Troy Arthur & Matt Maher

Troy Arthur & Matt Maher

We’re Building Something ...Together

NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program (IPP)

Agenda• Background and status report.

• Purpose and definitions.

• Areas of focus.

• Data collection and process.

Agenda• Implementation timeline.

• Outreach.

• How you can help.

Learning Objectives• Understand structure of new program.

• Gain awareness of timeline for implementation.

• Describe differences between old athletics certification program and new IPP.

Background and Status Report

Background• April 2011 Board of Directors charge.

–Emergency legislation adopted.

–New program should focus on the student-athlete experience.

–Simplified, streamlined and technology-driven.

Background• Suspension of current program.

– New program anticipated to begin August 2013.

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.

Purpose

Purpose• Review athletics programs based on

identified measures.

• Data compiled for chancellor/president review and analysis.

• Appropriate accountability measures will be determined.

Definitions

Definitions• Measurement

–Data that allows an institution to analyze its performance in each of the IPP focus areas.

Definitions• Benchmark

–Quantifiable minimum standard of performance for Division I institutions as determined by the NCAA Division I Committee on Institutional Performance.

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.

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.

Examples of Corrective ActionsPossible corrective actions only for those

institutions that fall below a particular benchmark

Opportunity

to Improv

e

Resources

PlansVisit

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.

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.

Areas of Focus

Areas of Focus

Academics Fiscal Gender

Diversity SA Experience

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Data Collection and Process

Data Collection• 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.

NCAA financial reports

NCAA sports sponsorship & demographic information

FGR & GSR data

APR data

Data CollectionNCAA Financial

Reports • January 15 each year

FGR data to Feds • Mid-April each year

Revenue Distribution information • Early May each year

FGR and GSR to NCAA • June 1 each year

SA Assistance Fund & Academic

Enhancement Issues• July each year

Data CollectionSports Sponsorship

& Demographic forms

• August 15 each year

APR data • Six weeks after first day of class

EADA forms • October 30 each year

IPP data for focus areas • To be determined

ProcessStep 1:

Institutions submit data

Step 2:Data review by NCAA research

staffStep 3:

Dashboards released to

membership

Step 4:Institution

reviews/analyzes dashboards

Step 5:Official sign-off

Step 6:Committee

reviewsStep 7:

Implementation of

accountability measures

Implementation Timeline

Implementation Timeline

2012-13: Solicit

membership input on

concepts & accountability measures

2012-13: Voluntary pilot

program begins

Jan. 2013: Board will review and

approve legislation

Spring/Fall 2013:

Continued membership

feedback

Implementation Timeline

2013-14: Submit data for gender, diversity & academics

2014-15: Submit data for fiscal &

SA experience and begin

benchmark discussions

2015-16: Finalize

benchmarks

2016-17: Possible

benchmark requirement

s implemented

Outreach

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

How You Can Help

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).

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.

How You Can Help

What things are you most excited about?

What things are you most concerned about?

QuestionsWe’re Building Something ...Together

NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program (IPP)