2. The Athletics Review Process — Are We Doing What We Say We Are Doing?

3. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Presenters  Betsy Mitchell Betsy Mitchell Consulting  Mike Clary Director of Athletics ･ Rhodes College  George VanderZwaag Director of Athletics ･ University of Rochester  Moderator: Debbie Lazorik Director of Athletics ･ Marietta College

4. The Athletics Review Striving for Program Excellence Betsy Mitchell

5. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Why an athletic department review?  Intense competition for students and dollars in member institutions  Required focus on efficiency and effectiveness  Need to modernize the role of athletics as critical to a healthy institution.  Meaningful integration of athletics is a unique “best practice” for each member.

6. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Why review continued…  Well articulated athletic curriculum makes strong case for place of athletics.  Programs must be able to clearly articulate their mission and curriculum in order to justify their existence and expenditure.  Division philosophy and uniqueness must be focused on the curricular side of equation

7. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators When should a review be considered?  Prior to accreditation review  Part of regular college rotation  Strategic planning for entire institution  Preparation for capital campaign  Major financial decisions  Adding or reducing program  Long term staff members transition  Title IX concerns or challenges  Keeping with historic “best practices”

8. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators What is included in a review?  Institution and department mission/vision  Communication with constituencies  Objective and subjective data analysis  360 degree view  Do we walk our talk?  Policies, procedures, perception

9. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators How should the review be done?  Internal: department, administrative, committee  Peer review: comparative  Include external components: objective without competitive fear  With goals and outcomes in mind  Including the highest levels of institution

10. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Benefits of an external consultant or review process facilitator.  Objective rather than subjective.  Comparative without loss of competitive advantage.  Professional not personal.  Facilitation.  Professional support for athletic director.

11. Peer Review Mike Clary Director of Athletics Rhodes College

12. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Invitation and Support by Chief Executive Officer  Provides commitment at the highest level  Stresses importance of the review  Ensures access to various campus groups

13. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Institutional Liaison  An administrator, perhaps cabinet level, who can facilitate access, objectivity and logistical support

14. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Composition of Committee  Two (2) Director’s of Athletics from peer schools that are highly selective, national liberal arts schools  Retired President from institution within conference  Emeritus member of Board of Trustees and former student-athlete  Former student-athlete who is an assistant coach at a Division I institution  Retired Women’s Director of Athletics at a highly selective Division I institution and a former student-athlete

15. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Institutional Internal Review  Survey which provided input and data from student-athletes, non-varsity athletes, faculty, staff and alumni  Review chaired by Faculty Athletics Representative. Report of internal committee drafted by FAR with assistance from:  Director of Athletics  Dean of Students  Chief Financial Officer  Senior Woman Administrator  Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid  Student-Athlete Advisory Committee  Internal Review Committee visited two peer schools for comparative data

16. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Conference Call  Chaired by institutional liaison  Introductions and roles: what does each member bring to the committee  Review of internal review document  Need for additional information prior to visit  Review of visit and meeting schedule

17. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Groups To Meet With While Visiting Campus  Internal review committee  Student leaders from various campus organizations who are not varsity athletes  Current student-athletes  Athletic staff  Faculty Athletics Committee  Members of Student Affairs staff  Alumni/former student-athletes  CEO’s Cabinet  Chief Executive Officer

18. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Other Activities During Visit  Campus and athletic facility tour  Dinner at CEO’s house with internal review committee  At the conclusion of the visit  Wrap-up meeting of external review committee  Review of visit and discussion about assignments for production of report  Assign one member of review committee to compile and edit report

19. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Post Visit Duties  Send initial draft to editor for review  Editor produces first draft of report; conference call to discuss draft; edits made  Editor produces second draft; 2 nd conference call to finalize report; edits made  Final draft sent to committee members for review; final edits  Report presented to institutional liaison

20. University of Rochester Internal Assessment Activities George VanderZwaag

21. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Be Clear In What We Say We Do  Establish a clear vision of who we are.  Set appropriate overall goals for the department consistent with this vision.  Require staff to align program goals with overall goals.  Visit these goals regularly through individual and department meetings.

22. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Vision We will be a department of educators that strives for excellence in everything we do. We will demonstrate and expect high standards to generate a positive experience for students, and instill pride in the institution. In all aspects of our work we endeavor to contribute to the educational mission of the University.

23. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Overall Goals  To demonstrate excellence in the educational process.  To substantially strengthen the competitiveness of varsity teams.  To increase levels of participation in all non-varsity programs.  To establish and maintain a trajectory of success in the department.  To develop facilities and programs capable of serving the campus community and reflective of the quality of peer institutions.  To strengthen the University’s ability to attract the best students.

24. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Generate and Organize Data  Determine what we can effectively measure.  Put procedures in place to collect data.  “Deposit” the data in one place.

25. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Measure Results  Determine your key metrics to track program results consistent with the overall goals of the department.  Review key metrics on a continual basis.  Present the most relevant data to the entire staff.  Talk about these measures in individual meetings.  Periodically update other constituents.  Benchmark against previous results and external data, if available.

26. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators UR Key Metrics  Facility Use data  Participation data.  Revenue/Expense data.  Admissions data.  Graduation rates.  Competitive results.  Fund raising data.  GPA data.  Academic majors.  Attrition rates.  Probation rates.  Separation rates.  Student survey data.

27. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Key Metric Example: Student-Athlete Opinion Survey Data  Knowledge of fundamental techniques  Knowledge of the sport  Ability to evaluate talent  Practice planning  Administrative abilities  Ability to develop a game plan  Ability to teach fundamentals  Ability to communicate  Ability to teach strategy  Promotion of team discipline  Ability to motivate  Sportsmanship  Ethical behavior  Serving as a role model  Empathy and support for academic commitments  Accessibility off the field

28. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Key Metric Example: Facility Use

29. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators Key Metric Example: GPA Comparisons

30. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators What are the challenges?  Defining key metrics is difficult.  Not every performance standard can be easily quantified.  Access to certain types of data can limited.  Collecting, organizing, and analyzing data takes significant time and energy.  Data is best analyzed over relatively long time horizons.

31. January 7, 2006National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators How does this help us? 1. Incorporates measurable data to understand performance results consistent with goals. 2. Reinforces with internal and external constituencies performance measures. 3. Informs strategic planning. 4. Serves to quantify performance to support other means of assessment. 5. Creates a mechanism to measure performance over time. 6. Creates effective feedback loop to staff.

32. The Athletics Review Process — Are We Doing What We Say We Are Doing?