Timeout: Evaluating Safety Measures Implemented to Protect Athletes (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations)

Hearing	Timeout: Evaluating Safety Measures Implemented to Protect Athletes
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Date	March 21, 2024

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• U.S. Athlete Safety Organizations: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses discussed the important role that the U.S.’s athlete safety organizations play in protecting U.S. athletes from abuse. These organizations include the U.S. Center for SafeSport, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), and national governing bodies (NGBs) that oversee athlete safety in specific sports.
  • The U.S. Center for SafeSport: The U.S. Center for SafeSport is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that is responsible for investigating and resolving abuse and misconduct reports in sports leagues affiliated with the USOPC. The Center possesses the scope and authority to investigate any reports of misconduct for the more than 11 million individuals (including children) throughout the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement. The Center had been established in response to several high-profile athlete abuse cases and the failure of NGBs to protect their athletes in these cases. Ms. Colón (who serves as the organization’s CEO) testified that the Center had delivered more than 5 million trainings to nearly 2.5 million sports participants and had received more than 25,000 reports of abuse and misconduct to date. She also noted how the Center performs audits on all NGBs to ensure adherence to their safety and abuse prevention policies. She further mentioned how the Center works closely with law enforcement agencies on athlete abuse cases (especially on athlete abuse cases involving youth athletes).
  • The USOPC: The USOPC is the organization that manages the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement and is responsible for the oversight of NGBs regarding their compliance with the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s policies. The USOPC also serves as an NGB for ten sports and is held to the Center’s standards in this capacity. Ms. Deal (who serves as a senior official at the organization) discussed how USOPC has adopted stricter policies concerning interactions between minor athletes and adults, implemented new background check protocols, and launched an integrity platform. She also noted how the USOPC provides role specific safety training for all staff interacting directly with athletes and indicated that the USOPC is collaborating with experts to further improve this training. She further testified that the USOPC has established robust anti-retaliation policies to protect individuals that report allegations of abuse.
  • NGBs: NGBs are the organizations that govern and manage all aspects of induvial sports in the U.S. They are responsible for ensuring the safety of the athletes engaged in their induvial sports and are subject to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s rules and oversight.
• Concerns Regarding the U.S. Center for SafeSport: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Deal, Ms. Shim, and Mr. Cress expressed some concerns over the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s performance in responding to athlete abuse allegations and expressed interest in working to improve the organization. They expressed interest in having Congress pursue legislation to improve the organization. Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has undertaken numerous reforms, including a departmental restructuring and realignment, a redefinition of the use of administrative closures, enforcement of policies regarding consistent communication, the assignment of staff and resources to improve process navigation, trauma sensitivity training, and data collection, and other process refinements. She also mentioned how the Center has solicited input from NGBs, survivor groups, and athletes to identify areas of concerns and potential solutions to said concerns.
  • The Center’s Centralized Disciplinary Database (CDD): Ms. Colón discussed how the U.S. Center for SafeSport maintains its CDD, which lists individuals that have been restricted or banned from sports and indicated that this database can be easily accessed on the Center’s website. Subcommittee Members, Ms. Deal, Ms. Shim, and Mr. Cress expressed concerns over how the CDD only contains information about individuals that are currently suspended or banned from their sports and how individuals are removed from the CDD once their suspensions and bans conclude. They warned that this situation could result in abusive coaches being hired. Ms. Shim further argued that the CDD should include information regarding whether a person has ever previously received accusations of abuse. Ms. Colón remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport would like to keep individuals on the CDD for longer periods of time and that the Center would require a legislative change to do so. She also expressed her desire for other organizations outside of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement to make use of the CDD more regularly.
  • Reporting Process Concerns: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Deal, and Ms. Shim expressed concerns that the athletes often face challenges reporting abuse to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. They stated that athletes that report abuse have experienced poor communications from the Center, lengthy and opaque investigations that often result in administrative closures, and a lack of trauma sensitivity. Ms. Shim commented that these reporting challenges often discourage athletes from reporting abuses because they perceive that such efforts will be futile. Ms. Colón testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is working to address these concerns and stated that the Center prioritizes trauma-informed approaches.  She also testified that the Center is working to hire more resource navigators to help athletes better understand the Center’s reporting process. She explained that athletes that have reported abuse to the Center can call these resource navigators to receive updates on their cases.  She further noted how athletes reporting abuse to the Center can have advisors to help them with their cases. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) suggested that the Center consider hiring advocates to work on behalf of athletes reporting abuses.
  • Transparency and Communications Concerns: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Deal, Ms. Shim, and Mr. Cress raised concerns over the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s lack of transparency and poor communications to both athletes and NGBs regarding ongoing investigations. Ms. Shim mentioned how the Center will often provide two sentence descriptions of their actions to NGBs. She stated that these limited descriptions undermine the ability of NGBs to protect their athletes. Ms. Colón testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is taking several actions internally to improve its communications and the timeliness of its investigations. She suggested that the Center can improve its communications through adding educational content regarding the Center’s processes, providing additional navigators to help athletes better understand the Center’s abuse reporting process, and implementing timeframes for the Center’s investigators to ensure that they regularly communicate with athletes filing abuse reports when the athletes want. She noted how some athletes prefer not to receive frequent communications from the Center regarding their abuse reports.
  • Responsiveness Concerns: Subcommittee Members and Ms. Shim expressed frustration that the U.S. Center for SafeSport investigations can take many years before a resolution is achieved. They stated that these lengthy investigations can lead bad actors to remain in sports and discourage abuse reporting. Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is working to address these responsiveness concerns and commented that resource issues impede the Center’s responsiveness. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) and Ms. Shim further alleged that the Center is trying to obscure its lack of responsiveness through including cases that the Center declined to pursue in its total case resolution figures. Ms. Colón defended the Center’s decision to include these cases in their reports to Congress. She noted how the Center must perform reviews of all incoming cases to determine whether the Center is the appropriate body to oversee the case. She also mentioned how the Center continues to track the cases moving forward.
  • Administrative Closure Concerns: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Deal, and Ms. Shim expressed concerns over the number of U.S. Center for SafeSport cases that end in administrative closure. Administrative closures occur when the Center asserts jurisdiction over a case and ultimately closes the case without making findings or issuing any sanctions. The Center had accepted jurisdiction for over 7,400 cases in 2022 and had administratively closed 4,800 of these cases. These Members and witnesses raised concerns that administrative closures allow for bad actors to remain in sports without disciplinary actions. Ms. Colón stated the U.S. Center for SafeSport employs administrative closures so that it maintains the ability to reopen a case at a later date. She noted how many athletes that have experienced abuse may be unwilling to participate in the Center’s investigation process and commented that administrative closures enable the Center to investigate abuse claims in a more trauma-sensitive fashion. Ms. Shim argued that NGBs should be permitted to take over abuse cases that the Center has administratively close so that they can better protect their athletes from bad actors. Ms. Colón expressed opposition to allowing NGBs to take over abuse cases that the Center has administratively closed. She raised concerns that NGBs could create confusion for athletes reporting cases if they were to investigate abuse cases again immediately following an administrative closure. 
  • Informal Resolution Concerns: Rep. Cammack and Ms. Shim also expressed concerns that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is increasingly pursuing informal resolutions to abuse cases (including sexual assault cases). They stated that legislation may be needed to address this issue. Ms. Shim explained that the Center will often close cases through informal resolutions if the respondent takes responsibility and apologies for engaging in abuse. She asserted that these informal resolutions do not constitute actual resolutions because informal resolutions do not involve investigations.
  • Appeals Process Concerns: Ms. Shim further remarked that the U.S. must ensure that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s appeals process works for both claimants and respondents. She commented that the Center’s current process forces victims of abuse to repeat the process in an appeal. She noted how the Center’s findings will sometimes be vacated or overturned by arbitrators if the victim of abuse is unwilling to go through the appeals process. She stated that these problems with the Center’s appeals process can lead the Center to lift sanctions against abusers, even if the abusers have been found by substantial evidence to have engaged in sexual misconduct.
  • Due Process Concerns: Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) stated that the U.S. must be careful not to infringe on the ability of accused parties to contest the claims of athlete abuse brought against them through the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s process. Ms. Colón discussed how the U.S. Center for SafeSport conducts thorough initial assessments of its received claims to determine whether the athletes face immediate risks. She explained that the Center will consider witness testimony and evidence as part of these risk assessments. She stated that if the Center determines that such a risk is present in the claims, then the Center will implement temporary measures to protect the athlete while it investigates their case. Mr. Cress also mentioned how his NGB (USA Softball) will take similar temporary measures to limit the communications pathways between an accused party and an accusing party following an abuse report. 
  • Funding and Resource Concerns: Subcommittee Democrats and the hearing’s witnesses expressed concerns that the U.S. Center for SafeSport lacks sufficient resources to respond to its growing caseload. They called for increased federal funding for the Center. They noted how the Center currently receives most of its funding from the USOPC and some additional funding from Congress. Ms. Colón stated that the Center’s budget would need to be around $30 million based on the current trajectory of incoming cases. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Ms. Shim also noted how the fees that NGBs pay to the USOPC (which the USOPC then uses to fund the Center) are based on the caseload of the NGBs. They expressed concerns that this fee structure could discourage the reporting of abuse claims. Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) asserted however that NGBs, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, and the USOPC are often more focused on protecting themselves than on protecting athletes. He commented that providing more funding for these organizations will not address these misaligned incentives.
  • Ability of Athletes to Discuss their Cases: Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) acknowledged that the U.S. Center for SafeSport imposes restrictions on the ability of parties in abuse cases to publicly discuss their cases so as to prevent investigation interferences. He stated however that these restrictions should be time-limited in nature. He also asserted that athletes that have experienced abuse should be able to decide whether to make their allegations public.
• Additional Athlete Safety Challenges and Policy Proposals: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses used the hearing to discuss other athlete safety challenges and to propose additional athlete safety reforms.
  • Growing Trend of Youth Sports Leagues Disaffiliating from NGBs: Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Ms. Shim, and Mr. Cress raised concerns over how many youth sports organizations are disaffiliating from their NGBs to avoid coach training and background check requirements imposed by the U.S. Center for SafeSport. Subcommittee Chairman Griffith and the hearing’s witnesses stated that this trend is putting youth athletes at increased risk of abuse and called on Congress to address this problem. Ms. Colón specifically called on Congress to establish a definition for NGBs that is inclusive of local-affiliated organizations and that would make clear that NGBs can oversee local-affiliated organizations.
  • Athlete Abuse Prevention Education and Training: Ms. Shim remarked that all NGBs, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, and the USOPC should be required to implement appropriate abuse prevention and education training programs. She commended the U.S. Center for SafeSport for its abuse prevention and education training program.
  • Concerns Regarding a Potential Expansion of the Jurisdictions of the U.S. Center for SafeSprot and the USOPC: Ms. Shim cautioned Congress against expanding the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s jurisdiction to youth sports. She stated that the Center is not being effective in carrying out its current obligations. She noted how the Center currently faces resource constraints and warned that expanding the Center’s jurisdiction would foster confusion. She further asserted that the USOPC should not be responsible for ensuring the safety of all athletes participating in sports across all ages and all levels. She raised concerns that expansions of jurisdiction may undermine oversight capabilities, which will undermine the effectiveness of these bodies.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Ms. Ju’Riese Colón, Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Center for SafeSport
2. Ms. Nicole Deal, Senior Vice President for Security and Athlete Safety, United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee
3. Mr. Craig Cress, Chief Executive Officer, USA Softball, Inc.
4. Ms. Mana Shim, Chair, U.S. Soccer Federation Participant Safety Task Force, U.S. Soccer Federation

