something of value, other than a fixed salary or wages), paid or given for services rendered and (2) if so, whether that commission, bonus or other incentive payment is given to a person based in any part, directly or indirectly, upon securing enrollments or awarding financial aid. The prohibition against incentive compensation applies to any person engaged in student recruitment or admissions activities or in making financial aid award decisions, and any higher level employees with responsibility for such activities.
In the Final Rules, the Department of Education has maintained that institutions may make merit-based adjustments to employee compensation, provided that those adjustments are not based, in any part, directly or indirectly, upon securing enrollments or awarding financial aid. Among other examples, the Department of Education provides guidance that an institution may maintain a hierarchy of enrollment personnel with varying levels of responsibility and salary scales that reflect added amounts of responsibility, that an institution may promote personnel based on merit, and that an institution may make compensation decisions based on seniority or length of employment, provided that such decisions are consistent with the prohibition on incentive compensation. In a “Dear Colleague” letter issued on March 17, 2011, the Department of Education provided additional guidance regarding the scope of the prohibition on incentive compensation and to what employees and types of activities the prohibition applies. We have modified some of our compensation practices as a result of the elimination of the safe harbors. These changes in our compensation practices could (1) reduce the effectiveness of our employees, and make it more difficult for us to attract and retain staff with the desired talent and motivation to succeed and (2) impair our ability to sustain and grow our business. This could also increase marketing costs and reduce revenues if we are unable to maintain or increase student enrollments.
In addition, in recent years, several for-profit education companies have been faced with whistleblower lawsuits under the Federal False Claims Act, known as “qui tam” cases, by current or former employees alleging violations of the prohibition against incentive compensation. In such cases, the whistleblower’s claims are reviewed under seal by the Department of Justice for potential intervention. If the Department of Justice elects to intervene, it assumes primary control over the litigation. In August 2011, the Department of Justice intervened in a qui tam matter pending against another for-profit education company claiming violations of the incentive compensation prohibition. These types of claims against for-profit educational companies, and the Department of Justice’s interest in intervention, are expected to increase in the future. If the Department of Education were to determine that we violated this requirement of Title IV programs, or if we were to be found liable in a False Claims action alleging a violation of this law, or if any third parties we have engaged were to violate this law, we could be fined or sanctioned by the Department of Education or subjected to other monetary liability or penalties that could be substantial, including the possibility of treble damages under a False Claims action, any of which could harm our reputation, impose significant costs and have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
State Authorization.
To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, an institution must be licensed or authorized to offer its educational programs by the states in which it is physically located, in accordance with the Department of Education’s regulations. Among other things, the Final Rules require that institutions demonstrate specific state authorization to operate educational programs beyond secondary education and clarify what is required for an institution to be considered “legally authorized” in a state for purpose of participation in Title IV programs. Specifically, the Final Rules provide that, effective July 1, 2011, the Department of Education would consider an institution to be legally authorized by a state if the state has a process, applicable to all institutions except tribal and federal institutions, to review and appropriately act on complaints concerning the institution and to enforce applicable state laws, and the institution further satisfies one of the following requirements:
•
The state establishes the institution by name as an educational institution by charter, statute, constitutional provision or other action issued by an appropriate state agency or state entity, and the institution is authorized to operate educational programs beyond secondary education, including programs leading to a certificate or degree;
•
The institution complies with applicable state approval or licensure requirements, except that a state may exempt an institution from any such requirement based on (1) the institution’s accreditation by one or more accrediting agencies recognized by the Department of Education or (2) the institution being in operation for at least 20 years; and
•
The state has a process, applicable to all institutions except federal and tribal institutions, to review and appropriately act on complaints concerning the institution and applicable state laws.
Under the Final Rules, institutions unable to obtain state authorization in a state under the above requirements were permitted to request a one-year extension of the effective date of the regulation to July 1, 2012, and if necessary, an additional one-year extension of the effective date to July 1, 2013. The Department of Education has subsequently provided for additional one-year extensions to July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2015. To receive an extension of the effective date, an institution must obtain from the state an explanation of how a one-year extension will permit the state to modify its procedures to comply with the regulations.
We operate physical facilities offering educational programs in South Dakota, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. In each of these states, we maintain the required authorizations to offer our educational programs under state law. With respect to New Mexico, we are currently exempt under state law from a requirement to be licensed by the New Mexico Higher Education Department because of our regional accreditation by the HLC. However, in order to comply with the Final Rules, we have voluntarily submitted an application for licensure to the New Mexico Higher Education Department which remains pending as of this date.
Where required under applicable law, these authorizations from state educational agencies are very important to us. To maintain requisite state authorizations, we are required to continuously meet standards relating to, among other things, educational programs, facilities, instructional and administrative staff, marketing and recruitment, financial operations, addition of new locations and educational programs and various operational and administrative procedures. Failure to comply with applicable requirements of the state educational agencies in South Dakota, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas could result in us losing our authorization to offer educational programs in those states. If that were to occur, the applicable state educational agency could force us to cease operations in that state. Even if the applicable state educational agency does not require the university to cease operations on an immediate basis, the loss of authorization by the state educational agency in such state would then cause our campuses in such state to lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, and such loss of Title IV program eligibility could force us to cease operations in such state. Alternatively, the state educational licensing agencies could restrict our ability to offer certain degree programs. Additionally, if the Department of Education were to determine that our authorizations in South Dakota, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas did not satisfy the state authorization requirements of the Final Rules, the campuses in the relevant states could lose their eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, and such loss of Title IV program eligibility could force us to cease operations in such state.
The Final Rules also included a requirement that an institution meet any state authorization requirements in a state in which it has distance education students, but in which it is not physically located or otherwise subject to state jurisdiction as a condition of awarding Title IV funds to students in that state. In July 2011, a Federal District Court issued an order vacating the regulation, which was sustained in June 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As described above under “Congressional Action and Changes in Department of Education Regulations,” the Department of Education is again considering Title IV program regulations requiring state authorization for programs offered through distance education or correspondence education. We therefore cannot predict with any certainty the impact of that rulemaking or any future regulation. Independent of this matter of federal regulation, several states have asserted jurisdiction over educational institutions offering online programs that have no physical location or other presence in the state, but that have some activity in the state, such as enrolling or offering educational services to students who reside in the state, conducting practica or sponsoring internships in the state, employing faculty who reside in the state or advertising to or recruiting prospective students in the state. Thus, our activities in certain states constitute a presence requiring licensure or authorization under requirements of state law, regulation or policy of the state educational agency, even though we do not have
a physical facility in such states. Therefore, in addition to the states where we maintain physical facilities, we have either obtained approvals or exemptions, or are currently in the process of obtaining such approvals or exemptions, that we believe are necessary in connection with our activities that may constitute a presence in such states requiring licensure or authorization by the state educational agency based on the laws, rules or regulations of that state. Notwithstanding our efforts to obtain approvals or exemptions, state regulatory requirements for online education vary among the states, are not well developed in many states, are imprecise or unclear in some states and can change frequently. Because we enroll students in online programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, we expect that regulatory authorities in other states where we are not currently licensed or authorized may request that we seek additional licenses or authorizations for these institutions in their states in the future. If we fail to comply with state licensing or authorization requirements for a state, or fail to obtain licenses or authorizations when required, we could lose state licensure or authorization by that state, which could prohibit us from recruiting prospective students or offering services to current students in that state. We could also be subject to other sanctions, including restrictions on activities in that state, fines and penalties. We review the licensure requirements of other states when we believe that it is appropriate to determine whether our activities in those states may constitute a presence or otherwise may require licensure or authorization by the respective state education agencies. New laws, regulations or interpretations related to offering educational programs online could increase our cost of doing business and affect our ability to recruit students in particular states, which could, in turn, adversely affect our enrollments and revenues and have a material effect on our business.
Misrepresentation. An institution participating in Title IV programs is prohibited from making misrepresentations regarding the nature of its educational programs, the nature of financial charges and availability of financial assistance, or the employability of graduates. A misrepresentation is defined in the regulations as any false, erroneous or misleading statement to any student or prospective student, any member of the public, an accrediting agency, a state agency or the Department of Education, and, significantly, the Final Rules as promulgated by the Department of Education defined misleading statements to broadly include any statements that have a likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse. However, in June 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the regulation insofar as it defined misrepresentation to include true and nondeceitful statements that have only the tendency or likelihood to confuse. If we - or any entity, organization, or person with whom we have an agreement to provide educational programs or to provide marketing, advertising, recruiting, or admissions services - commit a misrepresentation for which a person could reasonably be expected to rely, or has reasonably relied, to that person’s detriment, the Department of Education could initiate proceedings to revoke our institutions’ Title IV eligibility, deny applications made by our institutions, impose fines, or initiate a limitation, suspension or termination proceeding against us. Further, although the Department of Education claims not to have created any private right of action, the misrepresentation regulations as modified by the Final Rules could increase risk of qui tam actions under the False Claims Act.
Additional Provisions of the Final Rules. In addition to the issues specifically addressed above, the Final Rules regarding Title IV program integrity include provisions regarding the definition of a credit hour; written agreements between institutions, particularly institutions under common ownership or control; the administration of ability-to-benefit examinations; requirements regarding an institution’s return of Title IV program funds; and certain other issues pertaining to a student’s eligibility to receive Title IV program funds. The Department of Education also routinely issues “Dear Colleague Letters” to provide guidance on certain areas of final regulations. This guidance is intended to assist institutions with understanding the regulations in these areas and does not change any of the regulations. The Department of Education has issued numerous Dear Colleague Letters to provide guidance on the Final Rules. Compliance with the Final Rules or lack of sufficient guidance for compliance by the Department of Education, could have a material effect on our business. Uncertainty surrounding application of the Final Rules, interpretive regulations or guidance by the Department of Education may continue for some period of time and could reduce our enrollment, increase our cost of doing business, and have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Clery Act. Between January and April 2014, the Department of Education held three negotiated rulemaking sessions to implement the changes to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)), or the Clery Act, required by March 2013 amendments to the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA. At the final meeting of the negotiated rulemaking committee on April 1, 2014, the committee reached consensus on the Department’s proposed regulations, which were subsequently published for a 30-day public comment period on June 20, 2014. Among other things, VAWA and the revised Clery Act regulations require institutions to compile statistics on additional categories of crimes reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies, to implement ongoing crime awareness and prevention programs for students and employees, and to ensure that institutional disciplinary proceedings for certain enumerated crimes meet specific standards. While the Department of Education’s final regulations remain pending, the Department of Education notified institutions in a “Dear Colleague Letter” dated July 14, 2014 that until final regulations go into effect, the Department of Education expects institutions to make a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements beginning October 1, 2014.
Eligibility and certification procedures. Each institution must apply periodically to the Department of Education for continued certification to participate in Title IV programs. Such recertification generally is required every six years, but may be required earlier, including when an institution undergoes a change in control. An institution may also come under the Department of Education’s review when it expands its activities in certain ways, such as opening an additional location, adding a new educational program or modifying the academic credentials it offers. The Department of Education may place an institution on provisional certification status if it finds that the institution does not fully satisfy all of the eligibility and certification standards and in certain other circumstances, such as when an institution is certified for the first time or undergoes a change in control. During the period of provisional certification, the institution must comply with any additional conditions included in the school’s program participation agreement with the Department of Education. In addition, the Department of Education may more closely review an institution that is provisionally certified if it applies for recertification or approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another school or make any other significant change. If the Department of Education determines that a provisionally certified institution is unable to meet its responsibilities under its program participation agreement, it may seek to revoke the institution’s certification to participate in Title IV programs without advance notice or opportunity for the institution to challenge the action. Students attending provisionally certified institutions remain eligible to receive Title IV program funds. Our current certification to participate in the Title IV programs, which is not provisional, was effective in June 2013 and extends through March 31, 2019.
Administrative capability. Department of Education regulations specify extensive criteria by which an institution must establish that it has the requisite “administrative capability” to participate in Title IV programs. To meet the administrative capability standards, an institution must, among other things:
•
comply with all applicable Title IV program requirements;
•
have an adequate number of qualified personnel to administer Title IV programs;
•
have acceptable standards for measuring the satisfactory academic progress of its students;
•
not have student loan cohort default rates above specified levels;
•
have various procedures in place for awarding, disbursing and safeguarding Title IV program funds and for maintaining required records;
•
administer Title IV programs with adequate checks and balances in its system of internal controls;
•
not be, and not have any principal or affiliate who is, debarred or suspended from federal contracting or engaging in activity that is cause for debarment or suspension;
•
provide financial aid counseling to its students;
•
refer to the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General any credible information indicating that any student, parent, employee, third-party servicer or other agent of the institution has engaged in any fraud or other illegal conduct involving Title IV programs;
•
submit all required reports and financial statements in a timely manner; and
•
not otherwise appear to lack administrative capability.
If an institution fails to satisfy any of these criteria, the Department of Education may:
•
require the institution to repay Title IV funds its students previously received;
•
transfer the institution from the advance method of payment of Title IV funds to heightened cash monitoring status or the reimbursement method of payment;
•
place the institution on provisional certification status; or
•
commence a proceeding to impose a fine or to limit, suspend or terminate the institution’s participation in Title IV programs.
If the Department of Education determines that we failed to satisfy its administrative capability requirements, then our students could lose, or be limited in their access to, Title IV program funding.
By letter dated February 4, 2013, the Department of Education advised NAU that it was improperly limiting the amount of Title IV loan funds that students may receive in a given academic period based on students’ remaining maximum Title IV loan eligibility. As requested by the Department of Education, NAU responded to the letter and, among other things, revised its financial aid award letter to allow a student to borrow the maximum eligible amount, the recommended amount or an alternative amount, to provide all currently enrolled students the option of receiving additional Title IV loan funds for which the student qualified, and to revise certain of its policies and practices regarding the availability of Title IV loan funds. By letter dated May 8, 2013, the Department of Education responded that the documents and examples submitted by NAU in response to the February 4, 2013 letter demonstrate that NAU has revised its procedures and is providing complete information to students regarding the maximum extent of student loan eligibility.
Financial responsibility. The Higher Education Act and Department of Education regulations establish extensive standards of financial responsibility that institutions such as us must satisfy to participate in Title IV programs. The Department of Education evaluates institutions for compliance with these standards on an annual basis based on the institution’s annual audited financial statements as well as when the institution applies to the Department of Education to have its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs recertified. The most significant financial responsibility standard is the institution’s composite score, which is derived from a formula established by the Department of Education based on three financial ratios:
•
equity ratio, which measures the institution’s capital resources, financial viability and ability to borrow;
•
primary reserve ratio, which measures the institution’s ability to support current operations from expendable resources; and
•
net income ratio, which measures the institution’s ability to operate at a profit or within its means.
The Department of Education assigns a strength factor to the results of each of these ratios on a scale from negative 1.0 to positive 3.0, with negative 1.0 reflecting financial weakness and positive 3.0 reflecting financial strength. The Department of Education then assigns a weighting percentage to each ratio and adds the weighted scores for the three ratios together to produce a composite score for the institution. The composite score must be at least 1.5 for the institution to be deemed financially responsible without the need for further Department of Education oversight. In addition to having an acceptable composite score, an institution must, among other things, provide the administrative resources necessary to comply with Title IV program requirements, meet all of its financial obligations including required refunds to students and any Title IV liabilities and debts, be current in its debt payments and not receive an adverse, qualified or disclaimed opinion by its accountants in its audited financial statements.
If the Department of Education determines that an institution does not meet the financial responsibility standards due to a failure to meet the composite score or other factors, the institution should be able to establish financial responsibility on an alternative basis permitted by the Department of Education. This alternative basis could include, in the Department of Education’s discretion, posting a letter of credit, accepting provisional certification, complying with additional Department of Education monitoring requirements, agreeing to receive Title IV program funds under an arrangement other than the Department of Education’s standard advance funding arrangement, such as the reimbursement method of payment or heightened cash monitoring, or complying with or accepting other limitations on the institution’s ability to increase the number of programs it offers or the number of students it enrolls.
Our audited financial statements for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014 and May 31, 2013 indicated our composite scores for such fiscal years were 2.3 and 2.4, respectively, which are sufficient to be deemed financially responsible under the Department of Education’s requirements. If we are unable to meet the minimum composite score or comply with the other standards of financial responsibility, and could not post a required letter of credit or comply with the alternative bases for establishing financial responsibility, then our students could lose their access to Title IV program funding.
Return of Title IV funds for students who withdraw. When a student who has received Title IV funds withdraws from school, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV program funds the student has “earned.” If the student withdraws during the first 60% of any period of enrollment or payment period, the amount of Title IV program funds that the student has earned is equal to a pro rata portion of the funds the student received or for which the student would otherwise be eligible. If the student withdraws after the 60% threshold, then the student is deemed to have earned 100% of the Title IV program funds he or she received. The institution must then return the unearned Title IV program funds to the appropriate lender or the Department of Education in a timely manner, which is generally no later than 45 days after the date the institution determined that the student withdrew. If such payments are not timely made, the institution will be required to submit a letter of credit to the Department of Education equal to 25% of the Title IV funds that the institution should have returned for withdrawn students in its most recently completed fiscal year. Under Department of Education regulations, late returns of Title IV program funds for 5% or more of the withdrawn students in the audit sample in the institution’s annual Title IV compliance audit for either of the institution’s two most recent fiscal years or in a Department of Education program review triggers this letter of credit requirement. We did not exceed this 5% threshold in our annual Title IV compliance audit for either of our two most recent fiscal years.
The “90/10” Rule. A requirement of the Higher Education Act, commonly referred to as the “90/10 Rule,” provides that an institution will be placed on provisional certification and may be subject to other conditions from the Department of Education if, under a complex regulatory formula that requires cash basis accounting and other adjustments to the calculation of revenue, the institution derives more than 90% of its revenues for any fiscal year from Title IV program funds, and, further, the institution is subject to loss of eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if it exceeds the 90% threshold for two consecutive fiscal years. This rule applies only to for-profit postsecondary educational institutions, including NAU.
Using the Department of Education’s formula under the 90/10 Rule, for our 2012, 2013 and 2014 fiscal years, we derived approximately 84.7%, 89.7% and 89.3%, respectively, of our revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from Title IV program funds. Recent changes in federal law that increased Title IV grant and loan limits, and any additional increases in the future, may result in an increase in the revenues NAU receives from Title IV programs, which could make it more difficult for us to satisfy the 90/10 Rule. In addition, economic downturns that adversely affect students’ employment circumstances could also increase their reliance on Title IV programs. We are exploring the feasibility of various potential measures that would be intended to reduce the percentage of NAU’s cash basis revenue attributable under the 90/10 Rule to Title IV Program funds. Certain measures that could be taken to maintain compliance with the 90/10 Rule may reduce our revenues, increase our operating expenses, or both, perhaps significantly.
Student loan defaults. Under the Higher Education Act, an educational institution may lose its eligibility to participate in some or all Title IV programs if defaults by its students on the repayment of loans received through either the Federal Family Education Loan (“FFEL”) Program or the Federal Direct Loan programs exceed certain levels. For each federal fiscal year, the Department of Education calculates a rate of student defaults on such loans for each institution, known as a “cohort default rate.” An institution’s cohort default rate for a federal fiscal year is calculated by determining the rate at which borrowers that became subject to their repayment obligation in that federal fiscal year defaulted by the end of the following federal fiscal year. Before July 1, 2010, we participated in both the FFEL and Federal Direct Loan programs. As of July 1, 2010, following the elimination of the FFEL program under federal law, we participate only in the Federal Direct Loan program. Defaults by students on the repayment of loans received through the FFEL program still will be counted; however, in the calculation to determine our eligibility to participate in the Federal Direct Loan program.
If the Department of Education notifies an institution that its cohort default rates for each of the three most recent federal fiscal years are 25% or greater, the institution’s participation in the Federal Direct Loan and Pell Grant programs ends 30 days after that notification, unless the institution appeals that determination in a timely manner on specified grounds and according to specified procedures. In addition, an institution’s participation in the Federal Direct Loan programs ends 30 days after notification by the Department of Education that the institution’s most recent cohort default rate is greater than 40%, unless the institution timely appeals that determination on specified grounds and according to specified procedures. An institution whose participation ends under either of these provisions may not participate in the Federal Direct Loan and Pell Grant programs, as applicable, for the remainder of the fiscal year in which the institution receives the notification and for the next two federal fiscal years.
