Sexual harassment and abuse in sport: The NOC*NSF helpline

Abstract

Following a high-profile case of child sexual abuse in sport in 1996, the Netherlands Olympic Committee and the Netherlands Sports Confederation (NOC*NSF) established a telephone ‘helpline’ service on sexual harassment and abuse (SHA). In order to expand their understanding of this problem, NOC*NSF maintained written records of incidents reported to the helpline. These records revealed 323 separate incidents for the period 2001 to 2010. This paper presents a descriptive analysis of this data and discusses the findings. We conclude that whilst there are major limitations to working with information gathered in this way, a sustainable telephone ‘helpline’ can provide a valuable service for the sports community. Whilst official sources of data are known to under represent the scale of sexual abuse, through collaboration with researchers, such services can also generate important information for policymakers.

Keywords

incidents helpline sexual harassment and abuse sport the Netherlands

Following calls by academics for greater awareness of sexual harassment and abuse (SHA) in sport, as early as 1986 (see Brackenridge, 2001), the issue has been propelled into the spotlight repeatedly since the mid-1990s by high-profile cases of child sexual abuse. During the past decade, then, SHA has become a major concern for sport organisations in many countries (see Chroni et al., 2012; Hartill, 2012; Lang and Hartill, in press). Responses to this issue have constituted major policy developments for some countries. Early in this process sport sociologists argued that the implementation of ‘child protection’ policies should be monitored and evaluated through research. Whilst there are few examples of collaborative efforts between researchers and policymakers in sport (Brackenridge et al., 2005a, 2005b; Hartill and Prescott, 2007), this paper represents such an enterprise.

Sociological theorising on SHA has argued that the culture of sport provides an environment which is conducive to the commission of sexual violence, particularly towards girls and women (Brackenridge, 1997, 2001; Brackenridge and Fasting, 2002) but also towards boys and men (e.g. Hartill, 2009; Messner and Sabo, 1994). The recent ‘scandal’¹ at Pennsylvania State University seems to underline the view that the rights of children, even in cases of severe sexual abuse, may be ‘benched’ if upholding them poses a serious risk to organisational and individual reputations (Hartill, 2013). In some cases, then, protecting children from harm and abuse has seemed to be an optional extra for powerful men in powerful sports organisations rather than an obligation (David, 2005).

Following unprecedented media coverage of the conviction of an elite Dutch judo coach in 1996 for the sexual abuse of three female athletes (Trouw, 1997), the Netherlands Olympic Committee and the Netherlands Sports Confederation (NOC*NSF) has spearheaded efforts to address SHA in sport. This case proved to be the catalyst for the development of a national-level intervention programme, called Project Seksuele Intimidatie (Project Sexual Harassment) (NOC*NSF, 2012b). In addition, NOC*NSF commissioned research on risk factors for SHA in sport (Cense, 1997; Cense and Brackenridge, 2001). Cense identified three clusters of risk factors, associated with the coach, the sport situation and the athlete. At the request of the Dutch sport federations (Moget et al., 2012; Moget and Weber, 2008), NOC*NSF subsequently developed a code of conduct for sport leaders, agreed by all member organisations (NOC*NSF, 1997), and a telephone support service (or ‘helpline’). NOC*NSF has offered this service to its 76 affiliated sport federations, representing 26,000 clubs and 4.8 million athletes, since 1998. Several other policy instruments followed later.²

The focus of this paper is the helpline established in 1998 by NOC*NSF which was one of the first telephone support services for SHA in sport (NOC*NSF, 2012a). A year earlier, in response to the Sheldon Kennedy–Graham James case, Hockey Canada had established their ‘Speak Out’ programme in association with the Canadian Red Cross, which also had a ‘Kids Help Phone’. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in the UK also offers counselling support for ‘Swimline’, a call-back service run by the Amateur Swimming Association. In 2010 the German federal government initiated a national telephone helpline for victims of abuse following high-profile cases of child sexual abuse in the church, boarding schools and sport (Rulofs, in press). It has been shown that the installation of low threshold communication systems, i.e. no charge, easily accessible and anonymous, increases the disclosure options for children in need (e.g. Hoefnagels and Mudde, 2000).

General telephone services also exist, but are not aimed specifically at the sports community (e.g. Child Helpline International). General child helplines have illustrated their importance as counselling and referral systems for children in need (Noz, 2011). General child helplines worldwide received 13.8 million contacts from children and concerned adults in 2011; one in seven contacts received dealt with a case of violence against children (Child Helpline International, 2012). In the UK, the NSPCC reported that ‘16,094 spoke to ChildLine about sexual abuse as either their main problem or an additional problem, representing 10 per cent of all calls answered’ in 2008–9 (NSPCC, 2009).

Researching SHA in sport

SHA is notoriously difficult to research. A recent online survey of British university students reported a prevalence rate of 29 per cent for sexual harassment within sport, while 3 per cent of the sample had experienced sexual harm in a competitive sport setting (Alexander et al., 2011). Generally, the prevalence rate of unwanted sexual experiences among female athletes varies between two and fifty per cent (Fasting et al., 2011), however, comparison between studies is difficult due to differing definitions and approaches.