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• He remarked that organized athletics (especially for children) is “invaluable” to the U.S.’s culture and commented that sports are instrumental in teaching young people about the values of teamwork and self-esteem.
  • He noted how over 60 million children participate in youth sports leagues.
• He discussed how young athletes often must invest significant amounts of time to master their sports and commented that this may entail the same amount of weekly training hours as a full-time job.
• He attributed the fact that the U.S. claims the most Olympic medals in the modern Olympic Movement to the U.S.’s hard working athletes and extensive network of youth sports leagues.
  • He mentioned how the U.S. has more than 3,100 Olympic medals while second place Germany has just 2,000 medals.
• He remarked that the U.S. must ensure that its athletes can compete in safe and abuse-free environments.
• He lamented however that many athletes are not competing in such environments and recounted how USA Gymnastics had experienced “tragic and horrific” episodes of sexual abuse.
• He mentioned how Congress had chartered the U.S. Center for SafeSport in response to the problems with USA Gymnastics and stated that this Center seeks to ensure that these problems do not reoccur.
  • He explained that the Center is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that is responsible for investigating and resolving abuse and misconduct reports in sports leagues affiliated with the USOPC.
  • He indicated that the Center currently covers 11 million individuals.
• He called it “critical” for the U.S. Center for SafeSport to serve as a functioning, transparent, and effective organization that protects athletes from abuse.
  • He stated that the Center will need to grow and rectify any mistakes that will inevitably occur.
• He also acknowledged that the U.S. Center for SafeSport may require legislative changes as it learns and develops its protocols.
  • He mentioned how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics had recently raised concerns over the Center’s lack of transparency regarding its spending and safety policies.
• He also expressed concerns over reports that youth sports leagues are disaffiliating from their NGBs to avoid coach training and background check requirements imposed by the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • He called these reports “very troubling” given how the Center was created to protect athletes from abuse.
  • He commented that the Center may be inadvertently driving athletes into more opaque leagues that lack the Center’s reporting and training requirements.
• He noted how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics had interviewed NGB participants that had indicated that coaches can move to unsanctioned competitions and still be participating in their sports.
  • He added that one participant had told the Commission that the two biggest offenders of these policies that they knew are still coaching without any consequences.
• He remarked that Congress must address the aforementioned “loopholes” and commented that the hearing provides an opportunity to look into these concerns.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• She expressed interest in working with Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) to ensure that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is fulfilling its mission of protecting athletes.
  • She mentioned how she serves as a co-chair of the Congressional Soccer Caucus and how her daughter had participated in youth soccer.
• She discussed how the U.S. Center for SafeSport receives and responds to reports of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse from the participants in sports associated with the more than 50 NGBs and teams that are part of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement.
  • She commented that the Center’s mandate extends to millions of athletes, including many children, and asserted that these athletes deserve an opportunity to play sports in a safe and nurturing environment.
• She contended that the U.S. Center for SafeSport and similar entities are more important than ever and noted how reports of abuse and misconduct made to the Center have increased by nearly 2,000 percent since its inception.
  • She explained that the Center had been created as an independent body to provide victims of abuse with a clear path to report misconduct and a process to hold abusers accountable.
• She noted however that the Committee has heard “serious concerns” from stakeholders and the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s processes may not align with its safety-focused mission.
• She also thanked the U.S. Soccer Federation for detailing the failures of the U.S. Center for SafeSport to adequately respond to complaints.
  • She indicated that the U.S. Soccer Federation have raised concerns over the lack of clarity regarding the Center’s jurisdiction, the Center’s poor communications with athletes reporting abuse regarding the status of their investigations, the Center’s need for trauma-informed and athlete survivor-centered policies, the Center’s “excessively long” investigations, the Center’s high percentage of cases being closed administratively without clear justifications, and the lack of certainty regarding the ability of NGBs to establish safety measures concerning individuals involved in the Center’s active or past investigations.
• She remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport can only succeed if it operates in a manner that fosters trust in the athletes in need of help.
  • She commented that the top goal of the Center should be to serve and protect athletes and that Congress must fix any problems present within the Center’s processes.
• She stated that the U.S. must ensure that the U.S. Center for SafeSport possesses adequate resources to respond to the thousands of reports that it receives.
  • She also asserted that the U.S. must ensure that NGB leadership, coaches, teams, training staff, and other people that work with athletes are held responsible and accountable.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She remarked that the safety and well-being of children is paramount and asserted that children participating in sports ought to be protected.
  • She commented that sports provide valuable lessons for children regarding hard work, resiliency, mental fortitude, and teamwork.
• She expressed her strong dismay with the revelations that young Olympic gymnasts had experienced abuse and asserted that these types of abuses should never happen again.
  • She applauded these Olympic gymnasts for publicly detailing the abuses that they had experienced.
• She discussed how Congress had created the U.S. Center for SafeSport to ensure that young athletes competing in the U.S. Olympic system would not experience abuse.
  • She explained the Center is an independent organization that is responsible for investigating and resolving reported abuses in athletics.
• She noted how the U.S. Center for SafeSport has the sole and exclusive authority to investigate and resolve sexual misconduct claims.
• She stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport possesses the scope and authority to investigate any reports of misconduct for the more than 11 million individuals throughout the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement.
  • She commented that this responsibility is significant given how the Center has seen misconduct and abuse reports increase each year.
• She reiterated her call for the Committee to prioritize athlete safety and to address the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s problems.
• She noted how the U.S. Center for SafeSport had previously acknowledged that many of its received criticisms are warranted.
  • She elaborated that the Center had acknowledged that its process was sometimes not trauma-informed, that it could be prone to poor communication, and that it could take too long to resolve issues.
• She mentioned how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics had documented the aforementioned issues in its recent report on the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • She also noted how the Commission had found that the Center needs to improve its trust with athletes, clarify its reporting process, and better maintain its CDD.
• She expressed interest in using the hearing to identify the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s outstanding issues so that the Subcommittee could develop solutions to these issues.
  • She also expressed her commitment to working to ensure that all young athletes (from youth sports to the Olympics) are safe, healthy, and thriving.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He remarked that there should be zero tolerance for misconduct of any kind in sports.
  • He commented that the health, dignity, well-being, and performance of millions of athletes across the U.S. depend on the strength of the systems in place to keep athletes safe from abuse.
• He discussed how there have been numerous scandals involving the abuse of athletes across sports and asserted that these scandals demonstrate the need for action and constant vigilance.
  • He highlighted how there had been several high-profile cases of sexual abuse of minor athletes involving USA Gymnastics, USA Swimming, and USA Taekwondo programs.
• He also recounted how hundreds of USA Gymnastics participants had “courageously” came forward to detail decades of abuse from the team’s doctor Larry Nassar.
  • He mentioned how press reports and independent investigations had exposed both systematic failures to respond to reports of Dr. Nassar’s abuse and attempts to cover up the abuse.
• He noted how Congress had established the U.S. Center for SafeSport in 2017 in response to these abuses in sports.
• He discussed how Congress had provided the U.S. Center for SafeSport with exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of sexual misconduct and discretionary authority to investigate other forms of misconduct (including physical and emotional abuse).
  • He also noted the Center is required to provide education, outreach, training, and annual compliance audits of the USOPC and the NGBs responsible for managing individual sports within the U.S.
• He remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s creation was a “significant step forward” in addressing abuse, harassment, and misconduct in sports.
  • He noted how more than 11 million athletes in the Olympic Movement depend on the Center for their safety.
• He asserted that the U.S. must do more to improve the U.S. Center for SafeSport and protect American athletes.
• He noted how athletes and other stakeholders have raised serious concerns about the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s policies and procedures in investigating and resolving reports of sexual abuse.
  • He also mentioned how these athletes and stakeholders have questioned whether claimants are being sufficiently heard and protected.
• He further noted how athletes and NGBs that have reported abuse allegations to the U.S. Center for SafeSport have raised concerns over the Center’s lack of transparency and poor communications regarding ongoing investigations.
  • He highlighted how the Center’s investigations can take years to resolve and indicated that limited information is often shared at the conclusion of these investigations.
• He stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is tasked with managing a “ballooning” caseload with insufficient resources.
  • He noted how the Center had opened approximately 300 investigations relating to complaints from 38 different NGBs in 2018 and indicated that the Center had been receiving 100 new reports of alleged misconduct every week in 2022.
• He mentioned how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics had recently concluded that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s funding level is insufficient to meet its mandate to ensure athlete safety.
  • He also mentioned how the Commission had found that Center’s broad jurisdiction (which ranges grassroots youth sports to high performance Olympic sports) inhibits the Center’s ability to effectively protect athletes.
• He noted how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics had recommended that the U.S. Center for SafeSport be made fully independent of the USOPC and reform its investigation practices (including the way it handles investigations where athletes are reluctant to participate).
• He remarked that athlete trust in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s process is critical for the Center’s success and called for an accountable and transparent system.
  • He also asserted that Congress must provide clear expectations for the Center and work to improve athlete safety.

