The Political Economy of Philanthropy in Louisville: An Analysis of Revenue Architectures, Distributive Mechanisms, and Reputational Capital in the Nonprofit Sector – RESEARCH 2026

Abstract

This extensive research report provides a structural analysis of the nonprofit sector within the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan statistical area, precipitated by a public inquiry regarding the sources and uses of charitable funds. Specifically, this study investigates the dichotomy between “taxpayer-funded” organizations and those sustained by “private wealth,” and examines the extent to which these entities function as vehicles for direct redistribution versus reputational enhancement. Using a selection of organizations highlighted in the “Tommy Elliott Fund for Community Leadership StoryFest”—including Change Today, Change Tomorrow, Teach Kentucky, The Louisville Metro Police Foundation, and La Casita Center—this report synthesizes financial data from IRS Form 990 filings, municipal budget allocations, and programmatic audits.

The analysis reveals a complex “hybrid economy” where the distinction between public and private funding is often porous. While some organizations, such as the Louisville Metro Police Foundation, rely almost exclusively on private capital to subsidize public functions, others, like Teach Kentucky and La Casita Center, are deeply integrated into the federal and municipal fiscal apparatus. Furthermore, the report identifies the phenomenon of “reputational capital” not merely as a vanity metric (“making a name”), but as a critical survival mechanism required to secure unrestricted funding in a competitive philanthropic marketplace. The document concludes with a comprehensive pedagogical framework designed to empower the public in conducting independent financial oversight of tax-exempt entities.

---

1. Introduction: The Third Sector’s Role in Resource Allocation

The question of whether nonprofit organizations serve as conduits for “tax dollars” or vehicles for “rich people’s money” strikes at the heart of the social contract in the United States. Unlike the private sector, which is driven by profit, or the public sector, which is driven by mandate, the nonprofit (or “third”) sector occupies a unique space defined by “mission.” However, mission requires capital. The origins of that capital—whether it flows from the collective purse of the state or the discretionary accounts of the wealthy—fundamentally alters an organization’s accountability, operational scope, and distributive behavior.

1.1 The Inquiry and The Artifact

The genesis of this report is a promotional image for the Tommy Elliott Fund for Community Leadership StoryFest, an event showcasing various Louisville-based nonprofit leaders.¹ The image features leaders from diverse sectors: social justice (Change Today, Change Tomorrow), education (Teach Kentucky, Hip Hop Into Learning), law enforcement support (Louisville Metro Police Foundation), and immigrant services (La Casita Center). The user’s query posits two potential operational models:

1. The Redistribution Model: Do these organizations take money (from taxes or the wealthy) and give it back to the people?
2. The Reputational Model: Do they use these funds primarily to “make a name for themselves,” potentially retaining resources for organizational growth rather than direct aid?

1.2 Theoretical Framework: Resource Dependence Theory

To understand why nonprofits behave the way they do, one must apply Resource Dependence Theory. This sociological framework suggests that the source of an organization’s funding dictates its behavior.

• Government-Funded Nonprofits: Organizations dependent on “tax dollars” (government grants) become bureaucratized. They must prioritize compliance, reporting, and specific deliverables defined by legislation. Their “distribution” is often strictly regulated (e.g., “you must spend this $600,000 on accessibility renovations”).³
• Donor-Funded Nonprofits: Organizations dependent on “rich people” (private philanthropy) must prioritize Reputational Capital. They must “make a name for themselves” through storytelling, galas (like StoryFest), and high-visibility impact to attract voluntary contributions. In this context, “making a name” is not a deviation from their mission but a prerequisite for funding it.⁵

1.3 Methodology and Scope

This report utilizes a forensic approach to public record analysis. The primary data sources include:

• IRS Form 990s: The federal tax return for tax-exempt organizations, which details revenue sources (Part VIII) and functional expenses (Part IX).⁷
• Municipal Budget Reports: Louisville Metro Government spending allocations.³
• Programmatic Reports: Annual reports and impact statements published by the entities.¹⁰

The analysis will focus on the specific organizations identified in the user’s prompt to illustrate broader trends in the sector.

---

2. The Financial Architecture of Louisville Nonprofits

To determine if these organizations are living off “tax dollars,” we must first dissect their revenue streams. The IRS Form 990 segregates revenue into contributions (which can be public or private) and program service revenue.

