POSTED: Wednesday November 2nd 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

College Athletics Best Practices Alert: 2011 Athletics Compliance Survey Results

Division I Column:
2011 Athletics Compliance Survey Results
Author: Michael L. Buckner, Esquire (Shareholder)
 
The average NCAA Division I institution only employs two full-time compliance employees and does not rely on formal proactive monitoring programs, according to the results of the 2011 Athletics Compliance Survey, which were released today.
The Athletics Compliance Survey was conducted by the Michael L. Buckner Law Firm, which advises universities on NCAA enforcement investigations and compliance matters. The Buckner Law Firm commissioned the survey to assist Division I athletics departments with identifying NCAA rules-compliance trends, issues and best practices. The survey, which was conducted over the July 12, 2011, to August 1, 2011, period, was completed by athletics administrators and staff from 76 NCAA member institutions with at least one Division I sports program. Specifically, the following data represent the survey respondents' divisional and sub-divisional categories:
 
Division I-FBS (35)
Division I-FCS (28)
Division I (no football) (10)
Division II (with at least one Division I sport) (2)
Division III (with at least one Division I sport) (1).
Compliance Staff
According to the survey, Division I institutions employ an average of two (2) full-time administrators and staff in the athletics compliance office (or three (3) persons if the faculty athletics representative or another faculty member with compliance-related duties is counted). However, the Michael L. Buckner Law Firm recommends Division I institutions hire a minimum of three (3) full-time employees that are assigned to the athletics compliance office. Further, the law firm advises schools to increase the number of compliance staff beyond three FTE based on several institutional factors, including: number of student-athletes; number of sports programs; history of major rules-violations; number of boosters; number of high-profile athletes; and the athletics department's mission and vision. The lack of sufficient (and experienced) compliance staff hinders institutions from maintaining institutional control and demonstrating proactive monitoring-two core NCAA membership requirements.
Interestingly, in Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), institutions hire an average of three (3) full-time administrators/staff/interns (or four (4) persons if the faculty athletics representative or another faculty member with compliance-related duties is counted) and one (1) part-time intern/volunteer in the athletics compliance office. Conversely, in Division I-Football Championship Subdivision (FCS), institutions hire an average of two (2) full-time administrators and staff (or three (3) persons if the faculty athletics representative or another faculty member with compliance-related duties is counted) in the athletics compliance office.
Lack of Monitoring Programs
The recent increase in the number of NCAA enforcement investigations involving high-profile student-athletes and third-parties (e.g., sports agents, AAU coaches, street agents, sports marketers) justifies institutions implementing proactive monitoring programs. In fact, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions in the June 10, 2010, University of Southern California enforcement case advised schools "close monitoring and follow through on information must be employed". The Committee on Infractions also informed institutions "to heed clear warning signs". Division I institutions can fulfill the committee's directives through the use of comprehensive, formal monitoring programs. Unfortunately, the survey revealed the average Division I institution does not rely on monitoring programs, processes or procedures in all crucial compliance areas. At the highest point, 71.1 percent of Division I institutions use a formal program to register and monitor the summer employment-related activities of student-athletes. However, registration and monitoring programs, processes or procedures in other areas are not as commonplace in Division I. For example, only 59.2 percent of schools have a vehicle registration program and just 57.9 percent of universities use an athlete/sports agent program. Most troubling, monitoring programs in other compliance areas are rare:
Local merchant program (28.6%)
Social-network monitoring program (28.6%)
High-profile student-athlete program (14.3%).

Compliance Decision-making: Eligibility and Financial-Aid
The survey provided insight on which institutional staff member has been designated as the point person concerning decisions in core compliance processes. For example, the person or office that is most responsible for making eligibility-certification determinations (i.e., initial, transfer and continuing) at Division I institutions is either the registrar (or designee) (37.8%) or the athletics compliance staff (33.8%). Further, the person or office that is most responsible for making financial-aid determinations at Division I institutions is either the financial-aid director (or designee) (52.6%) or the athletics compliance staff (47.4%).
Rules-Education
The Michael L. Buckner Law Firm recommends using diverse methods to educate persons on NCAA legislation, including, but not limited to: workshops; newsletters; e-mails; videos; online tools; and small-group discussions. The law firm also recommends institutions maintain a high frequency (e.g., weekly, monthly) of distributing or reviewing rules-education materials to the targeted population.
The survey revealed Division I institutions use e-mail as the primary method to disseminate rules-education. Further, the survey identified the average frequency and form of rules-education to the following constituencies and groups:
Coaches (weekly, 44.1%; e-mail)
Athletics staff (monthly, 47.8%; e-mail)
Athletics administrators (monthly, 44.1%; e-mail)
University employees with athletically-related duties (quarterly, 28.4%; e-mail)
Trustees/regents (annually, 34.3%; newsletters/memos)
Booster/alum groups (semi-annually, 29.4%; newsletters/memos).