Witness Opening Statements:

Ms. Ju’Riese Colón (U.S. Center for SafeSport):

• She remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had been tasked with undoing years of inaction in policing sports, restoring faith in the safety of sports, and holding abusers of athletes and the organizations that enabled this abuse accountable.
• She stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s work has been a “catalyst” for change and mentioned how reports of abuse and misconduct to the Center have increased by more than 2,000 percent since the Center’s opening.
  • She commented that athletes are comfortable reporting abuse and misconduct to the Center.
• She testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had received approximately 300 reports of abuse and misconduct and had received 7,500 reports of abuse and misconduct in 2023.
  • She indicated that the Center had received more than 25,000 reports of abuse and misconduct to date.
• She noted how the names of more than 2,000 individuals are now listed in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD.
  • She explained that his database lists individuals that have been restricted or banned from sports and indicated that this database can be easily accessed on the Center’s website.
• She testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had delivered more than 5 million trainings to nearly 2.5 million participants in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement to prepare the sports community to recognize, prevent, and respond to abuse and misconduct.
• She also mentioned how the U.S. Center for SafeSport has established policies to prevent abuse and to create safe spaces for all athletes.
  • She testified that the Center audits every single NGB to ensure adherence to these policies and indicated that the Center has expanded these efforts to address more sports at the grassroots level.
• She stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has received positive feedback from athletes regarding its safety promotion efforts.
  • She highlighted how these efforts have included banning abusive coaches following declined prosecutions, collaborating with law enforcement agencies on athlete abuse cases, pursuing allegations of athlete abuse that had occurred decades previously, sanctioning individuals for failing to report athlete abuse, and promoting accountability in other cases of athlete abuse.
• She acknowledged however that many athletes have indicated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had failed to properly handle their abuse allegations and expressed the Center’s willingness to make improvements to its processes.
  • She specified that the Center is interested in improving the timeliness of its investigations, its communications with the parties involved in its investigations, and its trauma sensitivity.
• She testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had recently embarked on a “deliberate top to bottom review” of its response and resolution process, as well as other aspects of its work.
  • She indicated that this review has involved input from athletes and other stakeholders.
• She stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had identified an initial set of changes.
  • She noted that these changes have included a departmental restructuring and realignment, a redefinition of the use of administrative closures, the enforcement of policies regarding consistent communication, the assignment of staff and resources to improve process navigation, trauma sensitivity training, and data collection, and other process refinements.
• She remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport acknowledges that it must continue to listen to stakeholder input and evolve (even with the aforementioned process changes).
  • She pledged the Center’s commitment to continue seeking athlete input and keeping Congress and the public informed.
• She thanked the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics for their focus on athlete safety and asserted that improvements must be made to ensure that athletes remain protected.
  • She also expressed appreciation for the Commission’s recognition of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s important role in protecting athletes and the Center’s efforts to stand up a novel model.
• She stated that while the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s work involving high-profile athletes and coaches may receive the most media attention, she testified that most of the Center’s cases involve athletes playing for local-affiliated organizations.
• She highlighted how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics had found that the “fractured” youth and grassroots sports landscape leaves athletes vulnerable to abuse.
  • She expressed the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s agreement with this finding.
• She called on Congress to establish a definition for NGBs that is inclusive of local-affiliated organizations and that would make clear that NGBs can oversee these organizations.
  • She also stated that youth sports organizations should be required to consider the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD when making hiring and volunteering decisions.
• She then remarked that increased resources will be key for enabling the U.S. Center for SafeSport to pursue its efforts.
  • She predicted that reports to the Center would grow “exponentially,” especially as new sports (such as flag football and lacrosse) have the potential to add more than one million participants to the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement.
• She stated that additional resources for the U.S. Center for SafeSport would enable the Center to set maximum ceilings on timeframes for case resolution, as well add more investigative staff to meet the growing demand for the Center’s services.

Ms. Nicole Deal (U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee):

• She discussed how she manages safety and security operations at the USOPC, oversees athlete welfare, and works to enrich resources for Team USA athletes beyond the field of play.
  • She indicated that she serves as a link between the USOPC and the U.S. Center for SafeSport and as a guide to NGBs on athlete safety matters.
• She remarked that the USOPC’s guiding principle is the safety and well-being of all Team USA athletes.
  • She commented that the USOPC aims to ensure that all athletes can train, compete, and excel in an environment that is free of misconduct and abuse.
• She stated that the USOPC has evolved significantly since 2017 and that this transformation extends beyond compliance and governance changes.
  • She asserted that athlete safety now shapes the USOPC’s policies, procedures, and interactions.
• She mentioned how the USOPC had updated its mission statement to emphasize the well-being and competitive excellence of Team USA athletes.
  • She indicated that the USOPC had reinforced its athlete safety policies through training and reporting requirements for all organization members and processes for thorough investigation and resolution of complaints.
• She testified that the USOPC has adopted stricter policies concerning interactions between minor athletes and adults, implemented new background check protocols, and launched an integrity platform.
  • She commented that this integrity platform facilitates easy, confidential, and safe reporting of compliance issues.
• She also discussed how the USOPC provides role specific safety training for all staff interacting directly with athletes.
  • She indicated that the USOPC is collaborating with experts to further improve this training.
• She further testified that the USOPC has established robust anti-retaliation policies to protect individuals that report allegations of abuse.
• She then expressed the USOPC’s support for the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s unique mission and capabilities to promote athlete safety.
  • She highlighted how the USOPC supports the Center with an annual contribution of $17.4 million and affirms its independence annually via a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) certification process.
• She mentioned how the USOPC’s Athlete Listening Survey has found a 113 percent increase in athletes reporting that they know how to report allegations of sexual misconduct since 2020.
  • She commented that this finding demonstrates the effectiveness of the USOPC’s efforts to promote misconduct reporting.
• She then discussed how the USOPC holds a unique role in ensuring NGB compliance and noted how the USOPC is responsible for the oversight of NGBs regarding their compliance with the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s policies.
  • She added that the USOPC serves as an NGB for ten sports and is held to the Center’s standards in this capacity.
• She stated that the USOPC’s dual role as both an overseer of NGBs and NGB provides it with a “profound” insight into the diverse needs and specific challenges each NGB faces regarding athlete safety.
• She remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport must undertake key reforms in its current operations to transform the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athlete system into a “paragon” of trust and excellence in athlete abuse prevention and response.
  • She first called on the Center to enhance the athlete experience so that the Center becomes a trusted partner for athletes.
  • She secondly called on the Center to refine its response and resolution process for greater transparency and communication.
  • She lastly called on the Center to showcase an eagerness to learn and adapt through receptiveness to feedback in implementing change.
• She expressed the USOPC’s interest in working with NGBs to develop solutions that will hold bad actors accountable and position the USOPC and NGBs as a trusted resource for athletes.
• She concluded her opening statement by reiterating the USOPC’s commitment to athlete safety and wellness.

Ms. Mana Shim (U.S. Soccer Federation Participant Safety Task Force, U.S. Soccer Federation):

• She recounted how she had been repeatedly sexually harassed by her soccer coach while playing professional soccer.
• She stated that she had felt powerless to stop this sexual harassment given the power imbalance that exists between players and coaches.
  • She elaborated that coaches determine whether players will start in games and their amount of playing time, which impacts the professional careers of athletes.
• She mentioned how she had reported this sexual harassment to her team and the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) and stated that her team and the NWSL had actively worked to protect her coach from her allegations of sexual harassment.
  • She recounted how her former teammates had told her that their former coach had sexually harassed them as well after she had retired from professional soccer.
• She discussed how she and her former teammates had spoken to the press about the sexual harassment that they had endured and commented that the news reports of this harassment had spurred a “reckoning” in women’s professional soccer.
• She mentioned how the U.S. Soccer Federation had hired former Deputy U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates to conduct an independent investigation into her claims.
• She noted how the Yates report had found widespread and systemic abuse across the NWSL that had gone far beyond her former coach.
  • She stated that while this report’s findings were “heartbreaking,” she commented that the findings were not surprising.
• She highlighted how the Yates report had found that abuse in women’s soccer is rooted in youth soccer.
  • She commented that soccer players have been conditioned to view mistreatment as normal and the reporting of mistreatment as a futile exercise.
• She noted how the Yates report had warned that the failure to address the abuse in youth women’s soccer would only exacerbate the problem.
• She also highlighted how the Yates report had determined that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is not doing its job effectively and failing to protect athletes (including younger players).
  • She commented that this finding comports with her experience and noted how the Center’s sexual harassment investigation of her coach remains open.
• She remarked that federal legislation should address the issues that NGBs (including the U.S. Soccer Federation) have encountered with the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s process.
• She first called for increased transparency from the U.S. Center for SafeSport and asserted that the Center does not share enough information with NGBs.
• She secondly stated that the U.S. should limit the Center’s investigations that end in administrative closure.
  • She commented that administrative closure leaves parties in limbo indefinitely and can allow for sexual predators to remain in sports.
• She thirdly stated that the U.S. should ensure that NGBs can take action when the Center does not.
  • She noted how the Center maintains exclusive jurisdiction when it administratively closes a matter, which prevents NGBs from taking action except for a safety plan.
  • She added that this safety plan cannot include keeping someone out of a sport.
• She asserted that NGBs should be allowed to implement further measures to protect athletes in the event that a case is administratively closed.
• She lastly remarked that the U.S. must ensure that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s appeals process works for both claimants and respondents.
  • She commented that the Center’s current process forces victims of abuse to repeat the process in an appeal.
  • She noted how the Center’s findings will sometimes be vacated or overturned by arbitrators if the victim of abuse is unwilling to go through the appeals process.
• She stated that these problems with the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s appeals process can lead the Center to lift sanctions against abusers, even if the abusers have been found by substantial evidence to have conducted sexual misconduct.
• She concluded her opening statement by reiterating her call for Congress to pass legislation to reform the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s process, eliminate barriers to protecting athletes, and ensure that the Center can provide safe and healthy environments for athletes.
  • She expressed the U.S. Soccer Federation’s commitment to work with Congress on these efforts.

