Sexual Harassment/Abuse Policies in U.S. Youth Sport Programs

Abstract

Sport governing bodies, such as the International Olympic Committee, have recommended youth sport organizations develop policies, procedures, and/or ethical guidelines to prevent and respond to sexual harassment and abuse (SHA) experienced by young athletes. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated SHA policies or procedures in U.S. youth sport programs. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine U.S. youth sport programs’ policies regarding SHA. The results are based on a cross-sectional survey completed by youth sport coaches (n = 200) from various organizations (e.g., public recreation organizations, private nonprofit organizations, and interscholastic sports). Findings suggest that most organizations have several SHA policies, such as education and training requirements, written policies and codes of conduct regarding coach-athlete sexual relationships, and formal complaint and disclosure procedures for investigating SHA. A bivariate analysis suggests that the presence of several SHA policies was associated with an increased number of self-reported SHA incidents. Moreover, youth sport programs located in urban areas had a greater extent of SHA policies compared to those located in suburban or rural areas. These results are discussed with respect to the potential relationships between the presence of policies and increased cases of SHA. Also, we discussed advocating for equitable resources among youth sport programs regardless of geographic and/or demographic factors. Future research should identify social and cultural barriers that inhibit the successful implementation of SHA policies. While developing and implementing SHA policies is a step in the right direction, it may not be used as the only means to address this complex, systematic, and structural issue.

Keywords

children athlete coach sexual violence safety practices

Introduction

In the U.S., approximately 30 to 45 million children participate in interscholastic or community-based youth sport programs annually (Noble & Vermillion, 2014). While sport offers a myriad of benefits to children and adolescents, such as increases in physical activity, social development, health outcomes, as well as other important life skills, involvement in youth sport can also expose them to various forms of harassment and abuse, including those that are sexual in nature (Johansson & Lundqvist, 2017; Mountjoy, 2019; Parent & Vaillancourt-Morel, 2021). During the past few decades, sexual harassment and abuse (SHA) in sport, involving youth to professional athletes, have garnered increasing attention worldwide (Fasting, Chroni, Hervik, & Knorre, 2011; Leahy, 2008; Toftegaard Nielsen, 2001). Some studies estimate that approximately 14% to 29% of athletes 18 years old or younger experience SHA (Alexander et al., 2011; Parent & Vaillancourt-Morel, 2021; Vertommen, Schipper-van Veldhoven, et al., 2016). Many athletes who are victims of SHA can suffer a wide array of mental health symptoms, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts (Mountjoy, 2019; Parent & Vaillancourt-Morel, 2021).

In the U.S., examples of highly publicized SHA scandals include U.S. Gymnastics team physician Larry Nassar who sexually abused over 500 female gymnasts. Nassar was sentenced to 40–175 years in prison (Evans & Benbow, 2021). Similarly, at least 368 young gymnasts were allegedly sexually abused by adults (e.g., coaches, staff, gym owners) in gymnastic programs across the country in the past 2 decades (Evans, Alesia, & Kwiatkowski, 2018). In 2012, Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant football coach, was found guilty of sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period (Bidgood & Perez-Pena, 2017). Additionally, after an investigation by the Southern California News Group, USA Swimming was embroiled in a major scandal involving at least 590 alleged victims of sexual abuse from various authority figures (e.g., coaches) within the organization (Reid, 2018). Despite the prevalence of SHA occurring across U.S. sport programs, research on this topic is significantly lacking in the U.S. context compared to other countries (Timon et al., 2022; Wilinsky & McCabe, 2020).

For the purpose of this paper, the operational definition of SHA will be inclusive of both harassment and abuse as per the International Olympic Committee (IOC; Mountjoy et al., 2016, p. 1,021): “any unwanted and unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, whether verbal, non-verbal, or physical” (sexual harassment) and “any conduct of a sexual nature, whether non-contact, contact or penetrative, where consent is coerced/manipulated or is not or cannot be given” (sexual abuse). Whereas sexual harassment generally pertains to more minor forms of misconduct (e.g., offensive comments, sexual jokes, and requests for sexual favors) while sexual abuse involves more severe acts (e.g., unwanted sexual activity and rape), both harassment and abuse are routinely perpetrated within the harassment-abuse continuum where sexual harassment is often a precursor to sexual abuse (Kim et al., 2023; Stefansen et al., 2019; Timon et al., 2022).

Establishment of SHA Policies

In response to the prevalence of SHA involving children and adolescents, many youth-serving organizations have responded by adopting or improving relevant policies, guidelines, and resources to prevent and properly respond to SHA (Lang & Hartill, 2014). In the 1980s, the Boy Scouts of America was one of the first to implement organizational responses to SHA, which primarily consisted of education and training for all staff members and the establishment of a policy that prohibited an adult from staying alone with an unrelated child. In the context of sport, a growing number of international governing bodies and associations, such as the IOC and International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE), have recommended that all sport organizations develop codes of conduct and/or ethical guidelines in order to establish a benchmark for acceptable and unacceptable behaviors associated with SHA (Ljungqvist et al., 2008). In the U.S., federal legislation entitled “Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act” was passed in 2017 in response to the sexual abuse scandal involving USA Gymnastics. This Act resulted in providing related authority to the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and National Governing Bodies of sport, which led to the creation of the U.S. Center for Safe Sports. The Center’s mission focuses on prohibiting all forms of misconduct (e.g., sexual misconduct, bullying, and hazing) through conducting background checks for coaches and staff members, education and training, as well as investigation of complaints. Since the establishment of the Center in 2017, approximately 7,000 cases of various forms of abuse have been investigated, and more than 4 million online trainings have been disseminated to various amateur sport organizations nationwide, including Olympic and Paralympic organizations. (U.S. Center for SafeSport, 2023). However, the Center for SafeSport is facing criticism for its low rate of case resolution and high rate of administrative closures. These instances may occur when evidence is insufficient or a victim is unwilling to participate in the investigation process. Compounding the issue, the Center is also known for its long investigation process (often lasting months to years), biased arbitration, and lack of transparency and updates of ongoing cases (Armour, 2023).

