Every year, I basically have to take a week to fulfill all the training requirements for my research. The list of certifications needed is insane, but I do it anyway. This takes time away from work and from doing things that are billable.
My point is that I already have, and continue to do so, proven myself to entities much larger and more integrated into society with way more people than the horse world. Now, I have to do it again? I would rather simply be able to submit the appropriate certifications to the USEF. Coaching and riding are my refuge from work, not another place I have to undergo excessive scrutiny.
Note that as written, it looks like the proposed rule would not apply to amateurs who sign their own forms. Just professionals. And as Peggy pointed out, the wording might change before anything comes of it.
I have to go thru background checks and various types of training in abuse, harassment and human trafficing both for my career and volunteering at a museum center. I’m trained to death. But it’s computer based and not that huge a time suck plus it might just knock some realization what some are doing is disgusting and illegal. Might slow the offenders down, might make sombody brave enough to go to authorities about such behaviors.
Perhaps those with proof of extensive and current training in these subjects due to other non horse career requirements could get a bye on the training? Don’t see why that would be an issue.
We know we are supposed to say something if we see something but most don’t know who to say it to or fear repercussion. Education is the only way to stop these creeps, not just the pedophiles, the verbally abusive sexual harassment towards their employees and even students. I’m a lifetime member in full support of requiring trainers to take the training… Peer pressure can work better then threats.
If watching a video online saves one person from being sexually assaulted then it is worth it. RAyers comment comes off as insensitive and close minded. No matter how many times you have to go through training, you shouldn’t be bemoaning something that could save others much heartbreak and hardship.
In my industry (higher ed, where sexual harassment and assault has been a hot button topic for a long time) we don’t look at the trainings as necessarily stopping those who would be perpetrators. There will always be f***ed up people who will take advantage of others. But what is MASSIVELY important, and what good sexual misconduct training will address, is reaching potential BYSTANDERS. One of the best ways to address sexual assault and harassment is to empower people who might become witnesses or may hear about an assault to act appropriately and help the victim/survivor. People tend to get uncomfortable without proper training. They don’t want to interfere, or don’t know where to send a friend who confides in them about an assault. But training gives people tools and makes them think about what they should do.
I personally would love to see a required data-driven training given to all professional members of USEF, as a condition of membership. It won’t stop the predators from trying, but it might help a bystander know who to call if they see someone exhibiting grooming behavior with a junior, for example, or what they might say in the event of witnessing harassment. Our industry puts massive amounts of power in the hands of our trainers. Imagine if even 10% of the professionals at, say, WEF next year learned something new about how to stop sexual harassment and felt empowered to use that knowledge. Just that small of a number could have a big impact keeping an eye out for all the kids running around PBIEC. Multiply that by all the horse shows across the country over the next say, 5 years and we could have a decent network of pros looking out for sexual misconduct. That’s how you change a culture, by putting the power in the hands of a few good people who can become “evangelizers.” That could have a real impact on the safety of young people in our sport.
Look at gymnastics—we don’t want that to be us. Sexual harassment training, when done well and based on real scientific evidence, can make a huge difference.
I don’t have an issue with the training since it is already in place for officials. But who is going to pay for all these background checks? Those are a different can of worms from mandatory education, which I’m sure a lot of us have to go through in one way or another for internal HR if nothing else. As for background checks, I’ve been scrutinized as part of my bar admissions and don’t mind the idea of it, in theory. However, not every trainer out there has lived their life like they want to be a lawyer or a fed employee with top secret clearance or any number of other jobs where this kind of screening is par for the course. Who is it then who decides what pass/fail is? Does having a drug issue in 30 years ago now make it where you can’t be a trainer at Federation licensed competition? Or is that ok, but if the issue was 5 years ago, it’s not? Does USE now need to have another committee to decide these things? Will pros have to be interviewed by such committee? All of those types of things cost money/manpower. Will we have to provide references who may be interviewed?
For licensed officials, the officials have to pay for the background check through the company arranged by USEF. It’s something like $18-20 per check, which is required every two years. As I recall, the online form just requires very standard information, like name, address, social security number, that type of thing.
If the background check turns up an issue with the official, I don’t know what happens next.
I have to do a state background check to be involved in a reading program with children and it’s a totally different background check process than for the bar. Don’t quote me on this but I think the only thing that excludes you on this particular check are past convictions for child abuse/sexual abuse-- not convictions for drugs, etc. It’s nothing even CLOSE to the level of a government clearance of any sort. I gave them my full name, address, and I think maybe fingerprints (I am slightly hazy on whether I gave them prints or already had prints on file for something else). Nothing more. No interviews, etc. It wasn’t a character and fitness evaluation, I think they were just checking to see that you weren’t on Meghan’s list, essentially.
