Office of the Provost
Johnson Hall, Room 202, Eugene OR 97403-1258
541-346-3081 | provost.uoregon.edu
An equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
September 22, 2023
Colleagues,
In 2022, then-president Michael H. Schill engaged the National Association of Academic Advisors
and Student-Athlete Development Professionals (N4A) to conduct an external program review of
the University of Oregon’s Services for Student-Athletes (SSA). This unit reports to the Office of
the Provost and provides academic support to student-athletes that includes academic advising,
tutoring, and specialized learning support as needed.
The N4A represents a broad community of professionals across NCAA Division I, as well as other
divisions, and is focused on student-athlete development and academic success, professional
development, ethics and integrity, and equity and inclusion.
In keeping with the university’s goal of continuous assessment and improvement, the purpose of
the review was to benchmark SSA’s programming against that of comparable athletic-conference
programs and identify best practices. It is important that the academic support given to student-
athletes is consistent with the overall quality of student success at the UO and that the unit is
operating effectively.
The final report can be found on the following pages and is also published on the Office of the
Provost website. To abide by university personnel policies, the Office of General Counsel
reviewed the report and redacted specific information that identifies individuals.
The N4A review consisted of an examination of policy and other documents provided by UO; the
completion of an Academic Integrity Assessment by 200 UO student-athletes, staff, coaches, and
administrators; and a three-day visit in February 13-15, 2023, by a team of reviewers selected and
supported by the N4A. This point-in-time review considered SSA in the context of best-practice
standards at similarly situated and resourced universities, and consistent with the expectations
of leading professionals in their field. It dovetails with the university’s ongoing commitment to
assessment and improvement in student advising and support, both for students at large and for
students served by specialty advising units (e.g., student-athletes, Pell Grant-eligible students,
students from underrepresented backgrounds.)
The report documents that UO has a solid foundation on which to build. It also finds significant
room for improvement, for example, in advising processes and documentation; staff training and
professional development; and integration with academic advising across campus and athletics
1 of 72
Office of the Provost
Johnson Hall, Room 202, Eugene OR 97403-1258
541-346-3081 | provost.uoregon.edu
An equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
support services. By implementing strategies suggested in the report, the UO can become a
national leader in providing exceptional support to our student-athletes.
The university has enacted a series of changes and improvements in SSA over the last several
months, which the N4A report reinforces are steps in the right direction. These improvements
include:
• Changes to the organizational structure of the unit to enhance support and oversight from
both the Office of the Provost and the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics.
• Addressing advisor retention concerns, ensuring the academic advising team is fully
staffed, and assessing additional staffing needs in the unit.
• Identifying opportunities for greater coordination and collaboration with other units that
similarly provide academic support to UO students.
I have confidence that our SSA colleagues will engage constructively in the process of continual
improvement. The president and I will track SSA’s impact and continued progress towards
achieving national best practices. We will support and encourage SSA in its focus on staff
development, high-impact advising, and the provision of robust support to our student-athletes
as they grow, learn, and develop to their fullest potential as students and as athletes.
Sincerely,
Janet Woodruff-Borden
Interim Provost and Executive Vice President
2 of 72
University of Oregon
N4A Program Review—February 13-15, 2023
Executive Summary
A voluntary review of the Services for Student-Athletes (SSA) and other support services and
processes associated with the student-athletes at the University of Oregon was conducted on
February 13-15, 2023 by Kim Durand, Senior Associate Athletics Director for Student
Development, University of Washington and Christine Jackson, Senior Associate Athletic
Director/Student-Athlete Support Services & Executive Director of Athletic Academics,
Mississippi State University. The request for a program review was submitted to the National
Association of Academic Advisors and Student-Athlete Development Professionals (N4A) by
Sandy Weintraub and the Office of the President of the University of Oregon. The purpose of
the review was to provide an external evaluation of the University of Oregon SSA unit,
benchmark the program against comparable Power 5 well-resourced programs, review the
Academic Integrity instrument, and identify best practices in working with student-athletes.
During the review, approximately 35 meetings were conducted, and 62 individuals were
interviewed. In addition, selected academic-related documents and records were reviewed
before and during the visit. This review is intended to assist the University of Oregon in
examining and improving aspects of its academic program. Detailed observations and
suggestions for best practices will follow in the full Program Review Report.
There w
ere several areas where the University of Oregon program does exceptionally well.
We considered these on par with top programs nationally.
• Except
ional student-athletes: committed to excellence academically, athletically,
socially. They are clearly a talented, committed, thoughtful representation of all the
university has to offer.
• The Jaqua Center facility: gorgeous building, location, functional and welcoming
space for student-athletes and staff and a clear asset in recruiting.
• Student-Athlete Development program: exceptional leadership that delivers wide
ranging, impactful programming, and relationships with student-athletes throughout
their careers. A model program based on N4A national best practices.
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging work and commitment: exceptional
leadership, vision, and impact in a short period of time that is far-reaching and
collaborative with campus and community. Innovation and engagement across
groups are evident.
3 of 72
• Budget/resources: consensus that the program is provided with the budget and
resources necessary to deliver high quality services for student-athletes.
Several overarching areas emerged throughout the review that are negatively impacting the
ability for the University of Oregon to provide student-athlete support services and results
expected at a Power 5, well-resourced institution. More detail and best practices will be
featured in the program review report to follow.
• Leadership Commitment and Ownership from the University
o Ownership of the daily leadership and management of the Jaqua Center and
SSA program is desperately needed and was universally noted during the
review.
o Systematic issues cripple the ability to serve student-athletes including the
ability to post positions in a timely manner, hire and retain quality staff, and
provide competitive pay equity. There are currently five open positions in the
program which impacts existing staff and service to students. Turnover, low
morale, and burnout are evident and were universally cited.
o Review of staff performance. appear to perform at an industry
standard level. We heard these concerns in most meetings by multiple
constituents.
o Setting of an academic culture with performance expectations for SSA
leadership, staff, coaches, and student-athletes coupled with a genuine care
for student-athletes.
o National searches and competitive salaries are needed to fill the five open
positions in the Jaqua Center.
o Intensive training and onboarding protocols and procedures will be essential
once new staff members are hired.
o An intentional commitment to professional development by joining and
attending N4A National Convention and other program offerings to learn more
about the industry standards and expectations.
• Internal Infrastructure, Policies, Expectations and Accountability
o Inconsistency or absence of internal policies and procedures including
documents, tracking, academic reports, academic integrity policies, and
consistent modes of delivering service. Few documents, policies or reports
were provided that are standard amongst Power 5 programs.
o A major area of concern is there were a substantial number “Don’t Know”
responses by those categorized as “Academics.” Of the five respondents,
there were 33 out of 71 questions that at least 2 people responded with “Don’t
Know”. Immediate and intentional education of the academic staff to the
policies and procedures as well as expectations should be a priority to limit
any potential academic integrity or misconduct issues.
o Lack of advising documents, graduation plans and projections, timely grade
reports
and communication with coaches.
o Absence of clarity around function, structure, expectations, and leadership.
o Evidence of possible FERPA issues specifically in the weekly meetings where
compliance and academic
issues are reviewed with multiple coaching staffs
4 of 72
o Concern from staff about a lack of onboarding, training, professional
development, universal standards and expectations and supervision of staff.
o Delineation of duties, checks and balances, and responsibility between
Compliance and SSA staff. Academic meetings and reports to coaches
should be led by the SSA staff. We noted a lack of clarity around who was
responsible for leading weekly meetings, following up on issues and
documentation.
o Comprehensive training for all academic staff on policies and procedures,
academic integrity protocols, and professional development opportunities for
staff are needed.
o Clear process for determining caseloads for learning services team with
consistent onboarding and off boarding measures with a goal of fostering
student independence.