Despite the ongoing attempts to address SHA in youth sport, previous research indicates that the prevention efforts and measures are still lagging substantially behind many of those found in other non-sport, youth-serving organizations (Brackenridge & Rhind, 2014; Kerr et al., 2014; Mountjoy et al., 2016). Scholars posit that this may be due in part to a lack of leadership from policymakers, limited financial and human resources, and safeguarding knowledge and skills among sport administrators (Brackenridge, 2002; Malkin et al., 2000; Parent & Demers, 2011). One of the early prevention measures that sport organizations can initiate is the development and implementation of effective policies (Young & Wendit, 2017). However, while preventing and managing SHA through policies is recommended and reinforced by sport governing bodies and the scientific community, it is largely unknown whether such policies exist within U.S. youth sport organizations. The current study aims to fill this gap by examining youth sport organizations’ policies related to SHA.

Youth Sport Coaches as Perpetrators of SHA

In youth sport, coaches are in a unique position to help athletes improve both athletically and personally. Also, in part, due to the amount of time spent and close proximity shared with athletes, coaches develop trust-based relationships with them (Stirling & Kerr, 2009). Such positive relationships, however, can be a precursor for role ambiguities when professional and personal boundaries overlap (Parent & Demers, 2011). Additionally, unequal power relationships between a coach and athlete have been identified as a risk factor per se (Bringer et al., 2006), as some coaches abuse their power through inappropriate and harmful behaviors such as SHA. Furthermore, a question of legal consent is not valid in coach-athlete relationships since athletes cannot provide consent to a coach who is in a position of power and authority (Kirby et al., 2000). Due to such, coaches have been identified as frequent perpetrators of SHA (Bjørnseth & Szabo, 2018; Gaedicke et al., 2021). Of note, a company that specializes in background checks reported approximately 15,000 coaches from various U.S. youth sport leagues were convicted sex offenders (Tippin, 2003). With the prevalence of SHA perpetrated by coaches against young athletes, sport associations around the world have developed policies, guidelines, and/or codes of conduct that strictly prohibit intimate relationships between coaches and athletes regardless of athletes’ age or consent (Coaching Association of Canada, 2020; Safe4Athletes, 2013; UK Coaching, 2023). International organizations such as ICCE and UPOPC have developed codes of conduct and ethical guidelines that are specifically designed to prevent intimate relationships between coaches and athletes. For instance, ICCE recommends that coaches avoid sexual relationships with their athletes and discourage any attempts by athletes to initiate such relationships (ICCE, 2012). Similarly, the USOPC’s guideline also discourages romantic relationships between coaches and athletes by reasoning that coaches have evaluative, direct and indirect authority, and judgment that will likely become exploitative or impaired when such relationships are involved (Team USA, 2017).

Current Study

Despite the aforementioned guidelines or codes of conduct that were established to prevent SHA, empirical data on the existence of SHA policies at the grassroots level is nearly nonexistent. Therefore, the primary purpose of this exploratory survey study was to investigate the presence of SHA policies in youth sport programs within the U.S. The secondary purpose of the study was to explore factors that are associated with the increased presence of SHA policies. Given the exploratory nature of the current study, the analyses were implemented after examination of the data (i.e., not pre-specified). For our study, youth sport programs included interscholastic or community-based organizations where eligible participants were under the age of 18. This study focused specifically on data from coaches who answered questions regarding the existence of their sport organization’s policies related to SHA, such as education/training, codes of conduct regarding coach-athlete relationships, formal complaint/disclosure procedures, and disciplinary actions for perpetrators.

Method

Participants and Data Collection

Before the cross-sectional survey was distributed to participants, all study procedures were approved by the institutional review board at the corresponding author’s institution. We utilized Qualtrics Research Services (QRS), a market research company, to distribute a questionnaire to coaches from various youth sport programs within the U.S. The QRS invited target participants from their pre-arranged population pool and facilitated screening procedures based on the inclusion criteria of the current study, which were male, over 18 years of age, and current coaches who coached athletes who were 18 years old or younger. To ensure high-quality data, QRS reviewed the initial survey responses and eliminated those with unusual response patterns (e.g., unusually fast response time and arbitrary responses). Given the greater number of coaching positions held by men (Allen & Shaw, 2013), as well as a higher incidence of SHA perpetrated by men (Fasting & Sand, 2015), the present study only recruited male coaches. The coaches were assured of confidentiality and were required to provide electronic consent to begin the survey. In total, 200 male coaches from the QRS online panel successfully completed the questionnaire. Coaches were diverse in terms of age (range = 18–74 years old), the number of years coaching youth sport (≤1 to ≥15 years), level of education completed (50% had at least a Bachelor’s degree), but less diverse in racial/ethnic backgrounds (59.5% were White/Caucasian, while the next largest group was Black/African-American, 27.5%).

Instrumentation

The present study represents a part of a broader survey regarding SHA issues in youth sport. For the purpose of this study, only items designed to examine SHA policies were utilized. All items were self-developed based on an extensive review of the literature (Fasting, 2015; Fasting et al., 2018; Harris & Terry, 2019; Johansson, 2022; Johansson et al., 2016; Joy et al., 2021; Kaufman et al., 2019; Nurse, 2018; Parent & El Hlimi, 2013) since we were unable to adopt specific items due to a lack of empirical studies investigating SHA policies and procedures in the context of youth sport. Eleven items were developed to cover a wide range of key SHA policies, including the availability of formal SHA education/training, regulation of coach-athlete intimate relationships (and related codes of conduct), complaint and disclosure procedures for reporting SHA, disciplinary actions, and screening/background check procedures. All of these items were asked via a dichotomous answer choice (i.e., yes, no, unsure) and were reliable (Cronbach’s α = .63). In addition, coaches’ demographic/professional background data included the type of youth sport program they coached in, type of sport coached, employment status (paid or volunteer), and location of youth sport program (urban, suburban, or rural). The final item asked respondents to self-report whether SHA between coaches and athletes occurs within their youth sport program (See Table 1).

