Transcript

Host: Hello and welcome to Prevention and Protection, the United Educators risk management podcast. Today, Rosemary Davis, a youth protection officer at UCLA, will speak with Melanie Bennett, Senior Risk Management Counsel, United Educators. A reminder to listeners that you can find other UE podcasts, as well as UE risk management resources, on our website, www.ue.org. Our podcasts are also available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Now here’s Melanie.

Melanie Bennett: Thank you. Rosie, welcome to the podcast.

Rosemary Davis: Hi, Melanie. It’s great to be here.

Bennett: I’m so glad to have you here for the first time, especially with your interesting and varied background that touches on athletics and protection of minors in such an interesting way. So to start this conversation, is there an intersection between athletics risks and youth protection risks?

Davis: Yeah, absolutely. So I think when we think about youth protection work, it encompasses all of the environments that minors might participate in while they’re on campus, which includes athletics. We know that youth environments all contain risk factors and protective factors of varying degrees. And so, when I’m talking about risk factors, those are the characteristics that may increase the possibility of child sexual abuse or misconduct.

And then protective factors are the characteristics that may decrease the likelihood of abuse or misconduct. And so when we think about sports settings, we know that environments that involve certain arrangements, such as one-on-one interactions, are more likely or higher in risk. And then there’s some other types of environments or spaces to keep in mind. So those that are more intimate in nature, such as locker rooms, car travel, lodging, overnight trips, all the things that happen in sports, oftentimes those are also higher risk for minors.

And so the other thing about sports that’s interesting is that it’s very physical in nature. And so it involves the coaching, the positioning of athletes’ bodies. And that’s part of the sport, coaching, is that you’re positioning them based on whatever it is, whatever sport’s happening. And so that also gives an opportunity for violations or other misconduct.

And so those are all things that sort of have to be considered. That being said, sports are obviously a fantastic opportunity for minors and for adults. And they really help develop skills that a lot of other activities can’t develop as well. So things like teamwork, resilience, the improved physical health aspect. And so, we think about it on campuses.

The great thing is, is that fortunately, there are a lot of precautions or protective factors that campuses can implement to make a safer sport environment. And so some of these that come to mind, first, background screens are something that folks can certainly implement and hopefully many campuses are. But there’s more than that too, as far as, you think about the adults that might be involved in sports programs on your campus. One thing to think about is the more general vetting of those folks. And so more and more institutions are doing things like misconduct disclosure, for instance. But even really simple things like just checking the references of folks. Those are all things that can, can give you a better sense of the adults that you’re allowing into your programs.

And then things like we’ve already talked about a little bit. So limiting the one-on-one interactions between adults and minors is certainly a protective factor. And then the other thing that we’re seeing in youth-serving organizations and programs is the rise of peer-on-peer misconduct. And so one great solution or possible solution there is to have the right ratios right between adults and minors, that supervision ratio that many folks talk about. Anytime you can sort of prevent minors from from being on their own and doing their own thing off to the side helps improve sort of that certainly is a protective factor. And then finally, sport specific, making sure that the programs and the coaches are using age-appropriate coaching techniques.

And that speaks really as much to their physical health, their mental health, as much as other types of misconduct, just because, it has to be aligned. You want to make sure that anything that they’re doing is relevant and appropriate for their age as far as how much they’re being physically pushed to perform, as well as what they can understand as far as the game or the sport they’re participating in.

So all of those things are sort of some of the risks of the protective factors, those all come into play as far as the overlap.

Bennett: You know, it’s interesting, as you are listing all of the ways that institutions can help when it comes to the intersection of athletics and protection of minors. I’m hearing a lot of recommendations that you have in relation to protection of minors that also seem applicable to athletics more generally.

So it sounds like if institutions are paying more attention to the minors in athletics and supporting the athletics programs, helping them with minors, they’re actually also supporting the athletics program more broadly, which I didn’t realize.

Davis: Yeah, no, that’s absolutely true. And I think many of those same factors come into play for athletics more generally. They’ll just be tailored.

