Troy Arthur & Matt Maher

1. We’re Building Something ...Together NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program (IPP) Troy Arthur & Matt Maher

2. Agenda • Background and status report. • Purpose and definitions. • Areas of focus. • Data collection and process.

3. Agenda • Implementation timeline. • Outreach. • How you can help.

4. Learning Objectives • Understand structure of new program. • Gain awareness of timeline for implementation. • Describe differences between old athletics certification program and new IPP.

5. Background and Status Report

6. Background • April 2011 Board of Directors charge. • Emergency legislation adopted. • New program should focus on the student-athlete experience. • Simplified, streamlined and technology-driven.

7. Background • Suspension of current program. • New program anticipated to begin August 2013.

8. Status Report • New name for program and committee. • Request for delay. • New timeline for implementation. • Timing for submission of data, analysis of data and accountability measures.

9. Purpose

10. Purpose • Review athletics programs based on identified measures. • Data compiled for chancellor/president review and analysis. • Appropriate accountability measures will be determined.

11. Definitions

12. Definitions • Measurement • Data that allows an institution to analyze its performance in each of the IPP focus areas.

13. Definitions • Benchmark • Quantifiable minimum standard of performance for Division I institutions as determined by the NCAA Division I Committee on Institutional Performance.

14. Definitions • Accountability Measure • Means by which institutions are encouraged to actively participate in IPP to improve athletics programs and enhance the student-athlete experience.  • May be implemented at the institutional, conference and national levels.

15. Definitions • Corrective Action • An accountability measure that may be imposed by the committee on an institution that fails to meet a particular benchmark or standard.

16. Examples of Corrective ActionsPossible corrective actions only for those institutions that fall below a particular benchmark

17. Definitions • Penalty • Accountability measure. • May be imposed by the committee for: • Failure to submit complete or accurate data; • Failure to review data within specified timeframe; or • Lack of demonstrated commitment to IPP values after repeated intervention and all corrective actions have failed.

18. Definitions • Target • Aspirational standard of performance developed using national and regional baseline data.  • Institutions that do not meet targets will not be subject to corrective action by the committee.

19. Areas of Focus

20. Areas of Focus Academics Fiscal Gender SA Experience Diversity

21. Areas of FocusAcademics • Analyze and review data currently provided (i.e., APR, GSR). • Admissions profiles, student-athlete progress, graduation/outcomes, academic support services. • Multiple dashboards with tiered approach. • Strike balance between this module and work of Committee on Academic Performance.

22. Areas of FocusFiscal Management • Analyze financial information currently provided as part of NCAA Financial Dashboards. • Review fiscal management and practices. • Analyze trends and ranges. • Seven dashboards in three categories. • Assess spending trends and consider various ways to improve.

23. Areas of FocusGender • Analyze and review data currently provided (i.e., NCAA financial reports). • Provide data on student-athlete participation, athletics scholarships, resources and student-athlete treatment.

24. Areas of FocusDiversity • Racial and ethnic minorities in the area of governance; racial and ethnic minority LGBT, disabled and international student-athletes. • Retention and hiring data for racial and ethnic minority coaches and athletics department staff.

25. Areas of FocusStudent-Athlete Experience • Centerpiece of new program. • Possible student-athlete survey administered by NCAA national office. • Will focus on primary areas for review and analysis. • Health and safety, team expenditures, facilities, athletics personnel and student-athlete well-being.

26. Data Collection and Process

27. NCAA financial reports Data Collection NCAA sports sponsorship & demographic information • About 80 percent of data used for IPP will be captured from information already provided. • Program and process will be more robust for reclassifying institutions. FGR & GSR data APR data

28. Data Collection

29. Data Collection

30. Process

31. Implementation Timeline

32. Implementation Timeline

33. Implementation Timeline

34. Outreach

35. Outreach • 31 in-person meetings or webinars with Division I conferences • Spring and summer 2012 • 9 external/professional group meetings/conferences • Spring, summer and fall 2012 • Your feedback needed • Summer 2012

36. How You Can Help

37. How You Can Help • What frequency should dashboard data be analyzed by the committee and provided to each Division I member? • Annually; • Once every two years; • Less frequently; or • Could vary by area (e.g., the areas of gender/diversity could be annual; academic could be every three years).

38. How You Can Help • What level of accountability is appropriate in the new program? • Options include: • Information and campus-driven review model; • Phase-in benchmarks over several years; • Immediate benchmark requirements in all areas; or • Benchmarks in some area(s) only.

39. How You Can Help

40. Questions We’re Building Something ...Together NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program (IPP)