You do not suddenly become safe on your 18^th birthday: managing safeguarding cases involving adult athletes in the United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

Despite publicised cases of abuse impacting those above the age of 18, little research attention has been paid to the safeguarding of adults. The present study is informed by the recommendations of the Duty of Care in Sport Review, aiming to inform the development of a case data collection tool. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with 11 key stakeholders. Inductive thematic analysis of the interview transcripts revealed several challenges to collecting adult safeguarding case data in sport which were categorised into three domains: conceptualising cases, managing cases, and recording cases. Developing an effective case management process for adults will require a broader, and shared, understanding of the conceptualisation of adult safeguarding cases, including that vulnerability is not solely determined by personal characteristics, but is affected by the behaviour of perpetrators and fluctuates as circumstances change. Top-down support is necessary to ensure greater consistency in the reporting of valuable adult case data. With clear expectations, regarding what an adult safeguarding case is, what data should be collected, how it should be collected and why, as well as adequate resources, sports of all levels will be in a better position to protect adults from abuse or harm. A clearer roadmap for the management of adult safeguarding concerns in sport is offered.

KEYWORDS:

• Safeguarding
• abuse
• sport
• adults
• vulnerability

Introduction

It is a common misconception that when an individual turns 18, and legally becomes an adult, they are no longer in need of safeguarding from abuse. Whilst high-profile cases highlight the vulnerability of child athletes (Horgan, 2020; Mountjoy, 2019; Rowland, 2022), the knowledge and understanding surrounding the duty to, and the practice of adult safeguarding, is limited (Scott, 2022; Sherwood-Johnson & Mackay, 2020). But abuse can, and does, continue beyond the age of age of 18 (Roan, 2017b, 2020). The Ann Craft Trust, a leading UK authority on safeguarding adults and young people, identifies 14 types of harm that can be experienced by adults. These include, physical abuse, emotional or psychological abuse, sexual abuse, neglect or acts of omission (as recognised by the CPSU, n.d. these four types of harm also impact children), self-neglect, modern slavery, domestic abuse, discriminatory abuse, organisational abuse, financial or marital abuse, cyber bullying, forced marriage, mate crime, and radicalisation (Ann Craft Trust, n.d.b). With this considered, safeguarding can be defined as “the measures designed to protect the health, wellbeing, and human rights of individuals. These measures allow children, young people, and adults at risk, to live free from abuse, harm, and neglect” (Ann Craft Trust, n.d.c).

There have been a series of cases involving athletes experiencing abuse as adults. For example, in a recent BBC report, elite gymnast Nile Wilson spoke about the emotionally abusive, and neglectful, coaching he experienced (Roan, 2020). British Swimming has also faced serious allegations of bullying, with coaches “screaming” and “verbally abusing” athletes, leaving athletes feeling “pathetic and useless … traumatised and belittled” (Roan, 2017a). Toni Minichiello represents another case of coaching misconduct; over a 15-year period, Minichiello subjected his athletes to sexual and emotional abuse (“Toni Minichiello”, 2022). Broader than coach-athlete relationships, athletes within football and basketball most notably, have been subject to racist, homophobic, and ableist abuse via social media (Howell, 2022; McGregor, 2021). The violent kick to the head received by Eyal Berkovic, committed by teammate John Hartson (“John Hartson: Kicking”, 2014) shows that abuse infiltrates countless relationships within sport, and importantly, not just those relationships involving children. Despite publicised cases of abuse impacting those above the age of 18, little research attention has been paid to the safeguarding of adults, both within and outside of, sport.

The context of safeguarding adults in the UK more generally has faced challenges. Graham et al. (2016) note that inadequate research attention has been paid to safeguarding systems and consequently “the existing legal framework for (non-sport) adult protection is neither systematic nor coordinated, reflecting sporadic development of safeguarding policy over the last 25 years” (DoH, 2012). In 2014, the Care Act introduced the term “Adult at Risk”, to assist local authorities in identifying individuals in need of safeguarding. The term “Adult at Risk” was favoured over the previously used term of “Vulnerable Adult”, due to its recognition of the role that circumstances play in an individual’s vulnerability (Ann Craft Trust, n.d.-a). An Adult at Risk is defined as someone who “has needs for care and support, is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect and because of those needs, is unable to protect himself or herself against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it” (Legislation.gov.uk, 2014).

The limited progress made within the adult safeguarding domain is, fortunately, not echoed within child safeguarding, which has seen major developments. In response to alarming, high-profile disclosures of child abuse in sport, the Child Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU) was established in 2001, and since then, the protection of children in sport has been a priority both within the academic landscape (Brackenridge et al., 2005; Fortier et al., 2020; Mountjoy et al., 2015; Owusu-Sekyere et al., 2022) and applied work (Grey-Thompson, 2017; Whyte, 2022). Importantly, these efforts are not limited to the UK. The development of the International Safeguards for Children in Sport shows the clear efforts to progress child safeguarding internationally (Tuakli-Wosomu et al., 2023; Wilson & Rhind, 2022).

Amongst initial research efforts, qualitative enquiries revealed a complete disregard for the child athlete’s voice within sport and a pervasive acceptance of aggressive coaching behaviours (Stafford et al., 2013; Stirling & Kerr, 2013). Key stakeholders were failing to implement the appropriate measures to protect children from harm nor did they have the adequate training to do so (Parent & Demers, 2011). With additional insight from the UK’s first prevalence study by Alexander et al. (2011) and Rhind et al. (2015) review of safeguarding cases in sport, it became increasingly clear that child abuse in sport was not a rare occurrence, but rather, ingrained within and facilitated by the culture of sport.

