    [Senate Hearing 118-699]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-699

                         PROMOTING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT
                               IN U.S. ATHLETICS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION,
                       PRODUCT SAFETY, AND DATA SECURITY

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                                 MARCH 20, 2024
                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-332 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2025

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  TED BUDD, North Carolina
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri
    JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          J. D. VANCE, Ohio
    RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                   Virginia
                                         CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                       Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
                     Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
                         Jonathan Hale, General Counsel
                     Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
               Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                         Liam McKenna, General Counsel

                                     ------

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY,
                               AND DATA SECURITY

    JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado, Chair   MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee,
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota                 Ranking
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            TODD YOUNG, Indiana
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            TED BUDD, North Carolina
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on March 20, 2024...................................     1
    Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................     1
    Statement of Senator Cruz........................................     3
    Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................     4
    Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    48
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................    51
    Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    56

                                   Witnesses

    Ju'Riese Colon, Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Center for
      SafeSport......................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Dionne Koller, Co-Chair, Commission on the State of the United
      States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and Professor of Law
      and Director, Center for Sport and the Law at the University of
      Baltimore School of Law........................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Grace French, President and Founder, The Army of Survivors.......    29
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Pat Kelleher, Executive Director, USA Hockey.....................    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36

                                    Appendix

    Article dated April 23, 2024 entitled, ``DOJ Settles with Nassar
      Survivors, Concluding Final Legal Case Over FBI Misconduct'' by
      The Army of Survivors..........................................    61
    Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to:
        Ju'Riese Colon...............................................    61
        Dionne Koller................................................    62
        Grace French.................................................    63
        Pat Kelleher.................................................    64

                         PROMOTING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT
                               IN U.S. ATHLETICS

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2024

                                   U.S. Senate,
          Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product
                             Safety, and Data Security,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John
    Hickenlooper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Hickenlooper [presiding], Cantwell,
    Klobuchar, Peters, Blackburn, Cruz, and Moran.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Hickenlooper. Welcome. The Subcommittee on Consumer
    Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security will come to
    order.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses for offering their
    insights at today's hearing, and making the effort, and taking
    the time to join us. This hearing is entitled, ``Promoting a
    Safe Environment in U.S. Athletics''. We are going to look at
    it from a number of different perspectives.
        The Olympics and Paralympics bring Americans together,
    bring really the world together to support our athletes who
    compete on a global stage. And from the U.S. perspective, if
    you go back to the Miracle on Ice in 1980, the hockey match
    against the Soviets, the Dream Team Basketball triumph in 1992,
    our Women's Soccer Championship title, I guess you say gold
    medal in Women's Soccer in 1996. I could go down this list, I
    could make a long list of this.
        Simone Biles making history in gymnastics in 2016. Team USA
    has so much to be proud of, and I think every country in the
    world has their Olympic stories to tell. All of Team USA's
    historic successes are collected and memorialized at the U.S.
    Olympic and Paralympics Museum in Colorado Springs which,
    having been there a number of times, I can tell you, it is an
    inspirational place to visit, and to see, and feel our Olympic
    spirit in the moment. The Olympic and Paralympic Movement is
    made up of individuals dedicated to excellence, teamwork, and
    setting the gold standard for competition.
        But success is not always a given; it is not only solely
    achieved through rigorous preparation, success is also fostered
    through an environment where athletes are empowered to thrive
    and make sure that they reach their maximum potential. Years
    ago, our Nation was shaken, shaken to its core when revelations
    were made about horrific cases going on in USA in gymnastics.
    Law enforcement and the courts have acted diligently to bring
    justice to victims who were harmed.
        Through the work by leaders of this committee, Congress
    then resolved to help prevent these types of injustices from
    ever happening again. We passed the ``Protecting Young Victims
    from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act'', and
    created the U.S. Center for SafeSport, located in Denver,
    Colorado. This Center is responsible for keeping every Olympic
    and Paralympic athlete safe from all forms of abuse. They are
    in charge of investigating cases of misconduct, holding bad
    actors accountable, and bringing justice for victims.
        Our athletes make many sacrifices to represent our country
    on the global stage; it is up to us to make sure that our
    athletes are protected from any form of abuse. The Commission
    on the State of the U.S. Olympics and Paralympics recently
    submitted a report to Congress after its two-year
    investigation.
        The report's findings show that we all have work to do to
    truly maintain a safe, transparent, and accountable environment
    where athletes can reach their ultimate potential. Among the
    report's findings, we need to carefully examine the increasing
    case load being directed to the Center for SafeSport. It is
    stretching the Center's bandwidth to conduct timely
    investigations.
        We have got to carefully examine the underlying reasons for
    why cases brought to the Center for SafeSport are
    ``administratively closed'' without judgment or further
    investigation. And then, finally, why fewer than half of
    Olympic and Paralympic athletes trust the Center for SafeSport
    to maintain an abuse-free environment.
        Our Olympic and Paralympic athletes deserve a system that
    lets them focus on their goals and achievements without having
    to worry about, again, any form of abuse. A system that brings
    swift, fair, and transparent justice to every victim should be
    the base expectation.
        Today's hearing marks an opportunity for leaders across the
    Movement to share ideas, to chart that path forward. I want to
    welcome our witnesses today. Again, thank you. And I will try
    to thank you repeatedly throughout the process.
        First, let me recognize Ms. Ju'Riese Colon, CEO of the U.S.
    Center for SafeSport; Ms. Dionne Koller, I almost pronounced
    that wrong, I think Koller is right, Director of the Center for
    Sport and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, served as
    a Commissioner on the Commission for the State of the U.S.
    Olympics and Paralympics; Ms. Grace French--I don't know, I am
    having a hard time with the words today, the names. Grace
    French is the President and Founder of The Army of Survivors;
    and then Mr. Pat Kelleher, Executive Director, USA Hockey, and
    also Co-Chair of the National Governing Body Council, the NGB.
        I don't see Senator Blackburn quite here yet.
        But we are fortunate to be joined by the Ranking Member,
    Senator Cruz, from Texas. And why don't I turn it over to you
    for an opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In 2017, in the aftermath of the USA Gymnastics scandal,
    Congress established the U.S. Center for SafeSport to safeguard
    amateur athletes against abuse.
        Few can forget Larry Nassar, the former gymnastics team
    physician who committed heinous acts against innocent young
    women. Today, the Center must remain true to its mission by
    speedily investigating and adjudicating all such cases of
    physical and sexual abuse. I hope that today's conversation
    will recognize the important progress that the Center, National
    Governing Bodies, and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee
    have made in protecting athletes since Nassar's crimes.
        But there are, nonetheless, serious challenges that we will
    discuss today. Recent public reports, as well as testimony from
    athletes, advocates, and NGBs, have raised questions as to
    whether the Center is successfully carrying out its mission.
    Hearing these concerns, I recently led an oversight letter to
    the Center with Chairwoman Cantwell, as well as Senators
    Blackburn and Peters, to request information regarding the
    Center's processes and procedures.
        I am pleased that the Center has complied with this
    committee's request for information, but after reviewing the
    data, I have several concerns. First, I am concerned about the
    scope of the Center's jurisdiction, particularly when it
    invokes its discretionary jurisdiction to take minor cases that
    could be handled by a national governing body. I am worried
    that distracts from more serious abuse cases.
        I am also concerned about the percentage of cases the
    Center administratively closes. Based on a preliminary analysis
    by my staff, it appears that the Center has administratively
    closed four out of every five sexual misconduct cases where it
    found jurisdiction; nearly half of those cases were closed
    because of a reluctant claimant. This creates doubt and
    ambiguity, particularly within NGBs, which are precluded by the
    Center from taking further action after a case has been
    administratively closed.
        Next, I am concerned about how long cases remain open.
    According to our preliminary analysis, out of 940 open cases at
    the Center, more than one-quarter have been pending for more
    than a year.
        Finally, I am concerned about the lack of transparency with
    NGBs, witnesses, and those who have come forward to expose
    wrongdoing. While I recognize the importance of
    confidentiality, I hope that we can instill cooperation, not
    hostility, between the Center, NGBs, and USOPC to better
    protect athletes.
        As I conclude, I would like to say a few brief words
    regarding the recent report released by the Commission on the
    state of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics, which was supposed to
    look into the overall effectiveness of the Olympic structure,
    perhaps unsurprisingly, this Commission, which was a Democrat-
    led effort, as several Republican-appointed Commissioners were
    unable to participate, called for dramatically more government
    to address imaginary problems.
        To improve the Olympic structure, the Commission
    recommended creating new government sports offices, higher
    taxes, and more Federal regulators, as well as regulating
    little league. Let me repeat that. the Commission suggested
    that the Federal Government regulate little league.
        This Government Commission was suggesting not just
    ``mission creep'' but ``mission gallop''. To give you a flavor
    of the report, the word ``baseball'' appears 17 times in the
    report; the words ``diversity, equity, and inclusion'', 170
    times. It is not complicated what the Commission was focused
    on.
        If the goal is to have fewer kids participating in sports
    and fewer parents volunteering to help, I can think of no more
    effective idea than having youth leagues micromanaged by virtue
    signaling bureaucrats. By arguing for the centralization of the
    U.S. athletic structure, the Commission has done nothing less
    than proposed a shift to the sports models of China and Russia.
        This is highly disturbing, particularly for U.S. taxpayers
    who funded this report, and it must be rejected. It is
    precisely the United States' rejection of centralized
    government, and the embrace of freedom and localism that has
    produced the greatest athletes in the world, athletes who have
    been able to pursue their dreams rather than have their
    athletic futures determined by a centralized regime. Team USA's
    athletic successes will continue if we reject the centralized
    Government recommendations of the Commission.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I hope
    that we can have a productive discussion about the current
    problems within the Center, and what can be done by the Center,
    NGBs, and USOPC to protect athletes from abuse.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
        Now, we will hear from Ranking Member Blackburn.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        Senator Blackburn. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    want to thank each of you for taking your time and for being
    here today. I think that each of us share the same goal, it is
    to support and protect amateur athletes as they compete and
    represent America on the international stage. These athletes
    carry Americans' hopes, dreams, and ideals; they shouldn't also
    be forced to carry the burden and the pain of abuse.
        This all started with the revelations of Larry Nassar's
    horrific abuse of the gymnasts that he was supposed to be
    caring for. The stories that his survivors describe are
    absolutely heartbreaking.
        We learned that some of his survivors had been abused by
    him for years. The description of his tactics that included
    sexually assaulting children with their parent in the room
    while he strategically blocked the parents' view, just so that
    the child would think this was normal, that it was all OK. So
    think about that. And the admission of cover-ups by the very
    people whose job it was to champion these little girls. That is
    really disturbing.
        After the horrors of Larry Nassar's abuse were revealed,
    this Body rightly jumped into action and demanded better. Over
    8 years later, we have to keep working to improve the
    environment that our athletes compete in. We don't have the
    luxury of inaction; we have never needed a well-functioning,
    independent safe sport organization more than we do right now.
        The mental health epidemic in this country, coupled with
    the increasing reports of abuse of athletes, demands that
    SafeSport get busy, get your act together, and live up to your
    mission.
        The truth of the matter is this; disgusting predators like
    Larry Nassar are still lurking in the shadows of our locker
    rooms, our ball courts, our gymnasiums. SafeSport was designed
    to root out those predators and make sure they never get within
    a hundred yards of our young girls and boys. But instead, the
    reports coming from the athletes and the NGBs tell a story that
    is far from the standards that these young athletes deserve.
        Reports of investigating for years without coming to a
    resolution, of retraumatizing survivors of sexual assault, and
    conducting backroom inquiries without any transparency have
    become synonymous with U.S. Center for SafeSport. Can you
    imagine being an athlete, training your whole life to stand on
    the world stage and represent the United States only to be
    abused by your coach, your teammate, or your doctor? Can you
    imagine being a parent, trusting your precious child to the
    care of a coach just to discover that they have been assaulted
    in a place that should have been safe? And then can you imagine
    the very organization designed, purposefully, intentionally
    designed to protect your child, failing over and over again?
        That is the sad reality of what we were facing. For
    decades, the Olympics have provided some of America's most
    memorable sports moments. We have triumphed over the
    communists, we have dominated the competition, we have
    championed American ideals on the global stage, at the heart of
    all that, of all that we are talking about today are the
    athletes. We have a duty to protect them. And so we all want
    SafeSport to succeed. We all want more cases to come to a
    resolution in a timely manner, better collaboration between
    NGBs, athletes, in the Center, and more bad actors rooted out
    of our locker rooms and gymnasiums.
        That is why I am looking forward to having a very robust
    conversation today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you Senator Blackburn.
        Now, we will hear, five minutes each, from our witnesses.
    We will move from left to right. We will start with Ms. Colon.

            STATEMENT OF JU'RIESE COLON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                 OFFICER, U.S. CENTER FOR SAFESPORT

        Ms. Colon. Thank you, Chair Hickenlooper, Ranking Member
    Blackburn, Ranking Member Cruz, and Chair Cantwell for inviting
    the U.S. Center for SafeSport to discuss the progress that we
    were making toward changing sport culture as well as the work
    ahead of us.
        When the Center opened our doors seven years ago, we were
    faced with a daunting task, to undo years of inaction, restore
    faith in a Movement that had failed too many, and finally, hold
    abusers and the organizations that enabled them, accountable.
    Our work has been a catalyst for culture change. Reports of
    abuse and misconduct have increased by more than 2,000 percent
    since opening.
        People are coming forward with their stories because they
    know the Center is a resource to them. In our first year, we
    received roughly 300 reports; last year, we received 7,500, and
    to date, the Center has received more than 25,000 reports of
    abuse and misconduct.
        The names of more than 2,000 individuals are now listed on
    our centralized disciplinary database. It is a first-of-its-
    kind resource listing individuals who have been restricted or
    banned from sport, which any parent, local sports league,
    youth-serving organization, or employer can easily access from
    our website. And we have delivered more than five million
    trainings to nearly two-and-a-half million participants in the
    U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement to prepare them to
    recognize, prevent, and ultimately respond to abuse and
    misconduct.
        The Center has also established policies to prevent abuse
    and create safe spaces for athletes across the Movement. We
    audit every single NGB to ensure adherence to these rules, and
    this year have expanded audits to reach deeper into grassroots
    sports. There was no blueprint on how to begin this work; there
    was simply a critical mission and a strong will to show up for
    America's athletes. And that is what we have done.
        We continue to hear from athletes who are thankful to have
    had us in their court, whether we have banned an abusive coach
    when law enforcement declined to prosecute, collaborated with
    law enforcement to bring an abuser to justice, acted on
    allegations of abuse disclosed decades later, sanctioned
    individuals, even leaders in sport who failed to report abuse,
    or stepped in to seek accountability in countless other
    situations. We are working every day to keep athletes safe, and
    we have made great strides. But we are also very clear-eyed
    about why we are here today.
        We have heard the voices of participants in our process who
    said they were let down. We know change is necessary and are
    ready to make improvements, particularly as it relates to
    timeliness of investigations, communication, and trauma
    sensitivity.
        Eight months ago, we embarked on a deliberate top-to-bottom
    review of our response and resolution process, as well as other
    aspects of our work, seeking input from athletes and other
    stakeholders in the movement along the way. And we have
    identified an initial set of changes, which included a
    departmental restructure and realignment, redefining the use of
    administrative closures, enforcing policies around consistent
    communication, assigning staff and resources to improve process
    navigation, trauma sensitivity training, and data collection.
        Even with the significant process changes, we acknowledge
    that we must continue to listen and to evolve. We pledge to
    continue to seek athlete input and keep Congress and the public
    informed.
        This is an inflection point for the Center, and for the
    entire U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement. Changes must be
    made to ensure America's athletes can thrive from practice
    fields in our neighborhoods, to the podium in Paris this
    summer. We thank the Commission on the State of the U.S.
    Olympics and Paralympics for their focus on athlete safety, and
    we agree that improvements must be made to ensure their
    protection. We also appreciate the Commission's recognition of
    the Center's essential role in the Movement and the progress
    that we have made in standing up a model that has never existed
    before.
        We share the belief that every athlete, regardless of their
    level of play, deserves to be safe. Our cases involving high-
    profile athletes and coaches may grab headlines, but most
    revolve around grassroots athletes playing for local affiliated
    organizations, and a quick scroll of our CDD shows the impact
    that we were making in small towns and big cities throughout
    the country.
        The Commission aptly pointed out that the fractured youth
    and grassroots sports landscape leaves athletes vulnerable to
    abuse. And we agree. That is why the Center is requesting
    legislative change to establish a definition for National
    Governing Bodies that is inclusive of local affiliated
    organizations, and makes clear that NGBs have oversight over
    them.
        We also strongly support requiring youth sports
    organizations to consider the CDD when making hiring and
    volunteering decisions. Expediting case resolutions while
    ensuring thoroughness, fairness, and trauma sensitivity remains
    our top priority, but increased resources are necessary to
    these efforts. We expect reports to continue to grow
    exponentially, especially as new sports, such as flag football
    and lacrosse have the potential to add more than a million
    individuals to the Movement.
        With additional resources, the Center will move forward
    with setting maximum ceilings on timeframes for case
    resolutions, as well as add additional investigative staff to
    meet the growing demand.
        I thank the Committee and my fellow witnesses for the
    opportunity to shed light on the progress we were making, as
    well as the ways we are showing up to change for the better.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Colon follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Ju'riese Colon, Chief Executive Officer,
                           U.S. Center For SafeSport

        Thank you, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz, Chair Hickenlooper,
    and Ranking Member Blackburn, for inviting the U.S. Center for
    SafeSport (the Center) to discuss the progress we're making toward
    changing sport culture as well as the work ahead of us.
        When the Center opened our doors seven years ago, we were faced
    with a daunting task--to undo years of inaction, restore faith in a
    movement that had failed too many, and finally hold abusers and the
    organizations that enabled them accountable.
        Our work has been a catalyst for culture change:

       Reports of abuse and misconduct have increased by more than
            2000 percent since opening. People are coming forward with
            their stories because they know the Center is a resource to
            them. In our first year, we received roughly 300 reports, and
            last year we received 7,500. To date, the Center has received
            more than 25,000 reports.

