National Collegiate Athletic Association |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The NCAA News - News and FeaturesSeptember 14, 1998 Five-year checkup
Division I athletics certification generates views from both sides of fence as end of first cycle approaches
BY GARY T. BROWN
Now that most schools have completed the first cycle of athletics certification -- the diagnostic tool of choice -- some feel it is time to put their own stethoscope to the program. And while most find a healthy heartbeat, there are those within the membership who would prescribe that certification go under the knife. Passed overwhelmingly at the 1993 Convention, athletics certification was seen as the cornerstone of reform targeted to bring Division I athletics programs, like other components of higher education, under the umbrella of college and university presidential control. Since that time, more than 240 institutions have undertaken -- and survived -- the sometimes arduous year-long process aimed at offering peers a chance to hold a mirror up for schools to reflect upon their own programs and implement checks and balances to ensure a level playing field in Division I. A primary purpose of the program as determined by the NCAA Committee on Athletics Certification is to increase understanding of athletics through campus-wide involvement in the institutional self-study. Benefits include heightened institutional control, increased credibility of the athletics program both within the institution and the general public, and the opportunity to share positive aspects of various programs through peer review. The implementation of those goals has, for the most part, been successful, according to R. Gerald Turner, president of Southern Methodist University, whose stint as the certification committee's only chair ended in August. Turner said certification has helped alleviate the trust gap that existed when only athletics department "insiders" really had any idea of how the program operated. By opening the books for self-study and peer review, Turner said institutions have gained more confidence as to the commonality of experiences in intercollegiate athletics. "Certification has lifted the veil of secrecy from programming to try to enhance that degree of trust," he said. "Because there's so much rumor and innuendo surrounding athletics programs, opening the operation up to review and evaluation by peers along commonly held standards gives people more confidence in each other and helps remove some of the suspicion that each campus or conference has for its competitors." Certification was proposed to the NCAA Council and Presidents Commission in 1989. Once a four-member ad hoc Council group created the foundation, 34 schools went through a pilot program in 1990 before the concept was supported at the 1991 Convention. The first scheduled institutions began orientation visits and self-studies in the fall of 1993. Of all the basic principles inherent within the reform movement, certification was the last to be implemented. "And that was the correct order," Turner said, "because all of those principles that we shared had to be hammered out and put into place first. Once that was done, then you could develop a policy to enforce them. Certification is an effort to provide that insurance policy so that the gains of the reform movement would stay alive rather than just fritter away." Worth the effort While securing the integrity of the reform movement through certification may have been an admirable concept, not many who have gone through the program would say it has been easy. The self-study takes about a year to complete. In all, the study focuses on four basic areas, which include 17 operating principles, and culminates in a multi-page report, which is then handed off to a peer-review team. That group combs the document, then spends several days at the institution during an evaluation visit before making recommendations to the certification committee. The process can be expensive and time-consuming. Still, the committee has heard time and again that the benefits are worth the effort. "The majority of those who have gone through the process will point to the benefits," said David A. Knopp, NCAA director of membership services and staff liaison to the committee. "If nothing else, they'll say that the process helped people on campus become aware of all the good things that athletics programs are doing, in addition to the problems. "We've heard from administrators who feel that they've developed stronger allies now across campus. Some universities, in fact, have as a result of certification made fundamental changes in the way they operate their athletics program -- especially from the standpoint of a foundation or booster group that they were unable to bring under their umbrella before but were able to do so through certification." Turner agreed with that assessment. "There are many situations in which presidents have had a difficult time gaining institutional control over their alumni and booster groups," he said. "And the fact that there has been certification in which people did come on campus and in which schools did recognize that, in fact, there were forces outside the institution calling the shots I think has helped dramatically." Turner said that institutional control was a primary factor in the development of athletics certification in the first place. He said the goal was to hold athletics programs to the same kinds of standards that guided other entities within the university -- and that athletics programs should not be allowed to operate separately. Thus, some sort of accreditation for athletics became necessary. "If athletics is to be as integral a part of the university as other important areas are, it needs to have the same kind of credentialing," he said. "The idea for certification was to impose certain standards, or operating principles, that Division I would expect its members to have in operating their athletics programs. "Any major program is reviewed by outside peers to give credibility to its meeting the standards held by that part of the academic community, whether it be engineering or business or the total institution as you'd have in your regional accreditation." Frustrations with process Turner acknowledged, however, that he is aware of those who have been frustrated by the process. Some claim that the institutional self-study inordinately consumes various athletics administrators in terms of time and money. Some point to the way different peer-review teams evaluate different institutions -- particularly in the areas of gender equity and minority opportunities. Some say the interval between reviews should be longer. The committee, in fact, during its July meeting became aware that the Collegiate Commissioners Association (CCA) had posed the question of eliminating the certification process altogether. R. Daniel