NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program (IPP)

1. NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program (IPP)

2. Background April 2011 • NCAA Division I Board of Directors charge: • New program should focus on the student-athlete experience and be simplified, streamlined and technology-driven. • Board adopted emergency legislation to suspend athletics certification activities, effective immediately. • All active Division I institutions expected to continue to make progress on any plans for improvement during most recently completed self-study process.

3. Timeline

4. Timeline

5. New Approach • The new program will function not as an accreditation process but instead serve as an ongoing review on the health of an athletics program. • It will allow for consistencyin analyzing data and evaluations among different institutions. • It will provide a better and more contemporary tool to assess athletics programs and then make changes to improve the student-athlete experience. • Institutions will no longer be required to produce a self-study report. • Committee will not render a certification decision.

6. Key Recommendations • Flexible broad-based participation requirement, allowing the chancellor/president to determine who is involved. • No self-study report created; rather, all Division I institutions will regularly review data in five areas of focus. • Efficient Web-based/IT infrastructure for input and output of data annually. • Establish baseline benchmark comparisons flags/triggers where appropriate in each of the five areas of focus based on objective information.

7. Key Recommendations • Required electronic sign-offby chancellor/president and director of athletics, possibly on an annual basis. • Eliminate traditional evaluation visit and replace with an issue-focused, “peer expert” review when necessary. • Develop accountability spectrum with possible corrective actions tied to data and/or outcomes. • Develop NCAA Division I report card to be shared annually with membership and public.

8. Working Definitions Measurements: • Data that allows institution to analyze performance in each of the areas. Benchmarks: • Quantifiable minimum standards of performance for Division I institutions. An institution may be subject to corrective action if it fails to meet a benchmark. These were known as measurable standards in the previous program. Trends: • Encompasses two or more years of data that demonstrate either a positive, negative or neutral tendency. Targets: • Aspirational standards of performance developed using national and regional baseline data. An institution that does not meet a target will not be subject to corrective action. These were known as opportunities for enhancement in the previous certification program.

9. Focus Areas

10. Focus Areas

11. Proposed Committee Structure CEO, chair Provost FAR Certifying officer Registrar office rep Academics (4) SA Experience (5) Fiscal (4) Gender & Diversity (4) One additional committee member will chair overall committee, for a total of 18 members.

12. Things to Know • About 80 percent of data used in new program will be gleaned from information already provided to the national office by institutions. Examples include: • Program and process will be more robust for reclassifying institutions.

13. Things to Know • If an institution falls below an identified benchmark in one of the five key areas, it may trigger electronic notification to the NCAA staff. • The institution must then take action to improve. • Corrective actions may include: • Developing a remediation plan; • Hosting a “peer expert” visit; or • Attending an in-person hearing with the committee. • This will ensure athletics departments are adequately addressing identified deficiencies in the four areas of emphasis.

14. End Results

15. Gender Focus Areas • The gender module is comprised of four dashboards: • Student-athlete participation; • Athletics scholarships; • Athletics department resources; and • Student-athlete treatment. • After a review of one to two years of data, benchmarks (national standards) may be recommended for this area.

16. Diversity Focus Areas • Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Intercollegiate Athletics Governance. • Racial and Ethnic Minority Student-Athletes. • Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Student-Athletes (LGBT). • International Student-Athletes. • Student-Athletes with Disabilities. • Retention Data for Coaches and Athletics Department Staff. • Hiring Data for Coaches and Athletics Department Staff.

17. Fiscal Management Focus Areas • 7 dashboards in three categories: • Athletics expenses (three dashboards); • Athletics revenues (two dashboards); and • Institutional comparisons (two dashboards). • Alert all Division I institutions to trends and ranges and provide “best practices.” • Assess spending trends and consider various ways to improve.

18. Academic Focus Areas • Multiple dashboards with a tiered approach. • Four general dashboards each containing multiple indicators: • Admissions profiles; • Student-athlete progress; • Graduation/outcomes; • Academic support services. • Failure to meet high level benchmarks will trigger more specific benchmarks that must be met.

19. Student-Athlete Experience Focus Areas • Health and safety; • Team expenditures; • Facilities; • Athletics department personnel; and • Student-athlete well-being

20. Key Questions for Today • Reaction to the current recommendations? • With what frequency should dashboard data be analyzed by the NCAA staff and provided to each Division I member? • Annually; • Once every two years; • Less frequently; or • Could vary by area. • What level of accountability is appropriate in the program? • Other comments or suggestions?

21. Who to Contact • Troy Arthur, Director • tarthur@ncaa.org • 317-917-6473 • Charnele Kemper, Associate Director • ckemper@ncaa.org • 317-917-6153 • Mira Colman, Assistant Director • mcolman@ncaa.org • 317-917-6633 • Mailbox for asking questions, making comments, giving feedback • certification@ncaa.org

22. NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program (IPP)