division III – The Sport Journal

Title IX and Its Impact on Opportunities for Women in NCAA Coaching and Administrative Leadership

Authors: Elisa Van Kirk

Department of Education, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, US

Corresponding Author:

Elisa Van Kirkl
SLU- 23 Romoda Dr.
Atwood Hall 21
Canton, NY, 13617
evankirk@stlawu.edu
860-919-3274

Dr. Elisa Van Kirk is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY. Van Kirk played Division I softball and was a collegiate coach at the Division III level for over a decade. Currently, Van Kirk primarily works with the University’s graduate students who are pursuing a Master of Art in Leadership degree.
Van Kirk’s research focuses on collegiate athletics, athletic leadership, as well as sports and gender.

Title IX and Its Impact on Opportunities for Women in NCAA Coaching and Administrative Leadership

ABSTRACT

Title IX was evolutionary when first enacted, and it provided a framework to address equity in education in many respects; however, it has had limited effects in many other areas, including in NCAA athletic administration. In this commentary, a discussion is offered in regard to the ongoing impacts of Title IX in college athletics and ways in which this legislation has impacted women and their opportunities for leadership. Examples from the literature from women who once held roles in NCAA Division III leadership are considered and their experiences are drawn upon to demonstrate ways in which barriers and sources of inequity continue to exist. Recommendations are offered for women seeking leadership positions based on the experiences of the women in this study.

(more…)

Vandy Pacetti-Donelson2023-03-13T09:35:26-05:00March 13th, 2023|Commentary, Sport Education, Sports History, Women and Sports|Comments Off

Factors Associated with Anxiety Among Division III Student-Athletes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Authors: Philip J. Brenner¹, JoAnne Bullard^2, and Robert Weaver²

¹Graduate student from the Athletic Training Program, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA
²Department of Health and Exercise Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

Correspondence:

Philip J. Brenner, MS, LAT, ATC
201 Mullica Hill Road

Glassboro, NJ 08028
Philbrenner97@gmail.com

Philip J. Brenner, MS, LAT, ATC graduated from Rowan University with a Masters in Athletic Training. Philip’s areas of research interest include: Mindfulness interventions for student athletes’ and the impact of COVID-19 on student athletes.

JoAnne Bullard, PsyD., CMPC, CSCS is currently an assistant professor at Rowan University in the Health and Exercise Science department. JoAnne’s areas of research interests include well-being of student athletes, mindfulness for performance, motivation and anxiety in athletics and academics, and athletic transitioning.

Robert Weaver, Ph.D is a professor and community health program coordinator at Rowan University in the Health and Exercise Science department. Robert’s research interests include social determents of health, food security and insecurity, and research methods in health science.

Factors Associated with Anxiety Among Division III Student-Athletes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the lives of collegiate student-athletes due to canceled sports seasons. This led to an increase in anxiety symptoms among Division III student-athletes. Collegiate female student-athletes have reported increased anxiety during the pandemic, but it is unknown if individualized or team sport athletes have similar anxiety symptoms. The purpose of this study is to determine the association between anxiety symptoms, gender, and sport-type of Division III student-athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Qualtrics survey assessed demographic information, concerns and worries surrounding the pandemic, and generalized anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale (GAD-7). Participants were male and female Division III collegiate student-athletes in New Jersey Athletic Conference (NJAC) during the 2020-2021 fall, winter, and spring sports-seasons. They were categorized as either an individual athlete or a team sport athlete. Chi-square analyses and prevalence ratios were conducted on SPSS version 27. There were significant differences between male and female GAD-7 responses X²= 30.119 (df=3, n=435), p=.000. There were no significant differences between non-gender specific sport-type athletes and anxiety. Female individual sport athletes were three times more likely to report mild-severe anxiety symptoms than female team sport athletes (PR=3.2, 95% CI, 1.66-6.16, p=0.000). In conclusion, female individual sport athletes were at greater risk for reporting anxiety symptoms compared to female team sport athletes, male individual sport athletes, and male team sport athletes. The application of sports is that associated colleges need to provide additional assistance in counseling, telehealth, and social support to collegiate student-athletes to help lessen the mental distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

(more…)

U.S. Sports Academy2023-02-16T17:23:11-06:00February 3rd, 2023|Research, Sports Health & Fitness|Comments Off

National and State Youth Baseball Coaching Requirements: A State Case Study

Submitted by: Coop DeRenne, Associate Professor, University of Hawaii, Charles Morgan, Assistant Professor, San Diego State University, Ronald K. Hetzler, Associate Professor, University of Hawaii & Brad T. Taura, University of Hawaii

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the requirements placed on coaches by national and state youth baseball organizations. Administrators from five national youth baseball organizations and from five youth baseball leagues in Hawaii participated in the study (N = 61). A 12-item survey was used to determine the organizations’ requirements pertaining to coaches’ education, certification, experience, and professional growth. Results indicated no requirement by either the national or the Hawaii youth baseball organizations that coaches have a high school diploma. Furthermore, neither the national nor the state organizations required a national coaching certification. Only 6.98% of the national organizations and 11.11% of the Hawaii organizations required coaches to have experience as a player, while 4.65% of the national organizations and 7.41% of the Hawaii organizations required them to have prior coaching experience. Only 44.19% of the national organizations and 55.56% of the Hawaii leagues required background checks for coaches. Coaches’ attendance at coaching training seminars was required by 9.3% of the national and 11.11% of the Hawaii organizations. Clearly, youth baseball coaches in both national and state organizations are subjected to organizational requirements at minimal levels. Based on the results and on the existing literature, the authors recommend a model for certifying youth baseball (and other) coaches.

National and State Youth Baseball Coaching Requirements: A State Case Study

Through sports, youth coaches help parents and teachers develop the whole child or teenager in preparation for life. Sports are an important arena wherein coaches have the wonderful opportunity to guide and nurture the physical, mental, social, and emotional development of youth athletes. Coaching is of great value to society, according to Gilbert, Gilbert, and Trudel (2001), because there are millions of children and teenagers who “establish a segment of themselves in organized sports during a period of their lives that is critical to their personal development.” (p.29)Within the athletic arena, coaches assume the role of educator presenting youth with opportunities to learn and use both sports skills and life skills. But as Martens (2004) has argued, coaching is more than teaching, since “[c]oaches not only guide athletes in learning technical, tactical, and life skills, they also orchestrate and direct their lives in the performance of these skills” (p. vi)

The vast majority of youth programs in the United States rely on volunteers, notably parent-coaches (Wiersma & Sherman, 2005). Because of the volunteer nature of youth coaching, it is not surprising that coaches have various educational and athletic backgrounds (Martens, 2004). Most volunteer coaches receive only limited formal training or education in coaching to prepare them for their respective coaching endeavors (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001; Gilbert et al., 2001; Gould, Krane, Giannini, & Hodge, 1990; Weiss & Hayashi, 1996). The majority of youth coaches nationally may be inadequately prepared to appropriately nurture children’s physical, mental, social, and emotional development. Research suggests that formal coaching education influences a coach’s ability to affect learning and performance in positive ways (Martens, 2004); coaching education is rarely mandatory (Clark, 2000), despite such findings. Furthermore, the available data describing standards that state and national sports organizations set for youth coaches are limited. The primary purpose of this study was, therefore, to determine these standards, or coaching requirements, in a sample of national youth baseball organizations as well as youth leagues in the state of Hawaii.