Beebe, commissioner of the Ohio Valley Conference and a member of the certification committee, said he broached the subject during a June CCA meeting after a couple of his colleagues relayed frustrations regarding the process from various schools. "I was surprised to learn that a number of commissioners feel that their members are disenchanted with the way the program has progressed to this point," Beebe said. "A lot of the discussion revolved around the gender- and minority-equity areas, which are the lightning rods of the whole program. "I take this to mean that we need to have a full discussion about how the program needs to continue." One of those commissioners, Roy F. Kramer of the Southeastern Conference, said that while certification has done some positive things, the process is overly burdensome on staff members in terms of time commitment and money spent. "There's also a concern with the degree of inconsistency in the peer-review system," Kramer said, "because what one group says or looks at may be different from another group. We need to find a way to develop a more consistent approach to that." Kramer said while many of the commissioners had not had the opportunity to discuss certification formally during conference meetings, he encouraged more review within the membership as additional schools are processed. Beebe also acknowledged that the discussion of eliminating certification was not an agenda item during the commissioners' meeting. Still, a straw vote to determine interest in pursuing the issue produced 19 affirmative responses. "Some of those votes might have meant, 'we still think certification is worthwhile but we don't like what it currently is doing,'" Beebe said. "They didn't come in with this being on the agenda." Equity components What Beebe called the lightning rod of the program -- the equity component of certification -- has attracted several strikes. One of four basic areas within the program (the others are governance and commitment to rules compliance, academic integrity and fiscal integrity), the commitment to equity, some say, has become too subjective. Within the equity component are three operating principles stipulating that the institution be committed to fair and equitable treatment of both men and women, providing equitable opportunities for minority students and institutional personnel, and the fair treatment of student-athletes, particularly in their academic role as students. Complicating the task of evaluating an institution's commitment to equity are federal regulations, particularly those entrenched in the provisions of Title IX. "There's such a tightrope to walk there because the federal government is involved and that introduces an element of complexity that you don't have with the other principles," Turner said. "It's an area in which we have to walk with an eye toward NCAA standards and what the government requires. I think in the first year there was some credibility to the complaints, but I think we've worked to where there's now a reasonable level of consistency." Knopp said some schools feel threatened by committing to equity standards that either the NCAA is going to hold them accountable for or that a student or anybody else might bring up in a future lawsuit -- thus in effect providing the paperwork that might later be used against the school in court. Others, he said, have gone as far as to believe that gender-equity and minority-opportunity proponents are driving the entire certification program and that it has become a vehicle strictly to forward those two causes. That, according to Charles Whitcomb, faculty athletics representative at San Jose State University, is precisely why the equity component is so important. "It's a compliment that the equity component is being picked on," said Whitcomb, who also is on the certification committee. "It really says that the attention necessary is now being given to those two areas. All the committee is asking is that institutions be accountable to student-athletes. How difficult is it to plan?" Whitcomb refutes the charge that the committee harbors equity "fanatics." "The committee has worked diligently in preparing peer reviewers," he said, "but we all know that there will be personal biases. Still, the committee's charge is to make sure the reviewers focus on the operating principles. Some people may see us as OCR investigators, but we're not. There are some elements of the gender plan that relate to Title IX, but the committee is there to assist, not investigate. It's there to validate what you've done." Yet, C. William Byrne Jr., athletics director at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, said that even though his school is in complete compliance with the law, Nebraska's equity plan received more scrutiny than he believed was necessary. "Our plan was one of complying totally with the law and it was picked at by the peer-review team because that wasn't enough," Byrne said. "I was stunned by that. Certification started out as a way to make sure schools were in compliance with NCAA rules and regulations, but it has since become a tool for gender-equity enforcement -- and that's become almost its only purpose." Byrne said he has heard "horror stories" from colleagues about peer reviewers coming to a campus with an agenda. But Turner said such instances are rare. "There have been a few teams that have had some leadership problems or someone was trying to implement their own agenda instead of what the membership has said to evaluate," he said. "But that's been less than five percent. We've sent out more than 300 teams, and most of them have done their jobs extremely well." The program was designed to have the committee be the check-point for peer-review teams. There have been instances, in fact, where the committee has rendered a certification decision different from that recommended by the peer-review team. Turner also said it has been a challenge to develop clear standards regarding equity without getting into a lot of legal issues and still meeting the instructions of the membership. "We've had calls suggesting we drop a particular operating principle," Turner said. "And I have to remind them that we didn't add them in the first place. The committee only has the authority to review what the membership has asked it to review." Length of interval Another concern with the program is the number of times schools have to be certified. The program began with a five-year cycle but was revised to a 10-year cycle at the 1997 Convention. But a safeguard was put into place at that time that required schools to submit an "interim report" that allows schools to monitor their own progress and keep communication with the certification committee more regular. The 10-year cycle was adopted in part to coincide with regional accreditation, which all schools must do typically once every 10 years. The risk of the expanded