Table 1.

Respondent Coaches’ Organizational/Professional Background (n = 200).

Variable	N (%)
Type of youth sport program
Interscholastic sports	73 (36.5)
Public recreation organization	41 (20.5)
Private nonprofit organization	39 (19.5)
Public nonprofit organization	36 (18)
Private commercial club	10 (5)
Other	1 (0.5)
Type of sport
Football	62 (31)
Basketball	51 (25.5)
Soccer	34 (17)
Baseball	22 (11)
Softball	9 (4.5)
Swimming and diving	5 (2.5)
Tennis	5 (2.5)
Wrestling	5 (2.5)
Ice hockey	3 (1.5)
Other	3 (1.5)
Employment status
Paid	123 (61.5)
Volunteer	77 (38.5)
Location of youth sport program
Urban	100 (50)
Suburban	72 (36)
Rural	28 (14)
Sexual harassment/abuse between coaches and athletes occurs within the sport program I coach (self-reported)
Yes	81 (40.5)
No	100 (50)
Maybe	19 (9.5)

Data Analysis

Responses from the Qualtrics survey platform were exported into the SPSS version 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) for descriptive and bivariate analyses. Frequencies and percentages were used for all discrete variables (Tables 1 –4). Pearson’s Chi-squared test was performed to compare SHA policies based on the perceived occurrence of SHA between coaches and athletes within respondents’ organizations (yes vs. no; Table 3). Additionally, Fisher’s exact test was performed to compare SHA policies based on youth sport programs’ locations (urban vs. suburban vs. rural; Table 4). A standard alpha level of .05 was set for statistical significance.

Table 2.

Sexual Harassment/Abuse Policies.

Items	N (%)
Does the sport program you coach provide formal education/training about sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	144 (72)
No	49 (24.5)
Not sure	7 (3.5)
Which of the following is true regarding the sexual harassment/abuse education/training offered by your sport program?
Required	118 (81.9)
Recommended	22 (15.3)
Not sure	4 (2.8)
Is refresher training (e.g., annually) required?
Yes	106 (89.8)
No	11 (9.3)
Not sure	1 (0.9)
Does the sport program you coach prohibit coach-athlete dating and/or sexual relationships?
Yes	145 (72.5)
No	35 (17.5)
Not sure	20 (10)
Does the sport program you coach have a written policy on sexual relationships with athletes?
Yes	141 (70.5)
No	36 (18)
Not sure	23 (11.5)
Does the sport program you coach have a code of conduct that prohibits sexual harassment/abuse in coach-athlete relationships?
Yes	150 (75)
No	34 (17)
Not sure	16 (8)
Does the sport program you coach require all coaches to sign an acknowledgment/consent form after reading the code of conduct?
Yes	132 (88)
No	14 (9.3)
Not sure	4 (2.7)
Does the sport program you coach have a formal complaint procedure for reporting sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	147 (73.5)
No	36 (18)
Not sure	17 (8.5)
Does the sport program you coach have a disclosure process on sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	135 (67.5)
No	40 (20)
Not sure	25 (12.5)
Can the sport program you coach impose disciplinary action against coaches who commit sexual harassment/abuse against athletes?
Yes	159 (79.5)
No	23 (11.5)
Not sure	18 (9)
Does the sport program you coach screen (i.e., formal background checks) all applicants for coaching positions?
Yes	135 (67.5)
No	44 (22)
Not sure	21 (10.5)

Table 3.

Bivariate Analysis (Pearson’s Chi-Squared Test) of Sexual Harassment/Abuse Policies Based on the Item: “Sexual Harassment/Abuse Between Coaches and Athletes Occurs Within the Sport Program I Coach.”

	Sexual harassment/abuse between coaches and athletes occurs within the sport program I coach
Items	Yes, n (%)	No, n (%)	p
Does the sport program you coach provide formal education/training about sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	70 (53.4)	61 (46.6)	<.001
No	10 (22.2)	35 (77.8)	<.001
Which of the following is true regarding the sexual harassment/abuse education/training offered by your sport program?
Required	60 (54.5)	50 (45.5)	.446
Recommended	10 (50)	10 (50)	.446
Is refresher training (e.g., annually) required?
Yes	55 (55.6)	44 (44.4)	.495
No	5 (50)	5 (50)	.495
Does the sport program you coach prohibit coach-athlete dating and/or sexual relationships?
Yes	66 (49.3)	68 (50.7)	.195
No	12 (38.7)	19 (61.3)	.195
Does the sport program you coach have a written policy on sexual relationships with athletes?
Yes	71 (54.2)	60 (45.8)	.001
No	7 (22.6)	24 (77.4)	.001
Does the sport program you coach have a code of conduct that prohibits sexual harassment/abuse in coach-athlete relationships?
Yes	71 (51.1)	68 (48.9)	.003
No	7 (22.6)	24 (77.4)	.003
Does the sport program you coach require all coaches to sign an acknowledgment/consent form after reading the code of conduct?
Yes	64 (51.2)	61 (48.8)	.599
No	5 (50)	5 (50)	.599
Does the sport program you coach have a formal complaint procedure for reporting sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	72 (53.7)	62 (46.3)	.002
No	8 (24.2)	25 (75.8)	.002
Does the sport program you coach have a disclosure process on sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	72 (58.1)	52 (41.9)	<.001
No	7 (18.9)	30 (81.1)	<.001
Can the sport program you coach impose disciplinary action against coaches who commit sexual harassment/abuse against athletes?
Yes	76 (51)	73 (49)	.001
No	3 (13.6)	19 (86.4)	.001
Does the sport program you coach screen (i.e., formal background checks) all applicants for coaching positions?
Yes	61 (47.7)	67 (52.3)	.456
No	18 (45)	22 (55)	.456

Table 4.

