Form 990 for tax year 2024

Totals

Total revenue

$4,677,958

Total expenses

$2,190,839

Contributions and grants received

$1,835,636

Grants paid

$0

Program service revenue

$2,749,729

Investment income

$92,593

Other revenue

$0

Total assets, end of year

$4,629,178

Total liabilities, end of year

$62,228

Net assets or fund balances, end of year

$4,566,950

Program services expenses (Part IX)

$1,925,897

Management and general expenses

$233,214

Fundraising expenses

$31,728

Program service expenses (Part III)

$1,925,897

Program services were 87.9% of total expenses calculated — Part IX's program-services column over total expenses, both as filed.

Line items

Every line the filer filed in Parts VIII, IX and X, as filed and in filed order. Blank columns are left out, and the lines are not forced to add up to the totals above.

Mission and programs · 2024

• PURSUANT TO REV PROC. 92-59, 1992-C C.B.411, THE ORGANIZATION IS PROVIDING A LIST OF CASES LITIGATED DURING 2024.DURING 2024, THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED SIX LAWSUITS AGAINST THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PURSAUNT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, ET SEQ., COVERING THIRTY-ONE REQUESTS SUBMITTED UNDER FOIA. AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, THE ORGANIZATION SEEKS A "FEE WAIVER" FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH EACH REQUEST, ESTABLISHING THAT THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE UNDER FOIA IS "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST." SEE 5 U.S.C. 552(A)(4)(A)(III). THE ORGANIZATION HAS NEVER BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY FEES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY REQUEST. DURING 2024, THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL MATTERS, THE SELECTION OF WHICH WAS NOT MADE WITH A CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPECTATION OR POSSIBILITY OF A FEE AWARD. (1) BALTEZAR V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. CAL.). THIS IS A CHALLENGE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S 2019 REPEAL OF THE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT RULE, WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT STUDENTS FROM CAREER-ORIENTED HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDED LIMITED VALUE COMENSURATE TO STUDENT DEBT BURDENS INCURRED. (2) DUNAGAN V. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. ILL.). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION AGAINST AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT MISLED STUDENTS ABOUT ITS STATUS AS AN ACCREDITED INSTITUTION. THE SUIT SEEKS TO HOLD RESPONSIBLE BOTH THE INSTITUTION AND THE OWNERS AND EXECUTIVES WHO PLAYED AN INSTRUMENTAL ROLE IN THE DECEPTION. THIS IS PART OF THE ORGANIZATION'S EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUAL WRONGDOERS ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PREDATORY CONDUCT BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.(3) DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLC V. SOUTH UNIVERSITY OF OHIO ET AL. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. OHIO). THIS IS A FEDERAL COURT RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING INVOLVING CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE DUNAGAN MATTER DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN 2022, STUDENT DEFENSE REPRESENTED STUDENTS TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHER STUDENTS, AGAINST RECEIVERSHIP ENTITIES. (4) DETMER ET AL. V. LA'JAMES COLLEGE OF HAIRSTYLING, INC. ET AL (IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY). THIS IS A CERTIFIED CLASS ACTION AGAINST AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT DELAYED DISBURSEMENT OF STUDENT CREDIT BALANCES, IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL REGULATION AND STATE LAW. (5) CARROLL ET AL. V. WALDEN UNIVERSITY ET AL (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D. MARYLAND). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, THE EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT, AND STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO AFFIRM THE USE OF CORE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL STUDENT LENDING.(6) ARBITRATIONS AGAINST LAMBDA, INC. D/B/A/ LAMBDA SCHOOL OR BLOOM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. IN 2024, THE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED EIGHT INDIVIDUALS SEPARATELY PURSUING ARBITRATIONS AGAINST THE LAMBDA SCHOOL FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING STUDENT OUTCOMES. THE CASES NOT ONLY SOUGHT REDRESS FOR THE CLIENT, BUT ALSO SOUGHT TO HIGHLIGHT PROBLEMS WITH REGULATIONS REGARDING UNACCREDITED "BOOT CAMPS AND THE USE OF "INCOME SHARE AGREEMENTS" TO FINANCE HIGHER EDUCATION. SEPARATELY, IN FULLER ET AL. V. BLOOM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY D/B/A LAMBDA SCHOOL) AND AUSTEN ALLRED, ET AL. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, N.D. CAL), THE ORGANIZATION LITIGATED A SIMILAR CLAIM AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION AND TESTED THE EXTENT OF THE MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSE THAT APPEARED IN THE "INCOME SHARE AGREEMENT." (7) DUNN ET AL. V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D. MASS). THIS LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN APRIL 2022 TO CHALLENGE, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S UNREASONABLE DELAY IN FAILING TO ADJUDICATE A 2016 GROUP APPLICATION FOR STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF FORMER STUDENTS AT KAPLAN CAREER INSTITUTE IN MASSACHUSETTS. IN AUGUST 2022, THE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAD GRANTED THE APPLICATION. (8) HEMPHILL ET AL. V. CARDONA & U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D.D.C.) THIS LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN MAY 2022 TO CHALLENGE, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S UNREASONABLE DELAY IN FAILING TO ADJUDICATE A 2016 GROUP APPLICATION FOR STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF FORMER STUDENTS AT WESTWOOD COLLEGE IN ILLINOIS. IN AUGUST 2022, THE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD BE PROVIDING $1.5 BILLION IN STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGES TO 79,000 BORROWERS WHO ATTENDED WESTWOOD COLLEGE BETWEEN JANUARY 2002 AND ITS CLOSURE IN 2016. (9) FAVELL ET AL. V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, C.D. CAL). THIS IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR DEFRAUDING STUDENTS BY USING MISLEADING COLLEGE RANKINGS REGARDING THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS AND ILLEGALITY OF "REVENUE SHARE" AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLEGES AND THIRD-PARTY ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE BOTH RECRUITING AND ONLINE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES. (10) NATALIA ORTIZ V. SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE & R3 EDUCATION, INC. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D. MASS). THIS WAS FILED AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MASSACHUSETTS LAW WITH RESPECT TO MARKETING AND ADVERTISING BY SABA UNIVERSITY. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT HOW INSTITUTIONS CAN MANIPULATE ADVERTISEMENTS OF STUDENT OUTCOMES THROUGH DECEPTIVE USE OF STATISTICAL REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING SUCCESS ON LICENSURE EXAMINATIONS.(11) ELVA LOPEZ V. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SIMPLILEARN AMERICAS, INC (SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO). THIS WAS FILED AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKETING AND ADVERTISING OF A SHORT-TERM BOOTCAMP BY THE DEFENDANTS. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THE CASE SEEKS TO HIGHLIGHT HOW CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS CONTRACT WITH THIRD-PARTIES TO DESIGN AND PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL OFFERINGS, WITHOUT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSING TO STUDENTS THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE PROGRAMS.(12) TANNER SMITH ET AL. V. GRAND CANYON EDUCATION INC. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D. AZ). THIS CASE WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF A PUTATIVE CLASS OF FORMER DOCTROAL STUDENTS ALLEGING THAT DEFENDANT ORCHESTRATED A DECEITFUL RACKETEERING SCHEME BY MISLEADING PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS ABOUT THE TRUE COST OF DOCTORAL DEGREES. PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT DEFRAUDED STUDENTS OUT OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RICO STATUTE AS WELL AS STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THIS CASE SEEKS TO ALTER HOW OPERATORS OF LARGE FOR-PROFIT GRADUATE PROGRAMS RECRUIT AND ENROLL STUDENTS, WHILE ALSO HIGHLIGHTING THE ROLE OF NON-PROFIT CONVERSIONS AND SALES TO NON-PROFIT AND PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES. (13) HAYLEY CLEMENTS V. XAVIER BECERRA, ET AL. (U.S. DISTRICT COURT, M.D. AL). THIS CASE WAS FILED AGAINST THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON BEHALF OF A NURSE PRACTIONER WHO JOINED THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS (NHSC) IN 2020. AFTER RECEIVING $25,000 IN STUDENT LOAN RELIEF UNDER THE NHSC PROGRAM, PLAINTIFF WAS FINED OVER $217,000 BECAUSE SHE WAS UNABLE TO FIND A JOB THAT MET PROGRAM CRITERIA WITHIN COMMUTING DISTANCE OF HER HOME. PLAINTIFF BROUGHT SUIT UNDER THE EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. IN ADDITION TO REDRESSING WRONGDOING, THIS CASE SOUGHT TO REFORM THE MANNER IN WHICH HHS LEVIES FINES IN ORDER TO BRING THE PROGRAM IN LINE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. (14) NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK V. UNIV. OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS (SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA). THIS CASE WAS FILED IN STATE COURT UNDER THE DC CONSUMER PROTECTION PROCEDURES ACT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION BAN ARISING FROM DEFENDANT'S PAYMENTS TO THE ONLINE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROVIDER COURSEA, INC. PLAINTIFF SOUGHT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND NO MONETARY DAMAGES AND TO HIGHLIGHT THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS OF THE "BUNDLED SERVICING" LOOPHOLE TO THE FEDERAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION BAN. SHOULD THE ORGANIZATION RECOVER ATTORNEY'S FEES, SUCH FEES WILL BE PAID TO THE ORGANIZATION AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS WHOSE COMPENSATION IS DETERMINED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO FEES RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH CASES HANDLED.

