The Division II strategic-initiative grant program provides member schools and conferences with badly needed funding, often helping to fill needs that are not met through traditional budgeting.

Some say the program works, almost ironically, because it is small and succeeds in meeting micro needs. Others generally support the program but believe that the membership would benefit if the fund could help underwrite operational expenses.

“Small” is a relative term, of course. Next year, the Division II strategic-initiative grant program will pay out $2.8 million, which is still considered significant money by most standards. But that $2.8 million is split among all 22 Division II conferences and then divided among their member schools.

That comes to an average of less than $10,000 per school, a tiny fraction of the budget for any Division I-A athletics program. But Tom Brown, commissioner of the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, argues that less can be more in the Division II world.

“The smaller dollars that we have are so important in a lot of respects to our schools,” he said, “much more so than in the Division I programs where they have so much more staffing. They have to do things differently and typically have the money to do it, especially if they are high revenue-producing in football and basketball.

“But I have always felt that these smaller dollars that we get are used well. They don’t get lost in the shuffle.”

Here is how the Division II strategic-initiative grant fund works:

All active conferences will receive a base amount of $85,000 for 2006-07. “Premiums” will be paid for each member above five — $12,000 for the sixth member and $4,000 for each member thereafter. Thus, a conference with 14 members will be eligible for $129,000 (the $85,000 base plus $44,000 in premiums).

The Division II Budget and Finance Committee’s policy requires that at least 65 percent of the allocation be directed to fund three required grant areas: conference diversity, compliance and governance-structure enhancements; student-athlete enhancements; and academic-support enhancements. The remaining 35 percent may be used for other purposes, including officiating, promotions/identity enhancement, technology improvements, professional-development programs, sportsmanship enhancements, consortiums with other conferences, and consultant fees to support Division II strategic-plan priorities.

Using the previous example, the institutional average for a 14-member conference would be $9,214 — hardly enough to bring about a change in philosophy, but an adequate amount to acquire important goods or services that were not attainable in traditional budgeting.

For instance, one conference used strategic-initiative grant money to purchase compatible computers and software to enhance statistical compilations and reporting. Another conference acquired heart defibrilators for athletics programs that did not already possess them. Many institutions have used the strategic-initiative grants to enhance academic tutoring, and with good results; the GLIAC’s Brown said that improving graduation rates in Division II may be attributable in part to increased academic support.

More latitude desired

The approach is quite targeted, however, with the intent of developing initiatives identified in the Division II strategic plan. The grant program is not designed to offset conference office operating expenses.

Those facts lead to a chicken-and-egg circumstance: The initiatives identified in the plan are needed, but they may not be as effective unless they are adequately staffed. Some say that they could be better staffed if Division II removed some of the restrictions on the strategic-initiative grant program. But if the  program is used to fund operating expenses, there won’t be as much money left to support the programs themselves.

Alan Patterson, commissioner of the Carolinas-Virginia Athletics Conference, is among those who believes the program should have more latitude to deal with operational needs.

“We look at the grant, and we say that it enhances only when it does particular things, like when it sends us to a convention of a conference or something like that,” he said. “We forget sometimes that enhancement grants can provide the basis for all of the things that we do.”

As an example, he cited the CVAC’s new position of assistant commissioner for internal operations, which was made possible through Division II’s strategic-alliance matching grant program. The position has helped the CVAC more effectively manage programs involving faculty athletics representatives, senior woman administrators and student-athlete advisory committees. At the same time, the tiered NCAA support provided through the matching-grant program (75 percent the first year, 50 percent the second, 25 percent the third and final year) is winding down.

“We’re not going to be able to use this money to fund that position over a long period of time,” he said. “Well, that position will be important to us for the foreseeable future.”

The GLIAC’s Brown feels Patterson’s pain, but he strongly believes that the strategic-initiative grants should remain exclusively programmatic.

“My position is that (money for staffing) is something that the schools and conferences have to come up with,” he said. “If they don’t, they’ll never climb the ladder to get the appropriate staffing.”

Making a difference

The discussion largely reveals where the conferences stood in the evolution process a decade ago when Division II began making money available through the Division II enhancement fund (now $4.8 million annually), the strategic-initiative grants and the strategic alliance matching-grant program. Some conference offices were quite advanced when the grant programs were initiated, but others were nascent.

In the case of the CVAC, Patterson noted that the commissioner post was part-time as recently as 10 years ago. The only full-time position at the time was for the conference sports information director. Now, the commissioner position is full-time, and so are the SID and assistant director for internal operation positions. “We wouldn’t come close to those positions if not for grants from Division II,” he said. “I can’t say enough about how we have been assisted.”

But Patterson said his conference continues to need help.

Steve Murray, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference, understands both sides of the discussion. He noted the difficulties he has experienced with getting a fourth full-time person into his office, as is recommended by the Division II model conference program.

“I think there’s a way to get it, and that’s going for the matching grant,” he said. “But that’s very competitive. There are 25 or 30 applicants annually, and only six or seven get it ... If for a year or two I could tap in for a position, it might help get me over the hump.”

