Abstract
The community sport environment presents many unique challenges for safeguarding children and responding to abuse occurring in sport. These include the largely volunteer workforce, the systemic normalisation of abuse, and the existence of “the sport ethic.” The aim of this study was to examine the factors that enable or hinder individual volunteers to respond to child abuse in sport, in order to inform the development and delivery of targeted support and safeguarding education initiatives for community sport sector. Community sport volunteers from Australia were invited to complete an online questionnaire. The questions were based on the COM-B theory of behaviour change and were designed to assess their capabilities (C), opportunities (O) and motivations (M) to effectively respond to a disclosure of child abuse in sport (behaviour, B). 218 respondents completed the full survey. Two-thirds of respondents were women, and the mean age was 50 years old. The motivations were high, with capabilities and opportunities both lower. The lowest capabilities were those related to trauma-informed care, with less than half of the respondents knowing what a trauma-informed response is and even fewer agreeing that they could apply the principles to a response. In terms of opportunities, only 55% believed their club made it clear that responding to abuse is part of their role and 20% felt they could face repercussions if they raised an issue of child abuse. Moreover, less than 40% of respondents agree that the current system for reporting child abuse in sport is effective. While volunteers are highly motivated to respond to abuse, they believe the system is not effective and that they are not supported with appropriate resourcing and social support. The low capabilities, particularly in responding to a disclosure, and awareness of resources are elements that should be explicitly targeted in education/training initiatives.
Keywords
Introduction
Abuse in sport is a pressing global issue that demands urgent attention from governments and sports organisations; however, tackling this problem is challenging and further complicated within the volunteer-driven community sport context in Australia. In recent decades, governments and national and international sport federations have developed safeguarding in sport policies, sometimes coordinated through the creation of national bodies such as Sport Integrity Australia, the Child Protection in Sport Unit in the United Kingdom, and others. In Australia, the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations were introduced in 2019 at the federal level, but state and territory actions in terms of legislating and implementing these have varied considerably. While there have not been reviews on the effectiveness of these initiatives in Australia, two international studies exploring Canadian safeguarding in sport policies have found that they lack congruency with empirical research and have not been evaluated (Kerr et al., 2014; MacPherson et al., 2022). Despite repeated calls for evidence-based education and other prevention initiatives (Parent et al., 2024), very little is known about community sport’s capacity to support the promotion of child safe cultures. Such information is essential to inform the development of targeted and contextualised interventions to prevent abuse in sport and its long-term health consequences. Specifically, adults’ ability to recognise and respond to abuse is central to a public health approach to child maltreatment prevention (Baker et al., 2021). Drawing on Mathews’ (2022) definitions of prevention levels, we argue that early detection (secondary prevention) and timely response (secondary/tertiary prevention) are essential for stopping abuse, reducing long-term harm, and preventing recurrence. Secondary prevention contributes to safer, more inclusive sport environments and tertiary prevention focuses on long-term recovery, justice for victims, and accountability from perpetrators. Ideally, adults in sport should be equipped to intervene early through effective recognition and response. However, this is often not the case (Woessner et al., 2024). As community sport clubs are primarily managed by volunteers, understanding community sport volunteers’ capabilities to recognise and respond to diverse forms of child abuse in sport, and the social and structural factors supporting or hindering volunteers to do so effectively is critical to inform the development of prevention strategies.
In the Australian context, previous research has identified high rates of all forms of abuse of children participating in community sport (McPherson, Atkins, et al., 2015; McPherson et al., 2016; Pankowiak et al., 2022). Moreover, a recent follow-up study found that less than half of adults who experienced abuse in community sport as children ever disclosed their experience to an adult; and, for those who did, the experience of disclosing was one that left many feeling dismissed and ignored, and rarely resulted in any changes within the sport club (Woessner et al., 2024). These data and other studies internationally (Parent & Fortier, 2017; Vertommen et al., 2022) clearly speak to the wicked and yet silenced problem of abuse in sport (Park et al., 2024). Understanding the depth of this issue requires not only recognising its prevalence but also grappling with the profound and often lasting impacts abuse can have on those who experience it within sporting environments. These impacts can include psychological distress (Willson et al., 2023), loss of trust in adults and institutions (Willson et al., 2022) decreased sport performance (Gattis & Moore, 2022), and dropout from sport altogether (Battaglia et al., 2024).
