NCAA Athletics Certification
Second-Cycle Questions and Answers

INTRODUCTION TO SELF-STUDY REPORT

Q:    May an institution use a narrative introduction in place of the form provided in the self-study instrument?  If not, may it use a form to supplement the information requested in the self-study instrument?

A:    The institution should use the form provided in the self-study instrument, since it was created so that the institution did not have to write a lot of narrative and the peer-review team did not have to read a lot of narrative.  If an institution needs to add information, it should do so in this format and keep it as short as possible.

GOVERNANCE AND COMMITMENT TO RULES COMPLIANCE

Q:    In the first cycle, an institution had to have a "periodic"evaluation of its rules-compliance program.  Has this changed for the second cycle?

A:    Division I institutions should note that in accordance with NCAA Bylaw 22.2.1.3-(e), all institutions must undergo a comprehensive evaluation of their rules-compliance programs by an authority external to the department of intercollegiate athletics.  The NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification defines the term "external" as an individual or office that is outside of the athletics department, has no daily responsibilities in any of the areas of rules compliance, and possesses sufficient knowledge of the critical and sensitive areas of rules compliance.  Some examples of evaluators the committee has accepted include an office of internal audit, conference office or the NCAA staff.  In addition, the committee has accepted evaluations performed by other entities, provided the reviewer meets all of the provisions stated above.

Effective immediately for all schools, the committee will hold institutions accountable for the requirement that the outside rules compliance evaluation shall occur at least once every four academic years (as opposed to calendar years).  The committee will review an institution's compliance with this legislation during the athletics certification self-study process.  However, it is the committee's expectation that institutions demonstrate that a rules-compliance evaluation has been performed every four academic years, rather than just in preparation for the institution's once-in-10-year evaluation visit.

Q:   What areas must the rules-compliance evaluation include?

A:    The evaluation must review an institution's entire rules-compliance program (i.e., initial and continuing eligibility certification; transfer-eligibility certification; financial aid administration, including individual and team limits; recruiting; camps and clinics; investigation and self-reporting of rules violations; rules education initiatives; extra benefits; playing and practice seasons; and student-athlete employment) to determine whether, or the extent to which, the rules-compliance program actually is engaged and functioning.  

Q:    Is the peer-review team's review of Operating Principle 1.3 during the evaluation visit acceptable for the once-in-four-years compliance evaluation?

A:    The peer-review team's review of Operating Principle 1.3 does not satisfy the requirement for an evaluation of the rules-compliance program once every four years by an authority outside of the athletics department.

Q:    Is the faculty athletics representative an acceptable external authority to perform the required once-in-three-year review of an institution's rules-compliance program?

A:    The committee has agreed that  the answer to this question might differ for each institution depending on the qualifications and job responsibilities of its faculty athletics representative.  While past precedent has allowed for an institution's rules-compliance program to be evaluated by a faculty athletics representative who is not involved in compliance on an ongoing basis, the committee also agreed that a faculty athletics representative involved in the institution's day-to-day compliance activities would not be an acceptable external authority to conduct the required review.  Further, the faculty athletics representative (or any other individual external to athletics) should not evaluate an area in which he or she is assigned compliance responsibility or oversight.  Finally, the committee has determined that acceptable compliance reviews must be conducted by an authority outside the athletics department who is knowledgeable of NCAA legislation and compliance practices.  

Q:    May a compliance officer who reports outside athletics (to the president) provide the outside review of the compliance program?

A:    No.  The periodic evaluation must be done by an individual who does not do compliance work on a day-to-day or ongoing basis.  Further, the review must be done by an authority outside of the compliance process.  As a result, a compliance committee, including any individual performing ongoing compliance duties (e.g., compliance coordinator, registrar), would not meet the committee's expectations because that group is not external to the compliance process.  Finally, the committee has determined that acceptable compliance reviews must be conducted by an authority outside the athletics department who is knowledgeable of NCAA legislation and compliance practices.  