Methods

Every administrator (N = 61) at the five national youth baseball organizations and five statewide Hawaiian youth baseball organizations involved in the study completed a survey. These administrators included national directors, regional directors, and state directors, as well as the local presidents from the state leagues. The 12-item survey contained sections on (a) required certification, (b) required play and coaching experience, (c) required continuing professional education, and (d) educational background. Each survey question was designed to elicit a yes response (1) or a no response (2). The instrument’s intent was, first, to obtain from each administrator a description of any coaching certification that was required of or recommended for head baseball coaches by the organization (Questions 1–3). Next, the survey asked about experience head baseball coaches might be required to present, both as players and as coaches, and also whether they underwent any criminal background check (Questions 4–6). Then, the survey asked whether an organization required head baseball coaches to demonstrate professional growth through formal continuing education, and whether mandatory meetings of team parents were (Questions 7–10). Finally, the instrument surveyed the administrators about any education requirements established for head baseball coaches (Questions 11–12) (see Table 1). Frequency distributions and percentages quantifying the administrators’ responses were determined so that the five Hawaii youth baseball leagues could be compared and contrasted. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Table 1 and Table 2 present descriptive statistics. Concerning the required certification of coaches, results indicate that neither the surveyed national youth baseball organizations nor the surveyed state leagues required any formal certification of head baseball coaches. In addition, according to the administrators, only three national organizations (6.98%) required head coaches to pass CPR and first aid certification examinations before they could act as coaches (see Table 1). One local president of a Hawaii state league similarly required coaches to obtain CPR and first aid certification prior to the season (see Table 2).

Concerning play and coaching experience required of coaches by national and state youth baseball organizations, only 3–5% of the national organizations required their head coaches to have any playing experience or any earlier coaching experience in baseball prior to coaching. Similarly, only 7–11% of the surveyed administrators from Hawaii state leagues reported that league coaches were required to have experience playing or coaching baseball.

In addition, only 44.19% of the national organizations required background checks for head baseball coaches prior to their assignment as coaches. Hawaii league administrators were slightly more likely to require background checks (55.56%), with just over half reporting their organizations required background checks.

Table 1

Number & Percentage of National Organization Administrators’ Yes/No Responses to 12 Items

Requirement	Little	League (n = 9)	PONY (n = 1)	Babe Ruth/	Cal Ripken (n=4)
	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Certification of head coach mandated by national group	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	0 (0%)	21 (100%)	0 (0%)
Certification mandated by national group may be modified by administrator	9 (100%)	0 (0%)	18 (85.71%)	3 (14.29%)	4 (100%)
CPR/first aid certification of head coach	2 (22.22%)	7 (77.78%)	1 (4.76%)	20 (95.24%)	0 (0%)
Baseball playing experience of head coach	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	3 (14.29%)	18 (85.71%)	0 (0%)
Baseball coaching experience of head coach	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	2 (9.52%)	19 (90.48%)	0 (0%)
Criminal background check for head coach	7 (77.78%)	2 (22.22%)	4 (19.05%)	17 (80.95%)	0 (0%)
Annual examination over rules & regulations for head coach	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	1 (4.76%)	20 (95.24%)	0 (0%)
Academic preparation in coaching for head coach	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	4 (19.05%)	17 (80.95%)	0 (0%)
Seminars in coaching offered to head coach	9 (100%)	0 (0%)	14 (66.67%)	7 (33.33%)	2 (50%)
Mandatory team parent meetings	1 (11.11%)	8 (88.89%)	8 (38.10%)	13 (61.90%)	0 (0%)
High school diploma needed by head coach	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	0 (0%)	21 (100%)	0 (0%)
College degree needed by head coach	0 (0%)	9 (100%)	0 (0%)	21 (100%)	0 (0%)

Table 2

Number & Percentage of National and State Administrators’ Yes/No Responses to 12 Items

Requirement	National	(n = 34)	Hawaii	(n = 27)
	Yes	No	Yes	No
Certification of head coach mandated by national group	0 (0%)	43 (100%)	0 (0%)	27 (100%)
Certification mandated by national group may be modified by administrator	40 (93.02%)	3 (6.98%)	26 (96.30%)	1(3.70%)
CPR/first aid certification of head coach	3 (6.98%)	40 (93.02%)	1(3.70%)	26 (96.30%)
Baseball playing experience of head coach	3 (6.98%)	40 (93.02%)	3 (11.11%)	24 (88.89%)
Baseball coaching experience of head coach	2 (4.65%)	41 (95.35%)	2 (7.41%)	25 (92.59%)
Criminal background check for head coach	19 (44.19%)	24 (55.81%)	15 (55.56%)	12 (44.44%)
Annual examination over rules & regulations for head coach	1 (2.33%)	42 (97.67%)	0 (0%)	27 (100%)
Academic preparation in coaching for head coach	4 (9.30%)	39 (90.70%)	3 (11.11%)	24 (88.89%)
Seminars in coaching offered to head coach	31 (72.09%)	12 (27.91%)	20 (74.07%)	7 (25.93%)
Mandatory team parent meetings	9 (20.93%)	34 (79.07%)	6 (22.22%)	21 (77.78%)
High school diploma needed by head coach	0 (0%)	43 (100%)	0 (0%)	27 (100%)
College degree needed by head coach	0 (0%)	43 (100%)	0 (0%)	27 (100%)

Finally, concerning the professional growth or continuing education of youth baseball head coaches, only a small portion (9.30%) of the national organizations required head coaches to complete any coaching education prior to becoming a head coach, according to surveyed administrators. A similar 11.11% of the state organizations required coaching education for head coaches. While the organizations tended to lack continuing education requirements for head coaches, 80% of the studied organizations at the national level did offer seminars for their coaches (see Table 1), as did 74.07% of the Hawaii baseball leagues (see Table 2).