As the athlete welfare, child protection and safeguarding in sport agenda continues to expand globally, sport organisations are beginning to consider how they should most appropriately respond to the issue of sexual violence (Chroni et al., 2012; UNICEF, 2010). Nevertheless, many sport organisations presently provide little or no support or guidance for athletes, coaches or other sport personnel who have been victims of SHA (or witnessed it). Therefore, the introduction of helplines may well become more widespread during the next decade. So whilst the NOC*NSF helpline was not developed expressly for research, they did initiate a recording system for calls received. Access to such data, then, can help to further establish the evidence-base for this issue. Below we explain the helpline service and present some of the data generated by it. The questions guiding this study are: (a) what does the helpline data tell us about SHA in sport in the Netherlands?; and (b) how effective was the NOC*NSF data collection system? Therefore, the main objectives of this study are to consider both the data generated by the helpline and the efficacy of the NOC*NSF recording system for generating useful data on SHA in sport.

Methodology

Description of the helpline

Approximately 20 national counsellors were recruited by national newspaper announcement. Most of the candidates had experience in social work or advocacy, were qualified to support both victims and/or perpetrators³ of SHA, and all had good knowledge of the sports world. After selection, they were trained by external centres with expertise in counselling on (child) abuse and harassment. They are also able to advise sports federations on case management and policy development (Weber et al., 2006). They all have occupational responsibilities outside NOC*NSF but can be appointed to a case on an hourly basis. Only the Helpline Coordinator is a full-time employee of NOC*NSF (Weber et al., 2006).

The helpline is available 24 hours-a-day, seven days-a-week. All telephone calls are answered by an experienced child psychologist, the ‘Helpline Coordinator’ (replaced by a substitute only when absent). Following an initial assessment, if further intervention such as counselling or an advisory meeting is required, the coordinator allocates the case to an appropriate team-member. All calls are documented via an Incident Registration Form (IRF), which captures information on sex, age, victim(s)–perpetrator(s) relation, sport type and level⁴ (elite versus amateur), type of SHA, time and duration of the incident and the role of the service user. All IRFs were archived by NOC*NSF.

The task of counsellors is to listen and support, including advising on filing potential complaints or other procedures. They do not attempt to ascertain guilt or innocence. Calls are treated as strictly confidential and anonymity in registration is guaranteed to all service users. However, counsellors always explain at the outset that they are legally bound to report any crimes that are reported.

Recording incidents

This study is based on the information documented in the IRFs, currently archived at NOC*NSF. The sample for analysis consisted of all (fully or partially) completed IRFs between January 2001 and December 2010. These were completed by hand as the system was not digitised until 2010. Counsellors were bound to seven predefined categories⁵ through which to record the core information: verbal sexual harassment (i.e. jokes, ambiguous comments or stories of sexual experiences); unwanted instruction related touching (e.g. touching the chest/breast or crotch during a coaching); other (non-instruction related) unwanted touching (e.g. hugging or kissing); sexual abuse (e.g. fondling, forcing to masturbate or watch masturbation by the perpetrator); rape⁶; exhibitionism (showing own genitals in public); and voyeurism (secretly looking at one or more people who are (partially) nude).

The sample

Between 2001 and 2010, 601 reports of counsellors’ interventions were registered. For 426 of these reports, a counsellor was appointed to either: (a) support a victim or a group of victims; (b) advise an individual accused of SHA; or (c) provide procedural advice to a sport federation or organisation. In the other 175 registered reports, further assistance of a counsellor was not requested. Very little information was recorded about these calls so they are omitted from the analysis.

The 426 counsellors’ interventions (an average of 43 cases per year) were the starting point for this analysis. The highest caseload was 57 in 2003, and the minimum was 31 in 2006. Since 2006 the caseload seems to have stabilised at around 40 cases per year. Of the 426 IRFs, 36 were incomplete, 30 did not refer to a specific incident, and 37 were found to be double registrations of the same incident by different counsellors (see Figure 1). Thus, 323 unique incidents emerged.

Figure 1.

From reports to unique incidents.

The lead researcher subsequently established a database within which this data was recorded and organised. SPSS for Windows, version 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was applied for statistical analysis. Frequencies, contingency tables, and the Cramer’s V test for the relationship between two categorical (nominal) variables are used.

Limitations

Clearly, there is no way to verify the accuracy of the reports made to the helpline.⁷ Beyond that, the data captured by the IRFs is reliant upon the interpretations of the counsellors. All arrangements for the recording and collection of data captured by the service were made prior to the development of the current study. Therefore, whilst we are interested to illustrate what the data says about the nature and form of SHA in sport, it is clear from the outset that generalisations from the data about the scale and nature of this problem, even within sports in the Netherlands, are deeply problematic as the data simply represent what was reported to (and recorded by) a helpline run by a national sports body.