• Men’
s Basketball & Football Specific Challenges
o We w
ere unable to dive too deeply into the specific issues surrounding men’s
basketball as we did not meet with any coaches or student-athletes. Our
recommendations are therefore based on APR/GSR data and trends along
with reports from interviews conducted.
o A commitment to and execution of plans to address long-standing issues
including low Graduation Success Rate (GSR) and Academic Progress Rate
(APR) scores in men’s basketball which are among the lowest in the nation.
o In addition to men’s basketball, additional APR/GSR improvement plans
should be implemented for the sports of baseball, football, men’s golf, men’s
track & field, softball, women’s lacrosse, and women’s track & field – all of
which fall under the 980 APR mark.
o Comprehensive academic support plans for both men’s basketball and
football need to be developed and implemented.
o Clear expectations and boundaries need to be developed between SSA and
football staff (player development staff) including clarity about grade reporting,
consistency and accuracy of reports, responsibility for class checking and
study hours. Player development staff report to the Head Coach so intensive
academic training, policies, and attention to academic integrity protocols are
needed to ensure compliance.
A c
omprehensive Program Review Report and an Academic Integrity Assessment Report
(AIA) will be sent in the next 30 days. Both reports are recommended to be distributed to
appropriate campus and athletic personnel as the university deems appropriate. As a part of
this review, a follow-up is recommended with N4A consultants, Kim Durand, and Christine
Jackson, approximately six months after receiving the final report.
We
look forward to the follow-up meeting and, in the meantime, encourage the University of
Oregon leadership and staff to contact us if there are any follow-up questions or clarity we
can provide.
5 of 72
University of Oregon
N4A Program Review—February 13-15, 2023
Program Review Full Report
Introduction
A voluntary review of the Services for Student-Athletes (SSA) and other support services and
processes associated with the student-athletes at the University of Oregon was conducted on
February 13-15, 2023, by Kim Durand, Senior Associate Athletics Director for Student Development,
University of Washington and Christine Jackson, Senior Associate Athletic Director/Student-Athlete
Support Services & Executive Director of Athletic Academics, Mississippi State University. The
request for a program review was submitted to the National Association of Academic Advisors and
Student-Athlete Development Professionals (N4A) by Sandy Weintraub and the Office of the
President of the University of Oregon. The purpose of the review was to provide an external
evaluation of the University of Oregon SSA unit, benchmark the program against comparable Power
5 well-resourced programs, review the Academic Integrity instrument, and identify best practices in
working with student-athletes.
During the review, approximately 35 meetings were conducted, and 63 individuals were interviewed.
In addition, selected academic-related documents and records were reviewed before and during the
visit. This review is intended to assist the University of Oregon in examining and improving aspects
of its academic program. Detailed observations and suggestions for best practices follow in this full
Program Review Report.
6 of 72
PROFILE
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Institution: Public
Division: I
Nickname: Ducks
Conference: Pac-12 Conference
2022-2023 Undergraduate Enrollment:
Male: 44.5%
Female: 55.5%
Total: 19,568 undergraduates
Total Student-Athletes (as of Fall 2023):
Male: 255
Female: 233
Total: 488
2015 – 2016 Federal Graduation Rate for Student-Athletes: 67%
Graduation Rate for All Students: 72%
Four-Class Average for Student-Athletes: 62%
Four-Class Average for All Students: 74%
Student-Athlete GSR: 84%
Men’s Teams - 2012-2015 Cohorts – Graduation Rates
Men’s Sport
Graduation Success
Rate (GSR)
Federal Graduation
Rate (FGR)
Baseball
78%
31%
Basketball
20%
8%
Cross
Country/Track &
Field
75%
56%
Football
76%
65%
Golf
78%
55%
Tennis
100%
100%
Women’s Teams - 2012-2015 Cohorts – Graduation Rates
Women’s Sport
Graduation
Success Rate
(GSR)
Federal Graduation
Rate (FGR)
Basketball
100%
44%
Cross
Country/Track &
Field
78%
56%
Golf
100%
100%
Lacrosse
97%
74%
Soccer
100%
74%
Softball
82%
70%
Tennis
100%
63%
7 of 72
2020-21 Men’s Multiyear Academic Progress Rate (APR) Four-Year and 2020-21 Year
Men’s Sport
4-yr APR Average
2020-21 APR
Baseball
959
958
Basketball
948
974
Cross Country
992
990
Football
960
939
Golf
948
909
Tennis
1000
1000
Track & Field
945
980
2020-21 Women’s Multiyear Academic Progress Rate (APR) Four-Year and 2020-21 Year
Women’s Sport
4-yr APR Average
2020-21 APR
Basketball
984
978
Beach Volleyball
NA
NA
Cross Country
993
972
Golf
1000
1000
Lacrosse
988
983
Soccer
995
1000
Softball
968
1000
Tennis
992
1000
Track & Field
971
987
Volleyball
987
1000
PARTICIPANTS IN THE REVIEW
Name
Title
Paige Haagen
Tutorial Coordinator
Sara Jackson-
Wells
Learning Specialist
Blake Postma
Learning Specialist
David Salmon
Math Learning Specialist
Chris Young
Academic Adviser
Kylee Floyd
Academic Adviser
Jennifer
Jackson
Academic Adviser
Jeanene Gray
Interim Director of Academic Advising
Erin Hays
Director of Admissions
Josh Gordon
Faculty Athletics Representative
Sandy
Weintraub
Senate Secretary and Advisor to the President
Brian Fish
Executive Director, Men’s Basketball
Rob Mullens
Director of Athletics
Lorraine Davis
Advisor to the Provost, Supervisor of the Jaqua
Center
Janet Woodruff
Borden
Interim Provost
Katie Harbert
Assistant Athletic Director, Student-Athlete
Development
Jody Sykes
Director of Compliance
Leanne Brooks
Assistant Director of Compliance
8 of 72
Chris Minson
Chair, Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Council
(IAAC)
Tom Lininger
IAAC member, Professor, School of Law
Paul Swangard
IAAC member, Professor, School of Journalism
Da’Mon
Merkerson
Senior Associate Athletics Director for
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging
Steve Stolp
Executive Director, Services for Student-
Athletes
Jackie Nared
Hairston
Assistant Women’s Basketball Coach
Sadie Edwards
Assistant Women’s Basketball Coach
GeAnna
Luaulu-
Summers
Director of Creativity & Student-Athlete
Support, Women’s Basketball
Jodie Berry
Associate Head Women’s Basketball Coach
Brielle Moseley
Director of Women’s Basketball Operations
Kelly Graves
Head Women’s Basketball Coach
3 Women’s Basketball student-athletes
6 Track & Field student-athletes
Josh Seitz
Director of Operations, Track & Field
Seth Henson
Assistant Coach, Track & Field
Chris Solinsky
Assistant Coach, Track & Field
Jerry
Schumacher
Head Track & Field Coach
Rosa Chavez-
Jacuinde
Director of Multicultural Academic Excellence
Valerie
Johnson
Deputy Athletic Director, Senior Woman’s
Administrator and Deputy Title IX Coordinator
Eric Roedl
Deputy Athletic Director
10 Football student-athletes
Tony
Washington Jr
Graduate Assistant Coach, Football & former
football student-athlete
Marshall
Malchow
Chief of Staff, Football
Matt Noyer
Assistant AD for Football Operations
Eden Mahina
Director of Player Academic Development
Koa Ka’ai
Offensive Analyst, Football & former football
student-athlete
Dan Lanning
Head Football Coach
Patrick Phillips
Interim President, University of Oregon
Kassy Fisher
Chief of Staff, Office of the Provost
9 of 72
REVIEWED DOCUMENTS & WEBSITES
• List of Recent Departures from Services for Student-Athletes (SSA) Staff
• Services for Student-Athletes Organizational Chart
• Federal Graduation Rate Report
• 2012-2015 Graduation Success Rate Report
• 2012 APR Improvement Plan – Men’s Basketball
• 2020-21 Academic Progress Rate (APR) Institutional Report
• Report of Major Distribution of Student-Athletes
• N4A Review of Academic Services for Student-Athletes Admissions Report
• Pac-12 Review of Services for Student-Athletes (SSA) Report (May 2015)
• Executive Summary – Analysis of Student-Athlete Monitoring, Finances, and Academic
Success (report prepared by Stephen Stolp)
• FY 2023 Budget for Services for Student-Athletes (SSA)
• 2021-22 Report of Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund
• 2021-22 Academic Enhancement Reporting of Expenses submission
• 2021-22 SAF and SAOF Reporting of Expenses submission.
• Summer School budget
• Annual presentations from FAR Dr. Josh Gordon for each team (Power Points)
• 2020 Student-Athlete Survey of SSA via SSA
• Faculty Athletics Representative Annual Report to Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory
Committee (June 5, 2018)
• University of Oregon Post-Season Interview Process document (August 10, 2017)
• Exit Interview Document
• University of Oregon Athletics Post Season Interviews form – 2019-2020
• 2021-2022 Student-Athlete Development Program Report & Evaluation
• Various Tutor program documents:
o Tutor Phone/E-mail Release Form
o NCAA Rules & Regulations form
o Code of Responsibility for Security and Confidentiality of Student-Athlete
Information
o University of Oregon Education Records Policy
• University of Oregon Student-Athlete Handbook (2021-2022)
• NCAA.org for APR & GSR comparative data with conference peers
AREAS REVIEWED
A. Data Reports Review
We reviewed the following data reports:
• 2012-2015 Graduation Success Rate Report
• 2020-21 Academic Progress Rate (APR) Institutional Report
• Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) data from 2012-2015
• Major distribution data for Oregon student-athletes
• Class distribution data for Oregon student-athletes
Findings:
• The overall GSR for Oregon is 84% which ranks 12
th
in the Pac-12 Conference.
• The GSR for women’s teams is generally high ranging from 78-100%. Four women’s teams
have a multi-year rate of 100% as does Men’s Tennis.
• Men’s Basketball has a GSR of 20% for the 2012-2015 cohorts.
• Except for Men’s Tennis, men’s teams have a GSR of 78% or below.
• Based on the 2020-21 APR data, two teams sport a perfect 1000 – Men’s Tennis & Women’s
Golf.
• Multi-year APR rates falling in the bottom 20% of teams nationally by sport are Baseball (959),
Men’s Basketball (948), Football (960), Men’s Golf (948), Men’s Track & Field (945), Softball
(968), Women’s Lacrosse (988), and Women’s Track & Field (971).
• There do not appear to be any red flags or unusual clustering based on the class distribution
data for student-athletes.
• Most University of Oregon student-athletes are pre-majors/exploratory majors (approximately
126) in the first two years of their academic careers. There seems to be a significant clustering
of student-athletes in a small number of majors:
o General Social Science: 56
o Business: 53
o Psychology: 41
o Human Physiology: 34
o Journalism: 25
Recommendations:
• Convene campus/athletics working group to learn about and address the low APRs and GSRs
for identified teams. Develop internal APR/GSR improvement plans. Engage the FAR, campus
and athletics leadership, coaches, SSA and Compliance staff in the process. Goals could be
defined as the department-wide qualifying APR (990) or GSR (90%) needed to receive the
NCAA academic distribution.
• Benchmark data and programs across similar institutions who also face the changing landscape
of college athletics including the transfer portal, students with professional sports aspirations,
outside pressures, mental health, and post-pandemic drop in academic preparation. Consider
visiting similar campuses/programs.
• With the assistance of the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) and the Intercollegiate
Athletics Advisory Committee (IAAC) conduct a review of student-athlete major distribution
annually. Analyze any trends. Consider conducting workshops or sessions for under-classmen
to learn about a wide variety academic majors/minors and options before they select their
majors. Perhaps bring academic departmental advisors or faculty from programs to share
options.
• Review sport specific data with regards to major clustering.
• Add questions to student-athlete survey to gain feedback from students as to the real or
perceived barriers to their ability to enroll in a specific major (e.g. curriculum based, athletic
conflicts, competitive admission)
B. Sport Specific Improvement Plans – Men’s Basketball & Football
Findings:
• We were unable to dive too deeply into the specific issues with Men’s Basketball as we did not
meet with any student-athletes or members of the coaching staff during our visit.
• Oregon has recently had several student-athletes leave for professional basketball domestically
or in Europe and left the institution in good academic standing impacting both APR and GSR.
• The football program has undergone four head coaching changes in recent years. This has
significantly impacted APR and will continue to impact GSR for a few more years. By all
accounts, the new head coach and staff are committed to the academic success and
accountability of their student-athletes.
• The head football coach has recently hired four full-time staff members as part of the player
development program to have hands on engagement with student-athletes. These staff check
classes, meet with students regularly, and communicate academic issues with coaching staff. It
was expressed these hirings were a result of not feeling as though the staff had accurate,
timely, and detailed information on which to act.
• Weekly meetings with the entire football and relevant SSA staff are conducted in person.
• Concerns with the number of ineligible student-athletes, surprises, a lack of information,
transactional rather than relational interactions, a lack of availability, a lack of clarity regarding
duties and expectations were all themes expressed by those we met with during our visit.
• Student-athletes expressed appreciation and trust with one advisor, , and wanted
that to be noted. Likewise, she was singled out by several members of the coaching and
support staff with whom we met.
Recommendations:
• Devise a comprehensive and intensive academic support program for football and men’s
basketball programs with benchmarked staff, budget, APR/GSR benchmarks and industry best
practices.
• Recruit nationally and fill open adviser positions for both programs with experienced staff from
other schools who have extensive experience with high-profile, revenue sports. Off-load
academic advising caseloads from the Executive Director so he can train, oversee, collaborate,
and communicate with all stakeholders.
• Review structure, staffing, reporting, communication between SSA and football staff. Set clear
expectations and boundaries of every role associated with academic support for both men’s
basketball and football including player development staff. Communicate regularly with sport
administrators and campus leadership/FAR on progress toward academic benchmarks and
goals.
C. Components of Services for Student-Athletes (SSA)
Academic Facilities & R
esources
Findings:
• The Services for Student-Athletes (SSA) program is housed in the John E Jaqua Academic
Center for Student-Athletes, a 40,000 square foot, start-of-the art facility on campus owned and
maintained by the University of Oregon Athletics department.
• The main floor is a shared space with a café, classroom(s), offices, and center for student-
athlete development. The space also features impressive design features celebrating Oregon’s
119 Academic All-Americans, and other prestigious NCAA academic and scholarship awards.
• Every single interviewee shared the impact of the Jaqua center and described it as a gorgeous,
functional, welcoming space for student-athletes. The location is conveniently located amongst
several athletics facilities and with easy access to campus dorms.
• The Jaqua Center is a spectacular asset in recruiting.
• Universally, those we interviewed agreed that all the necessary resources and funding are
provided to deliver high quality services for student-athletes.
Recommendations:
• In a few cases, funding could be repurposed to other areas to further drive impact (e.g. fewer
tutoring sessions could yield the ability to pay more competitive tutor pay rates)
Reporting Lines, Leader
ship, and Staffing of SSA
Findings:
• The SSA staff and department report solely to the Office of the Provost with direct
supervision provided by Special Assistant to the President and Provost, Dr. Lorraine Davis.
Dr. Davis sits on the senior leadership team of the athletics department and has regular,
direct contact with Athletics Director Rob Mullens. She is a
with decades of experience on campus and within
athletics.
• Steve Stolp serves as the Executive Director of the Jaqua Academic Center.
• The student-athlete development program led by Assistant Athletic Director Katie Harbert is
housed in the Jaqua center but reports solely to Athletics.
• Our impression is that most stakeholders appreciate and support the current model of SSA
reporting to the Provost’s office and Student-Athlete development reporting to Athletics.
• The recent departure of the Director of Academic Support who had served in various roles
for 17 years has created a vacuum in leadership of the unit. Another staff member has been
placed in the interim role while maintaining her current heavy advising caseload. In addition,
two other advising positions remain open causing the remaining staff to take on additional
teams and caseloads.
• When fully staffed, the SSA program approximately 22 staff members including academic
advisors, learning specialists, a tutorial coordinator, IT consultants, an office manager, café
staff (there is a café located and staffed on the first floor), and SSA leadership. At the time
of our review, there were 5 open full-time positions. In addition, there are numerous part-
time and student positions including tutors, front desk staff, lab, and IT assistants.
• Almost all SSA & campus administration interviewees described significant systematic
issues with posting, interviewing, compensating, and hiring staff for vacant positions due to
HR policies, a lack of urgency, salary inequities and delays. One example is that it took 10
months to fill a tutorial coordinator position that oversees over 1700 weekly tutoring
appointments therefore impacting the availability of services for student-athletes.
