SUPPLEMENT NO. 14
DIII Mgmt Council 1/06
REPORT OF THE
NCAA DIVISION III FINANCIAL AID COMMITTEE
1. ACTION ITEM.
·
Financial Aid
Committee Composition (NCAA Bylaw 21.9.6.6.1).
(1) Recommendation.
Adopt noncontroversial legislation
to amend Bylaw 21.9.6.6.1 to specify that one of the four required financial
aid director slots on the Committee be designated for a financial aid director
from a public institution.
(2) Rationale. The committee noted that approximately 20
percent of the Division III membership is comprised of public institutions. In order to ensure a public financial aid
director’s perspective for all committee activities, including the
Division III financial aid reporting process, the committee recommended one of
the four currently required financial aid director slots on the committee be
reserved for a financial aid director from a public institution.
(3) Budget
Impact: None.
2. INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS.
a.
Financial Aid
Reporting Process - Level I Reviews.
The committee
reviewed 60 institutional financial aid reports based on the four percent
variance threshold standard. The
NCAA research staff removed selected institutions above the four percent
threshold for statistical considerations.
The financial aid reports included a recommendation from a three-person
subcommittee that initially reviewed each institution’s report. The committee forwarded 48 institutions
to a Level II review and requested written justifications for the financial aid
variances. The committee accepted
10 institutional financial aid reports with conditions and two institutional
financial aid reports with no conditions.
b.
Financial Aid Reporting
Process - Timeline.
The
committee reviewed the reporting process timeline noting the addition of educational
outreach sessions, including the NCAA Regional Rules Seminars in May and June
2006 and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Convention
in June 2006, to the timeline. The
committee also discussed and
requested
future educational objectives including further explanation of the variance
threshold within the reporting process, the impact and role of the enforcement
process and its link to the reporting process and the application of negative
variances to Division III financial aid legislation.
c. Financial
Aid Reporting Process - Procedural Flowchart.
The committee
reviewed the financial aid reporting process procedural flowchart. The committee specifically noted the
tight timeline for notifying institutions for the Level II process and recommended
that NCAA staff notify in writing any institution that is required to submit a
written justification in the week following the conclusion of the in-person
meeting. The committee requested
that the early December communication to institutions that are required to
submit written justifications be added to the procedural flowchart.
d. Financial
Aid Reporting Process - Legislated Variance and Review Procedures.
The committee
reviewed a September 28, 2005, letter from the University Athletic Association
(UAA) and the October 28, 2005, resolution that called for specific legislated compliance
standards (e.g., variance threshold) within the financial aid reporting process
as well as enforcement standards; and in the interim, proposed allowing the
reporting process to serve only as an institutional educational tool instead of
a legislative requirement. The
committee noted that legislating specific compliance standards (i.e., variance
threshold) within the reporting process is premature since only one year of
institutional data and results exist additional reporting years (e.g., three
reporting classes) is necessary to develop a proper historical
perspective. The committee
recognized the potential impact the new reporting process might have on
institutional missions and on-campus procedures. The committee also noted that Bylaw
15.4.1 (consistent financial aid package) currently is the legislated
compliance standard by which all institutional reports are evaluated and that
the four percent variance threshold is a guide to make that evaluation,
consistent with that Bylaw. The
committee agreed to review this issue again at its February 2006 meeting and
provide a more specific recommendation to the
e. Membership Communication of Level I Aggregate
Results.
The committee
discussed the process and importance of communication of aggregate results from
the 2005 reporting year to the Division III membership in summary format. The committee noted that the
division-wide results from the Level I review and all other steps in the
reporting process are reported to the Management and Presidents Councils and
made public through committee meeting minutes and council reports. The committee noted that an
institution’s identify remains confidential throughout the reporting
process and committee review. The
committee noted that aggregate results and a broad-based frequently asked
question guide to the reporting process should be developed for dissemination
in spring 2006 at the conclusion of the year one reporting process. The committee requested the NCAA staff
develop these communication initiatives for review at its February 2006
in-person meeting. The committee
also requested the participation of NCAA public affairs staff in this
communication initiative.
f. Review
Format of Level II Institutional Justifications.
The committee
discussed the
Committee Chair: Dan
Preston,
Staff Liaisons: Matt
Banker,
Ann
Kearns, Research