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:
  

 
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:

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: 

Divisions I, II and III Column:

Investigation Interview Best Practices: Assessing Credibility of Interview Subjects

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.

About the Firm