GOVERNANCE OF COLLEGIATE SPORT CLUBS

Technical Report

Dr. Leeann Lower-Hoppe, The Ohio State University

Dr. Richard Buning, The University of Queensland (AU)

Dr. W. Andrew Czekanski, Coastal Carolina University

Research Assistance: Ms. Shea Brogch, The Ohio State University

 RESEARCH DESIGN

The Janet B. Parks Research Grant funds supported the research incentive, transcription
Grant Support
service, and indirect costs of the study.

Using the organizational capacity framework (Doherty, Misener, & Cuskelly, 2014),
this study investigated university governance as an external factor that supports and
Purpose
inhibits the multidimensional resources of sport club capacity among American
collegiate sport clubs.

The study adopted a 3-iteration Delphi research design for the purpose of establishing
Methodology consensus of the governance of collegiate sport clubs amongst experts in the field (i.e.,
collegiate recreation professional staff). Expert panelists were recruited based upon the
following selection criteria:
Tenure and professional development
Perceived knowledge
Geographic location and varied enrollment
Club participation

17 recreational sport professional staff

3 Associate/Assistant Directors of Programs
Final Sample
14 Associate/Assistant Directors of Competitive Sports
Demographics of Sample
Average tenure experience………………………………….13.38 years
Mean perceived university governance knowledge…………8.30 out of 10
Regular engagement in professional development
University Characteristics
13 public universities
4 private universities
6,739 to 66,444 students enrolled
35 distinct sport clubs on average

Data collection consisted of one round of interviews and two rounds of online
questionnaire. The first round consisted of 60-minute semi-structured interviews
(Andrew et al., 2011), with analysis conducted to identify themes in the interview
responses (Creswell, 2013). Likert scales were developed to reflect the themes
Data Collection
identified in round 1. In round 2, the panelists responded to Likert-type scale items and
explained the reasoning behind their ratings for each item. Round 3 provided panelists
a distribution of the aggregated ratings from round 2, reminded panelists of their round
2 ratings, and asked panelists to rate each item and provide reasoning for their ratings.
 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

v First-round interviews revealed 46 unique responsibilities

v Respondents reached consensus on 27 of these items in
Round 2
o 22 items had a mean greater than 8 indicating
respondents strongly felt the items reflected their job
responsibilities
Roles and v Reached consensus on 6 more items after Round 3
Responsibilities v Primary responsibilities
o Maintaining communication within sports clubs
o Determining program budget
o Developing skills of executive board members
o Supervising staff
o Managing risks and enforcing sanctions
v Failed to reach consensus on 13 items primarily related to
performing tasks for individual clubs

v Departmental Governance
o Minimal consensus reached for departmental
governance items
o Indicates high variance in current departmental
structures
Current v Institutional Governance
Governance o Greater consensus than at the departmental level
Structure o Consensus on 9 items with a mean greater than 9
and consensus rate over 87.5%
v Evaluating Success of Clubs
o Annual assessments
o Annual reports
o University specific evaluation strategies
 v Evaluating Success of Clubs
o Consensus reached on two evaluation strategies
§ Annual assessments
§ Annual reports
Evaluating o Remaining strategies discussed were university
Success specific
v Determinants of Success
o First-round interviews produced 19 determinants
o 16 determinants reached consensus after Round 2
o 1 additional determinant reached consensus after
Round 3

v First-round interviews produced 30 specific constraints

v Consensus reached on only 3 constraints after Round 2
v Consensus reached on 7 additional constraints after
Round 3
Operational o Means on these items fell between 4.29 and 6.71
Constraints suggesting that, even though there was agreement,
the items only marginally constrained the program
v Failed to reach consensus on 20 items
o Suggests constraints and challenges may be more
university specific

v First-round interviews generated 27 suggestions for ideal

structure
v Consensus reached on 21 items after Round 2
v Consensus reached on 4 additional items after Round 3
o Two of these items had low means suggested there was
agreement that the approaches were not part of an ideal
Ideal structure
Governance v Failed to reach consensus on 2 items
Structure v Most important ideal governance structure items
o Programs with full-time staff
o Maintaining effective communication with sport clubs
o Holding sport clubs accountable
o National governing bodies managed by individuals with
sport club experience
o Recreational sport representation on national governing
bodies
RESPONSIBILITES OF RECREATION SPORT PROFESSIONAL STAFF