In addition, 3 of the 5 national organizations did not mandate team parent-coach meetings, and the remaining 2 indicated that only a small number of coaches in the organization held parent meetings at which head coaches addressed team goals and rules, player responsibilities and discipline, and parents’ and coaches’ behavior. The survey data from administrators of Hawaii leagues were similar, with only 22.22% mandating or even offering a limited number of team parent meetings.

Discussion

The results of this study are consistent with the majority of published work, although they do challenge a few earlier findings. Concerning certification, for example, our survey findings support the literature, with no contradictory results obtained: The national organizations and Hawaii organizations require no formal certification of coaches. The present findings furthermore show that the national administrators, collectively, joined the Hawaii local presidents in reporting that the organization or league they represented had autonomy to modify certification requirements. (Nevertheless, according to this study’s results, neither national nor Hawaii youth baseball administrators have created certification requirements for their coaches.)

Findings of the present study diverged from those in the literature, however, in terms of required CPR and first aid certification of coaches. According to earlier published research, no national organization requires CPR and first aid training for coaches. Our survey findings identified three administrators (from the Little League and PONY organizations) who said they required head baseball coaches to become CPR and first aid–certified; in addition, one local president in a Hawaii organization required coaches to obtain such certification prior to the season. This raises a meaningful question: Given that the present study found national and Hawaii administrators alike to affirm their autonomy to modify the certification requirements applied to coaches, why did only four of them deem CPR and first aid certification important enough to mandate?

Concerning the experience requirements established for head coaches, the present results might be described as disturbing. Only a very small percentage (see Tables 1 and 2) of national administrators (6.98%) and Hawaii league local presidents (11.11%) said their organizations required coaches to have played baseball in high school. While play experience does not guarantee that a coach can motivate each player to psychomotor, cognitive, and social growth, coaches who played in high school seem likelier than coaches lacking that background to offer the relevant experiences (and strong knowledge base) that benefit teams. DeRenne’s discussion (1993) of four “I’s” suggests goals for the volunteer parent-coach, all of which are built on the kind of information a former player should possess. According to DeRenne, team members must be informed, instructed, and inspired by the coach if coaching is to be successful; to accomplish these tasks requires good information, for which even the best intentions are no substitute (1993).

Even more disturbing than organizations’ lack of requirements about coaches’ experience as players is their lack of standards concerning prior coaching experience. An astoundingly low 4.56% of national administrators and 7.41% of Hawaii administrators (see Table 1 and Table 2) required their head coaches to have prior baseball coaching experience. First-year head coaches who are appointed or elected “team leader” despite having no athletics background may find the road difficult to navigate; on the other hand, the first-year head coach who is an experienced assistant coach steers clear of many difficulties. It should be remembered that on-the-job training of coaches comes at the expense of players. DeRenne (1993) has also addressed the importance of experience as well as information, writing that knowledge is the sum of information plus experience, and noting that, “[W]ith [k]nowledge comes AWARENESS. If you have good information, practical experience, and have gained some knowledge, you are dwelling more on what can go right and less on what can go wrong” (p. 11)

The present study’s findings furthermore diverged from the literature in terms of background checks for prospective coaches. According to one article on Little League Baseball, the organizations requires of all its coaches, volunteers, or other persons who may regularly contact Little League athletes to be cleared by a sex offender background check (“Criminal and Sex Offender Registry,” 2005). The present findings, however, showed only 77.78% of Little League administrators to require criminal background checks and substance abuse screenings for all prospective coaches. The Little League organization might look to its brother organization, the Police Activities League, or PAL, for a model of responsible administration: PAL demands 100% compliance with its background check policy concerning coaches.

In terms of professional growth or continuing education requirements for youth baseball coaches, the present findings indicate that national and Hawaii organizations send mixed messages to coaching volunteers. There was no annual rules-and-regulations examination for coaches in 97.67% of national organizations and in 100% of Hawaii organizations, according to our findings. Similarly, 90.70% of national organizations and 88.89% of Hawaii organizations did not mandate any coaching seminars or other training sessions, although, interestingly, they did tend to offer coaches optional seminars, clinics, or the like, in hopes of fostering professional growth (72.09% of national organizations, 74.07% of Hawaii organizations).

Finally, concerning coaches’ educational backgrounds, the present study found not one national or Hawaii league administrator who said an organization required head baseball coaches to hold a high school diploma or college degree. While a completed formal education does not in itself guarantee coaching success, diplomas do indicate some degree of responsibility and maturity, qualities that are necessary in those who lead young athletes.

Recommendations

The research findings prompt a strong suggestion to national and state youth baseball organizations that they adopt coaching certification as policy. Ideally, any prospective head coach in any national or state organization would be required to meet uniform certification criteria. Specific certification criteria should include (a) mandatory attendance to coaching training or seminars leading to successful completion of an examination; (b) passing an examination/certification in CPR and first aid; (c) mandatory preseason parent-coach team meetings, (d) high school playing experience, (e) high school diploma; (d) criminal background check extending to substance abuse, as well; (e) high school playing experience; and (f) experience as an assistant baseball coach or head coach in another sport.

Furthermore, it is recommended that the coaches be required to conduct mandatory pre-season meetings with team parents and that the youth baseball organizations each appoint a supervisor responsible to oversee and unify youth baseball policies based on guidelines from the National Alliance of Youth Sports (NAYS, 2005) recommendations. Finally, Wiersma and Sherman’s (2005) eight recommendations for preparing youth sports coaches also merit adoption. These researchers called for NASPE standards to be incorporated into “content that encompasses issues specific to communities” They also advocated league programs that foster mentoring between experienced and new coaches; called for consistency across organizations in terms of requirements for coaches’ preparation; and recommended board members’ greater presence at practices and games. Wiersma and Sherman also point to the benefits of season-long and even year-round educational opportunities for coaches, and also of university-community collaboration to devise and implement sound programs and policies. They argue that the content of coaching educational programs should suit the age, gender, and athletic level of an organization’s players. Finally, Wiersma and Sherman suggest, and the present researchers agree, that the purview of conduct codes for players’ parents should be limited to behavior that is observable, and that codes should accommodate “objective enforcement”

References

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness & Committee on School Health. (2001, June). Organized sports for children and preadolescents. Pediatrics, 107(6), 1459–1462. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http:// aappolicy. aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;107/6/1459

National Alliance for Youth Sports. (n.d.) Recommendations for communities. Retrieved January 1, 2006, from http://www.nays.org/nays_community_recommendations.pdf

Clark, M. A. (2000). Who’s coaching the coaches? In J. R. Gerdy (Ed.) Sport in school: The future of an institution (pp. 55-65). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Criminal and sex offender registry search tool available to local Little Leagues (2005). Little League Baseball, Updated January 7, 2005.