       The names of more than 2,000 individuals are now listed on
            our Centralized Disciplinary Database (CDD). It is a first-of-
            its-kind public resource listing individuals who have been
            restricted or banned from sport, which any parent, local sports
            league, youth-serving organization, or employer can easily
            access on the Center's website.

       We've delivered more than 5 million trainings to nearly 2.5
            million participants in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
            Movement to prepare the sport community to recognize, prevent,
            and respond to abuse and misconduct.

       The Center has also established policies to prevent abuse
            and create safe spaces for athletes across the movement. We
            audit every single NGB to ensure adherence to these rules and
            this year have expanded audits to reach deeper into grassroots
            sports.

        There was no blueprint on how to begin this work. There was simply
    a critical mission and a strong will to show up for America's athletes.
        And that's what we've done. We continue to hear from athletes who
    are grateful to have had us in their court.
        Whether we:

       banned an abusive coach when law enforcement declined to
            prosecute;

       collaborated with law enforcement to bring an abuser to
            justice;

       acted on allegations of abuse disclosed decades later;

       sanctioned individuals, even leaders in sport, who failed to
            report abuse; or

       stepped in to seek accountability in countless other
            situations, we are working every day to keep athletes safe.

        We've made great strides, but we are also clear-eyed about why we
    are here today.
        We have heard the voices of participants in our process who said
    they were let down. We know change is necessary and are ready to make
    improvements, particularly as it relates to timeliness of
    investigations, communication, and trauma sensitivity.
        Eight months ago, we embarked on a deliberate top-to-bottom review
    of our Response and Resolution process as well as other aspects of our
    work, seeking input from athletes and other stakeholders in the
    movement along the way.
        We've identified an initial set of changes, which included a
    departmental restructure and realignment; redefining the use of
    Administrative Closures; enforcing policies around consistent
    communication; assigning staff and resources to improve process
    navigation, trauma-sensitivity training, and data collection; as well
    as other process refinements.
        Even with these significant process changes, we acknowledge that we
    must continue to listen and evolve. We pledge to continue to seek
    athlete input and keep Congress and the public informed.
        This is an inflection point for the Center and for the entire U.S.
    Olympic and Paralympic Movement. Changes must be made to ensure
    America's athletes can thrive, from the practice fields in our
    neighborhoods to the podium in Paris.
        We thank the Commission on the State of the U.S. Olympics and
    Paralympics for their focus on athlete safety, and we agree that
    improvements must be made to ensure their protection. We also
    appreciate the Commission's recognition of the Center's essential role
    in the movement and the progress we've made in standing up a model that
    has never existed before.
        We share the belief that every athlete, regardless of their level
    of play, deserves to be safe. Our cases involving high profile athletes
    and coaches grab headlines, but most revolve around grassroots athletes
    playing for local affiliated organizations (LAOs). A quick scroll of
    our CDD shows the impact we're making in small towns and big cities
    throughout the country.
        The Commission aptly points out that the fractured youth and
    grassroots sports landscape leaves athletes vulnerable to abuse, and we
    agree. That's why the Center is requesting legislative change to
    establish a definition for national governing bodies that's inclusive
    of local affiliated organizations and makes clear that NGBs (and
    thereby the Center) have oversight over such organizations. We also
    strongly support requiring youth sports organizations to consider the
    CDD when making hiring and volunteer decisions.
        Expediting cases resolutions, while ensuring thoroughness,
    fairness, and trauma-sensitivity remains a top priority. Increased
    resources are necessary to our efforts.
        We expect reports to continue to grow exponentially, especially as
    new sports such as flag football and lacrosse have the potential to add
    more than a million more individuals to the movement. With additional
    resources, the Center will move forward with setting maximum ceilings
    on timeframes for case resolution as well as add additional
    investigative staff to meet the growing demand.
        I thank the committee and my fellow witnesses for the opportunity
    to shed light on the progress we are making as well as the ways we are
    showing up to change for the better.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Ms. Colon.
        Ms. Koller.

            STATEMENT OF DIONNE KOLLER, CO-CHAIR, COMMISSION
               ON THE STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC
             AND PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE, AND PROFESSOR OF LAW
               AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SPORT AND THE LAW
              AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW

        Ms. Koller. Thank you, Chairman Hickenlooper, and Ranking
    Member Blackburn. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
    in the capacity as Co-Chair of the recent bipartisan Commission
    on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics.
        As the Subcommittee is aware, our Commission delivered its
    final report to Congress on March 1, completing a year-long
    intensive study and having developed a set of policy
    recommendations to Congress, the states, and stakeholders in
    the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement.
        I was proud to lead this Commission with my Co-Chair, Han
    Xiao, and work closely with commissioners appointed by the
    Chair, and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, as
    well as the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on
    Energy and Commerce.
        These commissioners included both Olympians and
    Paralympians, experts on sports oversight and governance, and
    those with a long history of engagement on issues such as
    athlete safety.
        During the course of our study, our Commission requested
    and reviewed tens of thousands of documents from the U.S.
    Olympic and Paralympic Committee, the U.S. Center for
    SafeSport, and governing bodies. We interviewed hundreds of
    individual participants in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
    Movement, a Movement that includes millions of Americans who
    participate every day in youth and grassroots sports in their
    communities.
        Our Commission also conducted surveys and convened focus
    groups, and we held a public hearing with expert witnesses and
    Movement leaders here on Capitol Hill in September, including
    Ms. Colon, Ms. French, and Mr. Kelleher. In short, our
    Commission carried out the most comprehensive analysis of the
    U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement and its governance, ever
    undertaken. Ours was the first independent, governmental, and
    bipartisan Commission tasked with evaluating this Movement
    broadly in over four decades. I am proud that we delivered
    fully on the mission with which Congress entrusted us.
        I urge all members of this committee, and indeed, every
    Legislator in Congress, to read through our final report. The
    findings we share demonstrate the urgent need for systemic
    reforms if our Nation is to make Movement Sports safer, more
    equitably accessible, and better accountable to the public it
    serves.
        Our recommendations were the product of consensus among
    both Republican and Democratic appointees, and I am encouraged
    by the very positive feedback we have received from Members of
    Congress, on both sides of the aisle, since the report's
    release. Sports continue to bring Americans of all ages
    together, and it is gratifying to see a concern for athletes'
    safety, access, and well-being reflected in true bipartisanship
    here on Capitol Hill.
        One of the key takeaways from our report, which I will
    highlight today, is that addressing just one challenge alone
    has proven to be a losing strategy when it comes to reforming
    this Movement and making it safer for athletes. Broad systemic
    change is needed, not piecemeal adjustments that do not address
    the root causes of the issues we see coming up over and over
    again.
        Much of the attention, understandably, has been on changes
    needed to the structure and practices of the U.S. Center for
    SafeSport. However, addressing SafeSport by itself without
    adopting other major recommendations in our final report is a
    recipe for further problems. That is because safety and athlete
    well-being, within the Movement, depend on more than just
    SafeSport.
        I hope all of you will read carefully through all of our
    recommendations, particularly ending the U.S. Olympic and
    Paralympic Committee's unworkable dual mandate, which has
    exacerbated athlete safety concerns. Also central to this
    effort must be the creation of an independent body representing
    high-performance athletes within the system, with its own
    source of funding and a statutory mission to advocate solely on
    these athletes' behalf.
        We must do more to ensure that Paralympians and those
    participating in Para Sports at all levels are treated equally,
    and we identified ways to improve the Olympic and Paralympic
    host-city bid process to advantage the United States.
        Additionally, it will be critical for Congress to establish
    a stronger method of public oversight so problems do not
    fester, and movement institutions are more accountable to
    Congress and the American people.
        I have included a copy of our report's Summary of Findings
    and Recommendations along with my prepared testimony for the
    hearing record.
        Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee for its attention
    to these important issues. I appreciated the opportunity to
    serve as the Commission's Co-Chair, and one of the Senate
    Commerce Committee's appointees.
        I look forward to answering any questions you might have
    about our final report, our findings, and our recommendations.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Koller follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Dionne Koller, Co-Chair, Commission on the State
                        of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics

        Thank you, Chairman Hickenlooper and Ranking Member Blackburn. I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify today in the capacity as Co-Chair
    of the recent bipartisan Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and
    Paralympics.
        As the Subcommittee is aware, our Commission delivered its final
    report to Congress on March 1, completing a year-long, intensive study
    and having developed a set of policy recommendations to Congress, the
    states, and stakeholders in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. I
    was proud to lead this Commission with my Co-Chair, Han Xiao, and work
    closely with commissioners appointed by the Chair and Ranking Member of
    the Senate Commerce Committee as well as the Chair and Ranking Member
    of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. These commissioners
    included both Olympians and Paralympians, experts on sports oversight
    and governance, and those with a long history of engagement on issues
    such as athletes' safety and representation.
        During the course of our study, our Commission requested and
    reviewed tens of thousands of documents from the U.S. Olympic and
    Paralympic Committee, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, and governing
    bodies. We interviewed hundreds of individual participants in the U.S.
    Olympic and Paralympic movement--a movement that includes the millions
    of Americans who participate every day in youth and grassroots sports
    in their communities. Our Commission also conducted surveys and
    convened focus groups, and we held a public hearing with expert
    witnesses and movement leaders here on Capitol Hill in September,
    including Ms. Colon, Ms. French, and Mr. Kelleher.
        In short, our Commission carried out the most comprehensive
    analysis of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement and its governance
    ever undertaken. Ours was the first independent, governmental, and
    bipartisan commission tasked with evaluating this movement broadly in
    over four decades. I'm proud that we delivered fully on the mission
    with which Congress entrusted us.
        I urge all of the members of this Committee--and, indeed, every
    legislator in Congress--to read through our final report. The findings
    we share demonstrate the urgent need for systemic reforms if our Nation
    is to make movement sports safer, more equitably accessible, and better
    accountable to the public it serves. Our recommendations were the
    product of consensus among both Republican and Democratic appointees,
    and I am encouraged by the very positive feedback we've received from
    members of Congress on both sides of the aisle since the report's
    release. Sports continue to bring Americans of all ages together, and
    it is gratifying to see a concern for athletes' safety, access, and
    well-being reflected in true bipartisanship here on Capitol Hill.
        One of the key takeaways from our report, which I'll highlight
    today, is that addressing just one challenge alone has proven to be a
    losing strategy when it comes to reforming this movement and making it
    safer for athletes. Broad, systemic change is needed, not piecemeal
    adjustments that do not address the root causes of the issues we see
    coming up over and over again. Much of the attention, understandably,
    has been on changes needed to the structure and practices of the U.S.
    Center for SafeSport. However, addressing SafeSport by itself--without
    adopting other major recommendations in our final report--is a recipe
    for further problems. That's because safety and athletes' well-being
    within the movement depend on more than just SafeSport.
        I hope all of you will read carefully through all our
    recommendations, particularly ending the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
    Committee's unworkable dual mandate, which has exacerbated athlete-
    safety concerns. Also central to this effort must be the creation of an
    independent body representing high-performance athletes within the
    system, with its own source of funding and a statutory mission to
    advocate solely on these athletes' behalf. We must do more to ensure
    that Paralympians and those participating in para sports at all levels
    are treated equally, and we identified ways to improve the Olympic and
    Paralympic host-city bid process to advantage the United States.
    Additionally, it will be critical for Congress to establish a stronger
    method of public oversight, so problems do not fester and so movement
    institutions are more accountable to Congress and the American people.
        I am including a copy of our report's Summary of Findings and
    Recommendations along with my testimony and ask that it be included in
    the hearing record. Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee for its
    attention to these important issues. I appreciated the opportunity to
    serve as the Commission's Co-Chair and one of the Senate Commerce
    Committee's appointees. I look forward to answering any questions you
    might have about our final report, our findings, and our
    recommendations.
                                     ______

                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Ms. Koller.
        Ms. French.

        STATEMENT OF GRACE FRENCH, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER,
                      THE ARMY OF SURVIVORS

        Ms. French. Thank you to Subcommittee Chairman
    Hickenlooper, Ranking Member Blackburn, and the esteemed
    Subcommittee Members for the opportunity to speak today on
    sports safety from the perspective as an athlete and a
    survivor. I appreciate the Committee's dedication to supporting
    all athletes and addressing this crucial issue.
        I am Grace French, the Founder and President of the
    nonprofit organization, The Army of Survivors, or TAOS. We
    promote awareness, accountability, and transparency on abuse in
    Sport through advocacy, education, and resources. In 2018, I
    spoke up about the abuse I endured from the now infamous USA
    gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor.
        The abuse occurred from ages 12 to 19. Only when I came
    forward did I learn that the initial report of his abuse to the
    University was in 1997 when I was 2 years old. As a young
    athlete, I was unaware of my vulnerability to abuse. Athletes
    are at a high risk due to their demanding schedules, their
    close relationship with coaches, physical care, competitive
    pressures, and limited career window.
        I focused on excelling in my sport and trusted the
    institutions and authority figures to protect me. In the summer
    of 2018, 40 survivors united to envision a future where
    athletes can train and compete free from violence. Recognizing
    we weren't alone in our sport experiences. The Army of
    Survivors emerged to transform pain to power.
        Since then, our organization has grown quickly, connecting
    with numerous abused survivors in sports globally. Congress has
    responded with new laws after the abuse among athletes came to
    light, but we have continued to hear from many athlete
    survivors that more needs to be done.
        Starting in May 2022, TAOS interviewed dozens of athletes
    in various sports, genders, ages, and competition levels about
    reporting sexual assault experiences through the U.S. Center
    for SafeSport's process. Their testimonies highlight disturbing
    common themes. A full report of our findings is available and
    will be submitted with my comments.
        The bottom line is SafeSport does not have the trust and
    respect of athletes, coaches, families, or sports communities.
    For some athletes, reporting to SafeSport can be a first step
    in their journey to healing and accountability, but from our
    experience, no athlete has seen the Center that way.
        If SafeSport is truly too important to fail, it needs to
    commit to systemic changes in how it functions. Our primary
    concern lies in the retraumatization of survivors of sexual
    abuse within the SafeSport process. These survivors have been
    disregarded, hushed through non-disclosure agreements, and
    subjected to excessively lengthy investigations, some lasting
    years.
        Second, SafeSport must increase transparency of its process
    and improve communication. SafeSport arbitrarily closes cases
    without providing details to survivors and retaining
    jurisdiction even after closure. This hinders external
    investigations and accountability.
        For example, at the end of 2022, SafeSport suddenly
    administratively closed what appeared to be hundreds of cases.
    TAOS was flooded with calls from survivors because of the
    sudden closures, and no one was staffing SafeSport during
    winter break to answer their questions. This could have been a
    life-threatening situation for those athletes.
        Third, SafeSport must connect survivors to mental health
    resources and allow for support from victim's advocates. One
    male survivor shared that when he mentioned suicidal ideation
    to his investigator, and in response, they gave a hotline
    number, and on the same day closed his case.
        Additionally, investigators themselves seem to lack an
    understanding of sports operations. A survivor had to explain
    their sports operations to investigators and the conflict and
    safety concerns to get the safety measures they needed.
        Fourth, SafeSport should collaborate with survivors and
    experts. SafeSport hasn't partnered with survivor organizations
    like TAOS to adopt a trauma-informed approach, and despite
    attempts to communicate, there has been limited response. Only
    in the last few weeks did SafeSport reach out for TAOS's
    expertise without addressing concerns that we sent more than a
    year and a half ago.
        Last, but not least, SafeSport must prioritize the
    prevention of abuse by centering prevention strategies we can
    make sure these abuses don't happen in the first place. As an
    athlete-founded and led organization, TAOS stands ready to work
    with you on bipartisan, no- to low-cost solutions so that we
    can set a global example for other nations.
        As one example, TAOS supports Representative Deborah Ross'
    Draft Bill, the Safer Sports for Athletes Act of 2024, which is
    expected to be introduced shortly in the House. The bill aims
    to enhance athlete safety, streamline the reporting process,
    and aligns with the Commission's recommended reforms for a more
    cooperative and trauma-informed approach.
        SafeSport has confused their priorities, like many
    institutions, including the ones that failed me. They are
    prioritizing their brand and reputation over the safety of
    athletes. All the children in sport are watching, and all the
    survivors of abuse in sport are waiting for meaningful change.
        Now is the time for that change.
        Thank you for listening.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. French follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Grace French, Founder and President,
                             The Army of Survivors