2.1 The “Tax Dollar” Ecosystem: Government Grants

“Tax dollars” enter the nonprofit sector primarily through Government Grants (reported on Form 990, Part VIII, Line 1e). These are not handouts; they are contracts for services. The government effectively “hires” the nonprofit to perform a task because the nonprofit can often do it more cheaply or effectively than a government agency.

2.1.1 La Casita Center: The Municipal Partner

La Casita Center, led by Karina Barillas, serves the Latino/a/x immigrant community.¹² A review of Louisville Metro Council records reveals a heavy reliance on specific government allocations.

• Direct Taxpayer Funding: In 2024/2025 allocations, the Louisville Metro Government awarded $600,000 specifically for “accessibility improvements” at La Casita Center.³ Additionally, they received allocations from the “Neighborhood Development Funds” for food and basic needs distribution programs.⁹
• Implication: When an organization receives a line-item allocation in a city budget, it is directly distributing tax dollars. However, these funds are often restricted. The $600,000 cannot be given away as cash to people; it must be used for building improvements. This challenges the user’s binary of “distributing back to people” versus “keeping it.” In this case, the tax dollars are “distributed” to construction firms to improve a facility that the public uses.

2.1.2 Teach Kentucky: The Federal Pass-Through

Teach Kentucky, led by Rowan Claypool, recruits teachers for public schools. Its financial structure is a sophisticated blend of private fundraising and federal tax subsidies.

• AmeriCorps Funding: Teach Kentucky is an AmeriCorps program.¹³ AmeriCorps is a federal agency funded by Congressional appropriation (tax dollars).
• The Pass-Through Mechanism: While Teach Kentucky raises private money for its operations (headhunting, training), the individuals it serves (the teachers) receive the Segal Education Award (approx. $14,600 over two years) directly from the federal government.¹⁵
• Public School Salaries: The teachers placed by the program are paid by Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS), a tax-funded entity. The program claims to generate “$8M annually” in compensation for teachers, but this money comes from the school district’s tax base, not the nonprofit’s bank account.¹⁰
• Verdict: Teach Kentucky acts as a manager of tax dollars. It uses a relatively small amount of private money to organize a large flow of federal and local tax revenue into the hands of teachers.

2.2 The “Private Wealth” Ecosystem: Philanthropy and Foundations

“Rich people’s money” enters the system through private contributions (Form 990, Part VIII, Line 1f) and foundation grants. This money is often driven by relationships and reputation.

2.2.1 Louisville Metro Police Foundation (LMPF): Corporate Subsidies for Public Power

The Louisville Metro Police Foundation represents a fascinating inversion of the standard model. Typically, tax dollars fund the police. Here, private wealth supplements the police budget.

• Revenue Source: The LMPF raises millions exclusively from private sources. In 2024, it reported $5.07 million in revenue, with $3.8 million coming from contributions.¹⁶ Notable donors include the Jewish Heritage Fund ($200,000) and National Philanthropic Trust ($250,000).¹⁷
• Zero Tax Dollars: Their filings consistently show $0 in government grants.¹⁸ This is an organization funded entirely by “rich people” (corporations and foundations) and the donating public.
• Implication: The Foundation uses private capital to purchase equipment (dogs, horses, wellness centers) that the city budget (tax dollars) does not cover.¹¹ This is “distributing money” from the rich to the state (the police department), rather than to the general public.

2.2.2 Change Today, Change Tomorrow: The Hybrid Disruptor

Change Today, Change Tomorrow (CTCT), led by Taylor Ryan, started with grassroots donations but has graduated to a hybrid model.

• Private Base: The majority of their revenue (approx. 99% in 2024) comes from contributions.²⁰ This includes grants from intermediaries like the Community Foundation of Louisville.²¹
• Government Contracts: Despite the heavy donor base, they also engage in government contracts, such as a $60,000 contract with the Department for Public Health for nutrition security.²²
• The “Name” Factor: CTCT is a prime example of using “reputational capital.” By hosting high-visibility events like the “Black Recharge” hair show or “Feed the West,” they build the brand equity necessary to compete for both private foundation grants and government contracts.²³

---

3. The Mechanics of Redistribution: Do They “Give It Back”?

The user explicitly asks if these nonprofits “distribute back to people” or “make a name for themselves.” This section analyzes the Statement of Functional Expenses (Form 990, Part IX) to quantify redistribution.

