During a time when amateurism rules are under intense scrutiny from all levels of NCAA membership, one group has taken steps to provide limited relief to prospective and enrolled student-athletes who have received impermissible educational expenses while in high school or preparatory school.

The NCAA Division I Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement has sent a one-time directive to Division I institutions and conferences regarding reinstatement procedures to be used in cases involving student-athletes who received impermissible educational expenses to attend high school and preparatory schools.

Several such cases surfaced last year, particularly in men's basketball, and the issue of prospects receiving educational expenses has increased in magnitude in recent years, which prompted the subcommittee's review.

The new directive states that any impermissible educational expenses (for example, tuition, room, board and fees) received by an individual before August 1, 2000, for attendance at a high school or prep school before August 1, 2000, will result in the individual being withheld from the next 10 percent of his or her team's regularly scheduled contests following full disclosure of receipt of the benefit. Repayment of the impermissible expenses will not be required.

To take advantage of the directive, a student-athlete must disclose his or her involvement in accepting such impermissible expenses, and the institution must submit the request for reinstatement to the student-athlete reinstatement staff within 30 days of the student-athlete initially signing the student-athlete statement in 2000-01 or thereafter.

For individuals who receive impermissible educational expenses after August 1, 2000, the reinstatement condition likely will require withholding the individual from regular-season competition -- and requiring full repayment. The subcommittee believes that by August 1, 2000, individuals should be aware that such educational expenses are impermissible.

If there are individuals who accepted impermissible benefits before August 1, 2000, but do not disclose their involvement in a violation within 30 days of signing the student-athlete statement for the 2000-01 academic year or initially thereafter, the reinstatement condition likely will include withholding the student-athlete from more than 10 percent of the season, in addition to requiring full repayment.

For those student-athletes who already have gone through the reinstatement process, any remaining repayment will be forgiven.

In addition, the enforcement staff does not intend to invoke the provisions of Bylaw 31.2.2.5 (institutional responsibility for ineligible participation in NCAA championships) unless there is clear evidence that the prospect knew or should have known that receipt of the educational expenses was impermissible under NCAA rules.

"The cornerstone of the student-athlete reinstatement philosophy is to restore the student-athlete to the position he or she was in before the violation occurred, which in the case of impermissible expenses involves repayment at a minimum," said Julie Roe-Sumner, NCAA director of student-athlete reinstatement. "We've heard concerns from the membership that there may be many other enrolled student-athletes who received such impermissible expenses as prospects. The membership also is concerned about whether prospects fully understand that these expenses are impermissible. That's why the subcommittee is taking steps to provide some clarity."

Craig Littlepage, subcommittee chair and senior associate director of athletics at the University of Virginia, said there are more and more cases of student-athletes who have received impermissible expenses while they were still prospective student-athletes.

"The half dozen or so cases we handled this year was just a small number of those potentially out there," Littlepage said. "We felt that taking this action would take care not only of all the people who have been through the reinstatement process but also would benefit future student-athletes who can avoid making similar mistakes in terms of accepting benefits."

Littlepage said the subcommittee will embark on a comprehensive educational effort targeting future prospects and current athletics personnel. Some of the subcommittee's educational measures will include the following media:

* Guide for College-Bound Student-Athletes

* The official newsletter of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS).

* NCAA and NFHS Web sites

* NCAA high-school video conference

* Sanctioned summer camps

* Coaches at AAU organized events

Littlepage said after August 1, 2000, there should be no excuses for not knowing or understanding the rules.

"There's been a general lack of understanding about this issue, not just on the part of prospective student-athletes, but from coaches and administrators, prep-school coaches, AAU coaches and other significant adults working with young people," he said. "What we're doing is setting the record straight with those who have misunderstood the rule as well as giving the people who had no idea that such a rule existed the opportunity to understand that these sorts of benefits are indeed impermissible."

Littlepage also said the subcommittee deliberated about the severity of the penalties with the intent of encouraging disclosure in mind.

"We wanted to provide the opportunity for student-athletes to disclose and to get themselves whole in terms of intercollegiate participation," he said, "but nobody wanted to see extensive penalties in terms of games missed.

"The key was to not establish a condition so harsh that it would discourage disclosure. We wanted to set up a system that would encourage disclosure and not discourage it."

Given the 30-day window to report these violations, the subcommittee is encouraging member institutions to implement a system to determine which enrolled student-athletes and prospective student-athletes have attended prep school and whether their attendance was financed by a permissible source.