• Many staff members have been at the University of Oregon for many years and are well-
versed in campus policies, majors, classes, and campus environment.
• We found a disturbing lack of support and trust in leadership both inside and outside of the
building with negative impacts on staff morale, retention, communication and overall
success. There appears to be a lack of consistency, clarity on expectations and direction,
job responsibilities and standards and overall communication. Several interviewees
described a divided culture within the staff and a lack of support/advocacy by either campus
or athletics. Many brought up salary inequities when compared with campus advisors.
Recommendations:
• Expedite the ability to post, interview, fill, and onboard open staff positions. SSA needs
assistance from campus administration to make this happen. Eliminate salary inequities with
campus and peer campus advisor positions to recruit and retain qualified, committed staff.
• Have Executive Director or FAR work with campus HR to conduct equity study of athletics
adviser salaries with campus advisers as well as with Power 5 peers.
• Consider reviewing other reporting line structures or a more collaborative structure. Although
stakeholders reported approving of the current reporting lines, a significant gap is present
between SSA and Student-Athlete development with little reported collaboration or synergy
around efforts. Potential models could include a dual report line for both programs to campus
and athletics. It is clear the campus has moved to a holistic approach for all students merging
academic support services, advising, and career exploration and placement. Are there best
practices in this model that would improve and align the student-athlete experience?
• Conduct regular meetings between SSA and Student-Athlete development leadership and
discover ways to collaborate on programming, communication, and mutual support for academic
and student-athlete development services for student-athletes.
• Review current and proposed SSA reorganization and leadership structure. Where possible,
eliminate the responsibility of those in leadership positions to take on advising caseloads and
teams to focus on leadership and management as primary functions.
• With leadership transitions in the Office of the President and the Office of the Provost, evaluate
the best solution for a liaison relationship for SSA and the Provost’s office to facilitate needed
support and changes for SSA during this time of transition.
• Provide comprehensive training of all academic staff of the policies and processes within the
academic unit to provide consistent services.
• Develop and implement a professional development plan for each full-time staff member as a
way to better morale in the Jaqua Center.
Academic Advising
Findings:
• Academic advisers are assigned to specific teams and serve as team lead for each sport.
They receive information from learning specialists and tutors and are responsible for
reporting and communication with each sport program.
• The Executive Director has advising responsibilities for several teams including baseball,
men’s basketball, and football due to open advisor positions. He has served as the
academic advisor for baseball for several years.
• Through the interview process, various staff within and outside of the unit, reported a high
level of burnout, a lack of professional development opportunities and support, unrealistic
demands, a lack of uniformity of expectations and caseloads and a lack of leadership,
advocacy, and support.
• Several described a reactive, stressful, “crisis management” culture with an emphasis on
keeping students eligible with little support. The impression is that there isn’t time to plan
and proactively advise for graduation.
• Advisers also indicated a dramatic increase in the number of student-athletes with
significant mental health issues impacting both their academics and daily life and a need for
more mental health for students and clear policies and pathways to get students the help
needed in a timely manner.
• Apart from a few teams, regular or weekly meetings with coaching staffs are not conducted
and there seems to be little consistency across the advising until regarding communication,
reports, and problem-solving with coaching staffs.
• Requested reports and examples, tracking documents, graduation plans were not provided
and several interviewees were not aware of whether they were regularly used. It seems that
one report is used where tutor and advisor comments/reports are entered and coaches are
given access but both academic and coaching staffs reported the report is cumbersome,
and doesn’t easily identify concerns and items that need immediate attention.
• Coaches and other staff reported inaccuracy or absence of reports, a lack of proactive
graduation plans, advising mistakes that prolong graduation and limited communication and
responsiveness of SSA staff.
• There seems to be little trust between SSA staff and coaching/administrative staffs as
expressed in interviews.
• Several student-athletes reported they felt they were “told” what majors and classes to take
by advisors despite interest in other majors and classes. Several shared they were told to
take classes “because they were easy.” Several shared their interactions with advisers were
transactional and not relational.
• Advisers shared the difficulty with limited major options, especially for transfer and midyear
students.
• In several interviews, across groups, we were told of impacted classes and offerings at the
university broadly and a lack of class availability due to larger than expected yield of
incoming admissions classes over several years.
• Several sports programs utilize tours of the Jaqua building during recruiting but don’t utilize
SSA staff in recruiting visits, opting for either Katie Harbart or the FAR.
• Based on the findings outlined above, we conclude that are
performing at a Power 5 industry standard level. While this is not entirely their fault, and
they are in a challenging environment, it is impacting the student-athlete academic
experience and fuels a lack of trust. One notable exception shared by several students and
coaches across teams was the caliber of service and relationships with
.
R
ecommendations:
• A
s urgently as possible, hire qualified, committed staff to fill the vacant Director of Academic
Services and open advisor positions.
• Address salary and title inequities if they exist with campus advisors.
• Assess sport assignments and caseloads across advisors once the unit is fully staffed includi
ng
pot
entially hiring an additional academic advisor to offload the advising load from the Executiv
e
D
irector role insuring he has the capacity and time to perform the leadership and management
duties. Very few, if any, Power 5 directors of academics have an advising caseload.
• Establish a standardization of advising protocol: tracking systems, reports, policies, procedures
& communication frequency across advisors. This would ensure quality control, servic
e
consistency, and clear expectations for the unit.
• Conduct thorough performance reviews with goals and expectations for each academic advise
r
w
ith any improvement plans needed.
• Implement a comprehensive training program for incoming advisers.
• Clarify and reiterate protocols and procedures for student-facing staff to refer students i
n need
of
mental health services. Consider one point person from SSA to liaison with sports medici
ne
staff who can secure appointments and services for student-athletes in need.
• C
onduct short, quarterly confidential student-athlete surveys on their experiences with SSA staf
f
and s
ervices to identify concerns and successes. Engage SAAC leadership in the process and
review responses with athletics leadership.
Lear
ning Specialists & Learning Support
Fi
ndings:
• Learni
ng specialists meet one on one or in small groups with student-athletes identified as i
n
need of
additional support. Most work holistically across subjects but there are some specialists
focused on subject specific areas (e.g., math learning specialist)
• Learning specialists also collaborate with the disability resource services office on campus to
ensure students with documented learning differences can receive appropriat
e
ac
commodations.
• Several coaching staffs noted the competency, work ethic, and success of the learning
s
pecialists working with their students.
• Advisers identify students in need and document them on a spreadsheet. Learning specialists
then “select” and sign up for students they work with. Criteria are typically low gpa and potentia
l
e
ligibility issues.
• As mentioned above, mental health needs are the biggest challenge they face in their work with
students. An increase in services could have a significant impact.
• The size of learning specialist caseloads and severity of need have increased dramatically i
n
t
he past few years across sports.
• Reports of sessions, tasks accomplished, and academic progress are reported to the advisor of
the sport.
• A significant concern during interviews was the inability of any staff member to clearly articulate
academic integrity policies, procedures, and reporting when a learning specialist suspects an
academic integrity violation.
Recommendations:
• Educate all staff on academic integrity policies, protocols, and reporting requirements. Track
alleged violations and resolutions. Ensure the Executive Director and FAR are informed of any
alleged academic integrity issues. Identify a staff member to work with compliance on any
potential violations and/or eligibility implications.
• Implement a structured, consistent, and holistic protocol across the unit for identifying students
in need of learning services and work with a learning specialist. Include and measure factors
such as mental health, injury, documented or suspected learning disability in addition to low gpa
and eligibility concerns.
• Consider assigning learning specialists caseloads based on a clear format (e.g., by sport, by
adviser caseloads, by year in school) to build consistent communication, collaboration between
advisers and learning specialists.
• Have clear measurements and data to inform decisions about moving students off caseloads
and toward independence.
• Implement and fund learning disability testing if one doesn’t already exist.
Tutoring Services
Findings:
• The SSA program recently hired a tutorial coordinator after a long vacancy in the position.
• The tutoring program runs an astounding 1700 tutoring sessions per week.