To elaborate, The Whyte Review (Whyte, 2022) highlighted features of the sporting culture that can facilitate abuse. For example, a culture of fear (i.e., fear of raising concerns, questioning practice, or making decisions for fear of consequences), the insularity of sport (i.e., a sense apprehension around anyone entering the sport whose career had not been solely dedicated to it) and a coach-led culture (i.e., coach-athlete relationships whereby athletes are forfeited a sense of autonomy). Similarly, UK Sport’s Special Review into British Cycling exposed the impact of a lack of guidelines and procedures and prioritising performance over welfare (UK Sport, 2017). Each of these factors can serve to deter individuals from voicing inappropriate behaviour which, if unchallenged, normalises abuse within sporting practice.

As awareness of child abuse in sport grew, UK Sport responded, and greatly advanced their efforts to protect children. Key developments within the UK included the CPSU’s 10 Safeguarding Standards (CPSU, 2018), the CPSU’s Duty of Care Briefing (CPSU, 2020) and the Safeguarding and Protecting Children workshops offered by UK Coaching (UK Coaching, n.d..). Unfortunately, however, whilst there appears to be a unanimous appreciation for the need to protect children within sport, the protection of adults is yet to reach the same consensus and has, until now, received relatively less attention.

Amongst the first to call attention to the need to protect adults in sport was Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson in her 2017 Duty of Care in Sport Review (Grey-Thompson, 2017). The review declared that, because of limited research attention and inadequate case data collection systems, the prevalence of adult abuse in sport remains uncertain. What is known however, is that abuse against adults is not hypothetical; and disclosures of athlete experiences mentioned earlier show as such. Recent literature also highlights the risk of harm to adults in sport. For example, the risk of concussion and sustained brain injury within football (Malcolm, 2021), the unique vulnerability of disabled athletes (Fitzgerald, 2020) and equity-deserving groups (Gurgis et al., 2022), the risk to adult women of interpersonal gendered violence (Forsdike & O’Sullivan, 2022) and of doping to athlete health (Piffaretti et al., 2022) and the risk of mental illness and self-harm behaviours (McMahon & McGannon, 2021).

Grey-Thompson (2017) appealed for the development of a systematic case data collection tool to enable “confidential reporting … allow[ing] participants to report concerns without fear of repercussions” (Grey-Thompson, 2017, p. 38). The review clearly stated that the duty to care for and protect adults in sport is equally as important as it is for children and therefore should be treated as such. There is thus a clear rationale for building on the work which has been undertaken to collect and analyse safeguarding case data regarding children with a focus on adults (Rhind et al., 2015).

To progress this important work, a working group co-ordinated by the Ann Craft Trust was established in 2021. This group highlighted the need for the present research to explore the perceptions of a range of key stakeholders to inform the development of a road map that will enable the development of an effective case management system for adults. Similarly, Hartill and Lang’s (2014) research draws much needed attention to the challenges faced by those working within the safeguarding domain, such as under resourcing, and further reiterates the need to hear from the stakeholders that manage case data. A key aspect of the protection of adults is ensuring the appropriate and effective handling of cases so that concerns are consistently logged, effectively monitored, and fairly resolved (Fyson, 2015). Tracking patterns of abuse assists in the prevention of future abuse and improves protection by disenabling perpetrators from operating undetected (Fyson, 2015; Manthorpe & Martineau, 2010; Raakman et al., 2010). The present study is informed by the recommendations of the Duty of Care in Sport Review (Grey-Thompson, 2017) and Rhind et al. (2015). The question addressed by the present study was therefore “What are the key issues that need to be resolved in order to develop an effective case management system for adults in sport in the UK?”

Methods

Philosophical position

This study is grounded in understanding the opinions, experiences, and perspectives of safeguarding experts in sport, and therefore, aligns with a phenomenological standpoint (Davidsen, 2013). From a critical realist perspective, the present study holds an ontological position that one, distinct reality exists, independent from human perceptions (Fletcher, 2017). However, directly accessing this reality is not possible, and so one must turn to human perception and experience, which will reflect truth to varying degrees (Fletcher, 2017). In the context of the present study, conceptualisations of safeguarding, and where its bounds begin and end, evolve with the social world. Whilst we cannot directly access the truth of adult safeguarding practice, we can formulate an understanding of potential underlying mechanisms contributing to its effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, by engaging in conversations with key stakeholders (Fletcher, 2017).

Thus, this study relies upon, and values, the subjective experience of those safeguarding stakeholders as a tool to formulate an understanding of truth (Morrow, 2007). From a post-positivist stance then, the present study differs from a constructivist stance, which primarily strives to understand experience, and instead attempts to explain why safeguarding adults has so far seen limited progress (Bryman, 2008). This understanding may enable academics and practitioners to develop valuable insights, informing social change and improving safeguarding practice (Wiltshire, 2018).