Despite these serious and long-term consequences for sport participants, the implementation of safeguarding measures, particularly within the community sport context, remains limited and inconsistent. A study of over 8,000 German community sport clubs found that only half of all the clubs considered prevention of sexual violence as a relevant topic for their policies and practices, and that most clubs had only implemented two to three prevention measures (out of a possible total of 14; Rulofs et al., 2019). Recent work in Australia from outside the sport context highlighted how the Australian community vastly underestimates the prevalence of child abuse in society, lacks knowledge and awareness of the most prevalent types of abuse and, perhaps most concerningly, that one in six respondents believed children were sometimes responsible for the abuse they receive from others and adults should not be blamed for abuse of children if it happened because they were angry (Tucci & Mitchell, 2022). Even when respondents suspected child abuse, 17% took no action, largely because they were unsure if it constituted abuse or because they did not know what to do (Tucci & Mitchell, 2022). These attitudes and knowledge within society have an undeniable impact on the beliefs and actions within community sport. However, in sport there is also a unique ethic (“sport ethic”) or a culture that normalises and enables abuse of children (Hughes & Coakley, 1991; Parent, Radziszewski, Gillard, et al., 2024; Roberts et al., 2020). The sport ethic is a set of norms that place expectations on athletes and coaches to strive for distinction, make sacrifices for the game, accept risks and play through pain, and refuse to accept limits (Hughes & Coakley, 1991). Importantly, several elements of these norms explicitly or implicitly link with now established definitions of sport-specific child abuse (forced to play while injured, pressured to prioritise sport over family/friends, etc.; Tuakli-Wosornu et al., 2024). As a result, children may be exposed to abuse under the guise of discipline, commitment, or toughness, making it harder for them or even adults around them to identify child abuse in sport.
Sport administrators have suggested the need for universal frameworks for promoting safe sport, due to a predominance of hegemonic masculine narratives (cultural ideals that prioritise dominance, aggression, and control as central to male identity), widespread interpersonal violence (abuse), and controlling coaching behaviours (Gurgis & Kerr, 2021). It is likely that the broader societal attitudes, combined with the entrenched normalisation of diverse types of child abuse in the sport culture, would make both recognition and response to child abuse in sport even trickier than in other contexts. The pervasive masculinised norms and innate hierarchical power structures of clubs could also influence individual volunteers’ perceived ability to respond to abuse in sport, particularly if they are women or not in formal leadership roles, who may feel less empowered, less supported, or fear backlash for speaking up (Ryan & Dickson, 2016). However, no study to date has explicitly explored this. Moreover, while there have been national policy developments in the child safeguarding context in Australia in sport (i.e. the establishment of Sport Integrity Australia) and in society more broadly (e.g. development of the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations at the federal level), these policies are often very limited in their remit, and there is little known about their actual implementation, which is fraught with challenges, chief among these being the volunteer workforce in community sport (Hammond et al., 2020).