If an institution’s cohort default rate equals or exceeds 25% in any single federal fiscal year, the institution may be placed on provisional certification status. Provisional certification does not limit an institution’s access to Title IV program funds, but it does subject an institution to closer review by the Department of Education if the institution applies for recertification or approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another school or make any other significant change. Additionally, the Department of Education may revoke the certification of a provisionally-certified institution without advance notice if the Department of Education determines that the institution is not fulfilling material Title IV program requirements. We were approved to participate in the FFEL program before its expiration on July 1, 2010, and we currently are approved to participate in the Federal Direct Loan program. The potential sanctions discussed in this section are based on the combined cohort default rate for loans issued to students under both the FFEL program and the Federal Direct Loan program. Our official cohort default rates for the 2011, 2010 and 2009 federal fiscal years (the most recent federal fiscal years for which official cohort default rates as measured over two federal fiscal years of borrower repayment have been issued by the Department of Education) were 14.9%, 15.6%, and 14.1 %, respectively.
The August 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act included significant revisions to the requirements concerning FFEL and Federal Direct Loan cohort default rates. Under the revised law, the period for which students’ defaults on their loans are included in the calculation of an institution’s cohort default rate has been extended by one additional year, which is expected to increase the cohort default rates for most institutions. During a transition period covering the cohort default rate for federal fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Department of Education is calculating and issuing to institutions their cohort default rates under both the former and revised methodologies. The revised law also increased the threshold for ending an institution’s participation in the relevant Title IV programs from 25% to 30%, effective in 2012. Our official cohort default rate for federal fiscal years 2010 and 2009 as measured over three federal fiscal years of borrower repayment were 24.6% and 22.9%, respectively.
The Department of Education generally publishes draft cohort default rates in February of each year for the repayment period that ended the prior September 30. In February 2014 we received notice that our draft cohort rate for students who entered repayment during the federal fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, measured over three federal fiscal years of borrower repayment, was 21.5%. Draft cohort default rates do not result in sanctions, are subject to subsequent data corrections and appeals by an institution, and can change between their issuance to institutions and the Department of Education’s release of official cohort default rates, which are typically issued annually in September.
Compliance reviews. We are subject to announced and unannounced compliance reviews and audits by various external agencies, including the Department of Education, its Office of Inspector General, institutional and programmatic accreditors, state licensing agencies, agencies that have previously guaranteed FFEL loans, various state approving agencies for financial assistance to veterans and accrediting commissions. As part of the Department of Education’s ongoing monitoring of institutions’ administration of Title IV programs, the Higher Education Act also requires institutions to annually submit to the Department of Education a Title IV compliance audit conducted by an independent certified public accountant in accordance with applicable federal and Department of Education audit standards. In addition, to enable the Department of Education to make a determination of an institution’s financial responsibility, each institution must annually submit audited financial statements prepared in accordance with Department of Education regulations.
In response to our Title IV compliance audit for the period June 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013, the Department of Education has requested additional information regarding courses offered and Title IV program funds awarded to students at our Wichita West campus before it was approved as an additional location by the Department of Education in August 2013. We have responded to the Department of Education’s requests and will cooperate with any additional requests regarding this matter. We are unable to predict when the Department of Education will complete its review and issue a final determination letter.
On July 28, 2014, the department of Education notified us that is plans to conduct on-site program reviews in August 2014 at our Rapid City and Less’s Summit campuses. The program reviews are expected to cover our administration of Title IV programs for the 2013-2014 award year, as well as our administration of the Clery Act and related regulations and out compliance with the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and related regulations. We are unable to predict if or when the department of Education may issue any finding that arise from the program review. If the Department of Education were to make significant findings of non-compliance in the final program review determination, it could have a material effect on our business, condition and results of operations.
Privacy of student records. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, or FERPA, and the Department of Education’s FERPA regulations require educational institutions to protect the privacy of students’ educational records by limiting an institution’s disclosure of a student’s personally identifiable information without the student’s prior written consent. FERPA also requires institutions to allow students to review and request changes to their educational records maintained by the institution, to notify students at least annually of this inspection right and to maintain records in each student’s file listing requests for access to and disclosures of personally identifiable information and the interest of such party in that information. If an institution fails to comply with FERPA, the Department of Education may require corrective actions by the institution or may terminate an institution’s receipt of further federal funds. In addition, educational institutions are obligated to safeguard student information pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or GLBA, a federal law designed to protect consumers’ personal financial information held by financial institutions and other entities that provide financial services to consumers. GLBA and the applicable GLBA regulations require an institution to, among other things, develop and maintain a comprehensive, written information security program designed to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable financial information of students, parents or other individuals with whom such institution has a customer relationship. If an institution fails to comply with the applicable GLBA requirements, it may be required to take corrective actions, be subject to monitoring and oversight by the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and be subject to fines or penalties imposed by the FTC. For-profit educational institutions are also subject to the general deceptive practices jurisdiction of the FTC with respect to their collection, use and disclosure of student information. The institution must also comply with the FTC Red Flags Rule, a section of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, that requires the establishment of guidelines and policies regarding identity theft related to student credit accounts.
Potential effect of regulatory violations. If we fail to comply with the regulatory standards governing Title IV programs, the Department of Education could impose one or more sanctions, including transferring NAU to the reimbursement or cash monitoring method of payment, requiring us to repay Title IV program funds, requiring us to post a letter of credit in favor of the Department of Education as a condition for continued Title IV certification, taking emergency action against us, initiating proceedings to impose a fine or to limit, suspend or terminate our participation in Title IV programs or referring the matter for civil or criminal prosecution. If such sanctions or proceedings were imposed against us and resulted in a substantial curtailment or termination of our participation in Title IV programs, our enrollments, revenues and results of operations could be materially affected.
In addition to the actions that may be brought against us as a result of our participation in Title IV programs, we are also subject to complaints and lawsuits relating to regulatory compliance brought not only by regulatory agencies, but also by other government agencies and third parties, such as current or former students or employees and other members of the public.
Regulatory Standards that May Restrict Institutional Expansion or Other Changes
Many actions that we may wish to take in connection with expanding our operations or other changes are subject to review or approval by the applicable regulatory agencies.
Adding teaching locations, implementing new educational programs and increasing enrollment. The requirements and standards of state education agencies, accrediting commissions and the Department of Education limit our ability in certain instances to establish additional teaching locations, implement new educational programs or increase enrollment in certain programs. Many states require review and approval before institutions can add new locations or programs. The state educational agencies, the HLC and the specialized accrediting commissions that authorize or accredit us and our programs generally require institutions to notify them in advance of adding new locations or implementing new programs, and upon notification may undertake a review of the quality of the facility or the program and the financial, academic and other qualifications of the institution.
Under regulations adopted by the Department of Education that were effective July 1, 2011, any educational institution that seeks to provide Title IV program funds to students enrolled in a new program that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation, which includes all programs offered by NAU, must submit a notice to the Department of Education at least 90 days before the expected first day of class. These requirements were vacated by a Federal District Court on June 30, 2012 as part of a decision regarding the final gainful employment regulations, and thus are not presently in effect. However, as a separate condition for an institution to participate in Title IV programs on a provisional basis, the Department of Education can require prior approval of such programs or otherwise restrict the number of programs an institution may add or the extent to which an institution can modify existing educational programs. If an institution that is required to obtain the Department of Education’s advance approval for the addition of a new program or new location fails to do so, the institution may be liable for repayment of the Title IV program funds received by the institution or students in connection with that program or enrolled at that location. Additionally, any delay in obtaining a required Department of Education approval could delay the introduction of the program, which could negatively impact our enrollment growth.
Provisional certification. Each institution must apply to the Department of Education for continued certification to participate in Title IV programs at least every six years and when it undergoes a change in control. An institution may also come under the Department of Education’s review when it expands its activities in certain ways, such as opening an additional location, adding an educational program or modifying the academic credentials that it offers.
The Department of Education may place an institution on provisional certification status if it finds that the institution does not fully satisfy all of the eligibility and certification standards. In addition, if a company acquires a school from another entity, the acquired school will automatically be placed on provisional certification when the Department of Education approves the transaction. During the period of provisional certification, the institution must comply with any additional conditions or restrictions included in its program participation agreement with the Department of Education. Students attending provisionally certified institutions remain eligible to receive Title IV program funds, but if the Department of Education finds that a provisionally certified institution is unable to meet its responsibilities under its program participation agreement, it may seek to revoke the institution’s certification to participate in Title IV programs without advance notice or advance opportunity for the institution to challenge that action. In addition, the Department of Education may more closely review an institution that is provisionally certified if it applies for recertification or approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another school or make any other significant change.
Acquiring other schools. While we have not acquired any other schools in the past, we may seek to do so in the future. The Department of Education and virtually all state education agencies and accrediting commissions require a company to obtain their approval if it wishes to acquire another school. The level of review varies by individual state and accrediting commission, with some requiring approval of such an acquisition before it occurs while others only consider approval after the acquisition has occurred. The approval of the applicable state education agencies and accrediting commissions is a necessary prerequisite to the Department of Education certifying the acquired school to participate in Title IV programs. The restrictions imposed by any of the applicable regulatory agencies could delay or prevent our acquisition of other schools in some circumstances.
Change in ownership resulting in a change in control. Many states and accrediting commissions require institutions of higher education to report or obtain approval of certain changes in control and changes in other aspects of institutional organization or control. The types of and thresholds for such reporting and approval vary among the states and accrediting commissions. The HLC provides that an institution must obtain its approval in advance of a change in control, structure or organization for the institution to retain its accredited status. In addition, in the event of a change in control, structure or organization, the HLC requires a post-transaction focused visit or other evaluation to review the appropriateness of its approval of the change and whether the institution has met the commitment it made to the HLC prior to the approval. Other specialized accrediting commissions also require an institution to obtain similar approval before or after the event that constitutes a change in control under their standards.
Many states include the transfer of a controlling interest of common stock in the definition of a change in control requiring approval, but their thresholds for determining a change in control vary widely. A change in control under the definition of one state educational agency that regulates us might require us to obtain approval of the change in control to maintain authorization to operate in that state, and in some cases such states could require us to obtain advance approval of the change in control.
Under Department of Education regulations, an institution that undergoes a change in control loses its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs and must apply to the Department of Education to reestablish such eligibility. If an institution files the required application and follows other procedures, the Department of Education may temporarily certify the institution on a provisional basis following the change in control, so that the institution’s students retain access to Title IV program funds until the Department of Education completes its full review. In addition, the Department of Education will extend such temporary provisional certification if the institution timely files other required materials, including the approval of the change in control by its state authorizing agency and accrediting commission and an audited balance sheet showing the financial condition of the institution or its parent corporation as of the date of the change in control. If the institution fails to meet any of these applications and other deadlines, its certification will expire and its students will not be eligible to receive Title IV program funds until the Department of Education completes its full review, which commonly takes several months and may take longer. If the Department of Education approves the application after a change in control, it will certify the institution on a provisional basis for a period of up to approximately three years.
Our November 2009 transaction with Dlorah was deemed to be a change of control for NAU by both the Department of Education and the HLC. The HLC’s approval of the change of ownership or control imposed several conditions consistent with its change of ownership procedures and requirements. These conditions include: (a) that we file a progress report by week six of each semester providing our enrollment information by degree program and by location; (b) that we file a contingency report if there is any decision to offer a follow-up or secondary stock offering at least 90 days prior to such an offering so that the HLC may assess whether there may be a subsequent change of control under the HLC’s policies; (c) that we undergo an evaluation within six months of the closing of the transaction focused on ascertaining the appropriateness of the approval of the change of control and of the institution’s compliance with any commitments made in the change of control application as well as with the applicable accreditation criteria and eligibility requirements; and (d) that a stipulation be added to our affiliation status limiting the programs at the Master’s level to existing programs and requiring us to seek the HLC’s approval for the addition of any new Master’s degrees. With respect to the progress report condition, the HLC approval provided that, if the pattern of enrollment growth calls into question the capacity of the institution to provide quality teaching and learning, the HLC may schedule a focused evaluation regarding this issue. Any failure by us to comply with the requirements of the Department of Education, the HLC or the state educational agencies from which we have a license or authorization, or a failure to obtain their approval of the change in control, could result in loss of authorization, accreditation or eligibility to participate in Title IV programs and cause a significant decline in our student enrollments.
A change in control also could occur as a result of future transactions in which we are involved. Some corporate reorganizations and some changes in the board of directors are examples of such transactions. In addition, Department of Education regulations provide that a change in control occurs for a publicly traded corporation if either: (a) there is an event that would obligate the corporation to file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing a change in control, or (b) the corporation has a stockholder that owns at least 25% of the total outstanding voting stock of the corporation and is the largest stockholder of the corporation, and that stockholder ceases to own at least 25% of such stock or ceases to be the largest stockholder. These standards are subject to interpretation by the Department of Education. A significant purchase or disposition of our voting stock in the future, including a disposition of our voting stock by Robert Buckingham’s partnership or living trust, could be determined by the Department of Education to be a change in control under this standard. The potential adverse effects of a change in control could influence future decisions by us and our stockholders regarding the sale, purchase, transfer, issuance or redemption of stock. In addition, the adverse regulatory effect of a change in control also could discourage bids for our common stock and could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
The following risk factors and other information included in this Form 10-K should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe are not material may also adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results, cash flows and prospects.
Risks Related to the Extensive Regulation of our Business
If we fail to comply with the extensive regulatory requirements governing our university, we could incur significant monetary liabilities, fines and penalties, including loss of access to federal student loans and grants for our students, on which we are substantially dependent.
For our fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, we derived approximately 89.3% of our revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from federal student financial aid programs, known as Title IV programs, administered by the United States Department of Education, or the Department of Education. A significant percentage of our students rely on the availability of Title IV program funds to finance their cost of attending NAU. To participate in Title IV programs, a postsecondary institution must be authorized by the appropriate state education agency or agencies, be accredited by an accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education, and be certified as an eligible institution by the Department of Education. In addition, NAU’s operations and programs are regulated by other state education agencies and additional accrediting commissions. We are subject to extensive regulation by the education agencies of multiple states, the HLC of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, or the HLC, which is our institutional accrediting commission, various specialized accrediting commissions, and the Department of Education. These regulatory requirements cover the vast majority of our operations, including our educational programs, instructional and administrative staff, administrative procedures, marketing, student recruiting and admissions, and financial operations. These regulatory requirements also affect our ability to open additional schools and locations, add new educational programs, change existing educational programs and change our ownership structure.
The agencies and commissions that regulate our operations periodically revise their requirements and modify their interpretations of existing requirements. Regulatory requirements are not always precise and clear, and regulatory agencies may sometimes disagree with the way we interpret or apply these requirements. Any misinterpretation by us of regulatory requirements could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we fail to comply with any of these regulatory requirements, we could suffer financial penalties, limitations on our operations, loss of accreditation, termination of or limitations on our ability to grant degrees and certificates, or limitations on or termination of our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, each of which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if we are charged with regulatory violations, our reputation could be damaged, which could have a negative impact on our enrollments and materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We cannot predict with certainty how all of these regulatory requirements will be applied, or whether we will be able to comply with all of the applicable requirements in the future.
If we lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs for any reason, we would experience a dramatic and adverse decline in revenue, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects. Furthermore, we would be unable to continue our business as it currently is conducted, which would be expected to have a material effect on our ability to continue as a going concern.
Congress may revise the laws governing Title IV programs or reduce funding for those programs which could reduce our enrollment and revenue and increase costs of operations.
Political and budgetary concerns significantly affect Title IV programs. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, which is a federal law that governs Title IV programs, must be periodically reauthorized by Congress and was most recently reauthorized in August 2008. Congress also must determine funding levels for Title IV programs on an annual basis and can change the laws governing Title IV programs at any time. Apart from Title IV programs, eligible veterans and military personnel may receive educational benefits for the pursuit of higher education. A reduction in federal funding levels for Title IV programs, or for programs providing educational benefits to veterans and military personnel, could reduce the ability of some students to finance their education. We cannot predict with certainty the nature of any new regulatory requirements, other future revisions to the law or funding levels for Title IV programs. Because a significant percentage of our revenue is and is expected to be derived from Title IV programs, any action by Congress that significantly reduces Title IV program funding or the ability of us or our students to participate in Title IV programs could have a material effect on our enrollments, business, financial condition and results of operations. Congressional action also may require us to modify our practices in ways that could increase administrative costs and reduce profit margins, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If Congress significantly reduced the amount of available Title IV program funding, we would attempt to arrange for alternative sources of financial aid for our students, such as private sources. We cannot provide assurance that one or more private organizations would be willing or able to provide sufficient loans to students attending one of our schools or programs, or that the interest rate and other terms of such loans would be as favorable as Title IV program loans or acceptable to our students or that such private sources would be adequate to replace the full amount of the reduction in Title IV program funding. Therefore, even if some form of private financing sources become available, our enrollment could be materially affected. In addition, private organizations could require us to guarantee all or part of this assistance resulting in additional costs to us. If we were to provide more direct financial assistance to our students, we would assume increased credit risks and incur additional costs, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
New rulemaking by the Department of Education could result in regulatory changes that could reduce our enrollment and revenue, increase costs of operations, and adversely affect our business.
Negotiated rulemaking is a process whereby the Department of Education consults with members of the postsecondary education community to identify issues of concern and attempts to agree on proposed regulatory revisions to address those issues before the Department of Education formally proposes any regulations. If the Department of Education and negotiators cannot reach consensus on the entire package of draft regulations, the Department of Education is authorized to propose regulations without being bound by any agreements made in the negotiation process.
On October 29, 2010, following a negotiated rulemaking process that had commenced in May 2009, the Department published final regulations (the “Final Rules”) pertaining to a number of Title IV program integrity issues. The Final Rules became effective July 1, 2011.
Beginning in February 2014, the Department of Education held negotiated rulemaking sessions related to proposed regulations to address program integrity and improvement issues for the Title IV programs, including but not limited to, cash management of Title IV program funds and the use of debit cards and the handling of Title IV credit balances, state authorization for programs offered through distance education or correspondence education, state authorization for foreign locations of institutions, clock to credit hour conversion requirements, the definition of “adverse credit” for borrowers of certain loans, and the application of repeat coursework provisions to graduate and undergraduate programs. During the March 2014 negotiating session, the Department of Education proposed draft regulatory language regarding state authorization for programs offered through distance education that would impose new requirements for students in such programs to be eligible for Title IV program funds and which, if ultimately promulgated into regulation, could materially decrease our revenue and liquidity, and adversely affect our overall business. Because the Department of Education and negotiators did not reach consensus on the entire package of draft regulations, the Department of Education is authorized to propose regulations without being bound by any agreements made in the negotiation process. We cannot predict the ultimate content or effective date of any new regulations that may emerge from this negotiated rulemaking process or the potential impact on NAU’s programs. However, any regulations that reduce or eliminate our students’ access to Title IV program funds, that require us to change or eliminate programs or that increase our costs of compliance could have an adverse effect on our business.
On March 25, 2014, the Department of Education published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register containing proposed regulations to define whether certain educational programs, including all programs offered by NAU, comply with the Higher Education Act’s requirement of preparing students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. The proposed regulations would require each educational program covered by the rule to achieve threshold rates in three debt measure categories related to an annual debt to annual earnings ratio, an annual debt to discretionary income ratio, and a program cohort default rate. The proposed regulations would cause each educational program covered, by the rule, which includes all of NAU’s educational programs, to fail the requirement of preparing students for gainful employment if its graduates’ student loan debt payments exceed 12% of their total earnings and 30% of their discretionary earnings. Programs whose graduates have debt-to-earnings ratios of 8% to 12% or debt-to-discretionary-earnings ratios of 20% to 30% would fall in a “zone”, and the institution would have to warn students that they might become ineligible for Title IV program funds. Programs that fail both debt-to-earnings tests twice in any three-year period or are in the zone for four consecutive years would be ineligible for Title IV program funds. With respect to the programmatic cohort default rate component, programs whose borrower cohort default rates exceed 30% for three consecutive years would be ineligible for federal student financial aid.
The debt-to-earnings ratios and programmatic cohort default rates are calculated under complex methodologies and definitions outlined in the proposed regulations and, in some cases, are based on data that may not be readily accessible to institutions. The proposed regulations also contain other provisions that, among other things, include disclosure, reporting and certification requirements. We are evaluating the potential impact of proposed regulations. The proposed regulations were subject to comment by the public through May 27, 2014, after which the Department of Education will consider revisions to the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations may or may not reflect the Department of Education’s final regulations. New final Department of Education regulations published on or before November 1, 2014 typically would have an effective date of July 1, 2015, although it is unknown at this time whether these regulations might have an earlier or later effective date. We cannot predict the ultimate content or effective date of any new regulations that may emerge from this process or the potential impact on NAU’s programs. However, any regulations that reduce or eliminate our students’ access to Title IV program funds, that require us to change or eliminate programs or that increase our costs of compliance could have an adverse effect on our business.