Again, if we’re talking about young adults versus minors, there’s certain aspects of that where they’re allowed to do things or there’s it is tailored to their age more appropriately. But yeah, absolutely.

Bennett: Before you came to UCLA, you worked at Safe Sport. Can you talk about safe sports work and how it supports institutions?

Davis: Yeah. So the U.S. Center for Safe Sport, it’s a national nonprofit.

It was created through congressional mandate, and its goal is to address and end abuse in the Olympic and Paralympic sport movement. And so, just to give a little detail on what that means, if you’re a fan of the Olympics, any of those sports have a national governing body that oversees them and are sort of within that larger Olympic movement.

And so as far as the center’s work, it has three distinct functional areas, and all of those areas may or may not overlap with with your institution or with your athletes, your coaches. But all that to say, there’s an investigative piece and investigative arm, there’s an education component, and then there’s organizational development and compliance, which is essentially organizational accountability.

And so all three of these functional areas work together again to work to end abuse in the Olympic and Paralympic movement, though when you think about institutions, one of the, there’s a couple of different ways where they overlap. So, for instance, many institutions have a varsity program or a club program. Again, it can be in any number of different sports that has ultimately selected or elected to be a part of the Olympic movement by way of being a member of that national governing body.

And so that’s a place where that happens all the time. And again, part of that is they get benefits to that membership. It can happen concurrently with their participation in a sport. So there’s lots of overlap there. And then as far as individuals and particularly for coaches, there’s overlap in the sense that many, many coaches are going to participate in some program that’s part of the Olympic or Paralympic movement, because the movement includes tons and tons of youth programs, club programs in particular.

And so that’s very common as far as collegiate coaches or administrators kind of working in both. If you think about, say, Division I athletics and kind of the highest level of collegiate sports, those coaches are often going to be highly involved in the national governing body’s work, because that organization is who is convening the national team.

And so you kind of have an overlap of having these great experts in their area in their particular sport working in both. And so what that means as far as kind of that support piece, just to give an example, in the unfortunate circumstance, a coach does have an allegation made against them. You can sort of see that unfold where there might be multiple investigative processes on both sides.

So for instance, on the institutional side, it may be that the department’s looking into some sort of allegation. It could be a Title IX-related investigation or civil rights office or HR. All of those things might be happening. And then at the same time, the center, again, based on that person’s involvement in the Olympic or Paralympic movement, could also look into that allegation.

Again, as long as it’s within sort of the purview of the center, which is sexual, physical, or emotional misconduct or abuse, just to say it broadly. So those things could be happening at the same time, and they do happen at the same time, because the hope is that for individuals who are found responsible for misconduct, that they’re not able to participate in sport, more broadly based again, on the type of allegation, but there’s a couple of different ways that institutions can kind of leverage that investigative process or better understand it for themselves.

So for instance, the center does have what’s called the Centralized Disciplinary Database. And so this is the CDD for short. And so it’s a list of those individuals who have ultimately been found responsible for misconduct or abuse. And that list is publicly available. You can search that list. And so as an institution, it’s a great tool that you could add to your vetting process.

Certainly there have been institutions that have used that list and said, “You know what, if you if you are showing up on the CDD, we don’t think you’re a right fit for our institution either.” And so that’s one tool that that is available to everyone. And I would I would also add that, encouraging folks to think through it as not just as a sport-related tool, because one thing that we know about individuals, bad actors, those who are really seeking to harm minors, that they’re going to move between programs that serve children, so that maybe sport-related, that may not be sport-related.

But certainly that’s one great tool that’s available to everybody. Again, it’s free. And then the other thing I would say, as far as the center and its resources and in ways that institutions can leverage those, it has a policy called the Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy, the MAAPP for short. And so this really, this policy, speaks to a lot of those protective factors that are relevant in the sport or tied to the sport environment.

So things that you can do as an institution, if you’re a youth protection officer or you’re working in this space and you want to kind of learn more about best practices to create a safer sport environment, that’s a great policy to start with. There’s tons of resources associated with it, and it’s very similar. There’s there’s a very strong through line to other youth-serving organization policies that may speak to other types of environments, that are not sport-related.