Mr. Craig Cress (USA Softball, Inc.):

• He remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is a “valuable tool” for athlete safety and stated that his NGB, USA Softball, has been a standard bearer for universal background checks and education for coaches and umpires.
  • He commented that USA Softball’s safety work predates the establishment of the Center.
• He stated that all minor age softball players deserve protections and lamented how hundreds of thousands of these players currently lack protections.
• He remarked that certain non-NGB youth sports organizations actively target NGBs through promoting that they are exempt from the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements.
  • He called on Congress to create a “level playing field” where all youth athletes are afforded protections and NGBs are not placed at a competitive disadvantage to grassroots sports.
• He discussed how the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s main purpose is to develop policies and procedures to protect athletes and to provide a safe environment for participants.
• He highlighted how USA Softball had adopted safety policies and education programs for youth softball prior to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s establishment.
  • He also mentioned how USA Softball had long maintained a disciplinary process to remove wrongdoers from participation in the organization’s activities.
• He remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has an “extremely” important purpose in taking on its mission.
  • He noted how the USOPC and NGBs have been tasked with helping to fund the Center.
• He stated that NGBs understand and support having all adults participating in youth sports (whether as administrators, coaches, and officials) be regularly educated and be provided with up-to-date annual background checks.
  • He noted how NGBs are responsible for ensuring that adults participating in youth sports follow these requirements and how the U.S. Center for SafeSport audits the NGBs for compliance with these requirements.
  • He testified that USA Softball has been working within this framework and under the Center for the past several years.
• He remarked however that there exists an incorrect assumption that the regulation of NGBs covers and protects all youth sports participants.
• He highlighted how there are at least 25 other softball organizations conducting softball events that are not obligated to meet the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements or adhere to the Center’s policies (including minor athlete abuse prevention policies).
  • He stated that there are hundreds of thousands of children participating in softball where the adults involved have not received education from the Center and have potentially not received any background check screening.
  • He asserted that these athletes deserve the same protections as the athletes participating in USA Softball programs.
• He discussed how other national and regional sports organizations that are not NGBs are not required to follow the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements.
• He mentioned how individuals have moved their sports programs and tournaments away from NGBs in recent years so that they would not be subject to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements.
  • He commented that this has been a harmful development for athletes.
• He stated that these other national and regional sports organizations do not have the same participation standards as NGBs and are not affording their athletes the benefit of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s policies and procedures.
• He testified that USA Softball has had individuals recently leave its organization and from their own softball organizations.
  • He noted how these newly formed softball organizations publicly advertise that teams, coaches, and umpires do not need to adhere to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements to participate in their organizations.
• He contended that all youth sports participants should have the same protections when participating across all youth sports organizations.
  • He asserted that sports organizations should not be permitted to avoid the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Chairman Griffith remarked that Congress must address the gaps in oversight for sports and ensure that all sports organizations adhere to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s policies. He mentioned how a coach in his Congressional District had brought to his attention how certain sports organizations are attempting to evade the Center’s rules. He expressed optimism that most Subcommittee Members would be interested in developing bipartisan legislation to address the aforementioned problems. He also recounted how he had recently attended his son’s high school swimming competition and mentioned how the competition had included posters containing the Center’s policies. He commented that this experience indicates that the Center is having some success in implementing its policies. He then asked Mr. Cress to indicate how many youth sports leagues are currently affiliated with USA Softball.
  • Mr. Cress stated that there are hundreds of thousands of youth sports leagues affiliated with USA Softball.
• Chairman Griffith asked Ms. Cress to provide an estimate of how many teams currently in operation had disaffiliated from USA Softball during the previous year.
  • Mr. Cress stated that approximately 3,500 teams had disaffiliated from USA Softball during the previous year.
• Chairman Griffith emphasized that Mr. Cress’s response only relates to the previous year and commented that there are likely more teams currently in operation that have disaffiliated from USA Softball. He then asked Mr. Cress to indicate how many leagues have disaffiliated from USA Softball.
  • Mr. Cress stated that about 300 leagues have disaffiliated from USA Softball.
• Chairman Griffith asked Mr. Cress to indicate how many athletes are playing for softball leagues that are not affiliated with USA Softball.
  • Mr. Cress estimated that about 6,000 athletes are playing for softball leagues that are not affiliated with USA Softball.
• Chairman Griffith noted how the USA Softball’s member leagues are required to report abuses and to follow the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s standards. He asked Mr. Cress to indicate whether having softball leagues adhere to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s standards is preferable to having these leagues not adhere to any standards.
  • Mr. Cress answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Griffith also highlighted how USA Softball’s coaches and trainers must complete U.S. Center for SafeSport training. He commented that this training requirement is not very burdensome. He indicated that the requirement entails an initial two-hour training session course and subsequent 45-minute training courses every three years. He asked Mr. Cress to confirm this description of the Center’s training requirements.
  • Mr. Cress confirmed Chairman Griffith’s description of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s training requirements.
• Chairman Griffith stated that USA Softball is losing teams to other leagues due to its fees, background check requirements, and training requirements. He highlighted how these other leagues will advertise that they do not have background check and training requirements.
  • Mr. Cress confirmed Chairman Griffith’s statements.
• Chairman Griffith raised concerns that bad actors would move to sports leagues that have easier standards and are not subject to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements.
  • Mr. Cress expressed agreement with Chairman Griffith’s concerns.
• Chairman Griffith remarked that Congress must address this situation involving the evasion of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements. He stated that Congress had incorrectly assumed that a reliance on NGBs would be sufficient for addressing athlete safety. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether Congress must address this situation.
  • Mr. Cress answered affirmatively.
  • Ms. Shim answered affirmatively.
  • Ms. Deal answered affirmatively.
  • Ms. Colón answered affirmatively.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Ranking Member Castor remarked that Congress had intended for the U.S. Center for SafeSport to be the “go-to resource” for athletes to report sexual, emotional, and physical abuse. She also stated that Congress had intended for athletes to be heard and respected when they report abuse to the Center. She applauded Ms. Shim for publicly telling her story of being abused and commented that Ms. Shim’s story is representative of the experiences of many other athletes. She noted how Ms. Shim had reported the abuse she had experienced to the Center. She asked Ms. Shim to discuss her abuse experience as an athlete and to recommend reforms that Congress can make to support athlete safety.
  • Ms. Shim clarified that she did not report her abuse and indicated that the U.S. Soccer Federation had reported her abuse on her behalf to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. She thanked the U.S. Soccer Federation for reporting her abuse. She mentioned how several investigators and attorneys had interviewed her regarding her abuse allegations. She criticized the Center for their lack of communications to athletes and NGBs during their abuse investigations. She described the Center’s investigation process as “unprofessional” and recounted how she had received an email with her abusive coach’s name spelled wrong. She acknowledged that while this may be a small detail, she commented that this episode suggested that the Center had not taken her allegations seriously. She further expressed frustration over the length of her investigation and the fact that the investigation remains open. She stated however that her case was sufficiently high profile to make it likely that her abusive coach would not be hired again within the U.S.
• Ranking Member Castor asked Ms. Shim to indicate whether other athletes have experienced similar challenges when reporting abuse to the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • Ms. Shim stated that several of her soccer player friends and athletes in other sports have had “unpleasant” experiences making reports to the U.S. Center for SafeSport and dealing with the Center’s investigators.
• Ranking Member Castor asked Ms. Shim to indicate whether the challenges associated with reporting abuse to the U.S. Center for SafeSport will discourage athletes and their families from reporting abuse to the Center.
  • Ms. Shim remarked that the challenges associated with reporting abuse to the U.S. Center for SafeSport discourages people from reporting abuse to the Center. She stated that her job as a mandated reporter is to encourage people to report abuse to the Center. She expressed hope that the Center will improve its reporting processes so that people will be more willing to report abuses.
• Ranking Member Castor then noted how the U.S. Center for SafeSport has embarked on some reforms to its policies and processes. She asked Ms. Colón to discuss how the Center is working to address athlete abuse reporting concerns and their high rates of administrative closures on athlete abuse cases.
  • Ms. Colón remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport does not want athletes to experience challenges when reporting abuse to the Center. She stated that the Center is diligently working to work through abuse cases and making reforms so that athletes do not experience similar reporting challenges moving forward. She then discussed how the Center employs administrative closures so that it maintains the ability to reopen cases at a later date. She mentioned how there have been calls for the Center to have more trauma-informed and trauma-sensitive policies and procedures. She stated that the Center seeks to provide such policies and procedures through providing athletes with ability and time to report abuse. She noted how many athletes may not be ready to report abuse immediately after it occurs. She stated that administrative closures enable athletes to pause or stop the reporting process if they do not feel ready to move forward in the process. She commented that administrative closures allow for athletes to resume their cases at a later date. She asserted however that the Center needs to exercise its administrative closure process more judiciously. She testified that the Center is working to improve this process (as well as its entire abuse investigations process).