Participants

Prior to recruitment, Ethical Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee at the authors’ University. Utilising both purposive and snowball sampling, 11 key stakeholders of safeguarding were recruited. In line with the description created by Owusu-Sekyere et al. (2022), participants were considered “key stakeholders of safeguarding” and therefore, invited to take part, if they had a direct or indirect impact on safeguarding practice in sport. Capturing these voices offers a valued insight into the lived experience of safeguarding adults in sport. Not only can these individuals identify the challenges that exist, but they navigate these challenges daily. Participants were both male (n = 5) and female (n = 6), varying in age from 33 to 60 (mean age = 50), represented varying roles within the safeguarding domain, and all worked in, or around, sport in some capacity. Participants represented a multitude of sports, and varying levels of sporting competition from local to international. Seven years and nine months was the mean time participants had worked in their relevant roles. (See Table 1 for demographic details; to maintain anonymity, participants’ recruiting organisations have been removed). Inclusion criteria required participants to be at least 18 years of age, employed within a key safeguarding role in which they have worked for a minimum time of 6 months, and employed within the UK to ensure findings were relevant and applicable to UK safeguarding practice.

Table 1. Participant demographic information.

Participant	Gender	Age	Ethnicity	Role	Level of Sport
Amelia	Female	60	White British	Lead Safeguarding Officer	National
Bryan	Male	53	White British	Safeguarding Manager	National
Cam	Male	60	White British	Independent Safeguarding Panel Member	National
Diana	Female	57	White Canadian	Safeguarding Adults in Sport Manager	National, International
Emma	Female	55	White British	Safeguarding Case Manager	National
Frankie	Female	43	White British	Safeguarding Coordinator	National
George	Male	33	White British	Safeguarding Case Officer	National
Hayley	Female	50	White British	Safeguarding in Sport Manager	National, International
Isla	Female	42	White British	Safeguarding Consultant and Barrister	National, International
James	Male	36	White British	Safeguarding Consultant	Local, National, and International
Kai	Male	58	White British	Welfare Officer	Local

Interview schedule

The process of formulating the semi-structured interview schedule followed the steps proposed by Kallio et al. (2016). Firstly, the semi-structured interview method was selected due to its flexible questioning, which welcomes and explores varying perspectives but also its structure, which ensures the necessary topics are addressed. This structure assisted the identification of key issues to be resolved in order to develop an effective case management system. Next, a comprehensive review of the adult and child safeguarding literature, both within and outside of sport, was conducted. Exploring the literature confirmed the value of, and need for, the chosen research question. For example, Rhind et al. (2015) highlight that abuse can target individuals older than 18, yet most safeguarding strategies focus on child protection, and so it is imperative for sports to consider vulnerability into adulthood. Therefore, the present study ensured the concept of vulnerability was explored within interviews. Secondly, clear calls for the development of a case management tool (Grey-Thompson, 2017; Rhind et al., 2015), prompted questions relating to existing case management systems, the benefits and weaknesses of those systems, the advantages of effective case management systems as well as the barriers to implementation. Finally, the interview schedule underwent an expert assessment process whereby an experienced researcher and the Loughborough University Ethics Committee approved the final interview questions.

Procedure

Recruitment information, including research aims and inclusion criteria, was posted to LinkedIn, and circulated amongst relevant stakeholders by the Ann Craft Trust. Individuals who met the inclusion criteria were contacted directly via. email, to request their participation. This included informing participants of what participation would involve (i.e., time commitments and the nature and location of interviews). Willing participants expressed their interest to the researcher via email. A Participant Information Sheet and Informed Consent Form were emailed to interested participants for them to read through, query if they had questions, sign, and return to the researcher. Participants who returned the signed consent form were also sent a demographics form to complete which requested details such as gender, preferred pronouns, age, ethnicity, current role, sport or organisation, level of sporting competition and time spent in role. A suitable interview date and time was then scheduled.

In line with the restrictions in place at the time of data collection due to the on-going pandemic, interviews were conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams. They ranged in duration from 27 to 56 minutes, with a mean duration of 43 minutes. Interviews commenced by reminding participants of their ensured anonymity and right to withdraw. With participants’ consent, the interviews were audio recorded. Data collection began with introductory questions about participants role(s), before exploring the conceptualisation of adult safeguarding cases. This involved discussions around the existing Care Act definition of an Adult at Risk. Following this, participants outlined current approaches to managing case data and its associated challenges. Participants discussed possible solutions and the opportunity for development should challenges be overcome. Probes were used to clarify participant responses, stories, and experiences. This served to ensure researchers gained a more accurate understanding of what participant’s had said. Each participant was given an opportunity to offer anything they believed would be useful for the purpose of the study before allowing time for questions. Participants were then thanked for their involvement.

Data analysis

The interview audio-recordings were inputted into an online transcribing software to be transcribed verbatim. To ensure anonymity, identifiable information was removed, and pseudonyms replaced names and organisations. Transcripts were then exported to Microsoft Word ready to be thematically analysed. Braun and Clarke’s method of thematic analysis guided the present study through six stages of inductive data analysis (Braun et al., 2016). The inductive approach was chosen as no pre-determined theory guided analysis. Instead, the researchers were guided by the valuable insights that the interviews provided. Each stage enabled thorough exploration of the data set and the identification of common themes and ideas (Braun et al., 2016). (1) Through the process of transcription, each transcript was read through two to three times, providing familiarisation with the data and an initial oversight of common responses. (2) With this oversight, initial codes were noted whilst simultaneously, extracting relevant participant quotes. For example, initial codes included “power imbalance” and “fragility of career”, which described aspects of sport which influence athlete’s vulnerability. (3) Next, the generated codes were grouped into possible themes, such as “fluctuating vulnerability” which consisted of the codes mentioned above. This involved a discussion between researchers to reflect on whether themes accurately reflected participant responses. (4) The research questions were revisited to reflect upon the coherence between the study’s aims and the generated themes. (5) As the research process continued, so too did the refining of themes and the quotes that pertained to them. (6) Finally, the findings section of the final research project was composed.

