The NCAA News - News and Features

December 8, 1997

Certification panel may require gender/minority-equity reports

The Division I Committee on Athletics Certification has formalized a policy in which it may require institutions, on a case-by-case basis, to submit status reports on gender- or minority-equity plans.

The committee discussed the matter at the request of the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics, which had recommended that each Division I institution be required to submit an annual report to better monitor progress with gender equity.

After reviewing the matter at a November 11 meeting, the certification committee concluded that while a monitoring program may be desirable in some cases, it would be impractical to impose the broad approach recommended by the women's athletics committee.

Instead, the certification committee affirmed that it may determine that an institution is certified but that it may have issues with its gender- or minority-equity plans that need to be pursued. In such cases, the committee would require a status report from the institution.

The committee in some instances has required such status reports in the first certification cycle of Division I institutions. Establishing the procedure as formal policy will not require legislative action.

In reviewing the matter, the committee noted that if it were to require an annual gender-equity report for each Division I institution, it also would be compelled to consider requiring similar updates on minority-equity plans. That would mean that the committee would have to review more than 600 more reports each year, in addition to its main body of work.

Questions also were raised about the extent to which the certification committee would have to act on such reports.

Because of those questions, the committee concluded that a better approach would be to require the status reports on a case-by-case basis.

The committee also took time at its November 11 meeting to look ahead to issues it will face in the second cycle of certification, which will begin in the 1998-99 academic year.

Anticipating that policies, procedures and operating principles likely will change for the second cycle, the committee discussed how it will approach training for peer reviewers. Among other things, the reviewers will need to be trained to assess how gender-equity and minority-opportunity plans submitted in the first cycle have been implemented.

The committee also has discussed increasing the standards for peer reviewers in the second cycle.

The second cycle will require certification once every 10 years rather than once every five years, which means that roughly only half as many peer-review visits will be necessary each year. Currently, there are about 1,000 individuals in the pool of peer reviewers, many of whom are not being used with much frequency.

At its October 19-20 meeting, the committee agreed that it would require peer-review applicants for the second cycle to demonstrate broad, in-depth knowledge of at least one area of certification (for example, with regard to academic integrity, the operating principles involve integration of student-athletes in the student body, admissions and graduation, academic authority, academic support, and scheduling).

Because of the anticipated changes in training and the increased standards for peer reviewers, it is likely that the committee will need to establish a new pool of peer reviewers.

It now appears that institutions that are scheduled at the beginning of the second certification cycle will begin their regular self-studies in late winter or early spring of 1999, which is about six months later than originally planned. Institutions filing interim reports at the beginning of the second cycle would be similarly affected.