Comparison of Sexual Harassment/Abuse Policies Based on Location of Youth Sport Program (Fisher’s Exact Test).

Items	Urban, n (%)	Suburban, n (%)	Rural, n (%)	p
Does the sport program you coach provide formal education/training about sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	81 (82.7)	47 (69.1)	16 (59.3)	.019
No	17 (17.3)	21 (30.9)	11 (40.7)	.019
Which of the following is true regarding the sexual harassment/abuse education/training offered by your sport program?
Required	71 (88.8)	35 (77.8)	12 (80)	.244
Recommended	9 (11.3)	10 (22.2)	3 (20)	.244
Is refresher training (e.g., annually) required?
Yes	65 (92.9)	31 (88.6)	10 (83.3)	.352
No	5 (7.1)	4 (11.4)	2 (16.7)	.352
Does the sport program you coach prohibit coach-athlete dating and/or sexual relationships?
Yes	77 (83.7)	51 (81)	17 (68)	.209
No	15 (16.3)	12 (19)	8 (13.9)	.209
Does the sport program you coach have a written policy on sexual relationships with athletes?
Yes	80 (87.9)	48 (77.4)	13 (54.2)	.001
No	11 (12.1)	14 (22.6)	11 (45.8)	.001
Does the sport program you coach have a code of conduct that prohibits sexual harassment/abuse in coach-athlete relationships?
Yes	83 (88.3)	51 (78.5)	16 (64)	.015
No	11 (11.7)	14 (21.5)	9 (36)	.015
Does the sport program you coach require all coaches to sign an acknowledgment/consent form after reading the code of conduct?
Yes	78 (94)	43 (86)	11 (84.6)	.170
No	5 (6)	7 (14)	2 (15.4)	.170
Does the sport program you coach have a formal complaint procedure for reporting sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	81 (83.5)	54 (81.8)	12 (60)	.047
No	16 (16.5)	12 (18.2)	8 (40)	.047
Does the sport program you coach have a disclosure process on sexual harassment/abuse?
Yes	77 (83.7)	47 (75.8)	11 (52.4)	.008
No	15 (16.3)	15 (24.2)	10 (47.6)	.008
Can the sport program you coach impose disciplinary action against coaches who commit sexual harassment/abuse against athletes?
Yes	83 (89.2)	57 (87.7)	19 (79.2)	.349
No	10 (10.8)	8 (12.3)	5 (20.8)	.349
Does the sport program you coach screen (i.e., formal background checks) all applicants for coaching positions?
Yes	73 (82)	46 (67.6)	16 (72.7)	.103
No	16 (18)	22 (32.4)	6 (27.3)	.103

Results

Organizational and Professional Background

Table 1 shows the respondent coaches’ organizational and professional backgrounds. Most respondents coached in interscholastic sport programs (36.5%), followed by public recreation (20.5%) and private nonprofit sport organizations (19.5%). Among the respondents, most coached football (31%), basketball (25.5%), or soccer (17%). The majority (61.5%) of coaches held paid coaching positions compared to volunteer positions (38.5%). Most youth sport programs were located in urban (50%) and suburban (36%) areas. Nearly 41% of the respondents reported that SHA occurs between coaches and athletes within their youth sport program (9.5% indicated “maybe”).

Presence of SHA Policies

The majority of coaches (n = 144; 72%) reported that their youth sport programs offer formal education or training about SHA. Of the 144 that had formal SHA education/training, close to 82% indicated it was required for all coaches within the program, while it was recommended in 15.3% of the other programs. In addition, if SHA education/training was compulsory within the program, almost 90% of respondents reported their program required periodic refresher training. With respect to policy regarding coach-athlete sexual relationships, 72.5% of the programs prohibited such relationships (including coach-athlete dating). Of those, the vast majority (70.5%) reported that such a regulation was found in a written policy. Similarly, three-quarters (n = 150) of the coaches reported their program had a code of conduct that was specifically designed to prevent SHA between coaches and athletes and 132 (88%) of the respondents indicated their acknowledgment was required via signature/consent form after reading the code. A larger portion (n = 147, 73.5%) of the coaches revealed their program has a formal complaint procedure for reporting SHA, but slightly less (67.5%) reported the presence of a disclosure process involving SHA. When coaches committed SHA against youth athletes, close to 80% (n = 159) of respondents indicated their youth sport programs could impose disciplinary actions against such coaches. Moreover, screening procedures for coaches, such as background checks, were required within 67.5% (n = 135) of the programs. Complete results are presented in Table 2.

Factors Associated with the Presence of SHA Policies

As shown in Table 3, youth sport programs’ SHA policies were examined with respect to the occurrence of SHA within respondents’ organizations, and several significant bivariate relationships were revealed based on Pearson’s Chi-squared test. First, a higher percentage of respondents reported that SHA occurs when their youth sport programs offered (i.e., required or recommended) formal SHA education/training compared to those with no education/training requirements (χ² = 13.16, df = 1, p < .001). When youth sport programs had a written policy prohibiting sexual relationships with athletes, a greater proportion of respondents reported the occurrence of SHA within their program compared to those without such a policy (χ² = 10.04, df = 1, p = .001). Similarly, having a code of conduct aimed at preventing SHA between coaches and athletes, as compared to those without, revealed a greater occurrence of SHA within those organizations (χ² = 8.29, df = 1, p = .003). Additionally, in the programs with formal complaint procedures for reporting SHA, a larger percentage of coaches reported SHA occurred within their program compared to those that did not have complaint procedures (χ² = 9.23, df = 1, p = .002). Likewise, increased cases of SHA were reported when youth sport organizations had a disclosure process (χ² = 17.47, df = 1, p < .001). Finally, youth sport programs that could impose disciplinary actions for coaches who committed SHA against athletes revealed higher proportions of SHA occurrence than programs that did not have such disciplinary actions (χ² = 10.77, df = 1, p = .001).

A bivariate analysis (i.e., Fisher’s exact test) was also conducted to examine whether a youth sport program’s location was associated with the presence of SHA policies. A higher percentage of youth sport programs in urban areas (82.7%), compared to suburban (69.1%) and rural areas (59.3%), offered formal SHA education/training (p = .019). A difference in SHA policies based on program location was also found with respect to the presence of a written policy prohibiting sexual relationships with athletes, in which programs located in urban areas (87.9%) had significantly more written policies compared to those in suburban (77.4%) and rural (54.2%) locations (p = .001). Likewise, a greater number of respondents from urban locations reported having a code of conduct aimed at preventing SHA between coaches and athletes (p = .015). Furthermore, a larger percentage of formal complaints (p = .047) and disclosure procedures for coaches (p = .008) were found in programs within urban areas compared to non-urban locations (See Table 4 for complete results).

Discussion

This exploratory study examined the presence of SHA policies in U.S. youth sport programs. With greater media and public scrutiny involving sexual misconduct within today’s society, youth sport organizations are increasingly expected and held to a higher standard of care in the prevention, early detection, and proper response to incidents of SHA. Our findings overall suggest that most youth sport programs have several SHA policies (e.g., education/training, prohibiting coach-athlete sexual relationships, reporting/disclosure process) as suggested by the literature (Mathews, 2017; Wurtele, 2012). Specifically, at least two-thirds of youth sport programs had all SHA policies that were included in the survey. Such findings overall are in accord with a consensus statement on SHA established by the IOC, which recommends that sport organizations develop policies and procedures for the prevention of SHA (IOC, 2007). Whereas the present study reveals promising results regarding SHA policy initiatives, continued efforts are necessary with respect to monitoring the implementation and evaluation of such policies. This is also an area that merits future research attention given the lack of systematic knowledge regarding the efficacy of policies in the prevention of SHA (Fasting, 2015).

Based on bivariate analysis, our results suggest a substantial number of coaches reported a higher incidence of SHA when several related policies were present within their organization (e.g., education/training, a written policy on coach-athlete sexual relationships, codes of conduct, complaint procedures, and disclosure process). Although this relationship needs to be further examined since we relied on the self-report of coaches and therefore may not account for a strong correlation, such a finding has several potential implications. First, the presence of policy may raise awareness of SHA-related issues overall, including helping coaches identify specific behaviors that constitute SHA. This may be particularly true since SHA behaviors include a wide spectrum of acts that are difficult to detect in the absence of awareness derived from policies and practices. For instance, grooming is an act often initiated by perpetrators of SHA to seduce young athletes, but it is often difficult to identify as an inappropriate behavior(s) since it does not exhibit obvious and/or severe forms of SHA (Brackenridge & Fasting, 2005). Our specific result on the positive relationship between the presence of formal education/training and increased incidence of SHA (χ² = 13.16, df = 1, p < .001) may further corroborate the increased awareness and subsequent reporting of the cases. Similar relationships also have been examined in previous studies, which suggest the number of reported cases of abuse or violence can increase once awareness is raised through policies, education, and/or other related efforts (Bright et al., 2022; Gibson & Leitenberg, 2000; Gushwa et al., 2019). Alternatively, it is also possible that an incident(s) of SHA may have initiated the need for the policies. In general, it is not uncommon to see organizations adopt risk-management policies and procedures as reactive measures after incurring harm or loss. Given the wide occurrence and increased scrutiny of SHA among sport organizations, it is imperative that youth sport programs be proactive in adopting and/or updating SHA policies. This is particularly important with the enactment of U.S. federal legislation (Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017), which holds youth sport programs to a higher standard of care regarding the prevention and management of SHA, and a lack of such policies and/or procedures could increase potential liability. Finally, it is also important not to disregard the possibility of the lack of policy efficacy on SHA prevention. There is a commonly held belief that the mere presence of policies may not always translate to intended outcomes. The lack of relationship between the presence of policies and SHA prevention is also highlighted in the literature (Budiselik et al., 2014; Quadara et al., 2015; Parent & El Hlimi, 2013). While we provide support for establishing sound SHA policies in an attempt to reduce incidents of SHA, it is important to acknowledge that such efforts should be done in conjunction with understanding the fundamental and systematic barriers to the successful implementation of the policy. It is widely mentioned that addressing SHA in sport organizations is challenging given the sensitive nature and negative connotations associated with sexual misconduct, which often leads to a lack of reinforcement of related policies and protective measures (Komaki & Tuakli-Wosornu, 2021). Sport, in particular, has been an entity that traditionally manifests power imbalances, subsequent justification of abusive behaviors, and often a hostile culture (Marie et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2020). This, in turn, can establish hegemonic social norms that may not only enable abusive behaviors but also create an organizational culture that ignores, denies, and/or fails to address SHA in general (Mountjoy et al., 2016). Specifically, the effects of a hegemonic culture within sport organizations can negatively impact the implementation of SHA policies such as complaint and disclosure procedures. Reporting an incident of SHA may be very challenging for vulnerable individuals, such as youth athletes, due to hegemonic social norms despite the presence of a policy. Previous studies found that reporting or disclosing perpetrator coaches’ behaviors can create embarrassment on behalf of the reporting athlete(s) (Fasting & Sand, 2015), while others worried about ruining the relationship with their coach (Hartill, 2014) and/or teammates. Furthermore, sport organizations may be less willing to reinforce and/or take action on disclosing SHA and perhaps keep it secret to avoid subsequent conflicts and/or negative public reactions (Bjørnseth & Szabo, 2018). Taken together, the cultural barriers of silence and reluctance to properly respond to abusive behaviors in sport must be addressed first in order for SHA policies and procedures to have their intended effects. Therefore, we recommend that youth sport stakeholders prioritize adopting and fostering an organizational culture that recognizes SHA as a prominent issue before undertaking explicit policy-related measures.

Based on a bivariate analysis, our findings suggest the location of youth sport programs may affect the presence of SHA policies. In general, youth sport programs located in more populated areas (urban) had more policy measures compared to those located in less populated areas (suburban and rural). While this finding may be explained by various factors and thus should be interpreted with a notable degree of caution, one potential contributing factor may be the wide budget disparities across youth sport programs. It is common to observe youth sport programs located in non-urban areas suffering from lower enrollment and/or lack of funding allocation (particularly in the case of rural areas). For those programs, the cost of developing and/or implementing SHA policies and procedures may be somewhat prohibitive, which can potentially lead to administrative shortcuts such as relinquishing SHA measures. For instance, according to our findings, youth sport organizations in suburban and rural locations had significantly less formal education/training and related policies compared to those in urban locations. Unfortunately, for some youth sport programs, adopting policy measures may only occur after an incident of SHA exposes them to public and/or legal scrutiny. Future research should explore the impact of budgetary discrepancies on SHA policies based on youth sport programs’ demographic and/or geographic factors, and adequate funding should be made available to further help establish sound SHA policies and procedures. On a related note, in England, government funds are equally distributed to youth sport organizations based on compliance with youth protection measures, including SHA prevention (Child Protection in Sport Unit, 2010). For instance, all national sport organizations and County Sport Partnerships in the country must comply with national guidelines on youth protection measures in order to receive funding from Sport England (the main sport funding organization in England). Similar funding mechanisms or partnerships should be explored in the U.S. in an attempt to address discrepancies in SHA policies and procedures among youth sport programs nationwide.

The present study’s generalizability is limited by several factors. The most notable limitation is the reliance on the self-reporting of coaches surveyed. Although coaches are key stakeholders who should be aware of administrative procedures (e.g., measures to protect against SHA), it is conceivable that some coaches may not be familiar with the presence of organizational policies or procedures on SHA, especially as youth sport programs have such a high turnover of coaches. Another limitation to be acknowledged is potential social desirability bias in which the presence of SHA policies may have been overestimated as coaches may be more inclined to overstate their organization’s policies by providing pro-social responses. Likewise, when coaches were asked to reveal the incidence of SHA within their organization, some may have been reluctant to report such due to the negative impact on their organization’s reputation despite being assured of anonymity via the study’s informed consent. Also, a selection bias may be of concern since the study was restricted to online panels of a market research firm (QRS), which may not be a heterogeneous subset of the population (e.g., socioeconomic status). Finally, the sample size of coaches (n = 200) was low for a survey study; however, it should be noted that research on sensitive topics such as SHA has previously acknowledged low sample size as an inherent limitation (Basile et al., 2022; Vertommen, Verhelle, Martijn, & De Boeck, 2021).

Conclusions

The present study explored youth sport programs’ policies that aim to prevent and properly respond to SHA. Data from this study suggest that most youth sport programs have several SHA policies, such as compulsory education and training, written policy and codes of conduct on coach-athlete sexual relationships, and formal complaint and disclosure procedures for reporting SHA. In regard to the association between the presence of SHA policies and increased self-reported incidents of SHA, it is possible that the awareness of SHA issues from the policy may have influenced increased reporting. Another interpretation of this relationship is the lack of the policies’ efficacy in the prevention of SHA. Such findings merit greater attention in evaluating the efficacy of SHA policies, perhaps with emphasis on addressing cultural barriers that may inhibit effective implementation. It is also warranted that future avenues focus on improving awareness and knowledge of SHA policies among all youth sport stakeholders. This would include facilitating SHA-specific training/education of youth athletes, parents, coaches, and other relevant sport stakeholders (e.g., trainers, game officials, and sport managers). Finally, equitable resources and funding should be allocated to all youth sport programs nationwide since our findings suggest a significant disparity in SHA policies among youth sport programs of different demographic characteristics. While developing and implementing SHA policies is a step in the right direction, it is important to acknowledge that SHA is a complex, systematic, and structural problem that requires a formative intervention from sport stakeholders and other authorities responsible for youth protection in general (policymakers, school personnel, law enforcement, governmental officials, etc.).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sungwon Kim

Daniel P. Connaughton

Author Biographies

Sungwon Kim, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Sport Management at St. John's University, NY. Kim’s primary research agenda centers on improving interventions to promote safe environments for youth sport/recreation participants using a multidisciplinary approach (e.g., legal, policy, risk management, and health promotion).

Daniel P. Connaughton, EdD, is a professor in the College of Health and Human Performance at the University of Florida. His research focuses on the study of law, safety, and risk management in sport and recreation. Connaughton is a Research Fellow with the Sport and Recreation Law Association and SHAPE America.

References

Alexander

Stafford

Lewis

(2011). The experiences of children participating in organized sport in the U.K. NSPCC.

Allen

J. B.

Shaw

(2013). An interdisciplinary approach to examining the working conditions of women coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 8(1), 1–17.

Armour

(2023, May 22). U.S. Center for SafeSport was created to protect athletes from abuse. But is it working? USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2023/05/22/safesport-goal-protect-athletes-abuse-criticism/70236315007/

Basile

K. C.

Espelage

D. L.

Ingram

K. M.

Simon

T. R.

Berrier

F. L.

(2022). The role of middle school sports involvement in understanding high school sexual violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1514–1539.

Bidgood

Perez-Pena

(2017, March 24). Former Penn State President Found Guilty in Sandusky Abuse Case. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/us/graham-panier-jerry-sandusky-penn-state.html#:~:text=On%20its%20second%20day%20of,Mr

Bjørnseth

Szabo

(2018). Sexual violence against children in sports and exercise: A systematic literature review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27(4), 365–385.

Brackenridge

C. H.

(2002). “. . . so what?” Attitudes of the voluntary sector towards child protection in sports clubs. Managing Leisure, 7(2), 103–123.

Brackenridge

C. H.

Fasting

(2005). The grooming process in sport: Narratives of sexual harassment and abuse. Auto/Biography, 13(1), 33–52.

Brackenridge

C. H.

Rhind

(2014). Elite child athlete welfare: International perspectives. Brunel University Press.

10.

Bright

M. A.

Roehrkasse

Masten

Nauman

Finkelhor

(2022). Child abuse prevention education policies increase reports of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 134, 105932.

11.

Bringer

J. D.

Brackenridge

C. H.

Johnston

L. H.

(2006). Swimming coaches’ perceptions of sexual exploitation in sport: A preliminary model of role conflict and role ambiguity. The Sport Psychologist, 20(4), 465–479.

12.

Budiselik

Crawford

Chung

(2014). The Australian Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse: Dreaming of child safe organizations? Social Sciences, 3(3), 565–583.

13.

Child Protection in Sport Unit. (2010). A call to action: Refreshing the vision and renewing the call to all organizations to safeguard children and young people in and through sport. https://thecpsu.org.uk/

14.

Coaching Association of Canada. (2020). Code of conduct with disciplinary procedures. https://coach.ca/sites/default/files/2020-02/CAC_Code_of_Conduct_EN.pdf

15.

Evans

Alesia

Kwiatkowski

(2018, February 8). A 20-year toll: 368 gymnasts allege sexual exploitation. IndyStar. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/12/15/20-year-toll-368-gymnasts-allege-sexual-exploitation/95198724/

16.

Evans

Benbow

F. H.

(2021, July 23). As Olympians compete for gold in Tokyo, USA gymnastics may never recover from Larry Nassar. IndyStar. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2021/07/23/usa-gymnastics-larry-nassar-tokyo-olympics/7918054002/

17.

Fasting

(2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On sexual harassment research and policy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(4–5), 437–441.

18.

Fasting

Chroni

Hervik

S. E.

Knorre

(2011). Sexual harassment in sport toward females in three European countries. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(1), 76–89.

19.

Fasting

Sand

T. S.

(2015). Narratives of sexual harassment experiences in sport. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 7(5), 573–588.

20.

Fasting

Sand

T. S.

Sisjord

M. K.

(2018). Coach–athlete sexual relationships: Coaches’ opinions. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(4), 463–470.

21.

Gaedicke

Schäfer

Hoffmann

Ohlert

Allroggen

Hartmann-Tews

Rulofs

(2021). Sexual violence and the coach-athlete relationship—A scoping review from sport sociological and sport psychological perspectives. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, 643707.

22.

Gibson

L. E.

Leitenberg

(2000). Child sexual abuse prevention programs: Do they decrease the occurrence of child sexual abuse? Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(9), 1115–1125.

23.

Gushwa

Bernier

Robinson

(2019). Advancing child sexual abuse prevention in schools: An exploration of the effectiveness of the enough! Online training program for K-12 teachers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28(2), 144–159.

24.

Harris

A. J.

Terry

K. J.

(2019). Child sexual abuse in organizational settings: A research framework to advance policy and practice. Sexual Abuse, 31(6), 635–642.

25.

Hartill

(2014). Exploring narratives of boyhood sexual subjection in male-sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 31(1), 23–43.

26.

Hartill

Lang

. (2018). Reports of child protection and safeguarding concerns in sport and leisure settings: An analysis of English local authority data between 2010 and 2015. Leisure Studies, 37(5), 479–499.

27.

International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE). (2012). Codes of conduct for coaches. http://www.icce.ws/_assets/files/projects/Codes_of_Conduct_2012_study.pdf

28.

International Olympic Committee (IOC). (2007). Consensus statement on sexual harassment and abuse in sport. http://www.olympic.org/documents/reports/en/en_report_1125.pdf

29.

Johansson

(2022). From policy to practice: Measures against sexual abuse by Swedish sports federations. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 841653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.841653

30.

Johansson

Kenttä

Andersen

M. B.

(2016). Desires and taboos: Sexual relationships between coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(4), 589–598.

31.

Johansson

Lundqvist

(2017). Sexual harassment and abuse in coach-athlete relationships in Sweden. European Journal for Sport and Society, 14(2), 117–137.

32.

Joy

E. A.

Herring

S. A.

Nelson

Cohen

Dugan

S. A.

Flatt

Goldfarb

Greinig

Koontz

J. S.

Schmitz

K. H.

Wagner

(2021). Sexual violence in sport: Expanding awareness and knowledge for sports medicine providers. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 20(10), 531–539.

33.

Kaufman

K. L.

Erooga

Mathews

McConnell

(2019). Recommendations for preventing child sexual abuse in youth-serving organizations: Implications from an Australian Royal Commission review of the literature. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(20), 4199–4224.

34.

Kerr

Stirling

MacPherson

(2014). A critical examination of child protection initiatives in sport contexts. Social Sciences, 3(4), 742–757.

35.

Kim

Connaughton

D. P.

Hedlund

D. P.

(2023). Youth sport coaches’ perceptions of sexually inappropriate behaviors and intimate coach-athlete relationships. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 32(4), 397–417.

36.

Kirby

Greaves

Hankinsky

(2000). The dome of silence: Sexual harassment and abuse in sport. Zed Books.

37.

