Recently I heard someone say that athletics department certification is not working, that the effort in conducting it is not worth the outcome. The reason given was that no athletics program has been closed, or even seriously sanctioned, because of the certification process.

Frankly, these comments show less than a good understanding of the certification process. The goal is not to produce failures or to close programs. In fact, if the certification process did lead to many athletics program closures, it would not be successful. The goal of the certification process is to improve the operations of Division I athletics programs through self-study and peer reviews that measure the program against clear, baseline standards. It is to assure the integrity of athletics programs. The goal is not to punish athletics departments, but to change behavior when needed.

Athletics department certification resembles in many ways institutional and specialized accreditation. Institutional accreditation evaluates universities and colleges on the basis of baseline standards. Specialized accreditation, such as that undertaken by the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association, provides national standards for the education of students in their fields and the conduct of these academic programs. In both cases, accreditation rules are established by the membership. When standards are not met, accreditation requires changes in the institution and program. It is rare that an institution or program is disaccredited. Yet, the time and effort put into accreditation is justified by the assurance that standards are indeed being met and, if not, corrections made.

The underlying rationale for academic accreditation is self-regulation. I am confident that not everyone likes accreditation, especially specialized accreditation. When I served as a Division I president, I shared this opinion. But I understood that if there was not self-regulating accreditation, others visibly external to the academic community would establish the standards, but do so without the deep knowledge necessary for fairness and respectful of best practices. The same rationale obtains for athletics certification. NCAA members are in the best position to establish the standards and assume that they are met.

Note further that accreditation requires only that baseline standards be met. Institutions and accredited academic programs seek to go beyond these baseline standards and achieve excellence. Similarly, athletics certification requires adherence to baseline standards. Successful athletics programs go beyond such baseline requirements and reach higher standards.

The catalyst for athletics certification was the first Knight Commission report published in 1991. The Commission argued that baseline standards should be established for the proper functioning of athletics departments, and a means of assuring that these standards are met should be put in place. In response to this clarion call, the NCAA, through its members, developed the standards. The NCAA membership services staff has the responsibility of providing support for institutional members who undertake certification, as well as the logistics of peer review.

The first round of certification has been completed, and some schools have begun preparation and implementation of the second cycle. There is little doubt that many athletics programs have made changes in their operations as a result of certification. The self-study phase has resulted in effective internal reviews and peer teams have not hesitated to request improvements and monitor the results.

Athletics department certification, like academic accreditation, resembles a vaccine. When it works, no one becomes ill. The vaccine may produce some pain when injected, but that is a small price to pay for avoiding a disabling disease. The value of the vaccine is measured by how many people remain healthy and avoid the disease, not by how many became ill and contract the disease.

Certification has been a successful vaccine for maintaining baseline standards in athletics programs. But just as newer versions of a vaccine can be administered with fewer painful side effects, so too should future rounds of certification be conducted with less intrusion into the work of an athletics department and with more modest time commitments by both the institutional self-study team and the peer-review group.

Over the past several years, certification appears to be increasing its requirements. That may be the natural result from the attempt to be thorough. But, like an improved vaccine, the certification process is now being revised to be more effective, with fewer side effects. Moreover, similar to a booster after an earlier inoculation, the second and later rounds of certification can be simplified.

The NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification, chaired by Paul Risser, chancellor of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, has been studying the best approach to simplifying certification. In particular, the committee is considering reducing the scope of the certification program by eliminating several operating principles, self-study items and/or the interim report process. The group also will increase consistency of peer-review teams by identifying specific issues for them before the campus visit. And this fall, the certification committee will unveil a Web-based self-study system that will result in a reduction in the size of self-study reports and increasing the efficiency of the process for institutions, peer-review teams and the certification committee.

Certification is a critical tool for measuring the baseline effectiveness in educating student-athletes and conducting the business of an athletics department with integrity. Certification provides assurance to those inside the university, as well as external constituencies, that these standards are being met. The process directs institutions to rectify lapses and make improvements where necessary. Like institutional and specialized accreditation, it can be burdensome; but its value is that it both motivates needed change and assures that baseline standards are being met. The fewer ill athletics programs there are, the better the certification vaccine.

Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.