• The coordinator actively recruits potential tutors with assistance from faculty, campus
departments, and the Honors College.
• The tutorial coordinator is developing a plan to conduct quarter by quarter training for tutors.
• Tutor pay rates start at $14.25 per hour and are not competitive with campus tutor rates.
• Tutors want more direct contact with advisers to share concerns about the students they tutor.
• All tutoring notes (from sessions) are shared with the academic adviser.
Recommendations:
• Budget for increase in hourly rates for tutors to make positions competitive with those on
campus. Perhaps reducing the number of sessions (see structured study section) could
repurpose additional funds for an increase in hourly pay rates.
• Utilize members of the IAAC for assistance in recruiting tutors from their respective
departments.
• Develop office hours or other meetings for tutors to engage with advisers and share concerns
about assigned students.
• Continue a commitment to robust tutor onboarding and training being implemented by the new
tutorial coordinator.
• Establish written policies for student-athletes that are hired to tutor other student-athletes.
Structured Study
Findings:
• Structured Study is a tiered program of required support measured by contact time with staff
and assigned tutoring.
o Tier One: 2.30 gpa and below & all first-year students
8 hours of mandatory contact time per week
o Tier Two: 2.31 – 2.60 gpa 6 hours of mandatory contact time per week
o Tier Three: 2.61 – 3.00 gpa 4 hours of mandatory contact time per week
o Tier Four: 3.00 gpa and above Voluntary utilization of service
• The program is a “one size fits all” regardless of year in school, academic need, major, or
eligibility status.
• Some student-athletes reported that even if they were solid graduate, upper-class students, or
students in the Honors program, they are mandated to have contact hours that weren’t needed.
Some classes don’t lend themselves to tutoring – examples such as labs, studio classes, group-
based classes causing frustration and tension with advisers.
Recommendations:
• With a goal of moving students to independence (Tier Four) as soon as possible, provide
adjustments and flexibility to the structured study program for transfers, grad students,
upperclassmen, and others who can be independent. Empower advisers and academic staff to
make adjustments based on the individual student and not a rigid policy. This could reduce the
expense and scheduling of such a large number of sessions weekly and enable funds to be
redirected to higher tutor pay rates.
D. Admissions Process (Special Admits, Admissions Appeals process)
Findings:
• Hired in July 2022, Erin Hays is the new Director of Admissions at the University of Oregon.
• As a quarter institution, Oregon can admit and enroll students entering fall, winter, or spring
quarters.
• Prospective student-athletes are reviewed holistically by the Office of Admissions like any other
student. The admissions professional reviews the completed file and can either make an
admissions decision or code the application as Admissions Advisor Group (AAG) for transfer to
the Director of Admissions for a second review. The Director of Admissions can make an
admissions decision or may convene the Admissions Advisory Group (AAG) comprised of the
Vice President for Student Services and Enrollment Management, Special Assistant to the
Provost, a faculty member, and the Director of Admissions for a decision.
• To date, transfer prospective student-athletes largely come from 4-year institutions rather than
2- year institutions.
• There doesn’t appear to be a cap on the total number of AAG admits annually. Of those
admitted through AAG from Winter 2019 through Fall 2022, 46% have been from the sport of
football.
• Non-AAG student-athlete admits are similar to the entering gpa of the regular student applicant
(3.83 regular student vs. 3.63 prospective student-athlete applicant).
• Over the past 4 years, 65 prospective student-athletes have been admitted under the AAG
process with an average high school gpa of 2.70.
• Transfer applicants’ coursework and grades are reviewed by admissions staff. An English
Composition course and a math course are required for admission to the University of Oregon.
Credit review for progress toward degree requirements is reviewed and analyzed by the
Registrar’s Office.
• The Director of Admissions was not aware of any tracking or reports were created by either SSA
or Admissions to track long term academic success of AAG admits but she is new to the role.
• No coaches or athletics staff outside of the Compliance department have direct contact with
staff from Admissions.
• Admissions staff liaisons attend the ACAG (Athletics, Compliance, Advising Group) for regular
meetings to discuss processes, challenges, and policies.
Recommendations:
• The report prepared for our review by Admissions was informative, thorough, and tracked
important trends. Consider producing this same report annually and sharing with stakeholders
including Compliance, SSA staff, IAAC, and the Office of the Provost to identify trends, positive
results, and any potential challenges.
• Consider having SSA or Compliance staff report annually on the academic status of each AAG
admitted student-athletes to IAAC, Admissions, and the FAR. This check and balance will help
ensure student-athletes admitted under AAG status are achieving academically and progressing
toward graduation at a rate comparable to their peers.
• Develop a standardized support plan for any AAG admitted student-athlete that may include
summer bridge, structured study, more frequent meetings with an advisor and/or learning
specialist, etc. Involve and inform coaching staffs on support plan for accountability and
reinforcement.
E. Compliance (Rules Education/Training, Continuing Eligibility
Certification, Tracking & Reporting of Academic Progress during each
quarter)
Findings:
• A member of the compliance staff conducts tutor training on NCAA rules and matters annually.
• No specific compliance training is conducted for SSA staff, yet they are sent regular rules,
interpretations, legislative changes, and newsletters via e-mail with coaching staff and others.
• Concern was expressed about a lack of clarity around academic integrity protocols and when to
include compliance staff and what the internal process is for reporting potential academic
misconduct to campus authorities.
• Compliance staff are often involved with certification or rules violations on the back end and not
proactively.
• The FAR is actively involved in any grade changes that impact eligibility and does outreach to
faculty members as needed.
• Two-hour weekly meetings (referred to as “the Thursday meeting” include all SSA staff,
Compliance staff, and academic liaisons or coaches from each sport.
• Meetings are conducted by Zoom and start with issues in the Olympic sports and last 1 hour.
After the portion, SSA/Compliance staff who work with football depart to the football complex for
in-person weekly meeting with football staff.
• All academic reports are compiled by the Assistant Director of Compliance and sent to the
coaching staffs. She leads the weekly meetings to review potential issues and eligibility
concerns.
• APR and GSR data and submission is handled by the Assistant Director of Compliance
Recommendations:
• As the Thursday meeting was described, it poses a significant FERPA violation. Coaches and
liaisons from other sports should not be privy to academic information, gpas, academic status,
and conduct information for student-athletes on other teams. If this is happening, it needs to be
corrected immediately.
• Shift the compilation and running of the Thursday meetings to SSA staff. Academic meetings
should be run by academic staff who have direct daily contact with student-athletes and
coaches. Each adviser could lead their team reviews.
• We recommend conducting these meetings in person in time slots so a coaching staff can finish
and leave at a scheduled time. This would allow for coaches/liaisons without issues to be
excused from the meetings and respectful of time. It could also lead to building trust and
relationships between coaching staffs and SSA staff.
• Consider a set format and template for reporting information that facilitates timely and efficient
communication.
• Create a small working group (perhaps chaired by the FAR) to restructure the Thursday
meetings, agree on format, standardized template, and information sharing.
F. Faculty Engagement /Faculty Perception of Student-Athletes and
Athletics
Findings:
• The is engaged, knowledgeable, proactive, and deeply
committed to improving the student-athlete experience at the University of Oregon.
• The Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee (IAAC) is committed to assisting student-
athletes and the overall athletics program. A new committee chair is experienced and
respected on campus. New members have been added and are eager to discover productive
ways to get engaged. The goal for IAAC is to convene two meetings per quarter but has been
difficult to accomplish with scheduling.
• Multiple representatives stated that the relationship on campus between athletics and faculty is
much improved, perhaps the best it has ever been.
• Several mutual areas of interest between campus and athletics emerged during our time
including a holistic student/student-athlete experience, commitment to diversity, equity and
inclusion, a healthy balance and appreciate of both academics and athletics in the overall
university experience.
Recommendations:
• Encourage the FAR and IAAC Chair to meet each summer to identify meeting schedule and
specific topics to cover for the upcoming year. Topics could include: student-athlete mental
health, APR and GSR, impacts and strategies of NIL & transfer portal, academic success of
AAG admits, student-athlete development and DEI programming, NCAA & Pac-12 meeting
updates, student-athlete major and class distribution, Title IX and any other desired topics.