Trustworthiness

Demonstrating trustworthiness within qualitative inquiry is essential for credible research and the longevity of and trust within the qualitative research field. Therefore, this study took several steps to ensure reliable and valid findings with credible applications. One method used was peer debriefing (Rose & Johnson, 2020). This involved weekly discussions between the first and second author to reflect on matters such as methodological coherence (Poucher et al., 2020), research question rationale and data analysis. For example, one meeting was spent discussing the organisation of data throughout the process of data analysis. In line with the recommendations made by Cloutier and Ravasi (2021), it was decided that organising participants quotes, codes and themes into Tables would enable a thorough analysis such that the final conclusions can be clearly traced back to the raw data.

Participants were also offered an opportunity to review, provide their feedback on, and ask questions about the research findings as part of a member reflection exercise (Smith & McGannon, 2018). The aim of member reflections was not to check if the themes were “right” or “wrong”, which Smith and McGannon (2018) highlight poses large philosophical incongruities, but rather a collaborative opportunity to reflect upon and consider whether the findings give service to participants’ experiences.

Findings

The findings revealed three key issues which need to be addressed before an effective case management system for adults in sport can be established. These concern conceptualising cases, managing cases, and recording cases. Within the “conceptualising cases” domain, challenges relate to an inconsistent understanding, and a lack of clarity, around defining an adult safeguarding case, particularly the differing perceptions of vulnerability. Challenges within the “managing cases” domain describe the differing conceptualisations of “safeguarding”, the added impact of resource constraints and the accompanying appreciation for reporting low-level concerns. “Recording cases” challenges explore the inconsistent recording of cases, and the impact this has on the quality of available case data, and therefore the protection of adults. Participants also suggested potential resolutions to each challenge, such as the need for a broader conceptualisation of adult safeguarding cases, greater top-down support, and clarity of expectations. A visual representation of the themes can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Visual representation of themes.

Conceptualising cases

Collecting adult safeguarding case data first requires an understanding of what data to collect. Participants were asked, “how would you define an adult safeguarding case in sport?” to which they unanimously struggled to provide an explicit definition. In the following quote, Diana references the lengthy discussions she, and her colleagues, have dedicated to finding an adult safeguarding case definition, from which there has been limited progress: “There’s been millions of conversations about [how to define an adult safeguarding case]. When I first joined the steering group, I said, ‘Well, have you thought about what a case is?’, everyone was like, ‘Oh, don’t go there’”. The following section details the challenges within the “Conceptualising Cases” Domain.

Adult at risk

Participants displayed a familiarity with the Care Act definition of “Adult at Risk” describing it as a term derived from and designed for the Social Care sector. Largely, participants recognised the value of the term “Adult at Risk” in identifying vulnerable individuals but expressed concern regarding its application to the sporting context. Here Diana articulates her own concern and echoes the concern of other participants:

In social care, I could easily define a safeguarding adult case because [it’s] defined by the criteria of an “Adult at Risk” … However, within sport, this is where the struggle is. “Adult at Risk” is a social care concept and definition. What we’re trying to get everybody in sport organisations to understand is that they have a responsibility to make sure that every adult is safe. It doesn’t matter if they have care and support needs [and], there may be a very, very small percentage of adults in sport who fit that definition of “Adult at Risk”. (Diana)

Largely, participant’s concerns related to the narrowness of the Care Act definition, particularly in placing strict boundaries on what constitutes “vulnerability”. Whilst these strict criteria may serve the non-sporting safeguarding domain, participants were dubious about their appropriateness for sport. Participants spoke about the limited applicability of the “Adult at Risk” definition, such that it provides safeguarding stakeholders with little guidance around what cases require a safeguarding response. Particularly, it was suggested that such a strict set of criteria potentially restricts safeguarding services for a very small and specific group of individuals, and some safeguarding stakeholders can become fixated on only managing cases that meet the remit of “Adult at Risk”. As a result, individuals without traditional care and sport needs may firstly, not understand their right to be safeguarded and secondly, foster a culture which fails to recognise that vulnerability is broader than personal characteristics. Participants also suggested that obliging by such strict criteria, and therefore receiving very few cases, may falsely imply that there are no safeguarding concerns.

Fluctuating Vulnerability

Unanimously, participants agreed that as circumstances change, so too can vulnerability. Rather than being fixed and determined solely by personal characteristics, vulnerability was referred to as being fluid. Cam outlined multiple risk factors for vulnerability within the sporting environment such as “power imbalance, [which] may well create a risk in itself” and the onset of a sudden injury such as “[getting] knocked on the head and [getting] a concussion”. It is due to these changing circumstances that any adult can find themselves in a position of vulnerability to abuse, and therefore, “we could all be at risk”. Bryan further articulates that vulnerability is not defined solely by personal characteristics but is a state that individuals can move in to and out of:

I could be vulnerable tomorrow, and I’m not today, through something that happens to my life … If I was to lose someone close to me, and then lose my job, life as I know it, as the scaffolding around me falls apart, I would then become vulnerable. Yes, I may not meet a definition of an “Adult at Risk”, but within the duty of care that we have as a National Governing Body (NGB), we would move people in and out of that bracket, by not having to be defined by boundaries. (Bryan)

Participants expressed that the Care Act definition fails to account for this fluctuating vulnerability, and consequently, it is not a term readily used by safeguarding stakeholders.