Results

Reporting behaviour

In 42 per cent of all recorded reports, it was a club or federation staff member who made the report to the NOC*NSF Helpline. Twenty-three per cent were victim reports and 8 per cent were reports by victims’ parents. Parents reported more frequently for victims under 12 (20 per cent) than for victims aged 12 and above (8 per cent).

Beyond ‘victim’ and ‘victim-parent’ reports, in 21 per cent of reports it was the individual accused of SHA who asked for support. In 5 per cent of the incidents, another person (not further defined) made the report. Peer-athlete reports constitute only 0.6 per cent of the total.

The majority of cases were reported through the NOC*NSF Helpline (69 per cent), however, counsellor interventions were also triggered by other means. The remaining cases were reported through other means, often through the local welfare officers, who have been incrementally installed in many sport federations and clubs since 2005.

In 72 per cent of the 426 counsellor interventions, counselling for either a victim (75 per cent) or a perpetrator (25 per cent) was requested. In 21 per cent of the total interventions advice was given to sport organisations, and in 7 per cent the type of assistance was not indicated on the IRF. When considering the proportion of counselling cases versus advisory cases, an evolution can be observed over this ten-year period (see Figure 2). The advisory cases are in the minority, but a gradual increase is noted moving from two cases in 2007 to 21 cases in 2010. The total counselling caseload fluctuates between 12 and 51 cases a year.

Figure 2.

Advice versus counselling proportion.

Victims

Gender, age and role

The exact number of victims involved in the 323 registered reports is unknown as counsellors rarely know how many other victims there are. Almost 60 per cent of reports involved female victims exclusively; 30 per cent male victims exclusively; 5 per cent of reports involved victims of both sexes and in the other 5 per cent no explicit victim was reported (e.g. possession of child sexual abuse images).

In almost half of the reports, victims were under 16 years old; in 74 per cent they were under 20.⁸ In 7 per cent of reports, victims were aged 21–30; in 6 per cent they were 31–50, and 1 per cent concerned those above 50 years. Victims were mostly athletes, however, 2 per cent of victims were coaches, 0.6 per cent (para-) medical staff, and 1.5 per cent were other personnel.

Twenty-five reports related to victims under 12 years, comprising 13 male victims, nine female and three incidents with victims of both sexes. Twenty per cent of perpetrators in these reports were also under 12 years, 8 per cent between 12 and 15, and 4 per cent between 16 and 20.

Isolating the 239 incidents with uniquely female or male victims, in one age category (see Table 1), male victims constitute the majority in the youngest age group (under 12) (59.1 per cent, Cramer’s V = 0.246; df = 3; p<0.005). In all other age groups the majority of victims were female. In this data, victimhood increases with female-maturation but decreases with male-maturation.

Table 1.

Victims by age and gender.

Age group	Male	Female	Total
	N	N	N	% of total
Younger than 12	13	9	22	9.2
12–15 years	41	65	106	44.3
16–20 years	20	46	66	27.7
Older than 20 years	7	38	45	18.8
Total	81	158	239	100.0

(Cramer’s V = 0.246; df = 3; p<0.005).

N = 239.

The ‘perpetrator’

In all cases only one (alleged) perpetrator was reported. To the best of our knowledge the data refers to 323 separate perpetrators. It is of course possible that the same perpetrator caused multiple incidents reported to the helpline.

Gender, age and role

Ninety-two per cent of (alleged) perpetrators were male; 6 per cent were female. In 2 per cent of cases, perpetrator gender was either not reported or not recorded (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Perpetrators by position, age and gender.

Position	Age group	Male	Female	Total	% of total
		N	N	N
Athlete	Younger than 12 years	3	1	4
	12–15 years	8	1	9
	16–20 years	7	1	8
	21–30 years	6	1	7
	31–50 years	6	0	6
	Older than 50 years	4	0	4
	Total	34	4	38	13.3
Coach	16–20 years	5	0	5
	21–30 years	60	2	62
	31–50 years	99	9	108
	Older than 50 years	41	3	44
	Total	205	14	219	76.8
Club board member	31–50 years	2	0	2
	Older than 50 years	2	0	2
	Total	4	0	4	1.4
(Para-)medical staff	31–50 years	1	0	1
	Older than 50 years	1	0	1
	Total	2	0	2	0.7
Other staff	Younger than 12 years	1	0	1
	31–50 years	5	0	5
	Older than 50 years	4	0	4
	Total	10	0	10	3.5
Other	21–30 years	1	0	1
	31–50 years	7	0	7
	Older than 50 years	4	0	4
	Total	12	0	12	4.2

N=323 and missing values = 38 (11.8%).

The largest group of perpetrators were 31 to 50 year olds, representing 45 per cent of perpetrators. From the 15 perpetrators who were under 16, six were under 12; two of those under 16 were female. In 13 of the 15 reports where perpetrators were under 16, victims were also younger than 16. Nine of these 15 ‘young perpetrators’ had male victims (including one female perpetrator), five had female. One case (the second female perpetrator) involved male and female victims.