Between January and April 2014, the Department of Education held three negotiated rulemaking sessions to implement the changes to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)), or the Clery Act, required by March 2013 amendments to the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA. At the final meeting of the negotiated rulemaking committee on April 1, 2014, the committee reached consensus on the Department’s proposed regulations, which were subsequently published for a 30-day public comment period on June 20, 2014. Among other things, VAWA and the revised Clery Act regulations require institutions to compile statistics on additional categories of crimes reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies, to implement ongoing crime awareness and prevention programs for students and employees, and to ensure that institutional disciplinary proceedings for certain enumerated crimes meet specific standards. While the Department of Education’s final regulations remain pending, the Department of Education notified institutions in a “Dear Colleague Letter” dated July 14, 2014 that until final regulations go into effect, the Department of Education expects institutions to make a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements beginning October 1, 2014.
We cannot predict with certainty the impact of the Final Rules or any other regulations resulting from current or future rulemaking activities by the Department of Education, on our operations, nor can we predict the timing and impact of other legislative or regulatory changes. Compliance with the Final Rules or any other regulations that are promulgated through the current or future negotiated rulemaking processes, other legislation promulgated by Congress, any executive orders issued by the executive branch, and other new and changing regulations and regulatory agency measures, could reduce our enrollments, increase our cost of doing business, and have a material effect on our business.
The recently increased focus by Congress on the for-profit education sector could result in legislation or further Department of Education rulemaking restricting Title IV program participation by proprietary schools in a manner that could materially affect our business.
Recently, Congress has placed increased focus on the role that for-profit educational institutions play in higher education. Congress has been holding various hearings on and requesting the GAO to conduct reviews of the proprietary education sector. The HELP Committee held a series of hearings on the proprietary education sector during 2010 and 2011 relating to student recruiting, accreditation matters, student debt, student success and outcomes, and other matters. On July 30, 2012, the majority staff of the HELP Committee released a report, “For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success.” While stating that proprietary colleges and universities have an important role to play in higher education and should be well-equipped to meet the needs of non-traditional students who now constitute the majority of the postsecondary educational population, the report was highly critical of these institutions. The report may be used for future legislative proposals in Congress in connection with a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act or other proposed legislation that could change the participation of proprietary institutions, including us, in Title IV programs. The report could also lead to further investigations of proprietary schools and additional regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education.
Congress and the executive branch have also focused on educational benefits for military personnel and veterans. On April 27, 2012, in response to alleged abusive recruiting practices by for-profit institutions, President Obama signed an executive order aimed at providing military personnel, veterans and their family members with the resources they need to make an informed decision about their educational prospects and other protections (the “Executive Order”). The Executive Order requires the Department of Education, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish and implement “Principles of Excellence” to apply to educational institutions receiving funding from federal military and veterans educational benefits programs. The goals of the Principles of Excellence are broadly stated in the Executive Order and relate to disclosures on costs and amounts of costs covered by federal educational benefits, marketing standards, state authorization, accreditation approvals, standard institutional refund policies, educational plans and academic and financial advising. Educational institutions were required to indicate whether or not they intend to comply with these Principles of Excellence by response to the Department of Veterans Affairs. NAU responded that we intend to comply with the Principles of Excellence, as veterans and service members are valued constituencies within our student and prospective student populations. See “Regulatory Matters - Regulation of Federal Student Financial Aid Programs - Congressional Action and Changes in Department of Education Regulations.”
In connection with the anticipated reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, on June 25, 2014, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation that would amend the Higher Education Act in a number of significant ways, including that a for-profit institution would lose eligibility to participate in Title IV funds if the institution derives more than 85% of its revenues from federal funds, including Title IV programs, revenue from the GI Bill and Department of Defense Tuition Assistance funds, and prohibiting postsecondary educational institutions, including us, from using federally-derived funds for marketing, advertising and recruiting expenses. Other members of Congress have proposed legislation that could similarly have an adverse effect on our business. For example, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the “Protect Student Borrowers Act,” which would assess penalties against institutions if their cohort default rate exceeds 15 percent. A bill introduced by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), titled the “Student First Act,” would require Department of Education program reviews of institutions engaging in “risky” behavior, such as serial forbearance and default rate manipulation, spending more than 20 percent of revenue on recruiting and marketing, and deriving more than 85 percent of revenue from federal student aid sources. Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) introduced the “Protecting Financial Aid for Students and Taxpayers Act,” which would prohibit institutions from using revenues derived from federal educational assistance funds for advertising, marketing, or recruiting. All of these bills may serve as a basis of discussion during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
We cannot predict whether, or the extent to which, these hearings and review will result in legislation or further rulemaking affecting our participation in Title IV programs. To the extent that any laws or regulations are adopted that limit our participation in Title IV programs or the amount of student financial aid for which the students at our institutions are eligible, our enrollments, revenues and results of operation could be materially affected.
Recent statutory and regulatory changes substantially increased reporting and other requirements that could impair our reputation and adversely affect our enrollments. Our failure to comply with or accurately interpret pertinent disclosure requirements may subject us to penalties and other sanctions.
The most recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, in August 2008, contains numerous revisions to the requirements governing Title IV programs. Among other things, institutions participating in Title IV programs are subject to extensive additional reporting and disclosure requirements. The Final Rules published by the Department of Education in October 2010 that became effective July 1, 2011 require a number of specific disclosures to students and prospective students regarding our educational programs. Such disclosures include the occupations that NAU’s educational programs prepare students to enter upon completing their program, total program costs and median student debt incurred for our programs, along with program completion and placement rates for our programs. Any failure by us to properly interpret these new requirements could subject us to limitation, suspension or termination of our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, the imposition of conditions on our participation in Title IV programs, monetary liabilities, fines and penalties or other sanctions imposed by the Department of Education, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The prospect of such sanctions may cause us to conservatively interpret the new reporting requirements of Title IV programs by the Department of Education, which may limit our flexibility in operating our business.
If any of the education regulatory agencies or commissions that regulate us do not approve or delay any required approvals of transactions involving a change of control, our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs may be impaired.
If we experience a change in control under the standards of the Department of Education, the HLC, any applicable state educational licensing agency, or any specialized accrediting agency commission, we must notify or seek the approval of each such agency. These agencies do not have uniform criteria for what constitutes a change in control. Transactions or events that typically constitute a change in control include significant acquisitions or dispositions of the voting stock of an institution or its parent company, and significant changes in the composition of the board of directors of an institution or its parent company. Some of these transactions or events may be beyond our control. Our failure to obtain, or a delay in receiving, approval of any change in control from the Department of Education, the HLC or applicable state educational licensing agencies could impair our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Failure to obtain, or a delay in receiving, approval of any change in control from any state in which we are currently licensed or authorized, or from any of our specialized accrediting commissions, could require us to suspend our activities in that state or suspend offering the applicable programs until we receive the required approval, or could otherwise impair our operations. The potential adverse effects of a change in control could influence future decisions by us and our stockholders regarding the sale, purchase, transfer, issuance or redemption of our stock, which could discourage bids for outstanding shares of the stock and could have an adverse effect on the market price of our shares.
Our failure to satisfy the conditions imposed by the Higher Learning Commission with respect to its prior approval of the transaction with Dlorah could result in the loss of NAU’s accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission.
The HLC’s approval of the November 2009 transaction whereby Dlorah became our wholly owned subsidiary was subject to several conditions, consistent with the HLC’s change of ownership procedures and requirements. These conditions include: (a) that NAU file a progress report by week six of each semester providing enrollment information by degree program and by location; (b) that NAU file a contingency report if there is any decision to offer a follow-up or secondary stock offering at least 90 days prior to such an offering so that the HLC may assess whether there may be a subsequent change of control under the HLC’s policies; (c) that NAU undergo an evaluation within six months of the closing of our transaction with Dlorah focused on ascertaining the appropriateness of the approval of the change of control and of NAU’s compliance with any commitments made in the change of control application as well as with the applicable accreditation criteria and eligibility requirements; and (d) that a stipulation be added to the affiliation status of NAU limiting the programs at the Master’s degree level to existing programs and requiring NAU to seek the HLC’s approval for the addition of any new Master’s degrees. Any failure on our part to satisfy these conditions may result in the loss of our accreditation by the HLC, which would prevent us from participating in Title IV programs and could cause a significant decline in our student enrollments.
We cannot offer new programs, expand our operations into certain states or acquire additional schools if such actions are not approved by the applicable regulatory and accrediting agencies, and we may have to repay Title IV funds disbursed to students enrolled in any such programs, schools or states if we do not obtain prior approval.
Our expansion plans include offering new educational programs, expanding operations in additional states and potentially acquiring existing schools from other companies. If we are unable to obtain the necessary approvals for such new programs, operations or acquisitions from the Department of Education, the HLC or any applicable state educational licensing agency or accrediting commission, or if we are unable to obtain such approvals in a timely manner, our ability to consummate the planned actions and provide Title IV program funds to any affected students would be impaired, which could have a material effect on our expansion plans and growth. If we were to determine erroneously that any such action did not need approval or that we had obtained all required approvals, including all required approvals for each of our current programs and locations, we could be liable for repayment of Title IV program funds provided to students in that program or at that location.
If the Department of Education does not recertify us to continue participating in Title IV programs, our students would lose their access to Title IV program funds, or we could be recertified but required to accept significant limitations as a condition of our continued participation in Title IV programs.
The Department of Education certification to participate in Title IV programs lasts a maximum of six years, and institutions are required to seek recertification from the Department of Education on a regular basis to continue their participation in Title IV programs. An institution must also apply for recertification by the Department of Education if it undergoes a change in control, as defined by Department of Education regulations, and may be subject to similar review if it expands its operations or educational programs in certain ways. Generally, the recertification process includes a review by the Department of Education of the institution’s educational programs and locations, administrative capability, financial responsibility and other oversight categories. The Department of Education could limit, suspend or terminate an institution’s participation in Title IV programs for violations of the Higher Education Act or Title IV regulations. Our current certification to participate in the Title IV programs was effective in June 2013 and extends through March 31, 2019. There can be no assurance that the Department of Education will recertify us after our current period of certification or that it would not impose restrictions in connection with any such recertification. In addition, the Department of Education may take emergency action to suspend our certification without advance notice if it receives reliable information that we are violating Title IV requirements and it determines that immediate action is necessary to prevent misuse of Title IV funds. If the Department of Education does not renew or withdraws our certification to participate in Title IV programs at any time, our students would no longer be able to receive Title IV program funds. Similarly, the Department of Education could renew our certification, but restrict or delay our students’ receipt of Title IV funds, limit the number of students to whom it could disburse such funds or impose other restrictions. Any of these outcomes could have a material effect on NAU’s enrollments and our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We would lose our ability to participate in Title IV programs if we fail to maintain our institutional accreditation, and our student enrollments could decline if we fail to maintain any of our accreditations or approvals.
An institution must be accredited by an accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education to participate in Title IV programs. We have been granted institutional accreditation by the HLC, which is a regional accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education. To remain accredited, we must continuously meet accreditation standards relating to, among other things, performance, governance, institutional integrity, educational quality, faculty, administrative capability, resources and financial stability. Our accreditation was last reaffirmed by the HLC in 2008 for the maximum term of ten years. In connection with our change of control request related to our November 2009 merger with Camden, a three-person team from the HLC visited the university’s central administration offices in Rapid City, South Dakota. The change of control request was approved with the next comprehensive evaluation visit scheduled for 2014-15. If we fail to satisfy any of the HLC’s standards, including a failure to satisfy the conditions under which the HLC approved the November 2009 transaction, we could lose our accreditation by the HLC, which would cause us to lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs and a significant decline in total student enrollments. In addition, many of our individual educational programs are also accredited by specialized accrediting commissions or approved by specialized state agencies. If we fail to satisfy the standards of any of those specialized accrediting commissions or state agencies, we could lose the specialized accreditation or approval for the affected programs, which could result in materially reduced student enrollments in those programs and have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If we fail to maintain any of our state authorizations, we would lose our ability to operate in that state and for campuses in the state to participate in Title IV programs.
An institution must be authorized by each state in which it physically operates to participate in Title IV programs. The Department of Education historically has determined that an institution is authorized for the purpose of eligibility to participate in Title IV program eligibility if the institution’s state does not require the institution to obtain licensure or authorization to operate in the state. Under the Final Rules published by the Department of Education on October 29, 2010, the Department of Education considers an institution to be “legally authorized in a state” if, among other things:
•
The state establishes the institution by name as an educational institution by charter, statute, constitutional provision or other action issued by an appropriate state agency or state entity, and the institution is authorized to operate educational programs beyond secondary education, including programs leading to a certificate or degree;
•
The institution complies with applicable state approval or licensure requirements, except that a state may exempt an institution from any such requirement based on (1) the institution’s accreditation by one or more accrediting agencies recognized by the Department of Education or (2) the institution being in operation for at least 20 years; and
•
The state has a process, applicable to all institutions except federal and tribal institutions, to review and appropriately act on complaints concerning the institution and applicable state laws.
Under the Final Rules, institutions unable to obtain state authorization in a state under the above requirements were permitted to request a one-year extension of the effective date of the regulation to July 1, 2012, and if necessary, an additional one-year extension of the effective date to July 1, 2013. The Department of Education has subsequently provided for additional one-year extensions to July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2015. To receive an extension of the effective date, an institution must obtain from the state an explanation of how a one-year extension will permit the state to modify its procedures to comply with the regulations.
We operate physical facilities offering educational programs in South Dakota, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas. With respect to New Mexico, we are currently exempt under state law from a requirement to be licensed by the New Mexico Higher Education Department because of our regional accreditation by the HLC. However, in order to comply with the Final Rules, we have voluntarily submitted an application for licensure to the New Mexico Higher Education Department which remains pending as of this date. To maintain our state authorizations, we must continuously meet standards relating to, among other things, educational programs, facilities, instructional and administrative staff, marketing and recruitment, financial operations, addition of new locations and educational programs and various operational and administrative procedures. We may need to apply for additional authorization in these or other states in which we are authorized in order to comply with the state authorization requirements in the Final Rules, and the authorization process could result in unexpected delays or other setbacks that could jeopardize our Title IV eligibility. If we fail to satisfy any of these standards, we could lose our authorization from the applicable state educational agency to offer educational programs and could be forced to cease operations in such state. Such a loss of authorization would also cause our physical campus in the state to lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs. Some states may also prescribe financial regulations that are different from those of the Department of Education and many require the posting of surety bonds. If we fail to comply with state licensing requirements, we may lose our state licensure or authorizations. If we lose state licensure in a state in which we have a physical location, we would also lose Title IV eligibility in that state. Any such event could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
The Final Rules also included a requirement that an institution meet any state authorization requirements in a state in which it has distance education students, but in which it is not physically located or otherwise subject to state jurisdiction, as a condition of awarding Title IV funds to students in that state. In July 2011, a Federal District Court issued an order vacating the regulation, which was sustained in June 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As described above under “Congressional Action and Changes in Department of Education Regulations,” the Department of Education is again considering Title IV program regulations requiring state authorization for programs offered through distance education or correspondence education.
We therefore cannot predict with any certainty the impact of that rulemaking or any future regulation. Independent of this matter of federal regulation, several states have asserted jurisdiction over educational institutions offering online programs that have no physical location or other presence in the state, but that have some activity in the state, such as enrolling or offering educational services to students who reside in the state, conducting practica or sponsoring internships in the state, employing faculty who reside in the state or advertising to or recruiting prospective students in the state. Thus, our activities in certain states constitute a presence requiring licensure or authorization under requirements of state law, regulation or policy of the state educational agency, even though we do not have a physical facility in such states. Therefore, in addition to the states where we maintain physical facilities, we have either obtained approvals or exemptions, or are currently in the process of obtaining such approvals or exemptions, that we believe are necessary in connection with our activities that may constitute a presence in such states requiring licensure or authorization by the state educational agency based on the laws, rules or regulations of that state. Notwithstanding our efforts to obtain approvals or exemptions, state regulatory requirements for online education vary among the states, are not well developed in many states, are imprecise or unclear in some states and can change frequently. Because we enroll students in online programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, we expect that regulatory authorities in other states where we are not currently licensed or authorized may request that we seek additional licenses or authorizations for these institutions in their states in the future. If we fail to comply with state licensing or authorization requirements for a state, or fail to obtain licenses or authorizations when required, we could lose state licensure or authorization by that state, which could prohibit us from recruiting prospective students or offering services to current students in that state. We could also be subject to other sanctions, including restrictions on activities in that state, fines and penalties. We review the licensure requirements of other states when we believe that it is appropriate to determine whether our activities in those states may constitute a presence or otherwise may require licensure or authorization by the respective state education agencies. New laws, regulations or interpretations related to offering educational programs online could increase our cost of doing business and affect our ability to recruit students in particular states, which could, in turn, adversely affect our enrollments and revenues and have a material effect on our business.
If we do not comply with the Department of Education’s “administrative capability” standards, we could suffer financial penalties, be required to accept other limitations to continue participating in Title IV programs or lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.
Department of Education regulations specify extensive criteria an institution must satisfy to establish that it has the requisite “administrative capability” to participate in Title IV programs. These criteria require, among other things, that we:
•
comply with all applicable Title IV program regulations;
•
have capable and sufficient personnel to administer the federal student financial aid programs;
•
not have student loan cohort default rates in excess of specified levels;
•
have acceptable methods of defining and measuring the satisfactory academic progress of our students;
•
have various procedures in place for safeguarding federal funds;
•
not be, and not have any principal or affiliate who is, debarred or suspended from federal contracting or engaging in activity that is cause for debarment or suspension;
•
provide financial aid counseling to our students;
•
refer to the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General any credible information indicating that any applicant, student, employee or agent of the institution has been engaged in any fraud or other illegal conduct involving Title IV programs;
•
submit in a timely manner all reports and financial statements required by Title IV regulations; and
•
not otherwise appear to lack administrative capability.
If an institution fails to satisfy any of these criteria or comply with any other Department of Education regulations, the Department of Education may:
•
require the institution to repay Title IV program funds;
•
transfer the institution from the “advance” system of payment of Title IV program funds to cash monitoring status or to the “reimbursement” system of payment;
•
place the institution on provisional certification status; or
•
commence a proceeding to impose a fine or to limit, suspend or terminate the participation of the institution in Title IV programs.
If we were found not to have satisfied the Department of Education’s “administrative capability” requirements, we could be limited in our access to, or lose, Title IV program funding, which could significantly reduce our enrollments and have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If we do not meet specific financial responsibility standards established by the Department of Education, we may be required to post a letter of credit or accept other limitations to continue participating in Title IV programs, or we could lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.
To participate in Title IV programs, an eligible institution must satisfy specific measures of financial responsibility prescribed by the Department of Education, or post a letter of credit in favor of the Department of Education and possibly accept other conditions on its participation in Title IV programs. These financial responsibility tests are applied to each institution on an annual basis based on the institution’s audited financial statements, and may be applied at other times, such as if the institution undergoes a change in control. The Department of Education may also apply such measures of financial responsibility to the operating company and ownership entities of an eligible institution and, if such measures are not satisfied by the operating company or ownership entities, require the institution to post a letter of credit in favor of the Department of Education and possibly accept other conditions on its participation in Title IV programs. The operating restrictions that may be placed on an institution that does not meet the quantitative standards of financial responsibility include being transferred from the “advance payment” method of receiving Title IV program funds to either the “reimbursement” or the “heightened cash monitoring” system, which could result in a significant delay in the institution’s receipt of those funds. Limitations on, or termination of, our participation in Title IV programs as a result of our failure to demonstrate financial responsibility would limit our students’ access to Title IV program funds, which could significantly reduce enrollments and have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
As described in more detail under “Regulatory Matters - Regulation of Federal Student Aid Programs - Financial Responsibility,” the Department of Education annually assesses our financial responsibility through a composite score determination. Our audited financial statements for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014 and May 31, 2013 indicated our composite scores for such fiscal years were 2.3 and 2.4, respectively, which are sufficient to be deemed financially responsible under the Department of Education’s requirements. If we are unable to meet the minimum composite score or comply with other standards of financial responsibility, and could not post a required letter of credit or comply with alternative basis for establishing financial responsibility, then our students could lose their access to Title IV programs, which can be expected to have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any requirement to post a letter of credit in the future could increase our costs of regulatory compliance.
We may lose our eligibility to participate in the federal student financial aid programs if the percentage of our revenues derived from Title IV programs is too high.
