Sport Clubs Survey
April 08, 2011
Results of an Informal Survey conducted at the 2007 NIRSA Sport Clubs Symposium
Ian McGregor, Ph.D.
President, McGregor & Associates
An informal ‘risk management’ survey was conducted by the author at the NIRSA ‘Sport Clubs Symposium’ held in Milwaukee in June 2007. The results are summarized below. The survey was not in any way scientific, and the results should be viewed merely as a ‘snapshot’ of what is happening in Sport Clubs across North America. Total number of individual responses: 83.
Structure/ Funding
1. Sport Clubs report through
67% University Campus Recreation
11% Student Union/ Student Govt.
22% Other (Student Life; Athletics etc.)
2. Campus Recreation can
57% Reject a proposed new club
64% Has input into a Club’s ratification or renewal
10% Has no involvement in ratification/ renewal process
3. Sport Clubs reporting through Campus Recreation are funded by
54% Campus Recreation/ Fundraising/ Dues
46% Campus Recreation plus Student Union/ Student Govt.
4. Sport Clubs Council
51% have a Council in place
5. Sport Club Advisor system in place
53% Yes
30% No
17% No response
6. For universities who have Sport Club Advisors
33% Advisors are effective
67% Advisors are not effective
Supervision
7. In situations where coaches are hired, they are hired by
10% Campus Recreation
70% The Sport Club
20% Campus Recreation + Sport Club
8. Campus Recreation approves the selection of coaches
39% Yes
25% No
25% Campus Recreation consulted but doesn’t approve coach
11% Campus Recreation not consulted
9. Minimum qualifications/certifications established for coaches
33% Yes
67% No
10. Coach contract executed by
41% Campus Recreation
4% Student Union/ Student Govt.
55% No contract
11. Coaches are disciplined by
54% Campus Recreation
6% Student Union/ Student Govt.
40% No disciplinary structure in place
12. Coaches can be fired by
21% Campus Recreation
7% Student Union/ Student Govt.
31% The Sport Club
41% Campus Recreation and Sport Club
13. Performance evaluation of coaches is conducted by
12% Campus Recreation
78% No performance evaluations conducted
14. Campus Recreation employs student ‘Club Supervisors’ responsible for handling a cluster of Clubs.
28% Yes
72% No
Emergency Care
15. Higher risk Clubs are required to have Trainers or EMT personnel present at
12% Practices
60% Games
38% No requirement
16. Clubs are required to have a minimum number of Club Members trained in
Emergency response (e.g. 1st Aid/CPR)
56% Yes
44% No
Insurance
17. Club members are required to have medical insurance.
68% Yes
32% No
(Comment: Not clear if this refers to primary or secondary insurance)
18. Liability insurance for Sport Clubs:
20% Clubs are required to purchase this insurance coverage
80% The University includes Clubs in their liability policy
19. There is ‘Catastrophic’ insurance coverage for Clubs
65% University provides this through Campus Recreation
35% Clubs are required to purchase this themselves (e.g. through NIRSA)
Transportation
20. Campus Recreation approves all Club trips
77% Yes
23% No
21. Clubs are required to submit travel request forms
83% Yes
17% No
22. There is a ‘Trip Leader’ identified for each Club that travels
46% Yes
54% No
23. The University/ department owns 15 passenger van(s)
26% Yes
74% No
Waivers
24. Club members are required to sign Waivers
84% Yes
16% No
Medical Screening
25. Sport Club members are required to
9% Complete a physician medical prior to the start of the season
15% Complete and submit a medical screening form (e.g. PAR-Q)
76% No medical screening requirement
Alcohol
26. In 2006/07, one or more Clubs were involved in alcohol-related incidents
45% Yes
55% No
Hazing
27. In 2006/07, one or more Clubs were involved in hazing incidents
17% Yes
83% No