The NCAA News - News and Features

August 31, 1998

Division II -- Compliance checkups

Division II attempts to meet its needs through various rules-education initiatives

BY DAVID PICKLE
STAFF WRITER

When Division II defeated the concept of athletics certification at the 1996 NCAA Convention, the membership made a clear statement that it did not believe the division required such an extensive program.

But if an athletics certification program was compliance overkill, what was a suitable alternative?

That answer is now available. Now the question is the extent to which Division II institutions will take advantage of the opportunities that exist.

The consideration of athletics certification took place when the Association was in the process of restructuring. At the time it was considered, it was agreed that athletics certification, if approved, would be viewed as an Association-wide expense rather than funded out of Division II's budgetary allotment, which is 4.37 percent of NCAA operating revenues.

When athletics certification went down with unexpected finality at the 1996 Convention, the division's leadership -- led by Adam W. Herbert, then president of the University of North Florida -- acted to make certain that Association-wide funding still would be available to assist Division II institutions in their compliance efforts.

Herbert and the others were successful in their quest, and the result has been the development of quality rules-education programs that are available at no cost to member institutions.

Compliance reviews

The primary tool is the institutional compliance review. Robert W. Thomas, NCAA senior membership services representative who coordinates the compliance review program, said that 13 institutions have gone or will undergo compliance reviews this year, 10 of them in Division II.

The reviews of the reviews are favorable.

"We are extremely pleased with the service from the NCAA concerning this audit," said Jim Harris, director of athletics at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. "It is well worth the time, it provides you with a series of checks and balances, and it gives you the opportunity to ask questions. And the suggestions of the NCAA representative are very, very good. I would certainly do it again."

The typical compliance institutional review

consists of a four- to five-day visit from an NCAA representative. Some pre-visit assessment work is required of the participating institution, and some follow-up tasks can be anticipated.

The audit is thorough, concentrating on systems that are in place to monitor key compliance areas, including financial aid, certification of eligibility and recruitment of student-athletes. The review also involves an examination of issues related to governance and rules-compliance initiatives, athletics department finances and rules-education efforts.

The first part of the visit involves reviewing compliance-related records and interviewing personnel inside and outside the athletics department who have or may have compliance responsibilities. The second phase involves group discussions in which the vulnerabilities detected during the assessment are identified.

In the case of Alabama-Huntsville, Harris said that most problems could be addressed immediately. "They were simple things that we didn't see," he said. "We moved on several of them right away. Some other things took longer."

Harris said the most substantial project for Alabama-Huntsville involved development of a policies and procedures manual. That job will be completed over the course of a year.

While the remedial element is the most obvious benefit of a compliance review, another attribute is more subtle: An athletics program can be helped by the widespread campus involvement that is inherent in the process.

Chip Sherer, director of athletics at Erskine College, said his program benefited in exactly that way.

"The president, members of the faculty, the registrar's office -- all of those people were involved," he said.

The NCAA representative who handled Erskine's review sent Sherer a list two to three months in advance advising him which personnel should participate.

"I sent a memo to all of them advising them what was going on," Sherer said. "Then I met with them individually so they were ready when the review started."

With all of the advance work, Sherer said the actual review became a meaningful experience for individuals outside the athletics department, enhancing the bond between the athletics department and the rest of the college.

"It was a wonderful experience," he said.

Daniel Audette, director of athletics at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, also said that the involvement with the rest of the campus was important.

"It shows that it's not just us, but that it's the whole campus working together," he said.

Conference involvement

Although the institutional compliance review is one way to accomplish an in-depth assessment of an athletics program, it is not the only means by which an institution can get a compliance checkup.

A variation of the process allows conference offices to administer reviews that can help institutions identify areas that require attention.

Doug Echols, commissioner of the South Atlantic Conference and a member of the Division II Management Council, has used materials and training provided by the NCAA to assist the institutions in his conference in preparing for their institutional self studies (ISSG), which the NCAA requires of Divisions II and III institutions at least once every five years.

"We took the conference-administered review program and really adjusted it to fit our own needs," he said.

Although Echols said the program may uncover substantial problems, he said a more likely outcome would be a correction or improvement in a particular procedure.

"I met with a financial aid officer at a particular institution and they had good procedures, but the procedures were not necessarily written down, and that's part of the ISSG -- that procedures have to be put in writing," he said.

Echols said that institutions experiencing change may want to use the more comprehensive institutional compliance review. For example, new NCAA members may want to use the service. Institutions with changes in key personnel (such as the director of athletics) also may be good candidates for institutional compliance reviews.

Sherer said that Erskine fit both descriptions. Erskine was a relatively new active member of the NCAA, having joined in 1992-93. In addition, Sherer was new to his position.

About nine months passed from the time Sherer requested the review until it occurred. When it did begin, the process was intense. On the first day, Sherer, the faculty athletics representative, the senior woman administrator and an institutional vice-president met with the NCAA representative from dawn to dusk. More meetings followed for the next three and a half days.

Make no mistake. It was a big deal.

And given the demands on administrators at lightly staffed Division II institutions, some may wonder who can afford such an outlay of time.

But Sherer said it is time well-spent.

"It was a major commitment," Sherer said. "But that's the understanding you need to have. You're going to clean up a lot of loose ends in that week of time."

Another conference-related compliance service begins this fall when staff members will be available to make presentations at conference meetings similar to those made now at regional rules-compliance seminars. Carolayne E. Henry, NCAA coordinator of education II, said that Division II institutions will be able to customize a presentation depending on their needs. For more information, contact Henry at the national office or by e-mail (chenry@ncaa.org).

Institutional compliance reviewsCost to institution: None.

Process: Four- to five-day visit by NCAA staff member. Some previsit preparation work is required of the institution. Follow-up work may be necessary to address any problems found in the review.

Primary reasons for requesting a review: (1) Appointment of new personnel in key positions, (2) new membership in the Association or a change in division classification, (3) need for external assistance with a self-study of existing compliance systems, (4) follow-up to a major infractions case or (5) athletics department restructuring.

Nature of the review: Participation is voluntary, and information arising from the process is confidential.

Staff contact: Robert W. Thomas (bthomas@ncaa.org).