Nov 10, 2010 8:16:19 AM

All Divisions II and III institutions operating at least one men's or women's sport in Division I must undergo a compliance review every four years. While most schools that fall in that category have yet to complete their first review, those that have are finding it helpful.

The legislation was adopted in 2008, and as of mid-2010, only six of more than 40 institutions required to complete the compliance review had done so. The rule was passed because multidivisional programs are not subject to the same athletics certification process as Division I schools, a process that thoroughly vets a school's adherence to Division I standards.

"The rule was designed to ensure those institutions not subject to certification are following Division I rules in the program or programs they choose to operate in Division I," said Steve Mallonee, NCAA managing director of academic and membership affairs.

According to Bylaw 20.4.4, institutions must engage in a compliance review (at the institution's own expense) conducted by an authority outside the athletics department (such as a multisport conference or outside consultant) once every four years. The entity conducting the review must be approved by the Division I Administration Cabinet, the Division I body that oversees the membership process. The review must cover:

• Eligibility certification (initial, continuing and transfer)
• Governance and organization (for example, governing board policies related to athletics, responsibilities and duties of compliance personnel)
• Academic Performance Program
• Financial aid administration
• Recruiting
• Camps and clinics
• Investigations and self-reporting of rules violations

The review is then subject to approval by the Administration Cabinet.

Nebraska-Omaha is one of the six schools to have submitted plans to the Administration Cabinet. Josh White, compliance director for the Mavericks, wasn't in the job when the review took place in Omaha, but he has experience in compliance reviews at previous institutions and as a national office staff member. White said he thinks people are reluctant to do the reviews because they fear the process.

"Don't be scared of a compliance audit or review – it's not an enforcement procedure," White said. "It's helpful. It's an audit to help schools get better."

White said the review process should begin long before the auditors arrive on campus. An institution (usually compliance staff) must spend time gathering materials for the auditors in all of the areas to be reviewed. The gathering process itself can take time and can uncover areas that need improvement. The actual scheduling of the audit can be challenging itself, particularly on smaller campuses where the task generally falls to the small compliance department.

The process may sound daunting, White said, but actually can be very useful to schools.

"Compliance reviews can be very helpful and rewarding to schools that put the time and effort into it, but also are honest with themselves and realize that they have areas of deficiency," he said. "The compliance review can also give credibility to needs on campus. If a compliance director isn't getting any traction in trying to change something like a procedure or staff deficiencies, they can get some backing from an outside source."

The actual audit can last anywhere from a day and a half to three days, with an exit interview tacked on the end. A report is then prepared by the auditors and submitted to the school. Because of the requirement for multidivisional programs, the report must also be submitted to the Administration Cabinet through Mallonee. Mallonee then coordinates the approval process with the Administration Cabinet.

The reviews must be submitted to Mallonee no later than the end of the 2011-12 academic year. If a review is not completed in the prescribed time frame, the school would be considered to have committed a violation and will be turned over to the enforcement staff to determine appropriate consequences.