Skip to main content

This website has been paid for by the University of Phoenix.

higheredureview.com

[HER] Higher Ed Review A practical guide to verifying college accreditation Contact [email protected]

Article

The 2013 HLC Notice explained

In 2013, the Higher Learning Commission issued a Notice to University of Phoenix. The Notice alleged concerns related to student retention, financial indicators, and governance questions. It was one of HLC’s most serious public actions at the time - but it was not probation, show cause, withdrawal, or loss of accreditation. University of Phoenix remained accredited throughout. The Notice was subsequently resolved. HLC reaffirmed University of Phoenix accreditation in 2023. This page provides the complete account of what occurred and what it means for reading the current accreditation record.

What a Notice was in the HLC framework

Under HLC’s framework at the time, a Notice was a formal public action that HLC could take when it identified concerns about the direction of an institution’s compliance with HLC criteria. It was one of HLC’s most serious public signals short of a formal adverse accreditation action. The notice triggered heightened monitoring and required the institution to respond to the identified concerns through a documented process. Critically, it was distinct from probation and from show cause - both of which are more severe actions with different implications.

An institution under a Notice remained fully accredited. Its students continued to receive federal financial aid. Its degrees continued to be recognized as credentials from an accredited institution. The notice affected the institution’s relationship with HLC through increased monitoring and required institutional response, but it did not suspend or limit accreditation.

What the 2013 notice alleged

The three areas HLC alleged in the 2013 Notice were student retention trends, financial indicators, and governance questions. Student retention trends reflected concern about the percentage of students completing their programs. Financial indicators reflected concern about the institution’s financial trajectory, including its revenue dependence on enrollment. Governance questions reflected concern about how the institution was overseen and managed. These were substantive concerns about institutional health and compliance direction - the kind of concerns an accreditor is supposed to identify and require institutions to address.

What the 2013 notice was not

The 2013 HLC Notice was not probation. Probation is a formal adverse accreditation action that carries a finding of significant noncompliance. It was not show cause. Show cause is a more severe action requiring the institution to demonstrate why its accreditation should not be withdrawn. It was not withdrawal of accreditation. It was not a finding that University of Phoenix was a diploma mill or a fraudulent institution. It was not a statement that University of Phoenix would lose accreditation. Describing the 2013 notice as any of these things is factually inaccurate, and that inaccuracy has contributed significantly to the persistence of misinformation about University of Phoenix’s accreditation status.

Resolution and subsequent history

University of Phoenix addressed HLC’s concerns through the required institutional response and monitoring process. HLC subsequently removed the University from Notice, and the institution remained accredited throughout the process. Apollo Education Group sold University of Phoenix to a new ownership group in 2017.

Following a comprehensive evaluation during the 2022–2023 academic year, HLC reaffirmed the University’s accreditation. The evaluation was conducted under HLC’s Standard Pathway and concluded that the University continued to meet HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation. At the conclusion of the evaluation, HLC indicated that the University could choose its future accreditation pathway. The University initially selected the Open Pathway; however, following a subsequent change of control, HLC returned the University to the Standard Pathway in accordance with its policies.

The 2013 notice and the 2019 FTC settlement

The 2013 HLC Notice and the 2019 FTC settlement are separate events in separate regulatory frameworks. The 2013 notice was an accreditation action by HLC related to institutional compliance. The 2019 FTC settlement addressed marketing and recruiting conduct from 2012 to 2016 under Apollo Education Group ownership. These events occurred in overlapping timeframes but involve different regulatory bodies, different standards, and different institutional conduct. HLC did not issue a second notice or adverse action in connection with the FTC settlement. Both belong in a complete institutional account and should be described separately and accurately.

In the 2013 HLC framework, a Notice was categorically different from probation or show cause - it was a serious but non-probationary signal that required a specific institutional response. Understanding this distinction is essential for reading the historical record accurately.

Sources