• We recommend the FAR and IAAC annually compare APR and GSR scores by sport with
conference (and other) peer institutions to benchmark and review trends.
• Consider meeting monthly as an IAAC group.
• Have FAR continue to create, track, and share data in key academic areas including gpa, APR,
GSR, student-athlete majors and class selection.
• Continue to maximize the positive campus/athletics relationship noted by conducting a robust
faculty outreach program. Some ideas may include (and some may be in place already):
o Present at any new faculty orientations to explain services and requests for progress
reports and missed class time.
o Visit colleges and assign staff liaison relationships.
o Lunch and learn events/open houses for interested faculty.
o Expand faculty recognition events (guest coach programs) if desired.
o Faculty appreciation or discounted ticket packages for Oregon sporting events.
o Invite faculty members to practice or host them at Olympic sports events.
G. Student-Athlete Development Leadership & Programming
Findings:
• Impactful and comprehensive student-athlete development, leadership, career development,
mentoring and community service programs are provided to all University of Oregon student-
athletes under the leadership of
• There appears to be a holistic and comprehensive mission and vision for the program which is
commonly understood by all stakeholders we met with during our visit.
• Virtually every student-athlete we met with could identify Katie and could discuss in detail the
programming and opportunities associated with the program.
• The program is seen as an asset during recruiting and many coaches mentioned Katie and the
student-athlete development program as a difference-maker in recruiting and in their students’
experience at Oregon.
• Unique and committed programs include SAAC, Be Oregon (DEIB student group) , and other
affinity groups by all accounts are thriving with active student-athlete engagement.
• The mentoring program boasts 180 professional and personal adult mentors leading to over 100
student-athletes being matched with an individual mentor.
• Study abroad experiences are also available for student-athletes through Courts for Kids.
• The program seems to be innovative, adaptable to evolving student-athlete needs, and a model
program. It represents best practices as outlined in the N4A best practices document.
• is respected nationally and is a thought leader in the student-athlete development
space.
I. Additional Recommended Best Practices
Recommendations:
• We highly recommend a small working group visit 2-3 other Power 5 institutions for 24-48 hours
the University of Oregon would like to emulate. We are confident schools would be willing to
share academic goals, programs, benchmarking, and strategies in a variety of areas to identify
and share additional best practices and industry standards.
• Offer opportunities for and investment in professional development for staff including N4A
regional/national conferences and mentoring programs.
• Consider encouraging and funding academic staff to travel with teams on away trips to visit with
schools and learn best practices.
Closing General Comments
We are very appreciative of the opportunity to complete an N4A Program Review for the
University of Oregon. We believe the timing aligns well with an unprecedented time in the
university’s history with a new President having just been selected and bold goals to elevate
the academic ranking of the university as a whole. We also sensed a commitment by many
stakeholders during our visit to improve the academic success and service provided for
University of Oregon student-athletes. Given the best practices advocated in this report, we
are available and interested in supporting your goals and processes if we can be of
assistance. As offered at the beginning of the process, a formal 6 month check in will be
scheduled with any desired stakeholders to review goals, offer any support, and share best
practices.
We look forward to watching Oregon’s success in the future!
Kim Durand
Senior Associate Athletic Director for Student Development
University of Washington
Christine Jackson
Senior Associate Athletic Director/Student-Athlete Support Services &
Executive Director of Athletic Academics
Mississippi State University
May 24, 2023
Sandy Weintraub
Senate Secretary and Advisor to the President
Director, Oregon Law Commission
110 Johnson Hall
1226 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1226
Dear Mr. Weintraub,
Thank you for inviting us to assist in improving your athletic academic support services through
the facilitation of the Academic Integrity Assessment. Academic integrity is a major national
priority and an assessment of current institutional policies and procedures in relation to those
expectations is necessary to reduce any potential risks to the institution. Your engagement in this
process exemplifies the institutions’ commitment to its students and to the services the
institutions provides in support of their well-being.
Enclosed for your review is a summary of the information that we gathered through the
administration of the assessment survey. The documentation includes a breakdown of responses
to each question, graphical representation for each question and a comprehensive listing of all
comments provided by survey respondents for both the self-assessment aspect of the process and
the user component of the process intended to ensure those involved with or who interact with
institutional academic support functions (e.g., coaches, athletic administrators, student-athletes,
advisors, tutors, mentors,) are fully aware of institutional and departmental policies, procedures
and expectations.
In terms of next steps, the information contained in the report is meant to be a starting point for
further discussion and potential adjustments to educational efforts, current procedures or the
development of new policies. Specifically, if potential opportunities for improvement were
identified based on a percentage of overall responses or outlined by a relevant constituency
group and that component is reflective of the institutional culture then a modification or new
initiative might be considered.
For example, establishing a timeline to review written academic integrity policies should have a
regular evaluation process. This will allow the institution to address any concerns or include
additional information on a regular basis. Further, if an important group was not aware of a
current and pertinent institutional policy then the institution might consider improved
communication mechanisms or more formalized and targeted educational efforts. Alternatively,
if the area outlined by the question is not applicable to that specific groups, then no additional
consideration is needed.
Again, you are in the best position to determine if the academic support services being offered
are effectively meeting the needs of the student-athletes (in the context of the institution and in
relation to NCAA rules). Items outlined in the summary do not necessitate the need to make an
adjustment as it may not be appropriate or pertinent based on the philosophy or mission of the
institution. However, it does provide an opportunity for you to discuss and evaluate the topical
area and make modifications to policies, procedures, educational efforts or monitoring systems
(if any).
We very much appreciate the institutional support and opportunity to assist with improving your
academic support functions. If we can be of further assistance in analyzing the data, or if you
have any additional questions or comments regarding the enclosed documentation, please do not
hesitate in contacting us.