3.1 Direct Material Redistribution (Giving Goods/Cash)

Some nonprofits are designed as funnels: money comes in, and money/goods go out.

• Change Today, Change Tomorrow:
  • Mechanism: CTCT operates the “Feed the West” program and “Pocket Change” initiative. These are direct redistributive mechanisms. They distribute fresh groceries, “Change Kits” (supplies), and meals directly to residents.²⁵
  • Barrier-Free Access: A critical distinction is their “barrier-free” philosophy. Unlike government agencies that require extensive ID and paperwork (means-testing) to release tax dollars, CTCT distributes private/hybrid funds with minimal friction. This is “giving it back” in its purest form—transferring resources from donors to the distressed with little overhead.²⁶
  • Financials: In 2023, CTCT reported $502,270 in revenue. While the specific “Grants to Individuals” line item is not detailed in the snippet, the narrative evidence of food distribution confirms material redistribution.²⁰
• Louisville Metro Police Foundation:
  • Mechanism: The “Officer in Distress Fund” is a direct cash transfer system. The Foundation claims to have distributed over $120,000 in a single year to officers facing catastrophe.²⁷
  • Beneficiaries: The “people” receiving this money are a specific professional class (police officers), not the general public. This is a closed-loop redistribution where donor money supports state employees.

3.2 Service-Based Redistribution (Giving Skills/Support)

Most nonprofits “distribute” services rather than cash. This is often where the “making a name” accusation arises, as services require staff, buildings, and marketing.

• The ACE Project:
  • Mechanism: This organization provides entrepreneurship training, woodworking classes, and healing circles for gun violence survivors.²⁸
  • Financial Support: They do provide “financial support for students to get their business going,” which is a form of seed capital redistribution.³⁰ However, the bulk of their “distribution” is the time of mentors and the use of facilities (the makerspace).
  • Value: Is this “making a name”? To sustain a woodworking shop or a healing retreat, the organization must market itself to get grants. The “name making” is the engine that keeps the lights on in the shop where the service is distributed.
• Teach Kentucky:
  • Mechanism: They distribute Human Capital. They spend their revenue on recruitment trips, university partnerships, and mentorship for new teachers.³¹
  • Relocation Grants: They do distribute a $2,500 relocation grant directly to teachers.¹⁵ This is a clear cash transfer funded by private donors.

3.3 Comparative Redistribution Matrix

The following table summarizes whether the money goes to “People” (Direct Aid), “Programs” (Services), or “The State” (Government Support).

Organization	Primary “Distribution”	Recipient	“Tax Dollar” vs. “Rich People” Source
Change Today, Change Tomorrow	Food, Supplies, Cash	Residents of West Louisville	Hybrid: Mostly private donors, some government contracts.
Louisville Metro Police Fdn.	Cash, Equipment, Wellness	Police Officers & LMPD	Private: Corporations & Foundations (Rich People).
Teach Kentucky	Stipends, Training, Jobs	New Teachers	Hybrid: Private ops funding; Federal/State salary funding.
La Casita Center	Renovations, Food, Legal Aid	Immigrant Families	Hybrid: Significant City/State allocations (Tax Dollars).
The ACE Project	Seed Money, Training	Youth Entrepreneurs	Hybrid: Grants and donations.

---

4. The Sociology of “Making a Name”: Reputational Capital

The user’s query posits a conflict between “distributing money” and “making a name.” Research suggests these are not opposing forces but symbiotic ones.

4.1 The Visibility Necessity

In the nonprofit sector, trust is the currency. A donor (whether a rich individual or a government agency) cannot easily verify if a nonprofit is doing a good job. Therefore, they rely on signals:

• Media Coverage: Being featured in the news or at events like StoryFest.
• High-Visibility Events: Food giveaways, galas, and public spectacles.
• Brand Association: Partnering with established names like the Tommy Elliott Fund.

When Change Today, Change Tomorrow hosts the “Black Recharge” hair show ²³, or when Teach Kentucky touts its “25th recruiting season” ³¹, they are generating Reputational Capital. This capital is what convinces the “rich people” (donors) to write the check that allows the distribution to happen.

4.2 The Role of Intermediaries: The Tommy Elliott Fund

The image provided by the user references the Tommy Elliott Fund for Community Leadership. This fund acts as an aggregator.