Q:    How does an institution demonstrate a commitment to rules compliance as a central element to all personnel matters?

A:    The committee determined that in order to demonstrate a commitment to rules compliance as a central element to all personnel matters, compliance responsibility must be referenced in one of the following three documents: (1) contract/letter of appointment, (2) job description, or (3) evaluation form.   

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Q:    How does one interpret Operating Principle No. 2.1 in the "Academic Integrity"section of the self-study instrument regarding the responsibility for certification of academic standing having to be vested in the same agencies that have authority for students generally?

A:   The committee confirmed that the phrase "certification of academic standing" in this operating principle includes institutional good academic standing policies applicable to all students, as well as other aspects of NCAA continuing-eligibility legislation that relate to the student body generally (e.g., determining which courses count toward a degree).  The committee noted, however, that this operating principle does not prescribe how or to what extent the institutional entity that has authority in these matters for all students has to be involved in the certification of NCAA continuing eligibility for student-athletes.

Q:   If an institution is completing the charts at mid-year, how should it compile data for the "three most recent academic years"?

A:    The institution is required to compile data for the three most recently completed academic years.  If an institution wishes to include data from a partially completed year, it should keep that information separate from the three years? data charts.

Q:   What is the definition of "freshman students" in the charts?

A:    According to the federal definition on the IPEDS GRS-1 (which all institutions must complete): "First-time freshmen - an entering freshman who has never attended any college (or other postsecondary institution)."  This includes students enrolled in the fall term who attended college for the first time in the prior summer term.  This also includes students who entered with advanced standing (college credits earned before graduation from high school).

Q:    What definition of "special admit" should be used?

A:    The institution is permitted to use its own definition, but should be prepared to articulate that definition and explain the reasons for choosing it to the peer-review team and the committee.  The institution also should note the provisions of Bylaw 14.1.5.1.1, which state, "A student-athlete may be admitted under a special exception to the institution's normal entrance requirements if the discretionary authority of the chief executive officer (or designated admissions officer or committee) to grant such exceptions is set forth in an official document published by the university (e.g., official catalog) that describes the institution's admissions requirements."

Q:    May an institution have special admissions policies applicable only to student-athletes?

A:    Operating Principle 2.1-(b) requires that the academic standards and policies applicable to student-athletes must be consistent with those adopted by the institution for the student body in general or the NCAA's standards, whichever are higher.  The committee has noted that the result of this operating principle is that an institution's special admissions policies must be for all students and not just a policy for student-athletes.  Any special admissions policy that includes student-athletes must be included in the special admissions policy for students generally.

Q:    How will the committee respond to an institution that has a special admissions policy only for student-athletes?

A:    The committee will not accept a special admissions policy if the policy is only for student-athletes and does not apply to other special admissions categories for students generally or other student subgroups (e.g., fine arts students).

Q:   When collecting data regarding freshman student-athletes who received athletics aid, how should the institution treat data compiled from a sport in which athletics aid is not awarded?

A:    Use "recruited" status data in such an instance. The institution is permitted to use its own definition of "recruited," but should be prepared to articulate that definition and explain the reasons for choosing it to the peer-review team and the committee.  In doing so, an institution should note (or asterisk) places where the reported data includes the "recruited" data along with the "athletics aid" data.  Institutions should note that the NCAA defines "recruited" in Bylaw 13.02.1.1 as "any solicitation of a prospect or a prospect's relatives [or legal guardian(s)] by an institutional staff member or by a representative of the institution's athletics interests for the purpose of securing the prospect's enrollment and ultimate participation in the institution's intercollegiate athletics program."

Q:   How does an institution treat student-athletes who enter the institution during the preceding summer term or at mid-term as it relates to the admissions information reported for Operating Principle 2.1, Self-Study Item Nos. 2 and 3 (Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)?

