Reporter Volume 25, No.23 April 7, 1994

By ANN WHITCHER
Reporter Editor

UB is one of 62 colleges and universities set to participate in the
first round of a new NCAA peer-review program. The university has
formed a steering committee to prepare for a required self-study of
athletics in the first five years of the program, and to set the stage
for a December 1994 visit by a peer-review team composed of
experienced higher education and athletics personnel. 
	That team will verify that UB's self-study is accurate and
complete and has had campus-wide participation. The team will evaluate
the self-study in terms of 16 operating principles associated with
performance in such areas as recruiting, admissions standards,
athletes' progress toward a degree, behavior of coaches and players,
graduation rates, etc.
	UB and all its Division I counterparts must participate in the
new peer-review program. The last group will begin the process in the
1997-98 academic year.
	James C. Hansen, professor of counseling and educational
psychology, chairs the UB steering committee for the NCAA
certification self-study, whose members are listed at right. Four
subcommittees will prepare materials associated with the four areas to
be examined as required by the NCAA: They are Governance and Rules
Compliance, chaired by Dennis P. Malone, Distinguished Service
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering; Academic Integrity,
chaired by Alfred D. Price, director, Planning and Design, School of
Architecture and Planning; Fiscal Integrity, chaired by John G.
Karrer, director, Student Finances and Records; and Commitment to
Equity, chaired by Mary Ann Sharrow, associate dean, School of
Nursing. 
	"We will examine our program in comparison to those 16
principles," said Hansen. "If we believe we're in compliance, we say
so. If we think our program should improve to be in compliance, we
then will state a plan that will meet that principle.
	"We respond to each principle with data. Many will involve
financial information or academic informationQall sorts of things that
we gather from different sources from around the university. Always we
are asking, are we up to standard? Do we meet this principle? We are
keeping a copy of all the data that we use, because next December we
will have a visit from a five-person team that will probably spend
three days here, going over all the information, interviewing other
people than those who are on the committee. In other words, they are
going to evaluate whether or not our report is accurate to what the
data shows." 
	According to the NCAA, athletics certification was approved
for Division I institutions at the 1993 convention as a key part of
the organization's reform agenda. Certification was originally
introduced in 1989 and tested in a two-year pilot program. 
	"Athletics certification is meant to ensure the NCAA's
fundamental commitment to integrity in intercollegiate athletics,"
according to the certification handbook. Key campus constituent groups
must be "meaningfully involved" in the institution's self-study.
According to the NCAA, the self-study offers campuses an opportunity
to inform constituents about the goals and purposes of athletics
programs. The certification process is "couched in the affirmativeQits
aim, after all, is to certify, and the self-study process will reveal
many aspects of the athletics program worthy of praise.
	"Even an outstanding program can be better, and problems will
be identified routinely as part of any institution's self-study," the
handbook reads. "As these problems, come to light, the self-study
process will offer a forum for suggestions from individuals with a
wide range of experience."
	According to an article in the March 23 The Chronicle of
Higher Education, "The year-long reviews, a sort of specialized
accreditation for athletics, were designed to insure that sports
programs at individual colleges are kept in proper perspective and
under control." wAmong other schools simultaneously preparing for this
process are Arizona State, Georgetown, the University of Maryland,
Michigan State, the University of North Carolina and the University of
Wisconsin.
	The certification process began December 3, 1993 with a visit
by two NCAA staff members to orient the UB committee to the purpose
and format of the certification program. "They explained exactly what
this was about and clarified any questions that we had," said Hansen.
"So when that was over, they had a good understanding of this
university. We had a better understanding of the process ahead of us."
	The steering committee will issue a report on all four areas
being studied, the final version of which must be submitted by October
1994. (Most of the data is now gathered, Hansen reports.) 
	Committee and subcommitees include representatives from such
areas as admissions, finance, the athletic program, the Faculty
Senate's athletics committee, and the alumni association, Hansen
pointed out. 
	The university was allowed to eliminate six names from the
list of 19 potential peer-review team members submitted by the NCAA.
"We asked them to have representatives of public universities,
preferably in the northeast," said Hansen. "There will be a university
president as chair, a director of athletics, a senior women's
administrator, a faculty-athletics representative and someone from the
financial area." The university will learn the final composition of
the peer-review team in June 1994. 
	The NCAA review team will evaluate the report and the
certification process on that campus, and then writes its own report
for the NCAA's Committee on Athletics Certification.
	According to the Chronicle, "An institution may be certified;
certified with conditions, meaning that problems identified by the
institution or the peer-review team are considered serious enough for
full certification to be withheld until they are dealt with; or not
certified, meaning that problems revealed in the process are
considered by the committee to be 'very serious or pervasive' and must
be corrected within a specified period of time." 
	"By January 1995 we will get a report back from the
peer-review committee," said Hansen. "In February 1995, we can make a
response to that, either agree, or point out things that may differ
from their assessment." 
	He added: "We assume we're in compliance with everything. If
we discover we're short on something, then we'll put together a plan
to come up to par."