Despite that perspective, Murray strongly supports the more directed nature of the strategic-initiative grant program. “These grants are pretty specific, and I think that’s important,” he said. “I don’t think that conferences should be given carte blanche by saying, ‘Here’s $100,000 — go do whatever you want.’ Accountability is a good thing. But within that, there is a lot of flexibility. It’s tightened up a little recently, but the menu system that we have is a positive thing.”

Robert C. Brown, president of Arkansas Tech University and a member of the Budget and Finance Committee, says the program succeeds because the conferences submit thoughtful proposals, because the staff provides excellent support and because the committee takes its review role seriously.

“I don’t think any decision this committee makes is undertaken lightly,” Arkansas Tech’s Brown said. “It ultimately works for the betterment of the membership, and that’s what we’re trying to get done.”

Could that betterment of the membership be achieved more effectively if Division II blurred the lines among its various institutional and conference grant programs and encouraged them to complement one another?

The GLIAC’s Brown says no.

“I really think they need to be independent,” he said. “The enhancement fund goes to the conferences...hopefully to hold down the dues that we have to charge each school. That’s an important issue that can be handled as the executive council of each conference decides.”

That position is supported by a 2001 budget document that clarified how the enhancement fund was to be used: “The Management Council and Presidents Council believe that conferences should look for ways to use the increased revenue (the fund was increasing $1.5 million at the time) to address conference office operation issues and not use such funds for direct distribution to member schools.”

Brown said that leads to an implicit conclusion that the strategic-grant program is different.

“The strategic initiatives, I look at that as a different kind of thing because you’re allowed to spend the money in several different ways. It doesn’t have to be evenly split. In fact, I’ve preferred not to split it evenly among the schools of the conference. Some might have a higher need for some money and they might get more, and some who don’t need it in a particular program might get less.”

Arkansas Tech’s Brown says the program is working and that the division should build on a successful approach.

“I’m one of the chief advocates of this conference grant program,” he said. “We’ve done some enhancements that have been key to Division II and have helped us realize the objectives we established for student-athlete welfare and for the identify of the division.”

Regardless of what the future holds, that stands as a big success for a small fund.

2006-07 Division II institutional and conference grants and funds

Division II enhancement fund        $4,800,000

• Distributed to Division II conferences and institutions. No restrictions on use. Two-thirds of the funding goes to conferences based on sports sponsorship and their success in the Division II Men’s and Women’s Basketball Championships. The remaining third is divided equally among Division II member institutions.

Division II strategic-initiative grants      $2,800,000

• Available funding provided pro rata to member conferences. Budget and Finance Committee must approve the grants; conferences are required to file follow-up reports.

Strategic-alliance matching grants $550,000

• A competitive grant program designed to enhance gender and ethnic diversity. All conferences and institutions are eligible to compete for about 10 grants annually.

Coaches enhancement grants        $320,000

• A competitive grant program designed to enhance ethnic diversity within coaching. About 20 grants are awarded every other year.

PSAC to use grant money to direct student-athletes toward officiating opportunities 

Officiating development is something of a nonprioritized priority within college athletics.

Athletics administrators are keenly aware that quality game officials are hard to find — and that they are getting more difficult to acquire with each passing year. But as for actions designed to fill that need ... suffice to say that they have been limited.

The Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference plans to put its money where the problem is by using part of its 2006-07 Division II strategic-initiative funding to  begin addressing the issue.

The program, which will go by the name of START (Student-Athletes of Today Are Referees of Tomorrow), is based on the premise that student-athletes are best positioned to fill the impending void of game officials. The belief is that student-athletes likely would be enthusiastic about officiating but that they seldom consider the possibility.

“We’re just anticipating the problem,” said Commissioner Steve Murray. “I go to a lot of high school and junior high games just from my son playing. Some of those folks are going to officiate in our league 10 or 15 years from now. I see what’s there, and I know they struggle to get them.

“Our officials are going to have to start with these ninth-grade junior high volleyball games and work their way up. So we’ve got to think about it right now for 20 years from now.”

Murray envisions a program that would invite student-athletes from the PSAC region to attend a seminar at which experts on game officiating would describe the commitment and how those who are interested in an officiating career should proceed.

“We would charge a very small fee, maybe to cover a lunch, and open it up to student-athletes or students at other schools in Pennsylvania,” Murray said. “We’re here at Lock Haven, and we’ve got Penn State 20 miles away, along with many other private schools.”

Murray said he has discussed the concept with national officials groups and also the Pennsylvania high school athletics association. All parties have said they are willing to help with the program.

“We would bring in somebody from the NBA or maybe the NFL to make a presentation about the cool things about officiating,” he said. While the seminar obviously would not punch a ticket for a student-athlete to officiate next year’s Super Bowl, it could at least get him (or her) on the right path.

Murray said he has budgeted $10,000 for the program.

He also is considering another seminar to discuss sportsmanship issues — a topic that relates directly to the diminishing pool of game officials.

“We’ve got to talk to our people about sportsmanship,” Murray said. “Would you become an official for $160 a night so you can drive on mountain roads in Pennsylvania in February just to get yelled at for two hours? That’s part of the equation as well.”

Last year, the PSAC used Division II strategic-initiative grant money to host a symposium on women’s athletics issues. Murray said he plans to reproduce that event — which attracted some of the top names in women’s athletics administration — every other year, possibly alternating with the game-official symposium.