So there’s lots of commonalities, but I think both of those, the CDD and that policy, the MAAPP, are both great tools and resources for institutions who want to know more about safeguarding in sport.

Bennett: Thank you for talking about all of Safe Sport’s resources. And as you were talking about that, I realized our listeners might appreciate a direct link.

So in the podcast episode landing page, we’ll put a link to the Safe Sport database that they can also use to look through Safe Sport’s other materials. And I want to pivot a little to athletics recruiting, which is a particularly interesting issue. A lot of higher ed institutions are looking at high school athletes who are often minors. What are some athletics recruiting issues that are related to minors?

Davis: Yeah. I think to start on this topic, this is a this is an area where there’s just so much change happening as far as the way that college athletics is evolving. And that includes the recruiting process. And so definitely want to flag that. As you know, it’s changing almost day to day. And we’ll get into some of those issues.

But for athletes that are hoping to play at the collegiate level, I think it’s important to understand that the recruiting process is exciting, but it’s also intimidating. And if you think about the way the process works, you’ve kind of got two sides to it. So you’ve got that recruited athlete or that minor who is seeking that opportunity, and then you’ve got athletic departments, who are, and then ultimately those programs within the departments, who are trying to find the right fit for them.

And so you think about the way that that works. We’re talking about, of course, starting with that athletic fit. But then academics, of course, is a huge factor. And coming into play as far as do they have whatever that student-athlete is looking for academically and then the social and the cultural fit, those are also factors that are going to come into play as far as selecting the institution.

And so for both sides, they’re really trying to find essentially a mutually agreeable arrangement. In the sense of like it fits both of their needs. But there’s a lot that goes into that, of course. And so when we think about some of the the issues or the things that are coming up around that, certainly social media, the rise of social media in a general sense, I don’t think that’s going to be a surprise to anyone, both as a tool for recruiting. So, for instance, it’s so much easier than it used to be for recruited athletes to get their game footage out there, to get their stats, to kind of get the attention of coaches that they’re interested in. And then on the other hand, athletic programs are using social media to attract the type of recruited athletes that they want.

And to kind of give a deeper insight into the way that their program operates and their culture and all of the fun things that come with participating in athletics at the collegiate level, all of that. So you kind of get that sense. But social media, I think most folks know that there are some real pros and cons to it, as far as that access.

There’s opportunities, unfortunately, for exploitation that come with social media. Even recently, in the last 24 hours, there’s been an ESPN story speaking to the NCAA and FBI working together to try to curb exploitation related to social media, particularly sexual exploitation. And so that’s speaking to college-aged athletes. But of course, those risks still exist, again, for high school and for college athletes.

And so that’s, of course, in the background, not saying that that’s highly prevalent, but that is something that’s a possibility. And then you think about other kind of structural components to the recruiting process or to the college athletic experience that are, again, evolving very quickly. So name, image and likeness, the NIL piece and the transfer portal.

So basically with the transfer portal, the rules changed in such a way that that athletes can move more easily between institutions. And there’s a lot of advantages to that. But it also means that there, generally speaking, is more movement. Initially, as a recruited athlete, you pick your institution, but then now there’s more opportunities for athletes who are at the college level to choose a new institution or to move from an institution from one to the other.

And so I think you can hopefully tell from from all these different issues that this can become very quickly overwhelming, even for the most prepared families and individuals. So when we think about kind of even a little bit deeper into some of the issues, certainly I spoke to the social media, I think generally, one-on-one communication between program staff and prospective student-athletes is something that’s always going to be a risk factor.

There’s lots of different ways to mitigate that. And I think now that more and more, certainly parents and guardians are involved in the process and they should really seek to be involved in the process. And if you’re on the programmatic side, if you’re on the institutional side, you should also seek to kind of have to create transparency around those communications and how you’re navigating the back and forth with that prospective student-athlete.

And now kind of again, with the NIL piece. And there’s just frankly, more money. NIL meaning that these prospective student-athletes and current student-athletes have the opportunity to more directly, financially benefit from their athletic participation. That, of course, also creates and brings in some new risks. And so, I think, hopefully from the parent and guardian side, knowing that it’s really critical to stay involved in their recruiting, in their child’s recruiting process, and also seek advice from reputable sources in their sport because it looks very different depending on the sport that your child might play.

And so I think both of those things are critical to keep in mind, as the process continues to evolve. And then, I think it’s safe to say that in six months, more than likely, recruiting will have continued to evolve because the collegiate landscape is continuing to evolve. In that as well, I think from an institutional standpoint, hopefully many institutions have folks who are if not full-time tracking on this.

This is a huge part of the administration of their sport programs. But for institutions where maybe that’s not the case or they sort of, maybe, have a smaller footprint, it’s certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Bennett: And it’s interesting, you mentioned the evolution of athletics and how quickly it’s evolving. I think a lot of institutions are noticing that because athletics is evolving so quickly, the employees in athletics have to focus so much on what they’re doing that sometimes they become more siloed and it’s harder to make inroads between departments.

Are there ways that youth protection and risk management employees can make contacts in the Athletics department?

Davis: Yeah. And I think it brings up a good point that the folks you think about youth protection and risk management and athletics. And so they’re all sort of doing some different things. And I think as far as building those relationships, particularly with athletics, there’s a few things that come to mind.

First of all, on any campus, kind of regardless of which side of the equation you fall on, although knowing that if you’re listening to this podcast, you likely are doing some sort of youth protection-related work or risk management-related work. But that being said, I think I think it cuts both ways.

So first, identify who the folks are on each side of the equation who are doing the work. So for athletics, again, it’s very dependent on the size of your institution. But there will be someone or a group of folks working on things like managing risk for the department or HR functions or compliance, whether that’s NCAA compliance or compliance more generally.

So I think, first, just working to identify those folks, so you have a sense of kind of that overlap. And then the same thing on the youth protection side or related work, I think being a newer part of campuses, I can speak to it from personal experience that, I’m on a very large campus where there’s lots of departments, there’s lots of units doing great work, and you do have to make sure that folks know what your lane is and what that looks like.

And I think for a lot of folks doing this work, that’s a process, too. So I think both of those things have to happen first and again. That might be stating the obvious, but on a larger institution or at a larger institution or campus, it’s necessary. And then as far as the relationship and creating a relationship, I think, again, really working to find common ground and overlap is critical.

And understanding how the work complements each each unit’s work complements the other. So I think, for example, for youth protection folks, it’s likely that they may not have a strong understanding of how a college Athletics department works, sort of the inner workings, the different priorities, the different pressures that they’re navigating. So I think that’s a great place to start as far as you know, what are their objectives?

In a general sense, their objective is to have a competitive, successful collegiate athletic program. And the interesting aspect of that is that, of course, minors play a role in that, both from a recruiting standpoint but from some other aspects. But then I would also say that, on the other side of it, for youth protection, behind the scenes, youth protection can really contribute to that goal or to that objective.

Because if a program is in place, meaning that we, we jump back to sort of some of those protective factors and some of the basic prevention efforts, that an institution can take through their youth protection program. If that’s successful, then that ultimately helps reinforce everything that the athletic department is trying to do, especially within their community.

It reinforces their reputation as a safe place for minors as far as their camps, their clinics,  their game days and all the different ways that there might be overlap. And so I think the other thing that youth protection can offer, and so as far as creating that relationship is a sounding board, I think certainly there are lots of tricky issues that could come up, whether they’re related to an allegation or they’re just more general sort of things that come up as far as program management.

And so I think athletics can benefit from that expertise because it’s going to look different from theirs. But ultimately, at the end of the day, I think really coming out of it with that understanding of seeking to work together and, seeking to kind of find that common ground, that’s what’s going to ultimately make the campus safer for minors more broadly, is that that overlap and that collaboration.