Items Reaching Consensus after Round 2 % of respondents

M SD
within 2 points of M

Maintain communication with sport clubs 9.38 1.03 93.75

Determine budget for sport club program 8.88 2.22 93.75
Develop executive board members' leadership skills 8.81 1.05 93.75
Supervise sport club staff 8.81 2.32 100
Complete various administrative responsibilities (e.g., managing
8.81 2.01 93.75
documentation)
Enforce sport club sanctions 8.81 2.11 93.75
Manage risks for sport club members 8.81 1.97 93.75
Advise executive club council 8.75 1.24 93.75
Train sport club staff 8.75 2.30 93.75
Coordinate sport club staff 8.75 2.30 87.5
Advise individual sport clubs 8.63 1.86 87.5
Train sport club officers in risk management 8.63 2.25 93.75
Develop executive club council's decision-making skills 8.56 1.09 100
Create new policies for sport clubs 8.50 2.37 87.5
Evaluate sport club programs 8.50 1.41 93.75
Direct student to University health services when needed 8.44 1.21 93.75
Allocate funding to sport clubs 8.44 2.42 93.75
Approve individual sport clubs' travel 8.38 2.42 81.25
Engage in strategic planning for the department 8.25 2.11 87.5
Create new systems for sport clubs 8.19 2.56 87.5
Manage eligibility of sport club members 8.06 2.67 75
Cultivate partnerships with internal and external stakeholders 8.00 1.79 93.75
Train sport club officers in travel planning 7.75 2.30 75
Admit new sport clubs 7.63 2.13 87.5
Train executive board members on Title IX regulations 7.13 2.99 75
Help sport clubs with revenue generation 6.75 1.61 75
Market sport clubs to potential participants 6.19 1.80 81.25
Items Reaching Consensus after Round 3
Round 2 Round 3

% of % of
respondents respondents
M SD M SD
within 2 within 2
points of M points of M

Establish sport club program 7.88 2.39 56.25 8.36 1.39 85.71
Train sport club officers in financial management 7.81 2.54 62.50 8.21 1.19 92.86
Purchase materials needed for operation of the
7.13 2.50 56.25 7.93 1.44 85.71
department
Invite guest speakers to sport club training sessions 7.00 2.88 68.75 7.71 1.77 78.57
Train sport clubs on bystander interventions (e.g.,
7.63 2.71 62.50 7.57 2.59 78.57
hazing or sexual assault)
Manage facilities used by sport clubs 6.94 2.46 62.50 7.00 2.22 85.71

Items with No Consensus Reached

Round 2 Round 3

% of % of
respondents respondents
M SD M SD
within 2 within 2
points of M points of M

Collaborate with other offices on campus 7.50 2.31 62.50 7.43 1.95 71.43
Help manage events for individual sport clubs
6.75 2.57 43.75 7.21 1.72 71.43
(e.g., games or tournaments)
Operate a point system to inform budget allocation 7.19 2.88 43.75 7.21 2.33 71.43
Support individual sport clubs' operations 6.81 2.83 37.50 6.86 2.11 64.29
Train sport club officers in event planning 7.19 2.59 68.75 6.79 2.29 71.43
Coordinate sport club program events (e.g., end of
7.38 2.197 68.75 6.79 2.19 64.29
year banquet)
Train sport club officers in marketing 6.44 2.39 68.75 6.57 2.03 71.43
Train sport club officers in facilities operations 6.13 2.66 43.75 6.43 2.14 71.43
Mentor individual sport club members 5.94 2.65 37.50 6.36 2.27 64.29
Secure external facility space for sport clubs 5.38 3.03 31.25 5.50 2.41 57.14
Determine budget for individual sport clubs 6.00 3.03 50.00 5.50 2.90 21.43
Manage individual sport clubs' finances 6.94 2.46 18.75 4.79 3.12 28.57
Allocate vans for sport club transportation 5.00 2.85 50.00 4.64 2.17 64.29
 DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESS FOR SPORT CLUB PROGRAMS