Sincerely,
Kim Durand
Senior Associate Athletic Director for Student Development
University of Washington Athletics
Christine Jackson
Senior Associate AD-Student-Athlete Support Services & Executive Director of Athletic
Academics
Mississippi State University
46,000+
Student-Athletes
19,000
Teams
1,100
Institutions
90
Championships
24
Sports
3
Divisions
1
Goal
Table of Contents
Report – Institutional Effectiveness Profile
Strengths .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Opportunities for Improvement ............................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 2
Analysis of Results: Self-Assessment ........................................................................................................ 2
Analysis of Results: Comprehensive Assessment ..................................................................................... 3
Closing and Potential Next Steps ............................................................................................................. 4
Self-Assessment: Questionnaire Results ..................................................................................................... 5
Comprehensive Assessment: Questionnaire Results ................................................................................ 15
Comprehensive Assessment: Comment Results ...................................................................................... 27
Best Practices Index ................................................................................................................................... 35
Page 1 of 4
Academic Integrity Assessment
Institutional Effectiveness Profile
Strengths: Favorability
Rating
Self-Assessment
Policies & Procedures Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9. 100%
Communication Questions 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29. 100%
Monitoring Questions 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41, 48, 49. 100%
Comprehensive-Assessment
Policies & Procedures #2. Written institutional policies regarding academic integrity exist. 99%
Policies & Procedures #11. Written athletic academic advising policies and procedures exist. 99%
Policies & Procedures #26. Learning specialists acknowledgement confirming rules regarding academic integrity. 99%
Policies & Procedures #28. Written departmental policies and procedures regarding the use of facilities exist. 99%
Policies & Procedures #4. Written institutional policies regarding academic integrity are communicated. 98%
Policies & Procedures #14. Counselors and advisors are provided formal education regarding academic assistance. 98%
Policies & Procedures #44. Departmental standards of online exams or coursework in the academic center exist. 98%
Policies & Procedures #46. Written departmental policies regarding the mentoring of student-athletes exist. 98%
Policies & Procedures #68. Written departmental policies and procedures for providing books exist. 98%
Policies & Procedures #31. Written procedures for academic preparedness of prospective student-athletes exist. 97%
Policies & Procedures #69. Regular education regarding book policies and procedures occurs. 96%
Policies & Procedures #5. Formal education regarding NCAA rules relating to academic integrity occurs annually. 95%
Policies & Procedures #53. Written departmental policies relating to academic support for online course assignments 95%
Policies & Procedures #59. A departmental policy outlining expectations regarding personal relationships and social
interactions outside the workplace between student-athletes and academic support personnel
including tutors, student employees and mentors exist. 95%
Policies & Procedures #60. A departmental policy outlining expectations regarding personal relationships and social
interactions outside the workplace between student-athletes and coaches exist. 95%
Tutoring & Mentoring #20. Tutors sign a written acknowledgement confirming an understanding NCAA. 99%
Tutoring & Mentoring #16. Written departmental policies and procedures regarding tutoring exist. 98%
Tutoring & Mentoring #49. Mentors are provided education regarding permissible amount of assistance provided. 98%
Tutoring & Mentoring #50. Mentors are required to sign a written acknowledgement of NCAA rules. 98%
Tutoring & Mentoring #18. Tutors are required to complete a mandatory orientation upon hire. 96%
Tutoring & Mentoring #17. Education regarding departmental tutoring policies and procedures occurs annually. 95%
Tutoring & Mentoring #19. Tutors are provided education regarding permissible amount of academic assistance 95%
Tutoring & Mentoring #48. Mentors are required to complete a mandatory orientation upon hire. 95%
Monitoring #71. Departmental policies regarding academic support for team travel exist. 98%
Monitoring #29. Education relating to the use of academic support facilities occurs annually. 97%
Monitoring #32. Education regarding assessing academic preparedness of prospective student-athletes. 97%
Monitoring #70. Book procedures are monitored. 96%
Opportunities for Improvement: Favorability
Rating
Self-Assessment
Policies & Procedures #46. A formal policy regarding access to student-athlete usernames and passwords by coaches or
athletic department personnel exists. 67%
Policies & Procedures #47. A formal policy regarding access to student-athlete usernames and passwords by academic
support personnel exists. 67%
Monitoring #35. A formal process to monitor online courses that transfer student-athletes complete at other
institutions the semester immediately prior to enrollment exists. 67%
Monitoring #38. Athletic department staff or coaches teach courses in which student-athletes are enrolled. 13%
Monitoring #40. Grade distributions are reviewed for courses taught by athletic department staff, coaches or
academic support personnel in which student-athletes are enrolled. 40%
Page 2 of 4
Academic Integrity Assessment
Institutional Effectiveness Profile
Comprehensive-Assessment
Tutoring #21. Tutoring occurs outside the academic support center. 54%
Tutoring #22. Student-athletes are hired to tutor other student-athletes. 28%
Online Courses #55.
Mentors provide student-athletes assistance in completing online courses. 46%
Online Courses #56. Tutors provide student-athletes assistance in completing online courses. 46%
Online Courses #57. Counselors and advisors provide student-athletes assistance in completing online courses. 46%
Exam Proctoring #61. Counselors and advisors proctor exams for student-athletes. 20%
Overview of Methodology:
Academic integrity is a national priority, and the purpose of this report is to assist institutions in distinguishing academic
support functions they perform effectively and to assist institutions in recognizing academic support areas they might consider
adjusting to ensure integrity and appropriate conduct. For purposes of this assessment, risk are factors associated with NCAA
rules violations, academic integrity issues and the threat of public scrutiny relating to institutional processes evidenced in
NCAA major infraction cases, secondary violation reports and highlighted by media reports. In addition, the four pillars of
institutional control that encompass compliance systems (e.g., does a written policy exist), rules education programming
(e.g., is the policy communicated to the appropriate individuals), monitoring systems (e.g., are procedures being followed
and in a timely manner), and a commitment to compliance are inherent in the survey questions as that is the viewpoint by
which the NCAA Committee on Infractions assesses academic integrity matters.
Results from the survey are summarized in the above institutional effectiveness profile. Information gathered includes top
strengths, potential opportunities for improvement, overall summary of responses for each question and a comprehensive
summary of all comments. Items with a lower favorability ranking do not necessitate the need to make an adjustment to that
process, as it may not be appropriate based on the philosophy of the institution. However, it does provide an opportunity to
discuss and evaluate the topical area and make appropriate modifications relating to developing policies, communicating
standards to applicable constituency groups, or enhancing monitoring systems. Additionally, regardless of the favorability
rating if specific questions were responded to with a significant number of “Don’t Know” then the opportunity for increased
or targeted education may exist.
Analysis of Results – Self Assessment:
Overall, ten respondents completed the survey. Those ten were comprised of three academic support, one faculty, four
compliance, and two academic affairs.
Results from the Self-Assessment were especially strong with over 63% of all responses receiving a 100% favorability rating.
This was especially prevalent in the areas associated with communication and monitoring. Questions 11-49 of the survey
relate specifically to this component, and most were answered extremely favorably by those individuals with direct oversight
and responsibility within each department or functional area being fully aware of such institutional standards.
Potential opportunities for improvement exist regarding policies and procedures, primarily pertaining to access to student-
athlete information including passwords and user names (#46 and #47). These continue to be significant areas in academic
integrity and should have a written policy for athletic department constituents. Previous major infractions cases involving the
inappropriate or unauthorized use of student-athlete login information reinforce the need to include restrictive policies and
procedures at institutional and department levels. Additionally, if academic services staff access to student academic progress
information is essential, it may be helpful to request observer access to student information within the campus’ learning
management system.
Page 3 of 4
Academic Integrity Assessment
Institutional Effectiveness Profile
Another area for improvement is the area of monitoring and formalizing a process to address online courses that transfer
students complete this semester immediately prior to enrollment, coaches teaching courses in which student athletes are
involved and grade distribution of those specific classes (#35, #38, and #40).
The new NCAA rules have also expanded the application of academic integrity to any situation in which an institutional staff
member is involved. Therefore, the institution might consider individually assessing the results of each question to determine
if a significant number of “No” or “Don’t Know” responses exist and implement the applicable educational programming to
ensure everyone is informed and aware of institutional expectations. Additionally, if a specific functional area (e.g.,
compliance, academics) entrusted with direct oversight and expertise for the institution but did not respond or responded with
“Don’t Know) the institution might consider further collaboration and communication relative to these areas to ensure
institutional control.
Analysis of Results – Comprehensive Assessment:
The results of the Comprehensive Assessment were 42 of 71 questions resulted in a favorability rating of 90% or higher and
73% of all questions had a favorability rating of over 75% with 6 questions receiving a score below 55%. Based on the
information provided, potential areas for additional education relate to tutoring outside of Jaqua Center (#21), student-athletes
hired to tutor other student-athletes (#22), academic support in the completion of assignments relating to online courses (#55,
#56, #57), and counselors and advisors proctoring exams (#61).
It appears tutoring occurs outside of the academic support center. While alone, this is not necessarily a concern, it is important
to ensure that the department has policies and educational foundations for academic support professionals, tutors, mentors,
and student-athletes to understand parameters and safeguards to ensure academic integrity within this area. The institution
might consider formalized training including a sign-off of understanding and acknowledgment along with approval logs for
where and when tutoring and proctoring take place. This will allow staff members to do random checks and review to verify
that policies and procedures are being followed. Additional parameters and education along with consultation with the
Compliance staff when student-athletes can be hired as tutors. Student-athletes both giving and receiving tutorial help should
understand the context with which academic integrity exist and need to adhere to the institution’s rules and regulations.
Ensuring tutors and student-athletes are aware of this and know how to communicate issues or concerns is in the institution’s
best interest.
To address the questions related to respondents’ familiarity with policies in online course work and staff proctoring exams,
it would be beneficial to review current policies and procedures in both the Student-Athlete Handbook and academic staff
manuals. Additionally, this could be added as an area of additional emphasis in compliance rules education team meetings
and with professional staff at the beginning of each academic year. Furthermore, these points could be emphasized during
academic integrity and misconduct education meetings during the department’s new student-athlete orientation.
The institution might consider reviewing current guidelines and providing additional clarification regarding (1) who can
proctor (e.g., testing center, academic services unit at another institution, Faculty Athletics Representative), and (2) in what
circumstances (e.g., travel, medical issue, or physical disability).
As evident and applicable to the results outlined in the self-assessment, the institution might consider individually reviewing
results of each question to determine if a significant number of exist and implement the applicable educational programming
or communication strategies to ensure appropriate individuals are informed and aware of institutional expectations.
