NAAC REASONABLE STANDARD Relevant Bylaws: 12.4 Employment 13.12.2.1 Student-Athletes (Employment at Camp or Clinic) Purpose: To ensure that institutions are engaging in appropriate monitoring, education and documentation with regard to student-athlete employment. Generally, to ensure that the pay, benefits and duties of employed student-athletes are comparable to other employees of similar skills and experience. Monitoring Standards: Activity: Collect and review the following information from any student-athlete who is employed in any capacity (e.g. camp or clinic, federal work-study) other than fee-for-lesson employment (academic year or summer). The information collected should include: Name of Employer Employer address Employer email/phone Name of Supervisor A description of how the student-athlete obtained the job Description of duties Expected start and end dates Pay rate Anticipated hours per week Payment format (check, cash, direct deposit etc) Other employment benefits (transportation, meals, etc) Frequency: Ideally, prior to the student-athlete beginning the employment, with updates as appropriate. Particular attention should be paid when dealing with elite student-athlete employment, athletic department employment, and employment arranged by the institution. There is a heightened responsibility to monitor when the employer is considered a Booster. Time Frame: Year round, as student-athletes begin employment or Compliance becomes aware of the employment..
Activity: Collect and review the following information from any student-athlete who is engaged in feefor-lesson employment (academic year or summer). The information collected should include: Name of individual(s) receiving lessons A description of how the student-athlete was retained The location at which the lessons will be provided Facility usage fees Email or phone number of individual(s) receiving lessons Expected start and end dates for lessons Person responsible for payment Pay rate Anticipated number of lessons per week Payment format (e.g. check, cash, etc.) Other employment benefits (e.g. transportation, meals, etc.) Frequency: Ideally, prior to the student-athlete beginning the fee-for-lesson employment, with updates as appropriate. Time Frame: Year round. Activity: Require student-athletes reporting employment to sign a statement entitling Compliance to review employment records (e.g. pay stubs), upon request. Additionally, require employers to sign a statement that they have read and understood the NCAA rules regarding student-athlete employment and that they will provide employment records (e.g. pay stubs), upon request. Frequency: Ideally, prior to the student-athlete beginning any employment, with updates as appropriate. Time Frame: Year round. Education Standards: Activity: Educate student-athletes and employers regarding NCAA rules regarding student-athlete employment. Frequency: At reasonable intervals as determined by the institution, but at least once annually, and any time a student-athlete reports new employment. Time frame: Year round. Activity: Educate parents, coaches and other appropriate athletics department staff or university personnel regarding NCAA rules regarding student-athlete employment. Frequency: At reasonable intervals as determined by the institution, but at least once annually. Time frame: Year round.
Documentation: Activity: Maintain a record of the information collected and reviewed regarding any student-athlete employment. Frequency: At least once per academic year, with updates as appropriate. Time Frame: Ideally, prior to participation in any competition. Retain documents for the duration of NCAA statute of limitations or in accordance with institutional policy, whichever is longer Activity: Maintain a record of the education provided to student-athletes, parents, institutional staff members, employers and others regarding student-athlete employment. Person(s) Responsible: Senior Compliance Administrator or designee (other than a sport specific staff member). Frequency: Each time education is provided. Time Frame: Retain documents for the duration of NCAA statute of limitations or in accordance with institutional policy, whichever is longer. Activity: Develop and maintain written procedures that delineate and assign responsibility for all aspects of student-athlete employment monitoring. Person Responsible: Senior Compliance Administrator or designee (other than a sport specific staff member). Frequency: Review documents annually. Time Frame: Retain the document, in its updated form, indefinitely.
NCAA Committee on Infractions Suggestions or Statements: (drawn from major infractions public reports) July 11, 2007 University of Oklahoma From the Committee on Infractions report: The committee concludes that the institution should have known that football student-athletes worked at the dealership during the academic year because (1) the dealership's unique status as the apparent largest employer of student-athletes necessitated a regular channel of direct communication between the institution and the dealership, rather than the institution relying exclusively on student-athletes to register their employment; and (2) student-athlete 2's disclosure on his 2005 student-athlete summer employment form should have alerted the institution that student-athletes worked at the dealership during the academic year without the institution's knowledge. This should have triggered the institution to ascertain the extent of the unmonitored employment and take corrective action to avoid such breakdowns in the future. The investigation revealed that the dealership held a unique status that could not be characterized as the typical student-athlete employer. Institution officials with responsibility for coordinating employment for student-athletes could not identify an employer who employed more football studentathletes during the time period set forth in the finding. As stated earlier in this report, the football office referred several student-athletes to the dealership for employment. Student-athlete 1 referred student-athlete 2 for employment at the dealership. From the summer of 2002 through the spring of 2006, the dealership employed at least 17 football student-athletes, including eight student-athletes in the summer of 2004 and 12 student-athletes in the summer of 2005. The director of football operations, who was responsible for coordinating employment for football student-athletes, stated that he maintained contact with the dealership's manager during the summers of 2004 and 2005, but that he had no communication regarding academic year employment after the conclusion of each of those summers. There was no indication that any communication regarding the academic year employment of student-athletes occurred between the institution and the dealership. Because the dealership employed so many football student-athletes, the committee concluded that the institution should have undertaken more extensive communication to monitor the student-athletes' employment. Moreover, during the hearing, it was revealed that the dealership sponsored and hosted a sports radio show, which originated from the dealership. From time-to-time university athletics officials, including the director of football operations, appeared at the dealership as guests on the radio broadcast. Despite the presence of university officials at the dealership, no effort was made to do any on-site spot checks or otherwise monitor the employment of student-athletes at the dealership. Further, the institution should have been alerted after it received information in August 2005 that student-athlete 2 worked at the dealership during the 2005 spring academic term that its monitoring process was insufficient. This realization, along with the dealership's status as the apparent leading employer of football student-athletes, should have raised awareness with the institution that more interaction was needed to effectively monitor the dealership's employment of student-athletes. However, the institution did not take any additional measures to either communicate with the
dealership concerning academic year employment or review with student-athlete 2 his 2004-05 academic year employment. Additionally, the committee noted that a university generated employment document labeled "Written Statement" specifies the following: The employer and student-athlete will make available for review and inspection, by an authorized representative at the NCAA, Big 12 Conference or the institution, copies of all documents, earning statements and other records related to the employment. Despite this provision, the university never took the opportunity to examine employment records from the dealership until after the investigation was initiated. There have been several other cases where the committee has found institutional failure to monitor the employment of student-athletes. Specifically: University of Arkansas (2003) - In finding a failure to monitor in the 2003 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (Arkansas) case, the committee recognized that, even though the institution did not have any knowledge that student-athletes currently worked at the employer, the institution still should have regularly sent the employer forms requesting identification of student-athlete employees, as well as informing the employer, of NCAA employment rules. This was necessary because this employer had regularly hired student-athletes in the past and was a "prominent and favored representative" who had "special access and interaction with student-athletes." The committee concluded that the dealership's position in the Oklahoma case as a significant employer of football student-athletes warranted additional communication and monitoring similar to that of the employer in the 2003 Arkansas case. Southeast Missouri State University (1999) - The committee found that the institution failed to monitor the employment of prospective and enrolled student-athletes at a local business. The institution, among other shortcomings, failed to monitor the circumstances of the student-athletes' employment, particularly the student-athletes' rate of pay. Texas A&M University, College Station (1994) - The committee found a lack of institutional control for failing to detect violations of NCAA employment bylaws that were perpetrated by one representative of the institution's athletics interests over a period of approximately 20 months. In that situation, similar to the current case, institutional staff members did not have actual knowledge of the violations that consisted of the intentional acts of one representative of the institution's athletics interests. In the Texas A&M case, the representative employed and overcompensated several football student-athletes. The institution had a monitoring system in place that consisted of informing potential employers of NCAA rules, obtaining information from
the employer describing the job and obtaining information from the student-athlete subsequent to employment. However, the committee noted as significant that "no monitoring of jobs took place to determine whether the employment of the studentathlete was in compliance with NCAA legislation during the actual employment. No information was gathered on the job locations." The committee concedes that institutions cannot reasonably contact all potential employers of studentathletes to determine whether student-athletes are employed. However, given the dealership's unique status, some level of communication between the institution and the dealership was necessary to ensure that violations did not occur. This is even more imperative given that student-athlete 2 reported on his 2005 student-athlete summer employment form that he worked during the spring of 2005 at the dealership. Georgetown University (2009) - The committee found a lack of institutional control for failing to have internal controls in place to monitor baseball student-athlete federal work-study employment. During the 2000-01 through 2006-07 academic years, the institution and the head coach failed to monitor federal work-study employment in the baseball program to ensure that student-athletes were compensated only for work actually performed. During the 2000-01 through 2006-07 academic years, 26 baseball student-athletes employed by the baseball team in the institution's work-study program received approximately $61,552 for work they did not perform. Revision History: Date Author Brief Summary of Revisions NAAC s Reasonable Standards are intended to establish an expectation to which all institutions will adhere when monitoring an institution s compliance with NCAA rules, providing education regarding NCAA rules and documenting compliance with NCAA rules. Every institution has different needs and must assess those needs. Such assessment may require institutions to implement monitoring, education, policies or procedures that exceed what is prescribed in this Reasonable Standard. The NCAA Enforcement Staff will give consideration to these standards in reviewing whether institutions have implemented adequate education, systems and monitoring.