The NCAA News - News & Features

Certification program goes an extra mile to clarify 'plan' questions

BY DAVID PICKLE
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

The NCAA Division I athletics certification program is now about halfway through its first five-year cycle, and although the process still may not be universally loved, it appears to have earned respect.

The benefits that were projected when the program was in the discussion stage have become reality. Institutions have undergone self-studies rigorous enough to stand up under peer review, and they have identified problems that need mending. At the same time, the self-study, which involves representatives from throughout the campus, has given athletics departments an opportunity to build a communication bridge to the rest of the campus community.

Generally, all the good work has received a corresponding reward. In 54 of the 70 cases considered to date, the NCAA Committee on Athletics Certification has determined that the institution under review is fully certified.

But in the other 16 cases, full certification has been delayed, sometimes to the consternation of the involved institution.

In all but one of those cases, institutions have been cited for problems under the commitment-to-equity operating principles. More specifically, four have been cited for not having a gender-equity plan, three for not having a minority-opportunity plan and eight for having neither.

It is by far the biggest reason for failing to achieve full certification. In reviewing the 70 institutions, the committee has not granted full certification for other causes in only four cases.

Given the disproportionate trouble in the commitment-to-equity area, the Committee on Athletics Certification has taken a flexible approach. It has reviewed the problem, provided clarifications and developed more specificity. Still, only the most recent round of certification announcements did not include an institution that was certified with conditions because of inadequate gender-equity or minority-opportunity plans.

Committee members say that in some cases, institutions truly have had gender-equity and minority-opportunity problems that needed attention. In other cases, the primary factor was merely a failure to communicate.

Frederick W. Obear, chancellor at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, and a member of the certification committee, noted that commitment to equity is the only one of the four areas in which the operating principles require a plan. That is significant, because most of the confusion has centered on the seemingly simple question of what constitutes a "plan."

When the committee began its first deliberations in February 1995, the committee used a "standard of reasonableness" to clarify what constituted a plan: (1) A plan would have to be in writing and (2) it would have to be developed through a process that reflected broad-based campus participation.

Certification committee member Charlotte West, associate athletics director at the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale, acknowledged that determining what constituted a plan was a problem early on, but she said that it would have been unreasonable to expect such a large undertaking to be trouble-free.

"Not only was it the first time for the schools to go through the process," she said, "it also was the first time for the peer-review teams and for the committee. Everybody had to get a baseline established."

Along with the original clarification, the committee moved to reiterate existing guidelines to lessen ambiguity. It specified that, as with all "plans for improvement" in the certification program, the equity plans would need to (1) describe the intended results, (2) identify the individuals or offices responsible for taking specific actions, and (3) establish a timetable for completing the work.

The problem persisted, so the committee developed new language to elaborate on the minimum requirements:

"Plans should reflect where the institution is currently, where the institution wants to be and how the institution intends to move from one status to the other. Institutions can address these elements by clearly specifying: (1) The issues confronting the institution that were identified during the self-study, (2) the goals the institution hopes to achieve and (3) the steps involved in reaching those objectives."

With that help, more institutions developed acceptable plans. However, the committee began to notice that in some instances, it was not clear which campus entities within an institution's governance structure "signed off" on the plan. That prompted the committee to provide the following direction regarding institutional approval: "The plans shall be formally adopted by the institution's final authority in such matters to ensure that they carry the commitment and support of the entire institution."

Committee chair R. Gerald Turner, president of Southern Methodist University, said some institutions are genuinely confused about what Title IX requires and may be reluctant to make formal commitments as part of the commitment-to-equity section. Obear agrees.

However, Turner said other schools simply have deficiencies in the gender-equity area. "Some institutions just haven't addressed Title IX," he said.

As for minority opportunities, several institutions have submitted institutional affirmative-action plans in an attempt to satisfy the operating principle on that topic. The committee's response has been that while such plans can serve as the framework to demonstrate commitment to minority opportunities, the institution still would be required to relate the institution's overall minority plan specifically to intercollegiate athletics.

A particular problem, the committee noted, is that affirmative action plans are geared toward hiring minority staff. While that would help support an institution's commitment to equity, the operating principle also requires equitable opportunities for minority student-athletes to be addressed. The committee therefore determined that an institution-wide affirmative action plan is acceptable if it (1) includes a specific reference to the intercollegiate athletics program, (2) satisfies the committee's minimum expectations for a plan, and (3) addresses minority opportunities for student-athletes, as well as athletics staff.

West believes that because the committee is now providing greater specificity, and because peer-review teams are better trained, fewer institutions will be adversely affected in the future by the failure to have adequate gender-equity or minority-opportunity plans.

"I believe that problem is behind us," she said. "I feel that very sincerely."

But even for those institutions that were affected, Obear said the experience was not necessarily a bad one. In at least one case, an institution regarded its failure to achieve full certification as a wake-up call.

"One institution that was placed in conditional status a year ago came back with an incredible response," he said. "It was well beyond what the committee required. It was simply outstanding."

Good-faith effort

That is in keeping with the spirit of the program, which is to make a good-faith effort to identify weaknesses and to construct plans to remedy the situation.

"Speaking as a member of the committee and as head of a campus that recently completed the process, I can say that the program is working extremely well," Obear said.

"Out of our year-long self-study, we found out things about ourselves that needed strengthening and tightening. We had three faculty members and two staff members head the subcommittees, and they surrounded themselves with a broad-based representation of the campus, including students, faculties and trustees. Out of that came a greater understanding of athletics at our institution."

Turner also said the program is working well, acknowledging that athletics administrators do not always welcome the additional work.

"Athletics directors and others who are involved already have a lot of paperwork to do and don't necessarily want to go through another process," he said. "But even they would tell you that the program is good on a broad scale. A common reaction might be, 'It's good for everybody else, but we really don't need it here.' "

Because she is active in athletics administration work on a national basis, West is familiar with that attitude. She counts herself, however, among the program's primary advocates.

"I continue to be excited about it," she said. "This is a good exercise for the membership. Most institutions that have been through the process have seen a real worth in it."

* * *

The committee is in the process of surveying the membership to determine what changes are appropriate for the second cycle. Individuals interested in more information can contact David A. Knopp, director of compliance services, at the national office.