REPORT OF THE
NCAA DIVISION III FINANCIAL AID COMMITTEE
1. ACTION ITEMS.
· Multi-Division Institutions Reporting NCAA Division I Student-Athletes’ Financial Aid Data. The NCAA Division III Financial Aid Committee noted that several Division III institutions offer Division I sports; however, with the exception of the eight institutions that have been granted a waiver of Division III financial aid regulations per NCAA Division III Bylaw 20.7.1.1.1, these institutions are held to the Division III financial aid rules and are not able to offer athletics aid to those student-athletes in Division I sports.
(1) Recommendation. Require Division III institutions that do not offer athletics aid in its Division I sponsored sports to include student-athletes who participate in those sports in the financial aid reporting process.
(2) Rationale. The committee noted that multi-division schools are held to Division III financial aid regulations except for schools who received a waiver per Bylaw 20.7.1.1.1.
2. INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS.
a. Purpose of Reporting Process and Compliance Ramifications. The committee reviewed the purpose of the financial aid reporting process and noted that while legislation was adopted in the mid-1980s to require that student-athlete aid be comparable to aid other students receive, there has been no mechanism in place for ensuring that the institutions were in compliance until now. The committee noted the goal of the program was more educational than punitive and reaffirmed its role of ensuring that proper financial aid information is compiled and to determine if financial aid was awarded to student-athletes according to Division III financial aid legislation. If it concludes that the institution was not in compliance, the committee will forward the file to the NCAA enforcement staff and the Committee on Infractions, who will review the file for intent and other mitigating factors and determine level of culpability.
b.
Financial
Aid Reporting Process
legislative penalties. The committee noted the updated timeline has been disseminated to the entire Division III membership and is available on the NCAA Web site (www.ncaa.org).
c. Financial aid Reporting Process Flowchart. The committee noted that the reporting process flowchart now includes a penalty and appeals process should an institution fail to submit the report by the September 30 deadline and if an institution fails to report by the end of its academic year. The committee noted the updated flowchart has been disseminated to the entire Division III membership and is available on the NCAA Web site (www.ncaa.org).
d. Proposed Financial Aid Legislation. The committee reviewed two proposals addressing the appropriate penalties for an institution’s late submission of financial aid data and failure to submit its financial aid data by the conclusion of its academic year. The committee noted these legislated penalties are distinct from the penalties issued by the NCAA enforcement staff or the NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions for unacceptable variances.
e. Review Link Between Bylaw 15.4.1 and Institutional Variance. The committee reviewed Bylaw 15.4.1 and its link to the financial aid reporting process and variance calculations.
f. Review Matrix-Rating Systems and Role of Admissions Office in Financial Aid Packaging. The committee reviewed the legislative history of Bylaw 15.4.6 (matrix-rating system). The committee noted that, based on the legislation and accompanying intent statement, any consideration of athletics ability or participation must be removed from the financial aid award determination. The committee recommended the NCAA staff provide additional educational communications to the Division III membership regarding Division III financial aid legislation.
g. Inclusion of Nontraditional Students in Variance Calculations. The committee noted how nontraditional students could affect an institution’s variance. The committee noted that nontraditional students are potentially eligible for Division III athletics participation. The committee also noted that the effect these students will have on the variance is potentially very similar to the affect other disproportionate groups may have (e.g., out-of-state students, certain demographics of students, nonresidents, etc.). The committee recommended that nontraditional students be included in the report this year and revisit the issue next year. If the inclusion of nontraditional students causes an institution to exceed the acceptable variance, the institution can provide this as a justification.
h. Level I Reviews and Role of NCAA Staff. NCAA staff presented the committee with a possible process for performing the Level I reviews and asked for the committee’s endorsement. The committee concurred that the NCAA staff should review all of the reports and identify the most egregious cases, as well as those that contain some statistical anomaly that would warrant not sending it to full review. The staff would then identify those recommended for full review. The reports, along with the staff assessments, would be forwarded to the subcommittees for their review and recommendation as to whether the report should be taken to a full committee Level I review at its December meeting. The committee agreed that this process was appropriate. The NCAA staff reaffirmed that the ultimate decision-making authority over the reporting process rests with the committee.
i. Mock-Review Process. The committee reviewed the mock-review process conducted by the committee at its March 2005 in-person meeting. The committee noted that some institutions that participated in the mock review have asked NCAA staff to rerun some of its institutional financial aid data. While this has provided the institutions with more information, the committee agreed that the NCAA staff should advise institutions that a rerun of its financial aid data may be useful as an institutional justification at the Level II review phase, but it will not change the reporting requirements or method for calculating the financial aid variance.
j. User’s Manual Update. The committee reviewed the Financial Aid Data Management System (FADMS) user’s manual dated March 31. The committee noted that it is the most recent version and that this will not be updated again until the next reporting year. Any new issues that need to be addressed can be done through a frequently-asked-questions document that will be posted to FADMS by the NCAA staff. The committee noted that a hardcopy version of the manual was mailed to each Division III financial aid director, and that it is also available on FADMS as well as the NCAA Web site (www.ncaa.org).
k. Committee Referrals to NCAA Enforcement Staff. NCAA staff explained the enforcement process by referencing an enforcement process flowchart. The committee confirmed that it will notify the enforcement staff that an institution’s variance is above four percent and the institution’s corresponding justification was not accepted. The enforcement staff will then review the information and determine if it should be processed as a secondary or a major violation. The committee noted that an appeal process is available for all penalties issued in the enforcement process. NCAA staff confirmed that a variance would be considered a major violation if there was evidence of intent to provide aid in order to obtain a recruiting advantage. NCAA staff also confirmed that an extremely high variance could
provide evidence that the institution had a significant recruiting advantage, which also would be a major violation. The committee confirmed with the enforcement staff that penalties for secondary violations have not yet been determined, but will be more corrective and educational than punitive.
Committee Chair: Dan Preston,
Staff Liaisons: Matt Banker,
Ann
Kearns, Research