Solution: a broader conceptualisation of adult safeguarding cases

Instead of relying on the Care Act definition to determine adult safeguarding cases, participants suggested the adoption of a broader definition, one that focuses on the need to protect all adults from harm, regardless of their care and support needs. Importantly, participants did not suggest complete abandonment of the Care Act definition as it serves to identify the most vulnerable individuals and specifies how to handle those specific cases. By communicating with the victim, and highlighting the behaviour of the perpetrator, Diana suggests stakeholders will be better placed to handle cases:

We’re not trying to move away from the [Adult at Risk] definition, what we’re trying to get NGBs to do is not get caught up in that [definition] and [understand] that they have a responsibility to make sure everybody is safe … all adults. It’s just that if they fit that definition, it’s a different pathway with their concerns. (Diana)

A more flexible and inclusive case conceptualisation would help to ensure that all adults in sport have access to and knowledge of the protection and safety that they deserve.

Managing cases

Participant responses highlighted that effective case management requires resources. Issues with limited staffing and funding not only hinders the operation of safeguarding stakeholders, but also impacts the service to complainants. Working with restricted resources seemingly prompted stakeholders to question ‘what is safeguarding?”’, possibly to manage the volume of cases delivered to safeguarding departments. Interestingly, participants also recognised the potential implications of restricting which complaints require a safeguarding response, since promoting an open-armed approach to safeguarding which welcomes the reporting of low-level concerns, helps to foster safe sport.

Resources

Financial, staffing and time resources were all reported to constrain the effectiveness of case reporting and management. According to participants, successful safeguarding practice needs multidisciplinary investment and support. Sport safeguarding departments generally consist of limited staff, which participants believed to be the result of restricted funding and negative perceptions of safeguarding. According to Frankie, getting people on-board with safeguarding can be challenging, since “when you talk about safeguarding, unless you’re talking to likeminded people, they kind of glaze over and they don’t really want to talk about it, or they don’t believe that it’s something that goes on in sport” (Frankie).

Participants argued that sport’s fixation on athletic performance often pushes safeguarding towards the bottom of the priority list, and as such, diverts resources towards areas that directly improve performance. As outlined by Emma: “safeguarding [competes] against so many other priorities … if resources and funding is tight, then it’s a very difficult fight to have”. Added to this, “[safeguarding] doesn’t bring in any money … regardless of what happens with the case, there’s no good outcome because something bad has already happened” (Frankie). It is also not unusual for safeguarding to be “tagged on to someone’s role” (George) rather than having a dedicated member of staff to manage cases. As such, limited resources were reported as a challenge to case recording by sparking deliberation over the fundamentals of safeguarding.

Suitability of the term ‘safeguarding’

Several participants voiced apprehension over a possible influx of cases because of a broader conceptualisation of “safeguarding”. For example, arguments between coaches or a breakdown of relationship between teammates might require a disciplinary response and not a safeguarding intervention. Again, participants spoke of the lack of clear expectation concerning acceptable and unacceptable behaviour within sport, and varying attitudes towards vulnerability, which contribute to ambiguity around the term “safeguarding”. Here, George outlines the issue of non-safeguarding matters falling to safeguarding stakeholders:

We tend to get a lot of people trying to bracket safeguarding around involving adults who aren’t at risk … Coaches bullying each other, for instance, there’s no vulnerability, it’s just they happen to not be getting on. They think that that falls within safeguarding, and we should be safeguarding [them] but the remit for us is very specific around an “adult at risk” as opposed to just adults in general. (George)

Whilst participants agreed that inappropriate behaviour must not be tolerated in sport, participants called into question the use of the term “safeguarding” to refer to any concern raised. Such a broad welcoming of cases may challenge the limited resources and impede the effectiveness of case management. Instead, several participants suggested that the term “safeguarding” should be reserved for concerns relating to individuals deemed “vulnerable” and those broader concerns should be assessed and referred on accordingly.

Reporting of low-level concerns

Interestingly, whilst the notion of broadening the definition of safeguarding evoked reservations, participants endorsed the recording of low-level concerns. Low level concerns were referred to as concerns that do not reach the threshold for abuse but are still unacceptable and potentially harmful. For example, a low-level concern may be “messaging [an athlete] on WhatsApp privately” when they “know, that’s against [the] code of conduct” (Diana). Participants believed that reporting low-level concerns was key to tracking repeated problematic behaviour and therefore preventing perpetrators from operating undetected within or between sports. Even though some behaviours may seem mildly improper, when low-level concerns accumulate, safeguarding stakeholders can implement proactive, rather than solely reactive, measures to prevent harmful behaviour. Amelia supports the reporting of low-level concerns in the following quote:

We log everything that comes into me. Absolutely anything. Even if it’s just a very, very low-level concern … because if we’ve got 10 of those coming in from different sources, we might go “hang on a minute, there is something going on here” and that [gives] us an early warning [sign] … That’s why these low-level cases are so important to be logged. (Amelia)

The conflict between managing limited resources and promoting open reporting, was referred to as a key challenge to collecting adult safeguarding case data.