DeRenne, C., & House, T. (1993). Play ball: The new baseball basics for youth coaches, parents, and kids. Minneapolis, MN: West.

Gilbert, G., Gilbert, J., & Trudel, P. (2001). Coaching strategies for youth sports. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 72(5), 41–46.

Gould, D., Krane, V., Giannini, J., & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational needs of elite U.S. national team, Pan American, and Olympic coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 332–344.

Martens, R. (2004). Successful coaching. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Martens, R., Flannery, T., & Roetert, P. (2003). The future of coaching education in America. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://www.nfhs.org/cep/articles/futurecoaching.htm

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995). National standards for athletic coaches. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Weiss M., & Hayashi, C. (1996). The United States. In P. DeKnop, L. M. Engstrom, B. Skirstad, & R. Weiss (Eds.), Worldwide trends in youth sport (pp. 43–57). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Wiersma, L., & Sherman, C. (2005). Volunteer youth sport coaches’ perspectives of coaching education/certification and parental codes of conduct. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 324–338.

Author’s Note: Correspondence for this article should be sent to Coop DeRenne,
Associate Professor, University of Hawaii, KLS Department, 1337 Lower Campus Rd.
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822. Email: Coop@Hawaii.edu.

U.S. Sports Academy2015-10-22T23:43:39-05:00April 2nd, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off

Sport Management Field Experiences: The Impact of the Federal Labor Standards Act on Internships

Submitted by: David Gargone, United States Sports Academy Doctoral Student

Abstract

This paper examines the importance of the internship experience in sport management curriculums and how field experiences are affected by the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The academic discipline of sport management relies heavily on internships to assist students with the application of classroom theory in professional environments, and these internships are unpaid. The FLSA does not speak specifically to unpaid internships. A review of court cases dealing with professional sport organizations suggests that adjustments need to be made to the FLSA or to sport management curriculums in order to protect student interns from unfair labor practices.

Sport Management Field Experiences: The Impact of the Federal Labor Standards Act on Internships

Business and education departments in colleges and universities across the globe have embraced the growing presence of professional and recreational sports and have implemented curriculums in the field of sport management. As the field of sport management continues to grow in the business world, the demand for qualified professionals continues to expand. According to Case (2007), over 200 graduate and undergraduate programs exist in the field of sport management, and the number of sport management programs has continued to grow at a rapid pace. In the past 2 years the number of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree programs in sport management has grown to a total of 309 (Scremin, 2007).

Although a key component of preparing sport management students for the real world is their progression through a sport management–specific curriculum, more research is beginning to focus on the importance of field experiences in the preparatory process (Cunningham & Sagas, 2004). A field experience can also be known as an internship, practicum, or mentorship, depending on the details of the experience and the preferences of the educational program. The field experience serves as an integral part of sport management programs (Ross & Beggs, 2007), providing an opportunity for learning that is not available in the classroom. Challenging internships that allow the student to play an active role in an organization enhance the educational value of the experience to the student (Cunningham, Sagas, Dixon, Kent, & Turner, 2005). Through them, students have the opportunity to acquire new skills while applying theories learned in the classroom. A student’s confidence will also grow when there is a sense of serving the organization in a positive manner.

While the field of sport management offers lucrative positions that may initially interest students in the industry, the reality is that they must start a sport management career at the ground level. Most of the industry positions for sport management interns are unpaid (Case, 2007). Although the primary objective of a field experience is for the student to apply theories learned in the classroom in a professional atmosphere, some educators feel that students are being taken advantage of in non-wage situations (Cunningham & Sagas, 2004). Some professional sport organizations have come under direct fire concerning their overreliance on unpaid interns. However, the labor laws in the United States do not have clear language dealing with unpaid internships.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the importance of field experiences in the sport management curriculum by evaluating current curricular trends at leading universities within the sport management discipline. Additionally, labor laws associated with unpaid internships and specific court cases dealing with professional sport organizations and interns will be presented.

Sport Management Program Review Council

As the sport management discipline caught hold and the academic community recognized sport management as a viable area of study, education professionals decided that curricular guidelines were needed (SMPRC, 2000). In 1987, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) developed a set of guidelines for sport management programs. Less than 2 years later, NASPE organized a task force including members of both NASPE and the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) to continue to develop curricular guidelines. This task force is known as the Sport Management Curriculum Review Council (SMPRC). The SMPRC created a comprehensive set of guidelines that included required and recommended areas of content. Specific guidelines were made for baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral sport management degree programs. Although the initial guidelines were accepted by the majority of schools offering sport management programs, revisions to the original guidelines were made in 1999. Each SMPRC requirement for degree programs is categorized under standard areas such as “Governance in Sport” or “Marketing” (SMPRC, 2000, pp. 6, 9). For a bachelor’s degree program, the final SMPRC standard is “Field Experience in Sport Management.” The SMPRC (2000) says of the field experience that

An undergraduate student will benefit from culminating in-depth practical experience(s) before entering the sport industry. These experiences help the student bridge the gap between classroom learning and practical application in sport settings. They allow students to explore career options, develop management skills, and gain a greater understanding of the total operation of sports organizations. (p. 9)

The SMPRC requires that sport management programs must have their undergraduate students engage in a field experience.

The SMPRC has similar requirements at both the master’s and doctoral levels (SMPRC, 2000). The premise for the master’s level changes slightly, taking into account that the graduate student may already have experience working in sport management. The required further experience should be geared toward enhancing the student’s network and increasing the likelihood of job placement upon degree completion, according to the SMPRC (2000). The focus changes again at the doctoral level. The SMPRC identifies two focus paths for student internships. One is for those doctoral students who plan to teach at the college level. The internship for such students should focus on gaining experience in an educational setting, with possible tasks including teaching lower level sport management classes, conducting research, or providing supervision to undergraduate interns. The second focus path is for doctoral students who plan on being practitioners of sport management. The internship for these students should include more independent work in the industry than is demanded during undergraduate or master’s degree internships.