Items Reaching Consensus after Round 2

% of
respondents
M SD
within 2
My sport club program considers itself successful when... points of M

Students develop strong relationships with fellow sport club members 9.38 0.62 100.00
Students develop new skills as a result of sport club membership 9.31 0.70 100.00
Sport clubs create a welcoming environment for others 9.31 0.70 100.00
Students report having a positive experience in their sport club 9.25 0.77 100.00

Sport clubs are operating effectively 9.25 0.58 100.00

Sport club participants feel attached to the university 9.19 0.75 100.00
Sport club members are actively engaged in their club 9.13 0.81 93.75
Sport club officers are successfully trained 9.06 0.68 100.00

Sport club membership is strong 9.00 0.82 100.00

Sport clubs have plenty of resources 8.50 0.73 100.00

Sport clubs have few sanctions 8.50 1.55 93.75

Sport clubs are financially healthy 8.44 0.96 100.00
Sport clubs engage in community service 8.31 1.62 75.00
Sport clubs have a strong presence on campus 8.19 1.64 87.50
Sport clubs distribute responsibility across the executive board 8.06 2.05 87.50
Sport clubs successfully raise money for their team 7.81 1.64 87.50

Items Reaching Consensus after Round 3

Round 2 Round 3

% of % of
respondents respondents
M SD M SD
within 2 within 2
My sport club program considers itself successful when... points of M points of M

Sport clubs engage in social initiatives 6.69 1.991 56.25 6.57 1.45 85.71
Items with No Consensus Reached
Round 2 Round 3

% of % of
respondents respondents
M SD M SD
within 2 within 2
My sport club program considers itself successful when... points of M points of M

Student choose our University because of a sport club 7.69 2.358 50 7.14 2.21 50.00
Sport clubs win competitions 5.00 2.708 62.5 4.64 2.02 64.29

CONSTRAINTS FELT BY RECREATION SPORT PROFESSIONAL STAFF

Items Reaching Consensus after Round 2

% of respondents within 2
My sport club program is constrained by... M SD
points of M

Limited facilities for sport clubs 8.25 2.27 81.25

University "red tape" 7.44 1.86 87.5
The separation of the recreation and athletic departments 3.06 2.11 75

Items Reaching Consensus after Round 3

Round 2 Round 3
% of % of
respondents respondents
M SD M SD
within 2 within 2
My sport club program is constrained by... points of M points of M

Sport governing bodies operating as a business 6.44 2.92 31.25 6.71 1.64 85.71
University unaware of current constraints faced by the
5.69 2.41 56.25 6.21 1.81 78.57
department
High turnover rate of sport club officers 5.94 2.05 56.25 6.00 1.57 85.71
Conflicting objectives between university and sport
5.88 2.90 25 6.00 2.08 78.57
governing bodies
Poor effort by sport club officers 5.56 2.16 62.5 5.50 1.70 78.57
Sport clubs not holding regular club meetings 4.56 2.13 50 4.57 1.70 78.57
Lack of trained sport club officers 4.69 1.99 62.5 4.29 1.38 78.57
Items with No Consensus Reached
Round 2 Round 3
% of % of
respondents respondents
M SD M SD
within 2 within 2
My sport club program is constrained by... points of M points of M