Solution two: top-down support

Participants believed that little change will be made without support from influential governing bodies, and so called for greater top-down funding and investment. Importantly, participants expressed that investment should not be solely financial, and influential bodies should buy-in to safeguarding on a more emotional level. It is important that influential decision makers buy-into the value and importance of safeguarding, as outlined by Bryan.

Safeguarding has never been ring fenced for any financing. Everyone’s been left to do their own thing. There isn’t any great weight or pressure. The only pressure on sports is morally and financially because of reputational risk … It shouldn’t be “all right, in order to protect our reputation, we’ll spend 3 million pounds on this”. It [should be] “in order to get it right, this is what a good resource looks like”. (Bryan)

From participant’s perspectives, the spotlight is on influential bodies to pave the way towards safer sport by investing in safeguarding. Participants were optimistic that greater funding is possible, but until greater top-down support is provided, safeguarding departments will struggle to advance beyond their current capacity. Particularly, Diana pointed out that sports shouldn’t “set [their] standards and expectations to what resources are there. [Sports] should say, “okay, you don’t have the resources to do that at the moment, okay well, we need to change that”. Therefore, ensuring sufficient resourcing was advocated as a next step.

Recording cases

Inconsistency in reporting skill, knowledge and experience was noted as a challenge to collecting adult safeguarding case data. Participants not only spoke about the challenge of encouraging people to report safeguarding cases, but also the added challenge of ensuring that the reported data is valuable.

Reporting consistency

Another challenge reported by participants was the inconsistent, and sometimes unreliable, reporting and use of case data collection tools. Participants proposed that a tool is only as effective as the person using it and … “the information that you’re taking out is only as good as you’re putting in” (Emma). If the operator lacks the knowledge, skill and even the desire, to effectively case manage, the sophistication of the tool becomes almost irrelevant, according to participants. It was suggested that this issue becomes even more prominent in sport where hiring safeguarding staff can become a tick-box exercise. As such, there is less standardisation in the reporting process. Kai reinforces this point in the following quote:

You gotta have the right people in the job. You can’t just [say] “we need a welfare officer otherwise we can’t enter the league” and then [someone] is just the name on the door and they do nothing. (Kai)

The challenge of inconsistent case reporting was reported to be more prominent at lower levels of sporting competition. Unlike at NGB level, where Safeguarding Leads and Case Officers receive adequate training, stakeholders at club level often do not, and many act as volunteers. Hayley recounted an instance whereby a safeguarding officer “stored case data files in the boot of their car” (Hayley). Diana also gave an interesting account of how informal and inconsistent case recording can provide perpetrators with the opportunity to operate undetected. This included perpetrators “transposing a couple of figures in their date of birth” or “changing one letter of their name”. By changing these minute details, their previous records of abuse remain hidden. Participants therefore stressed the importance of consistently and accurately logging names, dates, addresses and contact details to build a reliable record and a consistent log of events.

Solution 3: clarifying expectations

Participants suggested that inconsistent reporting isn’t helped by a lack of clarity and expectation around what an adult safeguarding case is, what data should be collected, how it should be collected and why. It was suggested that answering the questions of … what encompasses safeguarding? What training is required for data collection? What should be recorded and where? When and how is that data audited? How is it funded and how much funding? What language is used to describe vulnerability? What are the behavioural codes of conduct? And how are safeguarding standards measured? will help to improve reporting consistency. Emma echoes this top-down approach in the following quote: “It needs to come from the top … from Sport England to say, ‘We are expecting sports to safeguard adults under these criteria’ and then governing bodies be measured against that … without internal staff constantly arguing and battling it”. Similarly, Brian states: “It’s the wrong way round … people within trying to push out. It should be the outside, who oversee us all, saying ‘this is what you need to do’. But they’re not setting the standard. We’re trying to set the standard [and] improve safeguarding” (Brian).

Discussion

Until now, adult safeguarding in sport has received scarce research attention, as efforts have focused on ensuring the safety of children in sport. The present study builds upon the recommendations from the Duty of Care in Sport Review (Grey-Thompson, 2017) and Rhind et al. (2015) review of safeguarding cases in sport. Both call for the development of a standardised, systematic data collection tool for the effective reporting and management of adult safeguarding cases. In order to inform a road map that will lead to this ultimate goal being achieved, the present study highlights the key issues which need to be addressed and provides actionable points in hope of addressing these key issues. Several challenges were identified, which were organised into three domains: conceptualising cases, managing cases, and recording cases.

The findings related to conceptualising cases show that a key challenge to collecting adult safeguarding case data was a lack of understanding, clarity, and agreement, over what a “case” is. This study found that utilising the term “Adult at Risk” to identify individuals in need of safeguarding was not particularly helpful to safeguarding stakeholders. The Care Act (2014) introduced the term “Adult at Risk” to replace the previously contested term of “Vulnerable Adult” as it shifted the locus of vulnerability away from personal characteristics and towards the circumstances people find themselves in. It was therefore noteworthy to find that the Adult at Risk definition was not welcomed by safeguarding stakeholders. It is possible that the requirement for “care and support needs” places boundaries around vulnerability and fails to acknowledge aspects of the sporting environment that provoke an individual’s vulnerability.

Research has continually shown that the sporting environment presents many opportunities for abuse to occur, regardless of an individual’s care and support needs (Roberts et al., 2020). An organisational tolerance of abuse (Roberts et al., 2020), an idolisation of superior performance (Roberts et al., 2020), power imbalances within the coach-athlete relationship (Kerr et al., 2020) and a “culture of fear” (Whyte, 2022) have all been noted as environmental facilitators of abuse. As such, a broader understanding of adult safeguarding cases, which moves away from a focus on individual vulnerability, and recognises the complex and dynamic nature of the sporting environment, is critically important.