A:    In responding to Self-Study Item No. 2 (Attachment No. 1), the institution should use the methodology on the graduation-rates disclosure form (i.e., include freshmen who entered in the preceding summer term but not those who are mid-term enrollees).  However, Self-Study Item No. 3 (Attachment No. 2) includes all summer and mid-term enrollees due to the fact that, given the relatively small number of special admits at most institutions, eliminating these students may substantially affect the data.

Q:    Should institutions that do not award athletics aid or that sponsor non-scholarship sports compile graduation-rates information for freshman student-athletes who are recruited instead of gathering data for freshman student-athletes on athletics aid?

A:    Yes.  The committee agreed that institutions or sports that do not award athletics aid, such as the Ivy Group or non-scholarship sports, may compile graduation rates information for freshman student-athletes who are recruited.  As a reminder, when completing Operating Principle 2.1, the institution still is required to provide admissions information (i.e., average core-course grade-point average and standardized test score), but this information can be compiled for student-athletes who were recruited.

Q:    How does one interpret Operating Principle No. 2.2 in the "Academic Integrity" section of the self-study instrument in relation to the responsibility for periodic approval and review of support services by academic authorities outside the department of intercollegiate athletics?

A:    The approval and review of such services needs to be more "active" than merely the passive receipt of "yes " and "no" responses to a written evaluation.  In addition, academic authorities outside the athletics department must conduct the review.  If the athletics academic support services are under the supervision of a unit external to the department of athletics, it would not be permissible for the athletics academic support office to conduct the review.

Q:    My institution provides academic support services to our student-athletes through the academic support program for students generally.  Is my institution still required to review the academic support services unit once every three years?

A:   The committee noted that Operating Principle 2.2-(d) requires academic support programs for student-athletes to be reviewed periodically by authorities external to the athletics department.  The committee discussed whether this requirement should apply to institutions that provide academic support services to its student-athletes through the academic support program for students generally.  The committee determined that institutions that provide academic support services or provide a specific service(s) only for student-athletes must ensure that those services are periodically reviewed by authorities external to athletics.  This requirement is applicable regardless of whether or not the academic support services are provided by a staff within the athletics department.

EQUITY, WELFARE AND SPORTSMANSHIP

Q:    In which areas of Title IX will an institution be evaluated?

A:    As part of the committee's evaluation of the gender-equity and minority-issues areas, the committee will use, in its deliberations and in the training of peer reviewers, a checklist of Title IX areas/requirements and a similar document representing minority-issues areas to determine whether an institution has (1) thoroughly studied itself in the two areas and described how it studies each area, (2) compiled complete data demonstrating its current status/commitment, and (3) established a complete plan for making or maintaining progress with its gender-equity and minority-opportunities positions.  

 It is critical to note that the committee will not be evaluating, nor training peer reviewers to evaluate, whether an institution is in legal compliance with Title IX areas.  Rather, the committee and peer reviewers will be evaluating the institution in terms of whether the school has thoroughly addressed its standing in each Title IX area.

Q:    Must a specific prong be identified by an institution to comply with Title IX?

A:   The committee has determined that institutions are permitted to use multiple methods to accommodate the interests and abilities of its student-athletes to satisfy gender equity.

Q:    Does an institution need to address all 13-program areas for gender issues when developing its gender-equity plan?

A:    One of the self-study items for Operating Principle 4.1 requires an institution to explain how its future plan for gender-equity issues addresses each of the 13 program areas.  The committee has confirmed that institutions should include all 13-program areas in their plans for gender issues.  The committee agreed that for those program areas in which an institution is not deficient, the development of an evaluation mechanism to monitor the institution?s status in the program areas could be an acceptable plan element to meet the committee's requirement.

Q:    How does my institution ensure that salary information for athletics department personnel remains private?

A:    The committee discussed methods to ensure that the salary information for athletics department personnel remains private.  The committee noted that this information is included in the EADA reports in the self-study report that is widely circulated and subject to open records laws.  The committee agreed to allow institutions the option of submitting salary amounts on EADA worksheets in the form of percentages, rather than require the specific salary amount in order to maintain confidentiality.

