Poor sportsmanship was the number-one reason cited by state administrators for why officials do not re-register. Poor sportsmanship by spectators was cited by 76 percent of the respondents, while poor sportsmanship by participants (players and coaches) had the second-highest response with 68 percent. Career demands and family were next, tied at 65 percent, and difficulty in advancing was cited by 53 percent.
When asked what the single biggest reason is for officials not re-registering, sportsmanship again was number one. Sixteen percent said the number-one reason was poor sportsmanship by spectators, 14 percent said it was career demands, 13 percent cited difficulty in advancing, 11 percent attributed it to family demands and another seven percent said it was poor sportsmanship by participants
(see fig. 1-3). No other response scored higher than four percent.
The numbers breakdown. State administrators may have a grasp of why their officials don’t re-register, but they have an even better understanding of the numbers — not just the numbers of officials, but also the number of games played needing officials and how those numbers have increased or decreased in the past 10 years. In many cases, respondents had to make estimates because hard numbers are often unknown for various reasons. Some states leave registration up to local associations, other states don’t make a distinction between the total number of individual officials and the total number of registrations per sport (for example, a single official might be registered in two or three different sports), and many states don’t have any numbers at all for 10 years ago.
The majority of respondents to the NASO survey acknowledged that the total number of games played in all sports has gone up in the last 10 years (60 responses — 80 percent yes, 20 percent no). Most said the amount of total games played had increased by 10-20 percent in that time. Meanwhile, some states reported an overall increase of officials while other states saw a decrease in the total number of officials during the same time span.
Pennsylvania, while still acknowledging a statewide officials shortage, had the largest increase in number of officials since the 1990-91 school year — a whopping 107 percent increase. Illinois had the most significant decline — 21 percent — in that same time period. Most other states either saw a modest increase, a modest decrease or simply did not have enough information from 10 years ago to say one way or the other.
Some of the most remarkable numbers came from the question, “How much does the availability of officials affect the rescheduling/canceling of games?” All 60 respondents answered that question. While only five percent responded that it never happens, 58 percent indicated it happens “occasionally;” 27 percent cited it as “rare” and 10 percent said it was “common” (see fig. 1-4).
The NFHS goes to the source. At the same time NASO was gathering its information, the NFHS was conducting its own survey. Culling information for five to six months leading up to the Norfolk conference, held June 16-19, NFHS assistant director Mary Struckhoff presented those survey results at the same session. (The survey is still active and anyone who has stopped officiating a particular high school sport can participate at www.nfhs.org/
nfoa/official_survey_main.htm).
While the NASO survey endeavored to determine once and for all whether the popular notion that there is a nationwide shortage of officials was correct — as well as try to determine its extent — the NFHS survey struck a more personal chord. It wanted to find out from individual officials why they chose to walk away from a sport they had previously officiated.
The genesis of the survey came from the 2000 Midwest Officials Summit, which is an annual meeting of Midwestern state association officiating leaders usually held in September. “We thought it was important to answer the query, ‘Why aren’t there enough refs?’” said Struckhoff. “So we at the national office decided we would conduct that survey online and get some feedback on why officials leave the high school ranks.”
After consulting with other officiating leaders, Struckhoff put together a list of 17 potential reasons why officials didn’t re-register in a particular sport (see sidebar, “Where Is Everybody Going?), plus a write-in “other” section.
At the time of the Norfolk presentation, the NFHS had completed surveys from 465 respondents. Those logging on were asked to provide information on which sport they chose not to re-register in, how long they had been officiating in that sport and their gender. Of the 17 choices on the survey (18, including the “other” selection), respondents were encouraged to indicate “the most important reason(s) for no longer officiating at the high school level” and directed to check all that apply.
Breaking up the information by gender first, Struckhoff noted some of the differences between the male and female respondents. “The market is great for women now in the business world so it’s no surprise career demands was the number one reason. But, time away from family and friends was also high.”
Struckhoff then broke the information up by sport. She noted the slightly different trends in the responses from sport to sport and the need to deal with different issues when trying to retain those officials.
Finally, the information was divided by experience level (see sidebar, “Why Do Officials Leave?”). Struckhoff noted how the reasons for leaving officiating evolve the longer an official stays in the avocation. For example, a one- or two-year official is more concerned about how much he or she is spending on licensing and equipment than on advancement. And a 26-year veteran gets out more often because of voluntary retirement than for a strained relationship with his or her local association.
Struckhoff noted that at the top of nearly every demographic response was career/job demands, but she acknowledged that to solve the retention problem, we have to attack the problems where we can make a difference. “We can’t do a whole lot about job demands,” she said. “People have to have a livelihood. But we can do something about sportsmanship; we can do something about costs; we can do something about relationships with assignors and local associations.”
Not just high school. While the two surveys presented at the NASO conference were specifically aimed at high school officials, it’s safe to say that the nationwide shortage doesn’t begin and end there. After the success of the state association survey, NASO sent a similar survey to officiating leaders at colleges and universities in charge of intramural and recreational sports.
Out of 55 total respondents, 90 percent answered yes to the question, “In general do intramural and recreational sports have an officials’ shortage?” That percentage mirrors the state association response to the same question regarding high school sports. Basketball, flag football and soccer were the intramural or recreational sports most in need of officials.
Responses deviated most significantly from the state association survey when respondents were asked their opinion for why officials do not continue to work intramural and recreational sports. The number one reason listed was low pay, cited by 84 percent of the respondents. By way of comparison, low pay was only the ninth highest reason listed on the state association survey with 30 percent of those respondents listing it.
After low pay, the reasons cited fell more in line with the state association survey. Poor sportsmanship by participants was the second most-listed reason (77 percent), followed by job/school demands (74 percent). Poor sportsmanship by spectators — one of the most-cited reasons by state association leaders — was only listed by 34 percent of intramural respondents. That deviation is likely because of the relatively small spectator crowds at college rec and intramural contests compared to many high school sports.
Additionally, while low pay was listed most often, it was not listed as the single biggest reason why officials get out of college rec and intramural sports. That (dis)honor belongs to poor sportsmanship by participants, listed as the single biggest reason by 40 percent of the respondents. Low pay was second at 34 percent while job and school demands placed a distant third at 16 percent.
(For a complete listing of the two NASO surveys and the NFHS survey results, please go to www.naso.org.)
