Use stolen or fake identities to enroll in classes to pocket financial aid dollars

Colleges across the country are increasingly being targeted by fraudsters who use stolen or fake identities to enroll in classes and collect financial aid. For example, at Century College in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, officials estimate that as many as 15% of students in one class were part of what has been described as “an organized crime ring” exploiting this scheme.

According to a report by Erin Adler in the Minnesota Star Tribune (April 12, 2025), investigators found that most of the fraudsters reside in other countries. They typically enroll in online, asynchronous courses—those that allow students to access content at any time—primarily at two-year colleges, with no intention of learning or completing a degree.

“They try to make it through the early days of a course without being found out, doing the bare minimum in classwork until financial aid money is disbursed, usually about 10 days into the semester,” officials explained.

If the fraudsters remain enrolled by the second week, they receive loan disbursements, leaving the college—and ultimately taxpayers—responsible for repayment. In cases where a stolen identity is used, it is possible that the burden may fall on the unsuspecting victim. 

Students involved in the scheme may drop the class after receiving financial aid or remain enrolled, ultimately failing. They often continue registering for additional classes under the same name or identity until they are suspended or otherwise removed.

In one notable case, fraudsters targeted the College of Southern Nevada (CSN), leaving the institution responsible for millions in losses. The perpetrators enrolled as transfer students, a group subject to less rigorous vetting than first-time enrollees. Once classes began, instructors reported full rosters but empty classrooms. An external audit revealed that CSN incurred a $7.43 million debt related to the “ghost students” scheme, including tuition, fees, and institutional write-offs. Additionally, CSN was required to repay the U.S. Department of Education for federal loans disbursed to the fraudulent students.

The ghost student epidemic has affected numerous colleges across the country. Notable examples include:

Prince George’s Community College, Maryland: In 2024, fraudsters submitted 80 fake applications in a single day—averaging one every seven minutes over the course of several hours. A college representative claimed that such fraudulent applications have become a routine challenge.

Pierce College, California: After identifying and removing ghost students from its enrollment rolls, the college saw a 36% decline in reported enrollment, dropping from 7,658 to 4,937 students. Fraudulent enrollments can artificially inflate student counts, disrupting resource allocation and course availability. Detecting and removing these cases often requires labor-intensive manual reviews.

Iowa Western Community College: Faculty members noticed suspicious student behavior, prompting an investigation that ultimately led to the detection and prevention of 109 fraudulent enrollments aimed at exploiting the financial aid system.

In January 2024, a spokesperson for the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office reported that approximately 25% of college applications were fraudulent—up from 20% in 2021.

As the threat continues to grow, many institutions are implementing new measures to combat fraud. Here are a few recommended strategies:

Require identity verification

Online identity verification tools can quickly collect and analyze identifying information from applicants. Combining a government ID verification with a selfie is a commonly used approach for fighting fraud. 

• Government ID verification: Applicants upload a picture of an approved government-issued ID, such as an identification card, driver’s license, or passport. The IDV tool analyzes the image for signs of authenticity, editing, and document tampering. It also extracts data from the ID that will be used for verification. 
• Selfie verification: With selfie identity verification, the applicant takes and uploads selfies or a short video and their face is compared to the image on the government ID. In the age of AI-generated selfies, liveness detection and advanced analysis are crucial for verifying the selfie is genuine. 

Passive database checks can also be performed in the background to verify information from the government ID without adding friction. Schools may also automatically run checks against internal databases to look for duplicate information or other red flags. 

Monitor passive and behavioral risk signals

Various types of passive signals, monitoring, and reports can help you uncover fraudulent applicants and ghost students without asking for more information or interfering with an application.

• Passive signals: Information from the applicant’s device or browser can help you uncover suspicious data points or patterns. These might include whether they’re using a VPN, their device’s IP address, location, and time zone, and if they are all out of sync with each other and not close to the address extracted from a driver’s license.
• Behavioral signals: Monitor how someone interacts with your application — whether they copy and paste information, use autofill, appear distracted, or use their mouse or keyboard in an unusual way. 
• Email risk reports: An email risk report can tell you when the email was first seen, most recently seen, whether it’s from a temporary mail service, when the domain was created, how active it is, and other information related to the potential risk associated with the email address. The results may be summarized with a risk score or recommendation. 
• Phone risk reports: Similarly, phone risk reports help you understand the risk associated with a phone number based on factors like the phone type, carrier, recent usage, and whether the number or SIM card was recently moved. 