I presume the USEF would not be the one making thumbs up/down decisions on the background check. I presume they’d be having existing state background checks run that are already in place for adults working with children. I guess the state in which you live? The reading program I’m in was not making a thumbs up/down decision. They submitted the names to the background check and got a list back of approved readers. Period. No involvement by the program in making the decisions.
I believe the current background checks for licensed officials are done by a private security company. Not a state/government affiliate. I was under the impression that any criminal activity shows up, but I won’t swear to it.
It might be that any criminal activity shows up but only certain activity exempts you? I know we have people in the reading program who do not have a wholly unblemished criminal history, so for this check any criminal hits must not exclude you.
Ok, here’s the background check part of the current safe sport policy in place for licensed officials. There’s more detail in the handbook, available of the USEF site: https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/kgCy…e-sport-policy
POLICY 4: CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK
All USEF Designees shall undergo a criminal background check that complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Through this criminal background check, USEF will utilize reasonable efforts to ascertain criminal history. The USEF Criminal Background Check Policy assists USEF in promoting the safety and welfare of athletes.
PROCESS
The Criminal Background Check Consent and Waiver Release Form must be submitted to USEF’s criminal background check vendor and the USEF Designee cleared before he or she may perform services for USEF. Upon submission of the Criminal Background Check Consent and Waiver Release Form, USEF will request that its vendor perform the criminal background check. As part of its criminal background check, the vendor will:
perform a national criminal record search;
perform a search of state sexual offender registries; and
verify a person's identication against his or her social security number or other personal identifer.
CRIMINAL HISTORY
USEF will use a criminal background check agency to gather information about criminal history. The information revealed by the criminal background check may disqualify an individual from serving as a USEF Designee. Any conviction, guilty plea, plea of no contest, deferred sentence, deferred adjudication, or similar disposition of any of the following will result in disqualification:
• Sex Offenses: All Sex Offenses regardless of time since the offense. Examples Include: child molestation, rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sodomy, prostitution, solicitation, indecent exposure, etc.
Felony Offenses:
[LIST]
- All Felony Violence Offenses - Regardless of the amount of time since the offense.
Examples Include: murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, robbery, aggravated burglary, etc.
- All Felony Offenses other than violence or sex within the past 10 years. Examples Include: drug offenses, theft, embezzlement, fraud, child endangerment, etc.
Misdemeanors:
- All Misdemeanor Violence offenses within the past 7 years.
Examples Include: simple assault, battery, domestic violence, hit & run, etc.
- Two or more Misdemeanor Drug and/or Alcohol Offenses within the past 7 years.
Examples Include: driving under the in uence, simple drug possession, drunk and disorderly, public intoxication, possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.
- Any Other Misdemeanor within the past 7 years that would be considered a potential danger to children, including any crimes involving cruelty to animals.
For the purposes of this Policy, guilty shall mean that a person was found guilty following a trial, entered a guilty plea, entered a no contest plea, accompanied by a court finding of guilt (regardless of adjudication), or received court-directed programs in lieu of conviction.
And what are you folks going to do about the illegal grooms who are sleeping with and providing drugs and alcohol to the juniors and younger amateurs? If you could speak the language, you would be appalled at the comments being made to and about these young women.
THANK YOU!! Its true - training wouldn’t have saved me from the abuser, but it might’ve empowered someone to speak up for me and what a difference that would have made to me. And maybe I would’ve spoken up for the next girl.
vfx111 and mroades, I keep seeing references to insidious sexual abuse within our industry. While I shouldn’t be surprised, I am sickened by the thought of it. What can be done? Where can we begin? How can we start a #metoo and empower people to speak up?
I did some work in this area a few years ago. One thing I learned is that criminal background checks come in a million flavors. How far back do you want to go? How many jurisdictions do you want to check? The further back in time and the more jurisdictions, the more it costs. It can get very expensive very quickly.
The horse show industry is very transient - people migrate north and south and east and west over the course of a year to follow the circuits. And it’s not uncommon for trainers to move quite a few times during a career.
So does USEF check all 50 states? Or just the state listed as the trainer’s residence?
Is the membership willing to pay for expansive background checks?
Is the membership willing to limit the scope of the background checks to control costs, and thus accept the risk of missing the trainer based in New York who did bad stuff in Florida?
Based on the language above, it looks like the criminal background check will only be catching federal offenses plus state sex offender registries. No state criminal records (other than the sex offender registries). Is that enough?
(IMHO, that’s probably the best balance to strike between risk and cost. But others could disagree with me, and have good reasons for doing so)