In the vast majority of reports, perpetrators held a higher position within the sport hierarchy, such as a coach (77 per cent), (medical) personnel (4 per cent) or committee/board member (2 per cent). In 13 per cent of reports, the perpetrators were athletes themselves, of whom a third were under 16.

The sport

Forty-six sports are represented within the 323 reports. Fourteen per cent of reports (N=44) took place in soccer. Swimming (including water polo and platform diving) (N=42), athletics (N=29) and gymnastics (N=29) each represent around 10 per cent of reports. Volleyball (7 per cent) and cycling (5 per cent) are also represented in a significant number of reports. The remaining 149 incidents refer to 40 separate sports (see Table 3). However, due to the higher number of affiliated soccer players in the Netherlands (more than one million) the reported incidence rate is 0.38 per 10,000 members against other popular sports, such as gymnastics (1.14), volleyball (1.91) and swimming (2.99). Other popular sports have lower reported incidence rates (golf, 0.03) or no reported incidents at all during this ten-year period (bridge, motorsport, squash, ice hockey, rugby and dance).⁹

Table 3.

Incidents (victims younger than 21) by sport federation in relation to membership.

Sport federation	Memberships U21 in 2010	Reported incidents (N)	N/10,000 members	N/100 members	Sport type
Go (Japanese board game)	20	1	*	*	SI
Triathlon	487	2	*	0.411	I
Checkers	979	1	*	0.102	SI
Canoe	1002	1	*	0.100	I
Cycling	10,154	9	8.864	0.089	I
Swimming, platform diving and water polo	47,360	35	7.390	0.074	M
Table tennis	10,766	7	6.502	0.065	SI
Track and field	36,075	21	5.821	0.058	I
Rowing	5047	2	*	0.040	I
Volleyball	59,352	23	3.875	0.039	T
Base- and softball	10,681	4	3.745	0.037	T
Archery	2785	1	*	0.036	I
Gliding	6463	2	*	0.031	I
Basketball	26,119	7	2.680	0.027	T
Rescue swimming	12,303	3	2.438	0.024	I
Martial arts (judo, karate and tae kwon do)	47,732	11	2.305	0.023	SI
Handball	37,171	7	1.883	0.019	T
Gymnastics	157,388	25	1.588	0.016	I
Chess	6463	1	*	0.015	SI
Korfball	53,778	7	1.302	0.013	T
Ice skating	49,582	6	1.210	0.012	I
Bowling	10,336	1	0.967	0.010	I
Badminton	23,936	2	0.836	0.008	SI
Soccer	627,442	39	0.622	0.006	T
Golf	17,469	1	0.572	0.006	I
Equestrian	88,924	4	0.450	0.004	I
Field hockey	156,322	7	0.448	0.004	T
Tennis	176,993	1	0.056	0.001	SI
Omnisport (not accredited by NOC*NSF)	Unknown	2
Unknown		7
Total		240

: number of memberships too low; I: individual sport; M: mixed sport federation; SI: semi-individual sport; T: team sport.

When isolating the 240 reported incidents (74 per cent of the total) with victims under 20 and comparing this to the number of affiliated athletes under 20, per sport federation, triathlon (0.4 incidents per 100 young members) represents the highest proportion of reported incidents. Looking at the ‘bigger’ sports (more than 10,000 young members), cycling, swimming, table tennis and track and field, proportionally, have the most reported incidents (all between 5.8 and 8.9 incidents per 10,000 members). Team sports score lower than (semi-) individual sports, with volleyball and base- and softball leading with almost four incidents per 10,000 young members.

Nearly 45 per cent of all incidents happened in individual sports, 37 per cent in team sports and 15 per cent in semi-individual sports such as tennis and judo. In 3 per cent of reports the sport type was not recorded. In comparison, individual sport federation memberships¹⁰ represent nearly 40 per cent of the total; team sport federation memberships represent 41 per cent and semi-individual almost 20 per cent.

The sport level

According to the helpline IRFs, when harassment or abuse commences the significant majority of victims were performing at an amateur or non-elite level (74 per cent of reported incidents). In 11 per cent of incidents the victim was engaged in elite/high-performance sport. In 5 per cent of cases victims were active in adapted sports (unknown level) (N=17), in 1 per cent of incidents the perpetrator had approached victims in both high-performance and amateur sport settings; in the other 8 per cent of incidents the sport level was unknown. However, in relation to the total number of elite athletes in the Netherlands, there were five incidents recorded for every 100 elite athletes. In comparison, reports for amateur athletes constitute only 0.005 per 100 athletes.

Sexual offences

A total of 440 different offences of SHA were registered within the 323 reports (an average of 1.36 offences per incident) (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Registered offences of SHA.

