The NCAA News - News & Features

Committee seeks membership's advice on certification process

Some changes -- for instance, incorporating a new requirement on student-athlete grievance procedures and inclusion of a sportsmanship and ethical conduct component -- are required by NCAA Convention actions taken since the certification program was approved in 1993.

However, the committee also wants to take the opportunity to ask the Division I membership for advice on other changes that should be considered.

A survey instrument for that purpose examines the following areas:

* Expense. Individuals will be asked to assess whether the expense is appropriate, considering the benefits realized.

* Length of cycle. The current cycle is five years. The survey seeks to determine what an ideal cycle length should be.

* Guidelines/structure for conducting the self-study. The survey seeks opinions on whether the requirements for membership on the campus steering committee and campus subcommittees are appropriate and also whether orientation visits by the NCAA staff should be required.

* Evaluation visit. Individuals are asked if the current size of the peer-review team is adequate, whether the make-up of the team was well-matched for the institution, if team members were prepared and whether the chair of the review team should continue to be a chief executive officer.

* Certification outcomes. Among other things, the survey seeks reaction on whether the current certification categories (certified, certified with conditions, not certified) are adequate, whether the consequences for failing to correct problems are appropriate, and whether decisions should continue to be made public.

* Timing. Questions pertain to the length of time allowed for completing the process from the orientation visit to the evaluation visit and from the evaluation visit to the committee decision.

* Overall evaluation. Questions include whether the NCAA should pursue agreements with regional accrediting agencies (other than the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, with which it already has an agreement) to link the certification process to the accreditation process and whether the certification process should be continued.

The survey also asks individuals to identify problem areas with the self-study instrument and with the operating principles.

The survey will be sent to peer reviewers and institutional representatives who have participated in the program to date. Members of the Association's governance structure also will be asked for advice, as will constituent groups such as the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association, the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics, the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletic Administrators and the Collegiate Commissioners Association.

However, individuals throughout the membership are encouraged to provide the Committee on Athletics Certification with thoughts they may have for enhancing the process in the second cycle.

A pilot test of the survey was conducted in mid-March. Eleven individuals were asked to complete the survey (seven responded) and indicate the time spent in doing so (about 45 minutes). The Committee on Athletics Certification made adjustments to shorten the survey instrument, which was sent out in late April.

Institutions will be asked to complete and return the surveys by late May.

Through the first three years of the program, 176 institutions have participated in the process; about 120 have been visited by peer-review teams. The remaining Division I institutions will complete their peer-review team visits by spring 1999.

Certification-status decisions have been rendered by the Committee on Athletics Certification for 61 institutions. Of those, 51 currently are certified, including five that have been reclassified from certified with conditions to certified. Fifteen institutions are certified with conditions, and for each, at least one of the conditions relates to the lack of a plan for addressing gender equity or minority opportunities.