        Thank you to Chairman Hickenlooper, Ranking Member Blackburn, and
    the other Subcommittee Members for inviting me to speak today to offer
    my perspective on safety in sports as an athlete and survivor, and
    specifically, the effectiveness of the U.S. Center on SafeSport. I
    deeply appreciate the Committee's time. My name is Grace French, and I
    am the Founder and President of The Army of Survivors (TAOS), a
    nonprofit focused on creating awareness, accountability, and
    transparency around the issue of abuse in sport through our pillars of
    advocacy, education, and resources.
        I began doing this work in 2018 when I came forward about the abuse
    I had experienced at the hands of the now infamous and imprisoned U.S.
    Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor. I was abused from the
    ages of 12-19. It was only after I came forward that I found out that
    the first report to the University of his abuse was in 1997 when I was
    two years old.
        Another report to the University happened in 2014, as I was being
    abused. In 2015, USA Gymnastics, the USOPC, Michigan State University,
    and the FBI knew he was sexually assaulting people, but failed to stop
    him or tell his patients. So, I continued to see him for my injuries. I
    faced abuse even after it had been reported because the institutions
    that were put in place to protect me failed to do so.
        I did not know as a young athlete how vulnerable I was to abuse.
    Athletes face extreme vulnerability to sexual abuse because of their
    complex and sometimes isolating schedules, the intimate nature of
    coaching and development of sporting skills, the increased physical
    care and scrutiny, the pressures, and stressors of athletic
    competition, as well as concerns about career opportunities in a finite
    timeframe. I was focused on being the best athlete I could be and
    trusting the coaches, doctors, and staff that supported me.
        What I failed to predict when becoming public with my story was
    that the institutions that I had trusted with my safety wouldn't listen
    to us, believe us, nor make necessary changes to prevent this from
    happening again. Instead of doing the right thing, they prioritized
    their brand, image, and dollars over the victims of their failures who
    had given so much to speak out in the hope of change. The institutions
    failed to be transparent or trauma-informed. And there was no support
    from my sport or sports-connected organizations.
        Through all of this trauma, and re-traumatization through the
    failures of the institutions to respond in a trauma-informed way, the
    silver lining was that I became a part of a group of like-minded
    people. The community that was formed through abuse found healing in
    advocating for change, centering and leading with our lived experience,
    and creating a world where no one would have to experience what we did.
    In the summer of 2018, 40 of us came together to create a shared vision
    for the future because we knew that we were not alone in our
    experience. And from that, The Army of Survivors was formed to turn our
    pain to power.
        Since then, our organization has expanded rapidly, and we have met
    countless survivors of abuse in sport from across the Nation and the
    world. We are in the process of piloting a curriculum for coaches,
    Compassionate CoachTM. To support national advocacy efforts,
    we have developed a trauma-informed survivor policy advocacy training
    to empower survivors to use their voices to influence change. We've
    worked every day since our founding to realize our shared vision: a
    world where athletes can train and compete without violence.
        Congress has responded with new laws after the abuse among athletes
    came to light, but we have continued to hear from many athlete
    survivors of all ages, genders, and sports over the past two years that
    more needs to be done. It is clear to me that SafeSport needs further
    reforms and support to fulfill its mandate to create lasting change to
    prevent and address sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of athletes.
        Starting in May 2022, TAOS conducted a series of interviews with a
    diverse group of athletes across several different sports, genders,
    ages, and levels of competition regarding their experiences with
    reporting sexual assault. All of these survivors tried to work through
    SafeSport's process. Since the initial research and listening sessions,
    TAOS has remained an informal watchdog for SafeSport, and we still
    receive calls on a weekly, if not daily basis, from survivors who are
    struggling or have been harmed by the SafeSport process. Survivors
    trust us with their stories, and they are trusting us to help shepherd
    reforms.
        We've gathered their testimony and found some common disturbing
    themes. A full report of our findings is available and will be
    submitted with my comments. Of most concern to me is the re-
    traumatization that survivors of sexual abuse have been subject to in
    SafeSport's process. Survivors have been ignored, silenced through do
    not disclose agreements, had investigations that lingered for years,
    had no notice of actions taken by SafeSport that could put them at
    risk, have little to no confidence in the SafeSport investigation
    process, are subject to unchecked or interrupted retaliation, and have
    not been supported through a trauma-informed approach.
        Through these discussions with athlete survivors and witnesses of
    sexual abuse in sports regarding how their cases were handled, it is
    clear more reforms and oversight are needed to ensure accountability of
    individuals and institutions, best practices on trauma-informed
    training and support are used, and more transparency is created. There
    is no excuse for the victim-blaming, and minimizing statements that
    SafeSport staff continue to make to survivors and witnesses. SafeSport
    will never gain public trust if its processes and staff are belittling
    and retraumatizing athletes.
        The report of the Commission on the State of the U.S. Olympics and
    Paralympics also spells out there is a need for systemic reforms in
    SafeSport and Congressional action is needed to steward these changes.
    SafeSport needs direction to incorporate more collaborative and trauma-
    informed practices and needs to build transparency, trust, and
    accountability in the field of ending abuse in sports.
        SafeSport does not have the trust and respect of athletes, coaches,
    families, and other stakeholders in sport. For some athletes, reporting
    to the U.S. Center for SafeSport can be a first step in their journey
    to healing and accountability, but from our experience, no athlete has
    seen the Center that way. If SafeSport is truly too important to fail,
    it needs to commit to systemic changes in how it functions and how it
    sees its work.
        SafeSport must increase the transparency of its processes and
    improve communication. The survivors we talked to were all frustrated
    with SafeSport's process and felt there was no transparency of process
    nor was there good communication about their cases and investigations.
    Survivors have no information as to how SafeSport applies the
    preponderance of the evidence standard and are left in the dark when
    cases are delayed due to criminal legal cases or defensive legal
    strategies. One survivor shared a long history of consistent
    miscommunication from SafeSport about her case. She requested advanced
    notice about when a decision was going to be made because she knew that
    decision would have mental health impacts on her and her family. She
    also was planning a major vacation and wanted to avoid the negative
    impact of inevitable re-traumatization brought on by having to read the
    entirety of a 600-page report in one sitting. A warning by the center
    would give her enough time to mentally process before leaving for time
    with her loved ones. Not only did SafeSport fail to provide any warning
    that the case was being closed, but they did not take into account her
    requests for notice or consider the impact on her life and her family.
    Another example is at the end of 2022, SafeSport suddenly
    administratively closed what appeared to be hundreds of cases. TAOS was
    flooded with calls from survivors because of the sudden closures and
    the fact that SafeSport closed these cases before shutting down for a
    winter break, leaving no one available to respond to survivor concerns
    or questions. These survivor accounts demonstrate an unknown and
    arbitrary process at SafeSport that does not consider the traumatic
    impact the Center itself has on survivors. There is no need for
    arbitrary timelines and secrecy in the SafeSport process.
        A trauma-informed systems approach is needed within SafeSport.
    SafeSport must understand that a trauma-informed approach is not
    biased; it is simply an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma
    and takes steps to mitigate the impact of re-traumatization. The impact
    of trauma on a person's body, mind, and mental health is widely
    scientifically researched.\1\ Any organization working with people who
    have been traumatized needs to center this approach and acknowledge
    this interconnection. The role of SafeSport is too important to fail in
    its intended mission to address sexual, physical, and emotional abuse
    of athletes--it cannot fulfill its mission without being trauma-
    informed, much like law enforcement and education systems. SafeSport
    needs to understand that a trauma-informed systems approach is bigger
    than who is hired as an investigator--it goes to the heart and founding
    principles of how the Center functions and establishes its protocols.
    SafeSport needs a higher level and more comprehensive understanding of
    the impact of trauma and trauma-informed principles. All SafeSport
    staff should understand trauma-informed care and approaches. Staff also
    must understand the nuance and special vulnerabilities for abuse in
    sport--such as athlete isolation from friends and family, the stress
    and competitive nature of elite sports, and the coercive power and
    control tactics those in power use to gain and sustain abuse. SafeSport
    must build meaningful relationships with others in the work to end
    sexual violence in sport and needs a better understanding of the
    advocacy work and research that already exists to guide best practices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207191/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Require SafeSport to prioritize prevention of abuse. We need to
    also center strategies to prevent these abuses in the first place. We
    should support innovative prevention programs and community-level
    prevention strategies that consider the complex and intersectional lens
    of abuse in sports and sexual abuse specifically. The U.S. Center on
    SafeSport has not been supportive or a place of trust for athletes up
    to this point. SafeSport must rebuild trust with athletes and invest in
    prevention. Again, collaboration with outside expertise, which TAOS has
    offered, and which others stand ready to provide, is central to long-
    lasting improvements.
        Further, the final report of the Commission on the State of U.S.
    Olympics and Paralympics released earlier this month highlighted the
    need to change the culture of coaching in sports. To this end TAOS is
    launching a coaching curriculum, Compassionate CoachTM, that
    was developed by TAOS in partnership with athletes and athlete
    survivors of abuse as well as leading experts in institutional courage,
    trauma-informed care, and player-centered coaching. This 8-week virtual
    interactive course educates coaches on understanding trauma, how it
    affects child athletes, how to recognize it, and how to appropriately
    adjust their coaching style to create a safe and secure sporting
    environment. By coaching in a trauma-informed way, coaches can provide
    a safe and secure environment for athletes who have experienced trauma
    to continue training without the risk of re-traumatization. Coaches
    will also be able to more easily identify athletes who may have
    experienced trauma and learn how to respond if they see abuse
    themselves.
        Training provided by SafeSport must be impactful. These examples of
    frustration extend to the Center's reputation in the sports world. We
    have heard that coaches, athletes, and families/parents are concerned
    that the training they provide is not tailored to sports and does not
    include a prevention approach or trauma-informed lens. General
    education is not enough. Trainings must be relevant to their audiences,
    accessible, and engage participants in critical thinking about what is
    acceptable behavior in sports. Several participants of our coaching
    curriculum, Compassionate CoachTM, have shared that they
    have no trust in SafeSport's training materials and that SafeSport
    trainings are not impactful nor informed by the experiences of
    survivors of abuse in sport. Many coaches shared with us that SafeSport
    trainings are seen as a joke. The virtual training is ineffectual. It
    allows users to multi-task and simply click through the slides to
    receive the `checkbox certification.' The lack of accountability within
    this model encourages no self-reflection and leads to well-intended
    coaches reporting to us that they struggle to have thoughtful
    conversations about how athletes are treated in their sport because
    SafeSport's trainings are ``unhelpful, ineffective, and a waste of
    time.''
        SafeSport should collaborate with survivors and experts. The U.S.
    Center for SafeSport has not engaged with organizations, like The Army
    of Survivors or others as far as we know, to bring a meaningful trauma-
    informed approach to their work and philosophy. We have tried to open
    channels of communication several times, only to be largely ignored.
    After a year and a half of silence, only in the last few weeks has
    SafeSport reached back out for TAOS expertise without meaningfully
    responding to our brief of concerns and recommendations from survivors.
    While we understand the overwhelming number of cases coming to
    SafeSport and are not advocating for abolishing the Center, serious
    reforms enforced by Congress seem necessary at this point. The outreach
    by SafeSport has been too little and too late for the survivors harmed
    through the SafeSport process.
        SafeSport must connect survivors to mental health resources and
    allow for support from victims' advocates. The Center has also failed
    to connect survivors with meaningful mental health/suicide prevention
    support and resources. It seems that the Center does not have a working
    network of crisis support beyond reaching out to national hotlines. We
    have stories of athletes being directed by the Center to just call 1-
    800 suicide prevention hotline numbers and have no follow-up to their
    case. One male survivor shared on a call with a SafeSport investigator
    that they were suicidal. On the same day, his case was closed and the
    only follow-up that was given was an e-mail with a website and suicide
    hotline. Other survivors have shared that case management is failing or
    non-existent, with lengthy delays in communication and little to no
    understanding of how the sport subject to investigation functions.
    Another burden is on the survivor to explain the workings and conflicts
    of interest within their sport to SafeSport investigators and case
    managers. A survivor shared that they were expected to teach the
    investigator how their sport worked and that if they had not
    proactively brought up conflicts and safety issues, they would have
    been missed or ignored.
        SafeSport should improve communication and understanding of
    administrative closing of cases. Further, the Center's arbitrary
    closing of cases with no further information given to survivors, and
    their holding jurisdiction of cases they administratively close--which
    prevents non-governmental sports organizations from investigating and
    providing accountability and intervention--are just further examples of
    how SafeSport's systems re-traumatize and harm. Again, the lack of
    transparency and clarity breaks trust and has created a system that is
    not taken seriously.
        TAOS's mission is to prevent what happened to me from happening to
    others. To support the healing of survivors like me. To hold the
    institutions that fail children accountable. We see the U.S. Center for
    SafeSport as one of those institutions that is critical in responding
    to and preventing abuse. And we know there are necessary changes that
    the Center must make.
        TAOS encourages the Committee to support legislation to make these
    reforms modeled after The Safer Sports for Athletes Act of 2024,
    expected to be introduced shortly in the House. The bill is intended to
    create safer sports for athletes through key revisions that would
    improve the reporting process for athlete survivors and revise training
    guidelines at SafeSport.
        Also, and importantly, this new legislation starts to focus some
    efforts and resources on prevention strategies-something that appears
    to be woefully ignored by the Center. We need to center strategies to
    prevent these abuses in the first place. We should consider the unique
    vulnerabilities of athletes. I would ask that the Committee consider
    supporting legislative action of the principles included in The Safer
    Sports for Athletes Act for this reform.
        TAOS' work has an international reach within the field of athlete
    safeguarding and as a result, we are often called upon by colleagues
    outside of the U.S. to ask about the U.S. Center for SafeSport's
    effectiveness as their country considers a similar system. Sadly, we
    are unable to recommend the system and in turn, have concerns for
    others that are not aware of the Center's weaknesses. We wish the U.S.
    model were the model for the world, but sadly we are not and instead,
    our system is creating harm and should not be replicated worldwide.
        Recently, a survivor reached out to TAOS about an ongoing
    investigation where widespread and unchecked retaliation had isolated
    and alienated the survivor from her personal and professional
    community. She reported a long history of sexual abuse in sport by a
    peer. The investigation process was grueling, and she felt that no one
    believed her. When ultimately the abuser was held accountable and
    banned from the sport, she was surprised because she felt so unseen and
    unheard by the investigation process. When a survivor comes forward,
    SafeSport must be able to respond in a respectful and trauma-informed
    way. If the Center is not required to make changes, there is little
    hope that people experiencing abuse will feel safe reporting.
        As an athlete and athlete-survivor founded and led organization
    that implements trauma-informed practices, The Army of Survivors will
    continue to work toward a safer future for athletes. We hope that
    through your leadership, policy change can become trauma-informed,
    survivor-centered, and timely. All the children in sports are watching
    and all the survivors of abuse in sport are waiting. Thank you for your
    time.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Ms. French.
        Mr. Kelleher.

            STATEMENT OF PAT KELLEHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                               USA HOCKEY

        Mr. Kelleher. Thank you, Chairman Hickenlooper, Ranking
    Member Blackburn, and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee. It is a privilege to be here with you today to
    discuss athlete safety, an issue that is a top priority every
    day at USA Hockey, both on and off the ice.
        While the focus today is on the effectiveness of the U.S.
    Center for SafeSport, it is important to highlight the
    significant role our National Governing Bodies, or NGBs, play
    in both grassroots and elite athletics in our country.
        In my role as Executive Director of USA Hockey, and also
    for nearly 4 years now as the Chair of the NGB Council within
    the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, I have firsthand
    knowledge of the essential role NGBs play in providing
    infrastructure and opportunities for our youth through sport.
        We know there is always room for improvement, but the
    importance of the NGBs, in positively contributing to the
    overall health and well-being of children and adults throughout
    sport cannot be overstated. While we have seen conduct that is
    deplorable in both sport and across society, NGBs have worked
    diligently in concert with the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic
    Committee, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, and others, to
    improve the landscape for everyone involved, particularly
    related to athlete safety.
        So while it is important to learn from the past, it is also
    important to recognize the great good NGBs contribute to in our
    overall society.
        Related to the U.S. Center for SafeSport, I would like to
    first share the unequivocal support for the concept of the
    Center and its mission, from the NGB Community. The U.S. Center
    for SafeSport is a necessary, valuable, and important part of
    the landscape of youth and elite sports within the U.S. Olympic
    and Paralympic Movement. And we believe that all youth sporting
    organizations should be subject to the same standards NGBs are
    required to have in place, including background screens,
    SafeSport training, mandatory reporting, and monitoring, and
    auditing of their programs to ensure compliance.
        There are, however, substantial changes needed, and needed
    now to restore faith and confidence in the Center, to
    appropriately reflect why it was created. We need the Center to
    be effective in performing its mission.
        The reason we are all here is because our greater sporting
    community, including the NGBs, have lost faith that the Center
    will timely, properly, and fairly resolve cases of misconduct.
        At USA Hockey, I am proud to say that we have been a leader
    and a champion of SafeSport since its introduction, and our
    General Counsel, Casey Jorgenson, who is here with me today,
    has played an important role in working with others to bring
    positive and productive changes for change--excuse me--
    positive, productive concepts for change forward to improve the
    deficiencies in the system.
        We also appreciate the recent work of the Commission on the
    State of the U.S. Olympics and Paralympics on the topic of
    athlete safety.
        While we have shared our concerns with the Center, we
    haven't seen substantial change yet, and as we sit here today,
    significant and meaningful progress is still needed. I would
    like to share the areas we feel are most significant that need
    to be addressed to help restore the faith and confidence in the
    Center.
        First, to improve operational effectiveness of the Center,
    including exercising jurisdiction only over the most egregious
    cases that require Center involvement, significant changes to
    the response and resolution process to increase communication
    with and transparency to the involved parties, and reaching a
    decision on the merits of every case for which it accepts
    jurisdiction, which would reduce the number of administrative
    closures and free up the Center's resources to address the most
    serious cases.
        Second, oversight of the Center, which could include
    requiring the Center to appear before congressional committees
    to report each year on its operations, and also having NGB and
    athlete representatives who serve on the Center's Board of
    Directors elected by those bodies, rather than selected by the
    Center.
        And third, funding; as the Federal Government has mandated
    the operation of the Center, we firmly believe the Center
    should be federally funded and subject to congressional
    oversight. These issues are central in our collective efforts
    to help restore the trust and credibility in the Center that is
    so essential.
        In addition to my opening remarks, I have also submitted
    two other documents, one from the NGB Council that details
    requests for change to the Center, dated December 4, 2023. And
    another from USA Hockey in response to the Center's request for
    feedback on its resolution process, dated December 8, 2023.
        I also believe you have our response to Senators Blackburn
    and Peters, dated February 21, 2024, addressing their request
    to USA Hockey for feedback on the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
        Thank you again for the invitation to be here today. On
    behalf of USA Hockey, we look forward to supporting
    collaborative efforts needed between NGBs and the U.S. Center
    for SafeSport, among others, to find common-sense solutions
    that make a positive difference in keeping our sports landscape
    as safe as possible.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kelleher follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Pat Kelleher, Executive Director, USA Hockey