Komaki

J. L.

Tuakli-Wosornu

Y. A.

(2021). Using carrots not sticks to cultivate a culture of safeguarding in sport. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, 625410.

38.

Lang

Hartill

(2014). Safeguarding, child protection and abuse in sport: International perspectives in research, policy and practice. Routledge.

39.

Leahy

(2008). Editor’s note: Understanding and preventing sexual harassment and abuse in sport: Implications for the sport psychology profession [Editorial]. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 351–353.

40.

Ljungqvist

Mountjoy

Brackenridge

Arrington

Blauwet

Carska-Sheppard

Budgett

(2008). IOC Consensus Statement on sexual harassment and abuse in sport. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 442–449.

41.

Malkin

Johnston

Brackenridge

(2000). A critical evaluation of training needs for child protection in U.K. sports. Managing Leisure, 5(3), 151–160.

42.

Marie

S. G.

Kari

Åse

(2021). An Eliasian analysis of students’ views on guidelines against sexual harassment and abuse in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 57(7), 1078–1094.

43.

Mathews

(2017). Optimizing implementation of reforms to better prevent and respond to child sexual abuse in institutions: Insights from public health, regulatory theory, and Australia’s Royal Commission. Child Abuse & Neglect, 74, 86–98.

44.

Mountjoy

(2019). “Only by speaking out can we create lasting change”: What can we learn from the Dr. Larry Nassar tragedy? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(1), 57–60.

45.

Mountjoy

Brackenridge

Arrington

Blauwet

Carska-Sheppard

Fasting

Kirby

Leahy

Marks

Martin

Starr

Tiivas

Budgett

(2016). International Olympic Committee consensus statement: Harassment and abuse (non-accidental violence) in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(17), 1019–1029.

46.

Noble

Vermillion

(2014). Youth sport administrators’ perceptions and knowledge of organizational policies on child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 38, 52–57.

47.

Nurse

A. M.

(2018). Coaches and child sexual abuse prevention training: Impact on knowledge, confidence, and behavior. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 395–400.

48.

Parent

Demers

(2011). Sexual abuse in sport: A model to prevent and protect athletes. Child Abuse Review, 20(2), 120–133.

49.

Parent

El Hlimi

(2013). Athlete protection in Quebec’s sport system: Assessments, problems, and challenges. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 37(3), 284–296.

50.

Parent

Vaillancourt-Morel

M. P

. (2021). Magnitude and risk factors for interpersonal violence experienced by Canadian teenagers in the sport context. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 45(6), 528–544.

51.

Quadara

Nagy

Higgins

Siegel

(2015). Conceptualizing the prevention of child sexual abuse: Final report (Research Report No. 33). Australian Institute of Family Studies.

52.

Reid

S. M.

(2018, February 16). 100s of USA swimmers were sexually abused for decades and the people in charge knew and ignored it, investigation finds. The Orange County Register. https://www.ocregister.com/2018/02/16/investigation-usa-swimming-ignored-sexual-abuse -for-decades/

53.

Roberts

Sojo

Grant

(2020). Organizational factors and non-accidental violence in sport: A systematic review. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 8–27.

54.

Safe4Athletes. (2013). Handbook. https://sabers.senri.ed.jp/uploads/2/1/1/7/21174716/safe4athletes_handbook_oct13.pdf

55.

Sports Coach UK. (2009). Code of practice for sports coaches: Rights/relationships/responsibilities. https://www.sports-coachuk.org/sites/default/files/coaches-code-of-practice_0.pdf

56.

Stefansen

Solstad

G. M.

Strandbu

Å.

Hansen

(2019). Young athletes’ perceptions of coach-athlete sexual relationships: Engaging with competing ethics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 36(4), 339–346.

57.

Stirling

A. E.

Kerr

G. A.

(2009). Abused athletes’ perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship. Sport in Society, 12(2), 227–239.

58.

Team USA. (2017). United States Olympic Committee coaching ethics code. http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Karate/Officials-and-Coaches/Coaches-Resources/USOC-Coaching-Ethics-Code

59.

Timon

C. E.

Dallam

S. J.

Hamilton

M. A.

Liu

Kang

J. S.

Ortiz

A. J.

Gelles

R. J.

(2022). Child sexual abuse of elite athletes: Prevalence, perceptions, and mental health. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 31(6), 672–691.

60.

Tippin

(2003). Out of bounds: Sexual abuse by coaches’ violation of athletes, their trust. K-State Perspectives. http://www.kstate.edu/media/webzine/0202/sexualabuse.html

61.

Toftegaard Nielsen

. (2001). The forbidden zone: Intimacy, sexual relations and misconduct in the relationship between coaches and athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36(2), 165–182.

62.

UK Coaching. (2023). Safeguarding children policy. https://www.ukcoaching.org/getattachment/8e5e087f-8cf3-494d-96a4-b361e7927718/attachment.aspx

63.

U.S. Center for SafeSport (2023, June 3). Our Story. U.S. Center for SafeSport. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/about/our-story/

64.

Young

P. C.

Wendit

J. T.

(2017). Governance in sports governing bodies: A risk management perspective. International Sports Law Review, 12, 194–207.

65.

Vertommen

Schipper-van Veldhoven

Wouters

Kampen

J. K.

Brackenridge

C. H.

Rhind

D. J.

Neels

Van Den Eede

(2016). Interpersonal violence against children in sport in the Netherlands and Belgium. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 223–236.

66.

Vertommen

Verhelle

Martijn

F. M.

De Boeck

(2021). Static and dynamic recidivism risk factors of people who have committed child sex offenses in sport. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, 624548.

67.

Wilinsky

C. L.

McCabe

(2020). A review of emotional and sexual abuse of elite child athletes by their coaches. Sports Coaching Review, 10(1), 84–109.

68.

Wurtele

S. K.

(2012). Preventing the sexual exploitation of minors in youth-serving organizations. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2442–2453.