• The Mechanism: Rich people and the general public donate to the Tommy Elliott Fund (often managed by a larger entity like the Community Foundation of Louisville).¹
• The Distribution: The Fund then acts as a “wholesaler,” distributing grants to the organizations in the image (The ACE Project, Teach Kentucky, etc.).¹
• The “StoryFest”: This event is the marketplace. The nonprofits “make a name” by telling their stories on stage. In exchange, they receive funding. The “making a name” part is the work required to get the money to distribute.

---

5. Detailed Case Studies

5.1 Case Study: The Louisville Metro Police Foundation

This organization offers the clearest answer to the “rich people’s money” question.

• Sources: It is funded heavily by the local elite and corporations. In 2023, it held net assets of nearly $5 million.¹¹
• Usage: It spends heavily on “Program Services” ($753,290 in 2023), but these services are things like “K-9 Unit dogs” and “Mounted Patrol horses”.¹¹
• Critique: Critics argue that this allows wealthy donors to influence policing priorities (“Platinum Sponsors of Police Brutality”), effectively privatizing aspects of public safety.³² This is a case where “rich people’s money” is used to bolster a “tax-funded” institution.

5.2 Case Study: Change Today, Change Tomorrow

This organization illustrates the “Direct Distribution” model.

• Sources: While they receive some government contracts ($60k from Dept of Public Health), they rely heavily on contributions.²²
• Usage: Their expenses are heavily weighted toward programs (95% in 2021) with very low administrative costs (5%).³³
• Salaries: The Executive Director, Taylor Ryan, received $107,038 in compensation in 2024, representing about 21.3% of total expenses.²⁰ While this is a living wage for a specialized executive, the ratio of salary to total budget is relatively high, which is common in smaller, newer nonprofits where the “staff” is the “program.”

5.3 Case Study: Teach Kentucky

This organization illustrates the “Tax Dollar Manager” model.

• Sources: 99% of their direct revenue is contributions.³⁴
• Leverage: However, every dollar they spend leverages thousands of dollars in taxpayer money (AmeriCorps awards and JCPS salaries). They are a catalyst for tax dollar distribution.
• Usage: They invest heavily in recruitment. Their “distribution” is the placement of teachers into the economy.

---

6. A Citizen’s Guide: How to Look Up and Understand This Information

The public need not rely on rumors to know if a nonprofit is using tax dollars or “making a name.” The federal government requires absolute transparency through IRS Form 990. Here is a step-by-step guide to performing this research yourself.

Step 1: Locate the Documents

You do not need to pay for this information. It is public record.

1. Go to ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (projects.propublica.org/nonprofits) or IRS.gov.
2. Search for the organization’s name (e.g., “Change Today Change Tomorrow”).
3. Click on the most recent “Full 990 Filing” (look for the PDF button).

Step 2: Determine if they use “Tax Dollars” vs. “Rich People Money”

Scroll to Part VIII: Statement of Revenue (usually Page 9). Look at the table “Line 1”.

Line Item	Description	Translation
Line 1e	Government grants (contributions)	This is Tax Money. If this number is high, they are effectively working for the government.
Line 1f	All other contributions, gifts…	This is Private Money. This comes from foundations (“rich people”) or the general public (crowdfunding).
Line 1h	Total contributions	The sum of the above.
Line 2g	Program service revenue	Earned Money. Money they earned by selling something (tickets, tuition, medical services).

Example: If you look at Louisville Metro Police Foundation, Line 1e is usually 0. They run on private money. If you look at a shelter like La Casita, you might see substantial numbers in Line 1e (or in the notes as government contracts).

Step 3: Determine if they “Distribute Back” or “Keep It”

Scroll to Part IX: Statement of Functional Expenses (usually Page 10).

Line Item	Description	Translation
Line 1	Grants to domestic organizations	Money given to other nonprofits.
Line 2	Grants to domestic individuals	Direct Redistribution. This is the “giving back” line. It includes cash, scholarships, and direct assistance to people.
Line 5	Compensation of current officers	Boss’s Salary. How much the leader makes.
Line 11	Fees for services (non-employees)	Money paid to consultants, lawyers, and lobbyists.

Analysis Tip: Compare Line 2 (Giveaways) to Line 5 (Salaries).