Improving the identification and response to child abuse by volunteers in community sport requires more than written policies and procedures. It requires clarity and direction for meaningful behaviour change, and, in the community sport environment, it relies heavily on the behavioural response of the individual volunteer receiving the disclosure or witnessing the abuse. The COM-B theory provides a framework for understanding and influencing individual behaviour change by identifying the key conditions necessary for change in an identified behaviour. The strength of the COM-B theory lies in its focus on behaviour as an outcome, as it seeks to directly address the question of “what needs to change for this behaviour (effective responses to child abuse) to occur.” The COM-B posits that for an individual to perform a behaviour (B), they need three essential components: the knowledge and skills (capability, C), the physical and social supports (opportunity, O), and beliefs and perceived responsibility (motivation, M; Michie et al., 2011). While a few safeguarding studies have explored community sport interventions using the reasoned action approach (RAA), closely linked to the theory of planned behaviour, the RAA lacks a focus on the environmental context, and emphasises intention, assuming intention to act leads to an actual behavioural act (Verhelle et al., 2024). In contrast, the COM-B theory uses a behaviourally grounded approach, seeking to understand not just whether volunteers intend to act, but whether they can and will. This theory is particularly well-suited to the context of safeguarding in community sport, as it allows for a comprehensive examination of the factors that enable or hinder individuals from recognising and responding to abuse in sport. For example, individuals may possess the necessary knowledge to recognise abuse (capability) but feel unsupported by their organisation (lack of opportunity) or believe the system itself is broken or will fail them or the child (lack of motivation). The COM-B theory posits that a failure in any one of the elements could result in the individual not being able to effectively perform the behaviour. While COM-B has not been applied in the child abuse in sport context, it has been used to explore how sport coaches facilitate positive youth development (Adriaens et al., 2024; Preston et al., 2019) and to inform the development of interventions on violence and abuse in other sectors (Gilchrist et al., 2021). There is a clear need for an evidence-based, and theory-driven understanding of the current capabilities, opportunities and motivations of the volunteer workforce to recognise and respond to diverse types of child abuse in sport to answer and inform the continued calls for the development and implementation of safeguarding measures/interventions (Parent, Radziszewski, Aghedo, et al., 2024; Tuakli-Wosornu et al., 2024).
Therefore, the primary aim of the study was to measure the current capabilities, opportunities and motivations of people volunteering at the community level in Australian sport to respond to child abuse. A secondary aim was to explore if different demographic variables, especially those relating to perceived or actual power/influence in the club (gender, volunteer role, etc.) led to differing COM scores.
Methods
This study was approved by the Victoria University human research ethics committee (HRE24-091).
Participants
All current volunteers in youth community sport in Australia were eligible to participate in this project. Invitations to participate were distributed via: (a) the researchers’ networks on social media (LinkedIn and X), (b) the email distribution lists of key national and state government and sport organisations, (c) paid advertising on Facebook through the university accounts, (d) direct emails to individuals involved in prior research projects who consented to be re-contacted. The email/advertisement included a brief description of the study and a link to the online questionnaire. The landing page listed the full study details and included the consent form.
Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible, participants were required to be over the age of 18 and a current volunteer in youth (under 18 years old) community sport. A volunteer was defined as an individual who participates in community sport in a non-playing role without receiving a salary; those who receive a small reimbursement, but not a salary, were considered eligible. An exemplar list of eligible volunteer roles was given and included, for example: coach, team manager, canteen staff, trainer (etc.).
Instrument (Questionnaire)
A bespoke online questionnaire was developed by the research team. The questionnaire comprised of two main sections: demographics and COM-B measures. Demographic questions focused on the individuals’ identity (age, gender, cultural background), their sport experiences (as participant and a volunteer), and their roles in sport (volunteer role). The second section was developed based on the COM-B theory of behaviour change. The COM-B questionnaire was designed to examine the capabilities (C), opportunities (O) and motivations (M) of sport volunteers to effectively respond (B- behaviour) to abuse of children in sport. While the focal behaviour was the delivery of an effective response, we acknowledged that in order to respond, individuals needed first to be able to recognise child abuse. An initial pool of questions was developed by the research team (with expertise in safeguarding, disclosure of abuse and trauma-informed responses, etc.) and informed by a rapid literature review of relevant publications exploring recognition and response to child abuse within and outside of the sport context. The content of the questions was largely developed from a study by Mathews et al. (2009), which explored teacher capabilities to detect and respond to child sexual abuse in an educational setting. This, as well as the author’s publications in the child abuse in sport context and other key texts in the sport literature, facilitated the content development (Gillard et al., 2022; Pankowiak et al., 2022; Parent, 2011; Woessner et al., 2024). The questions were critically revised using an iterative process within the research team meetings to ensure that there were sufficient items to address the C, O and M domains. The questionnaire was then distributed to three individuals who currently volunteer or have previously volunteered in Australian sport. Detailed feedback was sought on question clarity, flow of the questionnaire and completion time. Questions were further revised following this feedback with the final questionnaire consisting of 37 questions grouped into the three COM-B domains (C = 10, O = 10, M = 17). Each landing page of the online questionnaire included a detailed description of what constitutes abuse in sport including brief examples. Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 neither agree nor disagree, 4 agree, 5 strongly agree), with four items reverse scored. The questionnaire showed strong internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha above .9 for both the full questionnaire and all C, O, and M sub-factor scales. At the end of the questionnaire, we also asked participants the following open-ended question: “Is there anything else you would like to add in relation to your capability, motivations and opportunities to effectively respond to a child telling you they or another child in your sporting club has experienced physical, psychological, or sexual abuse in the context of the sport club?”