Type of SHA	Number of violations	%
Unwanted non-functional touching	103	23.4
Unwanted functional touching	103	23.4
Sexual abuse	91	20.7
Verbal sexual harassment	82	18.6
Voyeurism	31	7.0
(Attempt to) Rape	21	4.8
Exhibitionism (flashing)	9	2.0
Total	440	100.0

Most reports (47 per cent) relate to unwanted ‘functional touching’ (i.e. instruction related), for example, touching breasts or genital area during a coaching session, and unwanted ‘non-instruction related touching’, for example, unwanted cuddling or kissing. Sixteen per cent of reports included complaints of sexual abuse/sexual assault (e.g. forced masturbation of the perpetrator or victim, kissing of a minor under 16).¹¹

Thirteen reports of a consensual sexual relationship between an authority figure and an adult athlete were made by peer athletes or club board members. Ten sexual relationships between an adult authority figure and a child, legally prohibited and defined as sexual abuse, were also reported.

Discussion

The main purpose of this paper was to document, describe and evaluate data extracted from reports made to a national telephone service on SHA in sport in the Netherlands between 2001 and 2010. Certainly, the most striking finding, whilst far from unexpected, is that from 323 distinct reports of SHA made to the helpline, the vast majority of alleged perpetrators were male, older than the victim and occupying a position of trust and responsibility in relation to the victim, most often in the role of coach. Whilst 30 per cent of reports relate to male victims, twice this number related to female victims.

These figures are very similar to those reported in wider research into sexual violence against children and young people (e.g. Gilbert et al., 2009; Wykes and Welsh, 2009). However, the way in which men’s sexual violence is theorised has been the subject of vigorous debate for at least the last 25 years. Feminist perspectives, in particular, have challenged the medical model of sex offending against children, instead examining ‘child sexual abuse within its wider social context’ (Seymour, 1998: 416). Thus, Cowburn and Dominelli (2001: 402) argue that ‘medico-legal discourses minimize sexual violence by individualizing and pathologizing this kind of behaviour, thereby diverting attention from addressing its underlying social causes and links to hegemonic masculinity’.

Whilst an increasing number of sport organisations are now embracing ‘child protection’ and (at least in the UK) ‘safeguarding’ policies, the feminist perspective on sexual violence suggests a rather more substantial agenda for preventing SHA in sport is required. Essentially, feminist social scientists have argued that the roots of SHA are to be found not within deviant or abnormal psychology, but primarily within the norms of masculinity, particularly those forms of hyper-masculinity frequently found in sport (e.g. Anderson, 2002; Brackenridge, 2001; Connell, 2000).

Thus, conceptualising power is fundamental to feminist and sociological approaches to SHA (see Cossins, 2000). If research on SHA in sport provides further evidence of male subjugation of women and children, including male children, a greater commitment to gender equity and children’s rights would seem to be an essential dimension of sport leaders’ and policymakers’ response to the problem of SHA. It is not yet clear, however, whether the (similarly male-dominated) sports governing bodies are willing to recognise this or that the implementation of child protection/safeguarding standards (e.g. Davey and Tiivas, 2012) fully addresses this point. As Brackenridge (2004: 334) argues, in the UK ‘the relatively narrow focus of the Child Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU) on children … draws attention and resources away from those over [18] … including many people with disabilities and, especially, adult women in sport’.

One advantage, then, of gathering data from a service such as this, is that it automatically generates data from both males and females, which has been a weakness in some early purposive studies. Whilst this data, in agreement with previous studies (e.g. Leahy et al., 2002), suggest that females are much more likely to experience SHA in sport than males (or at least more likely to report it), it also indicates that SHA is a very significant problem for male athletes. Indeed, in the 25 reports of SHA relating to a victim under the age of 12, unlike older age categories, male victims constituted almost 20 per cent more of the total than female victims. Whilst the number of cases is very small, the decreasing likelihood of male victimisation being reported, as the boy matures, against the increasing likelihood for females, presents an interesting notion for future work in this area and potentially adds a new dimension to knowledge of SHA in sport.

There are a number of issues that are known to exacerbate the under reporting of male victims (see Mendel, 1995; Spiegel, 2003). In particular, it has been argued that the, frequently hyper-masculinist, heteronormative narratives of male sports makes disclosure an especially challenging issue for male athlete-victims (Donnelly, 1999; Hartill, 2005; Nielsen, 2001). It seems logical to suggest, then, that the influence of this narrative increases the longer a boy is invested in it (Hartill, 2013) perhaps making disclosure of SHA incrementally unlikely the longer a boy remains committed to the context he was abused in. Whilst it seems unlikely that this process would exclude females, the ‘perfect’ alignment of popular male-sport with hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2000) may be a crucial factor. The allegiance secured by hazing/initiation ceremonies is important to note in this regard. Alternatively, an increasing awareness of a women’s rights agenda which takes a strong position against men’s sexual violence may have an empowering effect on female athletes.

The IRFs on victims under 12 years also recorded younger ‘perpetrators’: 28 per cent of alleged perpetrators with victims younger than 12 were under 16; 32 per cent were younger than 20. Whilst it may be tentatively suggested that experimental sexual behaviour between peers may also be captured within this data, these incidents were clearly reported as unwanted and/or harmful and should be treated as such regardless of the relative ages of the victim and perpetrator.