        Thank you Chairman Hickenlooper, Ranking Member Blackburn and
    distinguished members of the sub-committee. It is a privilege to be
    here with you today to discuss athlete safety, an issue that is the top
    priority every day at USA Hockey both on and off the ice.
        While the focus today is on the effectiveness of the U.S. Center
    for SafeSport, it's important to highlight the significant role our
    National Governing Bodies, or NGBs, play in both grassroots and elite
    athletics in our country.
        In my role as executive director of USA Hockey, and also for nearly
    four years now as the chair of the NGB Council within the U.S. Olympic
    and Paralympic Committee, I have first-hand knowledge of the essential
    role NGBs play in providing infrastructure and opportunity for our
    youth through sport.
        We know there is always room for improvement--but the importance of
    the NGBs in positively contributing to the overall health and well-
    being of children and adults through sport cannot be overstated.
        While we have seen conduct that is deplorable in both sport and
    across society, NGBs have worked diligently, in concert with the U.S.
    Olympic and Paralympic Committee, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, and
    others, to improve the landscape for everyone involved, particularly
    related to athlete safety.
        So while it's important to learn from the past, it is also
    important to recognize the great good NGBs contribute to in our overall
    society.
        Related to the U.S. Center for SafeSport, I'd like to first share
    the unequivocal support for the concept of the Center and its mission
    from the NGB community.
        The U.S. Center for SafeSport is a necessary, valuable and
    important part of the landscape of youth and elite sports within the
    U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement, and we believe that all youth
    sporting organizations should be subject to the same standards NGBs are
    required to have in place, including background screens, SafeSport
    training, mandatory reporting, and monitoring and auditing of their
    programs to ensure compliance.
        There are, however, substantial changes needed--and needed now--to
    restore the faith and confidence in the Center to appropriately reflect
    why it was created.
        We need the Center to be effective in performing its mission. The
    reason we are all here is because our greater sporting community,
    including the NGBs, have lost faith that the Center will timely,
    properly and fairly resolve cases of misconduct.
        At USA Hockey, I'm proud to say we've been a leader and champion of
    SafeSport since its introduction, and our general counsel, Casey
    Jorgensen, who is here with me today, has played an important role in
    working with others to bring positive and productive concepts for
    change forward to improve the deficiencies in the system.
        We also appreciate the recent work of the Commission on the State
    of the U.S. Olympics & Paralympics on the topic of athlete safety.
        While we've shared our concerns with the Center, we've haven't seen
    substantial change yet, and as we sit here today, significant and
    meaningful progress is still needed.
        I'd like to share the areas we feel are most significant that need
    to be addressed to help restore the faith and confidence in the Center.
        1. Improving operational effectiveness of the Center, including:

      a.  Exercising jurisdiction only over the most egregious cases that
            require Center involvement;

      b.  Significant changes to the response and resolution process to
            increase communications with--and transparency to--the involved
            parties;

      c.  Reaching a decision on the merits of every case for which it
            accepts jurisdiction, which would reduce the number of
            administrative closures and free up the Center's resources to
            address the most serious cases.

        2. Oversight of the Center, which could include requiring the
    Center to appear before congressional committees to report each year on
    its operations, and also having NGB and athlete representatives who
    serve on the Center's Board of Directors elected by those bodies rather
    than selected by the Center.
        3. Funding--As the Federal government has mandated the operation of
    the Center, we firmly believe the Center should be federally funded and
    subject to Congressional oversight.

        These issues are central in our collective efforts to help restore
    the trust and credibility in the Center that is so essential.
        In addition to my opening remarks, I've also submitted two other
    documents--one from the NGB Council that details requests for change to
    the Center dated December 4, 2023, and another from USA Hockey in
    response to the Center's request for feedback on its resolution process
    dated December 8, 2023. I also believe you have our response to
    Senators Blackburn and Peters dated Feb. 21, 2024, addressing their
    request to USA Hockey for feedback on the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
        Thank you again for the invitation to be here today. On behalf of
    USA Hockey, we look forward to supporting collaborative efforts needed
    between NGBs and the U.S. Center for SafeSport, among others, to find
    common sense solutions that make a positive difference in keeping our
    sports landscape as safe as possible.
                                     ______

                                   Attachment
                                                    NGB Council
                                                       December 4, 2023
    April Holmes
    Board Chair
    U.S. Center for SafeSport
    1385 S. Colorado Blvd., Suite A-706
    Denver, CO 80222

    Re: National Governing Bodies Council Concerns Related to U.S. Center
                for SafeSport

    Dear April,

        We write on behalf of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic National
    Governing Bodies Council (NGBC). Several representatives were pleased
    to have the opportunity to meet you at the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic
    Assembly in Los Angeles and at the U.S. Center for SafeSport NGB
    Summit. We hope you will share this letter with the Center's Board of
    Directors for its discussion and oversight of the Center.
        The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic National Governing Bodies (NGBs)
    began working with the USOPC more than 10 years ago to identify the
    need for an organization like the Center to handle reports of sexual
    abuse within Olympic sports. Although there has been significant
    frustration with the Center's operations since its opening in 2017, we
    have been unwavering in our support and need for the Center to perform
    this critical work to keep our sports and athletes safe from abuse. All
    NGBs share the same aim with the Center in seeking a safe environment
    for our members to participate in sport.
        As you have no doubt seen in media reports, the Center has lost
    significant credibility in the eyes of claimants, respondents, NGBs,
    and the public at large. In its current state, we do not believe the
    Center can effectively perform its responsibility if those
    participating in the process do not have confidence that it will
    investigate and adjudicate cases in a fair, transparent, and effective
    manner, with consideration and respect for the rights and concerns of
    all involved. The NGBs believe that the Center has strayed from its
    original purpose of providing independent expertise in investigating
    and resolving cases of sexual abuse and misconduct in the Olympic
    movement.
        We have sought to work with the Center to address our concerns as
    well as those brought forward by members of our community (the
    athletes, coaches, officials, and administrators that are involved in
    SafeSport cases) but have repeatedly been turned away by the Center's
    operational leadership. Too often, we have had verbal commitments from
    the Center to address our concerns but without any follow up action.
    With the Center approaching its seventh anniversary, we strongly
    believe that significant changes are necessary and ask that the
    Center's Board of Directors become directly involved to address these
    issues for the benefit of all participants in the Olympic movement.
        Below is a summary of the priorities put forward by the NGBs to
    address our concerns with the Center and its operations.
    Oversight of the Center for SafeSport and NGB Representation
        There has been no oversight of the Center's operations and no
    channel through or by which NGBs may share concerns about the Center's
    operations or handling of cases. Until recently we do not recall ever
    having members of the Center's Board attend any functions or have any
    interactions with the NGBs. The NGBs have had a minimal role in
    recommending the NGB representatives to the Center's Board, and no
    connection with those Center representatives to raise issues.
        While other forms of oversight have been raised, we believe that
    providing NGBs with meaningful representation on the Center's Board
    would provide a means for NGBs to bring their issues and concerns to
    the Center. Like the representatives on the USOPC Board of Directors,
    the NGB representatives on the Center's Board should be elected by the
    NGB Council. The athlete representatives on the Center's Board should
    be similarly elected by the Team USA Athletes' Commission.
    Investigation and Resolution of Cases--Administrative Closures.
        The lack of trust in the Center to properly investigate and resolve
    cases is due largely to the extensive use of administrative closures to
    resolve cases. Reports from NGBs, which come directly from statistics
    provided by the Center, show that the Center administratively closes
    nearly 80 percent or more of the cases of which it accepts
    jurisdiction. The Center has reported that it administratively closes
    only 38 percent of its cases, but based on the Center's own statistics
    (through 12/31/22), this appears to be accurate only when including the
    42 percent of the reports to the Center where there is no jurisdiction
    or where jurisdiction is declined. Through December 2022, of the 7,421
    cases for which the Center accepted jurisdiction, 4,800 cases were
    administratively closed.
        When the Center administratively closes a case, it retains
    exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and NGBs are then prohibited
    from taking any action affecting the respondent's eligibility to
    participate in sport. The NGBs and local grassroots programs are left
    without any substantive information about the case, the investigation
    or why the case was closed--yet they are required to permit the
    respondent to participate in their program and left to guess whether
    that person's participation is a safety risk for the rest of their
    members. The claimant's only choice is to move to a different program
    or sport or continue to participate in the presence of a person they
    claim abused them. The respondent also is often not satisfied with the
    administrative closure as the rumors and allegations remain without any
    resolution.
        While there are many different opinions on what should happen with
    the Center's handling of administrative closures, the NGBs all believe
    that there must be a full review of the Center's process for resolution
    of cases, which review must include the real opportunity for meaningful
    input from NGBs, their members and other stakeholders to reach a
    consensus on appropriate changes needed to the Center's response and
    resolution procedures.
    Lack of Communication to the Parties.
        The distrust of the Center's response and resolution process is
    also a result of the Center's failure to communicate with claimants,
    respondents, NGBs, and local programs. Claimants and respondents often
    wait months without any communication from the Center about their case.
    We have knowledge of numerous cases where the Center fails to advise a
    respondent of the nature of the allegations or even that a case has
    been opened. The Center does not share adequate information with the
    NGBs that govern the sport, who are then placed in the untenable
    position of responding to the concerns of their members and providing a
    safe environment without visibility into the facts uncovered by the
    Center's investigation. At a minimum, NGBs should possess a reasonable
    understanding of the nature of the allegations and status of the case.
    Center's Expansive Scope of Jurisdiction.
        The NGBs also believe that the Center's expansive scope of
    jurisdiction has substantially contributed to its inability to
    investigate and resolve the most important cases. While most of the
    cases accepted by the Center appear to fall within the definition of
    sexual misconduct, that definition is wide-ranging and includes
    incidents of minors using harassing language or other behavior that the
    NGBs and local programs are very capable of handling and do not require
    the time and expertise of the Center. Further, according to the
    Center's statistics, during the three years from 2020 to 2022, only
    23.8 percent of the cases reported to the Center included allegations
    of sexual misconduct, but the Center allocates significant resources to
    address those cases at the jurisdictional stage and preliminary
    inquiry. The Center was created with the intent that it handle the
    investigation and resolution of the most egregious sexual abuse cases,
    but it unnecessarily spends a great deal of time, energy and resources
    on addressing the more minor cases that are most often resolved either
    by administrative closure, a warning, or a short probation. On the
    other hand, NGBs are very capable of addressing these less challenging
    cases in a prompt and efficient manner that will ultimately be more
    satisfactory to all parties. Indeed, as expected by their members, NGBs
    and their programs address very similar disciplinary situations every
    day that do not involve sexual connotations.
        We believe that the Center's assessment of and changes to its
    response and resolution process should include consideration of
    narrowing the scope of cases that it considers are within its
    jurisdiction, which would then allow the Center to focus its resources
    on the cases where its independence and expertise are necessary.
    Unreasonable Requirements.
        In its policy-making process, the Center is often unwilling to
    listen and respond to NGB input on the impracticality of the
    requirements it places on NGBs and local programs. For instance, the
    Center's Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies (MAAPP) require that
    all local programs must have all board members and employees complete
    SafeSport Training. NGBs have pointed out that this includes programs
    that serve only adult athletes who have no interaction or contact with
    minor athletes, and also includes employees of entities who have no
    connection to minor athletes (e.g., housekeepers in a ski resort,
    bartenders in a country or sailing club, etc.). Forcing those
    organizations to require training that has very little, if any,
    prevention impact in their organization more likely causes those
    organizations to go outside of NGB governance to avoid the unnecessary
    and unreasonable requirements.
        The Center should give due consideration to the practical effect of
    its policies that also negatively impact the business of NGBs and the
    resources available to their members.
    Areas of Necessary Government Action.
        There are two areas of change needed that are not within the
    Center's control but which we ask the Center to join the NGBs in asking
    that the Federal government enact legislation to amend the applicable
    statutory requirements.
        First, we ask that the Federal government adopt legislation to more
    fully and specifically require sports organizations outside of NGBs to
    institute and comply with the same SafeSport policies with which NGBs
    and their programs and members must comply. This must also include an
    effective and commensurate enforcement mechanism for those
    organizations who do not comply. NGBs have seen numerous instances of
    large and small organizations that leave NGBs or compete with NGBs on
    the basis that they do not need to comply with the same training,
    background check or other SafeSport requirements of NGBs.
        Second, we ask that the Federal government provide funding to the
    Center for SafeSport instead of the now required $20MM that must be
    contributed annually by the USOPC (with NGB contributions). Having
    government funding to support the government mandate would help address
    the perception that the Center lacks independence because it is funded
    by the USOPC and NGBs. This would also allow for those funds now paid
    to the Center to be returned to the USOPC and NGB budgets and provide
    further support for their athletes.
    Relationship between NGBs and Center.
        It is the collective desire of NGBs to continue our work with the
    Center to create safe environments for our athletes, coaches,
    officials, and administrators. We have steadfastly attempted to work
    with the Center to address these many concerns. Unfortunately, the
    Center has assumed an adversarial position with NGBs, wrongly
    advocating that NGBs cannot be trusted and do not care about the safety
    of their members. While we recognize that the Center was created in
    response to failures to protect athletes in the past, that is no longer
    the case. The results of the Center's audits of and interactions with
    NGBs demonstrate that NGBs are dedicated to the safety of all athletes.
    In order to continue our work to truly create safer sports, it will
    require everyone working together toward that mission critical goal.
    The Center's recent encouraging statements is a good start, but we need
    action to fulfill those plans. We ask that the Center's Board of
    Directors take an enhanced role in ensuring that the Center listens to
    and works collaboratively with the NGBs and their members in making the
    necessary changes to achieve our common goal.
                Sincerely yours,
                                                  Pat Kelleher,
                                                            NGBC Chair.
                                                    Li Li Leung
                                                       NGBC Vice-Chair.
    cc: Ju'Riese Colon
    NGBC Advisory Council
                                     ______