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers mentioned how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics had identified several areas where the U.S. Center for SafeSport should improve. She noted how one of these areas for improvement involves the Center’s communications with athletes regarding their ongoing cases. She asked Ms. Colón to discuss the actions that the Center is taking to improve its communications with athletes that have filed claims with the Center.
  • Ms. Colón remarked that communications is one of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s biggest priorities. She stated that the Center seeks to provide clear expectations for people involved in the abuse reporting process and the statuses of cases that have been reported. She testified that the Center has engaged in restructuring and realignment to improve information sharing amongst the Center’s internal teams. She also testified that the Center is working to hire more resource navigators to help athletes better understand the Center’s reporting process. She explained that athletes that have reported abuse to the Center can call these resource navigators to receive updates on their cases. She further discussed how the Center is increasing the amount of content on its website and its communications channels.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers interjected to note how Scott Gray of USA Hockey had asserted that athlete abuse investigations should take between two weeks and one month to complete. She asked Ms. Colón to explain why some of the Center’s investigations are taking longer than a year to complete.
  • Ms. Colón remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s investigations tend to be more complex than USA Hockey’s investigations. She elaborated that the Center deals with sexual abuse allegations while USA Hockey deals with emotional and physical abuse allegations.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Ms. Colón to indicate the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s number of unresolved current investigations that have been ongoing for more than six months.
  • Ms. Colón stated that she would need to follow up with Chairman McMorris Rodgers on her question.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers noted how some of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s investigations can go on for a year or two before resolution. She asked Ms. Colón to indicate whether the Center is concerned that the athletes filing reports may become discouraged and quit the reporting process due to the length of the resolution process.
  • Ms. Colón answered affirmatively.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Ms. Colón to indicate whether the U.S. Center for SafeSport is concerned that its cases that remain under investigation for prolonged periods of time may enable bad actors to continue abusing athletes during the investigation period.
  • Ms. Colón answered no. She stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport can implement temporary measures to remove people from sports during their investigations when there exists a threat of harm.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then thanked Ms. Shim for sharing her story of harassment as an athlete and working to protect other athletes from abuse. She asked Ms. Shim to discuss the U.S. Soccer Federation’s experience working with the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • Ms. Shim stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has made improvements. She noted how the Center had been established based on a belief that NGBs were failing to protect athlete safety. She stated that while the U.S. Soccer Federation’s relationship with the Center is improving, she commented that this relationship is not ideal.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers noted how the U.S. Center for SafeSport had been established to be an independent entity looking into abuses occurring at NGBs and associated leagues. She asked Ms. Shim to indicate whether the Center is justified in having discretion regarding what they share with NGBs.
  • Ms. Shim stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport should have discretion regarding what they share with NGBs. She remarked however that limited information from the Center can make it difficult for NGBs to protect athletes and adhere to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. She noted how NGBs often only receive two sentence explanations from the Center regarding allegations.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers lastly provided Mr. Cress with an opportunity to recommend ways to improve athlete safety. She also asked Mr. Cress to explain why youth softball leagues are unaffiliating themselves from USA Softball.
  • Mr. Cress stated that youth softball leagues are not unaffiliating themselves from USA Softball solely to escape oversight from the U.S. Center for SafeSport. He noted how many softball entities are trying to make money and offering events. He indicated that there are over 25 other softball organizations operating within the U.S. He also stated that many stakeholders are joining softball organizations beyond USA Softball because these organizations are easier to sign up for.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• Ranking Member Pallone asked Ms. Shim to discuss the transparency of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s investigation process. He also asked Ms. Shim to detail the communications she had received from the Center after she had reported her abuse to the Center. She further asked Ms. Shim to provide recommendations for improving the Center’s process to make it more transparent and to increase communications between the Center and athletes.
  • Ms. Shim indicated that she had received approximately four status updates from the U.S. Center for SafeSport regarding her sexual harassment case over the course of more than two years. She criticized the Center for not providing enough updates and commented that more frequent updates would be helpful. She also mentioned how the most recent update that she had received regarding her case was that a new investigator would be added to the case and that the Center was planning to conclude her case’s investigation. She called on the Center to provide more information and more frequent status updates regarding its cases under investigation.
• Ranking Member Pallone remarked that improvements must be made to the U.S. Center for SafeSport so that athletes trust the Center. He commented that athletes that are brave enough to report abuse should know how their cases are being handled and receive frequent updates regarding the statuses of their cases. He then noted how the Center is undertaking a thorough review of its response and resolution processes. He asked Ms. Colón to indicate whether the Center has consulted key stakeholders as part of this review. He also asked Ms. Colón to indicate whether the Center plans to institute reforms that increase transparency and communication in response to concerns raised by athletes, NGBs, and the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics.
  • Ms. Colón testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has solicited input from NGBs, survivor groups, and athletes to identify areas of concerns and potential solutions to said concerns. She also mentioned how the Center had convened several working groups internally to focus on ten different areas for improvement. She stated that the Center is working to improve its operations.
• Ranking Member Pallone asked Ms. Colón to indicate whether the U.S. Center for SafeSport plans to make the results of its review and any proposed reforms public at a later date.
  • Ms. Colón answered affirmatively.
• Ranking Member Pallone expressed support for the U.S. Center for SafeSport and stated that Congress must work to strengthen the Center to better protect the health and well-being of athletes. He asserted that there is a growing need for the Center to be more transparent and accountable. He noted how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics’s recent report had found that athletes often do not know the statuses of their reports to the Center, that the Center lacks sufficient communications protocols for athletes, and that athletes often must wait indefinitely for their cases to be resolved. He asserted that these findings underscore the need for the Center to improve its transparency and communication.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX):

• Rep. Burgess described the U.S. Center for SafeSport as necessary and important and stated that Congress must continue working to improve the Center. He noted how Ms. Colón had mentioned how the Center is hiring resource navigators to help athletes better understand the Center’s reporting process. He suggested that the Center consider hiring advocates to work on behalf of athletes reporting abuses.
  • Ms. Colón noted how every claimant and respondent that goes through the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s investigation process can have an advisor support them through the process. She indicated that the Center does not currently provide advocates for athletes reporting abuses. She stated however that advocates could potentially be useful and expressed receptiveness towards considering this proposal.
• Rep. Burgess expressed interest in further considering the feasibility of having the U.S. Center for SafeSport hire advocates to work on behalf of athletes reporting abuses. He then asked Ms. Colón to discuss other potential improvements for the Center.
  • Ms. Colón first mentioned how the U.S. Center for SafeSport is taking several actions internally to improve its communications and the timeliness of its investigations. She then stated that the Center is working to improve its information sharing practices. She noted how the Center is working to provide additional resources to NGBs so that they can better navigate their own cases regarding athlete emotional and physical abuse. She also mentioned how the Center is working to improve how it works with minor claimants involved in abuse cases. She further noted how the Center is adding additional staff. She predicted that the Center will receive more reports of abuse in the future and commented that this increase will impact the Center’s ability to handle the cases in a prompt manner.
• Rep. Burgess then noted how physicians are legally required to report anytime they suspect that a pediatric patient has experienced abuse. He indicated that physicians that fail to report such abuse would face sanctions. He asked Ms. Colón to indicate whether a similar system of mandatory reporting exists within youth sports.
  • Ms. Colón answered affirmatively. She stated that every adult participant in youth sports must report when they suspect a athlete is being abused. She also indicated that all U.S. Center for SafeSport and NGB employees must report when they suspect a athlete is being abused. She testified that the Center works closely with law enforcement agencies on athlete abuse cases (especially on athlete abuse cases involving athletes).
• Rep. Burgess then asked Ms. Deal to indicate whether it is problematic that many athlete abuse cases are being resolved through administrative closures.
  • Ms. Deal answered affirmatively. She expressed concerns that there is not sufficient information provided to athletes when administrative closures occur. She commented that this lack of information prevents the adoption of safety measures to prevent future abuse.
• Rep. Burgess stated that the lack of closures for abuse cases can lead abuses to continue. He then asked Ms. Deal to discuss the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s trauma-informed practices and to indicate whether the USOPC is pursuing these practices.
  • Ms. Deal testified that the USOPC has engaged with outside subject matter experts to provide enhanced training on trauma-informed practices. She indicated that this enhanced training is “above and beyond” the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements. She stated that all USOPC employees and the athletes that the USOPC manages recognize the signs of grooming behavior, know how to provide assistance to someone seeking to report abuse, and know how to report abuse.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• Rep. DeGette first thanked Ms. Shim for testifying at the hearing and working to improve the safety situation for NGBs. She stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had been formed in response to the failures of certain NGBs to protect athletes. She mentioned how she has worked with Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) on developing legislation to improve safety protections for athletes. She then asked Ms. Colón to confirm that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had 300 reports of athlete abuse when it was first established.
  • Ms. Colón confirmed that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had 300 reports of athlete abuse when it was first established.
• Rep. DeGette asked Ms. Colón to confirm that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had received 7,500 reports of athlete abuse in 2023.
  • Ms. Colón confirmed that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had received 7,500 reports of athlete abuse in 2023.
• Rep. DeGette stated that while this large number of reports of athlete abuse is “alarming,” she called it a positive development that this abuse is being reported. 
  • Ms. Colón expressed agreement with Rep. DeGette’s statement.
• Rep. DeGette asked Ms. Colón to confirm that Congress had required the USOPC to contribute $20 million to the U.S. Center for SafeSport every year to fund the organization.
  • Ms. Colón confirmed that Congress had required the USOPC to contribute $20 million to the U.S. Center for SafeSport every year to fund the organization.
• Rep. DeGette noted how Congress had also contributed $2.5 million to the U.S. Center for SafeSport last year, even though Congress had requested a $5 million authorization for the Center. She asked Ms. Colón to indicate how much it would cost to adequately fund the Center.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s budget would need to be around $30 million based on the current trajectory of incoming cases.
• Rep. DeGette asked Ms. Deal to indicate whether she agreed with Ms. Colón’s assessment that the U.S. Center for SafeSport requires additional funding.
  • Ms. Deal answered affirmatively.
• Rep. DeGette attributed the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s delays in responding to reports of abuse to the Center’s lack of investigators.
  • Ms. Colón expressed agreement with Rep. DeGette’s characterization of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s current situation.
• Rep. DeGette asked Ms. Colón to address how the U.S. Center for SafeSport deals with its caseload given its limited number of investigators.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport works to triage its cases and improve its internal efficiencies. She warned however that an uptick in reported cases to the Center will lead the Center to continue to face caseload challenges.
• Rep. DeGette then mentioned how the U.S. Soccer Federation has proposed that NGBs should be permitted to take over an abuse case if the U.S. Center for SafeSport administratively closes the case. She asked Ms. Colón to opine on this proposal.
  • Ms. Colón expressed opposition to allowing NGBs to take over abuse cases that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has administratively closed. She remarked that the Center will often administratively close its cases to preserve the right to reopen the cases at a later date. She expressed concerns that NGBs could create confusion for athletes reporting cases if NGBs were to investigate abuse cases again immediately following an administrative closure. She stated however that NGBs require additional information to make better decisions regarding safety planning, membership, and employment.
• Rep. DeGette asked Ms. Colón and Ms. Deal to confirm that the U.S. Center for SafeSport had been largely created because the independent investigation capabilities of NGBs have historically varied significantly.
  • Ms. Colón answered affirmatively.
  • Ms. Deal answered affirmatively. She noted how there are over 50 NGBs and commented that the resources and capacities of these organizations vary “tremendously.”
• Rep. DeGette asked the witnesses to confirm that NGBs had varied in terms of their investigatory responses to abuse cases prior to the establishment of the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • Ms. Colón answered affirmatively. She highlighted how NGBs have different budgets, staff sizes, and abilities.
• Rep. DeGette asked Ms. Shim to indicate whether she has observed variations across NGBs.
  • Ms. Shim answered affirmatively. She commented that NGBs vary in terms of size and resources.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY):