The data also suggests that young perpetrators (under 16) target males more than females (52 per cent versus 36 per cent respectively; 12 per cent target both sexes). Again, the vast majority (84 per cent) of these young perpetrators are male. A high tolerance of abusive and harmful behaviour amongst young males within sport has been noted for some time (e.g. Curry, 1991). This data suggests, then, that SHA intervention programmes also need to take into account the sexual harm that young people do to each other.

An over representation of incidents in high-performance environments is also observed, with five incidents per 100 elite athletes, compared to 0.005 incidents per 100 amateur athletes. It is now generally accepted within recent research that elite athletes are at greater risk of SHA as they may perceive they have most to lose by disclosure (Brackenridge et al., 2012; Fasting et al., 2010). Yet many questions remain unanswered and it may be that those athletes victimised at the community level but do not progress to elite performance, simply disappear from the ‘sports scene’ and so may be unlikely to report through a sports organisation (if they in fact choose to do so at all). Research which cross-referenced for sport contexts from other sources of sexual violence data would be valuable indeed and this is perhaps something NOC*NSF would be well placed to lead on in the Netherlands.

According to the reported incidents in this ten-year frame, SHA seems to occur in every sport discipline and at every level of sport in the Netherlands (see Table 3). Accounting for total youth membership, reports of SHA were highest in cycling, swimming, table tennis and track and field. However, on the basis of this data, these sports certainly cannot be construed as presenting a greater risk than other sports. Indeed, professionals in this field are very clear that as an organisation takes more responsibility for SHA and as the problem becomes more openly discussed, victims will be better informed to recognise their experiences as abusive and better supported to disclose them officially (Proudlove, 2012, personal communication). Therefore, as sport organisations begin to engage with the issue of SHA as well as child protection issues and processes, higher rates of reported SHA may well indicate an organisation that is more responsive to and supportive of victims, rather than a sport that poses a greater risk.

In terms of knowledge generation, it seems that the most reliable finding generated by this service relates to who is doing the reporting. Of the 323 cases, half were reported by a sport organisation staff member seeking assistance; only 22 per cent of reports were made by the ‘victim’. In 20 per cent of reports, contact was made by an individual who had been accused of an act in relation to SHA (‘perpetrators’). This number is significant and indicates that the helpline was not perceived simply as a support service for victims or as an investigatory tool to catch perpetrators.

Given the general problem of under reporting of sexual violence (Gilbert et al., 2009) and the relative lack of awareness within sports communities about SHA, we can assume that the data produced here represent only a small fraction of the total number of incidents. The fact that only 11 per cent of the Dutch sports community are currently aware of this service (Serkei et al., 2012) 13 years after it was launched, seems to suggest that many more cases would have been reported if the promotional campaign had been more substantial and effective. As NOC*NSF was one of the first sport organisations worldwide to implement a prevention policy for SHA in sport, an awareness of the problem amongst policymakers seems evident. However, it is not clear that this awareness has been effectively transferred throughout its structures. Given that (based on this data) young people are most often the victims, we would recommended that alternative communication channels, such as chat support (Fukkink and Hermanns, 2009), are developed in conjunction with children and young people, to promote the helpline and facilitate access to it. Associated education and awareness raising campaigns would assist in this, but would also require considerably greater resources.

Whilst it may seem reasonable to suppose that awareness will increase the longer the service remains in place, our findings demonstrate this has been true for advisory services but not necessarily for counselling services (Figure 2). This seems to suggest that if the helpline is to reach the widest possible audience and also offer an increasingly representative and detailed picture of SHA in sport in the Netherlands, resources will need to be targeted towards further raising awareness of its existence.

The development of an instrument that is both appropriate for service delivery (i.e. will not compromise the counselling role) whilst generating crucial data, must define what constitutes an effective approach in this field and researchers must be prepared to operate on these grounds.

It should not be assumed that our evaluation of the helpline data constitutes a comprehensive evaluation of NOC*NSF’s service. Indeed, this appears to have been absent from the initial planning of the helpline programme. According to Tomison (2000: 6) ‘a failure to evaluate means that a program is operating without clear evidence that it is effective’. A more thorough consideration of monitoring and evaluation at the start of programme planning would yield valuable information ‘not only on a program’s level of effectiveness but also the reasons for its effectiveness’ (Tomison, 2000: 10). Whilst the ‘gold standard’ quasi-experimental model of evaluation is extremely resource intensive, the introduction of a contextualised evaluation framework, through a collaboration between researchers and service providers, would enable efficient programme refinement (Tomison, 2000) whilst contributing significantly to the wider evidence-base in a more rigorous fashion. So whilst we would argue that the IRF needs to capture more detail and that counsellors should be given a clearer lead in relation to data collection, principally we would argue that planning for future work should include the development of a comprehensive evaluation framework. This would provide NOC*NSF with much greater confidence in their initiatives and enable ongoing refinement towards a more effective and efficient service. Whilst the focus of such services must of course be the well-being of the individual accessing it, the sport organisation committed to enhancing the welfare of its members will endeavour to expand their understanding of the scale and nature of SHA in their own sporting environments.

