National Survey of Sports Teams
How Do We Stop Hazing?

Athletes were aware of campus policies concerning recruitment and alcohol. Most athletes reported that their institutions had athletic, behavioral, and academic standards guiding athletic recruitment. Seventy-three percent of the athletes thought that their institutions enforced state drinking laws on campus and that their administrations prosecuted alcohol misconduct violations.

Athletes had little or no knowledge, however, of strategies directly related to hazing prevention on their campuses. Only 15 percent believed that their institutions involved law enforcement in monitoring, investigating, and prosecuting hazing incidents. Only 25 percent of athletes thought the institutions had clear staff expectations in athletics for monitoring and enforcing hazing policy. Only a third (36 percent) of athletes believed that the institutions provided alternative bonding and recognition events for teams to prevent hazing. Only 25 percent of athletes thought that their institutions took strong disciplinary and corrective measures for known cases of hazing, yet these were the strategies survey respondents considered most effective in the prevention of hazing.

Respondents' Opinion of the Effectiveness of Specific Strategies to Prevent Hazing
Prevention Strategies Thought Most Effective Athletes n=2027 % Coaches n=822 % Ath. Dir. n=338 % Deans n=235 %
Strong disciplinary & corrective measures for known cases 496 52% 343 68% 128 69% 106 68%
Athletic, behavioral, & academic standards guiding recruitment 801 51% 464 61% 170 65% 122 65%
Alternative
bonding & recognition events for teams to prevent hazing
482 45% 295 56% 93 56% 56 47%
Law enforcement
involved in monitoring, investigating, and prosecuting hazing
incidents
289 35% 175 41% 77 55% 58 46%
Clear staff
expectations in athletics for monitoring & enforcing
277 27% 187 37% 76 43% 67 45%
Written anti-hazing
policy with clearly prescribed consequences
801 51% 464 61% 170 65% 122 65%
Contracts of
hazing policies, laws & consequences for athletes to sign
256 27% 112 31% 38 35% 32 34%
Enforcement
of state drinking laws on campus/prosecution of misconduct
415 36% 300 39% 124 49% 95 47%
Designated
person to whom to report suspected hazing
188 21% 172 36% 73 41% 57 42%
Hazing workshops
for athletes, coaches, & athletic administrators
106 15% 104 29% 50 42% 34 37%
Peer anti-hazing
activities: peer ed., counseling, team party patrols
106 14% 110 31% 41 38% 35 39%

More links:
Appendices: