[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
[email protected]
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]