Financial Aid Task Force Recommendations February 2020
Recommendation #1 The NAIA will maintain its current approach to achieving competitive balance by relying on scholarships awarded after exemptions. Similarly, there will be no limitations on dollars spent prior to academic exemptions. RATIONAL: The data did not show institutions gaining a competitive advantage through either the number of athletic awards (prior to and/or after exemptions) or roster size. Women’s soccer data is included below as a sample. Multiple sports were analyzed, with similar findings. Because there are numerous variables that impact the success of an institution’s athletic program (e.g. coaching, recruiting, strength of schedule), it’s unlikely that any one variable will definitively account for a significant portion of the variability between academic exemptions and competitive success.
2
Recommendation #2 The NAIA will maintain academic exemptions as they currently exist. The task force considered changes to the way and frequency in which academic exemptions can be used and the academic standards required to earn an exemption. Although no changes to these policies are proposed, the task force recommends making the reporting process for exemptions more transparent and done in a way in which national office staff can audit. Through the Return on Athletics (ROA) initiative, schools will continue to provide exemption information and the national office serves in an auditing role, comparing submitted information with the ROA data. One specific recommended exemption change is to no longer utilize class rank as a basis for offering exemptions, as it does not appear institutions are using this option. RATIONAL: Though data show some increase in the number of exemptions being used, there was no definitive conclusion as to why. Exemption concerns centered around whether institutions are following the rules, which leads to a lack of confidence in the information. Having the ability to cross-check exemptions through ROA would provide more legitimacy to the data. 3
Recommendation #3 The NAIA will maintain the current upper aid limits for team aid. RATIONAL: With the exception of football, aid limits are comparable with NCAA DII limits. Also, a comparison of NAIA upper aid limits to actual averages shows that few teams are awarding the maximum amount of aid possible.
4
Recommendation #4 The NAIA will maintain the current approach of not regulating roster size or use of junior varsity, no limitation on total squad size or varsity roster size. Aid for noncompeting varsity and junior varsity athletes would remain non-countable. RATIONAL: There are not significant data to analyze this issue and the data that are available do not show a correlation. There was a general consensus on the task force that institutions should be free to execute their own strategies related to roster size.
5
Recommendation #5 The NAIA will maintain current regulations regarding the treatment of multi-sport athletes in that a student’s countable aid is split equally among the student’s sports. RATIONAL: The percentage of multi-sport athletes in the NAIA is relatively small. Data being gathered through ROA will provide better insight into multi-sport athletes, so it is recommended that this issue be revisited in 2-3 years once we have a clearer picture of campus practices.
6
Recommendation #6 The NAIA will implement an institute-specific model for handling various tuition levels at a single institution. Any aid awarded to a student should be viewed as a percentage of student’s cost, including student’s tuition level, rather than all awards based off traditional undergraduate rate. RATIONAL: The current reporting structure only allows for in-state vs. out-of-state costs and it is unclear how to account for other tuition levels. If not counted for consistently, this could create a competitive advantage.
7
Recommendation #7 The NAIA will change how a students’ aid counts toward team limits. Only aid from students who compete in more than 20% of the available contests will count towards the team limit. (The 20% contest limit would mirror the listing utilized for medical hardships.) RATIONAL: This recommendation was originally brought forth by the Football Coaches Association in an effort to increase retention and improve the student-athlete experience. Though the sport of football generally retains athletes at a comparatively lower rate, the task force believes that this type of regulation change would need to apply to all sports.
8
Recommendation #8 It is recommended that the NAIA utilize the next round of strategic planning to examine member institutions’ use of junior varsity programs and the impact of the association’s policies and practices pertaining to them. Specifically, the NAIA should affirm whether or not allowing institutions to offer JV programs is a differentiating factor for the association, and if so, examine how the association might support the use of junior varsity programs better. RATIONAL: The NAIA has differentiated itself from NCAA DII by creating policies that provide opportunities for institutions to offer JV programs and is now including information about JV athletes in the ROA data it collects and analyzes. Further, a large number of NAIA member institutions have grown enrollment through athletics, which includes recruiting significant numbers of JV athletes. The growth of these programs, however, has resulted in some concerns related to support of non-varsity athletes. Two noteworthy concerns include the correlation between roster size and competitive advantage, as well as issues with retention and player experience.
9