Regulatory enforcement is a policy decision in itself. Given the current federal commitment to deregulate the for-profit college market, state regulations will likely become increasingly important. This study examines the factors contributing to the enforcement of state-level proprietary college regulations. Using event history analysis, the authors test diffusion and innovation theories as potential explanations for patterns of enforcement. The findings suggest that geographic diffusion plays an important role in state lawsuits against for-profit colleges, although the specific mechanisms of diffusion may differ across regions. Moreover, loan repayment rates of for-profit students appear to contribute to the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed as states may seek to intervene when objective metrics suggest that students and state economic interests seem to be harmed. The article also suggests that market factors may play an influential role in state governments enforcing regulations on for-profit colleges.
AnguloA. J. (2016). Diploma mills: How for-profit colleges stiffed students, taxpayers, and the American dream. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.
2.
BeaverW. (2012). Fraud in for-profit higher education. Society, 49, 274-278.
3.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-415.
4.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (2014). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In SabatierP. A.WeibleC. M. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 307-359). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
5.
BerryW. D.BaybeckB. (2005). Using geographic information systems to study interstate competition. American Political Science Review, 99, 505-519.
6.
BerryW. D.RingquistE. J.FordingR. C.HansonR. L. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 327-348.
CelliniS. R. (2012). For-profit higher education: An assessment of costs and benefits. National Tax Journal, 65, 153.
9.
CelliniS. R.ChaudharyL. (2014). The labor market returns to a for-profit college education. Economics of Education Review, 43, 125-140.
10.
CelliniS. R.DaroliaR. (2017). High costs, low resources, and missing information: Explaining student borrowing in the for-profit sector. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 671, 92-112.
11.
ChenR.DesJardinsS. L. (2008). Exploring the effects of financial aid on the gap in student dropout risks by income level. Research in Higher Education, 49, 1-18.
12.
College Board. (2014). Trends in college pricing 2014. Washington, DC: College Board.
13.
DaroliaR. (2013). Integrity versus access? The effect of federal financial aid availability on postsecondary enrollment. Journal of Public Economics, 106, 101-114.
14.
DaviesH. T. O.CrombieI. K.TavakoliM. (1998). When can odds ratios mislead?British Medical Journal, 316, 989-991.
15.
DemingD. J.GoldinC.KatzL. F. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector: Nimble critters or agile predators?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 139-163.
16.
DeniceP. (2015). Does it pay to attend a for-profit college? Vertical and horizontal stratification in higher education. Social Science Research, 52, 161-178.
17.
DoyleW. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 259-285.
18.
DoyleW. R.McLendonM. K.HearnJ. C. (2010). The adoption of prepaid tuition and savings plans in the American states: An event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 51, 659-686.
19.
FirthR. (1973). Symbols: Private and public. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
HearnJ. C.GriswoldC. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in US postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 161-190.
22.
HearnJ. C.McLendonM. K.LinthicumK. C. (2017). Conceptualizing state policy adoption and diffusion. In PaulsenM. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research ( Vol. 32, pp. 309-354). New York, NY: Springer.
23.
HillmanN. W. (2014). College on credit: A multilevel analysis of student loan default. Review of Higher Education, 37, 169-195.
24.
JaquetteO.HillmanN. W. (2015). Paying for default: Change over time in the share of federal financial aid sent to institutions with high student loan default rates. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 45(1), article 2.
25.
KerwinC. M.FurlongS. R. (2010). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
26.
KlarnerC. (2003). Measurement of partisan balance of state government. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3, 309-319.
27.
KnappL. G.Kelly-ReidJ. E.GinderS. A. (2011). First look. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED515664
KutzG. (2011). For-profit colleges: Undercover testing finds colleges encouraged fraud and engaged in deceptive and questionable marketing practices. In TamblynM. V. (Ed.), Higher education recruitment and finance: Education in a competitive and globalizing world (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Nova Science.
30.
LacyT. A.TandbergD. A. (2014). Rethinking policy diffusion: The interstate spread of “finance innovations”. Research in Higher Education, 55, 627-649.
31.
LangK.WeinsteinR. (2012). Evaluating student outcomes at for-profit colleges (Working Paper No. w18201). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
32.
LeeD.BaikK. H. (2017). Concealment and verification over environmental regulations: A game-theoretic analysis. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 51(3), 1-34.
LiA. Y. (2017). Covet thy neighbor or “reverse policy diffusion”? State adoption of performance funding 2.0. Research in Higher Education, 58, 746-771.
35.
LooneyA.YannelisC. (2015, Fall). A crisis in student loans? How changes in the characteristics of borrowers and in the institutions they attended contributed to rising loan defaults. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2015(2), 1-89.
36.
McComisM. (2011). Testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing on “for-profit schools: The student recruitment experience”. In TamblynM. V. (Ed.), Higher education recruitment and finance (pp. 51-66). New York, NY: Nova Science.
37.
McCubbinsM. D.SchwartzT. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165-179.
38.
McLendonM. K.HearnJ. C.DeatonR. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 1-24.
39.
McLendonM. K.HellerD. E.YoungS. P. (2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 363-400.
40.
McMillan-CottomT. (2017). Lower ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. New York, NY: New Press.
41.
MettlerS. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. New York, NY: Basic Books.
42.
MohrL. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review, 63, 111-126.
43.
MokherC. G.McLendonM. K. (2008). Uniting secondary and postsecondary education: An event history analysis of state adoption of dual enrollment policies. American Journal of Education, 115, 249-277.
NatowR. S. (2015). From Capitol Hill to Dupont Circle and beyond: The influence of policy actors in the federal higher education rulemaking process. Journal of Higher Education, 86, 360-386.
46.
PeleshM. L. (2010). Markets, regulation, and performance in higher education. In HentschkeG. C.LechugaV. M.TierneyW. G. (Eds.), For-profit colleges and universities: Their markets, regulation, performance and place in higher education (pp. 91-107). Herndon, VA: Stylus.
47.
PernaL. W.FinneyJ. E. (2014). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
48.
PosseltJ.VenegasK.WardJ. D.HernandezT.DePaolaT. (2017). Emerging issues in federal higher education laws. Los Angeles, CA: Pullias Center for Higher Education.
49.
RenzulliL. A.RoscignoV. J. (2005). Charter school policy, implementation, and diffusion across the United States. Sociology of Education, 78, 344-366.
50.
RosenL. (2009). Rhetoric and symbolic action in the policy process. In PlankD. N.SchneiderB.SykesG. (Eds.), Handbook on educational policy research (pp. 267-285). New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
SernaG. (2014). The “Gainful Employment rule” and student loan defaults: How the policy frame overlooks important normative implications. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 44, 5.
52.
SponslerB. (2010). Coveting more than thy neighbor: Beyond geographically proximate explanations of postsecondary policy diffusion. Higher Education in Review, 7, 81-100.
53.
StoneD. A. (2011). Policy paradox and political reason. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
54.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN. W. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 39, 222-243.
TierneyW. G.HentschkeG. C. (2007). New players, different game: Understanding the rise of for-profit colleges and universities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
57.
TombsS. (2016). Social protection after the crisis: Regulation without enforcement. Bristol, England: Policy Press.
58.
van MeterD. S.van HornC. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration & Society, 6, 445-488.
59.
van RooijB. (2010). Greening industry without enforcement? An assessment of the World Bank’s pollution regulation model for developing countries. Law & Policy, 32, 127-152.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
62.
WardJ. D. (2017). Examining the unintended consequences of for-profit regulation (Working paper). Los Angeles, CA: Pullias Center for Higher Education.
63.
WatermanR. W.MeierK. J. (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 173-202.