Limited funding for sport clubs 7.44 2.90 37.50 8.14 1.96 71.43
Limited staffing for sport clubs 7.00 3.18 56.25 7.71 2.37 71.43
Lack of standard practices across sport governing bodies 7.19 2.69 50.00 7.36 1.95 64.29
Lack of standard policies across sport governing bodies 7.31 2.36 56.25 7.29 1.94 71.43
Confusing university processes 6.63 2.60 56.25 6.79 2.26 71.43
Gaps in the university processes 6.31 2.77 56.25 6.64 2.21 71.43
University purchasing processes 6.00 2.80 43.75 6.43 2.21 57.14
Lack of alumni relations with sport clubs 6.63 2.06 62.50 6.29 1.77 71.43
Over-involved students 6.19 2.69 43.75 6.21 2.26 50.00
University regulations that are not feasible 6.00 2.58 68.75 6.21 2.12 71.43
Sport club program needs seen as secondary to other
6.38 3.22 37.50 6.00 2.72 50.00
recreation programs
Inefficient university processes 5.81 2.88 43.75 5.79 2.12 57.14
Conflicting perspectives between individual sport clubs
5.50 2.53 43.75 5.64 2.10 71.43
and program
Sport club programs needs seen as secondary to athletics 5.94 2.41 62.50 5.50 2.14 71.43
Poor student leadership within sport clubs 5.75 2.38 50.00 5.36 1.95 71.43
University liability driving department's hands-on versus
4.94 2.98 43.75 5.14 2.63 57.14
hands-off approach
The University's perception of the sport club program 4.88 3.10 31.25 4.86 2.60 50.00

Degree of control maintained by the university 4.56 2.53 50.00 4.50 2.35 64.29
Competing student activities 4.75 3.26 37.50 4.43 2.38 57.14

Student Affairs retaining control over club sports 3.69 3.32 50.00 3.36 2.59 57.14
 IDEAL GOVERNANCE OF SPORT CLUB PROGRAMS

Items Reaching Consensus after Round 2

% of
respondents
M SD
within 2
My sport club program would achieve ideal governance by... points of M

Having a program with full-time staff 9.06 1.44 87.50

Maintaining effective communication with sport clubs 8.94 1.00 100.00
Holding sport clubs accountable 8.94 1.34 93.75
Having national governing bodies managed by individuals with experience in
8.94 1.34 93.75
sport clubs
Recreational Sport representation on national governing bodies 8.75 0.86 100.00
Having national governing bodies within lower club fees 8.69 1.14 93.75
Offering sport club development opportunities through the department 8.56 1.09 100.00
Offering student development opportunities through the university 8.56 0.96 100.00
Receiving strong support from the university 8.56 1.71 93.75
Having consistent policies across the university 8.44 1.21 93.75
Having a clearly defined role at the university 8.44 1.26 93.75
Requiring individual sport clubs to have a constitution 8.38 2.00 87.50
Sport governing body representation at NIRSA 8.25 1.61 87.50
Having consistent policies across sport governing bodies 8.19 1.47 93.75
Not relying upon a one-size-fits-all model 8.19 1.64 87.50
Collaboration between NIRSA, Recreational Sport departments, and national
8.06 1.61 87.50
governing bodies
Communication across sport governing bodies 8.06 1.81 81.25
Having a defined sport club executive council 7.88 2.09 81.25
Having autonomy within Student Affairs 7.75 2.32 75.00
Providing sport clubs flexibility to operate 7.56 1.55 75.00
Offering sport club development opportunities through sport governing bodies 6.00 2.10 75.00
Items Reaching Consensus after Round 3
Round 2 Round 3

% of % of
respondents respondents
My sport club program would achieve ideal M SD M SD
within 2 within 2
governance by... points of M points of M

Taking a hands-on administrative approach 7.56 2.31 68.75 7.86 1.46 78.57
Providing tailored treatment to individual sport
7.44 2.28 62.50 7.50 1.95 78.57
clubs
Having NIRSA adopt a NCAA governance
5.31 2.70 56.25 4.21 1.85 78.57
structure
Taking a hands-off administrative approach 3.75 2.67 50.00 2.93 1.27 92.86

Items with No Consensus Reached

Round 2 Round 3
% of % of
respondents respondents
My sport club program would achieve ideal M SD M SD
within 2 within 2
governance by... points of M points of M

Allowing sport clubs to inform program

7.75 1.95 62.50 7.36 1.82 71.43
decisions
Having club advisors for each sport club team 6.06 2.62 37.50 5.36 2.79 57.14