Curriculum Approval and Internship Requirements

Even though sport management is a growing discipline in academia, there is still a fundamental inconsistency in the programs across the country. An ongoing debate exists concerning the placement of the sport management program within an academic department. Some sport management programs are found in business departments (Overton, 2004), while others are located in physical education departments. Wherever a sport management program may be housed, its approval by the SMPRC is solely based on whether it meets curricular standards (SMPRC, 2000). Currently, 85 programs are approved by the SMPRC (NASSM, 2007), comprising only 27.5% of sport management programs in the United States. According to a study done by Scremin (2007), 22% of undergraduate sport management programs have received approval (n = 41), 24% of master’s degree programs have received approval (n = 26), and 21 % of doctoral programs have received approval (n = 3). The difference between NASSM’s and Scremin’s results (85 approved, 70 approved) illustrates that 15 additional programs have been approved by the SMPRC since July 2007.

Although the number of approved programs is only a small portion of the total number of programs, this does not seem related to a lack of internships or field experiences within the programs. Nearly 77% of sport management programs at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels have some type of internship requirement (Scremin, 2007). Scremin reported that 90% of programs at the bachelor’s level require an internship (n = 161), 65% of those at the master’s level require an internship (n = 70), and 43% at the doctoral level require an internship (n = 6). The high percentages at the bachelor’s and master’s levels represent a strong commitment to internships for both undergraduate and graduate students.

Labor Concerns and Federal Regulations

A widely debated aspect of the sport management field experience generally is compensation for student work (Foster & Moorman, 2001). Compensation is typically in the form either of academic credit or monetary wages. In academia, credit hours are usually awarded based on the number of hours required by the internship. The SMPRC requires internships to be at least 400 hours (SMPRC, 2000), for which the student usually receives at least 12 hours of academic credit. Financial compensation for field experiences is of growing concern to both universities and students, however. Most internships available in the sport industry do not offer monetary compensation to the student, although increasing debate surrounds this issue in the sport management field (Foster & Moorman, 2001). A number of professional organizations, specifically professional baseball franchises, rely on interns to be able to operate each season. The majority of these interns are unpaid, yet the franchises would not be able to operate without the interns. The question becomes not only whether such a practice is ethical, but also is it legal according to federal labor regulations?

In 1938, the federal government enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in order to establish a wage floor and protect the general public from the practice of cheap labor (FLSA Overview, 2007). At that time, the United States Congress felt that hourly workers had no protection or bargaining power vis-à-vis their employers. Without bargaining power, workers had no choice but to accept the substandard wages offered by employers, just to survive. The government felt the wages were so low that an acceptable way of living was not possible. Aside from implementing a minimum wage, the FLSA also addressed issues of overtime compensation, employee recordkeeping, and child labor.

The FLSA protects employees who work in both the public and private sectors (FLSA Overview, 2007). Currently, all companies that engage in interstate commerce and surpass $500,000 in annual sales must comply with the FLSA. (The FLSA also governs certain other companies regardless of annual revenue, including medical facilities, schools, colleges and universities, and all government agencies.) Thus most professional sport organizations and franchises are required to comply with the FLSA.

Federal Exemptions

Some sport organizations, however, have been successful in receiving exemptions from the FLSA. Under a provision of the FLSA, “seasonal and recreational establishments” can be granted an exemption upon approval (FLSA Exemption, 2007). In order to receive an exemption, the organization must satisfy half of a two-part test for seasonal or recreational character. The first part of the test requires the organization to demonstrate that it does not operate for more than 7 months in any calendar year. It is difficult for professional sport organizations to meet this requirement. The second part of the test, the seasonal receipts test, requires that an establishment illustrate that its average income for any 6 months of the previous year did not exceed one third of the average receipts for the other 6 months. This is also a difficult standard for any sport organization to meet.

FLSA Employment Classifications

Although some sport organizations do receive exemptions through the seasonal and recreational establishments clause, others who have not been exempted have found advantage in the FLSA’s lack of clarity about internships and other field experiences (FLSA Employment Status, 2007). Section 14(a) of the FLSA, for example, specifies several types of employees not protected under the act and allows lesser compensation in their cases; while interns are not among these specified employee groups, so-called learners, student-learners, and apprentices are specified in Section 14(a). The FLSA defines a learner as

[a] worker who is being trained for an occupation, which is not customarily recognized as an apprenticeable trade, for which skill, dexterity and judgment must be learned and who, when initially employed, produces little or nothing of value. Except in extraordinary circumstances, an employee cannot be considered a “learner” once he/she has acquired a total of 240 hours of job-related and/or vocational training with the same or other employer(s) or training facility(ies) during the past three years. An individual qualifying as a “learner” may only be trained in two qualifying occupations. (¶ 2)

The internship requirements of the SMPRC call for an experience of at least 400 hours (SMPRC, 2000), which exceeds the cutoff of 240 hours for learner status.

Although most sport management students would not fit the learner classification throughout a field experience, the student-learner category might seem potentially applicable (FLSA Employment Status, 2007). The FLSA defines a student-learner as

[a] student who is at least sixteen years of age, or at least eighteen years of age if employed in an occupation which the Secretary has declared to be particularly hazardous, who is receiving instruction in an accredited school, college or university and who is employed on a part-time basis, pursuant to a “bona fide vocational training program” as defined in subpart C of this part. (¶ 3)

However, the SMPRC guidelines (2000) define internships as a “full-time work experience in the sport industry (40 hours/week) that are [sic] offered for academic credit.” Therefore, if a sport management intern is enrolled in a program that has been approved by the SMPRC, that intern cannot be counted a student learner, either. The FLSA itself states that apprenticeships are not regulated by the provisions of the act (FLSA Employment Status, 2007). The FLSA defines an apprentice as

[a] worker, at least sixteen years of age unless a higher minimum age standard is otherwise fixed by law, who is employed to learn a skilled trade through a registered apprenticeship program. Training is provided through structured on-the-job training combined with supplemental related theoretical and technical instruction. This term excludes pre-apprentices, trainees, learners, and student-learners. (¶ 4)

Initially, this definition might seem to approximate the SMPRC’s description of the internship, especially if a program has received the council’s approved. Sport management students should receive on-the-job training that draws on classroom theories and provides technical experience. However, the FLSA goes on to limit apprenticeable occupations to those requiring a minimum of 2,000 hours of on-the-job experience. It is difficult to imagine that the sport management student in a 400-hour internship can legally be considered an apprentice for whom below-minimum wages are permitted—even should part of his or her compensation be academic credit.

Case Law Concerning Internships

While the FLSA does not identify the work arrangements typical of most sport management internships as the kind that can be unpaid or compensated below minimum wage, the courts nevertheless have sided with professional sport organizations in certain instances when such companies have sought exemptions. Professional baseball organizations have done particularly well in cases involving the seasonal or recreational establishment exemption.

