Blog

 
     

Sporting Organizations Maintain Lists of Sexual Misconduct Perpetrators

By Michael Klazema on 10/11/2018

Most pre-employment background checks focus first and foremost on criminal history. If a candidate has red flags in their past that might predict future danger or trouble, those red flags are most likely to be found by looking at criminal records. What happens when those red flags don’t make it to the public record? How can organizations avoid bad hires?

Sporting organizations might have an answer. The New York Times recently published an article, “Sports Officials Are Making Lists of People Barred for Sexual Misconduct. Big Lists.” The article looked at the blacklists sporting bodies maintain to keep track of perpetrators and prevent them from being hired within their organizations in the future. United States Gymnastics, for instance, has the name of Larry Nassar on its list—not that Nassar, who will spend the rest of his life in prison for sexually assaulting more than 250 girls and young women—is going to be competing for a job anywhere ever again.

The lists which, in some cases, include hundreds of names, identify people who have been barred from serving on sporting federations. They aren’t necessarily new: some sporting organizations have been passing these lists around internally for years. However, according to the New York Times article, the United States Olympic Committee wants to pull all the lists together and make them accessible and searchable to everyone.

The Olympic Committee is proposing the creation of a database of people who have been disciplined by sporting bodies for misconduct. Athletes and their families would be able to search the database freely to find out if coaches or trainers have a history of harmful behavior. The initiative that is pushing for the creation of this database is called SafeSport.

Until now, sporting federations have mostly been responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct within their own sports and organizations. These bodies have also overseen disciplinary action in cases in which these allegations prove to be true. However, each governing body follows different protocols and imparts discipline in different ways. Last year, the U.S. Center for SafeSport was looking to change the system entirely, stripping individual sporting bodies of these responsibilities and bringing them under the umbrella of a single independent agency.

Since then, SafeSport has investigated more than 1,300 reports of sexual misconduct, spanning most Olympic sports. The agency has issued 149 lifetime bans from those sports. So far, there is no central list of names that lists everyone who has been banned for misconduct across the sports world. SafeSport does have a searchable database that users can access to learn about any bans since the organization took form in March 2017. The agency also provides links to individual lists from different sporting bodies, many of which are online.

Some sporting federations are reluctant to make their lists of barred individuals public. U.S.A. Hockey and U.S.A.Ski have not shared their lists. One concern is that, for older cases, SafeSport may be overstepping its legal bounds by publishing those names publicly. Another concern is the detail with which organizations have maintained their lists—or, more accurately, the lack of detail. The U.S.A. Field Hockey list only provides names, with no dates and no details about the infractions that led to the bans. These issues will have to be addressed before SafeSport can build a central public database of predators and abusers within the sports world.

In the meantime, traditional background checks remain an important part of the hiring process for people within sporting organizations. Criminal history screeningsemployment verifications, and detailed reference checks could all help dredge up histories of abuse—even if information about misconduct and discipline remains hard to access through some sporting bodies.

 

Sources: 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/sports/olympics-sexual-misconduct-safesport.html

https://safesport.org/userviolations/search



Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • November 20 The #MeToo movement is bringing about legislative changes employers need to know about. We review some of the laws recently passed in California.
  • November 15

    Replacing an inconsistent array of procedures, Ontario's government has passed into law a reform act intended to clarify how police departments should handle requests for information to be used in background checks. 


  • November 14 The federal government has vowed to cut its backlog of security clearance background checks in half by spring. Currently, the backlog is approximately 600,000 names strong.
  • November 08 A Texas-based company was found to be supplying landlords with inaccurate background check results, potentially affecting housing decisions. The company must pay a record-setting settlement.
  • November 07 Orange Leaf Frozen Yogurt brand trusts backgroundchecks.com to perform the crucial function of background checks on job candidates before extending offers of employment.
  • November 06 The man previously responsible for running background checks on New York City’s school bus drivers says the city’s Department of Education has been pushing back against more thorough checks. The DOE reportedly circumnavigated proper bus driver vetting channels for most of the spring and summer this year.
  • November 06 If you have a series of speeding tickets or other traffic violations, do you need to disclose them as criminal history?
  • November 01 South Carolina's legislature recently adopted a measure to expand access to expungement opportunities for the state's ex-convicts, but other gaps in the process remain. Advocates disagree on how to address the problem to protect offenders as well as the public.
  • October 31 Background checks will show different things depending on the type of check. Here are a few ways employers can use background checks to learn about candidates.
  • October 30 The Pentagon recently disclosed a breach that exposed the personal information of roughly 30,000 personnel. The government blamed the breach on a contractor, calling into question background check policies for federal government vendors.