Compliance Manual
Written policies and procedures, which are commonly compiled in a compliance manual, are one way to demonstrate institutional control. The survey noted most Division I institutions (94.1%) possess a written athletics compliance manual. Surprisingly, 5.9 percent of persons who responded to the survey admitted that their institutions do not have a compliance manual.
Compliance Audits
NCAA Bylaw 22.2.1.2-(e) requires each institution to demonstrate that "at least once every four years, its rules-compliance program is the subject of evaluation by an authority outside the athletics department". The survey indicates 54.4 percent of schools perform the required external audit once every four years. Moreover, according to the survey, 23.5 percent of schools conduct annual audits, 5.9 percent complete an evaluation every two years and 13.2 percent undergo a compliance review every three years. However, 2.9 percent of schools never conducted an external compliance audit.
Secondary Violations
Finally, the survey indicated Division I institutions self-report an average of 10.5 secondary rules-violations during the 2010-11 academic year.
Full Survey Results
A summary of, and raw data for, the results of the 2011 Athletics Compliance Survey can be purchased by visting our survey results purchase page (which can be visited by clicking here).
Contact Michael L. Buckner (954-941-1844; mbuckner@michaelbucknerlaw.com) for recommendations on enhancing your institution's compliance program.
Divisions I, II and III Column:
Investigation Interview Best Practices: Assessing Credibility of Interview Subjects
Author: Michael L. Buckner, Esquire (Shareholder) 
One of the most crucial responsibilities for an investigator during an investigation of alleged NCAA rules-violations is to assess the credibility of interview subjects.

The Michael L. Buckner Law Firm recommends an investigator consider the following questions when assessing an interview subject's credibility:
Could the interview subject hear and/or see what he/she claimed?
Should the interview subject have heard and/or seen things that he/she did not admit?
Does the interview subject have a documented history of misconduct?
Has the interview subject made previous allegations or complaints?
Have there been other incidents between the interview subject and the target of the investigation?
Does the interview subject have a motive to lie about, exaggerate, or deny the allegations?
Is there a history between the interview subject and the target of the investigation that affects the subject's credibility?
Does the interview subject have a special loyalty or a grudge against anyone involved in the investigation?
Did anyone else already speak to, or interview, the interview subject about the allegations?
Did the interview subject provide the media (e.g., newspaper, Internet, TV, radio) with information relating to the allegations?
Did the interview subject testify or provide a sworn statement pertaining to the allegations in a legal or administrative proceeding?

Contact Michael L. Buckner (954-941-1844; mbuckner@michaelbucknerlaw.com) for additional recommendations for conducting investigation interviews.

Divisions II and III Column:
NCAA Division II and III Presidents "Experience" the Enforcement Process—Elements of an Internal Investigation Plan

Author: Justin P. Sievert (Of-Counsel)
This past week, NCAA Division II and III presidents and chancellors took part in a condensed version of the "The Enforcement Experience." The two-and-a-half hour session conducted by the NCAA enforcement staff provided participants with insight into a typical enforcement case and the ensuing investigation. The purpose of the presentation was to educate the presidents and chancellors on the steps involved in the enforcement process. While major infractions cases at the NCAA Division II and III level are less common than at the Division I level (approximately 27 percent of 99 major infractions cases since 2004 involved a Division II or III institution) it is still important for institutions to understand the process and to have internal investigation policies and procedures in place should an alleged rules-violation surface.
 
In order to develop policies and procedures to conduct an internal investigation, an institution should address: a) what specific event triggers an inquiry; b) how complaints, tips, rumors and anonymous reports concerning possible violations of NCAA legislation are received and reviewed; c) who conducts the inquiry; and d) what methodologies are used to review possible major and secondary violations.
Overall, an investigation policy and procedure should include the following elements:
1. Expectation statement documenting the obligation of institutional personnel, students and athletic representatives to report possible violations of NCAA legislation.
 
2. Procedures designed to impose "immediate and severe consequences" for failing to report alleged violations of NCAA legislation or to act immediately once an alleged violation is discovered.
 
3. Regularly scheduled compliance meetings with the compliance officer, compliance staff, faculty athletics representative, initial eligibility certifying officer and other personnel with compliance-related duties. The meetings enable personnel with compliance-related duties to share or piece together rumors or possible allegations of improper conduct.
4. Procedures designating an institutional official as responsible for contacting the NCAA vice-president for enforcement services and the conference office when the institution has determined it will investigate allegations of possible major violations.
5. Procedures governing how internal investigators will be retained or appointed.
6. Procedures to conduct an independent and thorough investigation and plan the investigation report. The procedures also should require the report's submission to institutional administrators, including the chief executive officer and the director of athletics, within a reasonable period.
7. Procedures defining clear duties and responsibilities for administrators (including the director of athletics, compliance coordinator, faculty athletics representative and general counsel) during an investigation.
8. Procedures to address and correct identified deficiencies in policies, procedures and processes within the institution and the athletics program.
9. Procedures for reporting rules-violations, corrective measures and self-imposed penalties to the institution's athletic conference and the NCAA enforcement staff.
10. Procedures to incorporate the investigation policy and procedure into the athletic compliance education program.
Contact Justin P. Sievert (954-941-1844; jsievert@michaelbucknerlaw.com) for more recommendations pertaining to conducting internal investigations of alleged NCAA rules-violations.

About the Firm
The Michael L. Buckner Law Firm is a boutique law firm that assists college and university presidents, general counsel, and athletic administrators with addressing NCAA enforcement investigations, infractions appeals and rules-compliance issues. The law firm website can be found at http://www.michaelbucknerlaw.com.

# # #

Keywords · Michael Buckner · NCAA · infractions

Name: Michael L. Buckner Law Firm
Organization: Michael L. Buckner Law Firm
Email:
Phone: (954) 941-1844 (Office)
URL: http://www.michaelbucknerlaw.com

Please refer all questions to the company listed above issuing the press release. SFC will not be able to assist you with any inquiries and disclaims any content in these press releases.