These signals and reports can help you determine whether you should approve an application, deny it outright, request additional identification, or have someone manually review it. 

Top Workplaces’ award recognizes more than 1,500 organizations with 150 or more employees that have created exceptional, people-first cultures

Yavapai Community College President Dr. Lisa Rhine informed the District Governing Board at its March meeting that the College had been named on of USA Today’s “Top Workplaces.”  In a March 26 news release, the College explained  that  “The ‘Top Workplaces’ award recognizes more than 1,500 organizations with 150 or more employees that have created exceptional, people-first cultures. About 40,000 organizations were invited to participate.”

Winners are recognized for their commitment to fostering a workplace environment that values employee listening and engagement. Yavapai College was cited as an outstanding workplace among institutions with 500-999 employees.”

Dr. Rhine, in commenting on the award, said: “It is an honor to be recognized as a top workplace in the U.S. Our employees are the engine that powers what we do, and it is incredibly important that we build a culture that supports them. I am so proud of YC.”

Top Workplaces are determined by administering an employee engagement survey through Energage. Energage surveys employees at thousands of companies worldwide. The employee survey feedback is the sole criterion in determining the Top Workplaces. A full list of 2025 winners can be seen at:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/03/20/best-places-to-work-2025-survey/77718021007/

The “Top Workplaces of 2025” citation comes a year after Yavapai College was named one of 2024’s “Top Workplaces in Arizona” by AZCentral, USA Today Network, and LocalIQ.

Sources:  YCC District Governing Board meeting March 26, 2025; YCC press release authored by Michael Grady dated March 26, 2025.

This seems to reflect a typical authoritarian perspective, marked by a profound distrust in the integrity of Governing Board members and the imposition of a free speech barrier throughout its campuses and centers

It may have shocked some to learn that Yavapai Community College President Dr. Lisa Rhine has issued a chilling directive to staff, instructing them to never discuss college or community matters with a member of the District Governing Board. According to Dr. Rhine, even an innocent conversation with a Board member could lead to disciplinary action if it touches on something she considers and defines as “college operations.”

Dr. Rhine revealed this authoritarian edict while supporting a provision in a District Governing Board policy resolution drafted by former college president and consultant Dr. David Borofsky. The resolution, which was under discussion, included a clause that was eventually approved in a 4-1 vote. The provision states: “Under no circumstances should an individual Board member direct or contact by any means, a staff member concerning a college or community issue.”

This poorly drafted provision effectively limits a Board member’s ability to seek information from any college source other than the president. The restriction, in the Blog’s view, clearly undermines the role of Board members, who are elected officials entrusted with representing the taxpayers of Yavapai County. It also reflects a profound distrust of the integrity of Board members.

Below is a video clip of Dr. Rhine’s comments, delivered to the Board at its November 21 meeting on the Prescott Campus.

Drafted by a former College president and current consultant, the document contains extreme provisions solely intended to allow the Community College president to control an elected Governing Board member’s behavior and speech when it comes to the taxpayer supported institution

OPINION: The outgoing Yavapai Community College District Governing Board, with two lame-duck members,  convened on November 21 at the Prescott Campus, where one of the major issues was a controversial resolution drafted by current consultant and former college president Dr. David Borofsky. The resolution’s main purpose appears aimed at stifling and controlling the free speech and behavior toward faculty and staff of elected Board members. As written, the resolution raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability.

Dr. Borofsky’s professional history is deeply intertwined with Yavapai Community College leadership. He previously served as Interim Executive Director of the Arizona Association of Community College Trustees (AACCT), an organization that listed Yavapai Community College Board Chair Deb McCasland among its members. He is now the permanent Executive Director of a separate entity, the Arizona Community College Coordinating Council (ACCCC), which lists as a member Yavapai Community College President Dr. Lisa Rhine.

