NCAA Division III
Financial Aid
Jeff Myers
Eric Hartung
Why Financial Aid?
• Separation of Athletics and Financial Aid
Does Not Guarantee NCAA Compliance
• Understanding the Expectations
• Understanding the Reporting Process
Overview
• Legislation
• Reporting Process
• Enforcement
• Reporting Results
• Discussion
Legislation
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
Legislation
Consistent Financial Aid Package:
Must be consistent with the institution’s policy
for all students and satisfy four criteria:
1. Shall not consider athletics leadership,
participation or performance.
NCAA Bylaw 15.4.1-(a)
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?
Legislation Case Study
Yes, it is a violation of Bylaw 15.4.1-(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.
Legislation
Additional concerns:
• Consideration vs. Criterion;
• Leadership grants; and
• Endowments with a stated preference for
student-athletes.
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 15.4.1-(b)
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 15.4.1-(c)
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 15.4.1-(d)
Legislation
Bylaw 15.4.1 analysis:
1. Substantive.
• Is the policy free of athletics
consideration?
• Is the process the same for all students?
2. Impact.
• Does the policy advantage student-
athletes?
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 15.4.6
Legislation
Athletics Involvement:
Athletics department personnel should not
influence directly or indirectly, a student-
athlete’s financial aid package.
Official Interpretation 8/2/89
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 15.4.5.
Official Interpretation 9/19/05
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?
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
Financial Aid Reporting Process
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.
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.
Level I Review Outcome
• The Financial Aid Committee’s Level I review
will result in one of three outcomes:
1. No action.
2. No action but a conditional review in the
next cycle.
3. Move institution to a Level II review.
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:
1. No further action.
2. 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.
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.
Enforcement
Financial Aid Reporting Results
Level I Review Outcomes
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
N % N % N % N % N %
No Action 2 3.4 23 25.8 64 67.4 48 65.8 45 58.4
No Action with
10 16.9 37 41.6 3 3.2 6 8.2 4 5.2
Conditions
Level II Referral 47 79.7 29 32.6 28 29.5 19 26.0 28 36.4
Level II Review Outcomes
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
N % N % N % N % N %
No Action 18 38.3 24 82.8 15 53.6 11 57.9 18 64.3
No Action with
4 8.5 1 3.4 1 3.6 1 5.3 1 3.6
Conditions
Enforcement
25 53.2 4 13.8 12 42.8 7 36.8 9 32.1
Referral
Violations Discovered
Violation 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
Consideration of participation 12 0 3 1 0 16
Consideration of leadership 3 4 2 3 2 14
Unjustified proportionality 0 0 2 1 1 4
Unjustified distinguishable pattern 1 0 1 1 2 5
Inadequate justification 0 0 1 0 0 1
Athletics staff involvement 0 0 1 0 0 1
Multiple violations 2 0 2 1 4 7
Total 18 4 12 7 9 50
Major and Secondary Violations
Category 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
Secondary 18 4 9 6 Pending 37
Major 0 0 3 Pending Pending 3
Total 18 4 12 6 Pending 40
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.
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).
Level I Review - The Process
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?
Questions – Level I
• Are there concerns about the burden on
institutions?
• Any surprises you can discuss?
• Do you think the process is effective?
Level II Review – The Process
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.
Questions?
s?