Page 4 of 4
Academic Integrity Assessment
Institutional Effectiveness Profile
A major area of concern is there were a substantial number “Don’t Know” responses by those categorized as “Academics”.
Of the five respondents, there were 33 out of 71 questions that at least 2 people responded with “Don’t Know”. Immediate
and intentional education of the academic staff to the policies and procedures as well as expectations should be a priority to
limit any potential academic integrity or misconduct issues.
The comments provided were very limited in nature and scope. Of the 212 participants, only on average 17 respondents
provided comments but on average 195 skipped the opportunity to give a comment. With the limited meaningful comments,
it was difficult to assess specific academic integrity improvement strategies. However, the institution might consider
assessing policy adjustments and/or educational efforts for most circumstances representing potential opportunities for
improvement.
Potential Next Steps:
A sound academic support services program begins with senior-level administrators assuming leadership roles in establishing
a commitment to academic initiatives. In that regard, a teleconference can be arranged to further analyze and discuss the
contents of the report with the institutional liaison. In addition, a status report will be requested from the institution six months
following distribution of this report to determine how recommendations or opportunities for improvement have been
implemented.
1 / N4A
National Association of Academic and Student-Athlete Development Professionals (N4A)
Best Practices for Promoting and Maintaining a Culture of Student-Athlete Success,
Accountability, and Academic Integrity
It is the expectation of the N4A that student-athletes will make academic progress in a manner
consistent with other students in accordance with institutional academic codes of conduct. Ideally,
student-athletes should engage in academic pursuits based upon their personal passions and career
interests and compete with character in the classroom. This document has been developed to
provide a template so that individual institutions may create policies and practices that fit their
unique needs, yet adhere to the core values of student engagement, personal development,
academic rigor, and integrity. The policies and practices herein are not a prescriptive list of specific
instructions; rather, they are meant to serve as structural support for this philosophical foundation,
and take into account wide arrays of resource allocation and institutional differences. When
building policies from the base provided, institutions should take great care to include
representatives from their campus communities and align with existing policies that may already
exist. While various constituent groups (coaches, faculty, athletics personnel, etc.) are mentioned
throughout the document, more than any other group, student-athletes themselves must be
educated and trained to understand, accept, and value a culture of independent learning that places
a premium on their well-being and holistic development.
NON-TRADITIONAL COURSES
The recent proliferation of nontraditional courses has created an additional complexity for
academic support units for student-athletes in monitoring these courses. The N4A recommends
each campus create a broad-based campus committee (including athletics and non-athletics
department personnel) to define non-traditional courses on their campus, identify existing,
campus-wide policies and procedures regarding non-traditional courses and wherever possible,
align with these campus policies and procedures. Issues of concern for committees to address
include, but are not limited to:
• enrollment guidelines and restrictions for student-athletes
• academic support strategies for non-traditional courses (i.e., tutorial)
• proctoring of online exams and assignments
• access/completion of online assignments and exams in athletic facilities
• restrictions on non-academic athletics department personnel (i.e., coaches, operations staff,
etc.)
• evaluation of academic outcomes for student-athletes in non-traditional courses as compared to
overall student body
• education and training for students and staff
• syllabus collection
•
annual reporting structures
•
off-campus testing procedures
•
general security standards
• educate staff in recognizing questionable activities and how to report/document violations
2 / N4A
ACADEMIC SUPPORT CENTERS / COMPUTER LABS
As academic support programs have developed, so have the growth of academic support centers.
While not all centers are stand-alone facilities, the N4A defines any location where student-athletes
are assigned to complete study hall/tutorial assignments as an area the following practices should
be considered. Though not an exhausted list, the N4A recommends each campus consider the
following practices for oversight of academic support centers:
• clearly defined schedule for supervision of the facility/center
• clearly defined restrictions regarding non-academic athletics department personnel
• clearly defined parameters regarding individuals and activities in each space
• education and training for students and staff to include reporting of questionable activities
• regular evaluation for all personnel engaged in providing academic support (e.g., advising,
tutoring, mentoring)
• policy regarding services available to former student-athletes
•
documented policies and procedures to report any violation of institutional or NCAA policy
• safety issue should be addressed when academic centers are open late at night (i.e., locked
doors, student-athletes unable to leave the academic center alone after a specific time, etc.)
• a clear plan of action of any emergencies or harmful situations should be established
ACADEMIC SUPPORT PERSONNEL
Regardless of title or employment status, personnel hired specifically to provide academic support
services to student-athletes (i.e., tutors, mentors, learning specialists) must take great care to foster
a student-driven environment with clearly defined expectations and limitations. These employees
must be committed to the highest levels of academic integrity, and have a strong conviction to
uphold the mission of the institution. Though not an exhaustive list, the N4A recommends each
campus consider the following practices related to personnel hired specifically to provide academic
assistance to student-athletes:
• required participation in comprehensive training program
• policy to encourage and clearly outline reporting of suspicious or questionable activity
• personnel records with documentation of any previous issues, warnings, and/or violations of
institutional policy
• monitoring and supervision of adherence to all policies
• well-established hiring policies and practices
• policy related to non-work related communication with student-athletes, staff, and coaches (i.e.,
social media communication)
• ongoing training and evaluation of personnel
• policies regarding access to online student records and accounts
• required exit interviews of all personnel
• policies outlining tutorial relationships based on relevant factors (e.g., prior relationships with
student-athletes, sport)
• communication with University staff about changes/trends in University code of conduct policy
3 / N4A
CAMPUS COMMUNICATION
The campus community including faculty, staff, and students are critically important in fostering
and promoting an environment of academic integrity. Given the complexities surrounding a
student-athlete’s collegiate experience, the N4A recommends each campus consider the following
practices regarding communication with campus constituents:
• clearly defined role and responsibility of the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)
communicated broadly to campus
• communicate expectation that student-athletes not be granted special treatment from faculty
because of their participation in intercollegiate athletics
• policy developed regarding appropriate communication between faculty and athletics
personnel (e.g., faculty and coaches, staff and coaches, admissions personnel)
• documentation practices to define on-campus recruiting rules and restrictions
• Support campus policy for proper identification and communication of academic misconduct
and educate coaches and athletics department personnel
• communicate with faculty of nontraditional courses to determine what they consider
appropriate academic support (i.e. tutorial) for their assignments
ACADEMIC ADVISING / COUNSELING
Student-athletes must be encouraged to explore and actively seek their own individual academic
interests. Policies and practices should reflect this philosophy so that with regard to course
enrollment and major selection, their experience as a group is indistinguishable from that of the
general student body on any given campus. The N4A recommends each campus develop policies
and practices that encourage student-athletes to actively engage in the process of course and major
selection, and to consider the following practices related to specific course enrollment and
matriculation of majors:
• ongoing collaboration with campus units to educate student-athletes on major and course
options, and other academic opportunities
• review by semester the student-athlete course enrollment compared to overall campus student
enrollment
• annual review of distribution of student-athletes across majors on campus
• documented procedures for academic advising of student-athletes
• ongoing education for academic support staff in academic programs on campus
• efforts to facilitate communication between academic support personnel and campus advisors
• efforts to connect student-athletes with major and college advisors regularly
• outreach efforts with campus career services and student-athlete development office to connect
major selection with career objectives and job placement
•
active involvement of student-athletes in all academic advising conversations
4 / N4A
SUMMARY
The National Association of Academic and Student-Athlete Development Professionals (N4A) is a
group of professionals committed to the holistic development of the collegiate student-athlete with
an emphasis on academic opportunity, development, and success. Understanding the complexities
of the student-athlete experience and the pressures associated with the drive for athletic
achievement, the core of our work is the empowerment of the student-athlete throughout the
matriculation process and making an effective transition to life beyond intercollegiate athletics.
Central to this mission is an unyielding commitment to academic integrity. As academic and
student-athlete development professionals we are committed to helping create and uphold a
culture of integrity that emphasizes student-athlete engagement and academic rigor. At every turn,
student-athletes should be given opportunities to make choices that challenge themselves and
increase their odds of being successful after graduation and away from their field of competition.