Sample Demographics
There were a total of 360 respondents to the survey. Nine were removed due to non-consent (the landing page had an “I consent” and an “I do not consent” option); 48 did not meet eligibility criteria; 33 did not input a response after consent, and 3 were removed due to suspicious activity identified through Qualtrics software analytics (completion time within minutes of starting). This left us with 267 respondents. Of these, 218 completed the full COM-B questionnaire and they comprise the final sample for this manuscript. Participant characteristics are detailed below in Table 1.
Participant Demographics.
Note. In some instances, the total number does not align with the gender breakdowns if an individual did not provide a gender or selected a gender other than man or woman.
While most volunteers indicated they volunteered across two sports, the most prevalent “primary” sports were football (soccer; 17.5%), Australian football (AFL, 15.5%), basketball (11.7%) and athletics (9.2%). Of the 218 respondents, 143 (65%) had undertaken training/education on how to recognise/respond to child abuse in sport in the last 12 months. A total of 35 individuals (16%) indicated that they had experience in making a formal report of child abuse in sport to their sport organisation or a government agency. Another 17 individuals (7.8%) responded that they had previously suspected child abuse in community sport but decided not to report it.
Analysis
All questionnaire responses were analysed using IBM SPSS (Version 29). Frequencies were calculated for participant demographics and frequencies of agreement (“strongly agree” and “agree”) for all C, O, M items. Mean scores were calculated for each participant for the C, O, and M sub-factor scales in the following manner: a total score was calculated by summing all individual items within each sub-factor scale and then this score was divided based on the number of individual questions within each subscale (C = 10, O = 10, M = 17). This produced mean scores ranging between 1 and 5 for each sub-factor scale. The differences between groups of demographic variables (gender, sport participation history and volunteer role) were then assessed using two-way independent samples t-tests (p < .05) between the mean scores of the C, O, M sub-factor scales as well as the summed scores of the three sub-factor scales (total COM). The open-ended responses (n = 58) to the survey were analysed using a deductive thematic analysis, facilitated by NVivo (Version 12, developed by Lumivero) (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019; Michie et al., 2011). The guiding framework for the analysis was the COM-B model, which we applied deductively, allowing us to further explore open-ended responses within the same framework as the survey responses. The responses were coded into the relevant COM-B domain, with some longer responses being coded across multiple COM-B domains. The results for these are presented within each sub-factor of the C, O, and M sections below.
Positionality
The authors acknowledge that we each bring our own experiences within our contributions to this piece of work, and that these experiences influence not only the questions we ask, but also our interpretations of the findings and the implications we draw. The lead author (MW) acknowledges their own lived, loved and learned experience of abuse in sport, drawing from the definitions provided by Killackey (2023). The authorship team brings diverse experiences and multidisciplinary perspectives to understanding and addressing abuse in sport, which influenced the development of the survey items. Our own personal experiences of, as well as our research foci on the intersecting issues of gender equity, discrimination, child abuse and mental health also influence our work (e.g. our inclusion of trauma-informed care within the survey). Amongst this diversity, we also acknowledge that our own positionality and identities are still comprised of solely white, western, cis-women researchers. While our research does not focus specifically on the gendered nature of abuse in sport, the fact that violence is inherently gendered may help explain the alignment of our authorship with patterns observed in related scholarship (Sherry et al., 2024).
