Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
“NAAC Standards and NCAA Investigations” By: Members of NAAC and NCAA Enforcement Staff
Session Overview 1. History of NAAC 2. Review of Reasonable and Proposed Standards 3. Enforcement’s Use of Standards 4. Case Studies
HISTORY 2006 - 1st NAACC Workshop- At Minnesota 2007 - NAACC Workshop at Texas - First attempt at strategic plan for the organization 2008 - Became NAAC - Refined Strategic Plan - First NAAC Convention in conjunction with NACDA
HISTORY 2009 -NAAC conducts Compliance Roundtable with members of the Division I Committee on Infractions, the NCAA enforcement staff, commissioners, athletics directors and NAAC board members. 2010 - NAAC sent draft standards to compliance administrators, commissioners, members of the Division I Committee on Infractions and the NCAA enforcement staff. - The NCAA enforcement staff provided specific feedback and a general statement endorsing the standards and process.
NAAC’s Goals 1 2 3 Best Practices Develop and implement standards and best practices in athletics compliance. Compliance Solutions Serve as a trusted athletics compliance resource within the higher education community. Professional Development Provide education and professional development opportunities. Organizational Advancement Cultivate, develop and secure diversified resources to support the Association’s activities. Communication Articulate and advocate the Association’s vision, mission and value to the stakeholders. 4 5
Mission … to foster the highest possible professional and ethical standards, while providing athletics compliance a broad range of personal and professional advancement opportunities. Further, it is NAAC’s mission to improve the overall understanding and effectiveness of the athletics compliance profession, while upholding the ideals of higher education.
Reasonable Standards Committee Creating universal compliance standards for member institutions 1. Collaborate to define and create reasonable compliance standards for institutions. 2. Provide clear guidelines for institutions when developing compliance programs. 3. Improve the level of athletics compliance on a national level and increase confidence in the profession.
Reasonable Standards Committee • Then • David Batson, Texas A&M • Brad Cox, West Virginia • Carrie Doyle, NC State • Ellen Ferris, Southern California • Robin Harris, Ivy League • Elizabeth Heinrich, Michigan • Kate Hickey, Rutgers • Jamie McCloskey, Florida • Tim Parker, Virginia Tech • Steve Waterfield, Wisconsin • Now • Doug Bakker, DePaul • David Batson, Texas A&M • Kelly Cruttenden, Buffalo • Keli Cunningham, West Virginia • Carrie Doyle, NC State • Ellen Ferris, Southern California • Robert Greimm, Missouri-Kansas City • Ann Marie Guglieri, Colgate • Robin Harris, Ivy League • Elizabeth Heinrich, Michigan • Kate Hickey, Rutgers • Tim Parker, Virginia Tech
Reasonable Standards Next Steps 1. NAAC Membership Survey. 2. Identify areas with highest need and most practical application. 3. Review processes and forms from schools recognized as strong in identified areas. 4. Develop draft standards. 5. Circulate for review and feedback.
First Round of Reasonable Standards and Proposed Standards First Round of Standards Proposed Standards • 1. Occasional Meals (Bylaw 220.127.116.11) • 2. Recruiting Correspondence with • Prospective Student-Athletes (Bylaw 13.4 ) • 3. Financial Aid from Outside Sources • (Bylaw 15.2.6) • 4. Playing and Practice Season • Declaration (Bylaw 17) • 1. Countable Athletically Related Activities (Bylaws 17.02 and 17.1) • 2. Complimentary Admissions for Student-Athlete Guests and Student-Athletes in Sports Other Than Their Own • (Bylaw 16.2) • 3. Recruiting Contacts and • Evaluations (Bylaws 11.7.4, 13.01.3, 13.02, 13.1 and 30.10)
Enforcement Staff’s Overall Position Athletics administrators face difficult challenges of monitoring various aspects of athletics. Supportive of the concept of industry standards. Not a safe harbor, but instead, establishes norms and offers guidance to compliance administrators.
How will Enforcement Staff Use Standards? 1.Important resource when assessing an institution’s responsibility for underlying major infractions. 2. No “one size fits all approach.” 3. Each case presents a unique set of facts.
Failure to Monitor Failure to monitor is a distinguishable violation: Separate citation - NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 A failure to check on adequate, established systems – “Just not paying attention” “Lesser included offense”
Case Study No. 1 Case Study No. 1 Countable Athletically Related Activities Facts Over the course of approximately two years, the football program exceeded time limits for countable athletically related activities (CARA). The football staff failed to count or include time spent in required warm-up and stretching activities within CARA limits. The football staff sometimes failed to count or include required weight training within CARA limits. The athletics department developed a compliance monitoring system pertaining to CARA. However, the football program was not held to the requirement that CARA forms be submitted to the compliance staff for auditing purposes.
Case Study No. 1 How Violation was Discovered Local media reported potential violation involving excessive practice time. Enforcement staff and institution interviewed staff and student-athletes and reviewed CARA forms, and CARA violations were confirmed. Institution’s Monitoring System - CARA All sport programs were required to complete CARA forms that identified the time student-athletes spent in CARA. All sports were required to submit CARA forms on a weekly basis. Compliance audited CARA forms to ensure NCAA rules compliance. Compliance provided NCAA rules education to coaches, student-athletes and athletics department staff members regarding CARA legislation.
Case Study No. 1 Institution’s Failure to Monitor As it relates to CARA, the institution failed to monitor its football program to assure compliance in: Time limits for countable athletically related activities.
Case Study No. 1 Institution’s Failure to Monitor The football program was not held accountable for submitting CARA forms as required within the CARA monitoring system. Compliance staff and other athletics administrators were aware that football failed to submit CARA forms – however, football was allowed to operate outside monitoring system for 2 years.
Case Study No. 2 Case Study No. 2 Outside Financial Aid for Student-Athletes Facts Mr. Scooter provided $20,000 in education expenses for the golf student-athlete to attend Thompson University during the 2009-10 academic year. The relationship between Mr. Scooter and the golf student-athlete originated at a local golf club near their respective homes. Mr. Scooter and the golf student-athlete were introduced by the golf student-athlete’s club coach prior to the student-athlete’s ninth grade year. The relationship developed based on mutual interest in golf and due to student-athlete’s amazing golf swing.
Case Study No. 2 Outside Financial Aid for Student-Athletes How Violation was Discovered Compliance staff sent a compliance update email to all representatives of the institution’s athletics interests, including Mr. Scooter. In response, Mr. Scooter contacted the institution’s director of athletics to discuss whether his provision of athletics aid to the golf-student-athlete would be of any concern. Immediately following, director of athletics instructed compliance to begin an investigation. Background on Mr. Scooter Former golf student-athlete at the institution. Made contributions to institutionally recognized organization for over 20 years.
Case Study No. 2 Outside Financial Aid for Student-Athletes Monitoring efforts by institution Golf student-athlete identified sources of all financial aid, including Mr. Scooter’s aid, on financial aid reporting form. Golf student-athlete identified Mr. Scooter as a family friend. Student worker in financial aid office was directed to review institutional records for all student-athletes even though the institution had a written policy that financial aid records be reviewed by director of compliance. Student worker was not provided rules education. Director of compliance failed to review all the student-athletes’ financial aid records.
Case Study No. 2 Outside Financial Aid for Student-Athletes QUESTION: Should the enforcement staff allege a failure to monitor? a. Adequate NCAA rules education. b. Failure to abide by institution’s written policy. c. Timely internal investigation into the matter. d. Timely reporting of the matter to the enforcement staff.
Questions? Need More Information? Elizabeth Heinrich Kate Hickey Joyce Thompson Jackie Thurnes