    December 8, 2023

    Via e-mail

    U.S. Center for SafeSport

    policy@safesport.org

    Re: USA Hockey Response and Resolution Feedback

    Dear U.S. Center for SafeSport Response and Resolution Team,

        USA Hockey appreciates the U.S. Center for SafeSport providing an
    opportunity for feedback on the Center's Response and Resolution
    processes. USA Hockey has been extensively involved in working with the
    Center on its resolution processes, as well as other policies and
    procedures, since well before the Center opened. And over the past
    several years, USA Hockey has had far more cases with the Center than
    any other national governing body--so we have significant experience in
    areas that raise concerns about the Center's R&R process for USA Hockey
    and our 650,000 participant members and 500,000 additional volunteers.
    It is critical that the Center's R&R processes are viewed as trusted
    and credible by the participants in our sports. Without credibility,
    victims and witnesses will not be willing to report misconduct or
    engage in the process, and the Center's purpose will be unfulfilled. We
    strongly believe in the necessity of the Center's work in the Olympic
    movement, and hope that we can work together with the Center to address
    problems that have become very evident and have impacted the confidence
    in the Center.
        Outlined below are several specific practices of the Center and
    provisions of the Code that impact the R&R process along with suggested
    changes. However, more than looking at surgical or specific changes to
    the Code, we believe the Center should undertake a full review and
    overhaul of the R&R process to adopt a system that will be more
    efficient, transparent, and fair, and will consider and respect the
    rights and concerns of all involved. The Center's current system of
    investigation and resolution is akin to the Title IX model, but that
    model has shown to be unsuccessful in its application to the Olympic
    movement. We believe that the key parties addressing safety in the
    Olympic movement--the Center, USOPC, NGBs and the athlete community--
    should join together to collaboratively design a better system that
    addresses the many problems raised and more effectively imposes
    appropriate sanctions in response to misconduct.
        We apologize in advance for the length of this letter but feel it
    is important to provide examples to help explain our reasons for the
    recommendations. We would welcome a follow-up meeting or call to
    further discuss or explain any of the feedback offered below.
    Scope of Jurisdiction and Cases Accepted
        The Center was created by the USOPC and NGBs with original purpose
    of providing independent expertise in investigating and resolving
    serious cases of sexual abuse and misconduct in the Olympic movement.
    Over time, however, the Center has expanded its focus and accepted and
    pursued cases that are not within its original mission, which impairs
    its ability to address the more critical cases. These cases are well
    within the NGBs' capability to investigate and resolve promptly and
    fairly, in many cases at the local or regional level, without the need
    for the Center to expend its valuable resources. More often than not,
    these cases are administratively closed by the Center with little or no
    repercussions. This rate of closure demonstrates that having these
    cases addressed by the Center is not appropriate or effective. These
    cases can and should be addressed more immediately and by those persons
    directly overseeing the programs to ensure they are resolved in a
    prompt and efficient manner that will ultimately be more satisfactory
    to all parties. Indeed, as expected by their members, NGBs and their
    programs investigate and resolve very similar disciplinary situations
    every day that do not involve sexual connotations. Below are some
    examples of areas where the Center's scope of jurisdiction should be
    narrowed.
        i. Harassing Language by Minor Athletes. USA Hockey sees a
    substantial number of reports arising from minor athletes using
    sexually harassing language, especially in locker rooms and over social
    media. Oftentimes these reports include a single incident of
    inappropriate name calling, which we believe should be explicitly
    removed from the definition of sexual misconduct as it does not meet
    the elements for Sexual Harassment in Code Section IX.C.1 (submission
    to the conduct is not a condition for participation and no hostile
    environment is created) or Sexual Bullying Behavior in Section IX.C.6
    (not repeated or severe). This conduct is not acceptable but should not
    require a ``federal case'' and should instead be addressed promptly by
    those at the program closest to the issue.\1\ When those programs do
    not do so, the NGBs should hold the program accountable. The Center's
    time, energy and resources should not be spent on these more minor
    cases that are most often resolved by administrative closure, a warning
    or probation. The Center could still require that the NGBs and local
    programs track all such matters and provide reports on them and their
    resolution to the Center.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In comparison, when that conduct occurs in schools, it is
    addressed at the school and not by the district or at the state or
    Federal level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ii. In-Game Conduct. The Center was never intended to address in-
    competition conduct occurring between opponents, which is why the
    Center's definition of emotional and physical misconduct excludes
    conduct that is ``reasonably accepted as part of sport or conduct
    accepted as part of Participant's participation.'' USA Hockey's playing
    rules, and likely those of all other NGBs, have long had specific
    provisions to address misconduct occurring during competitions. The
    Center's involvement in addressing allegations arising from in-game
    conduct results in the Center improperly involving itself in the
    competitive aspects of sport and creates at least two other problems.
        First, the Center often accepts cases that involve any type of
    sexualized language (usually harassment based on gender or sexual
    orientation). However, USA Hockey has specific playing rules and a
    process that requires reporting to the regional affiliate and swift
    investigation and resolution of allegations of offensive or
    discriminatory conduct with sanctioning guidelines (a minimum 3 game
    suspension) designed to discourage future instances of similar conduct.
    The Center's process in accepting, triaging, investigating, and
    resolving these cases takes weeks or months and are typically resolved
    more leniently than USA Hockey's playing rules require. Moreover,
    similar misconduct is then addressed inconsistently--for example, a
    participant's use of racial, religious or other discriminatory language
    or conduct is addressed promptly by USA Hockey with application of its
    mandatory minimum suspensions, while a participant's use of similar
    language or conduct having sexual connotations is addressed by the
    Center over a longer period of time and with less or no discipline
    imposed. We have seen cases where USA Hockey's mandatory penalty was
    applied and participant suspended by the hockey governing authority,
    but the Center accepted jurisdiction and immediately removed the
    suspension, making the athlete immediately eligible to participate in
    violation of USA Hockey rules.
        The second significant issue related to in-game conduct is the
    Center's consideration of cases involving alleged physical misconduct
    during a game as within the Center's ``discretionary'' authority. The
    sport of hockey has an extensive rule book prohibiting infractions that
    violate its rules. Most of these incidents are penalized by the
    officials on the ice and when egregious involve a mandatory hearing to
    determine the appropriate discipline. When not penalized on the ice but
    later reported, USA Hockey's rules require the regional affiliate to
    investigate and apply the appropriate discipline through its hearing
    process. The Center's consideration of on-ice infractions as
    discretionary cases is contrary to the Code language excluding conduct
    that is ``reasonably accepted as part of sport or conduct accepted as
    part of Participant's participation.'' It is very unclear how the
    Center defines this, but for civil and criminal evaluation, even
    infractions that are penalized heavily are considered within the
    conduct reasonably accepted as part of the sport. While there are
    certainly some incidents that go beyond what is reasonably accepted, we
    have concerns with the Center making this determination when they are
    not experts in doing so. From our review, it does not appear that the
    Center distinguishes these cases at all and considers them all to be
    discretionary regardless of the severity of the conduct. We believe
    that if the matter does not fit within the subject matter jurisdiction
    (i.e., it is not physical misconduct), then that should be stated and
    then not considered a SafeSport matter at all (instead of considering
    it physical misconduct and declining for discretionary jurisdiction).
        We believe that all in-competition incidents\2\ should be
    immediately referred by the Center to the NGB to be penalized under the
    sport's playing rules and addressed by the NGB through its processes.
    If those matters involved any sexual misconduct, the NGB could still
    notify the Center of its result. These types of cases have long been
    handled by the NGBs through longstanding processes and governance of
    the sport--they are not within the conduct that the Center was ever
    intended to regulate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ There is very little to no risk of sexual abuse occurring in
    the field of play during a sanctioned event between opponents.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        iii. Background Screens/Criminal Dispositions. USA Hockey processes
    approximately 75,000 background screens each season and makes decisions
    on the eligibility of numerous applicants with past criminal
    convictions. The review process involves preliminary evaluation of each
    flagged conviction by a panel of three experienced and independent
    persons, and if the applicant is initially denied eligibility or
    conditionally approved (e.g., no driving minor athletes), the applicant
    is entitled to a hearing before three other experienced and independent
    persons, and if still denied they have a right to a final appeal. USA
    Hockey annually sends 60 or more background screens to the Center
    because they include an allegation that could potentially be construed
    as child abuse or sexual misconduct. These include many old cases of a
    DUI with a minor in the car, providing alcohol or tobacco to a
    minor,\3\ public urination (indecent exposure) and similar cases that
    are well within the capability of USA Hockey's background screen
    program to address (e.g., dozens of cases of domestic violence, assault
    and other violent crimes are handled through our system). The majority
    of the cases accepted by the Center are eventually administratively
    closed or result in a warning or period of probation. Rather than have
    the Center expend its resources on matters within the NGB's capability
    and expertise, USA Hockey and the Center should work together to
    eliminate certain charges or dispositions that could be effectively and
    efficiently addressed by the NGB and do not warrant a report to the
    Center.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ These often involve several-years old cases when the respondent
    was just over 21.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the specific reasons the above types of cases should
    be addressed by NGBs, removing these cases from the Center's focus
    would allow the Center to devote its resources to the more serious
    sexual abuse cases, and other serious emotional or physical abuse
    cases, for which it was created. This would likely also result in a
    significant reduction of the cases that are administratively closed.
    Lack of Information to NGBs about Pending Cases and Evaluation of
            Measures at Beginning of a Case
        In order to protect the Center's independence in investigations,
    the Center provides very limited information to NGBs about the nature
    or seriousness of allegations it receives, but it is ultimately the
    NGBs' responsibility to provide a safe environment. At the outset of a
    matter, the Center's membership inquiries provide no information about
    the case to allow the NGB to assess the need for immediate suspension
    or other temporary measures to protect its members. The respondent is
    often allowed to participate alongside the claimant and others without
    any restrictions despite the possibility of significant safety
    concerns. The Center later provides limited information about the
    allegations at the time it exercises jurisdiction, but it is very vague
    and then too late for the NGB to impose a suspension due to the
    Center's exclusive jurisdiction. Without sufficient information, the
    NGB is left in a tenuous position of trying to implement safety
    measures that will protect the other participants.
        We believe Section V of the Code should be modified to provide the
    NGBs more information and allow the NGBs more ability to impose
    measures at the outset of the case. If the Center provided NGBs with
    more information at the inquiry stage, the NGBs could better protect
    their members by assessing the need for an immediate suspension or
    temporary measures. At the time jurisdiction is exercised, NGBs should
    be provided with a more detailed summary of the allegations (similar to
    what is now in a Notice of Allegations).
        Another concern arising from the process in Code Section V is the
    length of time it takes for the Center to impose temporary measures or
    adopt or modify those imposed by the NGB. The Code's restrictions on
    NGB investigations force NGBs to make immediate decisions on temporary
    measures regarding exclusive allegations first raised to the NGB but
    are prohibited from investigating allegations to make that decision.
    USA Hockey must often decide to suspend a respondent based solely on
    the nature of the allegation it receives, which is often with very
    little information to go on. Then, when the Center exercises
    jurisdiction, those measures are automatically adopted by the Center
    and that respondent is often forced to wait weeks or months for the
    Center to either modify or formally adopt them.
        The Center should dramatically decrease the amount of time it takes
    to make a temporary measures determination. This will also alert the
    respondent to his/her right to challenge temporary measures much
    earlier in the process. We strongly encourage the Center to consider
    collaborating with the NGBs at this stage to determine any appropriate
    measures. Doing so would not interfere with the investigation as the
    issue at hand is the respondent's immediate participation in sport
    based on the allegations and information then available.\4\ This would
    also prevent the NGBs from being forced into a position where it
    imposes a suspension or measures where the respondent's continued
    participation does not pose harm to others. Further, past concerns
    about confidentiality should not restrict the Center from sharing
    important information with the NGBs who are also trying to protect
    their sport. Indeed, since the creation of the ``Summary of Decision''
    documents that the NGBs are permitted to share at the conclusion of a
    case, we are not aware of any significant cases where the more
    confidential information in a Notice of Decision has been shared by an
    NGB.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Along these lines, because so much sporting activity occurs on
    weekends, we have suggested that the Center have designated R&R staff
    available on weekends for NGB consultation on temporary measures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inconsistency of Suspension/Rostering Decisions
        Recently, we had a case where the Center concluded that an LAO's
    decision to suspend a participant was determined to be a ``leave, as it
    was just from the club and not applicable to the entire USAH
    movement.'' The Center therefore called such a suspension a ``rostering
    decision'' and concluded that it was ``outside the scope of
    SafeSport.'' We understand that the Center's policies must fit within a
    multitude of different NGBs, but USA Hockey's bylaws and rules would
    categorize this as a suspension entitling the respondent to a hearing,
    and we have has always operated under the assumption that an LAO
    telling an athlete or a coach they can no longer participate in the
    LAO's activities constitutes a suspension ``or other restriction that
    may deny or threaten to deny a respondent's opportunity to participate
    in sport.'' Indeed, many USA Hockey playing classifications prohibit a
    player from being rostered on more than one team. The effect of not
    considering a rostering decision within the scope of SafeSport provides
    the LAO the authority to make these decisions at any point in the
    process, but the LAO is prohibited from holding a hearing due to the
    Center's exclusive jurisdiction, thereby leaving the athlete with no
    avenue to seek re-entry to the team. Therefore, because the Center's
    interpretation of a rostering decision effectively results in a
    suspension of the athlete, the Code should allow LAOs to hold hearings
    on that decision in order to provide the athlete with a means of re-
    entering participation.
    Misconduct Related to Reporting
        In the last two years USA Hockey has seen a large increase in cases
    involving procedural reporting violations, many of which appear to
    target local program volunteers and administrators for hyper-technical
    reporting violations rather than the underlying conduct itself. While
    we recognize that the failure to report serious sexual abuse has
    resulted in many cases where the abuse continued with multiple victims,
    the cases we are seeing opened do not rise to that level.
        In one such case in 2022, the Center opened individual cases
    against multiple members of a volunteer board of a local non-profit
    hockey club for ``failure to report'' despite the fact that upon notice
    of the allegations the board suspended the individual respondent and
    advised the claimant to report the allegations to the Center (the
    claimant reported to USA Hockey a day or two later). The Center
    administratively closed each case a few months later. In another recent
    case involving a young special needs athlete respondent who behaved
    inappropriately with her teammates, local volunteer administrators were
    initially also concerned about the respondent's protections under the
    Americans with Disabilities Act. The administrators made a report to
    the Center within 5-10 days of the issues arising and the Center
    thereafter opened cases against all of the volunteers for failure to
    report. The Center initially imposed a temporary measure chaperone
    requirement on the respondent \5\ but later administratively closed the
    case against her and closed the cases against each of the
    administrators with admonishments. Each of these cases involved
    volunteer local hockey administrators trying to do the right thing by
    addressing difficult issues within their programs. They were not trying
    to cover up sexual abuse or misconduct.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ We believe the administrators were wise to consider the ADA
    concerns, as the respondent's parents apparently refused to serve as
    chaperones and later threatened legal action against the program for
    not providing/paying for the chaperone as a reasonable accommodation
    under the ADA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As an NGB governing large grassroots programs, USA Hockey and its
    athlete participants require the help and support of local volunteers
    to conduct and oversee their hockey programs and events (e.g., board
    members, team managers, locker room monitors, etc.). Along with so many
    other barriers to volunteering, or participation in general, volunteers
    are becoming concerned about the risk of failing to adhere to the
    Center's technical reporting requirements and facing sanctions even if
    they operate in good faith. We of course recognize the importance of
    reporting, but there is no need to open cases against individual
    respondents in situations similar to the one we've highlighted above,
    which should be very easy to distinguish from the failure to report
    cases the Center was designed to address. The Center could instead
    simply use the opportunity to educate or remind these volunteers on
    their reporting obligations through a simple letter.
    Procedural Rights of Respondents
        We believe a significant amount of dissatisfaction with the
    Center's R&R processes arises from its failure to provide reasonable or
    required procedural rights to respondents, including its failure to
    provide notice to respondents of an investigation as required by the
    Code and the Amateur Sports Act. Article XI of the Code requires that
    the Center provide the respondent with a notice of an investigation:

            J. Procedural Rights of Respondents

                    Federal law provides Respondents with certain
                    procedural rights. 36 USC Sec. 220541(a)(1)(H). For any
                    action taken against a Respondent, including an
                    investigation, the imposition of sanctions, or any
                    other disciplinary action, the Center must provide
                    procedural due process to the Respondent, which
                    includes:

                    1.  The provision of written notice of allegations
                    against the Respondent;

        See, SafeSport Code, Sec. XI.J (emphasis added). The Amateur Sports
    Act contains a similar requirement:

            (1)  IN GENERAL--The United States Center for SafeSport
            shall--. . .

            (H) ensure that any action taken by the Center against an
            individual under the jurisdiction of the Center, including an
            investigation, the imposition of sanctions, and any other
            disciplinary action, is carried out in a manner that provides
            procedural due process to the individual, including, at a
            minimum--

          (i) the provision of written notice of the allegations against
                the individual;

        See, 36 USC Sec. 220541(a)(1)(H) (emphasis added).

        Center staff have indicated in the past that the Center interprets
    this language to require notice only when the Center feels it is
    necessary. We have seen numerous instances where the Center opened a
    case without notice to the respondent and later administratively closed
    the case without ever speaking to the respondent or notifying them that
    an investigation was ongoing. In at least one case, when the respondent
    asked the Center about the allegations against him, the Center refused
    to provide that information. The Center's failure to provide written
    notice of a Center investigation violates the Code and the Amateur
    Sports Act.
        In another recent case, a program administrator was called by the
    Center out of the blue and told that the Center will be imposing an
    ``admonishment'' for an alleged failure to report. To that point, the
    administrator had no idea there was a case opened against her, or any
    details of the incident she allegedly failed to report. This respondent
    never had the opportunity to be heard on the allegations before the
    Center determined to admonish her.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ While an admonishment is not a finding of wrongdoing, the Code
    itself allows the Center to consider prior conduct ``for any purpose,''
    which would allow the Center to use this prior matter against her
    should a similar situation arise.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In yet a different case for failure to report (involving the
    special needs hockey player referenced above), we understand that one
    administrator was contacted and discussed the technical failure to
    report with the investigator and then agreed to accept an admonishment.
    Later, that admonishment was apparently used in convincing other
    involved administrators to also accept an admonishment rather than be
    under investigation. While we understand we are only aware of one side
    of the story, we hope the Center can realize how these practices create
    distrust in the Center's R&R procedures.
        In the case where USA Hockey was reported to Congress for allegedly
    interfering with an investigation, the Center investigators contacted
    USA Hockey staff for interviews under the guise that they sought to
    discuss the underlying case (which involved a volunteer's failure to
    report sexual harassment occurring in a hockey game). The Center's
    investigators did not disclose that the purpose of their interview
    request was to investigate USA Hockey's alleged attempts to interfere
    with or influence an investigation. It was not until we informed the
    investigators that we were aware of a potential investigation into USA
    Hockey and inquired about the specific scope and purpose of the
    interview that the investigator admitted that the interview's purpose
    was related to that investigation. Even then, the investigators refused
    to acknowledge that a case had been opened against USA Hockey, despite
    the Center having reported to Congress that it was investigating the
    matter.
        For the Center's R&R procedures to be credible, it must follow the
    Code and statutory requirements to give proper notice and an
    opportunity to be heard on the allegations being investigated.
    Administrative Closures
        Similar to issues raised by other NGBs, USA Hockey finds managing
    the Center's extensive use of Administrative Closures challenging for a
    number of reasons. When the Center issues an Administrative Closure,
    the Center retains jurisdiction over the matter, yet provides no
    information regarding the allegations it received, the investigation it
    conducted, its findings, or even the basis for the Administrative
    Closure. Upon an Administrative Closure, any safety measures that were
    adopted or implemented by the Center are removed and the NGB must allow
    the respondent to participate despite the lack of any information about
    the alleged misconduct, investigation, or reason for the closure.
        This results in a risk of abusers slipping through the cracks
    without providing the NGBs any means of protecting the athletes with
    whom the abusers interact. While an NGB may issue safety plans on
    matters within the Center's jurisdiction (which cannot include a
    suspension), the lack of any useful information about that matter, or
    the respondent's alleged conduct, renders the use of safety plans
    wholly inadequate.
        Exacerbating the challenges with Administrative Closures is the
    incredible rate upon which they are utilized. In the eighteen months
    from January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, the Center received 1,617
    allegations of misconduct involving USA Hockey respondents. Of those,
    the Center accepted jurisdiction of 832 allegations (51 percent) and
    628 of those cases (75 percent) were administratively closed. Of the
    sexual misconduct cases during that period, the Center administratively
    closed 330 of the 402 cases over which it exercised jurisdiction (82
    percent).
        Compounding the concern for USA Hockey is the basis for which the
    Center issues Administrative Closures. For example, according to the
    Center's statistics, of the Administrative Closures in 2022 and first
    half of 2023, 366 (58 percent) were due to ``insufficient information''
    or a ``reluctant claimant.'' Those bases do not necessarily absolve a
    respondent of the alleged misconduct, yet USA Hockey has no information
    about the seriousness of the allegations upon which to consider or
    protect the safety of other participants with whom the respondent will
    interact after they are deemed eligible to participate.
        Finally, USA Hockey is of the opinion that administrative closures
    are being used too frequently to wrap up a case up rather than making a
    decision on the merits. Our data shows that in 2022 and first half of
    2023, the Center resolved only 8 percent of the allegations it received
    with a finding (Formal/Informal Resolution), and less than 1 percent
    were resolved with a finding of No Violation. A great number of those
    formal resolutions involve criminal dispositions, which are usually
    without any dispute.
        USA Hockey firmly believes, at a minimum, that the Center needs to
    share additional information with the NGBs upon administrative closures
    so that the NGBs can make educated decisions on the need for additional
    safety measures when the Center allows a respondent back into the
    sport.
        We believe that addressing the issues raised above would--

      --  reduce the cases handled by the Center;

      --  allow minor cases to be resolved at the local or regional level
            where they can be timely and appropriately resolved by local
            officials;

      --  free up resources so the Center is more able to focus on the more
            egregious cases;

      --  provide the NGBs with more information during the pendency of a
            case to allow them to protect their members from further abuse;

      --  provide required and appropriate procedural rights to respondents
            to allow a fair investigation and resolution;

      --  avoid the unnecessary use of Center resources to pursue cases
            against volunteer administrators who, despite good faith, fail
            to report less egregious misconduct; and

      --  ultimately reduce the percentage of cases resolved through
            administrative closure.