  Expenses $1,925,897 · Revenue $2,749,729

As filed on the 2024 return. The filer continues this part on Schedule O, which is not shown here.

Listed in Part VII

Compensation is as filed in Part VII: reportable pay from this organization and from related organizations, other compensation, and hours per week. The total, marked calculated, is our sum of the three dollar columns, with a blank column counted as $0; the form itself has no total. On a Form 990-EZ the columns are Part IV's instead, and on a Form 990-PF Part VIII's — compensation, contributions to benefit plans, and expense account — and the total sums those. A Schedule J breakdown is as filed: base pay, bonus, other, deferred compensation and nontaxable benefits from this organization, with any from related organizations beside each, and the filer's own total. It is shown with the Part VII listing of the same name on the same return. The form gives no key between the two, so that pairing is ours, and is marked matched by us.

Schedule J

Part I's answers as filed. A line not listed was left unanswered; on lines 1a and 3 that means the box was not checked.

Grants on this return

No itemized grants to organizations on this return.

Provenance

Return type

form_990

Tax year

2024

Filed

12 November 2025

IRS schema version

2024v5.2

Source object

202543169349306389

Check it against the return as filed: the GivingTuesday Data Lake hosts a public copy of the original XML.

The source document this was parsed from is served over the API, which is where bulk and document access live.