A provision of the Higher Education Act commonly referred to as the 90/10 Rule, as amended in August 2008, provides that a for-profit educational institution loses its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if, under a complex regulatory formula that requires cash basis accounting and other adjustments to the calculation of revenue, the institution derives more than 90% of its revenues from Title IV program funds for any two consecutive fiscal years. An institution that derives more than 90% of its revenue (on a cash basis) from Title IV programs for any single fiscal year will be placed on provisional certification for at least two fiscal years and may be subject to additional conditions or sanctions imposed by the Department of Education. During the period of provisional certification, the institution must comply with any additional conditions included in the institution’s program participation agreement with the Department of Education. In addition, the Department of Education may more closely review an institution that is provisionally certified if it applies for recertification or approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another school or make any other significant change. If the Department of Education determines that a provisionally certified institution is unable to meet its responsibilities under its program participation agreement, the Department of Education may seek to revoke the institution’s certification to participate in Title IV programs without advance notice or opportunity for the institution to challenge the action. If we were to violate the 90/10 Rule, we would become ineligible to participate in Title IV programs as of the first day of the fiscal year following the second consecutive fiscal year in which we exceeded the 90% threshold and would be unable to regain eligibility for two fiscal years thereafter. Under regulations that were published by the Department of Education in October 2009, a proprietary institution must disclose in a footnote to its annual audited financial statements its 90/10 calculation and the amounts of the federal and non-federal revenues, by source, included in its 90/10 calculation. The certified public accountant that prepares the institution’s audited financial statements is required to review that information and test the institution’s calculation. For our 2012, 2013 and 2014 fiscal years, we derived approximately 84.7%, 89.7% and 89.3%, respectively, of our revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from Title IV program funds. If we violate the 90/10 Rule and continue to disburse Title IV program funds to students after the effective date of our loss of eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, we would be required to return those funds to the applicable lender or the Department of Education.
Increases in Title IV grant and loan limits currently or in the future may result in an increase in the revenues we receive from Title IV programs. Further, a significant number of states in which we operate have faced budget constraints, which have caused or may cause them to reduce state appropriations in a number of areas, including with respect to the amount of financial assistance provided to postsecondary students, which could further increase our percentage of revenues derived from Title IV program funds. Also, the employment circumstances of our students or their parents could also increase reliance on Title IV program funds. We are exploring the feasibility of various potential measures that would be intended to reduce the percentage of NAU’s cash basis revenue attributable under the 90/10 Rule to Title IV Program funds. Certain measures that could be taken to maintain compliance with the 90/10 Rule may reduce our revenues, increase our operating expenses, or both, perhaps significantly. If we become ineligible to participate in Title IV programs as a result of noncompliance with the 90/10 Rule, it can be expected to have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We may lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if our student loan default rates are too high.
An educational institution may lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if, for three consecutive years, 25% or more of its students who were required to begin repayment on their student loans in the relevant fiscal year default on their payment by the end of the next federal fiscal year. In addition, an institution may lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if the default rate of its students exceeds 40% for any single year. Our cohort default rates have historically been significantly below these levels, at 14.9%, 15.6% and 14.1% for federal fiscal years 2011, 2010 and 2009, the most recent federal fiscal years for which official cohort default rates as measured over two federal fiscal years of borrower repayment have been issued by the Department of Education. We cannot, however, provide any assurance that this will continue to be the case. The August 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act extends by one year the period for which students’ defaults on their loans will be included in the calculation of an institution’s default rate, a change that is expected to increase most institutions’ default rates. The new law also increases the threshold for an institution to lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs from 25% to 30%. During a transition period covering the cohort default rates for federal fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Department of Education is calculating and issuing to institutions their cohort default rates under both the former and revised methodologies. Our official cohort default rate for federal fiscal years 2010 and 2009 as measured over three federal fiscal years of borrower repayment were 24.6% and 22.9%, respectively.
The Department of Education generally publishes draft cohort default rates in February of each year for the prepayment period that ended the prior September. In February 2014, we received notice from the Department of Education that our draft cohort rate for students who entered repayment during the federal fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, measured over three federal fiscal years of borrower repayment, was 21.5%. Draft cohort default rates do not result in sanctions, are subject to subsequent data corrections and appeals by an institution, and can change between their issuance to institutions and the Department of Education’s release of official cohort default rates, which are typically issued annually in September. Any increase in interest rates or reliance on “self-pay” students, as well as declines in income or job losses for our students, could contribute to higher default rates on student loans. Exceeding the student loan default rate thresholds and losing eligibility to participate in Title IV programs would have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Any future changes in the formula for calculating student loan default rates, economic conditions or other factors that cause our default rates to increase, could place us in danger of losing our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, which would have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We would be subject to sanctions if we were to pay impermissible commissions, bonuses or other incentive payments to individuals involved in certain recruiting, admission or financial aid activities.
The Higher Education Act prohibits an educational institution that participates in Title IV programs from making any commission, bonus or other incentive payments based directly or indirectly on securing enrollments or financial aid to any persons or entities involved in student recruiting or admissions activities, or in making decisions about the award of student financial assistance. Under Department of Education regulations in effect prior to July 1, 2011, there were twelve “safe harbor” provisions which specify certain activities and arrangements that an institution may carry out without violating the prohibition against incentive compensation reflected in the Higher Education Act, including the following:
•
an institution could make up to two adjustments (upward or downward) to a covered employee’s salary or fixed hourly wage rate within any 12-month period without the adjustment being considered an incentive payment, provided that no adjustment is based solely on the number of students recruited, admitted, enrolled or awarded financial aid;
•
a covered employee could be compensated based upon students successfully completing their educational programs; and
•
the incentive payment prohibition in the Higher Education Act did not apply to managerial and supervisory employees who do not directly manage or supervise employees who are directly involved in recruiting or admissions activities, or the awarding of Title IV funds.
While we believe that our compensation policies and practices have not been based on success in enrolling students in violation of applicable law, the Department of Education’s regulations and interpretations of the incentive compensation law do not establish clear criteria for compliance in all circumstances and, in a limited number of instances, our past actions may not have been within the scope of any historic safe harbor provided in the compensation regulations.
In the Final Rules published by the Department of Education on October 29, 2010 that became effective July 1, 2011, all of the previous safe harbor provisions were eliminated. The Department of Education effectively has taken the position that any commission, bonus or other incentive compensation based in any part, directly or indirectly, or securing enrollment or awarding financial aid is inconsistent with the prohibition against incentive compensation payment in the Higher Education Act. The Department of Education contends that institutions do not need to rely on these safe harbors and can instead determine if compensation is permissible under the Higher Education Act by considering (1) whether it is a commission, bonus or other incentive payment (meaning an award of money or something of value, other than a fixed salary or wages), paid or given for services rendered and (2) if so, whether that commission, bonus or other incentive payment is given to a person based in any part, directly or indirectly, upon securing enrollments or awarding financial aid. The prohibition against incentive compensation applies to any person engaged in student recruitment or admissions activities or in making financial aid award decisions, and any higher level employees with responsibility for such activities.
In the Final Rules, the Department of Education has maintained that institutions may make merit-based adjustments to employee compensation, provided that those adjustments are not based, in any part, directly or indirectly, upon securing enrollments or awarding financial aid. Among other examples, the Department of Education provides guidance that an institution may maintain a hierarchy of enrollment personnel with varying levels of responsibility and salary scales that reflect added amounts of responsibility, that an institution may promote personnel based on merit, and that an institution may make compensation decisions based on seniority or length of employment, provided that such decisions are consistent with the prohibition on incentive compensation. In a “Dear Colleague Letter” issued on March 17, 2011, the Department of Education provided additional guidance regarding the scope of the prohibition on incentive compensation and to what employees and types of activities the prohibition applies. We have modified some of our compensation practices as a result of the elimination of the safe harbors. These changes in our compensation practices could (1) reduce the effectiveness of our employees, and make it more difficult for us to attract and retain staff with the desired talent and motivation to succeed and (2) impair our ability to sustain and grow our business. This could also increase marketing costs and reduce revenues if we are unable to maintain or increase student enrollments.
In addition, in recent years, other postsecondary educational institutions have been named as defendants to whistleblower lawsuits, known as “qui tam” cases, brought by current or former employees pursuant to the Federal False Claims Act, alleging that their institution’s compensation practices did not comply with the incentive compensation rule. A qui tam case is a civil lawsuit brought by one or more individuals, referred to as a relator, on behalf of the federal government for an alleged submission to the government of a false claim for payment. The relator, often a current or former employee, is entitled to a share of the government’s recovery in the case, including the possibility of treble damages. A qui tam action is always filed under seal and remains under seal until the government decides whether to intervene in the case. If the government intervenes, it takes over primary control of the litigation. If the government declines to intervene in the case, the relator may nonetheless elect to continue to pursue the litigation at his or her own expense on behalf of the government. Any such litigation could be costly and could divert management’s time and attention away from the business, regardless of whether a claim has merit.
We are subject to sanctions if we fail to correctly calculate and timely return Title IV program funds for students who withdraw before completing their educational program.
An institution participating in Title IV programs must calculate the amount of unearned Title IV program funds that it has disbursed to students who withdraw from their educational programs before completing such programs and must return those unearned funds to the appropriate lender or the Department of Education in a timely manner, generally within 45 days of the date the institution determines that the student has withdrawn. If the unearned funds are not properly calculated and timely returned for a sufficient percentage of students, we may have to post a letter of credit in favor of the Department of Education equal to 25% of Title IV program funds that should have been returned for such students in the prior fiscal year, and we could be fined or otherwise sanctioned by the Department of Education. If we do not correctly calculate and timely return unearned Title IV program funds, we may have to post letters of credit in favor of the Department of Education, may be liable for repayment of Title IV funds and related interest and may otherwise be subject to adverse actions by the Department of Education, including termination of our participation in Title IV programs, any of which could increase our cost of regulatory compliance and have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We or certain of our educational programs may lose eligibility to participate in the Title IV programs if our educational programs are not shown to lead to “gainful employment” in a recognized occupation.
Under the Higher Education Act, proprietary schools are generally eligible to participate in Title IV programs only to the extent that their educational programs lead to “gainful employment” in a recognized occupation. In 2011, the Department of Education adopted a definition of “gainful employment” using two metrics, one based on debt-to-income ratios and the other based on repayment rates. On June 30, 2012, one day before these standards were scheduled to take effect, a Federal District Court vacated the Gainful Employment Rule. It therefore is not presently in effect. See “Regulatory Matters - Regulation of Federal Student Financial Aid Programs - Gainful Employment.”
The Department of Education has since announced its intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee with respect to gainful employment. The failure of any of our programs to satisfy any gainful employment regulations applicable in the future could render that program or programs ineligible for Title IV program funds. We continue to monitor developments in this area. It is unclear at this time the level of administrative burden, increased costs, or effect on growth and enrollments that may result from any new regulations on gainful employment or other topics being considered by the Department of Education. It is possible that any new gainful employment regulations could render a significant number of our programs, and many programs offered by other proprietary educational institutions, ineligible for Title IV funding. In addition, the continuing eligibility of our educational programs for Title IV funding would be at risk due to factors beyond our control, such as changes in the income levels of our former students, increases in interest rates, changes in student mix to persons requiring higher amounts of student loans to complete their programs, changes in student loan delinquency rates and other factors. If a particular program ceased to be eligible for Title IV funding, either because it fails to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation or due to other factors, we may be required to cease offering that program. We may have to substantially increase our efforts to promote student loan repayment to ensure continued eligibility for certain programs to remain eligible for Title IV funding. We could also be required to increase disclosures to our students and prospective students, and our program growth could be restricted or compromised. Any of these events could materially increase our costs of doing business, cause decreased enrollments, and have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We could be held liable for any misrepresentation regarding the nature of our educational programs, financial charges and financial assistance or the employability of our graduates.
An institution participating in Title IV programs is prohibited from making misrepresentations regarding the nature of its educational programs, the nature of financial charges and availability of financial assistance, or the employability of graduates. A misrepresentation is defined in the regulations as any false, erroneous or misleading statement to any student or prospective student, any member of the public, an accrediting agency, a state agency or the Department of Education, and, significantly, the Final Rules as promulgated by the Department of Education defined misleading statements to broadly include any statements that have a likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse. However, in June 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the regulation insofar as it defined misrepresentation to include true and non-deceitful statements that have only the tendency or likelihood to confuse. If we - or any entity, organization, or person with whom we have an agreement to provide educational programs or to provide marketing, advertising, recruiting, or admissions services - commit a misrepresentation for which a person could reasonably be expected to rely, or has reasonably relied, to that person’s detriment, the Department of Education could initiate proceedings to revoke our Title IV eligibility, deny applications made by us, impose fines, or initiate a limitation, suspension or termination proceeding against us. Further, although the Department of Education claims not to have created any private right of action, the misrepresentation regulations as modified by the Final Rules could increase risk of qui tam actions under the False Claims Act.
If our students experience a loss or reduction of state financial aid, we could be materially affected.
Some of our students rely on state financial aid to fund a portion of their education. For example, in fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, certain students enrolled at our Minnesota locations received financial assistance through a state financial aid program. Many states in which we operate have faced budget constraints, which have caused or may cause them to reduce or eliminate state appropriations, including with respect to the amount of financial assistance provided to postsecondary students, and additional states may reduce or eliminate such appropriations in the future. In addition, state financial aid programs generally are subject to annual appropriation by the state legislatures, which may eliminate or significantly decrease the amount of state financial aid available to students. We cannot predict whether future reductions in state financial aid programs will occur or how long such reductions will persist. For fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, we derived approximately 1% of our total revenue from state financial aid programs, although the percentage derived by each of our campus locations may vary on an individual basis. The loss or reduction of state financial aid could decrease our student enrollment and could have a material effect on our business.
A substantial decrease in private student financing options or a significant increase in financing costs for our students could have a material effect on us.
Some of our eligible students have used private (i.e., non-Title IV) loan programs to fund a portion of their education costs not covered by Title IV program funds or state financial aid sources. Recent adverse market conditions for consumer and federally guaranteed student loans (including lenders’ increasing difficulties in reselling or syndicating student loan portfolios) have resulted, and could continue to result, in providers of private loans reducing the availability of or increasing the costs associated with providing private loans to postsecondary students. In particular, loans to students with low credit scores who would not otherwise be eligible for credit-based private loans have become increasingly difficult to obtain. Prospective students may find that these increased financing costs make borrowing prohibitively expensive and abandon or delay enrollment in postsecondary education programs. If our students are unable to finance their education our student population could decrease, which would have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Government and regulatory agencies and third parties may conduct compliance reviews, bring claims or initiate litigation against us.
Because we operate in a highly regulated industry, we may be subject to compliance reviews and claims of non-compliance and lawsuits by government agencies, regulatory agencies and third parties, including claims brought by third parties on behalf of the federal government. If the results of these reviews or proceedings are unfavorable to us, or if we are unable to defend successfully against lawsuits or claims, we may be required to pay money damages or be subject to fines, limitations, loss of eligibility for Title IV funding, injunctions or other penalties. Even if we adequately address issues raised by an agency review or successfully defend a lawsuit or claim, we may have to divert significant financial and management resources from our ongoing business operations to address issues raised by those reviews or to defend against those lawsuits or claims. Additionally, we may experience adverse collateral consequences as a result of any negative publicity associated with such claims, including declines in student enrollments and lessened willingness of third parties to do business with us. Claims and lawsuits brought against us may damage our reputation or cost us to incur expenses, even if such claims and lawsuits are without merit.
In response to our Title IV compliance audit for the period June 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013, the Department of Education has requested additional information regarding courses offered and Title IV program funds awarded to students at our Wichita West campus before it was approved as an additional location by the Department of Education in August 2013. We have responded to the Department of Education’s requests and will cooperate with any additional requests regarding this matter. We are unable to predict when the Department of Education will complete its review and issue a final determination letter. If the Department of Education were to make significant findings of non-compliance in its final determination letter, it could result in the imposition of significant fines, penalties or other liabilities on us, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
On July 28, 2014, The Department of Education notified us that it plans to conduct on-site program reviews in August 2014 at our Rapid City and Less’s Summit campuses. The program reviews are expected to cover our administration of Title IV programs for the 2013-2014 award year, as well as our administration of the Clery Act and related regulations and our compliance with the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and related regulations. We are unable to predict if or when the Department of Education may issue any findings that arise from the program review. If the Department of Education were to make significant findings of non-compliance in the final program review determination, it could have a material effect on our business, condition and results of operations.
Our regulatory environment and our reputation may be negatively influenced by the actions of other postsecondary institutions.
In recent years, regulatory investigations and civil litigation have been commenced against several postsecondary educational institutions. These investigations and lawsuits have alleged, among other things, deceptive trade practices and non-compliance with Department of Education regulations. These allegations have attracted adverse media coverage and have been the subject of federal and state legislative hearings. Although the media, regulatory and legislative focus has been primarily on the allegations made against these specific companies, broader allegations against the overall postsecondary sector may negatively impact public perceptions of postsecondary educational institutions, including us. Such allegations could result in increased scrutiny and regulation by the Department of Education, U.S. Congress, accrediting bodies, state legislatures or other governmental authorities on all postsecondary institutions.
Risks Related to Our Business
We operate in a highly competitive industry, and competitors with greater resources could harm our business, decrease market share and put downward pressure on our tuition rates.
The postsecondary education market is highly fragmented and competitive. We compete for students with traditional public and private two-year and four-year colleges and universities, and other for-profit schools, including those that offer online learning programs, and alternatives to higher education, such as employment and military service. Many public and private schools, colleges and universities, including most major colleges and universities, offer online programs. We expect to experience additional competition in the future as more colleges, universities and for-profit schools offer an increasing number of online programs. Public institutions receive substantial government subsidies, and public and private non-profit institutions have access to government and foundation grants, tax-deductible contributions and other financial resources generally not available to for-profit schools. Accordingly, public and private nonprofit institutions may have instructional and support resources superior to those in the for-profit sector, and public institutions can offer substantially lower tuition prices. Some of our competitors in both the public and private sectors also have substantially greater financial and other resources than us. We may not be able to compete successfully against current or future competitors and may face competitive pressures that could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our online and distance learning programs operate in a highly competitive market with rapid technological changes.
Online education is a highly fragmented and competitive market subject to rapid technological change. Competitors vary in size and organization from traditional colleges and universities, many of which offer some form of online education programs, to for-profit schools and software companies providing online education and training software. We expect the online education and training market to be subject to rapid changes in delivery, interaction and other future innovation and advancement. Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to adapt to changing technologies in online and distance learning and offer an attractive online/distance education option while maintaining competitive pricing. Furthermore, the expansion of our online programs and the development of new programs may not be accepted by the online education market. In addition, a general decline in Internet use for any reason, including due to security or privacy concerns, the cost of Internet service or changes in government regulation of Internet use, may result in less demand for online educational services, in which case we may not be able to recruit and retain students and grow our online programs as planned. Accordingly, if we are unable to keep pace with changes in technology or maintain technological relevance, or if the use of the Internet changes, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.
If our graduates are unable to obtain professional licenses or certifications in their chosen field of study, we may face declining enrollments and revenues or be subject to student litigation.
Certain of our students, particularly in the healthcare programs, require or desire professional licenses or certifications after graduation to obtain employment in their chosen fields. Their success in obtaining such licensure depends on several factors, including the individual merits of the student, whether the institution and the program were approved by the state or by a professional association, whether the program from which the student graduated meets all state requirements and whether the institution is accredited. If one or more states refuses to recognize our graduates for professional licensure in the future based on factors relating to us or our programs, the potential growth of our programs would be negatively impacted, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we could be exposed to litigation that would force us to incur legal and other expenses that could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If we are unable to continue our growth in revenue and profitability, our stock price may decline and we may not have adequate financial resources to execute our business plan.
Our revenue increased from approximately $118.9 million in fiscal 2012 to approximately $129.2 million in fiscal 2013 and then decreased to approximately $127.8 million in fiscal 2014. During the same period, our income before income taxes for fiscal 2012 was $8.8 million, compared to $9.2 million for fiscal 2013 and $5.8 million for fiscal 2014. If we are unable to maintain adequate revenue growth and profitability, our stock price may decline and we may not have adequate financial resources to execute our business plan. In addition, you should not rely on the results of any prior periods as an indication of our future operating performance.
We have experienced losses and may not maintain profitability.
We have experienced losses in the past and it is possible we will experience losses in the future. In addition, we expect that our operating expenses and business development expenses will increase as we enroll more students, open new education locations and develop new programs. As a result, there can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient revenues to maintain profitability.
Our financial performance depends on our ability to continue to develop awareness among, and attract and retain, new students.