        All of the above would result in the Center operating more
    efficiently and effectively and would enhance the trust in the Center
    in the eyes of the claimants, respondents, NGBs, grassroots programs
    and everyone in the Olympic movement as to its handling of sexual abuse
    cases and everyone's ability to participate in a safe environment.
        We look forward to talking with you more about these issues and our
    recommendations.
                Best Regards,
                                                Casey Jorgensen

        Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you, Mr. Kelleher. Thank
    all of you. Appreciate you. Again, I will keep thanking you,
    both for making the time and coming. Your participation in this
    is very important.
        Ms. Colon, let me start with you. And we are all going to
    just get five minutes of questions. Thank you for your
    testimony and all your work leading the Center. As you know, in
    your testimony, the Center aims to improve its investigated
    processes, and reduce the number of administratively closed
    cases.
        Some of the athletes have expressed concerns about the
    increasing rates of cases that have been closed without
    resolution. And I guess the question is: Do you believe the
    scope of the Center's exclusive and discretionary jurisdiction
    does that impact the caseload, and lead to the high rate of
    administrative closures? So how can we make sure that athletes
    are getting the resolution that they need, and that they
    deserve, and is there a way to, you know, prioritize based on
    the type of risk presented to an athlete?
        Ms. Colon. Thanks for your question, Senator. I hope I get
    all. I think I jotted down all of them, so if I missed one,
    please let me know.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Just two. It is just two.
        Ms. Colon. I think I will first start with jurisdiction of
    the Center for SafeSport. As you know, the Center has exclusive
    jurisdiction over sexual misconduct and discretionary
    jurisdiction over emotional and physical abuse misconduct, and
    volume. It certainly plays a large role in the number of cases
    that we receive and, of course, how we close those.
        When we think about jurisdiction and how it impacts the
    Center's operations, particularly as how we close cases, how we
    process through cases, I do think that the jurisdiction
    certainly impacts that because we are drawing from more than 50
    sports across a very vast and very unique sporting environment.
    And so we do get a considerable amount of allegations of abuse,
    sexual abuse misconduct, and emotional and physical abuse.
        What I think is important to note is that while the Center
    for SafeSport keeps all of the sexual abuse allegations, no
    matter how minor, we do typically decline jurisdiction of
    emotional and physical abuse misconduct cases back to NGBs for
    them to handle. We, of course, keep some of those, particularly
    if they present a conflict of interest, or if it is
    particularly egregious.
        I would say that jurisdiction alone impacts the timeliness
    and our ability to close, but it is also volume and scope. As I
    noted in my opening statement, you know, we received 300
    reports the first year, 7,500 last year, and right now we are
    averaging about 184 cases a week. And we have, you know,
    certainly taken a top-to-bottom approach and look at everything
    that we are doing as far as reviewing allegations of abuse, and
    reviewing how we process those.
        But as the Center continues to receive more reports, as
    more sports continue to come into the Movement; that volume
    will certainly rise, particularly for the time being. I do
    think the Center, you know, as far as reporting or providing
    more closure and answers to athletes, which we certainly owe
    them, we do have a lot of work to do when it comes to
    communication. And we certainly have a lot of work on how to
    process those, and then sharing those, not only with NGBs, but
    also with survivor groups, athletes, and other stakeholders.
        Senator Hickenlooper. And the athletes especially?
        Ms. Colon. Absolutely.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Ms. French, thank you for your
    work on advocating on behalf of the safety of our athletes
    across the entire spectrum of the Olympic and Paralympic
    Movement. I think your work is instrumental in making sure that
    this harm doesn't continue. We certainly here, want to make
    sure that we do everything we can to create reforms that
    prevent this kind of abuse, and that they are effective and
    actually improve the lives of athletes.
        Among the many recommendations discussed to reform the
    environment in the Olympic and Paralympic Movement, which do
    you look at as most essential? What should be our highest
    priorities?
        Ms. French. Thank you so much for your question. It is an
    incredibly important one, and I will pull from the Commission's
    Report. I think changing the culture within the sporting
    environment will allow us to better create systemic change from
    the bottom up. If we are giving safe spaces to athletes in the
    beginning, we allow them to better understand what they can and
    should expect from safe adults, and we get rid of the ``no
    pain, no gain'' culture that exists today, and allows
    perpetrators and abusers to thrive.
        The Army of Survivors, and others, are working in the space
    in prevention, and there is a lot of promising strategies
    around best practices with prevention in this space.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Kelleher, thank you
    for all your work you do for USA Hockey, and as Co-Chair of the
    National Governing Body, the NGB Council. Your work is
    essential to gathering feedback, collecting it from all these
    different sports, you know, across the entire Movement. You
    discussed why NGBs need more transparency, in your testimony,
    from the Center for SafeSport to prevent abuse. How could the
    NGBs work cooperatively with the Center for SafeSport and still
    preserve their right to exclusive jurisdiction over cases of
    misconduct?
        Mr. Kelleher. We certainly believe in independence and
    investigations. We feel we need to be more collaborative with
    the Center in policymaking. I think that is really crucial. The
    NGBs, as Ms. Colon stated, there is an incredible workload. We
    recognize that. However, we do think the operational
    effectiveness continues to need to be improved.
        Taking on more cases makes it harder to close cases, just
    obvious, with the numbers that have been shared this morning.
    So how are there ways that the cases that could go back to the
    National Governing Bodies to handle, could be addressed? We
    think that is very critical.
        Administrative closures, obviously, is another one where
    the NGBs have limited knowledge of what happens, and we don't
    know that it makes sports safer sometimes. Ultimately, the NGBs
    believe we are great teammates, and want to be great teammates
    with the U.S. Center for SafeSport and the USOPC, because all
    of us have the same goals, to rid all of these bad actors, all
    of these situations from sports.
        So the more collaborative approach, input from NGBs into
    policymaking we think will be helpful, and avoid any unintended
    consequences, and ultimately make sure that we continue our
    work to provide the safest environment for every participant in
    sport.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great, I appreciate that. And so I
    will come back to you. I am going to yield now to Senator----