Results
First, we present an overarching summary of key findings (Figure 1), followed by a more detailed breakdown of the overall COM scores as well as the subfactor scores and respective qualitative comments.
Summary of key findings.
Total COM and Sub-factor Scales
The overall COM questionnaire, as well as all three sub-factor scales (C, O, M) total score had a left skew of the data (towards the higher end of agreement on the scale). The range for the total COM score was 5.46 to 15 with a mean and standard deviation (SD) of 11.7 ± 1.6. The three sub-factor scales had a similar left skew.
Capabilities for Responding to Child Abuse in Sport
The mean score for capability sub-factor scale items was 3.7 ± 0.7. The percent agreement for the capability items was largely 70% or higher (Figure 2), with the exception of the three questions relating to understanding and application of the trauma-informed principles, which all had less than 50% agreement. Despite high overall agreement, the distribution of responses that had strongly agreed only ranged between 15% and 35.3% across all questions. Less than half of the respondents knew what constitutes a trauma-informed response and even fewer felt they could apply those principles to a response.
Frequencies of agreement within individual item scores for capabilities.
Many of the open-ended survey responses related to capabilities were focused on the individual’s background/education and how that contributed to their knowledge, as opposed to sport-specific training. There were retired police officers, high school teachers, former elite coaches, medical practitioners and psychologists who felt their professions were key to their capabilities. For example, one share that their “background as a teacher gives me the confidence to respond to abuse.” Others shared that previous experience with reporting helped them in knowing what to do. One participant expressed concerns around believing children, linking back to an explicit question in the survey saying, “Just be wary of people putting words in the mouths of children to make it appear abuse has occurred when it hasn’t.”
Opportunities for Responding to Child Abuse in Sport
The mean score across the opportunity sub-factor scale was 3.8 ± 0.7. Figure 3 shows the percent agreement for the opportunities sub-factor scale items ranged between 50% and 80%. Similar to capabilities, the agreement distribution largely favoured those who “agreed,” with a much lower percentage of the respondents selecting strongly agree. Only 55% agreed that their club makes it clear that responding to child abuse in sport is a part of their role. Just over one in three respondents shared that they did not have access to policies/resources to help them respond to a disclosure and one in four did not have access to policies/resources to help them report child abuse in sport. One in five individuals believed they could face repercussions from their organisation if they raised issues of child abuse in sport and 10% said they would be reluctant to report child abuse in sport because of what the parents or coaches might do.
Frequencies of agreement within individual item scores for opportunities.
The open-ended comments related to opportunities (or lack thereof) spoke to a normalised culture of abuse, fears people had regarding potential repercussions from those around them, or an absence of sport-specific education, resources or support within their clubs. One participant shared that “In the 12 odd years of active coaching and refereeing, I have never had a face-to-face, or group induction to the child reporting responsibilities I have in my sport roles.” Another similarly shared that while they knew policies existed, “they have not been highlighted or communicated to me as part of signing up to be a coach.” Speaking to the broader sport context outside of their club, one participant also shared that “despite words and advertising, peak organisations don’t provide enough support to associations.”
Motivations for Responding to Child Abuse in Sport
The motivation sub-factor scale had the highest mean score 4.2 ± 0.5 (Figure 4). Motivations for responding (with the exception of one item) were all above 75%. In contrast to the other sub-factor scales, there was a higher proportion of “strongly agree” responses within this sub-factor. Less than 40% of respondents agree that the current system for reporting child abuse in sport is effective at addressing the problem and 11% felt that it was a waste of time to report because no one will follow-up on it. One in four respondents felt overwhelmed at the thought of responding or reporting child abuse in sport. Over 95% of respondents agreed that it was important to report child abuse in sport and 85% agreed that knowing how to respond to a child disclosing was part of their role.