• Rep. Guthrie asked Ms. Colón to provide recommendations for improving the partnerships between the U.S. Center for SafeSport and NGBs.
  • Ms. Colón remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport can provide additional information and communications to NGBs and athletes throughout its investigations process. She also stated that the Center should work to better inform NGBs on its proposed process changes and better incorporate the feedback of NGBs when making process changes. She testified that the Center has undergone a “robust” review of its processes that has incorporated the opinions and perspectives of NGBs.
• Rep. Guthrie then asked Ms. Colón to address how the U.S. Center for SafeSport balances the need to immediately protect athletes following their reporting of an abuse claim with the need to provide the accused party with an opportunity to contest the claim.
  • Ms. Colón discussed how the U.S. Center for SafeSport conducts thorough initial assessments of its received claims to determine whether the athletes face immediate risks. She explained that the Center will consider witness testimony and evidence as part of this risk assessment. She stated that if the Center determines that such a risk is present in the claims, then the Center will implement temporary measures to protect the athlete while it investigates their case.
• Rep. Guthrie commented that the U.S. must not infringe on the ability of accused parties to contest athlete abuse claims. He then asked Ms. Shim to provide recommendations for ensuring that the U.S. Center for SafeSport operates more transparently. He also asked Ms. Shim to address what the Center could learn if it worked more closely with the U.S. Soccer Federation.
  • Ms. Shim called on the U.S. Center for SafeSport to engage in more information sharing with NGBs. She stated that the U.S. Soccer Federation requires more information from the Center about its risk assessments and decisions beyond two sentence explanations. She commented that this information would provide the U.S. Soccer Federation with more confident regarding the Center’s imposed temporary measures (or decision to not to impose temporary measures). She then expressed disagreement with Ms. Colón’s claim that athletes reporting abuse claims to the Center have sufficient resources. She stated many athletes (including herself) that have filed abuse claims with the Center did not know that they had the right to an advisor during the investigations process. She testified that the Center had told her to not share her story of abuse with others because such sharing could interfere with the Center’s investigation. She stated that many athletes do not feel comfortable or equipped to advocate for themselves during an investigation. She commented that this lack of comfort with the Center’s processes can discourage athletes from reporting abuse.
• Rep. Guthrie then asked Mr. Cress to indicate whether there exist opportunities to further protect athletes through providing NGBs with the ability to partner with the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • Mr. Cress answered affirmatively. He remarked that increased information sharing and communications between the U.S. Center for SafeSport and NGBs would improve the understanding of priorities across organizations. He added that this better understanding across organizations would improve the ability of NGBs to carry out their missions.
• Rep. Guthrie asked Mr. Cress to address how USA Softball ensures that its athletes making abuse claims are protected while also protecting the rights of accused parties.
  • Mr. Cress noted how USA Softball will take temporary measures to limit the communications pathways between the accused party and the accusing party following an abuse report. He stated that USA Softball will keep these temporary measures in place until the U.S. Center for SafeSport determines whether they will assert jurisdiction over the claim or whether the USA Softball should adjudicate the claim. He stated that USA Softball will further investigate the matter if the Center determines that USA Softball should adjudicate the claim.
• Rep. Guthrie indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

• • Rep. Schakowsky recounted how an Illinois soccer coach had been abusing athletes and noted how it had taken 22 years to ban this coach from the sport for life. She expressed hope that this type of delay in banning an abusive coach does not reoccur in the future. She stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s mission is to prevent this type of athlete abuse. She then stated that NGBs seeking to file an athlete abuse complaint must pay a fee to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. She asked Ms. Colón to confirm her statement.
    • Ms. Colón testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport obtains the majority of its funding through the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athlete Act of 2020. She explained that this law requires the USOPC to provide the Center with $20 million annually. She stated that the Center has no bearing or input regarding how NGBs are funding the USOPC. She testified that the Center does not determine how it takes reports based on fees.
  • Rep. Schakowsky asked Ms. Colón to confirm that NGBs do not have to pay a fee to the U.S. Center for SafeSport to file an abuse report with the Center.
    • Ms. Colón noted that while NGBs pay an annual fee to the USOPC, she indicated that NGBs do not pay the U.S. Center for SafeSport directly.
  • Rep. Schakowsky asked Ms. Colón to confirm that NGBs do not have a disincentive to file abuse reports with the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
    • Ms. Colón stated that NGBs do not have a disincentive to file abuse reports with the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • Rep. Schakowsky asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S. Center for SafeSport should receive more funding from non-athlete sources. She commented that Congress could play a role in providing the Center with greater independent funding.

• Ms. Colón remarked that independent funding for the U.S. Center for SafeSport would be helpful. She stated that the Center currently has trust issues and commented that independent funding for the Center coming from multiple revenue streams would be helpful in addressing these trust issues.
  • Ms. Deal expressed agreement with Ms. Colón’s response. She asserted that more independent funding streams for the U.S. Center for SafeSport would be better. She stated that such independent funding streams could make athletes more comfortable with reporting abuse to the Center.
  • Ms. Shim expressed the U.S. Soccer Federation’s support for federal funding of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. She remarked that the Center currently does not have adequate funding or resources. She also stated that the fees that NGBs pay to the USOPC (which the USOPC then uses to fund the Center) are based on the caseload of the NGBs.
• Rep. Schakowsky asked Ms. Shim to confirm that NGBs must pay more fees if they report more cases of abuse to the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • Ms. Shim answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Schakowsky asked Ms. Shim to indicate whether these increased fees to the USOPC based on abuse claim reporting could disincentivize NGBs from reporting abuse claims to the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • Ms. Shim stated that the increased fees that NGBs must pay to the USOPC based on abuse claim reporting could disincentivize NGBs from reporting abuse claims to the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
  • Mr. Cress remarked that independent funding for the U.S. Center for SafeSport would be “greatly helpful.” He stated that this independent funding would address the perception that the Center lacks independence given its current reliance on funding from NGBs and the USOPC.
• Rep. Schakowsky indicated that her question period time had expired. She stated that while the increased reporting of abuse to the U.S. Center for SafeSport is a positive development, she expressed concerns that the Center may lack sufficient funding. She expressed support for having Congress provide independent funding for the Center.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Rep. Duncan recounted how his former constituent Parker Egbert was a U.S. Paralympic athlete had been subjected to rape, physical abuse, mental abuse, emotional abuse, and grooming by his teammate. He noted how the New York Times had reported that Mr. Egbert was made roommates with his allegedly abusive teammate, even though the teammate had already been placed in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD for alleged abuses of other athletes. He indicated that Mr. Egbert has an intellectual disability while his allegedly abusive teammate has a physical disability. He commented that the decision to make these two athletes roommates had created a power imbalance and an environment that was “ripe for abuse.” He noted how Mr. Egbert’s teammate was assigned to be Mr. Egbert’s handler and caretaker, even though the teammate had never undergone any training. He highlighted how the abuse that Mr. Egbert had received was so brutal and extensive that Mr. Egbert still requires physical therapy to this day. He added that Mr. Egbert has required extensive therapy to move on from this extensive trauma. He mentioned how Mr. Egbert’s parents had made his office aware of Mr. Egbert’s experience in late 2022 after their efforts with the USOPC, the Colorado Springs Police Department, and the U.S. Center for SafeSport were unfruitful. He mentioned how his Office had asked the U.S. Center for SafeSport to explain their actions in Mr. Egbert’s case and how his Office had not received any answers from the Center. He asked Ms. Colón to indicate why the findings of the 2020 allegations against Mr. Egbert’s teammate were not made available to Mr. Egbert’s family prior to Mr. Egbert rooming with the teammate.
  • Ms. Colón called Mr. Egbert’s case “heartbreaking” and testified that she had read Mr. Egbert’s pleading. She stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is in the middle of investigating Mr. Egbert’s case, which limits her ability to comment on the case. She noted however the Mr. Egbert had voluntarily dismissed the Center in his current lawsuit.
• Rep. Duncan asked Ms. Colón to explain why an athlete with prior allegations of abuse and placement in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD in 2020 would be assigned as Mr. Egbert’s roommate. He emphasized that Mr. Egbert has an intellectual disability.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is not involved in assigning roommates at training facilities or events. She stated that she could therefore not answer Rep. Duncan’s question.
• Rep. Duncan emphasized that Mr. Egbert’s roommate was in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD. He then asked Ms. Colón to indicate the Center’s obligations to disclose allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport regularly updates its CDD that houses all of its sanctions.
• Rep. Duncan asked Ms. Colón to indicate why Mr. Egbert’s alleged abuser was allowed to attend the 2020 Summer Paralympic Games and represent Team USA. He further asked Ms. Egbert to indicate why Mr. Egbert’s alleged abuser was allowed to supervise an athlete with an intellectual disability.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport was not involved in Team USA’s selection process.
• Rep. Duncan interjected to ask Ms. Colón to indicate whether the U.S. Center for SafeSport had been in communication with the USOPC prior to the 2020 Summer Paralympic Games.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport does share information with the USOPC.
• Rep. Duncan then mentioned how the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s investigation into Mr. Egbert’s abuse claims had commenced in early 2023 after the Colorado Springs Police Department had closed its investigation. He asked Ms. Colón to indicate why the Center has not provided an update on this case since it took it over.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is coordinating with the parties involved in the civil suit to obtain access to depositions and discovery. She explained that this access would help the Center avoid the need to re-interview potential trauma survivors.
• Rep. Duncan then asked Ms. Deal to address why Mr. Egbert’s alleged abuser was allowed to participate in the 2020 Summer Paralympic Games and room with a person with an intellectual disability. He noted that the alleged abuser was already in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD.
  • Ms. Deal first expressed her sympathies to Mr. Egbert and his family. She then refused to comment on Mr. Egbert’s investigation given its ongoing nature. She noted how the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD contains current restriction or banned members. She indicated that if a person that has finished their probation or has completed their restriction, then the person is no longer in the Center’s CDD.
• Rep. Duncan then noted how the U.S. Center for SafeSport has immunity from being sued civilly. He asked Ms. Colón to indicate the resolution that can be made to a victim of abuse, even when the Center clears the alleged abuser of wrongdoing.
  • Ms. Colón noted that a victim of abuse has legal remedies beyond the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s process. She indicated that Mr. Egbert is currently engaged in an active lawsuit.
• Rep. Duncan asked Ms. Colón to indicate how many investigators the U.S. Center for SafeSport has.
  • Ms. Colón estimated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has 125 staff and indicated that half of this staff is dedicated to response and resolution. She estimated that the Center has over 30 investigators within its response and resolution team. She stated however that there are multiple tiers to the Center’s investigative process beyond the investigator.

Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Chairman Griffith mentioned how he had worked on issues relating to sexually violent predators during his tenure in the Virginia legislature and commented that these predators usually do not change their ways. He stated that a person in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD for sexually violent acts should never be removed from the database. He acknowledged however that he was not fully aware of all of the details surrounding Parker Egbert’s alleged abuser.

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• Rep. Tonko expressed interest in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s use of administrative closures to dispose of cases. He explained that administrative closures occur when the Center asserts jurisdiction over a case and ultimately closes the case without making findings or issuing any sanctions. He noted how the Center does not publish any public record of the allegation in the cases that it closes administratively. He mentioned how NGBs, victims that have reported abuse, and other stakeholders have expressed confusion and concern regarding the high rate of administrative closures. He indicated that administrative closures represent nearly two-thirds of all of the Center’s case resolutions. He noted how the Center had accepted jurisdiction for over 7,400 cases in 2022 and had administratively closed 4,800 of these cases. He asked Ms. Colón to confirm these numbers.
  • Ms. Colón stated that she would need to review the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s annual report before she could definitively answer Rep. Tonko’s question. She commented however that Rep. Tonko’s provided numbers appear very plausible.
• Rep. Tonko asked Ms. Colón to discuss the circumstances that lead to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s administrative closures. He also asked Ms. Colón to explain why a high percentage of the Center’s cases are resolved via administrative closures.
  • Ms. Colón remarked that there exist numerous reasons why the U.S. Center for SafeSport would opt to use an administrative closure to resolve a case. She highlighted how administrative closures allow for the Center to reopen their cases at a later date. She noted how the Center seeks to provide victims of abuse with more time and flexibility to share their stories of abuse. She commented that administrative closures provide these victims with the ability to pause their interactions with the Center without closing their cases. She also discussed how the Center has started to provide more administrative closure categories so that NGBs can better understand the Center’s administrative closure decisions. She stated that these categories will enable NGBs to make better decisions surrounding employment and volunteering. She elaborated that these categories can include whether someone is admonished or deceased. She commented that these categories provide increased transparency surrounding the Center’s administrative closures.
• Rep. Tonko asked Ms. Colón to indicate the information that the U.S. Center for SafeSport provides to victims and NGBs when the Center administratively closes a case.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport provides several pieces of information to victims and NGBs throughout its process. She indicated that these pieces of information include a notice of jurisdiction, a notice of allegation, and a closure memorandum. She stated that the Center does not typically share much information with victims and NGBs if the Center intends to reopen the case at a later date. She indicated that these cases could become active again at any time.
• Rep. Tonko then mentioned how a U.S. Soccer Federation July 2023 letter to Congress had identified the rate of administrative closures as a chief concern regarding the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s operations. He noted how this letter had claimed that the Center’s rate of administrative closures has “serious consequences” for athletes. He asked Ms. Shim to describe these consequences. He also asked Ms. Shim to discuss the options that the U.S. Soccer Federation and other NGBs have when the Center issues an administrative closure.
  • Ms. Shim stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s administrative closures force NGBs to affirmatively allow bad actors to reenter their sports. She described this situation as an “obvious problem.” She acknowledged the Center’s desire to issue administrative closures so that the Center can reopen investigations at a later date. She stated that the Center should have the ability to reinvestigate cases regardless of whether an administrative closure has occurred. She also stated that the Center often will administratively close cases multiple times. She remarked that athletes should have more flexibility in how they bring their abuse cases and commented that this should involve the option to report abuse cases to their NGBs.
• Rep. Tonko asked Ms. Shim to indicate how athletes that report abuse to the U.S. Center for SafeSport react to their cases being administratively closed.
  • Ms. Shim remarked that athletes do not react well to the U.S. Center for SafeSport administratively closing their cases. She stated that athletes interpret these administrative closures to mean that their reports of abuse are not believed or are not cared about. She stated that administrative closures can be devastating for athletes and lead the athletes to leave their sports. She mentioned how she had ended her athletic career early as a result of the abuse that she had experienced.
• Rep. Tonko acknowledged that the U.S. Center for SafeSport must investigate and adjudicate complex athlete abuse cases. He stated however that the U.S. must ensure that the Center’s process does not set aside credible complaints when actions are required to protect athletes from future abuse. He expressed interest in working with the Center to improve its administrative closure process.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL):

• Rep. Palmer mentioned how the U.S. Center for SafeSport had conducted a survey of 4,000 athletes in 2021 across more than 50 sports. He noted how this survey had found that 93 percent of respondents that had experienced sexual harassment or unwanted contact did not report the harassment or contact. He noted how Ms. Shim had testified that she had reported the harassment that she had experienced from her coach to her team, the NWSL, and the U.S. Soccer Federation. He also noted how Ms. Shim had stated that these organizations had worked to protect her abusive coach from her abuse allegations. He mentioned how the Yates report (which had investigated abuse within women’s soccer) had asserted that women’s soccer leaders cannot rely exclusively on the U.S. Center for SafeSport to keep players safe and had called for the implementation of safety measures. He further highlighted how the Center has a propensity to administratively close many of its athlete abuse cases. He remarked that athlete abuse is a widely known problem and stated that one of the greatest impediments for athletes reporting abuse is a lack of confidence that their claims will be acted upon. He asked Ms. Shim to respond to his characterization of the dynamics within the current athlete abuse reporting system.
  • Ms. Shim expressed agreement with Rep. Palmer’s characterization of the dynamics with the current athlete abuse reporting system. She stated that it is difficult for athletes to report abuse when they do not observe other athletes obtain resolutions for their reports of abuse.
• Rep. Palmer then noted how athlete abuse is not a uniquely American problem. He mentioned how the Washington Post had just reported that over 300 French coaches, teachers, and officials have been accused of sexual abuse or covering up such abuse in 2023. He also mentioned how Canada has athlete abuse problems. He expressed astonishment that athlete abuse is still occurring at a high rate and that athletes remain reluctant to report abuse, even with the establishment of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. He stated that the Center is failing to proactively protect athletes from abuse. He commended Ms. Shim for her willingness to report her abuse and to risk her athletic career in doing so. He lamented however that Ms. Shim’s reporting of her abuse did not protect other athletes because no action had been taken. He asked Ms. Shim to comment on the results of her reporting of her abuse.
  • Ms. Shim remarked that all NGBs, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, and the USOPC should be required to implement appropriate abuse prevention and education training programs. She commended the U.S. Center for SafeSport for its abuse prevention and education training program. She also testified that the U.S. Soccer Federation is currently working to improve its abuse prevention and education training program. She asserted however that these programs are not robust enough. She stated that athlete abuse remains prevalent across all sports and that addressing this abuse will require collaboration across sports.
• Rep. Palmer asserted that NGBs, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, and the USOPC are often more focused on protecting themselves than on protecting athletes. He stated that Congress must provide better oversight of these organizations to ensure that the financial incentives of these organizations do not cause them to overlook their responsibilities to protect athletes. He commented that providing more funding for these organizations will not address these misaligned incentives. He concluded that these organizations must prioritize protecting athletes.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ):