Building awareness of NAU and the programs and services we offer is critical to our ability to attract prospective students. If we are unable to successfully market and advertise our educational programs, our ability to attract and enroll students could be adversely affected, and, consequently, our ability to increase revenue or maintain profitability could be impaired. It is also critical to our success that we convert prospective students to enrolled students in a cost-effective manner and that these enrolled students remain active in our programs. Some of the factors that could prevent us from successfully enrolling and retaining students include:
•
the reduced availability of, or higher interest rates and other costs associated with, Title IV loan funds or other sources of financial aid;
•
the emergence of more successful competitors;
•
factors related to our marketing, including the costs and effectiveness of Internet advertising and broad-based branding campaigns and recruiting efforts;
•
performance problems with our online systems;
•
failure to maintain institutional and specialized accreditations;
•
failure to obtain and maintain required state authorizations;
•
the requirements of the education agencies that regulate us that restrict the initiation of new locations, new programs and modification of existing programs;
•
the requirements of the education agencies that regulate us that restrict the ways schools can compensate their recruitment personnel;
•
increased regulation of online education, including in states in which we do not have a physical presence;
•
restrictions that may be imposed on graduates of online programs that seek certification or licensure in certain states;
•
student dissatisfaction with our services and programs;
•
adverse publicity regarding us, our competitors, or online or for-profit education generally;
•
price reductions by competitors that we are unwilling or unable to match;
•
a decline in the acceptance of online education;
•
an adverse economic or other development that affects job prospects in our core disciplines;
•
a decrease in the perceived or actual economic benefits that students derive from our programs;
•
litigation or regulatory investigations that may damage our reputation; and
•
changes in the general economy, including employment.
If, for any reason or reasons, including those presented above, we are unable to maintain and increase our awareness among prospective students, recruit students and convert prospective students into enrolled students, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.
Our growth may place a strain on our resources that could adversely affect our systems, controls and operating efficiency.
Our ability to sustain our current rate of growth or profitability depends on a number of factors, including our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals, our ability to maintain operating margins, our ability to recruit and retain high quality academic faculty and administrative personnel and other competitive factors. In recent years, a majority of our growth has resulted from an increase in students enrolling in our Associate degree programs; however, we believe that future growth will be based upon an expansion of our current programs, the addition of new programs, an increase in our physical and online presence, affiliation agreements and increasing enrollments. The growth and expansion of our domestic and international operations may place a significant strain on our resources and increase demands on our management information and reporting systems, financial management controls and personnel. Any failure to effectively manage or maintain growth could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If we cannot maintain student enrollments, our results of operations may be adversely affected.
Our strategy for growth and profitability depends, in part, upon the retention of our students. While we provide certain services to our students (e.g., tutoring) in an effort to retain students and lower attrition rates, many of our students face financial, personal or family constraints that require them to withdraw within a term or at the end of a given term. Additionally, some students may decide to continue their education at a different institution. If for any reason, we are unable to predict and manage student attrition, our overall enrollment levels would likely decline, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If the proportion of students who are enrolled in our Associate degree programs continues to increase, we may experience increased costs and reduced margins.
In recent years, the proportion of our enrollment composed of Associate degree students has increased. We have experienced certain effects from this shift, such as an increase in our student loan cohort default rate. If this shift towards Associate degree programs continues, we may experience additional consequences, such as higher costs per start, lower retention rates, higher student services costs, an increase in the percentage of our revenue derived from Title IV programs under the 90/10 Rule, more limited ability to implement tuition price increases and other effects that could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
An increase in interest rates could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain students.
For the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, NAU derived cash receipts equal to approximately 89.3%, 89.7%, and 84.7%, respectively, of its net revenue from tuition financed under Title IV programs, which include student loans with interest rates subsidized by the federal government. Additionally, some students finance their education through private loans that are not subsidized. If our students’ employment circumstances are adversely affected by regional or national economic downturns, they may be more heavily dependent on student loans. Interest rates have reached relatively low levels in recent years, creating a favorable borrowing environment for students. However, if interest rates increase or Congress decreases the amount available for Title IV funding, our students may have to pay higher interest rates on their loans. Any future increase in interest rates will result in a corresponding increase in educational costs to our existing and prospective students, which could result in a significant reduction in our student population and revenues. Higher interest rates could also contribute to higher default rates with respect to our students’ repayment of their education loans. Higher default rates may in turn adversely impact our eligibility to participate in some or all of the Title IV programs, which could result in a material effect on our enrollments and future growth prospects and our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our reputation and the value of our stock may be negatively affected by the actions of other postsecondary educational institutions.
In recent years, regulatory proceedings and litigation have been commenced against various postsecondary educational institutions relating to, among other things, deceptive trade practices, false claims against the government and non-compliance with Department of Education requirements, state education laws and state consumer protection laws. These proceedings have been brought by students, the Department of Education, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and state governmental agencies, among others. These allegations have attracted adverse media coverage and have been the subject of legislative hearings and regulatory actions at both the federal and state levels, focusing not only on the individual schools but in some cases on the larger for-profit postsecondary education sector as a whole. Adverse media coverage regarding other for-profit education companies or other educational institutions could damage our reputation, result in lower enrollments, revenues and results of operations and have a negative impact on the value of our stock. Such coverage could also result in increased scrutiny and regulation by the Department of Education, Congress, accrediting commissions, state legislatures, state attorneys general, state education agencies or other governmental authorities of all educational institutions, including us.
Our expansion into new markets outside the United States will subject us to risks inherent in international operations, are subject to significant start-up costs and will place strain on our management.
As part of our growth strategy, we intend to continue to establish markets outside the United States, subject to approvals from the HLC and other appropriate accrediting or regulatory agencies. Currently, we have affiliations with institutions in Paraguay and Greece. Our operations in each of the foreign jurisdictions may subject us to additional educational and other regulations of foreign jurisdictions, which may differ materially from the regulations applicable to our domestic operations. Such international expansion is expected to require a significant amount of start-up costs. Additionally, our management does not have significant experience in operating a business at the international level. As a result, we may be unsuccessful in carrying out our plans for international expansion, obtaining the necessary licensing, permits or market saturation, or in successfully navigating other challenges posed by operating an international business.
If we do not maintain existing and develop additional relationships with employers, our future growth may be impaired.
Currently, we have relationships with certain employers to provide their employees with an opportunity to enroll in classes and obtain degrees through us while maintaining their employment. These relationships are an important part of our strategy because they provide us with a steady source of potential working adult students for particular programs and increase our reputation among employers. If we are unable to develop new relationships or maintain our existing relationships, this source of potential students may be impaired and enrollments and revenue may decrease, any of which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If students fail to pay their outstanding balances, our business may be harmed.
From time to time, students may carry balances on portions of their education expense not covered by financial aid programs. These balances are unsecured and not guaranteed. Furthermore, disruptive economic events could adversely affect the ability or willingness of our former students to repay student loans, which may increase our student loan cohort default rate and require the devotion of increased time, attention and resources to manage these defaults. As a result, losses related to unpaid student balances in excess of the amounts we have reserved for bad debts, or the failure of students to repay their debt obligations, could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Government regulations relating to the Internet could increase our cost of doing business and affect our ability to grow.
The increasing popularity and use of the Internet and other online services has led and may lead to the adoption of new laws and regulatory practices in the United States or foreign countries and to new interpretations of existing laws and regulations. These new laws and interpretations may relate to issues such as online privacy, copyrights, trademarks and service marks, sales taxes, fair business practices and the requirement that online education institutions qualify to do business as foreign corporations or be licensed in one or more jurisdictions where they have no physical location. As the proportion of our students who take online courses increases, new laws, regulations or interpretations related to doing business over the Internet could increase our costs of compliance or doing business and materially affect our ability to offer online courses, which would have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our financial performance depends, in part, on our ability to keep pace with changing market needs.
Increasingly, prospective employers of NAU students require their new employees to possess appropriate technological skills and interpersonal skills, such as communication, critical thinking and teamwork skills. These skills evolve rapidly in a changing economic and technological environment. Accordingly, it is important for our programs to evolve in response to those economic and technological changes. The expansion of existing programs and the development of new programs may not be accepted by current or prospective students or the employers of our graduates. Even if NAU is able to develop acceptable new programs, we may not be able to begin offering those new programs as quickly as required by prospective employers or as quickly as our competitors offer similar programs. In addition, we may be unable to obtain specialized accreditations or licensures that may make certain programs desirable to students. To offer a new academic program, NAU may be required to obtain appropriate federal, state and accrediting agency approvals that may be conditioned or delayed in a manner that could significantly affect our growth plans. In addition, to be eligible for Title IV programs, a new academic program may need to be approved by the Department of Education, the HLC and state educational agencies. If we are unable to adequately respond to changes in market requirements due to regulatory or financial constraints, unusually rapid technological changes or other factors, our ability to attract and retain students could be impaired, the rates at which our graduates obtain jobs involving their fields of study could suffer and our reputation among students, prospective students and employers may be impaired, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Establishing new academic programs or modifying existing programs requires us to invest in management and business development, incur marketing expenses and reallocate other resources. We may have limited experience with any courses in new academic areas and may need to modify our systems, strategy and delivery platform or enter into arrangements with other educational institutions to provide such programs effectively and profitably. If we are unable to offer new courses and programs in a cost-effective manner, or are otherwise unable to effectively manage the operations of newly established academic programs, it could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Capacity constraints of our computer networks and changes to the acceptance and regulation of online programs could have a material effect on student retention and growth.
If we are successful in increasing student enrollments, additional resources in the forms of human, intellectual and financial capital, as well as information technology resources, will be necessary. We have invested and continue to invest significant resources in information technology when such technology systems and tools have become impaired or obsolete. In an attempt to utilize recent technology, we could install new information technology systems without accurately assessing its costs or benefits or experience delayed or ineffective implementation of new information technology systems. Similarly, we could fail to respond in a timely or sufficiently competitive way to future technological developments in our industry. As a result, this growth may place a significant strain on our operational resources, including our computer networks and information technology infrastructure, thereby restricting our ability to enroll and retain students and grow our online programs.
System disruptions and security threats to our computer networks could have a material effect on our ability to attract and retain students.
The performance and reliability of our computer network infrastructure is critical to our reputation and ability to attract and retain students. Any computer system error or failure, or a sudden and significant increase in traffic on our computer networks, including those that host our online programs, may cause network outages and disrupt our online and on-ground operations that may damage our reputation.
Additionally, we face a number of threats to our computer systems, including unauthorized access, computer hackers, computer viruses and other security problems and system disruptions. We have devoted and will continue to devote significant resources to the security of our computer systems, but they are still vulnerable to security threats. A user or hacker who circumvents security measures could misappropriate proprietary information or cause interruptions or malfunctions in operations. As a result, we expend significant resources to protect against the threat of these system disruptions and security breaches and may have to spend more to alleviate problems caused by these disruptions and breaches, which could have a material effect on our reputation, ability to retain and store data and our business, financial condition and results of operations.
A failure of our information systems to store, process and report relevant data may reduce management’s effectiveness, interfere with regulatory compliance and increase operating expenses.
We are heavily dependent on the integrity of our data management systems. If these systems do not effectively collect, store, process and report relevant data for the operation of our business, whether due to equipment malfunction or constraints, software deficiencies or human error, our ability to plan, forecast and execute our business plan and comply with applicable laws and regulations, including the Higher Education Act, will be impaired. Any such impairment of our information systems could materially affect our reputation and our ability to provide student services or accurately budget or forecast operating activity, thereby adversely affecting our financial condition and results of operations.
The personal information that we collect may be vulnerable to breach, theft or loss, and could subject us to liability or adversely affect our reputation and operations.
Possession and use of personal information in our operations subjects us to risks and costs that could harm our business and reputation. We collect, use and retain large amounts of personal information regarding our students and their families, including social security numbers, tax return information, personal and family financial data and credit card numbers. We also collect and maintain personal information of our employees in the ordinary course of business. Some of this personal information is held and managed by certain of our vendors. Although we use security and business controls to limit access and use of personal information, a third party may be able to circumvent those security and business controls, which could result in a breach of student or employee privacy. In addition, errors in the storage, use or transmission of personal information could result in a breach of student or employee privacy. Possession and use of personal information in our operations also subjects us to legislative and regulatory burdens that could require us to implement certain policies and procedures, such as the procedures we adopted to comply with the Red Flags Rule that was promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires the establishment of guidelines and policies regarding identity theft related to student credit accounts, and could require us to make certain notifications of data breaches and restrict our use of personal information. A violation of any laws or regulations relating to the collection or use of personal information could result in the imposition of fines against us. As a result, we may be required to expend significant resources to protect against the threat of these security breaches or to alleviate problems caused by these breaches. While we believe we have taken appropriate precautions and safety measures, there can be no assurances that a breach, loss or theft of any such personal information will not occur. Any breach, theft or loss of such personal information could have a material effect on our reputation, could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and could result in liability under state and federal privacy statutes and legal actions by state attorneys general and private litigants.
We may incur liability for the unauthorized duplication or distribution of class materials posted online for class discussions.
In some instances, our faculty members or students may distribute to students in class or post various articles or other third-party content on class discussion boards. We may incur liability for the unauthorized duplication or distribution of this material distributed in class or posted online for class discussions. As a for-profit organization, we may be subject to a greater risk of liability for the unauthorized duplication of materials under the Copyright Act than a non-profit institution of higher education. Third parties may raise claims against us for the unauthorized duplication of this material. Any such claims could subject us to costly litigation and impose a significant strain on financial resources and management personnel, regardless of whether the claims have merit. Our general liability insurance may not cover potential claims of this type adequately or at all, and we may be required to alter the content of our courses or pay monetary damages, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We rely on exclusive proprietary rights and intellectual property that may not be adequately protected under current laws.
Our success depends, in part, on our ability to protect our proprietary rights and intellectual property. We rely on a combination of copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, domain names and contractual agreements to protect our proprietary rights. We rely on trademark protection in both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions to protect our rights to various marks, as well as distinctive logos and other marks associated with them. We also rely on agreements under which we obtain intellectual property or license rights to own or use content developed by faculty members, content experts and other third-parties. We cannot assure that these measures are adequate, that we have secured, or will be able to secure, appropriate protections for all of our proprietary rights in the United States or any foreign jurisdictions, or that third parties will not terminate license rights or infringe upon or otherwise violate our proprietary rights. Despite our efforts to protect these rights, unauthorized third parties may attempt to infringe our trademarks, use, duplicate or copy the proprietary aspects of our student recruitment and educational delivery methods, curricula, online resource material and other content. Our management’s attention may be diverted by these attempts and we have in the past, and may in the future, need to use funds in litigation to protect our proprietary rights against any infringement or violation, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We may be involved in disputes from time to time relating to our intellectual property and the intellectual property of third parties.
We have in the past, and may in the future, become parties to disputes from time to time over rights and obligations concerning intellectual property, and we may not always prevail in these disputes. Third parties may allege that we have not obtained sufficient rights in the content of a course or other intellectual property. Third parties may also raise claims against us alleging infringement or violation of the intellectual property of that third party. Some third party intellectual property rights may be extremely broad, and it may not be possible for us to conduct our operations in such a way as to avoid violating those intellectual property rights. Any such intellectual property claim could subject us to costly litigation and impose a significant strain on our financial resources and management personnel regardless of whether such claim has merit. Our general liability and cyber liability insurance, if any, may not cover potential claims of this type adequately or at all, and we may be required to alter the content of our courses or pay monetary damages or license fees to third parties, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We may not be able to retain key personnel or hire and retain the personnel we need to sustain and grow our business.
Our success depends largely on the skills, efforts and motivations of our executive officers, who have significant experience with our business and within the education industry. Due to the nature of the education industry, we face significant competition in attracting and retaining personnel who possess the skills necessary to sustain and grow our business. The loss of the services of any of our key personnel, or failure to attract and retain other qualified and experienced faculty members and staff members on acceptable terms, could impair our ability to sustain and grow our business.
Our business may be affected by changing economic conditions.
The United States economy and the economies of other key industrialized countries currently have recessionary characteristics, including reduced economic activity, increased unemployment and substantial uncertainty about the financial markets. In addition, homeowners in the United States have experienced an unprecedented reduction in wealth due to the decline in residential real estate values across much of the country. The reduction in wealth, unavailability of credit and unwillingness of employers to sponsor non-traditional educational opportunities for their employees could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war, natural disasters or breaches of security could have an adverse effect on our operations.
Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters or breaches of security at our educational sites could disrupt our operations. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war, natural disasters or breaches of security that directly impact our physical facilities, online offerings or ability to recruit and retain students and employees could adversely affect our ability to deliver our programs to our students and, thereby, adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war, natural disasters or breaches of security could adversely affect the economy and demographics of the affected region, which could cause significant declines in the number of our students in that region and could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
The economic downturn may affect the Company’s real estate business.
The downturn in the United States economy in general, and the real estate industry specifically, has negatively affected our real estate operation that develops, leases and sells residential properties in Rapid City, South Dakota. Currently, our real estate operation is marketing two condominium developments. To date, only a small number of condominium units have been sold. Our real estate operation plans to build additional condominium buildings and units only upon the achievement of the sale of a substantial number of the currently available condominium units. Unless the United States economy and the real estate market improve, we may be forced to sell the condominium units at a loss or attempt to lease them, which could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties.
We lease all of our educational sites and administrative facilities (including those that are pending regulatory approval) located in Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Texas. Our corporate headquarters is located in Rapid City, South Dakota, as set forth under the heading “Educational and Administrative Sites” under Item 1. As of July 31, 2014, we leased 37 educational sites (two of which are pending regulatory approvals) and administrative facilities.
We evaluate current utilization of our facilities and projected enrollment growth to determine facility needs. We believe our existing facilities are adequate for current requirements and that additional space can be obtained on commercially reasonable terms to meet future requirements.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
From time to time, we are a party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. We are not at this time a party, as plaintiff or defendant, to any legal proceedings that, individually or in the aggregate, would be expected to have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operation.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
PART II
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Market Information
Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “NAUH”.
The following table sets forth the high and low sales price, and dividends paid per share of our common stock by quarter for our two most recent fiscal years.
Stockholders
As of August 8, 2014, there were approximately 48 holders of record of our common stock.
Dividends
During our fiscal years 2014 and 2013, our board of directors declared cash dividends on our common stock, and to the extent that funds are available, our board of directors currently intends to continue paying dividends on our common stock. The payment of any dividends in the future, however, will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon our financial condition, results of operations, earnings, capital requirements, contractual restrictions, outstanding indebtedness and other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The following table sets forth information about our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options, warrants and rights under all of the our compensation plans (including individual compensation arrangements) under which our equity securities are authorized for issuance as of May 31, 2014, which includes our 2009 Stock Option and Compensation Plan and our 2013 Restricted Stock Unit Plan.
(1) See Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”-“National American University Holdings, Inc. “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements-Note 10-Stockholders’ Equity” for further description of our equity compensation plans.
(a) Includes grants of stock options, time-based restricted stock awards, and performance based restricted stock units. For purposes of the table above, the number of shares to be issued under performance based restricted stock units reflects the maximum number of shares that may be issued; the actual number of shares to be issued will depend on the results of operations during the fiscal year ending May 31, 2015.
(b) Includes weighted average exercise price of stock options only.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
None.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
The following table shows our selected consolidated financial and operating data for each of the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010. Dlorah was the accounting acquirer in our transaction as described in Item 1 - Business - Corporate Information on this Form 10K. Accordingly, our historical financial information reflects the operations of Dlorah. The selected consolidated statements of financial data for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010 are derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements included in this document and those documents filed in prior years, prepared in accordance with accounting standards generally accepted in the United States. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of our results for any future period.
This information should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes.
Consists of income attributable to the Company plus income (loss) from non-controlling interest, minus interest income, plus interest expense, plus income taxes, plus depreciation and amortization. We use EBITDA as a measure of operating performance. However, EBITDA is not a recognized measurement under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, and when analyzing our operating performance, investors should use EBITDA in addition to, and not as an alternative for, income as determined in accordance with GAAP. Because not all companies use identical calculations, our presentation of EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies and is therefore limited as a comparative measure. Furthermore, as an analytical tool, EBITDA has additional limitations, including that (a) it is not intended to be a measure of free cash flow, as it does not consider certain cash requirements such as tax payments; (b) it does not reflect changes in, or cash requirements for, our working capital needs; and (c) although depreciation and amortization are non-cash charges, the assets being depreciated and amortized often will have to be replaced in the future, and EBITDA does not reflect any cash requirements for such replacements, or future requirements for capital expenditures or contractual commitments. To compensate for these limitations, we evaluate our profitability by considering the economic effect of the excluded expense items independently as well as in connection with our analysis of cash flows from operations and through the use of other financial measures.
We believe EBITDA is useful to an investor in evaluating our operating performance because it is widely used to measure a company’s operating performance without regard to certain non-cash expenses (such as depreciation and amortization) and expenses that are not reflective of our core operating results over time. We believe EBITDA presents a meaningful measure of corporate performance exclusive of our capital structure, the method by which assets were acquired and non-cash charges, and provides us with additional useful information to measure our performance on a consistent basis, particularly with respect to changes in performance from period to period.
The following table provides a reconciliation of net income attributable to the Company to EBITDA:
Student headcount is based on the headcount as of the last day of the university’s Spring term, which runs from March to May.