Notably, Borofsky’s tenure as a college leader has not been without controversy. For example, it was reported that at Dakota State University he unexpectedly resigned when students began organizing petitions “to then President Borofsky—who was primarily suspected for pressuring the changes in leadership—asking for answers to why these decisions were made.” The claim was that “several high profile administrators” had stepped down, and  it “was believed by many students and faculty that these administrators had not stepped down willingly.”

It was also reported that Jack Warner, executive director of the Board of Regents, “managed to confirm a suspicion that students . . .held since the incident: Doctor Borofsky’s choice to leave was a quick development, and was certainly made because of the poorly received decisions.”

At the November Yavapai Community College Governing Board meeting, Third District Representative Toby Payne asked Chair McCasland who had initiated the request for Borofsky to draft the resolution. McCasland admitted she had done so.

The resolution presented by Borofsky to the Board, which was published in full in a November 16 blog post, is overall an extreme document designed to muzzle dissent and enforce rigid control over Board members. Among its provisions, it prohibits Board members from making any comments about the College president that could be construed as negative. Thus, the Third District representative Toby Payne, under this resolution, can never raise critical questions with his constituents about the lack of attention or development by the college leadership in his district. Even more troubling, the Resolution bans Board members from engaging with community college staff or faculty in any way on any issue involving the College or the community.

This resolution lays bare the administration’s profound fear of criticism and its desire to silence opposing voices. It exemplifies a culture of authoritarian control, where dissent is not tolerated, and open dialogue, some of which may be considered critical,  is actively suppressed. Such measures are a blatant affront to the principles of governance and transparency that should guide a public institution.

In essence, the resolution reflects an unsettling effort to insulate the College leadership from accountability at the expense of the public’s trust. The five elected officials on the lame duck Governing Board should have resisted the blatant attempt to undermine their ability to represent their constituents and upheld their responsibility to advocate for transparency and fairness. Anything less is a disservice to the residents of Yavapai County who they are sworn to serve. Moreover, it is a disservice to democracy.

Unfortunately, the 4-1 vote cast by the lame duck representatives who approved this resolution at  Tuesday ‘meeting does not reflect either these concerns or basic democratic values.

Third time in four years it has been selected as a group finalist

Yavapai Community College pays $3,300 annually to participate in the Bellwether College Consortium, according to the organization’s website. This prestigious consortium recognizes outstanding and innovative programs among community colleges across the United States and its territories.

Each year, 30 community colleges are selected as finalists for the Bellwether Awards, drawn from a large pool of applicants. The finalists are divided into three categories, with 10 colleges chosen in each of the following: Instructional Programs and Services, Planning, Governance, and Finance, and Workforce Development.

This year, Yavapai Community College earned a place among the 10 finalists in the category of Instructional Programs and Services. The college’s submission focused on the formation and implementation of its All-College Council, highlighting its commitment to collaboration and shared governance.

The Bellwether Award winners will be announced during the Community College Futures Assembly, scheduled for February 23–25, 2025, at the historic Menger Hotel in San Antonio, Texas.

One of 22 organizations in the large company category to receive the award

Yavapai Community College was one of 153 companies across Arizona that were identified by AZCentral, USA Today Network, and LocalIQ as top workplaces and one of 22 organizations in the “large company” category. The Community College accepted the award at the annual Top Workplaces awards gala in Glendale, Arizona , on June 27, 2024.

According to the Community College’s press release, “Top Workplaces are determined by an employee engagement survey through Energage, which surveys employees at thousands of companies worldwide. The employee survey feedback is the sole criterion in determining the Top Workplaces.”

“It is an honor to be recognized as a Top Workplace in Arizona, and it is a testament to our employees’ true belief in the mission and vision of Yavapai College. Collectively, our faculty and staff are focused on student success,” said Dr. Lisa Rhine, President of Yavapai Community College.

Yavapai College employs nearly 1,000 employees annually, including 500 full-time employees, and the College will now be up for a national Top Workplace Award later this year.

Source: Verde Valley News.