The Managing Cases domain revealed a conflict between an acknowledgement that inappropriate behaviour must not be tolerated within sport, and a concern regarding broadening the use of the term “safeguarding”. The result suggest that the pressure of resource constraints prompts safeguarding stakeholders to question which cases truly require a safeguarding response. For example, cases involving minor disputes between individuals may be better handled down a disciplinary route. Questioning safeguarding terminology, such as “Adult at Risk” and “safeguarding” is partly expected due to the infancy of the research field (Scott, 2022; Sherwood-Johnson & Mackay, 2020) and is consistent with the observation made by Kerr and Stirling (2019). Kerr and Stirling (2019) note great inconsistencies in the terminology used within the Abuse in Sport literature, which they note has limited the progression of the research field thus far. Added to this, most safeguarding discussions have referred only to children (Hartill & Lang, 2014; Kerr & Stirling, 2019) which might explain the apparent confusion around what “safeguarding” encapsulates for adults.

The results of the present study provide supporting evidence that top-down support is required for adult safeguarding to improve. Perhaps not surprisingly, a lack of resources was found to affect the recording of adult safeguarding cases. The Duty of Care in Sport review recognised inadequate funding as a barrier to safeguarding practice (Grey-Thompson, 2017, p. 19), and Owusu-Sekyere et al. (2022) stressed the importance of ensuring that safeguarding is prioritised over other competing areas, such as performance. Child safeguarding has also experienced struggles with securing funding and investment, despite public, sporting, and governmental appreciation for the significance of child protection (CPSU, 2018, 2020; HM Government, 2018; Whyte, 2022). This study’s findings therefore resonate with the work of Hartill and Lang (2014) who found that Child Safeguarding Lead Officers struggle with a lack of financial investment from their relevant NGBs. Therefore, adult safeguarding, which is yet to receive equal acknowledgement, faces the task of securing recognition and appreciation, as well as funding. For that reason, developing a tool that enables the accurate and consistent recording of cases is of critical importance. Without an accurate picture of the state of abuse against adults in sport, like there is for children (Alexander et al., 2011; Rhind et al., 2015), it will be a challenge to advocate for greater investment into adult safeguarding practice.

Interestingly, despite revealing concern over extending the use of the term “safeguarding”, the findings also suggest possible implications of rationing safeguarding services to a limited set of circumstances. Repeatedly tracking problematic behaviour, even that which does not reach the threshold for abuse, is important in preventing perpetrators from operating undetected (Fyson, 2015; Manthorpe & Martineau, 2010; Nite & Nauright, 2020; Raakman et al., 2010). Wilson and Rhind (2022) similarly highlight that when clear safeguarding policies are adopted, a culture of openness, transparency, and trust is fostered, in which individuals feel they can openly report any concerns. This study therefore reveals the conflict that exists between managing restricted safeguarding resources and providing an open and welcoming reporting service for participants. The severity of this conflict deserves recognition from sporting governing bodies.

Finally, the findings within the Recording Cases domain highlights the need for a clear outline of behavioural codes of conduct and expectations regarding what an adult safeguarding case is, what data should be collected, how it should be collected and why. This recommendation stems from the finding that a case reporting tool relies heavily on the skills, knowledge, and attitude of the reporter. Inconsistent reporting was highlighted as a challenge to ensuring accurate records of case data, and it is likely that this issue relates back to the lack of clarity in adult safeguarding terminology. This recommendation is consistent with Fyson (2015) who stresses that case data collection is not a tick box exercise, rather, it is imperative that the data collected is valuable, and that it is used to inform positive change. Similarly, the call to clarify behavioural codes of conduct reinforces the ongoing work of sporting organisations to establish codes of ethics and good sport governance (Van Eekeren, 2021).

The findings also suggest that inconsistent case reporting is more prominent at lower levels of competition, and therefore standardising the process of case recording across sport will be challenging without appropriate resources and funding. Deprived of investment from higher-up, sports will struggle to consistently, accurately, and collectively, report adult safeguarding concerns (Mountjoy, 2020).

Implications

These results suggest several practical implications. Firstly, this study emphasises that any adult in sport can find themselves in a situation in which they become vulnerable to abuse. The Care Act definition of an Adult at Risk (Legislation.gov.uk, 2014) certainly holds a valuable place within the non-sport safeguarding domain, but its place within sport needs to be reconsidered. Vulnerability should be understood, not as an outcome of personal characteristics, nor exclusive to children and those with traditional “care and support needs”, but as a state that individuals can move in to and out of depending on circumstances. With the interest of progressing adult safeguarding in sport, the present study proposes a new definition of an adult safeguarding case. An Adult Safeguarding Case should be considered as “an instance where an adult is at risk of harm, has care or support needs and/or is made more vulnerable by their circumstances”. Fundamentally, if the behaviour is inappropriate and there is risk of harm, then there is potential for a safeguarding response. This study also encourages sports to refer to the Ann Craft Trust (n.d.-bb) categories of harm to guide their categorisation of cases.