Bennett: And you start to go into this. In your response to the last question, are there other ways youth protection, risk management, and athletics can support each other once they have those inroads?

Davis: Yeah, there’s a lot of great opportunities for these entities to work together. And again, it’s the same line that I think everyone has a little bit of different subject matter expertise.

And so, I think the key is trying to pull those threads so that everyone has a seat at the table and so that everyone’s expertise can kind of come to the forefront in an appropriate way. So again, like if we talk about youth protection, it’s sort of what their day to day might look like. They’re going to go through some of those, again, some of the protective factors that would mention at the top, they’re going to have sort of that very intimate, detailed knowledge.

You know, they’re in the weeds of things like the background screens, the training, abuse prevention training, appropriate staff ratios, appropriate facility usage, things like that. They’re going to know that. I think the other thing about youth protection on campuses is that they’re more than likely, certainly one of the experts, if not the expert on, abuse prevention strategies more broadly.

And that’s something that, while there needs to be some understanding across programs, the youth protection folks are going to be the ones that really should hold that information and should really help make sure that others understand it, but also kind of see that larger framework from a broader perspective.

But then, you think about, say, risk management. I think risk management is, and I’m going to speak broadly to these categories. Obviously, every campus sort of has a different configuration. But folks who are doing that type of work, they’re more likely to be taking sort of that 10,000-foot view of campus. So they’re at a higher elevation. They’re really looking across campus as far as evaluating all programs as part of a larger risk management strategy.

And then certainly for programs that involve minors, looking to mitigate the risks of those programs. But they’re looking at it from an enterprise level. So they’re really looking, they’re pulled out as far as how they’re looking at things. And then again, athletics have spoken to it some. But their focus again is that they create a successful program for their collegiate athletics or athletes, rather, but camps or clinics or other programs that serve minors, again, really are mutually beneficial to them to have, because of a couple of different reasons.

First, exposure. I mean, collegiate athletic programs need fans and certainly minors and kids, are going to be some of those fans. We’ve talked about the recruiting piece. Of course there’s benefits there. And that’s going to come into play as far as why do athletics, why do they want to have these programs.

And then also, revenue depending on the size of the institution having programs, camps, clinics, whatever it may be that serve kids, that could be a revenue driver for them. And so athletics also has a lot of expertise as far as the communities that they serve and the unique risks that their sports, whatever sports that they host may have.

And so not just as far as serving kids or minors, but just in a general sense, they’re going to know that information, which certainly would play into a larger risk management strategy. Or,  again, some of the youth protection aspects of the work. I would also say that athletics folks really know if we’re speaking about safeguarding in sport.

They’re going to know the coaching norms, they’re going to know the way that trust is built within sport communities. So they’re going to have some of that information that, again, would help speak to a larger strategy or the development of a strategy to mitigate risk, and to identify those protective factors for your campus that may need to be in place, as well as the risk factors themselves.

What kind of risks do we have based on the sports that we have? So, I think, long story short, these three entities all have some special knowledge that hopefully are shared and communicated. And again, that collaboration, the collaboration is really what’s critical. So that, then again, can create the safest environment specific to sports in this case on your campus as possible.

Bennett: And finally, what’s the one takeaway you want schools to walk away with from our conversation?

Davis: Yeah. I’m going to sound, I think, like a broken record. But when you think about these groups of folks, the work that folks are doing in terms of risk management and athletics and youth protection, and it’s everyone’s got a unique perspective and a unique lane.

And I think the key is just connecting those dots. I think many campuses have this great subject matter expertise, and it’s just a matter of sort of getting everyone on the same page and, and work collaboratively together. And so whether we’re talking about sports or you’re talking about other programs on campus, I think that still holds. And so, again, getting all these stakeholders together, getting their perspectives, developing a plan, I think all of those things will contribute to helping make your campus, the safest possible environment that it can be.

Bennett: That’s it for today’s podcast. Thank you for joining me today.

Davis: Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Host: From United Educators Insurance this is the Prevention and Protection podcast. For additional episodes and other risk management resources, please visit our website at www.ue.org.