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. I will help you. Senator Moran.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. Senator Moran from the great
    state of Kansas; I was just--had that moment.
        Senator Moran. I understand. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. I am glad we were here, but I am sad we were here
    with, yet, concerns about the safety of U.S. Olympic athletes.
    Senator Blumenthal and I led the effort in regard to sexual
    abuse among the gymnasts, the passage of Empowering Olympic,
    Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act occurred in 2020. It
    included the Commission that now reports to us. I guess I would
    start with asking is, are Olympic athletes safer today than
    they were before the enactment of 2020?
        Maybe that is a question for, I don't know, Ms. French?
        Ms. French. I think there have been many measures put in
    place that have allowed safety to become more of a priority. I
    still believe there is a lot of work to do, and there are ways
    that we can create more culture change, and more trauma-
    informed, systemic change that will allow us to create safer
    environments for athletes.
        Senator Moran. I think--I mean, that is clear. I do want to
    hear that is it is safer today, that progress is being made.
        Mr. Kelleher, perhaps you could address that in hockey or
    other NGB athletes; are things better today?
        Mr. Kelleher. Things are better today, recognize that. And
    again, as you mentioned Olympic athletes, we were also, within
    all of our scope, we are talking Olympic athletes, Paralympic
    athletes, we were also talking grassroots sport participants.
    At USA Hockey, we have members as young as 5 years old that get
    on the ice to play our sport, so it is protecting, making sure
    they are in the safest environment possible.
        And frankly, at the highest level there are certainly
    concerns to still be addressed by the grassroots level where
    some of these delays, and/or cases that take too long really
    have an impact on the local level that we feel could be
    addressed by the local programs, or by the NGBs to help resolve
    some of these things that are not, you know, Federal cases, let
    us say.
        Senator Moran. You indicated that the NGBs would like to
    play a greater role. Ms. Colon indicates that money and volume
    are problems, and you, one of your solutions I think, as I
    understood, was that you could do more of the cases that were
    nonsexual allegations. Do the NGBs; are they equal in that
    capability?
        Mr. Kelleher. They are not.
        Senator Moran. And there would be a difference, I assume.
    We saw this in what we investigated a number of years ago.
    Would you describe that problem or challenge to me?
        Mr. Kelleher. You are correct. I mean we have over 50
    National Governing Bodies. All different shapes and sizes, we
    have many that are under--their overall operating budget is
    under--I think we have 19 NGBs that operate in a budget of less
    than $5 million annually. So they are limited. However, some of
    those smaller NGBs have less participants, right, they have
    less people to cover. They certainly have issues. And all of
    us, collectively, anything sexual in nature we need to go to
    the Center, everybody, across the board, NGBs are 100 percent
    on that.
        Some of these issues, however, that can come back, that a
    larger NGB, such as USA Hockey deals with, we have people in
    place. We have a volunteer structure. We have 34 affiliate
    organizations that have people in place dedicated to the work
    of fulfilling what we need to keep athletes safe at the
    grassroots level, through SafeSport.
        So there are ways to do that, and hopefully that would help
    lessen the load, and allow the Center to pursue more of the--we
    would term, as egregious cases.
        Senator Moran. Ms. Colon, does that appeal to you? The
    ability to have the NGBs take care of cases if you have a
    challenge with volume? Is this a solution to that problem?
        Ms. Colon. I think that that could be one of the solutions
    to the problem, right. I agree with Ms. French that this is a
    systemic culture shift that is needed, and in order for abuse
    to really be rooted out, and to be handled, it takes a really
    proactive approach, right, and a collaborative approach across
    all the organizations. I don't think that handing over all the
    allegation of sexual abuse misconduct for all NGBs to handle is
    the right move. I also don't think that all NGBs are prepared,
    as Pat said, you know that most--a majority of the NGBs are
    small, and they don't have the resources to be able to handle
    dozens, hundreds, thousands, of emotional and physical abuses,
    misconduct cases.
        And what we know is that the numbers of reports are going
    up. They will continue to go up, and if they are not ready
    right now to handle those cases, you know, if those numbers--if
    history shows us anything, if those numbers, you know, double
    or triple over the next several years, I think we could be in a
    very similar situation. So I think it is part of the solution,
    but I do think that there are more things that need to be done,
    you know, including efficiencies and investigations, proper
    funding, that could really help support that, so that we don't
    have people who are waiting for resolution, particularly on the
    emotional and physical abuse side.
        Senator Moran. If the Congress, I mean one of the
    recommendations of the Commission is more Federal dollars, more
    than the $10 million that was appropriated. I am also an
    appropriator that deals with this number. If that money was
    available, how would it change the outcome of your work?
        Ms. Colon. You know, money doesn't solve everything, I am
    aware of that. I am forever grateful, as the Center is, that we
    were able to get funding through the Empowering Olympic,
    Paralympic and Amateur Athlete Act that was passed in 2020, and
    that really helped the organization become what it is today. If
    we think back to 2019 when we were struggling and negotiating
    for funding, it was not a great place for the Center, and the
    backlog was tremendous.
        And so, similar to 2020, I would expect 2024, if additional
    funding came in 2024 or 2025, that funding would not only go
    toward increasing investigators, so we have more people to
    actually handle these cases, but also make significant
    investments in technology, so that we can start to streamline
    more, and have more efficiencies throughout the entire process.
        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, this is my last question.
        So the thing that stood out to me, and then that stays with
    me from the investigation and the results of our efforts a
    number of years ago, was the question by traumatized victims--
    traumatized athletes and who are victims, and their question
    was: Why was there more than one? Why was there more than one
    athlete that was sexually abused? And I mean, we have--we need
    reporting, we need response, law enforcement, time and time
    again these ladies were failed by a system that should have
    protected them and it didn't.
        I just want to know, and I don't know that any of you are
    the people that can answer this question, but I want to know
    for my own wellbeing, and understanding, and what
    responsibilities we have here on this committee; is there
    anything out there that we ought to be aware of that is worthy
    of further investigation, anything?
        Or let me put the question this way. Part of what we want
    to do is prevent; in fact, rather than investigate cases, we
    want to prevent cases. Is there anything that this Congress,
    this committee should be doing that would prevent additional,
    so there is not one more?
        Ms. Colon. Can I answer that? I think there is a lot of
    things that can happen, right. I think we will all agree that
    what happened in gymnastics, what has happened in other sports,
    is one too many, and it is certainly--it is certainly what
    keeps me, my team, I am sure many people on this panel, up at
    night. And we know that throwing more investigators at a
    problem after the fact is only helping to solve one part of the
    problem.
        At the end of the day, what we want is prevention. We don't
    want to have to do this in the first place. And so, I think
    what we have done so far, and there has been great strides and
    great progress made, but what we have done so far is set a
    baseline for what is acceptable and what is not within the
    Olympic and Paralympic Movement. We have required education, we
    have required policies, required adults who work with children
    to understand and recognize and report rules.
        And if that was extended to others throughout youth sport,
    because there is a considerable amount of overlap, and people
    who jump from Olympic sport, to NCAA, to youth--to local youth
    sports organizations, to a local high school. If that was in
    some way streamlined, if they also had the requirement to at
    least check the centralized disciplinary database to make sure
    that who they were putting in front of their youths, weren't
    barred or suspended from the Center for SafeSport, that could
    be one piece.
        If those people were required to take prevention education
    that was quality that really focused on prevention annually,
    year after year, that would also help. So I think there are a
    lot of things that we can do collectively that would really
    help to stem and curb abuse, because all of us in this room,
    wherever you are sitting, we don't want to have hearings like
    this. We don't want to have conversations like this, because we
    don't want to have to be in this situation in the first place.
        Senator Moran. And we had hoped that that--what you just
    described would have been accomplished by now. Thank you.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Senator Peters.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Chair Hickenlooper, and Ranking
    Member Blackburn; first off, thank you for holding this hearing
    here today. And thank you for allowing me to be a part of the
    Subcommittee for this one hearing. I am not a normal member,
    but an issue that both of you know I care deeply about. And
    Senator Moran, I want to thank you again for your leadership,
    as we were dealing with an incredibly egregious, just a
    horrible abuse situation in Michigan, and your leadership
    during those days, and passing the legislation. Thank you for
    doing that.
        And I want to thank all of our witnesses here. You are
    right, none of you want to be here, we don't want to be here,
    but we have to be because we were dealing with a very, very
    serious issue that continues to be incredibly challenging.
        And I would like, just to take a moment to especially
    thank, Grace French. Grace, thank you. Thank you for not just
    being here, but for all of your work that you do as an advocate
    for athletes, and survivors of abuse. You are a big reason why
    we are here today talking about this very important issue. And
    so now, I am proud to be your Senator, and proud to see you
    leading this effort, it is courageous, and is appreciated by so
    many people.
        I have been concerned about this issue for a long time, and
    that is why, in 2020, working with Senator Moran, then Chair,
    as part of the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur
    Athletes Act, I was able to secure an amendment that
    established an annual survey of athletes, and asked their
    thoughts on how matters of abuse and sexual harassment are
    being handled in their respective sport.
        In the most recent survey only about a third of the
    athletes were satisfied with the support that they were
    receiving. That finding should be a signal to all of us that we
    need to do more. In today's hearing, and the Commission's
    recent report, I think will hopefully get us to continue, that
    we get down the road to meaningful reform.
        So Ms. French, my first question is for you. According to
    the Commission's Report, SafeSport, ``Does not adequately
    employ trauma-informed practices'', in many cases, victims are
    hesitant to file claims because they think SafeSport's process
    will actually traumatize them. Many also perceive that the
    system is, quite frankly, just stacked against them. So why
    bother?
        So my question for you is: How can Congress and SafeSport,
    itself, act to lessen the burden on victims, and coming
    forward, and actually seek resolutions that we so desperately
    need?
        Ms. French. Thank you, Senator Peters, and thank you for
    your question. Our main concern has been transparency and
    communication from SafeSport on how the investigation process
    is going and coming to decisions, to the extent allowed by law.
    The lack of clarity leaves athletes unsure of whether their
    concerns will be investigated thoroughly. SafeSport needs to
    make sure that those communications are trauma-informed and are
    not retraumatizing through that process.
        And we also believe that with the appeals process, there is
    another option for preventing retraumatization by allowing
    there to be a different process. Right now what seems to be
    happening, and what we were hearing from victims, is that it is
    basically a retrial as they are going through that appeals
    process, that ends, oftentimes, with that athlete dropping
    because they don't want to be retraumatized through that
    process. And that can sometimes lead to the respondent's
    advantage in that moment.
        I will say that if SafeSport interacts with survivors in a
    more trauma-informed way, I think there will be increased trust
    from those people, and we will get more resolution faster, and
    those abusers who are allowed to thrive currently, because
    those survivors are scared to come forward, will then be taken
    out of the system, and we can start preventing abuse that way
    as well.
        Senator Peters. If I could follow up, a question on that,
    one of the proposed reforms was a victim advocate to improve
    SafeSport experience for athletes. What are your thoughts about
    that proposed reform?
        Ms. French. I think it is incredibly important that victim
    advocates are a part of the process. One of the main things I
    do want to stress there is that they are completely independent
    from the U.S. Center for SafeSport. They are not employed by
    them, because within that becomes a conflict of interest and a
    lack of trust from the athletes' perspective, that they may not
    have always the best intention of the athlete when they are
    going through that process. And making sure that that advocate
    is trained, is trauma-informed, and it really is making sure
    that the athlete is at the center of all that they are doing.
        Senator Peters. Well, thank you. Again, thank you Ms.
    French, for being such a powerful advocate. I appreciate it.
        Ms. French. Thank you, Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Now, I will turn it over to the
    Ranking Member who is far more than a Ranking Member, Senator
    Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Ms. French, thank you so much. I think you are the
    reason we were here, and we appreciate your willingness to
    speak up. One question for the entire panel, and I know we have
    interested parties in the audience. So I am going to open this
    to everyone in the room. How many of you think SafeSport needs
    reform, raise your hand?
        I would say that is, that is a majority, it certainly is of
    people that are here.
        So, Ms. Colon, let me come to you, because I appreciate
    your testimony today. I appreciate the phone call that we had
    earlier, and I know that you are working to make some changes.
    We have heard such troubling reports that during a SafeSport
    investigation communication with the NGBs and the claimant is
    almost non-existent. Ms. French just mentioned that in her
    response to Senator Peters.
        And I really feel that this could end up being a dangerous
    situation for these athletes. They are young, they are
    training. I am a mother and a grandmother, I think many times
    it is so important to have that communication to truly work
    through an issue. And when you don't share any information with
    the NGBs, then it really hamstrings their ability to keep bad
    actors away from the kids.
        Mr. Kelleher referred to this in his testimony, and
    particularly in instances where you used administrative
    closure, that leaves the claimant without a resolution, the NGB
    is left in the dark. And the sad thing about this; is when you
    approach it that way, the abuse can continue, because the
    abuser feels as if they got by with this, and they beat the
    system.
        And on top of that, when you also keep information from
    survivors of sexual abuse that is something that risk
    retraumatizing them. And Ms. French mentioned the Act, as
    something that is in need. So let us talk first about what are
    you going to do, what is the plan to improve the communication
    with the athletes, the claimants, the NGBs, so that we really
    go after ridding sports of these abusers? So very quickly.
        Ms. Colon. Sure. Thanks for the question, Senator. You
    know, there are a number of things that we were doing in order
    to increase transparency and communication, not only with
    athletes, claimants, respondents, NGBs, and others throughout
    the process, because we have recognized that over the years the
    communication has not been exactly what people have wanted,
    particularly on the NGB side, and it has made things difficult
    for them.
        And so you know, about 9 months ago we started a top-to-
    bottom review of our entire investigative process because we
    wanted to, one, understand what----
        Senator Blackburn. And when will that be completed?
        Ms. Colon. We are actually making some announcements on
    April 1--well, actually we were making announcements tomorrow
    to some NGBs, but some of these changes are actually going into
    effect on April 1.
        Senator Blackburn. OK. That is a positive step. I know John
    Manley who represented some of the survivors of the Nassar
    abuse, has said that he recommends his clients not to go
    through you all, because your process can go for 497 days. He
    has said, his quote here, ``That they are slow, cumbersome,
    biased, and often handled incompetently.''
        So getting some communication, and then addressing the
    speed, what are you doing about timely manner?
        Ms. Colon. So first, I would disagree with Mr. Manley's
    statements----
        Senator Blackburn. Well, those are his opinions.
        Ms. Colon. Right.
        Senator Blackburn. And he has been in this process.
        Ms. Colon. Yes. I understand. As far as timeliness goes,
    you know, part of the changes that we have made, that I
    mentioned earlier will go to improve the efficiencies and
    timeliness of our investigation.
        Senator Blackburn. Did you need a shot clock put on
    SafeSport?
        Ms. Colon. A shot clock?
        Senator Blackburn. A shot clock, that you have got maybe a
    certain period of time that you have to address this. You know,
    as we have worked on issues with the NCAA, one of the things
    Senator Booker, and I have a bill. I mean you get that, you
    have got to take an action, and if you don't maybe after a
    year, you consider this revolved--resolved in the claimant's
    favor.
        Ms. Colon. Where our goal is to not have any case go longer
    than a year, like that is our own internal personal shot clock.
        Senator Blackburn. Let me ask you one more thing then. You
    had an $11 million surplus in 2022, in your budget. So what
    exactly did you use that money for? And why did you not go hire
    more investigators and pick up the pace on these
    investigations?
        Ms. Colon. We did. We did. In fact, we reduced the number
    of cases that were open in 2020, 2021, and 2022, we do have a
    reserve rather than a surplus in the budget, and that is going
    to be used to carry us through the next several years because
    next year we anticipate a $1.5 million deficit.
        Senator Blackburn. OK. Thank you.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you. And before I come
    back to Ms. Koller, Senator Moran I will never--I just wanted
    to make sure I appreciate your tenacity to be here after all
    the work you did previously.
        So now you are going to get--I am going to ask a question
    of Ms. Koller, Senator Klobuchar, is on her way, so you will be
    grilled relentlessly.
        Ms. Koller, the Commission on the United States Olympic and
    Paralympic spent months looking at every aspect of Olympic and
    Paralympic ecosystem, many findings and recommendations for
    Congress to consider, all around, improving safety of athletes.
    Can you kind of underscore the areas you believe Congress could
    specifically support Center for SafeSport, but also which areas
    you think SafeSport could offer reforms on their own?
        Ms. Koller. Thank you, Senator. Our top line recommendation
    after studying this was that the funding for SafeSport must be
    delinked from the USOPC, that that was a credibility problem in
    terms of encouraging survivors, encouraging victims to come
    forward, that that link to the USOPC was something that was a
    disincentive.
        So without an independent funding source, SafeSport will
    continue to be seen by victims as an arm of the USOPC, we heard
    it over, and over, and over again, or governing bodies making
    folks less likely to come forward. What we did is we
    highlighted the United States Anti-Doping Agency as a success
    story. Their funding comes through Congressional
    appropriations, and they are, sort of universally respected as
    independent, fair, by athletes, coaches, and others within the
    Movement.
        So that was our top recommendation for Congress, is to
    essentially put SafeSport on the USADA model with direct
    Congressional appropriations.
        In terms of what SafeSport can do on its own, I think Ms.
    Colon, has talked about those things, and they are quite open
    to doing it, as we noted in our report, hiring more staff who
    are trained in trauma-informed practices, using arbitrators
    with a background in handling trauma cases, closing fewer cases
    administratively, and jurisdictionally, improving the way
    SafeSport conducts event audits and education, et cetera.
        So I think all the things that Ms. Colon has talked about,
    that they are aware of, clearing out those backlogs, are things
    that we have recommended and our report, that SafeSport
    undertake.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you.
        Ms. French, we have heard a number of times at the hearing
    today on the importance of trauma-informed best practices. You
    talked about that, and pretty much everyone has touched on
    that. Have we missed anything on that? In other words, are
    there other recommendations so that we can avoid recreating the
    trauma as several people have described, and make sure that we
    can still protect athletes without forcing them to relive some
    of the worst moments of their life?
        Ms. French. Thank you for your question. I think for us it
    always goes back to the principles of what being trauma-
    informed means. It is understanding the pervasiveness and
    impact of trauma, mitigating and transforming those effects,
    minimizing retraumatization, supporting healing, resilience,
    and well-being, and then attending to the impact of trauma
    organizationally.
        I think within SafeSport, it starts with a staff; why
    training, on its impacts, and then proceeds with the
    examination of policies and procedures of SafeSport across the
    board, to see how they can make more trauma-informed
    adjustments based on those above principles. SafeSport needs to
    review their trainings, their processes, and practices, and the
    handling of cases so they can minimize that retraumatization.
        It is a systemic and thoughtful approach that takes into
    account every step, and every process within SafeSport, rather
    than just hiring social workers, who may or may not have a
    trauma-informed background, and for the investigation. I think
    it is a systems change. It is not just one solution.
        Senator Hickenlooper. All right. I completely agree. And I
    think there is--at some point we get further into that, and
    this is something that is kind of application far beyond the
    work you are just doing here, in terms of how this country
    deals with trauma and assault.
        Ms. Colon, and I am not trying to--I don't expect you to be
    on top of every single case, but Colorado Public Radio reported
    on the story of a 13-year-old swimmer who was reported to the
    Center of SafeSport for an alleged incidence of--or instance of
    misconduct. It took the 13-year-old three months to learn what
    the accusations were for an event that occurred 10 months
    earlier, in 2021. As of January, it is still an open case.
        The athlete is now in high school and still under temporary
    sanctions imposed by SafeSport. The local police have
    investigated the case; and they had already investigated and
    dismissed the incident within weeks. I mean, is this
    indicative? What is the average length that a case stays open?
        Ms. Colon. Thanks for the question. And I actually stayed
    on top of this one. In fact, this case has been resolved, and
    I, personally, spoke to some of the parents that were involved
    in this, just to, one, express my apologies for this taking so
    long. As I mentioned earlier, the sheer volume of cases
    sometimes puts cases that aren't that serious on a longer
    waiting list, and so we wanted to make sure that we address
    that for sure.
        I think when you think about how we can increase the
    timeliness to make sure that we don't have cases that sit this
    long as well, I think we have covered a little bit of that
    here, particularly with process changes, and how we are going
    to be adapting some of the actual investigative process, along
    with additional staffing.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Appreciate that. And we do have
    Senator Klobuchar on remotely, just to show you our
    technological capacities here. Why don't I turn it over to
    Senator Klobuchar for some questions?

                   STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you
    for just allowing me to get some questions in here at the end.
        Ms. Colon, we are going to be excited to be hosting the
    Olympics Gymnastics Women's Finals in Minnesota, and so many of
    those athletes have shown such incredible courage in coming
    forward about their own experiences of abuse at the hands of
    Larry Nassar. And I know my colleagues have asked a lot of
    questions on these grounds, but could you just, generally, talk
    about what SafeSport is doing to ensure that the types of abuse
    that Larry Nassar perpetrated can never happen again? And how
    you are coordinating with law enforcement?
        Ms. Colon. Sure. Thank you for the question Senator. I
    think there are a couple of things that the Center for
    SafeSport is doing, particularly in relation to our work with
    law enforcement. First and foremost, every staff member at the
    Center for SafeSport is a mandatory reporter, and so when we
    receive an allegation of abuse or misconduct--of sexual abuse
    misconduct, we report that immediately to law enforcement in
    respective states.
        So I think that is key. Also, you know because of what we
    deal with each and every day we often bring in law enforcement,
    and they bring them to the Center for SafeSport to either
    investigate or implement certain things when they are--
    throughout an investigation. So I think that close alignment
    with law enforcement throughout the process is really critical
    to our success, in our ability to actually handle cases.
        When we think about keeping athletes safe though, before
    abuse happens, and I think one of the things that we have done
    since opening our doors is really put together comprehensive
    policies to really dictate how adults interact with children,
    how coaches interact with athletes.
        And so, one, making sure that every one of these--or every
    one of the NGBs, and every one at these events understands what
    those sports--what those policies look like. But also knowing
    that the Center for SafeSport actively and annually audits
    against every one of those policies, and so----
        Senator Klobuchar. OK.
        Ms. Colon. Sure.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. And do you want to
    finish? I am sorry. I was trying to think how to go about----
        Ms. Colon. Oh. No. I just--I have lots to say.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK. Good. Well, I can also get more in
    writing, and I wanted to just ask Professor Koller, since you
    know and work with my husband, what is a way we can ensure
    victims have the support they need.?I know that your testimony
    highlighted that systemic change is needed even outside of--
    beyond SafeSport.
        Ms. Koller. Thank you for that question Senator Klobuchar.
    I defer to, of course, Ms. French to talk about specifically
    what survivors need, and what would be best for them, but in
    terms of what our Commission reported, we believe that a
    solution that ensures that athletes are not vulnerable, sort of
    in a holistic way, is really the answer.
        And so we have, in addition to the SafeSport
    recommendations, decoupling the funding from the USOPC, we have
    made a proposal, a recommendation, that the Team USA Athlete
    Commission be established as an independent entity, an
    independent, a truly independent voice for athletes. If
    athletes feel that they have a voice in the Movement, if they
    are not vulnerable, they will be much, much safer.
        In addition, we have proposed that Congress take away, at
    the USOPC's suggestion, which they have talked about for
    decades, their dual mandate, to both coordinate and develop
    grassroots, and youth sports, and sort of cultivate the high-
    performance pipeline.
        So many children participate in youth sports, as Ms. Colon
    has said. They sit outside the jurisdiction of SafeSport. These
    are children who are not within the safety provisions that
    Congress has provided through SafeSport. And so we have
    proposed that when, for instance, the Federal Government makes
    grants, which it often does to youth sport programs, we believe
    those grants should be increased, those grants should be run
    through a Clearing House, in the Office of the Department of
    Health and Human Services, which we proposed in the report.
        And that as part of that, youth sport providers, that grant
    money that supports youth sport be conditioned on signing on to
    SafeSport jurisdiction, and the protection that SafeSport
    provides.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK.
        Ms. Colon. So I recommend our report to you. I think we
    have lots of recommendations that would keep athletes safe
    beyond SafeSport.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK. Very good. Thanks.
        The last, kind of, ending on an upbeat here: Mr. Kelleher,
    I recently met with leaders from the recently formed
    Professional Women's Hockey League. We are very excited that of
    the six teams, one is from Minnesota. We actually had 13,000
    fans for the opening game against Montreal. I am going to an
    event tonight again with the Canadians to celebrate this. And
    in 2017, I was one of the leaders in Efforts to Resolve Wage
    Disputes.
        And I want to thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership on
    that.
        But could you talk about what USA Hockey is doing to foster
    a safe environment for women players?
        Mr. Kelleher. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Yes, we look at
    all of our participants, male, female. We have six different
    disciplines of disabled sport under USA Hockey, and we have to
    provide a safe environment for every athlete, from national
    team players, from players in, you know, the highest levels of
    our sport, down to the grassroots community.
        So we had our own Safe Sport Program started in 2012. We
    have been leaders within the space, within the Movement, and
    also working with the U.S. Center for SafeSport to protect
    every participant in the sport of ice hockey in the U.S. that
    is related to USA Hockey.
        I think a point, should be expanded upon, is that the
    National Governing Bodies take that responsibility very
    seriously. We recognize we came here from a bad place several
    years ago, and why we were here in a lot of cases. But the
    National Governing Bodies do a lot of this work across the
    board for youth sports throughout our country. And we believe
    that we follow the strongest guidelines, through the Center for
    SafeSport, through background screens, through everything we do
    to provide--to be proactive, to provide education that we do
    through the Center.
        USA Hockey alone does 140,000 adults through our SafeSport
    training on an annual basis. We run 70,000 background checks on
    an annual basis. We are trying to set the environment to be as
    safe as possible, and then recognizing that if something
    happens, we have to take action. And we do that at the
    grassroots level all the way to the national level.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK.
        Mr. Kelleher. So we recognize that safety is the number one
    priority across the board, Senator.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank all of you very much.
    And thank you, too, Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Thank
    all of you. Again, this is the last time I will thank you,
    because we were at the end.
        And you know, the revelations that came about with Larry
    Nassar's despicable actions, the world will never be the same
    after that. But you all are working diligently. I think we are
    seeing great progress toward making sure we work our way back
    toward a sense of security and safety where our athletes can
    feel they can work with their coaches, and their teammates, the
    other athletes that they train with, in an environment where
    they can grow, and not feel the anxiety and fear, that really
    the whole world felt, after the revelations about Larry Nassar.
        And he may be serving a hundred years in jail, but his
    impact is still there. And you are doing, I think, great work
    to really push back against that.
        This does conclude the hearing for today. Again, thank you,
    each, and all of you for your efforts, not just today but
    leading up to today. I mean, this is one of the most important
    discussions we can have. And team sports, and individual sports
    are something that have always brought this country together.
    And we have to make sure that we can continue to move back into
    that in that direction.
        The hearing record will remain open for Senators to submit
    additional questions. You will be surprised, you will get
    additional questions, I promise, questions for the record for
    two weeks, until April 3, 2024. Any Senator can submit
    questions for the record, and they may do so until then.
        We ask witnesses to submit responses to those questions by
    April 17, a quick turnaround. But again, we appreciate all your
    time in this.
        With that, the Committee is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                             The Army of Survivors

                                 TRAUMA WARNING

                             FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    DOJ Settles with Nassar Survivors, Concluding Final Legal Case Over FBI
                                   Misconduct

        MICHIGAN (April 23, 2024)--In a culmination of a two-year-long
    lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized an agreement on
    April 23 to settle with the 100 athletes who survived unspeakable abuse
    at the hands of the now-defamed and imprisoned former USA Gymnastics
    sports medicine physician, Larry Nassar, due to the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation's (FBI) initial failings to investigate reports of
    criminal abuse by the doctor.
        No amount of money can truly compensate for the pain and suffering
    endured by the athlete-survivors, a direct result of negligence and
    institutional betrayal by the very systems designed to safeguard them.
    However, the acceptance of this settlement brings a semblance of
    closure, marking the resolution of the last remaining legal battle
    against the network of institutions that failed in their response to
    the allegations against Nassar.
        At this delicate juncture, The Army of Survivors (TAOS) stands in
    solidarity with the athlete-survivors who have persisted in bravely
    sharing their stories to create enduring change. Their unwavering
    voices have been pivotal in shedding light on systemic failures and
    have spurred a movement demanding accountability and reform. After the
    announcement of the settlement, TAOS Co-Founder and President Grace
    French said, ``This settlement marks not just a chapter's close, but
    the start of a new narrative in sports--one where the voices of
    survivors catalyze the transformation towards an era of transparency,
    accountability, and safety for all athletes.''
        As we turn this page, our collective efforts must focus on ensuring
    that the lessons learned are embedded into the fabric of athletic
    institutions through systemic change, leaving an indelible mark that
    honors the courage of these athlete-survivors. TAOS reaffirms its
    commitment to this cause and calls on sports entities at every level to
    uphold the highest standards of conduct so that such failures are never
    repeated. With this settlement, we do not seek to end the conversation;
    instead, we seek to amplify it, encouraging ongoing dialogue and action
    to safeguard the dignity and well-being of every athlete stepping into
    the arena of competition.
    About The Army of Survivors
        The Army of Survivors is a designated 501(C)3 non-profit
    organization whose mission is to bring awareness, accountability, and
    transparency to sexual violence against athletes. Created by a group of
    more than 40 athlete survivors of sexual violence, The Army of
    Survivors is the only national organization advocating for and
    supporting athlete survivors of sexual violence through resources,
    advocacy, and education. For more information, visit
    TheArmyofSurvivors.org and follow The Army of Survivors on Twitter,
    Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                 Ju'Riese Colon

        Among other concerns, we have heard from National Governing Bodies
    (``NGBs''), athletes, and advocates who have cited delays in
    SafeSport's processing of allegations. The Commission acknowledged this
    burden, referring to SafeSport as both ``overwhelmed and under-
    resourced.'' I know that the top legislative request you have made is
    for additional funding.