This study proposes that the new definition of an adult safeguarding case is one that accommodates changing circumstances and acknowledges the risk of perpetrator behaviour rather than just the care and support needs of the individual. This new definition will facilitate the reporting of low-level concerns because (1) there isn’t a requirement for traditional care and support needs (an individual may instead display vulnerability as a result of their circumstances) and (2) there is no minimum requirement for police or local authority involvement. This study hopes that providing the above definition of an adult safeguarding case provides greater clarity and is the first step towards greater standardisation in the recording of adult safeguarding cases within UK Sport.

With regards to recording case data, those sports that hold the financial capacity would benefit from investing in a case data reporting software for the comprehensive recording of cases. Those sports that do not yet have such financial privileges should focus on consistently and accurately recording cases in detail using password protected Excel Spreadsheets. The present study proposes principal data that should be collected, and this is shown in Table 2. Furthermore, it is of principal importance that each sport has clarity on the expected behavioural codes of conduct. Once there is a clear, shared expectation of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, the recording of cases will become clearer. Additionally, as reporting becomes more accessible (e.g., password protected excel spreadsheets) the reporting will become more familiar and over-time people will become more skilled at recording case data.

Table 2. Recommended adult safeguarding case data to collect.

Adult Safeguarding Case Data to Collect
Year of incident Month reported to NGB. Year reported to NGB. Source of referral to NGB Source of original disclosure/referral Category of concern Context of concern Competitive Level Online of offline Multiple alleged perpetrators Y/N Gender of alleged perpetrator Age of alleged perpetrator Primary role of alleged perpetrator	Secondary role of alleged perpetrator Multiple victim’s Y/N Gender of principal victim Age of principal victim at time of incident Victims’ role in sport LADO involvement Y/N Police involvement Y/N Police investigation Y/N Internal investigation/process Y/N NGB internal process outcome External agency process outcome Referral to the DBS Y/N

Crucially, safeguarding departments will require top-down resourcing, investment, and guidance to manage a broader range of cases and not just those impacting Adults at Risk. This study proposes that, initially, training should be provided for a nominated adult safeguarding lead in each NGB. A pilot of a case data collection tool, using the categories proposed in Table 2 and guided by the proposed case definition, should be rolled out to a small number of NGBs. Feedback should be sought from these NGBs to understand the usability of the tool, the workability of the adult safeguarding case definition, and what resources are needed for sustainable reporting. Each NGB should work towards embedding a centralised system to collect and analyse their case data.

Limitations and future research

This study was limited by exploring only the perspectives of individuals with a developed insight, and interest, in safeguarding. Interviewing individuals with advanced safeguarding knowledge was valuable given that adult safeguarding in sport has received minimal attention thus far. However, an insight into the perspectives of coaches and athletes would also shed light on the challenges to reporting, as well as recording, adult safeguarding cases. This would also give an indication as to the progress of safeguarding and athlete safety i.e., do adult athletes feel protected, do they feel they can report low level concerns and do they know when, where, how and what to report?

As most participants worked at the NGB level, future research should also seek to represent the voices of club level safeguarding and welfare officers. This would help to understand the feasibility and practicality of recording adult case data at the local level.

Future research should return to interview safeguarding experts to review the application of the proposed adult safeguarding case definition to understand the implications of this broader case conceptualisation.

Participants in this sample represented a variety of sports, which omits the opportunity to make sport-specific recommendations. Yet, exploring the challenges experienced across a range of UK sports, has enabled a broader understanding, thereby assisting in the generalisation to UK sport safeguarding practice (Shen et al., 2011). Given the novelty of the research area, this broad insight provides a foundational understanding upon which future research can build. It is hoped that the present study has made a valuable contribution to adult safeguarding in sport. It is the first study to give due consideration to this issue and points the way toward the opportunities for further development, including rectification of the limitations stated above.

Conclusions

This study found that the difficulty in conceptualising an adult safeguarding case acts as a great challenge to recording adult safeguarding concerns. Whilst the “Adult at Risk” definition helps to identify adult safeguarding cases outside of sport, the criteria for “care and support needs” does not assist safeguarding stakeholders in the identification and recording of cases in sport. Vulnerability is not determined solely by personal characteristics, rather individuals can find themselves vulnerable to abuse by virtue of the circumstances they find themselves in. This study proposes a broader conceptualisation of adult safeguarding cases, one that accommodates changing circumstances rather than focusing solely on the vulnerability of the individual.

Top-down investment, support, and guidance will enable safeguarding stakeholders to record, and manage, a broader range of cases. This will also help to alleviate the pressure for safeguarding stakeholders to restrict resources to the more severe safeguarding cases and allow the recording of lower-level concerns. Consistently logging problematic behaviour will help to ensure safeguarding can operate as a proactive, rather than reactive, practise thereby aiding its effectiveness (Kerr & Stirling, 2019).

Informed by the guidance from this study, top-down support should also include a clarification of expectations to ensure sports of all levels understand what an adult safeguarding case is (in line with the proposed definition), what data should be collected, how it should be collected and why, as well as an explanation of strong behavioural codes of conduct.

This paper has taken a crucial next step, by providing clarity on some fundamentals within the practice of adult safeguarding in sport that we hope will progress the currently stagnated environment of adult safeguarding in sport.

Highlights

• Little research attention has been paid to the safeguarding of adults.

• The present study aimed to inform the development of a case data collection tool.

• Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with 11 key stakeholders.

• The difficulty in conceptualising an adult safeguarding case is a challenge to recording adult safeguarding concerns.

• A clearer roadmap for the management of adult safeguarding concerns in sport is offered.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).