Frequencies of agreement within individual item scores for motivations.
In the open comments, participants shared high levels of motivation, sharing that their lived or personal experiences as well as their moral responsibility, drove them to pursue training and respond appropriately. One participant wrote that “I have lived experience and will always report child abuse in my role or as a general member of the community.” Others shared how past negative experiences of abuse or reporting within the sport organisation led them to avoid or delay reporting. One person shared that “Last season, a coach made the entire [redacted sport for anonymity] team walk across a player’s back as a punishment. I spoke up. My child was then not selected . . . [the] coach was not stood down.” Another shared: “I have indicated that I thought the way a parent spoke to a child was unacceptable (yelling in their face), but other club members didn’t agree at the time . . . I didn’t feel comfortable taking it further based on this one interaction”.
Demographic and Sport Participation Variables Differences in COMs
Differences in COMs based on key demographic variables were also explored for: gender (man/woman), their volunteer role (board member/not and safeguarding role/not) and their previous completion of sport safeguarding education courses (within the last 12 months)
Gender and COMs
There was not a significant difference between men and women in the total COM questionnaire score, but men had significantly (p = .007) higher scores in the opportunities sub-factor scale (4.0 ± 0.6) compared to women (3.7 ± 0.8).
Sport Club Volunteer Roles
Those individuals in safeguarding or member protection roles had significantly higher total COMs scores (12.6 ± 1.2) than those not in safeguarding roles (11.4 ± 1.6). They also had significantly higher scores for all sub-factor (C, O, M) scales (p < .01).
There were no significant differences in total COMs or in the capabilities and motivations sub-factor scales for those in board member roles compared to those not in those roles, but those in board member roles reported higher opportunities (p < .001, 4.0 ± 0.7) than those not on the board (3.7 ± 0.7).
Sport Safeguarding Education
Those individuals who completed a training/education (e.g. online course, interactive workshop, etc.) on how to recognise/respond to child abuse in sport in the last 12 months had significantly higher (p < .001) total COMs (12.2 ± 1.4) than those who had not (10.8 ± 1.6). They also had significantly higher capabilities (4.0 ± 0.7 compared to 2.2 ± 0.7), opportunities (4.0 ± 0.7 compared to 3.4 ± 0.8) and motivations (4.3 ± 0.4 compared to 4.0 ± 0.5) than those who had not undergone training.
Discussion
This study is the first to show that although Australian community sport volunteers are highly motivated to recognise and respond to child abuse, they lack some of the necessary capabilities, as well as access to resources, training, and social support within their sport organisations to recognise abuse and respond appropriately. These gaps highlight the need for more targeted capacity-building strategies that go beyond individual training (motivation and capabilities) to address systemic and cultural practices in sport (opportunities) that prevent effective recognition of and response to child abuse in sport.
The percent agreement for volunteers’ perceived capabilities to recognise and respond to child abuse in sport was generally high, but the majority of individuals only “agreed” with the statements, with a much smaller proportion (15–35%) selecting “strongly agree.” This response pattern suggests that while many participants may feel they possess some capabilities for most of the items, far fewer have a high confidence in them. This could also indicate a need for more experiential learning, including training/education that involves role-playing and rehearsal rather than the more typical didactic educational approach. These findings are similar to a broader community study by Tucci and Mitchell (2022) on knowledge and attitudes towards child sexual abuse. They also found that respondents lacked confidence in recognising child abuse and in knowing what to do in the moment. A particularly concerning finding within our study’s capability sub-factor scale was that 20% of respondents did not agree with the statement that it is very rare for children to lie about being abused. While the rate is substantially lower than the Tucci and Mitchell (2022) study, where 67% of Australian community members believed children make up stories about being abused, it is still problematic that one in five of the community sport volunteers hold this view. It highlights the need for widespread education in the community regarding child abuse disclosures.