The first court case involved the Sarasota White Sox, a minor league affiliate of the Chicago White Sox, and Ronald R. Jeffery, a groundskeeper employed by the team (Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 1995). Jeffery had worked for the Sarasota White Sox for a number of years and sought overtime wages for overtime work performed since the beginning of his employment. In light of the team’s schedule, he had put in more than 40 hours weekly on several occasions, receiving the same compensation for those weeks as for others. The team claimed that the FLSA’s seasonal or recreational establishment clause exempted it from overtime wage requirements, and the court ruled in its favor (Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 1995). The Sarasota White Sox passed both tests for the exemption. In the previous 5 seasons of its existence, the team made over 99% of its revenues during the 6-month period March through August. In addition, the club participated in a 6-month season only, surviving the 7-month test also posed by the clause. Therefore, the Sarasota White Sox received the exemption and were not required to pay overtime wages or adhere to any other stipulation of the FLSA.

Two additional cases involving Major League Baseball clubs also centered on the seasonal or recreational establishment exemption in the FLSA. The first case involved Adams, the plaintiff, and the Detroit Tigers, Inc., operating company of the Detroit Tigers. The plaintiff had been a bat boy for the team and was seeking compensation representing overtime pay for his work exceeding 40 hours per week (Adams v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 1997). The Detroit Tigers responded as the Sarasota White Sox had, claiming exemption from the FLSA. The court recognized that the Detroit Tigers organization operated on a yearly basis, yet it also determined that Tiger Stadium operated on a 7-month schedule only, making the operation of the venue seasonal. The Tigers won the case and their exemption remained intact.

The second case in Major League Baseball was brought by maintenance workers. Robert Bridewell, Stanley McAlpin, Daisy Pearl, Melville Walker, and Eddie Rogers filed a suit seeking overtime compensation from their employer, the Cincinnati Reds, for the 1990–93 seasons (Bridewell et al. v. Cincinnati Reds, 1998). The plaintiffs claimed they were owed overtime wages by ruling of the FLSA. Unlike the Detroit Tigers (or the Sarasota White Sox), the Cincinnati Reds struggled to justify their perceived exemption from the FLSA. Initially, the district court found in favor of the team because its competitive season lasted only 7 months. An appellate court, however, found for the maintenance workers because the Cincinnati Reds employed at least 120 employees throughout each month of the year. According to the higher court, the Cincinnati Reds were not exempted from FLSA regulations; the maintenance workers received overtime wages for the 1990–93 seasons.

Conclusions

In terms of education, field experiences are essential to the preparation of sport management students for successful careers. As research has indicated, students who complete meaningful internship assignments have the opportunity to gain skills while applying the theories they have mastered within their academic curricula. In order to ensure that sport management students continue to enjoy this opportunity, internship supervisors and sport industry professionals need to establish specific guidelines governing field experiences. A possible solution would be for the SMPRC or other governing council to establish a set of regulations concerning student internships. Although some universities have already established guidelines for field experiences, having a set of universal standards may improve the experience for all of those involved.

The biggest problem affecting sport management internships has to be the increasingly high percentage of unpaid internships. Thousands of sport management students work tirelessly for professional sport organizations across the country. The business of sports is booming, but interns’ compensation does not reflect the boom. Since the Federal Labor Standards Act does not address this problem fully, modifications to the current legislation may be in order. Many sport organizations rely on interns to maintain the daily operations of the team. An example is the very common sport industry position of ticket seller. Teams cannot survive without ticket sales, but still today’s FLSA regulations—in particular its seasonal or recreational establishment clause—leaves interns without options. The federal government may want to reassess the tests used to justify the exemption of teams based on their seasonal nature.

The legal cases cited here did not involve sport management interns, but the general themes of the cases illustrate how the Federal Labor Standards Act affects student internships. Currently, most professional sport organizations operate with the exemption in hand, allowing the work of interns and some other employees to be under-compensated. Under the present conditions, then, sport management students need to familiarize themselves well with any position under consideration. They must also grasp the idea that they will very likely work for less than the minimum wage.

As the academic discipline of sport management continues to grow, improvements in curriculum design and field experience programs will certainly occur. In order to ensure that the ultimate goal, education, remains at the forefront of such improvements, students, professors, and sport industry professionals must continue to work together with a single mission. Ultimately, the field experiences required in most sport management programs have a largely positive impact on all of those involved. Changes in some current practices, along with some additions to the Fair Labor Standards Act, will assist the field of sport management as it moves forward.

References

Adams v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 961 F. Supp. 176 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

Bridewell et al. v. Cincinnati Reds, 155 F.3d 828, 830 (6th Cir. 1998).

Case, R. (2007). Sport management internships can open the door to a student’s future. Virginia Journal, 29(1), 43–44.

Cunningham, G., & Sagas, M. (2004). Work experiences, occupational commitment, and intent to enter the sport management profession. Physical Educator, 61(3), 146–156.

Cunningham. G., Sagas, M., Dixon. M., Kent. A., & Turner, B. (2005). Anticipated career satisfaction, affective occupational commitment, and intention to enter the sport management profession. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 43–57.

FLSA Employment Status. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/ Part_520/29CFR520.201.htm

FLSA Exemption. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ whd/whdfs18.htm

FLSA Overview. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/

Foster, S., & Moorman, A. (2001). Gross v. Family Services Inc.: The internship as a special relationship in creating negligence liability. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 11, 245–267.

Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 594 (11th Cir. 1995).

NASSM sport management programs: United States. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nassm.com/InfoAbout/SportMgmtPrograms/United_States

Overton, R. (2004). Hiring and supervising an athletic department intern. Coach & Athletic Director, 73(9), 76–79.

Ross, C., & Beggs, B. (2007). Campus recreational sports internships: A comparison of student and employer perspectives. Recreational Sports Journal, 31(1), 3–13.

Scremin, G. (2007). The secret shopper report. Unpublished manuscript, United States Sports Academy, Daphne, Alabama.

Sport Management Review Program Review Council. (2000). Sport management program standards and review protocol. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T21:54:46-06:00April 2nd, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off

The Impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on Collegiate Sport Professionals

Submitted by: Richard Bell, Mesa State College, United States Sports Academy National Faculty, Sarah Elizabeth Ratzlaff, Disney Sports, Steven Ross Murray, Mesa State College

Abstract

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted on August 21, 1996. Its fundamental purpose was to improve both the portability and the continuity of health insurance coverage. Title II of the act, intended to reduce paperwork, contained a clause called the Privacy Rule. The Privacy Rule is responsible for much confusion and controversy, particularly in collegiate sport settings. This paper identifies issues with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and suggests methods with which collegiate sport professionals can deal with those issues.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted on August 21, 1996, by the 104th U.S. Congress as Public Law 104-191 (29 U.S.C. §18). The act amended both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA [29 U.S.C.§1182(a)(1)], and the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C.§ 6(a)]. Its main purpose was to improve both the portability and continuity of health insurance coverage for workers and their families, especially as individuals changed employers. Title II of the act was intended to reduce paperwork—making it easier to detect and prosecute fraud and abuse—and to streamline industry inefficiencies (Office of Civil Rights, 2003). However, one specific clause in title II part C, titled “Administrative Simplification,” has had implications beyond the original intent of the act. This clause is referred to as the Privacy Rule; it was effective on October 15, 2002, and is responsible for much confusion and widespread controversy (Kuczynski & Gibbs-Whalberg, 2005), especially in collegiate sport settings.

“Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” is the Privacy Rule (45 CFR parts 160 and 164). The Privacy Rule implements the privacy requirements of the Administrative Simplification subtitle of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Privacy Rule was added to the legislation at the request of the insurance industry. It was intended to be a confidentiality provision—controlling the use and disclosure of health information—by establishing for the first time a set of national standards for the protection of personal health information. Before the enactment of this act, an individual’s health information was readily available and able to be shared among insurance companies. The resulting effect of this ethically questionable, yet legal, sharing of health information was across-the-board rejections of many persons who requested, and often needed, health insurance.

The Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for the enforcement and implementation of HIPAA. Being a federal agency, its power is far-reaching and at times intimidating. The passage of HIPAA and more specifically of the Privacy Rule has had an immediate impact on sporting organizations and personnel, especially with the normative method by which injuries are reported and information concerning athletes is released. The challenge facing sport professionals is determining if HIPAA applies to them, and if it does, establishing protocol for performing their duties adequately while being in compliance with the federal regulations. This paper will identify issues with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and suggest methods with which sport professionals can cope with these issues.

Operational Definitions

Personal health information is defined by HIPAA as individually identifiable health information. This includes any demographic or personally identifiable data relating to physical or mental health conditions, as well as information relating to the provision of health care and payment; however, patient information that is redacted for identifiable information is not subject to HIPAA guidelines (Jones, 2003). The Privacy Rule (also known as “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information”) is in title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 160 and subparts A and E of part 164. The full text of the Privacy Rule can be found at the HIPAA privacy website of the Office for Civil Rights, http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa.

The Privacy Rule specifies that all covered entities follow five steps to ensure the privacy of patients’ health information (Dolan, 2003):

Notify patients about their rights and inform them of how their information will be used.
Adopt and implement privacy procedures.
Train employees on privacy procedures.
Designate an individual to be responsible for ensuring that privacy procedures are adopted and followed.
Ensure that patient records containing individual identifiable health information are secure.

Some of the problems encountered from the Privacy Rule are best reflected in the following two questions: What constitutes a covered entity, and how does HIPAA interact with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) in the collegiate sport setting? In addition, the Privacy Rule also affects how information about an athlete’s injury can be provided to the media as well as to coaches and athletic administrators (Wyatt & Carden, 2003).

Covered Entities

The Administrative Simplification standards adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services under HIPAA apply to any entity that is a health-care provider that conducts certain transactions in electronic form; or is a health-care clearinghouse; or is a health plan. An entity that is one (or more) of these types of entities is referred to as a “covered entity” in the Administrative Simplification regulations found at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/HIPAAGenInfo/06_AreYouaCoveredEntity.asp. Covered entities are expected to adhere to the policies of the Privacy Rule. Any organization that bills for medical services or transmits personal health information electronically will fall under the guidelines of the Privacy Rule.

A college, university, or high school, then, is not automatically a covered entity simply because it has an athletic trainer on staff. Only if the athletic trainer bills the student-athlete or the student-athlete’s insurance plan for outside treatment may the institution become a covered entity. Further, a physician who bills, transmits claims to a health plan, or receives payments through some type of electronic form is considered a covered entity under HIPAA regulations (Magee, Almekenders, & Taft, 2003). Moreover, hybrid entities exist: organizations including some part that is a covered entity and another part that is not. This typically transpires in a university setting in which the student medical and health centers are covered entities, but the rest of the departments are not. HIPAA regulations allow an institution to designate which components are involved and which individuals are covered within the respective components. This allows the institution to place HIPAA requirements on a specific category of persons it has defined as its health-covered components (Hill, 2003).

Questions also have arisen about whether non-covered entities that interact and share information with covered entities consequently become covered. Though the distinction is a bit murky, the answer seems to be no. Information communicated from a covered entity to a non-covered entity is no longer subject to the Privacy Rule, and the non-covered entity does not change its status (Office of Civil Rights, 2003).

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the regulation of HIPAA, has established the following website with information about the law along with a tool that can be used to see what qualifies as a covered entity: www.cms.hhs.gov/hipaa/hipaa2/support/tools/decisionsupport/default.asp. Additional online resources are available from HHS that provide a general overview and an explanation of individual rights; see the website www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/consumer_rights.pdf.

HIPAA and FERPA

The interaction of HIPAA’s Privacy Rule with the FERPA adds to the confusion surrounding HIPAA. FERPA applies to all schools receiving federal funding. The intent of the act is to allow parents access to information about their children, while safeguarding information from release to other parties. However, the act does allow for information to be released, without consent, to school officials who have a legitimate educational interest in the student (e.g., faculty advisors, registrars). Exempted from the definition are education records, as those are defined in and covered by FERPA, and also treatment records of students 18 years of age or older that are made and maintained by the student’s treating physician or other medical professional and are available only to that physician or professional. Under HIPAA, protected health information excludes individually identifiable health information in education records that is covered by FERPA (Windley & Walueff, 2005). It appears that FERPA’s application takes precedence over HIPAA (Pitz, 2003).

HIPAA and the Athlete

Within sport, it has been standard practice for information about players’ injuries to be communicated to a wide range of individuals, from physicians and athletic trainers to coaches, school administrators, and even the media. The biggest concern for many sport organizations has been how the privacy act will affect these procedures. Professional teams have feared that athletes may withhold injury information before signing contracts (Jenkins, 2003). Both professional and college teams are unsure if information can be provided to trainers and coaches by team physicians. Another major concern for both types of teams is what, if any, information can be provided to the media (Elmore, 2002), as it disseminates information rapidly and readily to the populace as a whole.

For professional teams, health and injury information is considered criteria for employment, because of the nature of the job. Therefore, an injured athlete would not be able legally to withhold injury information from a team to whom he or she is contractually obliged. This also means that health and treatment information could be shared with coaches and team owners (Magee, Almekinders, & Taft, 2003).