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
You should read the following discussion together with the financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this annual report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations, estimates and projections about our business and operations, and involves risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated and expressed in such forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including those we discuss under “Risk Factors,” “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and elsewhere in this annual report.
Background
National American University, or NAU, is a regionally accredited, for-profit, multi-campus institution of higher learning offering associate, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degree programs in business-related disciplines, such as accounting, applied management, business administration and information technology, and in healthcare-related disciplines, such as nursing and healthcare management. Courses are offered through educational sites as well as online via the Internet. Operations include 37 educational sites (two of which are pending regulatory approvals, Houston, Texas and the Roueche Graduate Center in Austin, Texas) located in Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and Texas, distance learning service centers in Indiana, Missouri and Texas and distance learning operations and central administration offices in Rapid City, South Dakota.
As of May 31, 2014, NAU had 2,686 students enrolled at its physical locations, 6,481 students enrolled for its online programs, and 1,690 students enrolled at its hybrid learning centers that attended physical campus locations and also took classes online. NAU supports the instruction of 2,500 additional students at affiliated institutions for whom NAU provides online course hosting and technical assistance. NAU provides courseware development, technical support and online class hosting services to various colleges, technical schools and training institutions in the United States and Canada who do not have the capacity to develop and operate their own in-house online curriculum for their students. NAU does not share revenues with these institutions, but rather charges a fee for its services, enabling it to generate additional revenue by leveraging its current online program infrastructure.
The real estate operations consist of apartment facilities, condominiums and other real estate holdings in Rapid City, South Dakota. The real estate operations generated approximately 1.0% of our revenues for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014.
Key Financial Results Metrics
Revenue. Revenue is derived mostly from NAU’s operations. For fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, approximately 92.0% of our revenue was generated from NAU’s academic revenue, which consists of tuition and fees assessed at the start of each term. The remainder of our revenue comes from NAU’s auxiliary revenue from sources such as NAU’s online bookstore and the real estate operations rental income and condominium sales. Tuition revenue is reported net of adjustments for refunds and scholarships and is recognized on a daily basis over the length of the term. Upon withdrawal, students generally are refunded tuition based on the uncompleted portion of the term. Auxiliary revenue is recognized as items are sold and services are performed.
Factors affecting net revenue include:
•
the number of students who are enrolled and who remain enrolled in courses throughout the term;
•
the number of credit hours per student;
•
the student’s degree and program mix;
•
changes in tuition rates;
•
the affiliates with which NAU is working as well as the number of students at the affiliates; and
•
the amount of scholarships for which students qualify.
We record unearned tuition for academic services to be provided in future periods. Similarly, we record a tuition receivable for the portion of the tuition that has not been paid. Tuition receivable at the end of any calendar quarter largely represents student tuition due for the prior academic quarter. Based upon past experience and judgment, we establish an allowance for doubtful accounts to recognize those receivables we anticipate will not be paid. Any uncollected account more than six months past due on students who have left NAU is charged against the allowance. Bad debt expense as a percentage of revenues for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 was 3.0%, 3.5% and 3.5%, respectively.
We define enrollments for a particular reporting period as the number of students registered in a course on the last day of the reporting period. Enrollments are a function of the number of continuing students registered and the number of new enrollments registered during the specified period. Enrollment numbers are offset by inactive students, graduations and withdrawals occurring during the period. Inactive students for a particular period are students who are not registered in a class and, therefore, are not generating net revenue for that period.
We believe the principal factors affecting NAU’s enrollments and net revenue are the number and breadth of the programs being offered; the effectiveness of our marketing, recruiting and retention efforts; the quality of our academic programs and student services; the convenience and flexibility of our online delivery platform; the availability and amount of federal and other funding sources for student financial assistance; and general economic conditions.
The following chart is a summary of our student enrollment on May 31, 2014, and May 31, 2013, by degree type and by instructional delivery method.
We experienced a 5.4% decline in enrollment in spring term 2014 over spring term 2013. This decline was across all degree programs and course delivery methods. We believe our investment to grow our current physical locations and expand academic programming and our strategic plan will be critical in returning to the growth and results of operations that we have seen over the recent years.
We plan to continue expanding and developing our academic programming and potentially making acquisitions. This growth will be subject to applicable regulatory requirements and market conditions. With these efforts, we anticipate positive enrollment trends. To the extent the economic downturn has changed enrollment rates, our ability to maintain or increase enrollment will depend on how economic factors are perceived by our target student market in relation to the advantages of pursuing higher education. If current market conditions continue, we believe that the extent to which we are able to increase enrollment will be correlated with the opening of additional physical locations, the number of programs that are developed, the number of programs that are expanded to other locations, and, potentially, the number of locations and programs added through acquisitions. If market conditions decline or if we are unable to open new physical locations, develop or expand academic programming or make acquisitions, whether as a result of regulatory limitations or other factors, our enrollment rate will likely return to more historic levels.
Expenses. Expenses consist of cost of educational services, selling, general and administrative, auxiliary expenses, the cost of condominium sales, and the loss on disposition of property and equipment. Cost of educational services expenses contain expenditures attributable to the educational activity of NAU. This expense category includes salaries and benefits of faculty and academic administrators, costs of educational supplies, faculty reference and support material and related academic costs, and facility costs. Selling, general and administrative expenses include the salaries of the learner services positions (and other expenses related to support of students), salaries and benefits of admissions staff, marketing expenditures, salaries of other support and leadership services (including finance, human resources, compliance and other corporate functions), as well as depreciation, bad debt expenses and other related costs associated with student support functions. Auxiliary expenses include expenses for the cost of goods sold, including costs associated with books. The cost of condominium sales is the expense related to condominiums that are sold during the reporting period. The gain or loss on disposition of property and equipment expense records the cost incurred or income received in the disposal of assets that are no longer used by us.
Factors affecting comparability
Set forth below are selected factors we believe have had, or which we expect to have, a significant effect on the comparability of our recent or future results of operations:
Introduction of new programs and specializations. We plan to develop additional degree and diploma programs and specializations over the next several years. When introducing new programs and specializations, we invest in curriculum development, support infrastructure and marketing research. Revenues associated with these new programs are dependent upon enrollments, which are lower during the periods of introduction. During this period of introduction and development, the rate of growth in revenues and operating income has been, and may be, adversely affected, in part, due to these factors. Historically, as the new programs and specializations develop, increases in enrollment are realized, cost-effective delivery of instructional and support services are achieved, economies of scale are recognized and more efficient marketing and promotional processes are gained.
Stock-based compensation. We expect to incur increased non-cash, stock based compensation expense in connection with existing and future issuances under our Stock Plan or other equity incentive plans as compared with prior years in an effort to create a consistent and comprehensive compensation package for management.
Seasonality. Our operations are generally subject to seasonal trends. While we enroll students throughout the year, summer and winter quarter new enrollments and revenue are generally lower than enrollments and revenue in other quarters due to the traditional custom of summer breaks and the holiday break in December and January. In addition, we generally experience an increase in enrollments in the fall of each year when most students seek to begin their postsecondary education.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
The discussion of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, costs and expenses and related disclosures. Management evaluates its estimates and judgments, including those discussed below, on an ongoing basis. These estimates are based on historical experience and on various other assumptions that management believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. The results of our analysis form the basis for making assumptions about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions, and the impact of such differences may be material to the consolidated financial statements. We believe the following critical accounting policies involve more significant judgments and estimates than others used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements:
Revenue recognition. Academic revenue represented approximately 92%, 91% and 92% of revenue for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively. We recognize revenue from tuition ratably over the length of the respective term. Academic revenue is tuition revenue, fees and charges assessed at the start of each term. If a student drops or withdraws from a course during the first week of classes, we refund 100% of the charges for tuition and fees, beyond the first week but during the first 60% of scheduled classes, the percentage of tuition charges refunded is based on a daily proration on a percent of the term completed. If the last day of attendance is beyond 60% of the scheduled classes, tuition and fees are not refunded. Student accounts payable in any period represent the excess of tuition, fees and other student payments received as compared to amounts recognized as revenue on the statement of operations, and are reflected as current liabilities on the balance sheet.
Allowance for doubtful accounts. We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from the inability, failure or refusal of the students to make required payments. We determine the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts based on an analysis of aging of the accounts receivable and with regard to historical bad debt experience. Accounts receivable balances are generally written off when deemed uncollectible at the time the account is returned by an outside collection agency. However, accounts that are 180 days old are fully reserved and management continues collection efforts until it is determined that the possibility of collection is unlikely. Bad debt expense is recorded as a selling, general and administrative expense. As of May 31, 2014, and 2013, the allowance for doubtful accounts was approximately $1.0 million and $0.9 million, respectively. During the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, bad debt expense was $3.9 million, $4.5 million, and $4.2 million, respectively. The bad debt expense was 3.0%, 3.5%, and 3.5% of total revenue for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Accounting for Income Taxes. The objectives of accounting for income taxes are to recognize the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year and deferred tax liabilities and assets for the future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in an entity’s financial statements or tax returns. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in earnings in the period when the new rate is enacted.
We evaluate and account for uncertain tax positions using a two-step approach. Recognition (step one) occurs when we conclude that a tax position, based solely on its technical merits, is more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon examination. Measurement (step two) determines the amount of benefit that is greater than 50% likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement with a taxing authority that has full knowledge of all relevant information. De-recognition of a tax position that was previously recognized would occur when we subsequently determine that a tax position no longer meets the more-likely-than-not threshold of being sustained.
Share-Based Compensation. We measure and recognize compensation expense for all share-based awards issued to employees and directors based on estimated fair values of the share awards on the date of grant. We record compensation expense for all share-based awards over the vesting period. Annually, we make predictive assumptions regarding future stock price volatility, employee exercise behavior, dividend yield, and the forfeiture rate. For more information on these assumptions, please refer to Note 10 to the consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this report.
Regulation and Oversight
We are subject to extensive regulation by state education agencies, accrediting commissions and federal government agencies, particularly by the Department of Education under the Higher Education Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Department of Education. The regulations, standards and policies of these agencies cover substantially all of our operations. For a more complete description of this regulation and oversight, see “Item I - Business - Regulatory Matters.”
Department of Education Rulemaking. On March 25, 2014, the Department of Education published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register containing proposed regulations to define whether certain educational programs, including all programs offered by NAU, comply with the Higher Education Act’s requirement of preparing students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. The proposed regulations would require each educational program covered by the rule to achieve threshold rates in three debt measure categories related to an annual debt to annual earnings ratio, an annual debt to discretionary income ratio, and a program cohort default rate. The proposed regulations would cause each educational program covered by the rule, which includes all of NAU’s educational programs, to fail the requirement of preparing students for gainful employment if its graduates’ student loan debt payments exceed 12% of their total earnings and 30% of their discretionary earnings. Programs whose graduates have debt-to-earnings ratios of 8% to 12% or debt-to-discretionary-earnings ratios of 20% to 30% would fall in a “zone”, and the institution would have to warn students that they might become ineligible for Title IV program funds. Programs that fail both debt-to-earnings tests twice in any three-year period or are in the zone for four consecutive years would be ineligible for Title IV program funds. With respect to the programmatic cohort default rate component, programs whose borrower cohort default rates exceed 30% for three consecutive years would be ineligible for federal student financial aid.
The debt-to-earnings ratios and programmatic cohort default rates are calculated under complex methodologies and definitions outlined in the proposed regulations and, in some cases, are based on data that may not be readily accessible to institutions. The proposed regulations also contain other provisions that, among other things, include disclosure, reporting and certification requirements. We are evaluating the potential impact of the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations were subject to comment by the public through May 27, 2014, after which the Department of Education will consider revisions to the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations may or may not reflect the Department of Education’s final regulations. New final Department of Education regulations published on or before November 1, 2014 typically would have an effective date of July 1, 2015, although it is unknown at this time whether these regulations might have an earlier or later effective date. We cannot predict the ultimate content or effective date of any new regulations that may emerge from this process or the potential impact on NAU’s programs. However, any regulations that reduce or eliminate our students’ access to Title IV program funds, that require us to change or eliminate programs or that increase our costs of compliance could have an adverse effect on our business.
Beginning in February 2014, the Department of Education held negotiated rulemaking sessions related to proposed regulations to address program integrity and improvement issues for the Title IV programs, including but not limited to, cash management of Title IV program funds and the use of debit cards and the handling of Title IV credit balances, state authorization for programs offered through distance education or correspondence education, state authorization for foreign locations of institutions, clock to credit hour conversion requirements, the definition of “adverse credit” for borrowers of certain loans, and the application of repeat coursework provisions to graduate and undergraduate programs. During the March 2014 negotiating session, the Department of Education proposed draft regulatory language regarding state authorization for programs offered through distance education that would impose new requirements for students in such programs to be eligible for Title IV program funds and which, if ultimately promulgated into regulation, could materially decrease our revenue and liquidity, and adversely affect our overall business. Because the Department of Education and negotiators did not reach consensus on the entire package of draft regulations, the Department of Education is authorized to propose regulations without being bound by any agreements made in the negotiation process. We cannot predict the ultimate content or effective date of any new regulations that may emerge from this negotiated rulemaking process or the potential impact on NAU’s programs. However, any regulations that reduce or eliminate our students’ access to Title IV program funds, that require us to change or eliminate programs or that increase our costs of compliance could have an adverse effect on our business.
Between January and April 2014, the Department of Education held three negotiated rulemaking sessions to implement the changes to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)), or the Clery Act, required by March 2013 amendments to the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA. At the final meeting of the negotiated rulemaking committee on April 1, 2014, the committee reached consensus on the Department’s proposed regulations, which were subsequently published for a 30-day public comment period on June 20, 2014. Among other things, VAWA and the revised Clery Act regulations require institutions to compile statistics on additional categories of crimes reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies, to implement ongoing crime awareness and prevention programs for students and employees, and to ensure that institutional disciplinary proceedings for certain enumerated crimes meet specific standards. While the Department of Education’s final regulations remain pending, the Department of Education notified institutions in a “Dear Colleague Letter” dated July 14, 2014 that until final regulations go into effect, the Department of Education expects institutions to make a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements beginning October 1, 2014.
State Authorization. To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, an institution must be licensed or authorized to offer its educational programs by the states in which it is physically located, in accordance with the Department of Education’s regulations. The Department of Education’s Final Rule published on October 29, 2010 requires, among other things, institutions to demonstrate specific state authorization to operate educational programs beyond secondary education. In New Mexico, one of the other states where we maintain operations, we are currently exempt under state law from a requirement to be licensed by the New Mexico Higher Education Department because of our regional accreditation by the HLC. However, in order to comply with the Final Rules, we have voluntarily submitted an application for licensure to the New Mexico Higher Education Department, which remains pending as of this date. See “Item I - Business - Regulatory Matters - State Authorization.”
Results of Operations - For the Year Ended May 31, 2014 Compared to the Year Ended May 31, 2013
National American University Holdings, Inc.
The following table sets forth statements of operations data as a percentage of total revenue for each of the periods indicated:
For the year ended May 31, 2014, we generated $127.8 million in revenue, a decrease of 1.1% compared to the same period in 2013. This decrease was attributable to a decline in enrollment that was offset by an average tuition increase of 3.5% effective September 2013, fees billed to affiliated institutions for our courseware development, technical support and online class hosting services, and continued geographic and programmatic expansion. Our revenue for the year ended May 31, 2014 consisted of $126.2 million from our NAU operations and $1.6 million from our other operations. Total operating expenses were $121.5 million or 95.1% of total revenue for the year ended May 31, 2014, an increase of 2.0% compared to the same period in 2013 due to increases of $0.8 million in admissions staffing, $0.6 million in depreciation expense; $0.5 million in new software costs and $0.5 million in insurance premiums. Income before income taxes was $5.8 million or 4.5% of total revenue for the year ended May 31, 2014, a decrease of 37.1% compared to the same period in 2013. Net income attributable to the Company was $3.5 million or 2.7% of total revenue for the year ended May 31, 2014, a decrease of 36.0% compared to the same period in 2013. The additional details regarding these variances are described in greater detail below.
NAU
The following table sets forth statements of operations data as a percentage of total revenue for each of the periods indicated:
Total revenue. The total revenue for NAU for the year ended May 31, 2014 was $126.2 million, a decrease of $1.7 million or 1.3%, as compared to total revenue of $127.9 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. The decrease was primarily due to the decreased enrollments of approximately 5.4%. The enrollment decrease can also be attributed, in part, to the current improving economic climate, in which many working adults have chosen not to attend school. The decreased enrollment rates were offset by an average tuition increase of 3.5% that was approved by NAU’s board of governors and became effective in September 2013, and fees billed to affiliated institutions for our courseware development, technical support and online class hosting services.
The academic revenue for the year ended May 31, 2014 was $117.1 million, a decrease of $0.5 million or 0.4%, as compared to academic revenue of $117.6 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. The decrease was primarily due to the decreased enrollments over the prior year, as discussed above. The auxiliary revenue was $9.1 million, a decrease of $1.2 million or 11.5%, as compared to auxiliary revenue of $10.3 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. The decrease in auxiliary revenue was primarily driven by decreased enrollments that translated into decreased book sales.
Cost of educational services. The educational services expense as a percentage of academic segment revenue increased by 0.5% for the year ended May 31, 2014, to 23.4%, as compared to 22.9% for the year ended May 31, 2013. The educational services expenses for the year ended May 31, 2014, were $29.5 million, an increase of $0.3 million, or 0.1%, as compared to educational expenses of $29.2 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. This increase was a result of fixed costs such as facility expenses on a decreasing revenue base.
Selling, general and administrative expenses. The selling, general and administrative expense as a percentage of total academic segment revenue increased by 2.8% for the year ended May 31, 2014, to 66.3%, as compared to 63.5% for the year ended May 31, 2013. The selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended May 31, 2014 were $83.6 million, an increase of $2.4 million, or 3.0% as compared to selling, general and administrative expenses of $81.2 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. The increase is due to increases of $0.8 million in admissions staffing to convert prospective students, $0.6 million in depreciation expense as a result of recent expansion, $0.5 million in new software costs, and $0.5 million in insurance premiums.
Auxiliary. Auxiliary expenses for the year ended May 31, 2014 were $6.2 million, a decrease of $0.5 million, or 8.0%, as compared to auxiliary expenses of $6.8 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. This decrease was primarily the result of lower enrollments that translated into lower book sales and cost of books sold.
Income before non-controlling interest and taxes. The income before non-controlling interest and taxes for the year ended May 31, 2014, was $5.9 million, a decrease of $3.8 million, or 39.1% compared to the year ended May 31, 2013. The impact is due to additional expenses as explained above.
Results of Operations - For the Year Ended May 31, 2013 Compared to the Year Ended May 31, 2012
National American University Holdings, Inc.
The following table sets forth statements of operations data as a percentage of total revenue for each of the periods indicated:
For the year ended May 31, 2013, we generated $129.2 million in revenue, an increase of 8.7% compared to the same period in 2012. This increase was attributable to enrollment growth, an average tuition increase of 5.4% effective September 2012, fees billed to affiliated institutions for our courseware development, technical support and online class hosting services, and continued geographic and programmatic expansion. Our revenue for the year ended May 31, 2013 consisted of $127.9 million from our NAU operations and $1.3 million from our other operations. Total operating expenses were $119.2 million or 92.2% of total revenue for the year ended May 31, 2013, an increase of 8.6% compared to the same period in 2012 due to the additional expansion and development. Income before income taxes was $9.2 million or 7.2% of total revenue for the year ended May 31, 2013, an increase of 4.1% compared to the same period in 2012. Net income attributable to the Company was $5.4 million or 4.2% of total revenue for the year ended May 31, 2013, an increase of 7.9% compared to the same period in 2012. The additional details regarding these variances are described in greater detail below.
NAU
The following table sets forth statements of operations data as a percentage of total revenue for each of the periods indicated:
Total revenue. The total revenue for NAU for the year ended May 31, 2013 was $127.9 million, an increase of $10.0 million or 8.5%, as compared to total revenue of $117.8 million for the year ended May 31, 2012. The increase was primarily due to the enrollment increase of approximately 2.2%, which was consistent with our investment in new program development, program expansion, development of new educational sites and student retention initiatives over the prior year. The enrollment increase can also be attributed, in part, to the current economic climate, in which many working adults have decided to utilize education to obtain a job, advance in a job or retain their current job. In addition, the increase in total revenue is due to an average tuition increase of 5.4% that was approved by NAU’s board of governors and became effective September 2012, and fees billed to affiliated institutions for our courseware development, technical support and online class hosting services. We believe that management’s execution of NAU’s well-defined strategic plan contributed to the increase in revenues.
