1. Main NCAA Title

2. Main Regional Rules Title

3. NCAA Division III Financial Aid
Jeff Myers
Eric Hartung
Presentation Title

4. Why Financial Aid?
Separation of Athletics and Financial Aid Does Not Guarantee NCAA Compliance
Understanding the Expectations
Understanding the Reporting Process
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

5. Overview Legislation Reporting Process Enforcement Reporting Results
Discussion
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

6. Legislation Legislation Reporting Process What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

7. Legislation
A member institution shall not award financial aid to any student on the basis of athletics leadership, ability participation or performance.
NCAA Division III Philosophy Statement
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

8. Legislation Consistent Financial Aid Package:
Must be consistent with the institution’s policy for all students and satisfy four criteria:
Shall not consider athletics leadership, participation or performance.
NCAA Bylaw (a)
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

9. Legislation Case Study
Noncompliance U. has a grant for incoming freshman which is awarded based on a combined grade for: (1) community service; and (2) extracurricular activities. Johnny was graded on the following high school extra curricular activities: (a) drama club; (b) varsity football; (c) president of Dan Dutcher fan club. Johnny received the grant and went on to a distinguished law career but never played athletics at Noncompliance U. Is there a Bylaw 15 violation?
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

10. Legislation Case Study
Yes, it is a violation of Bylaw (a). Even though the award did not go to a student-athlete the institution considered athletics participation in the granting of the award which is impermissible.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

11. Legislation Additional concerns: Consideration vs. Criterion;
Leadership grants; and
Endowments with a stated preference for student-athletes.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

12. Legislation Consistent Financial Aid Package:
2. The financial aid procedures used for student-athletes are the same as the existing official financial aid policies of the institution.
Bylaw (b)
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

13. Legislation Consistent Financial Aid Package:
3. The financial aid package for a particular student-athlete cannot be clearly distinguishable from the general pattern of all financial aid for all recipients at the institution.
Bylaw (c)
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

14. Legislation Consistent Financial Aid Package:
4. The percentage of the total dollar value of institutionally administered grants awarded to student-athletes shall be closely equivalent to the percentage of student-athletes within the student body.
Bylaw (d)
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

15. Legislation Bylaw 15.4.1 analysis: Substantive.
Is the policy free of athletics consideration?
Is the process the same for all students?
Impact.
Does the policy advantage student- athletes?
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

16. Legislation Rating Formula:
Institutions using an admissions rating formula that considers athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance must remove the athletics component if using the rating formula for financial aid purposes.
Bylaw
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

17. Legislation Athletics Involvement:
Athletics department personnel should not influence directly or indirectly, a student-athlete’s financial aid package.
Official Interpretation 8/2/89
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

18. Legislation Athletics Department staff members are prohibited from:
Arranging or modifying the financial aid package for students-athletes;
Serving on member institution’s financial aid committees;
Being involved in a review of a student-athlete’s financial aid package; and
Sending a list of PSAs to the financial aid office.
Bylaw
Official Interpretation 9/19/05
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

19. Legislation Case Study
Assistant volleyball coach works in admissions. As part of her admissions duties she provides students an admission’s score. That score is also used for financial aid purposes (after the athletics consideration is removed). Is this permissible?
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

20. Legislation Case Study
No. Because she is also a member of the athletics staff, she cannot be involved in any rating that is used for financial aid purposes.
Does it matter if she does not rate student-athletes?
No. She cannot be involved with rating any student if that rating is used for financial aid purposes.
Official Interpretation 9/19/05
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

21. Financial Aid Reporting Process
Legislation
Reporting Process
What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

22. Annual Reporting Process
Division III member institutions are required to participate in the reporting process each academic year.
Allows for the comparison of financial aid packages of freshmen and transfer student-athletes with the aid packages of other freshmen and transfers with similar financial need.
Division III Financial Aid Committee is oversight group.
Institutional identity remains confidential throughout the entire reporting process and Financial Aid Committee review.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