• If Line 2 is high and Line 5 is reasonable, they are a redistribution engine.
• If Line 5 is high and Line 2 is zero, they are a service organization (distribution happens through staff work) or, in worse cases, a vehicle for salary generation (though this requires nuance—doctors in nonprofit hospitals have high Line 5 salaries but provide essential services).

Step 4: Check for “Making a Name” (Advertising)

Still in Part IX, look at Line 12 (Advertising and promotion).

• High spending here suggests they are aggressively building “reputational capital.” This isn’t inherently bad—it brings in donations—but if it exceeds their program spending, it is a red flag.

Step 5: Check the “Rainy Day Fund” (Net Assets)

Scroll to Part X: Balance Sheet (usually Page 11). Look at Line 33 (Total Net Assets).

• If this number is massive (millions of dollars) and growing every year, they are “keeping the money” (accumulating wealth/endowment).
• If this number is relatively stable or small, they are spending what they get.

---

7. Conclusion

The landscape of Louisville nonprofits featured in the “StoryFest” image is not monolithic. It comprises distinct financial species, each interacting with “tax dollars” and “rich people” differently.

1. The “Tax Dollar” Myth: Contrary to the belief that all nonprofits live off the government, organizations like the Louisville Metro Police Foundation and Change Today, Change Tomorrow rely overwhelmingly on private contributions. When they do touch tax dollars (like La Casita Center or Teach Kentucky), it is often through restricted contracts that mandate specific public improvements or services.
2. The “Making a Name” Reality: The user’s observation that nonprofits strive to “make a name” is accurate, but this behavior is a structural requirement of the Private Philanthropy model. Without the visibility generated by events like StoryFest, organizations cannot signal their trustworthiness to the donors (“rich people”) who fund their operations.
3. Redistribution Exists but Varies: Direct redistribution of cash is rare but present (e.g., LMPF’s Officer Distress Fund, Teach Kentucky’s relocation grants). More commonly, redistribution occurs through in-kind goods (CTCT’s food) or services (ACE Project’s training).

Ultimately, these organizations serve as intermediaries. They aggregate capital—whether coercively collected via taxes or voluntarily given by the wealthy—and convert it into social goods that neither the free market nor the government has managed to provide alone. By utilizing the tools outlined in Section 6, the public can move beyond general skepticism and perform specific, data-driven audits of the organizations claiming to serve them.