The lowest agreement levels in the capability sub-factor scale were those relating to trauma-informed care. This is perhaps unsurprising given that while the principles of trauma-informed care have existed for some time (SAMHSA, 2014), their suggested application in sport has only arisen in recent years (McMahon, Lang, et al., 2023; McMahon, McGannon, et al., 2023). The high prevalence of abuse in Australian sport (Leahy et al., 2002; McPherson, Long, et al., 2015; Pankowiak et al., 2022) and in other settings (Mathews et al., 2023) indicates there are many children entering into sport who would benefit from sport organisation being trauma-informed. Knowledge in trauma-informed care would equip volunteers with the skills to recognise behavioural cues linked to trauma, respond in ways that avoid further traumatisation, and build trust with those who have experienced abuse. By proactively creating more empathetic environments, trauma-informed approaches strengthen safeguarding efforts beyond reactive measures. Given that over 74% of respondents in our study agreed that applying trauma-informed principles is important, further education, resources, and support in this area represents a key opportunity for improvement in the sport sector.
The opportunities sub-factor scale highlighted that while some individuals felt they had support available to them to recognise and respond to abuse, this perception of support differed depending on the relative power they held in their club (having a role on the club’s board or not) and their gender. Our study suggests that volunteers perceive a lack of support and clarity in expectations from their sport clubs, with only 55% agreeing that the club makes it clear they have a responsibility to respond to child abuse and over 20% fearing repercussions from people within their club if they do raise an issue. These findings reflect broader systemic issues previously identified in Australian sport, including those highlighted by researchers who analysed case studies from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Lockitch et al., 2022). In those cases, denial of responsibility and fear of repercussions were key barriers to intervening, reinforcing the need to address not only individual capabilities, but also cultural and structural conditions.
Opportunities were significantly higher for those volunteers who held committee roles or those who identified as male. It is possible that those in higher level roles (on the club boards) have a better knowledge of existing policies and frameworks and feel more empowered to take action than the non-board member volunteer. May et al. (2013) previously found that while volunteers were broadly aware of policy goals in sport, they were largely unaware of specific details of particular policies. With respect to safeguarding policies specifically, a New Zealand study also found that one third of all community sport coaches were unsure or unaware of child safeguarding policies in their club (Bennett et al., 2023). In terms of gender, there is a wealth of literature highlighting how men, particularly those men who align with dominant norms of masculinity, benefit from great social and institutional support and are less likely to encounter the fears and risks that women would routinely face (Fullagar & and Toohey, 2009; Marshall et al., 2025; Shaw & and Slack, 2002). Policies and resources clearly exist in some of the community sport clubs represented in this survey, but the lack of awareness or accessibility is something the sport industry must urgently address. The existence of a policy at the national, state or indeed even the club level does not automatically translate to its existence or implementation within the community sport clubs. This suggests there is a need to employ diverse methods of raising awareness of policies within clubs and that these methods/messaging should be tested to ensure they are being understood and received by the sport club community.
The volunteer sport community is highly motivated and passionate about the importance of recognising and responding to child abuse in sport. Despite the absence of clarity in their sport-specific roles, the volunteer community overwhelmingly (85%) agreed that knowing how to respond to child abuse was part of their role. This sense of moral responsibility was also found by Tucci and Mitchell (2022) with 75% of their respondents supporting calls for national campaigns and increased awareness of child abuse across all sectors. Given that altruistic motivation (e.g. “joy of helping”) is the most common motivator for sport volunteers across a range of roles (Hallmann et al., 2025), the strong motivation to protect children in sport is perhaps less surprising. Both the items in the sub-factor scale as well as the comments speak to how people’s beliefs that the system was ineffective and that it is a waste of time to report abuse because nothing will happen were critical factors in their responses to child abuse.