23. Level I Review Committee will review an institution if:
Variance estimate is above 4%.
Difference in proportion of financial need met by institutional gift aid is a statistical outlier.
Proportionality Test result is a statistical outlier.
Sport-level variance is a statistical outlier.
Evidence of historical unacceptable variances.
Previous condition of approval or referral to Enforcement Services by committee.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

24. Level I Review Outcome
The Financial Aid Committee’s Level I review will result in one of three outcomes:
No action.
No action but a conditional review in the next cycle.
Move institution to a Level II review.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

25. Level II Review Outcome
Institution’s opportunity to explain their financial aid report.
The Financial Aid Committee’s Level II review will result in one of three outcomes:
No further action.
No further action but a conditional review in the next cycle; or
3. Forward the report to NCAA enforcement for institutional noncompliance with Division III financial aid legislation.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

26. Enforcement Referral
FAC will forward institution’s case with recommendations for appropriate penalties to enforcement.
Enforcement staff may process the referral as a secondary violation or conduct an additional investigation, as necessary.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

27. Enforcement Legislation Reporting Process What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

28. Financial Aid Reporting Results
Legislation
Reporting Process
What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

29. Level I Review Outcomes N %
No Action 2
3.4 23
25.8 64
67.4 48
65.8 45
58.4
No Action with Conditions 10
16.9 37
41.6 3
3.2 6
8.2 4
5.2
Level II Referral 47
79.7 29
32.6 28
29.5 19
26.0
36.4
Legislation
Reporting Process
What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

30. Level II Review Outcomes N %
No Action 18
38.3 24
82.8 15
53.6 11
57.9
64.3
No Action with Conditions 4
8.5 1
3.4
3.6
5.3
Enforcement Referral 25
53.2
13.8 12
42.8 7
36.8 9
32.1
Legislation
Reporting Process
What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

31. Violations Discovered
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
Consideration of participation 12 3 1 16
Consideration of leadership 4 2 14
Unjustified proportionality
Unjustified distinguishable pattern 5
Inadequate justification
Athletics staff involvement
Multiple violations 7 18 9 50
Legislation
Reporting Process
What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

32. Major and Secondary Violations
Category
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
Secondary 18 4 9 6
Pending 37
Major 3 12 40
Legislation
Reporting Process
What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

33. Conclusions
Over five years of reporting, the committee has completed a Level I review of 151 schools (or approximately 34% of the Division III membership). The Financial Aid Committee has assessed at least the financial aid report for more than one-third of the membership.
Additionally, 112 schools (or approximately 25% of the Division III membership) have been forwarded to the Level II review over the past five years. The Financial Aid Committee has assessed the policies and procedures for administering student financial aid of 112 Division III schools.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

34. Conclusions (cont.)
To date, 40 schools, (9% of the membership) have been sanctioned for financial aid violations found by the Financial Aid Committee.
Violations found include:
High school athletics participation included as a criterion on a non-need-based institutional grant.
High school athletics participation considered in a financial aid awarding matrix.
High school team captaincy included as a consideration for a leadership grant.
An unjustified distinguishable pattern of awarding.
An unjustified Proportionality Test difference (i.e., athletes received a disproportionate amount of available institutional gift aid).
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

35. Level I Review - The Process
Legislation
Reporting Process
What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

36. Questions – Level I
What is the process you go through in evaluating the cases?
What are you specifically looking for?
How do you decide if a case should be forwarded on to a level II review?
Based on committee deliberations what are other committee members voicing about cases?
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

37. Questions – Level I
Are there concerns about the burden on institutions?
Any surprises you can discuss?
Do you think the process is effective?
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

38. Level II Review – The Process
Legislation
Reporting Process
What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement

39. Questions – Level II What do you review?
What type of information do you get?
What are frustrations?
Any surprises?
How are these deliberations different than the Level I review?
What are the considerations when looking at potential penalties.
Presentation content slide
Note: date signature in lower left (delete if not using)

40. Questions? Legislation Reporting Process What it is intended to do
How the process works
Enforcement