• Rep. Lesko first called the hearing “eye opening and somber.” She then discussed how the U.S. Center for SafeSport had referred 600 cases back to the U.S. Soccer Federation and indicated that the Center had believed that these cases could be better addressed at the NGB-level. She noted how most of these cases involved allegations of emotional and physical abuse and violations of minor athlete abuse prevention policies. She asked Ms. Shim to discuss the outcomes of these cases that had been referred back to the U.S. Soccer Federation. She also asked Ms. Shim to discuss the U.S. Soccer Federation’s resolution process is for cases.
  • Ms. Shim stated that the U.S. Soccer Federation does track the cases that the U.S. Center for SafeSport refers back to them. She indicated that she could follow up with the Committee regarding the information for these cases. She discussed how the U.S. Soccer Federation is responsible for addressing concerns that would be considered lower level. She explained that these lower-level concerns may include athlete-on-athlete abuse. She stated that the U.S. Soccer Federation is responsible for following up on these reported abuses. She acknowledged that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has a very large caseload and noted how the U.S. Soccer Federation will handle the cases that are referred back from the Center.
• Rep. Lesko asked Ms. Shim to estimate the U.S. Soccer Federation’s rate of resolving the cases that the U.S. Center for CenterSport refers back to the Federation.
  • Ms. Shim indicated that she does know the U.S. Soccer Federation’s case resolution rate. She stated that the U.S. Soccer Federation quickly handles the cases that the U.S. Center for SafeSport refers back to them because these cases are generally resolved at the club or organization level.
• Rep. Lesko then asked Ms. Colón to characterize the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s communications with athletes that have filed reports of abuse to the Center.
  • Ms. Colón characterized the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s communications with athletes that have filed reports of abuse to the Center as “improving.” She stated that the Center has not always communicated well with athletes reporting abuse regarding the status of their claims and the results of their claims. She remarked that the Center needs to improve its communications. She suggested that this may be accomplished through adding educational content regarding the Center’s processes, adding additional navigators to help athletes better understand the Center’s abuse reporting process, and implementing timeframes for the Center’s investigators to ensure that they regularly communicate with athletes filing abuse reports when the athletes want. She noted how some athletes prefer not to receive frequent communications from the Center regarding their abuse reports.
• Rep. Lekso then asked Ms. Shim to discuss the problems that arise when the U.S. Center for SafeSport does not provide NGBs (such as the U.S. Soccer Federation) with an explanation as to why they are administratively closing a case.
  • Ms. Shim noted how the abuse case respondents will often falsely claim that they have been proven innocent when the U.S. Center for Safe Sport decides to administratively close a case. She commented that it can be difficult for the U.S. Soccer Federation to combat this false narrative. She also mentioned how the Center will often provide two sentence descriptions of their actions to NGBs and commented that these limited descriptions can be “egregious.” She stated that these limited descriptions undermine the ability of NGBs to protect their athletes.
• Rep. Lesko then Ms. Colón to indicate whether she understands the concerns and confusion that NGBs experience when the U.S. Center for SafeSport does not provide significant information relating to a case’s administrative closure.
  • Ms. Colón answered affirmatively and stated that this limited information makes it more difficult for NGBs to make safety planning, membership, and employment decisions. She testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is working to provide NGBs with more insight into the Center’s administrative closure decisions so that the NGBs can make better decisions.
• Rep. Lesko commented that there appears to exist widespread recognition of the problems within the athlete abuse reporting system. She expressed hope that the relevant stakeholders can work together to address these problems.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL):

• Rep. Cammack mentioned how the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s 2022 Annual Report to Congress had indicated that the Center had 4,634 total resolutions. She noted however that the Center had listed cases that it did not have jurisdiction over as part of their resolutions total. She asked Ms. Colón to confirm that 2,217 of the Center’s 4,634 total resolutions reported in 2022 involved cases where the Center either lacked jurisdiction or declined to take jurisdiction.
  • Ms. Colón indicated that she would need to review the data before confirming Rep. Cammack’s stated figures.
• Rep. Cammack stated that the aforementioned figures indicate that nearly half of the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s reported resolutions involve cases that the Center had claimed that it could not investigate due to jurisdiction issues. She asked Ms. Colón to explain why almost half of the Center’s total resolutions had been reported to Congress as “resolutions” when the Center did not actually resolve the cases or take actions to resolve the cases.
  • Ms. Colón called it important to distinguish between the cases where the U.S. Center for SafeSport declined to assert jurisdiction and the cases where the Center lacks jurisdiction. She noted that the Center has to refer cases back to the appropriate entities when it lacks jurisdiction over said cases. She indicated that the Center is still required to track these cases for the federal government and others. She then stated that the Center must still engage in significant work before it decides to decline jurisdiction over a case. She indicated that the Center will often refer cases to NGBs for which it declines to assert jurisdiction. She stated however that the Center will still track these cases.
• Rep. Cammack described the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s reported total resolutions as “incredibly misleading” given the total’s high composition of cases that the Center did not investigate. She stated that the Center should clarify this dynamic in their reports to Congress and commented that these cases that the Center did not investigate should not be considered resolutions. She asked Ms. Colón to commit to removing cases for which the Center does not have jurisdiction over from their resolution totals in their reports to Congress. She commented that the inclusion of these in these cases in the Center’s resolution totals provides a “skewed” assessment of the Center’s performance.
  • Ms. Colón testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is currently reviewing its data management practices so that it can better convey its performance.
• Rep. Cammack asked Ms. Colón to indicate when the U.S. Center for SafeSport will complete its work to improve its data management practices.
  • Ms. Colón described the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s work to improve its data management practices as a long process. She mentioned how the Center had recently hired a data engineer to identify where the Center’s data management issues are located. She estimated that this process would take eight months to complete.
• Rep. Cammack interjected to ask Ms. Colón to commit to having the U.S. Center for SafeSport address its data management issues before the end of 2024.
  • Ms. Colón stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport would work to address its data management issues to the best of its ability by the end of 2024.
• Rep. Cammack stated that Congress would hold the U.S. Center for SafeSport accountable to its pledge to improve its data management systems. She then asked Ms. Shim to comment on the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s total number of resolutions. She also asked Ms. Shim to indicate whether the Center should count the cases with jurisdictional issues in their reported numbers for resolved cases.
  • Ms. Shim expressed agreement with Rep. Cammack’s view that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s decision to include cases with jurisdictional issues in their resolution totals is misleading. She commented that the Center’s figures regarding these cases creates confusion for NGBs, claimants, and respondents. She also expressed concerns that the U.S. Center for SafeSport is increasingly pursuing informal resolutions. She explained that the Center will often close cases through informal resolutions if the respondent takes responsibility and apologies for engaging in abuse. She asserted that these informal resolutions do not constitute actual resolutions because informal resolutions do not involve investigations. She called the Center’s use of informal resolutions “concerning” and noted how the Center has sometimes used this process to resolve sexual assault cases.
• Rep. Cammack stated that legislative action may be required to address the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s use of informal resolutions.
  • Ms. Shim expressed agreement with Rep. Cammack’s statement.
• Rep. Cammack indicated that her question period time had expired.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Ranking Member Castor mentioned how she is working with Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) to develop athlete safety legislation and requested that stakeholders engage with her office on this issue. She then highlighted how the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics had recommended that the U.S. Center for SafeSport prioritize hiring investigative staff with direct experience in trauma cases. She asked Ms. Colón to comment on this recommendation.
  • Ms. Colón testified that the U.S. Center for SafeSport has several staff, including investigators, that have dealt with sexual abuse and sexual assault cases for decades. She noted how the Center tends to hire investigators from local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, child protective services agencies, and Title IX offices. She indicated how many of these investigators have training to identify trauma. She stated that the Center can further focus on identifying trauma. She asserted that the use of trauma-informed approaches remains a priority for the Center.
• Ranking Member Castor then asked the witnesses to discuss how the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD is being used, to identify gaps in the CDD, and to identify the objectives that would be accomplished through reforming the CDD.
  • Ms. Deal called the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD a “very useful resource.” She testified that the USOPC uses the CDD as part of its background checks when hiring employees that will have authority over athletes or will interact with athletes on a regular basis. She noted however that the CDD will add individuals when they are suspended or banned and then remove individuals when the suspension or ban concludes. She indicated that NGBs by contrast will often list all individuals that have received a suspension or ban (even if that suspension or ban has concluded). She stated that the CDD’s lack of identification of individuals that have previously experienced a suspension or ban constitutes a gap in the database.
  • Ms. Shim stated that the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD is helpful to the U.S. Soccer Federation. She noted however that individuals accused of abuse are removed from the CDD when their cases are administratively closed. She stated that the CDD should indicate whether a person has previously received accusations of abuse.
  • Mr. Cress called the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD a “valuable tool.” He testified that USA Softball works closely with USA Baseball to cross-reference their abuse report lists to identify individuals that are not in the CDD. He also expressed agreement with the previous concerns that NGBs can face challenges tracking individuals that are removed from the CDD.
  • Ms. Colón remarked that the U.S. Center for SafeSport would like to keep individuals on the CDD for longer periods of time and that the Center would require a legislative change to do so. She also expressed her desire for other organizations outside of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement to make use of the CDD more regularly. She commented that this more regular use would ensure that U.S. Center for SafeSport-banned individuals are not joining other sports programs.

Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Chairman Griffith expressed receptiveness to pursuing legislation to reform the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s CDD. He then reiterated his concerns that many sports organizations are marketing the fact that they do not subject their participants to the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements. He asked Ms. Shim to indicate whether this problem is occurring within soccer.
  • Ms. Shim indicated that the U.S. Soccer Federation’s members have expressed concerns that organizations are evading the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s requirements. She also discussed how many coaches will move between coaching high school athletes and coaching college athletes. She asserted that coaches that are banned from coaching one level of sports should not be permitted to coach at another level of sports. She then cautioned Congress against expanding the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s jurisdiction to youth sports. She stated that the Center is not being effective in carrying out its current obligations. She noted how the Center currently faces resource constraints and warned that expanding the Center’s jurisdiction would foster confusion. She further asserted that the USOPC should not be responsible for ensuring the safety of all athletes participating in sports across all ages and all levels. She raised concerns that expansions of jurisdiction may undermine oversight capabilities, which will undermine the effectiveness of these bodies.
• Chairman Griffith then acknowledged that the U.S. Center for SafeSport imposes restrictions on the ability of parties in abuse cases to publicly discuss their cases so as to prevent investigation interferences. He stated however that these restrictions should be time-limited in nature.
  • Ms. Colón expressed agreement with Chairman Griffith’s view that the U.S. Center for SafeSport must balance the need for confidentiality while ensuring that athlete victims of abuse can share information.
• Chairman Griffith asserted that athletes that have experienced abuse should be able to decide whether they want to make their allegations public. He reiterated however that the U.S. Center for SafeSport may require time to gather evidence on an abuse claim before the abuse claim can be made public.