Q:    When providing the gender and racial or ethnic composition for other full- and part-time professional athletics department staff members, even those not funded by or not reporting to the athletics department, should an institution consider its dance team coach, cheerleader coach and cheerleading advisor?

A:    No.  Generally, a dance team coach or cheerleader coaches are not considered as athletics department staff members.  Examples of an athletics department staff member that are not funded by or do not report to the athletics department include an athletics academic advisor and a compliance coordinator.  In regard to determining generally who to include, an institution should look to its completed certification of compliance form.

Q:    Besides the "green sheet" criteria, what other elements should the minority issues plans include?

A:    All minority issues plans should include goals for expansion of both opportunities and support for student-athletes as well as staff members.

Q:    May an institution state that its gender-equity and minority issues plans are "ongoing" as part of the required timetable?

A:     The committee has determined that institutions are permitted to have "ongoing" timetables in their plans, as long as it is stated by the institution that the plan is at least five years in length.

Q:    What is the committee's definition of an ethnic minority?

A:   The committee uses the same definition as the U.S. Census.  This definition states, "African-American, Asian-American or Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native or Aleut, of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin, or ethnic minority women.  Persons of Hispanic ethnicity are those who indicate that their origin was Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban Central or South American, European Spanish, or some other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin or descent."

Q:   Are Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) exempt from having to complete a minority opportunities plan?

A:    Legal research confirms that HBCUs are not exempt from affirmative action requirements.  Thus, the committee has agreed to apply its standards and expectations equally across all Division I institutions.  Therefore, all Division I institutions are required to develop a minority-opportunities plan for improvement as part of their self-study report.

Q:   How may HBCUs fulfill requirements for minority-issues plans?

A:   The committee agreed that Historically Black Colleges and Universities may fulfill requirements for minority-issues plans by referencing current programs for African-American student-athletes and staff, provided a mechanism for evaluation of each of the minority-issues program areas is addressed and all required plan elements are included.

Q:  Should an institution set specific hiring targets in its plan(s) for improvement?

A:   Operating Principles 4.1-(c) and 4.2-(c) require an institution to maintain a program, or continue progress toward a program, which is equitable for both genders and expands opportunities and support for minority student-athletes and athletics personnel.  Within gender-equity and minority-issues written plans, specific number targets may place an institution at legal risk and are not expected, nor should they be included, in an institution's written plan in either area.  If an institution already has submitted a plan to the committee that includes specific hiring numbers, the committee will not hold the institution accountable for achieving those specific numerical targets.  Rather, the committee advises institutions to submit plans that have broad, flexible, non-numeric hiring goals.

Q:   Is an athletics department required to have grievance procedures specifically for student-athletes or are institutional grievance procedures for all students acceptable in meeting Operating Principle 4.3?

A:   The committee has agreed that institutional grievance procedures for students generally would be accepted as partial completion of this requirement of the operating principle, provided the procedures are available to all student-athletes.  However, an institution's athletics department will need to supplement institutional procedures with procedures for athletics-specific grievances.  Further, all grievance procedures must be documented and clearly communicated (e.g., outlined in the student-athlete handbook) to all student-athletes.

CONFERENCE OFFICE INVOLVEMENT

Q:    May a conference office staff member serve as a member of the institution's steering committee?

A:   Conference offices' involvement in athletics certification is optional but encouraged by the committee.  The role of an institution's conference office is determined by the institution.

.Q:   May conference office personnel participate in interviews during the institution's evaluation visit?

A:    Conference office personnel may participate in the introductory and exit meetings during the institution's evaluation visit.  However, the conference office representative will not be permitted to attend interviews or meetings of the peer-review team.

THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Q:    How many individuals should an institution appoint to its steering committee?

