To better understand the current Certification workload and output, Certification Oversight has reviewed data from 2025 to see if we can identify any trends in our applying officials, as well as compare the numbers from 2024 and 2023 to see if there are any major changes. As always, we welcome your input, thoughts, and feedback.
Some other things we wanted to review included the number of Level 3 Recertifications reviewed and processed, pronoun identity and officiating type, and where our applicants are located. Additionally, we measured the average length of time it takes for an official to receive their determination.
2025 Certification Stats: 120 total applicants
By Levels Applied
Level 1: 55
Level 2: 34
Level 3: 14
Level 1 Mobile Certification: 3
Level 3 Recertification: 14
By Level Earned
Level 1: 72
Level 2: 19
Level 3: 25
Recognized: 1
Applied vs Earned
Equal levels: 87
Bump levels: 5
Reduced levels: 25
By Officiating Type
Non-skating (NSO): 75
Skating (SO): 45
Preferred Pronouns of Applicants (NSO/SO)
She/Her: 56 (25/31)
He/Him: 35 (9/26)
They/Them: 14 (7/7)
She/They: 12 (3/9)
He/They: 3 (1/2)
By Location
USA: 74
Europe: 22
Canada: 13
Australia: 8
Other: 3
Major takeaways and other thoughts
Average wait time is long (~3 months to receive determination) but is steadily decreasing
14% increase in officials applying for certification from 2024 to 2025
NSO/SO application divide widened from 2024 (see linked post for more information)
Most officials receive the level they applied for
Overall, we’re interested to see how the WFTDA Officials and Skater feedback results compare to our findings, specifically regarding gender and power dynamics in officiating. Additionally, while we’re not surprised to find that a significant portion of officials applying for certification are located in the United States, we wonder if it’s worth breaking these numbers down further to see where our officials are and if membership would find this information beneficial, especially for those who are geographically isolated. Finally, we were able to make significant progress on the the backlog of certification applications once we were caught up on the Level 3 Recertifications, but we’ll be looking into ways to reduce the wait time for determinations.
More information can be found in this slide deck, and a recorded presentation can be made upon request.
… regarding gender and power dynamics in officiating…
On this theme, I am curious whether you discovered any important differences in the rate of certification at the target level based on the applicant’s gender identity (as indicated by pronoun selection).
Regarding “Applied vs. earned”, do you know if applicants getting reduced level is linked to materials (evals, OOS) lacking the right information ?
Great questions, and I hope I’m able to sufficiently answer them (and if not, I’m happy to explain further).
@stacktrace If I’m understanding your query correctly, I’ve updated the slide deck to include two additional charts to show the differences in pronoun (gender identity), officiating type (NSO/SO), and levels applied and earned. Overall we had more applicants for Level 1 (and most of those applicants preferred feminine pronouns), but those with masculine pronouns applied for certification on skates versus off.
@Micro The reduced level counts include officials who applied to “skip” a level, such as an official who is currently not certified applying for L2 or L3, or an official who is currently L1 applying for L3. If you’re interested in more information about how many officials applied to skip levels, I’m happy to look more into that (I’d just need some time to go through each individual application).
That being said, from my experience (as Eggs, not as someone from Oversight) I’ve seen different reasons for the “reduced” level, but I’d say more often than not it’s from missing nuanced or detailed information about an official’s experience and knowledge to justify the higher level; other times it’s the lack of evaluations to give more evidence for an official’s experience. It’s truly different for each case, and it’s one reason why I want to look into how we can connect higher leveled/more experienced officials with the next generation.
@BaconTheQuestion Mobile Certification was rolled out for RDWC for officials who struggle to get the requisite overviews and evaluations to apply for certification; several members of the WFTDA Certification team (Oversights, panel chairs, and reviewers) were present as evaluators to provide detailed reviews for these officials, and they could then apply for Level 1. RDWC was a great opportunity to roll this out (pun intended) since it brought so many people together from around the world and allowed for officials (many of whom may be geographically isolated, or have other barriers to get the necessary overviews) to get feedback and information and the apply for certification.
Appreciate this reflect and check and the hard work all panel members do for people who apply.
As a non USA official, I’d love the certified officials list to be able to sort by region. Just so I can see who the cert people are in the region to gain wisdom from. Would help when doing IRGFs etc.
would love to know data of the people that applied to skip levels and were reduced, and also those that were bumped up and their region. Are they seeing officiating in their region and mentally slotting themselves in a level or not seeing something in their region.
To give context about the skipping levels and reduced levels etc. I was someone who applied to skip from 1 to 3 and was awarded 2. I was not disappointed AT ALL. I applied for 3 because I recognised that in my region there was very few officials who were officiating at the level I was, atleast in terms of THO, teaching and mentoring roles (hopefully that’s read humbly). I figured it was a bit of a leap but thought I’d put it out there and also come away with feedback that people might not have said to me personally. That’s what I’ve received and I’m so grateful to hear and learn more so I can reach level 3. Just thought I would share my reasonings to maybe explain some of the data.
Just a couple notes. First is that coding region is very hard, and sort of imprecise. People move, and don’t change their identity or officiating history, sometimes for years. For independent officials, we sort of just have to guess. And some league names are old, or similar. Eggs did this manually for this year’s 120 applicants but I can’t ask her to do it for the 1,200 applicants already on the roster…it’s just too much work.
But in terms of cutting the data down by region – there is a sneaky privacy risk at play when we cut the data into too-thin of slices: With only 8 applicants, being too specific might lead them to be identified. As you note, you applied from L1 to L3 and got L2. So anything we say about “aussie folks who tried to skip L2” wouldn’t actually be a general statement, it’d be a statement about you, and maybe one other person. And if we said “there were only 2, and one was X and the other was Y,” then you’d know which one you were, so we’d be telling you specific information about the other person, who you might be able to identify. That would violate their privacy. So unfortunately we can’t dig deeper on the Aussie group specifically but that is definitely an interesting question!
From my very general read of packets overall, I’d say you’re not alone. A lot of people apply for a higher level just thinking hey, why not, and are totally fine with going up one level instead of two. Most of them are actually not far off, either, and the summary we send them often can help them focus to reach the next level faster since they now know the one or two things missing. A few skip attempts were simply not aware that higher levels mean more than just “being better.” Truly inaccurate self-assessments are rare.
Is there a way to add a region box on the profile of the OHD? And then be able to filter out from there? I guess for US based people they might work across regions?
I didn’t think about small data samples and being able to identify. I think I was just curious about if there are trends regionally in thinking around cert that could be found in the data. A worthy consideration and reflection I’d think - mostly I’m curious as I want derby to grow beyond US, and want to help and understand what the attitudes and limits are in the regions. I don’t know if I’ll ever get the opportunity to travel internationally for financial reasons but I still want to be part of the best derby.
Certification doesn’t own or control the OHD but I’m sure OffTech will see this and consider adding a dropdown for region to the profile. That would make it a little easier, and other committees would probably also appreciate, but there’s still some foibles (like, for the whole roster, many of the OHDs are several versions old and probably not up to date).
What we actually need is a proper way to manage officiating identities as an “account,” linked to Games data so we know that you and I officiated the “same” game, which would be queryable as a database. Before then it’s sort of doomed to be somewhat imprecise and laborious. But at least it’s free!