        Question 1. Can you address how increased funding would
    specifically help this issue of delays and case backlog? Are there
    straightforward ways, in your view, to expedite these processes?
        Answer. Since the passage of the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic,
    and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020, the U.S. Center for SafeSport has
    invested in its infrastructure and increased its staff by 230 percent.
    Since that time, reports have also increased more than 2,000 percent.
    While the Center has focused on internal alignment and increasing
    efficiencies throughout the investigative process, we need additional
    funds to continue investing in technology and hire more investigative
    staff to manage case volume and reduce investigation times. With
    additional resources, the Center could implement maximum timeframes on
    investigations. This is particularly important as new sports such as
    flag football and lacrosse may add more than a million individuals to
    the movement, and the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Paris are
    expected to drive up reporting this summer.
        In your testimony before the Commission, you stated that you are
    actively reviewing how SafeSport can provide more information to NGBs,
    particularly around administrative closures.

        Question 2. Can you elaborate on what enhanced information sharing
    processes you are considering? Does SafeSport need Congressional action
    to achieve this enhanced information sharing, or can it act on its own
    to do so?
        Answer. The Center announced on April 1, 2024 that it is redefining
    and recategorizing Administrative Closures and Holds to provide more
    clarity and understanding. As a part of this change, the Center will
    provide to participants in its process and NGBs specific categories
    that explain the reason for these outcomes, without compromising
    Claimant confidentiality. The Center believes Congressional action is
    necessary to allow the sharing of additional case information with
    relevant parties and agencies. Enclosed you will find a list of
    legislative changes the Center would like Congress to consider. Please
    see #7 regarding specific language around information sharing. Please
    note that the Center has heard concerns from survivors about providing
    more information to NGBs about their cases, so the Center encourages
    consultation with survivor organizations before any such changes are
    made.
        One of the Commission's findings was a substantial misunderstanding
    regarding the standard of evidence required for SafeSport to prove a
    claim. Specifically, the Commission encountered a misperception that
    evidence ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' was required, rather than the
    actual, lower standard of ``preponderance of the evidence.''

        Question 3. What more can SafeSport--or Congress--do to make clear
    the actual standard?
        Answer. The Center was surprised to learn of this finding as it is
    not a common concern we hear from athletes. Whenever possible, we
    highlight the fact that the Center has a lower burden of proof than
    criminal law, as we are able to act on cases--and often do--that do not
    result in a conviction. Since the Commission did not share detailed
    findings, it is difficult to understand the scale of this concern. Our
    burden of proof is explained in the FAQ section of our website. We will
    however, review our website and update to further clarify components of
    our process, including evidentiary standards. Additionally, we have
    expanded our Process Navigator team to provide more support for those
    going through our process. The Center does not believe Congressional
    action is necessary to address this issue.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                 Dionne Koller

        One of the Commission's findings was a substantial misunderstanding
    regarding the standard of evidence required for SafeSport to prove a
    claim. Specifically, the Commission encountered a misperception that
    evidence ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' was required, rather than the
    actual, lower standard of ``preponderance of the evidence.''

        Question. To what do you attribute this frequent misperception, and
    how could that misperception discourage individuals from coming
    forward?
        Answer. We found that this misperception relates to the general
    lack of widespread understanding of the status of the quasi-
    governmental institutions that direct our Olympic and Paralympic
    movement. For instance, many individuals both within and outside the
    movement do not understand that the United States Olympic and
    Paralympic Committee is a private corporation and not a government
    agency or government funded. Similarly, there were gaps in
    understanding SafeSport's role as being limited to determining whether
    an individual found in violation of the SafeSport Code may continue to
    participate in movement sports.
        This misperception of the nature of the institutions and role they
    play in governing the Olympic and Paralympic movement contributes to a
    lack of understanding related to the standard of proof required to
    establish a SafeSport claim. Many individuals within the movement
    assumed that the standard for criminal proceedings, ``beyond a
    reasonable doubt,'' applied to determinations of whether an individual
    violated the SafeSport Code. This discourages individual from coming
    forward for two reasons.
        First, it may lead victims to conclude that SafeSport processes are
    similar to criminal proceedings, including with respect to the standard
    required to determine a violation has occurred, and this along with
    other concerns about SafeSport processes may lead victims to conclude
    that they will be re-traumatized if they come forward to report.
    Second, the Commission found that the belief that SafeSport proceedings
    will be conducted in a manner similar to a criminal justice proceeding,
    and then the realization that it is not, has engendered mistrust among
    athletes, coaches, and other stakeholders who believe SafeSport either
    has been too aggressive or from those who believe SafeSport has not
    been aggressive enough. In both cases, individuals believe SafeSport
    should provide Constitutional-level Due Process, which would be
    required of a government entity, and instead SafeSport provides only
    the level of process that is promised by their Code.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                  Grace French

        I have heard troubling reports that SafeSport's appeals process is
    not transparent, may be overly deferential to respondents, and can
    force victims to repeatedly deliver the same testimony. Indeed, where
    respondents appeal SafeSport decisions, nearly half of the arbitrations
    have been decided in favor of respondents. Athlete survivors attribute
    this to the arbitration process being re-traumatizing, leading to
    survivors declining to participate.

        Question. How can we reform this appeals process, not only to add
    clarity and transparency but to prevent athletes from being
    unnecessarily compelled to testify a second time?
        Answer. As a survivor, again the need for transparency is critical.
    The current arbitration process presents as one-sided and arbitrary. It
    becomes a second hearing-with forced face-to-face testimony being re-
    collected. We urge changes to the arbitration process to an appeals
    panel of experts with both trauma-informed awareness and understanding
    of the nuances and complexities of abuse in sport.
        I feel that victims should not be compelled to testify a second
    time-they should be able to opt into the appeal for participation. But
    if they do not participate the case should still be examined, not
    immediately administratively closed. Examining the case should be on
    the record established during the investigation with some clear
    understanding of the preponderance of the evidence standard to be
    applied. If new evidence is sought to be added to the record, it should
    be re-investigated. There should be no new statements or new
    examination of witnesses. As a review process on the record, there
    should not be face-to-face examination of witnesses, especially in the
    case of a minor. As we have seen in the current arbitration system,
    many survivors will not want to engage in any second review process
    that forces them to face-to-face testimony with the respondent/
    perpetrator. If there is new material information that comes to light
    in the appeals process, it should be returned to the investigation
    stage.
        The expert panel we suggest should have the training and expertise
    to be trauma-informed and sports context aware to make a reasoned
    review of the investigation. There is a need to balance the expertise
    around the sport while protecting against conflicts of interest and
    bias (such as an NGB safety officer being on the panel making a
    decision in cases where they had direct contact or there might be
    actual or perceived bias). It would be important for the experts on the
    appeals panel to be able to recuse/remove themselves or be removed from
    review of cases where there is an actual or perceived conflict of
    interest. Survivors should be able to know who is on the panel of
    experts or pool of experts so that bias and conflicts of interest can
    be addressed.
        We are not sure if the appeals panel is the correct place, but
    there is a need to have some sort of check on the decision making and
    investigative techniques used by SafeSport. The panel could also be
    able to reflect on the appropriateness of the investigation and review
    whether the investigation was conducted in good faith by SafeSport.
    This would be a way to have internal protections against inappropriate
    or ineffective investigations by SafeSport from an outside perspective.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                  Pat Kelleher

        We have heard that once the Center receives an allegation, it
    provides very limited information to NGBs about the nature or
    seriousness of the allegation. Once SafeSport exercises jurisdiction
    over a case, it retains jurisdiction--with very limited information
    sharing--over the entirety of the investigation until resolution.
    During an investigation, NGBs are not permitted to act against a
    Respondent, including firing or suspending the individual in order to
    keep athletes safe.
        Question 1. In what ways would enhanced information sharing by
    SafeSport at the outset of a case benefit your NGB? Could reforming the
    process to give NGBs the authority to take interim action enhance the
    safety of athletes?
        Answer. The Center's initial membership inquiries provide no
    information about the case to allow the NGB to assess the need for
    immediate suspension or other temporary measures to protect its
    members. The first communication received by an NGB is a ``Confidential
    Request for Member Information'' in which the Center requests
    membership and other background information about the respondent but
    provides no information other than that the Center ``has received
    allegations of misconduct involving'' the respondent. Without any
    substantive information about the allegations, NGBs have no means to
    assess the need for immediate suspension or other temporary measures to
    protect its members. Despite the possibility of significant safety
    concerns, the respondent is often allowed to participate alongside the
    claimant and others without any restrictions.
        When the Center accepts jurisdiction, the next communication is a
    Notice of Exercise of Jurisdiction which provides only limited, general
    information about the nature of the allegations. Below are some
    examples of typical descriptions from recent Notices of Exercise of
    Jurisdiction:

            The U.S. Center for SafeSport received a report alleging that,
            between April 2023 and December 2023, Respondent [name
            redacted] engaged in sexual misconduct and other inappropriate
            conduct of a sexual nature, including bullying of a sexual
            nature involving a minor male athlete and attempting to
            establish an intimate relationship with an adult female parent
            wherein there was an imbalance of power.

            The U.S. Center for SafeSport received a report alleging that,
            in or around September 2023, Respondent [name redacted], a
            minor, engaged in sexual misconduct involving minor male
            teammates, including nonconsensual sexual intercourse.

            The U.S. Center for SafeSport received a report alleging that,
            in or around February 2024, Respondent [name redacted], likely
            a minor at the time, engaged in sexual misconduct involving a
            minor female teammate, including sexual harassment and
            nonconsensual sexual contact and/or intercourse.

        Despite receiving this limited information, the Center's exclusive
    jurisdiction makes it too late for the NGB to impose a suspension and
    leaves NGBs in a tenuous position of trying to implement safety
    measures to protect the other participants, but without sufficient
    information to understand the risks. The Center then provides no other
    information to NGBs during the pendency of any case unless it takes
    some action to impose or modify temporary measures. At that time, it
    provides a Notice of Allegations with only a short summary of the
    allegations that support the temporary measures being imposed by the
    Center. Thereafter, no other substantive information is shared with the
    NGB about the status of the case until the case is resolved.
        USA Hockey believes that the requirements on the Center, whether in
    Federal statute or the Center's SafeSport Code, should be modified to
    provide the NGBs more information and more flexibility to impose
    measures at the outset of the case. Ideally, the Center would provide
    the NGB, on a confidential basis, with a copy of the submitted report
    and evidence (with appropriate redaction if necessary) to allow the
    NGBs to make an independent decision on the respondents' continued
    participation and for the protection of all other participants. At a
    minimum, the Center should provide NGBs with more detailed information
    about the nature of the allegations and evidence it has received from
    the reporting party.
        NGB officials have raised concerns that when cases are closed
    administratively, due to the lack of information sharing between
    SafeSport and NGBs, their ability to protect athletes is limited.

        Question 2. How does SafeSport's practice of administratively
    closing many matters impact the ability of NGBs to act on allegations
    of abuse? Are there instances where you have been unable to take action
    to protect athletes following the administrative closure of a matter?
        Answer. With respect to this question, USA Hockey notes that the
    Center has made some recent adjustments to its nomenclature for cases
    formerly known as ``Administrative Closures'' (splitting them into two
    categories: ``Administrative Holds'' and ``Administrative Closures'')
    and also now identifies the general basis for why it administratively
    closed the case. However, these recent changes do very little to assist
    the NGB in addressing the risks of the respondent returning to
    participation with other members.
        It is also important to understand how the Center's extensive use
    of Administrative Closures/Holds exacerbates the issues faced by NGBs.
    While the Center claims it administratively closes only 38 percent of
    its cases, this figure includes the nearly 50 percent of the reports
    over which the Center declined jurisdiction or determined it had no
    jurisdiction at all. The Center's statistics for USA Hockey in the
    eighteen months from January 1, 2022 through June 30 2023 indicate that
    the Center accepted jurisdiction of 51 percent of the reports it
    received, and of those cases, 75 percent were administratively closed.
    Of the sexual misconduct cases during that period, the Center
    administratively closed 82 percent of the cases over which it exercised
    jurisdiction. Of all administratively closed cases, 58 percent were due
    to ``insufficient information'' or a ``reluctant claimant,'' which do
    not necessarily absolve a respondent of the alleged misconduct.
        The concern from these cases arises because after an Administrative
    Closure, the Center retains jurisdiction over the allegations reported
    to it yet provides no information to the NGB regarding those
    allegations, the investigation it conducted, or its findings. The NGB
    is required to allow the respondent to participate, yet the NGB has no
    information about the seriousness of or evidence supporting the
    allegations to assess whether measures are necessary to protect the
    safety of other participants with whom the respondent will interact
    after they are deemed eligible to participate.
        One recent case illustrates the difficult position NGBs are placed
    following an Administrative Closure/Hold. USA Hockey received an
    anonymous letter alleging that the reporter's daughter had:

            ``complained to me more than once regarding unwanted sexual
            advances made by [coach name redacted]. Based on my daughter's
            allegations, I began speaking with other parents, and found
            they had similar complaints from their daughter, and they have
            similar experiences and concerns.''

        The reporter went on to indicate that the girls and their families
    have been afraid to come forward out of fear of retribution, of being
    kicked off the team or having hopes destroyed of playing competitively
    at higher levels.
        USA Hockey reported this matter to the Center, which accepted
    jurisdiction of the case but simultaneously issued an Administrative
    Hold based on ``Insufficient Information'' (defined generally as a lack
    of evidence or information to proceed with or continue the
    investigation, or when a claimant does not participate) and an
    ``Unidentified Claimant'' (in which, notably, the Center claims it has
    exhausted all means to obtain information).
        USA Hockey provided the Center with rosters for the teams coached
    by the respondent and indicated that we believed it was important for
    the Center to conduct some investigation into these allegations.
    However, the Center indicated it was ``not inclined to cold-call
    athletes on the roster without corroborative information. Taking such
    action may cause unintentional but additional harm to witnesses and
    greater community.''
        While we understand the Center's reasoning in this case, USA Hockey
    is left in a very difficult position of allowing this coach to remain
    eligible while also protecting its athletes from potentially
    significant harm. Although the Center has indicated we are permitted to
    implement our owns safety measures, we are prohibited from conducting
    any investigation into this case to support those measures.
        USA Hockey believes that the Center should be required to provide
    the full investigatory file on Administrative Closed/Held cases so that
    NGBs are sufficiently equipped to assess the risks of a respondent's
    return to sport and to implement safety plans or other measures to
    protect its members from possible harm.
        As we've shown above, the Center does not share adequate
    information with the NGBs whether at the beginning, during or at the
    conclusion of a case. NGBs are then placed in the untenable position of
    responding to the concerns of their members and providing a safe
    environment without visibility into the allegations or facts
    determined. USA Hockey firmly believes, at a minimum, that the Center
    needs to share additional information with the NGBs (i) at the
    commencement of a case to address the safety of its participants during
    the Center's investigation and (ii) upon Administrative Closures/Holds
    so that the NGBs can make educated decisions on the need for additional
    safety measures when the Center allows a respondent back into the
    sport.

                                      [all]