April 2011 • NCAA Division I Board of Directors charge: o New program should focus on the student-athlete experience and be simplified, streamlined and technology driven.

• Board adopted emergency legislation to suspend athletics certification activities, effective immediately.

o All active Division I institutions expected to continue to make progress on any plans for improvement during most recently completed self-study process.

2012 13 • Solicit membership input on concepts, possible accountability measures and use of a pilot group of voluntary institutions.

Jan. 2013 • Recommend Board approve legislation that provides basic framework, purpose of new program & required data collection.

2013 • Spring: Continued membership feedback.

• Fall: Data collection for academics, gender & diversity.

Aug. 2014 • Data available for the membership to review.

2014-15 •Data collection for fiscal & SA experience.

•Begin discussions about possible benchmarks.

2015-16 •Finalize decisions regarding benchmarks. If determined to be appropriate, legislation could be put forward for consideration.

2016-17 •Possible benchmark requirements implemented.

• The new program will function not as an accreditation process but instead serve as an ongoing review on the health of an athletics program.

• It will allow for consistency in analyzing data and evaluations among different institutions.

• It will provide a better and more contemporary student-athlete experience.

tool to assess athletics programs and then make changes to improve the • Institutions will no longer be required to produce a self-study report .

• Committee will not render a certification decision .

• Flexible broad-based participation requirement, allowing the chancellor/president to determine who is involved.

• No self-study report created; rather, all Division I institutions will regularly review data in five areas of focus.

• Efficient Web-based/IT infrastructure for input and output of data annually.

• Establish baseline benchmark comparisons on objective information.

flags/triggers where appropriate in each of the five areas of focus based

• Required electronic sign-off by chancellor/president and director of athletics, possibly on an annual basis.

• Eliminate traditional evaluation visit and replace with an issue-focused, “peer expert” review when necessary.

• Develop accountability spectrum with possible corrective actions tied to data and/or outcomes.

• Develop NCAA Division I report card to be shared annually with membership and public.

Measurements: • Data that allows institution to analyze performance in each of the areas.

Benchmarks: • Quantifiable minimum standards of performance for Division I institutions. An institution may be subject to corrective action if it fails to meet a benchmark. These were known as measurable standards in the previous program. Trends: • Encompasses two or more years of data that demonstrate either a positive, negative or neutral tendency. Targets: • Aspirational standards of performance developed using national and regional baseline data. An institution that does not meet a target will not be subject to corrective action. These were known as opportunities for enhancement in the previous certification program.

Academics • Analyze & review data currently available • Admissions profiles • Student-athlete progress • Graduation / outcomes • Academic support services Fiscal • Analyze financial information currently provided as part of NCAA financial dashboards • Review fiscal management & practices • Analyze trends & ranges SA Experience • Centerpiece of new program • Will focus on primary areas for review and analysis • Discussion about possible student athlete survey

Gender

• Analyze and review data currently provided (e.g., NCAA financial reports) • Provide data on student athlete participation, athletics scholarships, resources and student athlete treatment

Diversity

• Provide data for racial and ethnic minorities in the area of governance • Provide data for racial and ethnic minority LGBT, disabled and international student-athletes • Provide retention and hiring data for racial and ethnic minority coaches and athletics department staff

Academics (4) Gender & Diversity (4) CEO, chair Provost FAR Certifying officer Registrar office rep CEO, chair SWA Title IX officer EEO officer Inclusion officer CEO, chair SA rep VP, Student Life Dean, Stu. Affairs Life Skills coord.

Strength/cond.

supervisor CEO, chair AD CFO Assoc. AD for Business Development office rep SA Experience (5) Fiscal (4) One additional committee member will chair overall committee, for a total of 18 members.

• About 80 percent of data used in new program will be gleaned from information already provided to the national office by institutions. Examples include: NCAA financial reports NCAA sports sponsorship & demographic information FGR & GSR data APR data • Program and process will be more robust for reclassifying institutions.

• If an institution falls below an identified benchmark in one of the five key areas, it may trigger electronic notification to the NCAA staff.

o The institution must then take action to improve.

• Corrective actions may include: o Developing a remediation plan; o o Hosting a “peer expert” visit; or Attending an in-person hearing with the committee.

• This will ensure athletics departments are adequately addressing identified deficiencies in the four areas of emphasis.

SA Experience

Ability to compare

• o o o o The gender module is comprised of four dashboards: Student-athlete participation; Athletics scholarships; Athletics department resources; and Student-athlete treatment.

• After a review of one to two years of data, benchmarks (national standards) may be recommended for this area.

• • • • • • • Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Intercollegiate Athletics Governance.

Racial and Ethnic Minority Student-Athletes.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Student Athletes (LGBT).

International Student-Athletes.

Student-Athletes with Disabilities.

Retention Data for Coaches and Athletics Department Staff.

Hiring Data for Coaches and Athletics Department Staff.

• 7 dashboards in three categories: o o o Athletics expenses (three dashboards); Athletics revenues (two dashboards); and Institutional comparisons (two dashboards).

• Alert all Division I institutions to trends and ranges and provide “best practices.” • Assess spending trends and consider various ways to improve.

• Multiple dashboards with a tiered approach.

• Four general dashboards each containing multiple indicators: o Admissions profiles; o Student-athlete progress; o o Graduation/outcomes; Academic support services.

• Failure to meet high level benchmarks will trigger more specific benchmarks that must be met.

•

Health and safety;

•

Team expenditures;

•

Facilities;

•

Athletics department personnel; and

•

Student-athlete well-being

• Reaction to the current recommendations?

• With what frequency should dashboard data be analyzed by the NCAA staff and provided to each Division I member?

o Annually; o o o Once every two years; Less frequently; or Could vary by area.

• What level of accountability is appropriate in the program?

• Other comments or suggestions?

• Troy Arthur, Director o o [email protected]

317-917-6473 • Charnele Kemper, Associate Director o o [email protected]

317-917-6153 • Mira Colman, Assistant Director o o [email protected]

317-917-6633 • Mailbox for asking questions, making comments, giving feedback o [email protected]