cycle, according to the committee, is that it is increasingly common for tenures of athletics directors and CEOs to be shorter than 10 years. And it is during that type of transition that the committee believes a self-study is critical. The committee feels the five-year interim report, which has been drafted but not yet sent to the membership, at least provides that monitoring base. Byrne, on the other hand, believes the five-year report will be just as cumbersome as the real thing. "Let's not kid ourselves," he said. "Even the five-year 'interim' report is like the pilot program we went through, which was every bit as demanding as the full compliance program." Rudy Davalos, athletics director at the University of New Mexico, said periodic certification may be unnecessary. Davalos, who has been a member of two peer-review teams in addition to being involved in his own school's certification, noted that while the process of self-study is a good one for schools to maintain, at some point each school should be able to monitor itself without assistance. "The NCAA was successful in making universities aware that things were out of hand in some places, and I think people responded to that (by adopting certification)," he said. "But at some point, you have to police yourself and you don't need people coming in. "Fine, the process was good for a year and it made people aware, but as an ongoing deal, I'm not sure -- maybe for the schools who had problems, but schools who were solid across the board probably shouldn't be put through the process again." Future of the program Despite the apparent grumblings, no legislation has been proposed from the membership that would tinker with athletics certification. Whether that means the program in its current state is here to stay is uncertain. But Knopp pointed out that during the same time it was decided to expand the cycle, an extensive survey was distributed regarding certification, including a question of whether the program should continue to exist. Of the more than 600 respondents, 86 percent indicated substantial support for continuing the program after the initial cycle, and various components of the program received a 90 percent satisfaction rating. Turner also said the committee continually reviews the process to try to ease the administrative burden on schools. In fact, the committee has revised the self-study instrument for the second cycle, including a reduction in the number of charts and data requested from schools. Turner said that the very nature of the program is to be evolutionary so that what is being evaluated matches the standards that the membership wants during that cycle. "Those who have a concern about one or more of the operating principles -- rather than killing certification -- should simply work within the membership to have the principle modified," he said. "The empowerment of the membership to modify the process is good to reiterate." "It's normal that whenever you have to go through this type of process you may grumble a little bit," said James E. Halligan, president of Oklahoma State University, one of the first schools to be certified. "It's natural for people to have concerns about how much time you're putting into it, but athletics is such a focal point for so many of the alumni, and making certain we have integrity and appropriate controls in place are so important that I'm willing to go through the hassle associated with preparing for the review." "There are certainly people who don't like it simply because it takes time and it's intrusive and all of the things that any certification process involves," Turner echoed. "And there are certainly people who don't want other institutions going through their programs and making evaluative comments. "I think it's been around long enough now that many people have forgotten the conditions that led to it that I think would revert back were certification eliminated." And those conditions, said Turner, were uncertainty and mistrust. "I don't know that Division I is ever going to trust itself," said Davalos. "There are enough things that happen that warrant that feeling. I'm not sure a certification report is going to take that away. If you're buying players, it's not going to come up during a certification report. It might bring to light some flaws in your process, but not in your character." "All I know is that it was extremely expensive," said Byrne. "If you count the hours of work involved from some very expensive people, I would wager the total cost being well over $100,000, which is more than was promised when we voted on this. I sense great frustration by the people who've had to go through the process." Turner is confident that those frustrations will be abated once the process becomes, as he says, "part of the woodwork." He said the 10-year cycle will help in that regard, and that it is only a matter of time before a comfort level of acceptance is reached. "I believe that its function within a 10-year cycle will meet most of the objections that individuals have had -- at least those that are realistic objections of the process and not just that it exists," he said. "It's still not imbedded in the psyche of institutions. It will be best when it's entering its second 10-year cycle so that it gets to be in the psyche of presidents and athletics administrators. "It would be hard to believe that the presidents would just totally abandon it."
Anatomy of peer-review teamsPeer-review teams generally are four- to five-member teams selected from a pool that includes individuals from Division I institutions or conferences that have a general knowledge of intercollegiate athletics. These individuals must be chief executive officers, directors of athletics, faculty athletics representatives, senior woman administrators or have a recognized expertise in particular areas addressed in the certification program. The CEO will serve as chair of the team whenever possible. Teams are assigned according to the characteristics of the institution being reviewed (for example, public/private, size and complexity of intercollegiate athletics program). A list of potential team members is selected by the Committee on Athletics Certification and sent to the institution nine months before the evaluation visit. The institution may request that particular individuals not be assigned as members of the peer-review team. The committee considers such recommendations but reserves the right to make all decisions regarding final assignments. So far, about 630 different peer reviewers have been used in the certification of 215 colleges and universities.
Certification chronology (through August1998)The following chart lists the chronology of certification decisions rendered by the Committee on Athletics Certification:
|
Five years have passed since Division I voted to impose periodic checkups to monitor the health of its athletics programs.