The academic revenue for the year ended May 31, 2013 was $117.6 million, an increase of $7.8 million or 7.1%, as compared to academic revenue of $109.8 million for the year ended May 31, 2012. The increase was primarily due to the enrollment increase over the prior year. The auxiliary revenue was $10.3 million, an increase of $2.3 million or 28.4%, as compared to auxiliary revenue of $8.0 million for the year ended May 31, 2012. The increase in auxiliary revenue was primarily driven by increased enrollment growth and the implementation of a new online bookstore vendor that was in place for all of 2013 as compared to only one quarter in 2012.
Cost of educational services. The educational services expense as a percentage of academic segment revenue decreased by 0.7% for the year ended May 31, 2013, to 22.9%, as compared to 23.6% for the year ended May 31, 2012. This decrease was a result of fixed costs such as facility expenses on an increasing revenue base. The educational services expenses for the year ended May 31, 2013, were $29.2 million, an increase of $1.4 million, or 4.9%, as compared to educational expenses of $27.8 million for the year ended May 31, 2012. This increase was primarily due to increases in instructional compensation and related expenses. These increases were attributable to the increased faculty and staff members needed to provide and maintain the quality of our educational services to our increased student enrollment as well as for the new programs such as cardiovascular technology.
Selling, general and administrative expenses. The selling, general and administrative expense as a percentage of total academic segment revenue decreased by 0.7% for the year ended May 31, 2013, to 63.5%, as compared to 64.2% for the year ended May 31, 2012. The selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended May 31, 2013 were $81.2 million, an increase of $5.5 million, or 7.3% as compared to selling, general and administrative expenses of $75.7 million for the year ended May 31, 2012. The increase was attributed to additional support staff necessary to support our continued growth and increased admissions staff to support our growth plan.
Auxiliary. Auxiliary expenses for the year ended May 31, 2013 were $6.8 million, an increase of $2.0 million, or 42.8%, as compared to auxiliary expenses of $4.7 million for the year ended May 31, 2012. This increase was primarily the result of closing our physical bookstores and engaging a third-party vendor to create an online bookstore.
Income before non-controlling interest and taxes. The income before non-controlling interest and taxes for the year ended May 31, 2013, was $9.7 million, an increase of $0.6 million, or 7.0% compared to the year ended May 31, 2012. We are executing our strategic growth initiatives by expanding existing academic programs, developing new academic programs and developing educational sites, which resulted in revenue being up over $10.0 million during the year ended May 31, 2013 compared to the same time period last fiscal year. Expenses were 91.7% of total revenue for the year ended May 31, 2013 and were 91.9% for the same period in fiscal year 2012. This decrease is consistent with our efforts to reduce costs.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Liquidity. At May 31, 2014, and May 31, 2013, cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were $19.6 million and $31.9 million, respectively. Consistent with our cash management plan and investment philosophy, a portion of the excess cash was invested in United States securities directly or through money market funds, as well as in bank deposits and certificate of deposits. Of the amounts listed above, the marketable securities for May 31, 2014 and May 31, 2013 were $15.4 million and $20.7 million, respectively.
We retain a $3.0 million revolving line of credit with Great Western Bank. Advances under the line bear interest at a variable rate based on prime and are secured by the Company’s checking, savings and investment accounts held by the bank. There were no advances outstanding against the line at May 31, 2014 and May 31, 2013.
Based on our current operations and anticipated growth, the cash flows from operations and other sources of liquidity are anticipated to provide adequate funds for ongoing operations and planned capital expenditures for the near future. These expenditures include our plans for continued expansion and development of new programming, development of new hybrid learning centers and growth of our affiliate relationships. We believe that we are positioned to further supplement our liquidity with debt, if needed.
Operating Activities. Net cash used by operating activities was $4.1 million for the year ended May 31, 2014 compared to net cash provided by operating activities of $16.0 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. This decrease is primarily the result of a $16.1 million increase in cash used for working capital, which includes a $10.7 million increase in accounts receivable due to spring money being paid during the summer term and a $3.0 million decrease in accounts payable due primarily to the fact that we’re not constructing new locations this year. In addition, net income decreased by $2.0 million due to a decrease in enrollment rates as further described above in the Results of Operations section, and non-cash items included a $3.0 million decrease in the deferred tax liability offset by higher depreciation and amortization and stock compensation expense
Net cash provided by operating activities was $16.0 million and $12.9 million for the years ended May 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. This increase is related primarily to the increase in Results of Operations and certain non-cash items which included a $1.4 million increase in depreciation and amortization and the result of a decrease in cash used for working capital, which included a $3.5 million increase in other long-term liabilities and accounts payable and an offset of a $1.2 million increase in accounts and other receivables.
Investing Activities. Net cash provided by investing activities was $1.7 million for the year ended May 31, 2014, as compared to the net cash used in investing activities of $14.8 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. The increase in the cash provided by investing activities was primarily related to the selling and buying of investments in fiscal year 2014, which resulted in net cash provided of $5.3 million compared to net cash purchases of $5.9 million in fiscal year 2013. The company invests its cash reserves in government treasury bills and the difference is in the timing of the purchases and sales and the length the term of the security purchased. In addition, purchases of property, plant and equipment was reduced by $4.1 million as the Company reduced the rate of growth and need for new physical locations. Additionally a payment of $400 was received on the tenant improvement allowance receivable on the Rapid City Central Administration building.
Net cash used in investing activities was $14.8 million for the year ended May 31, 2013, as compared to the net cash used in investing activities of $9.4 million for the year ended May 31, 2012. This increase in cash used in investing activities was primarily the result of decreased proceeds received from the sale of investments, net of purchase of investments, of $10.0 million. This decrease was offset by a $4.5 million decrease in the purchase of property and equipment.
Financing Activities. Net cash used in financing activities was $4.6 million for May 31, 2014 as compared to net cash used in financing activities of $5.7 million for the year ended May 31, 2013. The decrease is due to $1.7 million decrease in stock repurchases in 2014 offset by $0.5 million increase in dividends paid.
Net cash used in financing activities was $5.7 million for May 31, 2013 as compared to net cash used in financing activities of $13.5 million for the year ended May 31, 2012. The decrease is due to $1.8 million of stock repurchases in 2013 compared to $10.1 million of repurchases in 2012.
The table below sets forth our contractual commitments associated with operating leases as of May 31, 2014:
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Other than operating leases, we do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are reasonably likely to have a material current or future effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.
Impact of Inflation
We increase tuition (usually once a year) to assist in offsetting inflationary impacts without creating a hardship for students. Consistent with our operating plan, a yearly salary increase in December (supported by evaluations and recommendations from supervisors) is considered to help alleviate the inflationary effects on staff. There can be no assurance that future inflation will not have an impact on operating results and financial condition.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Risk.
Market risk. We have no derivative financial instruments or derivative commodity instruments. Cash in excess of current operating requirements is invested in short-term certificates of deposit and money market instruments.
Interest rate risk. Interest rate risk is managed by investing excess funds in cash equivalents and marketable securities bearing variable interest rates tied to various market indices. As such, future investment income may fall short of expectations due to changes in interest rates or losses in principal may occur if securities are forced to be sold which have declined in market value due to changes in interest rates. At May 31, 2014, a 10% increase or decrease in interest rates would not have a material impact on future earnings, fair values or cash flows. To date there have been no material drawings on the lines of credit.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
National American University Holdings, Inc.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
National American University Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries
Rapid City, South Dakota
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of National American University Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of May 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended May 31, 2014. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company as of May 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended May 31, 2014, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
August 8, 2014
NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
AS OF MAY 31, 2014 AND 2013
(In thousands except share data)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
FOR THE YEARS ENDED MAY 31, 2014, 2013, AND 2012
(In thousands except share data)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
FOR THE YEARS ENDED MAY 31, 2014, 2013, AND 2012
(In thousands except share data)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED MAY 31, 2014, 2013, AND 2012
(In thousands except share data)
(Continued)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
FOR YEARS ENDED MAY 31, 2014, 2013, AND 2012
(In thousands except share data)
(Concluded)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AS OF AND FOR THE YEARS ENDED MAY 31, 2014, 2013 AND 2012
(Dollar amounts, except share and per share amounts, in thousands)
1. STATEMENT PRESENTATION AND BASIS OF CONSOLIDATION
The accompanying financial statements are presented on a consolidated basis. The accompanying financial statements include the accounts of National American University Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), its subsidiary, Dlorah, Inc. (“Dlorah”), and its divisions, National American University (“NAU” or the “University”), Fairway Hills, the Fairway Hills Park and Recreational Association, the Park West Owners’ Association, and the Company’s interest in Fairway Hills Section III Partnership (the “Partnership”). The Partnership is 50% owned by Dlorah and 50% owned by individual family members, most of whom are also either direct or indirect stockholders of the Company.
The Partnership is deemed to be a variable interest entity (“VIE”) under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 810-10, Consolidation. The Company determines whether it is the primary beneficiary of an entity subject to consolidation based on a qualitative assessment of the purpose and design of the VIE, the risks that the VIE was designed to create and pass along to other entities, the activities of the VIE that most significantly impacts the VIE’s economic performance and which entity could direct those activities. The Company assesses it’s VIE determination with respect to an entity on an ongoing basis and has not identified any additional VIEs in which it holds a significant interest.
The Company has determined that the Partnership qualifies as a VIE and that the Company is the primary beneficiary of the Partnership. Accordingly, the Company consolidated assets, liabilities, and net income of the Partnership within its consolidated balance sheets and statements of income. As of May 31, 2014 and 2013, the consolidated balance sheets include Partnership assets of $774 and $866, respectively, and Partnership liabilities of $101 and $99, respectively. The consolidated statements of income include Partnership net (loss) income of $(34), $79, and $176 for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). Throughout the Notes to consolidated financial statements, amounts in tables are in thousands of dollars, except for per share data as otherwise designated. The Company’s fiscal year end is May 31. These financial statements include consideration of subsequent events through issuance. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.
Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “we”, “us”, “our” and the “Company” used throughout this document refer to National American University Holdings, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Dlorah, Inc., which owns and operates National American University, sometimes referred to as “NAU” or the “University”.
Estimates - The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts and disclosures reported in the financial statements. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates the estimates and assumptions, including those related to bad debts, income taxes and certain accruals. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
2. NATURE OF OPERATIONS
National American University Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Camden Learning Corporation, was incorporated in the State of Delaware on April 10, 2007. On November 23, 2009, Dlorah, Inc. a South Dakota corporation (“Dlorah”), became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization between the Company and Dlorah.
The Company’s common stock is listed as NAUH on The NASDAQ Global Market. The Company, through Dlorah, owns and operates National American University. NAU is a regionally accredited, proprietary, multi-campus institution of higher learning, offering associate, bachelors, masters and doctoral degree programs in business-related disciplines, such as accounting, applied management, business administration and information technology, and in healthcare-related disciplines, such as nursing and healthcare management. In addition, in August 2013, NAU was approved by the Higher Learning Commission to offer an Education Doctorate (Ed.D) in Community College Leadership, which will be offered in Austin, Texas. Courses are offered through educational sites and online. Operations include educational sites (two of which are pending regulatory approvals - Houston, Texas and the Roueche Graduate Center in Austin, Texas) located in Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and Texas; distance learning service centers in Indiana and Texas; and distance learning operations and central administration offices in Rapid City, South Dakota. A substantial portion of NAU’s academic income is dependent upon federal student financial aid programs, employer tuition assistance, and contracts to provide online course development, hosting and technical assistance to other educational institutions. To maintain eligibility for financial aid programs, NAU must comply with U.S. Department of Education requirements, including the maintenance of certain financial ratios.
The Company, through Dlorah’s Fairway Hills real estate division, also manages apartment units and develops and sells multi-family residential real estate in the Rapid City, South Dakota area.
Approximately 92%, 91% and 92% of the Company’s total revenues for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively were derived from NAU’s academic revenue.
3. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Cash and Cash Equivalents - The Company considers all highly liquid debt instruments with original maturities of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Cash is held in bank accounts that periodically exceed insured limits; however, no losses have occurred, and the Company feels the risk of loss is not significant.
Investments - The Company’s investments consist of government-backed bonds and certificates of deposit. These securities are classified as “available-for-sale.” Available-for-sale securities represent securities carried at fair value in the consolidated balance sheets. Certain of the Company’s certificates of deposit have maturity dates greater than one year. However, these certificates of deposit can be accessed at any time and are convertible to cash on demand. As such, the Company has classified these amounts as current assets in the consolidated balance sheets. Unrealized gains and losses deemed to be temporary are reported net of taxes and included in other comprehensive income within stockholders’ equity. Realized gains and losses and declines in value deemed to be other-than-temporary on available-for-sale securities are included in other income - net in the consolidated statements of income. Fair value of the securities is based upon quoted market prices in active markets or estimated fair value when quoted market prices are not available. The cost basis for realized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities is determined on a specific identification basis. Proceeds from the sale or call of investments totaled $42,277, $34,046 and $72,087 for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The net realized gains and losses on sales of investments totaled $0, $21, and $0 for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
The Company’s investments were comprised of the following at May 31:
Declines in the fair value of individual securities classified as available-for-sale below their amortized cost that are determined to be other than temporary result in write-downs of the individual securities to their fair value, with the resulting write-downs included in current earnings as realized losses. Unrealized losses that may occur are generally due to changes in interest rates and, as such, are considered by the Company to be temporary. Management evaluates securities for other-than-temporary impairment on at least a quarterly basis, and more frequently when economic or market concerns warrant such evaluation. Consideration is given to (1) length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, and (3) the intent and ability of the Company to retain its investments in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value.
Student Receivables - Student receivables are recorded at estimated net realizable value and are revised periodically based on estimated future collections. Interest and service charges are applied to all past due student receivables; however, collections are first applied to principal balances until such time that the entire principal balance has been received. Student accounts are charged off only when reasonable collection means are exhausted. The University has determined that most accounts with an outstanding balance of 180 days after the start of the term are uncollectable. Bad debt expense is included in selling, general and administrative cost on the consolidated statements of income.
Other Receivables - Other receivables consist of institutional, which are amounts due from other educational institutions to which the University provides instruction and course materials, and are stated at net realizable value.
Note Receivable - Note receivable is stated at the unpaid principal balance. Payments not received in accordance with the terms of the note agreement are considered past due. All amounts are current at May 31, 2014. Based on current payment status and an evaluation of the borrower’s ability to make future payments, management has determined no allowance for uncollectible amounts is necessary and no impairment exists.
Interest income is recognized over the term of the note and is calculated using the simple-interest method at a rate of 6% on principal balances outstanding. The note receivable will be placed on non-accrual status if management believes the loan is impaired or collection of interest is doubtful. Uncollected interest previously accrued would be charged-off, and interest income would be recognized only to the extent cash payments are received.
Property and Equipment - Property and equipment are stated at cost. Renewals and improvements are capitalized, while repairs and maintenance are expensed when incurred. Upon the retirement, sale or disposition of assets, costs and related accumulated depreciation are eliminated from the accounts and any gain or loss is reflected in operating income. For financial statement purposes, depreciation includes the depreciation of the capital lease obligation in the amount of $530, $530 and $309 for the fiscal years 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Total depreciation expense was $6,356, $5,650, and $4,239 for the fiscal years 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives:
For tax purposes, depreciation is computed using the straight-line and accelerated methods.
Property and equipment - net consists of the following as of May 31 (in thousands):
Capitalized Course Development Costs - The University internally develops curriculum and electronic instructional materials for certain courses. The curriculum is primarily developed by employees and contractors. The curriculum is integral to the learning system. Customers do not acquire the curriculum or future rights to it.
The Company capitalizes course development costs. Costs that qualify for capitalization are external direct costs, payroll, and payroll-related costs. Costs related to general and administrative functions are not capitalizable and are expensed as incurred. Capitalization ends at such time that the course and/or material is available for general use by faculty and students. After becoming available for general use, the costs are amortized on a course-by-course basis over a period of three to five years. After the amortization period commences, the cost of maintenance and support is expensed as incurred. If it is determined that the curriculum will not be used, the capitalized curriculum costs are written off and expensed in the period of this determination.
Condominium Inventory - Condominium inventory is stated at cost (including capitalized interest). Condominium construction costs are accumulated on a specific identification basis. Under the specific identification basis, cost of revenues includes all applicable land acquisition, land development and specific construction costs (including direct and indirect costs) of each condominium paid to third parties. Land acquisition, land development and condominium construction costs do not include employee related benefit costs. The specific construction and allocated land costs of each condominium, including models, are included in direct construction. Allocated land acquisition and development costs are estimated based on the total costs expected in a project. Direct construction also includes amounts paid through the closing date of the condominium for construction materials and contractor costs. Condominium inventory is recorded as a long term asset due to the normal operating cycle being greater than one year.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets - Long-lived assets are reviewed for impairment when circumstances indicate the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable. For assets that are to be held and used, an impairment loss is recognized when the estimated undiscounted cash flows associated with the asset or group of assets is less than their carrying value. If impairment exists, an adjustment is made to write the asset down to its fair value, and a loss is recorded as the difference between the carrying value and fair value. Fair values are determined based on quoted market values, discounted cash flows, or internal and external appraisals, as applicable. Assets to be held for sale are carried at the lower of carrying value or fair value, less cost to sell. The Company had no impairments in 2014, 2013, or 2012.
Deferred Income Taxes - Deferred income taxes are provided using the asset and liability method whereby deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities are recognized for taxable temporary differences. Temporary differences are the differences between the carrying amount of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes.
Non-Controlling Interest - The non-controlling interest presented on the consolidated statements of income represents the individual owners’ share of the Partnership’s income or loss. The consolidated balance sheet amount “Non-controlling interest” represents the individual owners’ share of the Partnership obligations in excess of Partnership assets. The Company has determined the non-controlling owners to have a legal obligation to fund such deficits and believes it is fully collectable at May 31, 2014.
Leases - Leases in which the risk of ownership is retained by the lessor are classified as operating leases. Leases which substantially transfer all of the benefits and risks inherent in ownership to the lessee are classified as capital leases. Assets acquired under capital leases are depreciated on the same basis as property, plant and equipment. Leasehold improvements are depreciated over the depreciable lives of the corresponding fixed asset or the related lease term, whichever is shorter.
Academic Revenue Recognition - Academic revenue represents tuition revenue and the revenue generated through NAU’s teaching relationships with other non-related party institutions. Tuition revenue and affiliate revenue is recorded ratably over the length of respective courses. Academic revenue also includes certain fees and charges assessed at the start of each term. The portion of tuition and registration fees payments received but not earned is recorded as student accounts payable or deferred income and reflected as a current liability on the consolidated balance sheets, as such amount represents deposits due back to students or revenue that the Company expects to earn within the next year. Academic revenue is reported net of adjustments for refunds and scholarships. If a student withdraws prior to the completion of the academic term, students are refunded the portion of tuition and registration fees already paid, that pursuant to the Company’s refund policy and applicable federal and state law and accrediting agency standards, the Company is not entitled to. Refunds and scholarships are recorded during the respective terms.
Auxiliary Revenue - Auxiliary revenue represents revenues from the University’s bookstore operations. Revenue is recognized as items are sold and is recorded net of any applicable sales tax.
Rental Income - Rental income is primarily obtained from tenants of three apartment complexes under short-term operating leases. Tenants are required to pay rent on a monthly basis. Rent not paid by the end of the month is considered past due, while significant amounts paid in advance are included in deferred income on the consolidated balance sheets. If a tenant becomes 60 days past due, eviction procedures are started.
Rental Expense - The University accounts for rent expense under its long-term operating leases using the straight-line method. Certain of the University’s operating leases contain rent escalator provisions. Accordingly, a $6,431 and $6,479, deferred rent and tenant improvement liability at May 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, is recorded in other long-term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
Advertising - The University follows the policy of expensing the cost of advertising as incurred. Advertising costs of $12,077, $12,390 and $16,000 for 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, are generally included in selling, general, and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income.
4. RECENTLY ADOPTED AND NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standard Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which removes inconsistencies and weaknesses in revenue requirements, provides a more robust framework for addressing revenue issues, improves comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, provides more useful information to users of financial statements through improved disclosure requirements, and simplifies the preparation of financial statements by reducing the number of requirements to which an entity must refer. The ASU outlines five steps to achieve proper revenue recognition: identify the contract with the customer, identify the performance obligations in the contract, determine the transaction price, allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, and recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies the performance obligation. This standard is effective for public entities for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. This standard will be effective for the Company’s fiscal year 2018 in the first quarter ending August 31, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact implementation will have on the financial statements.
5. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
The University extends unsecured credit to a portion of the students who are enrolled throughout the campuses for tuition and other educational costs. A substantial portion of credit extended to students is repaid through the students’ participation in various federal financial aid programs authorized by Title IV Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the “Higher Education Act”). The University is required under 34 CFR 600.5(d) to maintain at least 10% of its revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from non-Title IV program funds. The University believes they are in compliance with this requirement for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, as shown in the underlying calculation:
To participate in Title IV Programs, a school must be authorized to offer its programs of instruction by relevant state education agencies, be accredited by an accrediting commission recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (the “Department of Education”), and be certified as an eligible institution by the Department of Education. For this reason, educational institutions are subject to extensive regulatory requirements imposed by all of these entities. After an educational institution receives the required certifications by the appropriate entities, the educational institution must demonstrate compliance with the Department of Education’s regulations pertaining to Title IV Programs on an ongoing basis. Included in these regulations is the requirement that the Company must satisfy specific standards of financial responsibility.
The Department of Education evaluates educational institutions for compliance with these standards each year, based upon an educational institution’s annual audited financial statements, as well as following any changes in ownership. Under regulations which took effect July 1, 1998, the Department of Education calculates an educational institution’s composite score for financial responsibility based on its (i) equity ratio, which measures the educational institution’s capital resources, ability to borrow and financial viability; (ii) primary reserve ratio, which measures the educational institution’s ability to support current operations from expendable resources; and (iii) net income ratio, which measures the educational institution’s ability to operate at a profit. This composite score can range from -1 to +3.
An educational institution that does not meet the Department of Education’s minimum composite score requirements of 1.5 may establish its financial responsibility by posting a letter of credit or complying with additional monitoring procedures as defined by the Department of Education. Based on the consolidated financial statements for the 2014, 2013 and 2012 fiscal years, the University’s calculations result in a composite score of 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7, respectively. Therefore the University currently meets the minimum composite score requirement as most recently required by the Department of Education.
The University’s current certification to participate in the Title IV programs, which is not provisional, was effective in June 2013 and extends through March 31, 2019.
6. CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
The Company owns 24 condominium units to be sold to the general public. These condominium units are accounted for within condominium inventory within the consolidated balance sheets, and the sales of the condominium units are recorded within condominium sales within the consolidated statements of income. Twelve units have been sold as of May 31, 2014. The unit sold in March 2013 was sold under a financing arrangement. The contract calls for interest at 3% and requires monthly payments of $0.9 through March 1, 2018, at which time all remaining principal will be due in full. The outstanding balance of $154 and $161 at May 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, is recognized as other current assets of $6 and $6 and other long-term assets of $148 and $155 in the consolidated balance sheets. No amounts are past due based on contractual terms at May 31, 2014. Future minimum receipts under this contract are as follows:
7. CONTRACT FOR DEED
The Company signed a contract for deed on its former Rapid City campus located at 321 Kansas City Street on March 28, 2013 for $4,000 (see Note 9 for capital lease on new campus). Of this sales price, $20 was received as a down payment. On July 8, 2013, the Company received $760 as payment on the contract for deed, to include $10 in interest and $500 toward the release of a lien on the dormitory buildings included in the campus property. As such, the dormitory buildings and land were deemed sold, resulting in a gain of $97. The remaining cash received of $250 is considered a non-refundable deposit at May 31, 2014. The remaining $3,230 is being financed by the Company for three years at 5% interest. Annual interest payments are due each December 31. No principle payments are required until the expiration of the contract’s three-year term; however, any such payments received may result in removal of the lien on certain buildings included in the campus property.
Because the buyer’s initial and continuing investment is not adequate in accordance with ASC 360-20-40, and the note receivable is not supported by specific evidence of collectability, the sale has not met the accounting requirements to be considered consummated. As such, the property remains on the consolidated balance sheets and continues to be depreciated because the asset has not met the held for sale criteria, the note receivable has not been recorded, and interest income will be recognized as received. The sale will be recorded at such time the uncertainties surrounding the transaction are removed. For federal income tax purposes, the sale has been recognized. A portion of the taxable gain was due for the year ended May 31, 2013, and the remaining portion will be payable as cash is received under the installment method.
As part of the contract for deed, the University is leasing back the Animal Health building for $7 per month under a long-term lease agreement beginning June 1, 2013. The building is not considered a significant portion of the property sold. All rent due to the buyer will offset interest income payments due under the contract for deed.
8. LINES OF CREDIT
The University maintains a $3,000 unsecured revolving line of credit with Great Western Bank that is subject to annual renewals and currently matures on May 31, 2015. Advances under the line bear interest at prime (3.25% at May 31, 2014). No advances had been made on this line of credit in 2013 or 2014.
9. LEASES
The University leases building facilities for branch operations and equipment for classroom operations under operating leases with various terms and conditions. Total rent expense for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, was $6,025, $5,429 and $5,032, respectively.
Future minimum lease payments on non-cancelable operating leases for the five years ending May 31 are as follows:
As part of ongoing operations, the Company entered into a capital lease arrangement for additional space that houses the Corporate headquarters, distance learning operations, and the new Rapid City campus operations (see Note 7 for sale of old campus). During the quarter ended November 30, 2013, the Company increased its capital lease obligation by $2,000 to account for tenant improvements. The Company initially paid for the improvements; however, during the quarter, an agreement was entered into with the lessor to reimburse the Company under the terms of a $2,000 note receivable. The note receivable requires monthly payments of $14 at 6%. Such payments will directly offset the monthly payments to the lessor under the capital lease obligation. During the year ended May 31, 2014, the Company received $641 on the note receivable.
The Company is obligated to make future payments under the capital lease obligation, which totaled $24.5 million, had a net present value of $12.3 million as of May 31, 2014, and was recognized as current and non-current capital lease payable of $206 and $12,097 at May 31, 2014 and $66 and $10,394 at May 31, 2013, respectively. The asset totals $10,600, and accumulated depreciation totals $1,369, $839 and $309 at May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The net amount is included in net property and equipment in the consolidated balance sheets.
The following is a schedule of future minimum commitments under the revised capital lease obligation as of May 31, 2014:
10. STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
The authorized capital stock for the Company is 51,000,000, consisting of (i) 50,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 and (ii) 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.0001, and (iii) 100,000 shares of class A common stock, par value $0.0001. Of the authorized shares, 25,117,454 and 25,047,086 shares of common stock were outstanding as of May 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. No shares of preferred stock were outstanding.
On May 10, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of its outstanding common stock in a privately negotiated transaction. 550,000 shares were repurchased for $3.15 per share.
Other common stock repurchases during the years ended May 31, 2013 were done in the ordinary course of business. There were no common stock repurchases during the year ended May 31, 2014 and $64 of additions to treasury shares resulting from the settlement of stock based compensation.
Stock-Based Compensation
In December 2009, the Company adopted the 2009 Stock Option and Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) pursuant to which the Company may grant restricted stock awards, restricted stock units and stock options to aid in recruiting and retaining employees, officers, directors and other consultants. Restricted stock awards accrue dividends that are paid when the shares vest. Restricted stock unit awards do not accrue dividends prior to vesting. Grants are issued at prices determined by the compensation committee, generally equal to the closing price of the stock on the date of the grant, vest over various terms (generally three years), and expire ten years from the date of the grant. The Plan allows vesting based upon performance criteria. Certain option and share awards provide for accelerated vesting if there is a change in control of the Company (as defined in the Plan). The fair value of stock options granted is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. Share options issued under the Plan may be incentive stock options or nonqualified stock options. At May 31, 2014, all stock options issued have been nonqualified stock options. A total of 1,300,000 shares were authorized by the Plan. Shares forfeited or canceled are eligible for reissuance under the Plan. At May 31, 2014, 801,629 shares of common stock remain available for issuance under the Plan.
In April 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors recommended shareholder approval, and approval was obtained at the October 2013 Shareholder Meeting, to establish the 2013 Restricted Stock Unit Plan (the “2013 Plan”) authorizing the issuance of up to 750,000 shares of the Company’s stock to participants in the 2013 Plan. The Company may grant restricted stock awards or restricted stock units to aid in recruiting and retaining employees, officers, directors and other consultants. Restricted stock awards accrue dividends that are paid when the shares vest. Restricted stock unit awards do not accrue dividends prior to vesting. Restricted stock grants are issued at prices determined by the compensation committee, generally equal to the closing price of the stock on the date of the grant and vest over various terms. Shares forfeited or canceled are eligible for reissuance under the Plan. At May 31, 2014, 170,000 shares of common stock remain available for issuance under the 2013 Plan.
Restricted stock
The fair value of restricted stock awards was calculated using the Company’s stock price as of the associated grant date, and the expense is accrued ratably over the vesting period of the award.
During the quarter ended August 31, 2013, the Company issued 750,000 restricted stock units (“RSUs”) with performance based vesting under the 2013 Plan. The number of shares to be earned will be determined by the Company’s profitability and other operating metrics during the year ending May 31, 2015. 446,500 RSUs were issued with a grant date of June 1, 2013 and a grant date fair value of $3.78 per share. The total fair value of these RSU’s will be amortized over the two year service period.
The remaining 303,500 RSUs were issued with a grant date of June 1, 2013 to certain holders of time based vesting stock options who surrendered a like number of stock options in exchange. This grant was accounted for as a modification of the original option awards. The incremental fair value at the time of the exchange of $890, calculated using the restricted stock unit grant date fair value of $3.78 per share, plus the remaining unamortized fair value associated with the options surrendered of $420, will be amortized over the two year service period of the RSUs.
During the quarter ended November 30, 2013, the Company also awarded 30,729 restricted stock awards with time based vesting at a grant date fair value of $3.54 per share to the members of the board of directors. Shares vest one year from the grant date and require board service for the entire year.
During the year ended May 31, 2014, 170,000 RSUs granted under the 2013 Plan were cancelled. For the year ended May 31, 2014, no additional restricted shares were issued under the 2013 Plan.
During the quarter ended August 31, 2012, the Company issued 46,088 RSUs with performance based vesting at a grant date fair value of $4.60 per share. The number of shares to be earned was determined by the Company’s profitability during the year ended May 31, 2013. During the year ended May 31, 2013, the performance criteria required for vesting of 11,869 RSUs was attained; the remaining 34,219 RSUs issued were cancelled.
During the quarter ended August 31, 2012, the Company also awarded 13,044 restricted stock awards with time based vesting at a grant date fair value of $4.60 per share to the members of the board of directors. Shares vest one year from the grant date and require board service for the entire year. During the quarter ended November 30, 2012, the Company awarded 3,659 restricted stock awards with time based vesting at a grant date fair value of $4.10 per share to director Jeffrey Berzina and cancelled 3,261 restricted stock awards with a grant date fair value of $4.60 per share issued to John Reynolds. Mr. Berzina was elected to the board of directors to replaced Mr. Reynolds who resigned his position.
Compensation expenses associated with restricted stock awards and restricted stock unit awards, respectively, totaled $82 and $1,170 for the year ended May 31, 2014, totaled $48 and $55 for the year ended May 31, 2013, and $237 and $0 for the year ended May 31, 2012. In addition, federal and state payroll taxes totaling $0, $0, and $140 related to these awards were also included in compensation expense for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively. At May 31, 2014, unamortized compensation cost of restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards totaled $1,212. The unamortized cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.0 years as of May 31, 2014.
A summary of restricted shares activity under the Plan as of May 31, 2014 and 2013, and changes during the year then ended is presented below:
Stock options
The Company accounts for stock option-based compensation by estimating the fair value of options granted using a Black-Scholes option valuation model. The Company recognizes the expense for grants of stock options on a straight-line basis in the consolidated statements of income as operating expense based on their fair value over the requisite service period.
For stock options issued during the years ended May 31, 2014 and 2013, the following assumptions were used to determine fair value:
Expected volatilities are based on historic volatilities from the traded shares of NAUH. The Company has limited historical data to estimate forfeitures. The expected term of options granted is the safe harbor period. The risk-free interest rate for periods matching the contractual life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. Expected dividend is based on the historic dividend of the Company.
A summary of option activity under the Plan as of May 31, 2014 and 2013, and changes during the years then ended is presented below:
The Company recorded compensation expense for stock options of $22, $275 and $323 for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively, in the statements of operations. As of May 31, 2014 there was $16 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested stock option based compensation arrangements granted under the Plan. The unamortized cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.0 years as of May 31, 2014.
The Company plans to issue new shares as settlement of options that are exercised. There were no options exercised during the year ended May 31, 2014 or 2013.
On May 31, 2013, 303,500 options with a weighted average exercise price of $7.46 were surrendered and canceled in exchange for restricted stock units with a grant date of June 1, 2013.
Dividends
The following table presents details of the Company’s fiscal 2014, 2013 and 2012 dividend payments:
11. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLANS
Employee Benefit Plan Payable - The Company sponsors a 401(k) plan for its University employees, which provides for a discretionary match, net of forfeitures, of up to 5%. The University uses certain consistently applied operating ratios to determine contributions. The University’s contributions were $653, $735, and $601 for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Compensation Plans - The Company has entered into employment agreements, as amended, with Dr. Ronald Shape, Chief Executive Officer and Dr. Jerry Gallentine, President, that require, among other things, an annual incentive payment as defined in the agreements. The incentive payments are paid in installments each year, are recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses and accrued other liabilities in the consolidated financial statements, and total $197, $451 and $0 for 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. In addition, as part of the Chief Executive Officer Compensation plan, $100 annually will be paid in equal monthly installments converted to the Company’s common stock shares based on the closing price on the last day of the month.
On May 2, 2011, the Company approved a Chief Executive Officer Compensation Plan and a Cabinet Level Officer Compensation Plan, in connection with establishing the overall compensation levels for the executive management team of the Company for the 2012 fiscal year. Each compensation plan has a base salary component, quarterly achievement award component and an annual achievement award component as defined in the agreements. A similar Senior Executive Level Officer Compensation Plan was announced on May 21, 2012 for the 2013 fiscal year, and a Named Executive Officer Compensation Plan was announced on April 29, 2013 for the 2014 fiscal year.
12. SELF-INSURED HEALTH INSURANCE
The Company maintains a self-insured health insurance plan for employees. Under this plan, the Company pays a monthly fee to its administrator, as well as claims submitted by its participants. As there generally is a lag between the time a claim is incurred by a participant and the time the claim is submitted, the Company has recorded a liability for outstanding claims of $641 and $611 at May 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Such liability is reported with accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.
13. INCOME TAXES
Components of the provision for income taxes for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, were as follows:
The effective tax rate varies from the statutory federal income tax rate for the following reasons:
Deferred income taxes reflect the tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Significant components of the Company’s deferred assets (liabilities) as of May 31 were as follows:
The Company follows the guidance of ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, which requires that income tax positions must be more likely than not to be sustained based solely on their technical merits in order to be recognized. The Company has recorded no liability for uncertain tax positions. The Company has elected to record interest and penalties from unrecognized tax benefits in the tax provision.
The Company files income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various states. Because of closure of an Internal Revenue Service examination, the Company is no longer subject to U.S. federal income tax examinations for years before 2010 and, generally, is no longer subject to state and local income tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 2008.
14. EARNINGS PER SHARE
Basic earnings per share (“EPS”) is computed by dividing net income attributable to National American University Holdings, Inc. by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the applicable period. Diluted earnings per share reflect the potential dilution that could occur assuming vesting, conversion or exercise of all dilutive unexercised options and restricted stock.
The following is a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator for the basic and diluted EPS computations:
A total of 75,750, 368,000 and 223,950 shares of common stock subject to issuance upon exercise of stock options for the years ended May 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, have been excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as the effect would have been anti-dilutive.
15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
From time to time, NAU is a party to various claims, lawsuits or other proceedings relating to the conduct of its business. Although the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some claims, lawsuits or other proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably, management believes, based on facts presently known, that the outcome of such legal proceedings and claims, lawsuits or other proceedings will not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, cash flows or future results of operations.
16. RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The Company is required under 34 CFR668.23(d) to disclose all related-party transactions (as defined within the regulation) regardless of materiality to the financial statements. All related-party transactions are intercompany amounts that are eliminated in consolidation.
17. FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date.
Following is a description of each category in the fair value hierarchy and the financial assets and liabilities of the Company that are included in each category at May 31, 2014 and 2013:
Level 1 - Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. The types of assets and liabilities included in Level 1 are highly liquid and actively traded instruments with quoted market prices.
Level 2 - Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. The type of assets and liabilities included in Level 2 are typically either comparable to actively traded securities or contracts or priced with models using observable inputs. Level 2 assets consist of certificates of deposit that are valued at cost, which approximates fair value. Level 2 instruments require more management judgment and subjectivity as compared to Level 1 instruments. For instance:
•
Determining which instruments are most similar to the instrument being priced requires management to identify a sample of similar securities based on the coupon rates, maturity, issuer, credit rating and instrument type, and subjectively selecting an individual security or multiple securities that are deemed most similar to the security being priced; and
•
Determining whether a market is considered active requires management judgment.
Level 3 - Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. The type of assets and liabilities included in Level 3 are those with inputs requiring significant management judgment or estimation. The Company does not have any Level 3 assets or liabilities.
The following table summarizes certain information for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
Following is a summary of the valuation techniques for assets and liabilities recorded in the consolidated balance sheets at fair value on a recurring basis:
CD’s and money market accounts: Investments which have closing prices readily available from an active market are used as being representative of fair value. The Company classifies these investments as level 1. Market prices for certain CD’s are obtained from quoted prices for similar assets. The Company classifies these investments as level 2.
U.S. treasury bills and notes: Closing prices are readily available from active markets and are used as being representative of fair value. The Company classifies these investments as level 1.
Fair value of financial instruments: The Company’s financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, CD’s and money market accounts, US treasury bills and notes, receivables, payables, and capital lease payables. The carrying values approximated fair values for cash and cash equivalents, receivables, and payables because of the short term nature of these instruments. CD’s and money market accounts, and treasury bills and notes are recorded at fair values as indicated in the preceding disclosures.
18.
SEGMENT REPORTING
Operating segments are defined as business areas or lines of an enterprise about which financial information is available and evaluated on a regular basis by the chief operating decision makers, or decision-making groups, in deciding how to allocate capital and other resources to such lines of business.
The Company operates two operating and reportable segments: NAU and other. The NAU segment contains the revenues and expenses associated with the University operations and the allocated portion of corporate overhead. The other segment contains primarily real estate. These operating segments are divisions of the Company for which separate financial information is available and evaluated regularly by executive management in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance.
General administrative costs of the Company are allocated to specific divisions of the Company. The following table presents the reportable segment financial information, in thousands:
19. SUMMARIZED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED)
The following table sets forth selected unaudited quarterly financial information for the last eight quarters.
20.
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
On June 30, 2014 the landlord of the property located at 5301 S. Highway 16 in Rapid City, SD paid the $1,359 remaining balance of the note receivable (see Note 9) in addition to $14 of interest related to the receivable.
On July 11, 2014 the contract for deed that we were holding for the property located on Kansas City Street in Rapid City, SD was settled. The proceeds included $3,230 principle and $85 of interest that was offset by $59 of lease-back payments and maintenance expenses related to the long-term operating lease (see note 7).
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act, as of May 31, 2014. Based upon such review, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that the Company had in place, as of May 31, 2014, effective controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company (including consolidated subsidiaries) in the reports it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules thereunder, is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by an issuer in reports it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive officer or officers and principal financial officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
The Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements. Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the Company conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting as of May 31, 2014. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (1992). Based on management’s assessment using this framework, management concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of May 31, 2014.
Item 9B
Item 9B . Other Information
None.
PART III
Certain information required by Part III is incorporated by reference from our definitive Proxy Statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Proxy Statement”), which will be filed with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after May 31, 2014. Except for those portions specifically incorporated in this annual report on Form 10-K by reference to our Proxy Statement, no other portions of the Proxy Statement are deemed to be filed as part of this Form 10-K.
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the information set forth in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the information set forth in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the information set forth in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the information set forth in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the information set forth in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
PART IV
Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
(a)(1) Financial Statements
All required financial statements of the registrant are set forth under Item 8 of this annual report on Form 10-K.
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules
None required.
(b) Exhibits
* Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 11, 2009.
** Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 27, 2009.
*** Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 30, 2009, and Proxy Statement filed on September 27, 2013.
**** Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 5, 2007.
***** Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on January 12, 2010.
****** Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 11, 2010.
# Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed on March 23, 2010.
## Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 6, 2012.
### Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Proxy Statement filed on September 27, 2013.
#### Incorporated by reference to National American University Holdings, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on October 4, 2013.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
National American University Holdings, Inc.
By:
/s/ Ronald L. Shape
Name:
Ronald L. Shape, Ed. D.
Title:
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
By:
/s/ Venessa D. Green
Name:
Venessa D. Green, MBA, CPA
Title:
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
Dated as of August 8, 2014.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities indicated as of August 8, 2014.