Data Driven Policy: Does Limiting Practice Time Reduce Injuries?

The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) is the governing body for all high school sports in the state.  Every state has their own version of CIF, established to maintain oversight while “promoting equity, quality, character and academic development”.  The National Federation of High Schools (NFHS) maintains governance on national level for all high school sports.

Lately, concerns for athlete safety, particularly concussions, has compelled state athletic associations to develop policy aimed at reducing injuries.  One recent example, CIF Bylaw 506, limits practice hours for a single team to 18/week and 4/day.  Further, “Double day practices shall not be held on consecutive days” and “Must include a minimum of three (3) hours rest in between practices”.

These efforts mirror NFL policy on the number of contact practices allowed over a season.  A recently enacted California law (AB 2127) limits high school football teams to a maximum of two full-contact practices in a single week.  This bill takes effect for 2015 football season, but many schools have begun adopting its intent this year.

Developing and implementing policy reform is a challenging process, particularly when the science and the data are deficient.  We have seen all 50 states pass head-injury legislation over the past 5 years, but how do we know which laws serve their intended purpose, protecting our young athletes?  How can we monitor the effectiveness of these policies… and perhaps reform the reforms as quality injury data is gathered?

If you’ve read our blog, you know our cause, making informed, data-driven decisions using the latest information on athletic injuries.  In that effort, we decided to examine the effect of CIF’s recent policy update.  From a random sample of 13 California high schools, we compared football injury rates for the month of August 2013 to August 2014.

While the numbers of sprains and strains were unchanged, InjureFree’s data shows a 50% reduction of the total number of head injuries.  Without knowing specifics of which schools have pre-emptively reduced full contact practices, we assume that any reduction of practice hours has the potential to reduce head injuries.  And while clearly other variables at play, such as player fatigue, concussion education, improved coaching models and so on, what is ultimately clear at this stage is the need for more robust sampling data.

These results lead to more focused questions, and that’s a big step in the right direction.  It’s these very questions, and the process of evaluating solutions to them that’ll lead to a deeper understanding of each school’s safety environment.  This type of evaluation should be an integral part of sports safety protocol, from NFHS to state athletic associations to individual school athletic departments, as a way to accelerate and improve children’s safety.

In the case of CIF, the recent policy changes have shown a positive impact on the number of head injuries sustained at 13 of the state’s football teams.  Whether these results are coincidental, time and further data will reveal, but the preliminary outcomes support the decision to pass AB 2172.

Now, if California can just pass AB 1890 and no longer be the last state in the NATION not recognizing athletic trainers as “licensed health care providers,” we’ll really be creating safer playing environments for our kids.