REFERENCES

1. 8 CFR Ch. I (1–1–11 Edition) § 214.3 – GovInfo, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title8-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title8-vol1-sec214-3.pdf
2. Getting Started with SEVP Certification – Study in the States – Homeland Security, accessed January 12, 2026, https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/schools/apply/getting-started-with-sevp-certification
3. 8 CFR 214.3 — Certification and recertification of schools for enrollment of F and M nonimmigrants. – eCFR, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-214/subpart-A/section-214.3
4. Louisville Beauty Academy: Prestige, Trust, and National-to-Local Recognition in Every Graduate’s Hands, accessed January 12, 2026, https://louisvillebeautyacademy.net/louisville-beauty-academy-prestige-trust-and-national-to-local-recognition-in-every-graduates-hands/
5. Louisville Beauty Academy Named One of America’s Top 100 Small Businesses by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — Chosen From Over 12500 Applicants Nationwide – SEPTEMBER 2025, accessed January 12, 2026, https://louisvillebeautyacademy.net/louisville-beauty-academy-named-one-of-americas-top-100-small-businesses-by-the-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-chosen-from-over-12500-applicants-nationwide-september-2025/
6. Louisville Beauty Academy | CO- by US Chamber of Commerce, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.uschamber.com/co/profiles/louisville-beauty-academy
7. Chapter 6 – Employment – USCIS, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-f-chapter-6
8. International School of Beauty Inc – Tuition, Fees, Aid and Costs – Scholarships.com, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.scholarships.com/colleges/international-school-of-beauty-inc
9. International Beauty School 4 Tuition and Costs – BigFuture College Search, accessed January 12, 2026, https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/colleges/international-beauty-school-4/tuition-and-costs
10. Costs of Living | University Housing & the Resident Experience – University of Louisville, accessed January 12, 2026, https://louisville.edu/housing/living-campus/costs-living
11. Living Wage Calculation for Louisville/Jefferson County, KY, accessed January 12, 2026, https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/31140
12. SEVIS I-901 Fee Payment by Western Union Quick Pay Instructions – ICE, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.ice.gov/sevis/i901/wu-instructions
13. I-901 SEVIS Fee – ICE, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.ice.gov/sevis/i901
14. 2025 Kentucky Sales Tax Calculator & Rates – Avalara, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.avalara.com/taxrates/en/state-rates/kentucky.html
15. Sales & Use Tax – Department of Revenue (ky.gov) – Kentucky.gov, accessed January 12, 2026, https://revenue.ky.gov/Business/Sales-Use-Tax/pages/default.aspx
16. Transylvania University’s economic impact bolsters Lexington and Kentucky economies, new study shows, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.transy.edu/1780/2025/01/transylvania-universitys-economic-impact-bolsters-lexington-and-kentucky-economies-new-study-shows/
17. AIKCU report showcases economic impact of independent colleges and universities in Owensboro, accessed January 12, 2026, https://kwc.edu/aikcu-report-showcases-economic-impact-of-independent-colleges-and-universities-in-owensboro/
18. FORM W-1KJC INSTRUCTIONS TAX YEAR 2025 – LouisvilleKY.gov, accessed January 12, 2026, https://louisvilleky.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/w-1kjc_instructions_2025.pdf
19. Forms and Publications | LouisvilleKY.gov, accessed January 12, 2026, https://louisvilleky.gov/government/revenue-commission/forms-and-publications
20. 34 CFR Part 668 Subpart S — Gainful Employment (GE) – eCFR, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-668/subpart-S
21. Gainful Employment – Federal Student Aid, accessed January 12, 2026, https://studentaid.gov/data-center/school/ge
22. Financial Ability – Study in the States – Homeland Security, accessed January 12, 2026, https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/students/prepare/financial-ability
23. Non-Citizen Federal Title IV Student Aid Policy – TeamDynamix, accessed January 12, 2026, https://sju.teamdynamix.com/TDClient/1942/Portal/KB/ArticleDet?ID=52744&SIDs=10224
24. Financial Value Transparency & Gainful Employment (FVT/GE) FAQs – Help, accessed January 12, 2026, https://help.studentclearinghouse.org/compliancecentral/knowledge-base/gainful-employment-financial-value-transparency-faqs/
25. Hair Stylist & Hairderssers Training Program in Japan l TokyoBeautyStars, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.tokyobeautystars.jp/hairdressing-training-academy
26. Cosmetology Visa, what are my options? : r/japan – Reddit, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/4vw7tt/cosmetology_visa_what_are_my_options/
27. Looking for Info about doing hair in Japan : r/hairstylist – Reddit, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/hairstylist/comments/1lhplk3/looking_for_info_about_doing_hair_in_japan/
28. TOKYO TAKE OVER: Cosmetology Students Go Abroad – Wellness – Modern Salon, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.modernsalon.com/366088/tokyo-take-over-cosmetology-students-go-abroad
29. vidal sassoon academy – cosmetology program – BPPE, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.bppe.ca.gov/webapplications/annualReports/2017/document/2900086d-6f5a-4f0d-b065-6d13b7190553
30. Studying at Make Up Forever Academy – my experience – Blog da Laura Peruchi, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.lauraperuchi.com/en/studying-at-make-up-forever-academy-my-experience/
31. Louisville Beauty Academy – Louisville KY – Louisville Beauty College / Louisville Beauty School / Louisville Cosmetology School/ Louisville Nail Technology School/ Louisville Aesthetic School/ Louisville Hair/Facial/Eyelash Extension School – Empower Our Community With Knowledge – The Beauty Knowledge, accessed January 12, 2026, https://louisvillebeautyacademy.net/
32. accessed January 12, 2026, https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/schools/apply/getting-started-with-sevp-certification#:~:text=School%20officials%20must%20complete%20the,on%20the%20Form%20I%2D17.
33. SEVP Certification Frequently Asked Questions – ICE, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.ice.gov/sevis/i17
34. Form I-17 – Pay Fees – Study in the States – Homeland Security, accessed January 12, 2026, https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/sevis-help-hub/school-records/school-certification/form-i-17-pay-fees
35. Processing Time for PDSO and DSO Form I-17 Updates | Study in the States, accessed January 12, 2026, https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/trends-and-improvements/school-certification/processing-time-pdso-and-dso-form-i-17-updates