This is a model which should be repeated elsewhere and will be especially important for those organisations with limited resources. Therefore, the implementation and evaluation of such interventions should be collaborative efforts between researchers and policymakers. Clearly, as the global sports community moves towards a standardised approach to child protection/safeguarding, evaluation of these developments is crucial if lessons are to be learned and the evidence-base expanded.

Conclusion

To date, no large-scale study into the prevalence or incidence of SHA in Dutch sport has been undertaken. Despite the limitations of the helpline, it nevertheless begins to inform such a picture and establish the grounds for further study. Certainly, a large-scale quantitative study to establish prevalence rates of SHA (and other forms of negative experiences) in organised sport in the Netherlands, is now urgently required.

Quantitative data on SHA in sport is very difficult to accumulate and is, therefore, limited. It is vital that sport organisations make greater efforts to capture such information and enable it to be shared. NOC*NSF should be congratulated on the efforts it has made in this regard. However, as important as the quantitative data generated by this helpline is, such initiatives will always tell us at least as much about what gets reported (and who does the reporting) as it does about the SHA that actually takes place. Nevertheless, as sport organisations across the globe begin to take greater responsibility for this problem, evidence and knowledge generated by schemes such as this helpline will prove valuable.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the NOC*NSF Sexual Harassment Project Helpline Coordinator, counsellors and administration for their assistance in the data collection and their openness to share information on their valuable work.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Analysis of the NOC*NSF Helpline records was commissioned by NOC*NSF which is a not-for-profit organisation.

Notes

References

Alexander

Stafford

Lewis

(2011) The Experiences of Children Participating in Organised Sport in the UK. London: NSPCC.

Anderson

(2002) Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment. Gender & Society 16(6): 860–877.

Brackenridge

(1997) “He owned me basically”: Women’s experience of sexual abuse in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 32(2): 115–130.

Brackenridge

(2001) Spoilsports: Understanding and Preventing Sexual Exploitation in Sport. London: Routledge.

Brackenridge

(2004) Women and children first? Child abuse and child protection in sport. Sport in Society 7(3): 322–337.

Brackenridge

Fasting

(2002) Sexual harassment and abuse in sport: The research context. Journal of Sexual Aggression 8: 3–15.

Brackenridge

Bringer

Bishopp

(2005a) Managing cases of abuse in sport. Child Abuse Review 14: 259–274.

Brackenridge

Kay

Rhind

(2012) Sport, Children’s Rights and Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook on Global Issues and Local Programmes. West London: Brunel University.

Brackenridge

Pawlaczek

Bringer

. (2005b) Measuring the impact of child protection through Activation States. Sport, Education and Society 10(2): 239–256.

10.

Cense

(1997) Rode kaart of carte blanche. Risicofactoren voor seksuele intimidatie en seksueel misbruik in de sport [Red Card or Carte Blanche. Risk Factors for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Abuse in Sport]. Utrecht: TransAct & NOC*NSF.

11.

Cense

Brackenridge

(2001) Temporal and developmental risk factors for sexual harassment and abuse in sport. European Physical Education Review 7: 61–79.

12.

Child Helpline International (2012) Violence against Children. Child Helpline Data on Abuse and Violence. Amsterdam: CHI.

13.

Chroni

Fasting

Hartill

. (2012) Prevention of Sexual and Gender Harassment and Abuse in Sports. Initiatives in Europe and Beyond. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Sportjugend in Deutschen Olympischen Sportbund.

14.

Connell

(2000) The Men and the Boys. Cambridge: Polity.

15.

Cossins

(2000) Masculinities, Sexualities and Child Sexual Abuse. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

16.

Cowburn

Dominelli

(2001) Masking hegemonic masculinity: Reconstructing the paedophile as the dangerous stranger. British Journal of Social Work 31: 399–415.

17.

Curry

(1991) Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis of talk about competition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal 8(2): 119–135.

18.

Davey

Tiivas

(2012) Draft International Standards for Safeguarding and Protecting Children in Sport. Unpublished report of the Safeguarding in Sport Working Group who met at the ‘Beyond Sport Summit’ 24 July 2012.

19.

David

(2005) Human Rights in Youth Sport. A Critical Review of Children’s Rights in Competitive Sport. London: Routledge.

20.

Donnelly

(1999) Who’s fair game? Sport, sexual harassment, and abuse. In: White

Young

(eds) Sport and Gender in Canada. Don Mills, ON, Canada: Oxford University Press, pp.107–128.

21.

Fasting

Brackenridge

Knorre

(2010) Performance level and sexual harassment prevalence among female athletes in the Czech Republic. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 19: 26–32.

22.

Fasting

Chroni

Hervik

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

23.

Frenken

(2002) Strafbare seksualiteit en seksueel deviant gedrag: definities en prevalenties [Criminal Sexuality and Sexually Deviant Behaviour: Definitions and Prevalences]. Tijdschrift voor Seksuologie 26: 4–8.

24.

Fukkink

Hermanns

(2009) Children’s experiences with chat support and telephone support. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50(6): 759–766.

25.

Gilbert

Kemp

Thoburn

. (2009) Recognising and responding to child maltreatment. Lancet 373: 167–180.