A:     The certification handbook does not recommend a specific number, but does indicate that four individuals are required (i.e., chief executive officer, faculty athletics representative, athletics director, senior woman administrator), with a possible fifth individual being the chief executive officer's designee.  If an institution appoints four more individuals to chair subcommittees, that results in a count of nine.  Most important, an institution has the flexibility to structure its self-study steering committee any way it wishes to ensure balance, broad-based participation and that the work can be completed.

Q:    May an institution's faculty athletics representative serve as chair or vice-chair of its steering committee?

A:    Yes, to both the chair and vice-chair positions, provided the Faculty Athletics Representative is considered by the institution to be part of its senior-management team.

SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY

Q:    What is the definition of "substantial conformity" and how is it determined?

A:    "Substantial conformity" is a subjective term.  The meaning of the phrase is tied to the operating principles.  After an institution has analyzed its responses to the self-study items, it should have a clear understanding of its substantial conformity with an operating principle.  Once an institution has determined its substantial conformity, the peer-review team will make its own determination of substantial conformity based on written materials and the campus visit.  Finally, the Committee on Athletics Certification will make its determination of an institution's substantial conformity by reviewing written materials submitted by both the institution and the peer-review team.

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS

Q:  When an institution has been reviewed previously by the certification committee, but there still are outstanding concerns, how long will the institution have to resolve its "issues?"

A:  The committee discussed its policy of providing institutions approximately one year to respond to committee concerns identified after an institution has had the opportunity to respond to issues identified.  The committee decided to provide institutions six-months to respond to concerns when the institution has been reviewed previously by the certification committee.

Q:    What did the Committee on Athletics Certification mean when it said that peer-review team members will look at the "opportunities afforded to campus groups to offer comments"?

A:   Steering and subcommittee members are representatives of constituent groups on campus.  They will need to demonstrate that various groups (as well as individuals) had the opportunity to provide comments.  This also reflects the institution's commitment to ensuring that its self-study was broad-based in nature.

Q:    May an institution use different three-year periods for data collection either within a certain section (e.g., Academic Integrity) or for different sections (e.g., 1998-99 through 2000-01 for Academic Integrity but 1997-98 through 1999-00 for Fiscal Integrity)?

A:    Within a certain section (i.e., Academic Integrity), an institution must use data from the same three-year period.  An institution may use different three-year periods of data for separate self-study sections.

Q:    How many institutions were certified during the first cycle of athletics certification?

A:    During the first cycle, 270 institutions were originally certified; 34 institutions were originally certified with conditions; and 1 institution was originally not certified.  Since that time, all of the institutions that were not originally certified have taken the appropriate actions to remedy any issues identified by the committee.

Q:    Why do institutions no longer have to include means for funding in their plans for improvement?

A:    Each institution's plan for improvement must be adopted formally by the institution's final authority in such matters to ensure that the plans carry the commitment and support of the entire institution.  It is the committee's expectation that all plans for improvement will be funded and the committee believes that formal approval demonstrates the institution's commitment to fund the plan.

Q:    What is the committee's definition of an academic year?

A:    The committee defines an academic year as the first day of classes for an institution's fall term through the day before the first day of class for the following fall term.

Q:    What is the committee's definition of sport?

A:    The NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification uses the same definition as the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics.

"A sport shall be defined as an institutional activity involving physical exertion with the purpose of competition versus other teams or individuals within a collegiate competition structure.  Furthermore, sport includes regularly scheduled team and/or individual, head-to-head competition (at least five) within a defined competitive season(s); and standardized rules with rating/scoring systems ratified by official regulatory agencies and governing bodies."

Q:    Are institutions required to respond to concerns in their second-cycle self-study report about first cycle required actions relating to broad-based participation and accuracy?

A:    The committee agreed that an institution is required to respond to any required action from the first cycle that relates to conformity, broad-based participation or accuracy.  Further, the committee agreed that an institution responding to required actions related to broad-based participation and accuracy should demonstrate fulfillment by implementing specific steps to ensure the next self-study is completely accurate and has been developed through a process of broad-based participation.

© The National Collegiate Athletic Association