There are several limitations to note in the conduct of this research. First, while the survey recruitment was robust, the sampling was not representative and thus the recruitment was likely skewed towards those individuals most interested in the topic. However, our mean age of 50 years is right in the middle of the majority of the sport volunteer cohort, 45 and 55 years old. Our sample of respondents was also predominantly made up of women who were born in Australia, and only a small number (~10%) who identified as culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD). While men are more likely to volunteer in sport than women (Volunteering Australia, 2021), it is possible the topic of the survey drew more responses from women, as women are known to volunteer more for children and youth initiatives. Our demographic questions did not distinguish CALD participants beyond their own self-identification, and therefore, the lower response rate from these individuals could be due to a multitude of factors including the distinct limitation of the survey only being offered in the English language. Future studies could overcome some of the diversity limitations by conducting a representative survey.
Conclusion
While policies and frameworks are being rapidly developed at the international and national levels (Vertommen et al., 2024), their implementation at the community sport level presents distinct challenges (Rulofs et al., 2019), including a predominantly volunteer workforce. Prior to this study, little was known about the factors that enable or hinder individual volunteers to respond to child abuse in sport. Our findings highlight the importance not only of sport-specific education/training initiatives, but also the need to explicitly target interventions towards improving the capabilities around trauma-informed care, the social support for child safeguarding within the sport club and the development of community sport-focused resources and policies. Importantly, our study also expands upon the very limited research that exists on individual sport stakeholders’ abilities and intentions to respond to child abuse in sport. While studies in the United States (Noble & Vermillion, 2014), Germany (Rulofs et al., 2019) and the United Kingdom (Hartill & Lang, 2014) have highlighted the challenges of responding to child abuse in sport, only one was fully situated in the voluntary sector, and was framed in a management theory (Rulofs et al., 2019) exploring organisational capacity, not individual capacity. Our study addresses this gap by centring the perspectives of individual volunteers, highlighting important gaps in volunteers’ knowledge (i.e. trauma-informed care) as well as the absence of proactive support or guidance from sporting organisations. While organisational perspectives remain essential to the evolution of safeguarding policy and practice, it is equally vital to foreground the experiences and needs of individuals. In the context of a wicked, silencing problem such as child abuse, every person involved in sport, regardless of role, must be equipped to recognise and respond appropriately. This shift requires not only structural and cultural change but also a reimagining of safeguarding as a shared, community-wide responsibility. There is also a continued need to address the power imbalances (in gender, organisational roles, etc.) within clubs to enable all volunteers to be effective responders to child abuse. This recommendation is in tandem with an urgent need for improving the trauma-informed practices within the response and reporting systems themselves, to alleviate volunteers’ fears of facing repercussions.
A promising finding in this study was that those who had undergone sport-specific training in child abuse in the last 12 months had significantly higher capabilities, opportunities and motivations to respond to child abuse than those who had not. While we were unable to find publicly available evaluation data of these courses, or elucidate which courses individuals undertook, this does suggest that the education courses could be having a positive impact. Despite this, however, there remains too high of a prevalence of fears associated with raising issues of abuse, beliefs that the response/reporting system is not effective, as well as lingering misconceptions of children making up stories about abuse. All of these findings provide some very explicit considerations for the development/refinement of safeguarding policies and education and what elements can and should be further emphasised.
Finally, while the focus of this project was on understanding the individual factors of community sport volunteers’ responses to child abuse, the findings clearly demonstrate that the sport environment (social and physical opportunities) was a critical limitation for individual action. Even the most capable and motivated individual cannot overcome a system that lacks accessible policies/resources with a culture that fails to prioritise child safety.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank all the community sport volunteers who supported this research. We would also like to acknowledge the many donors who contributed to our VU crowdfunding campaign, which supported some of the costs associated with this project.
Ethical Considerations
This study was approved by the Victoria University human research ethics committee (HREC# HRE24-091)
Consent to Participate
Consent was obtained via advancing in the online platform and completing the survey.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Aurélie Pankowiak was supported by a VicHealth Postdoctoral Fellowship Program.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Due to ethical considerations and the development of additional manuscripts, data is not publicly available, but can be supplied upon reasonable request to the lead author.*