26.

Hartill

(2005) Sport and the sexually abused male child. Sport Education and Society 10: 287–304.

27.

Hartill

(2009) The sexual abuse of boys in organized male sports. Men and Masculinities 12(2): 225–249.

28.

Hartill

(2012) Child maltreatment and exploitation in sport. In: Keskinen

Haag

Talbot

(eds) Directory of Sport Science. 6th ed. Berlin: Berlin: International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education (ICSSPE), pp. 321–336.

29.

Hartill

(2013) Concealment of child sexual abuse in sports. Quest 65: 241–254.

30.

Hartill

Prescott

(2007) Serious business or ‘any other business’? Safeguarding and child protection policy in British Rugby League. Child Abuse Review 16(4): 237–251.

31.

Hoefnagels

Mudde

(2000) Mass media and disclosures of child abuse in the perspective of secondary prevention: Putting ideas into practice. Child Abuse & Neglect 24: 1091–1101.

32.

Lang

Hartill

(eds) (in press) Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International Perspectives in Research, Policy and Practice. London: Routledge.

33.

Leahy

Pretty

Tenenbaum

(2002) Prevalence of sexual abuse in organised competitive sport in Australia. Journal of Sexual Aggression 8(2): 16–36.

34.

Mendel

(1995) The Male Survivor: The Impact of Sexual Abuse. London: SAGE.

35.

Messner

Sabo

(1994) Sex, Violence and Power in Sports: Rethinking Masculinity. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.

36.

Moget

Weber

(2008) Vulnerabilities, pitfalls and chances in sports. A decade of social security policies in Dutch sports. In: Vanden Auweele

(ed.) Panathlon International. Ghent: Panathlon International.

37.

Moget

Weber

Schipper-van Veldhoven

(2012) Sexual harassment and abuse in Dutch sports: A short review of early research and policy by the NOC*NSF. In: Brackenridge

Kay

Rhind

(eds) Sport, Children’s Rights and Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook on Global Issues and Local Programmes. West London: Brunel University, pp. 123–128.

38.

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.

39.

NOC*NSF (1997) Gedragsregels ter preventie van seksuele intimidatie in de sport [Code of Conduct for the Prevention of Sexual Harassment in Sport]. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.

40.

NOC*NSF (2012a) NOC*NSF Hulplijn [NOC*NSF Helpline]. Available at: http://www.nocnsf.nl/cms/showpage.aspx?id=1506 (accessed 6 June 2013).

41.

NOC*NSF (2012b) Seksuele intimidatie [Sexual harassment]. Available at: http://www.watisjouwgrens.nl/ (accessed 6 June 2013).

42.

Noz

(2011) Child helplines as awareness-raising, referral and reporting mechanisms on sexual violence against children. In: Council of Europe (ed.) Protecting Children from Sexual Violence: A Comprehensive Approach. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 129–141.

43.

NSPCC (2009) ChildLine Casenotes: Children Talking to ChildLine about Sexual Abuse. Leicester: NSPCC.

44.

Rulofs

(in press) Child protection in sport – The status quo in Germany. In: Lang

Hartill

(eds) Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International Perspectives in Research, Policy and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 129–141.

45.

Schipper-van Veldhoven

Vertommen

Vloet

(in press) A decade of prevention policy against (sexual) harassment in sport in the Netherlands. In: Lang

Hartill

(eds) Safeguarding, Child Protection and Abuse in Sport: International Perspectives in Research, Policy and Practice. London: Routledge.

46.

Serkei

Goes

de Groot

(2012) Van blind vertrouwen naar verantwoord beleid. Bruikbaarheid en effectiviteit van beleidsinstrumenten seksuele intimidatie NOC*NSF [From Blind Trust to Responsible Policy. Usefulness and Effectiveness of NOC*NSF Sexual Harassment Policy Instruments]. Utrecht: MOVISIE.

47.

Seymour

(1998) Aetiology of the sexual abuse of children: An extended feminist perspective. Women’s Studies International Forum 21(4): 415–427.

48.

Spiegel

(2003) Sexual Abuse of Males: The SAM Model of Theory and Practice. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

49.

Tomison

(2000) Evaluating Child Abuse Prevention Programs. Issues in Child Abuse Prevention, No. 12, Autumn. National Child Protection Clearinghouse Issues. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

50.

Trouw (1997) Judoleraar veroordeeld voor ontucht met leerlingen [Judo coach convicted for sexual abuse of pupils]. Trouw, 26 July. Available at: http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5009/Archief/archief/article/detail/2741055/1997/07/26/Judoleraar-veroordeeld-voor-ontucht-met-leerlingen.dhtml (accessed 6 June 2013).

51.

UNICEF (2010) Protecting Children from Violence in Sport: A Review with a Focus on Industrialized Countries. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

52.

Weber

de Bruin

Moget

(2006) The Dutch Program against Sexual Harassment in Sports 1996–2006. Arnhem: NOC*NSF.

53.

Wykes

Welsh

(2009) Violence, Gender and Justice. London: SAGE.