Is 'SafeSport' working?
The Commission on the State of Olympics and Paralympics makes recommendations on how SafeSport can be improved. Part 2 of a series.
This is the second part of a series examining the Final Report from the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics. In the first article I wrote about the Commission's recommendations regarding modifying the mandate of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee so that the USOPC focused only on high performance while "a new government office" would oversee sports at recreational and developmental levels. In this article I examine the findings surrounding SafeSport and the Commission's recommendations in that area.
To maybe no one's surprise, the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics found that SafeSport, a program that aims to prevent and respond to abuse and misconduct in sport, is not working. This was one of the conclusions reached in Passing the Torch, the Commission's final report.
According to the Report, the U.S Center for Safe Sport1 — usually referred to as SafeSport — struggles in three main areas, which contribute to an overall lack of trust from athletes, parents, and NGBs.
Understaffing
Staffers cannot keep up with the caseload. The Center tracks its own efficiency by the number of cases closed within one year. This number is fairly stable, however the number of cases that remain open past the 1-year mark is increasing.
After a complaint is filed communication from the Center to athletes, families, and NGBs is often inadequate. This lack of communication causes much dissatisfaction when combined with the length of time an investigation may take.
Finally, the reach of the Center’s authority and investigative product is limited. The Centralized Disciplinary Database is a publicly available resource listing individuals who have been suspended or are ineligible to participate in movement sports2. Not all sport contexts are required to consult it though. This makes it possible for individuals under sanction to move among contexts not under SafeSport's jurisdiction such as schools, YMCA's, and recreational programs.
Funding
The way SafeSport is funded discourages NGBs from filing cases. The Center is an independent body funded by the USOPC with a minimum $20 million annually as required by Congress. The fact that the USOPC is funding the Center rather than Congress is a key point in understanding why the Center is not perceived as being independent.
In addition to the USOPC funding, each case also generates a charge to an NGB; thus, encouraging NGBs to hold cases and attempt to clear them internally. While sexual abuse cases are exclusively handled by the Center — NGBs are required to report them — complaints of physical or emotional abuse are discretionary, NGBs can decide to settle these cases internally and save money by not turning them over to SafeSport. However, the incentive created by the funding model to not report can lead NGBs to incorrectly hold cases they have neither the expertise nor staffing to handle successfully.
Jurisdiction
SafeSport does not have jurisdiction over large parts of the U.S. sport system. Only NGBs governed by the USOPC are required to participate in the SafeSport system. Schools, YMCAs, municipal and other recreational programs are not covered by the SafeSport mandates even though many are affiliated with the USOPC.
Findings and recommendations
A full list of findings and recommendations regarding SafeSport can be found in the Report. Those included here are some of the highlights.
Finding: SafeSport has lost the trust of athletes and other movement participants as a result of a growing case backlog, cases remaining unresolved for long periods, and a policy of closing many cases administratively. Passing the Torch, p. 64
Administrative closing — closed without resolution but able to be reopened later — account for many of the unresolved cases. This type of closure is due primarily to reluctant claimants, who may fear the investigation process would traumatize them all over again.
In the two-year span from February 2018 to June 2020 more than a third of cases were closed administratively:
“From mid-February of 2018 to June 30, 2020, SafeSport resolved 4,150 claims. Of those, 731 resulted in a formal resolution while more than twice as many, 1,498, were administratively closed. Put another way: Of the cases SafeSport resolved in that two-year-plus span, more than a third were closed at the Center’s discretion, with no requirement it provide further explanation.” USA Today, 22 May 2023
Finding: SafeSport’s lack of independent funding has both hurt its credibility with athletes and led to an incentive structure that deters victims of abuse and misconduct from coming forward and filing claims. Passing the Torch, p. 67
Since a large portion of funding comes from the USOPC, the Center's independence is murky; thus, many potential claimants do not consider the SafeSport investigative process to be truly independent.
Finding: In contrast to SafeSport, USADA has been a model of success when it comes to independence and trust. Passing the Torch, p. 69
Several times in the Report, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is used as a potential model for funding SafeSport. USADA is fully funded by Congress and is independent of the USOPC and various other bodies subjected to drug testing.
Recommendation #2: Congress should make SafeSport fully independent so that it can regain athletes' trust and be held more accountable to the movement and the public. Passing the Torch, p. 123
This recommendation is aimed at the findings above. More money would allow SafeSport to hire more investigators and reduce the amount of time it takes to investigate cases. Direct congressional funding would decouple SafeSport from the USOPC and the NGBs and be able to operate as an independent body.
Finding: The fracturing of the youth- and grassroots-sports landscape in our country has placed athletes at risk. Even those participating in governing-body affiliated programs, however, may be less safe due to inconsistent rules concerning SafeSport’s jurisdiction. Passing the Torch, p. 75
Recommendation #11: Congress, USOPC, governing bodies, and other stakeholders should partner and improve coaching at all levels. Passing the Torch, p. 146
The Commission noted the scope of the Center's jurisdiction should be expanded, not only to NGB affiliated bodies but to other youth sport contexts not already affiliated with the Olympic movement.
Youth sport experiences are offered through many grassroots level contexts presenting athletes and their families with varying degrees of safety and oversight. Improving the coaching expertise across contexts and using the American Development Model would improve those experiences for all athletes.
The Commission did a good job of identifying what the current problems are with SafeSport. Unfortunately, and as with many quasi-governmental bodies, money is seen as the solution for all problems. However, if funding did come directly from Congress rather than through the USOPC, as it does now, then concerns about the independence of the Center could be eliminated, or at least reduced.
The origin story of the Center for Safe Sport is deeply connected to the sexual abuse scandals in swimming and gymnastics that got wide attention in the mid-2000s. At the recent Senate hearing (see above video) the CEO of USA Hockey was asked if he thought young athletes were safer now than when SafeSport was first introduced. He offered an optimistic non-answer, one that is quite common in government hearings. But I think anyone involved in sport can answer that question quite easily.
Of course they're safer. How could they not be? With all the attention on SafeSport practices now required by all NGBs, athletes are safer. After several very high profile cases that raised public awareness not only of a serious abuse problem in sport but also the disturbing scope of that problem, athletes are safer.
This is not to say SafeSport couldn’t do a better job. As the Report makes clear there are many areas where it could be improved. But are athletes safer? Yes, they are much safer now than they were. However, is this due to SafeSport’s efforts or just a result of raising awareness about abuse issues?
This also highlights a different problem, one mentioned several times in the Report. Currently the Center for SafeSport deals with issues from Olympic sports only. Expanding its scope is one of the recommendations in the Report. If this is done it could mean significant changes for all types of sport in the United States.
In what I think will be the final part of this series on restructuring U.S. sport, I will examine the economic challenges preventing youngsters from participating in sport. I will also have some thoughts about the Commission’s report and their overall recommendations.
The United States Center for Safe Sport operates what many sport practitioners refer to as SafeSport, a program of practices and procedures designed to prevent abuse and misconduct in sport. In this article the terms are used interchangeably, although technically they are not the same thing.
The term Olympic movement is used throughout the Report and Olympic sports are often referred to as “movement sports”.