Depending upon the status of a team physician for college teams, there are different stipulations about what information can be shared. Some team physicians conduct part of their practice through the student health center. In this case, the physician falls under the guidelines of FERPA and should be allowed to share information with coaches and athletic trainers. A physician not employed by a university-run health center will be subject to the HIPAA guidelines. In this case it is possible that, in order for any information to be released to athletic trainers, an authorization form would need to be signed. An exception to HIPAA exists that specifically states that information can be released to another provider for treatment purposes. What is unclear, however, is whether or not a trainer is considered a provider under HIPAA guidelines (Hill, 2003).

For coaches and other school administrators, an authorization would need to be provided before this information could be shared. Another concern is on-field evaluations information. Can this be shared with the necessary parties? The answer, it seems, is that these evaluations would fall under the category of emergency evaluations, for which prior authorization is unnecessary.

Finally, regarding the sharing of information with the media, this issue is clear-cut. Under HIPAA, personal health information can be provided to sports information staff or the media only with authorization from the athlete (Magee et al., 2003).

Solutions

Any sport entity that is covered under HIPAA needs to review its existing practices, policies, and procedures. Relationships with other businesses also will need to be reviewed as they fall under HIPAA guidelines. Utilizing experienced legal counsel to determine status under HIPAA and also to recommend authorization forms, privacy notices, and business-associate contracts is recommended (Kibbe, 2005).

One way that some schools are fulfilling the authorization constraint is by requiring athletes to sign authorization forms in order to participate in athletics. Signing the form is mandatory if the student-athlete wants to participate in athletics. Surprisingly, HHS approved this measure (Hill, 2003). Other schools that have not implemented such a policy suggest always getting permission from athletes when reporting to the media. Even when an athlete has consented to the sharing of information with one media outlet, consent should be given for each media entity that subsequently becomes involved.

Schools choosing to opt for signed consent and authorization should ensure that their forms meet the requirements of HIPAA. Authorization forms should contain a statement about what information will be shared and with whom and for how long; moreover, the form must have an expiration date. The form should be specific about who may disclose the information and about what information may be disclosed and to whom. The form also should state that the athlete cannot be denied treatment for refusing to sign and that, if information is disclosed to a non-covered entity, it may no longer be protected under HIPAA. The form also needs to contain a statement that an athlete has a right to revoke authorization at any time (Hill, 2003).

Consequences of Inappropriate Release of Information

The Department of Health and Human Services has stated that most of its enforcement will be compliance-driven and that the rule focuses on seeking voluntary compliance and providing technical assistance to covered entities. Entities found in violation will be given opportunities to demonstrate compliance or to submit a corrective action plan. However, HHS has outlined both a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per person per year per standard, and the following criminal penalties for knowingly disclosing information (Jones, 2003): knowing disclosure, $50,000 and 1 year imprisonment; false pretenses, $100,000 and 5 years’ imprisonment; intent to sell, $250,000 and 10 years’ imprisonment.

HHS has released information about filing a complaint against a covered entity that is non-compliant. Individuals who believe their privacy rights have been violated must file complaints in writing, either electronically or on paper, within 180 days of when they knew or should have known that the act or omission occurred. A form was developed by HHS to assist anyone who wants to file a complaint and is available at www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa.

To safeguard protected information, covered entities need to ensure that personal health information is secure. Any records need to be kept in locked file cabinets. When athletic trainers treat athletes, they need to make sure information about the athletes is not discussed where others can hear it. Any consultation with parents or other involved parties needs to be done with a degree of privacy. Moreover, computer security measures must comply with the HIPAA standards.

HIPAA and Sport Managers and Their Employers

The largest concern for most institutions relates to treatment and injury information for student-athletes. Sport managers need to investigate their institutions’ status as a covered entity and review their compliance with HIPAA and the Privacy Rule. If an institution is a covered entity, the sport manager will need to fully understand the implications of HIPAA and insure that the department is in compliance by safeguarding personal health information, training staff, and obtaining the appropriate authorizations. A further implication of HIPAA concerns the status of sport facilities. If medical information about patron accidents is kept or if a facility employs a nurse or EMT unit, then it is considered a covered entity.

Though HIPAA and the Privacy Rule may seem daunting, most institutions and organizations have only had to make a few changes to their policies to be in compliance. As the act is relatively new, however, sport managers need to continue to update their knowledge of HIPAA to ensure full compliance.

References

Dolan, T. G. (2003). PTs respond to HIPAA: The real world experience. PT Magazine of Physical Therapy, 11(7), 52–56.

Elmore, L. (2002). Law injects confusion into injury reporting. Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal, 5(26), 30.

General Overview of Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, 45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164 (2003).

Hill, D. (2003). A matter of privacy. Athletic Management, 15(2), 37–42.

Jenkins, D. (2003, September 12). Hiding the hurt: Privacy act puts twist on obtaining injury reports. Chattanooga Times Free Press, p. D5.

Jones, D. (2003). HIPAA: Friend or foe to athletic trainers? Athletic Therapy Today, 8(2), 17–19.

Kibbe, D. C. (2005). 10 steps to HIPAA security compliance. Family Practice Management, April, 2005, 43–49.

Kuczynski, K., & Giggs-Wahlberg, P. (2005). HIPAA the health care hippo: Despite rhetoric, is privacy still an issue? Social Work, 50(3), 283–287.

Magee, J. T., Almekinders, L. C., & Taft, T. N. (2003). HIPAA and the team physician. Sports Medicine Update, March–April, 2003, 4¬–7.

Office for Civil Rights. (2003). Summary of the HIPAA privacy rule, (May 2003). Retrieved March 28, 2007. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf

Pitz, S. M. (2003). HIPAA and the sports media: Separating fiction from reality. Nevada Lawyer, 11(8), 12–14.

Windley, V. R., & Walueff, G. (2005, June). HIPAA, right to privacy, contracts. NAEB Journal, 4–6. Retrieved from the Internet March 28, 2007. http://wikis.oet.udel.edu/uapp667sinesummer05/index.php/Main/HIPAA

Wyatt, B. M., & Carden, K. E. (2003, April). The HIPAA privacy regulations and access to athletes’ medical information. Ropes & Gray Sports Law Newsletter, 6–7. Retrieved from the Internet March 28, 2007. http://www.ropesgray.com/files/Publication/3b22be16- 0237-4e05-9e11-af29b45830aa/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/0e23970d-d944- 4ace-acce-893ed0f9dba7/Newsletter_April%202003_Sports%20Law%20Group.pdf

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T21:55:05-06:00April 2nd, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off