Background Checks - Needed?

[Craig]

My 5 year old boy is attending Sports Camp over the next few weeks at the YMCA, so when I was thumbing through some hockey magazines over the weekend (I play roller and my 3 yr old is obsessed w/hockey), this article caught my eye:

Barring the Door for the Bad Guys

The article starts out:

The mission of USA Hockey “is to promote the growth of hockey in America and provide the best possible experience for all participants by encouraging, developing, advancing and administering the sport.”

An important cog in achieving this mission is to ensure that every boy and girl is safe at all times.

Seeing the number of youth that are coming into the sport, and having heard various reports over the years of incidents of inappropriate contact, this seems like it should be part of the USFA's mission as well.

USA Hockey has used a program for the past 5 years where they administer background checks for anyone that is in a volunteer position within the organization - coaches, referees, etc.

Some highlights:

• The policy of USA Hockey and USA Hockey InLine is that any volunteer or employee with routine access to children in its programs must consent to the screening process administered by the 35 Affiliate members of USA Hockey. The procedure is similar for all affiliates, as USA Hockey requires its affiliates to adopt this policy.
  
• Before an individual considers signing up to coach or volunteer with an association, he or she must be a USA Hockey member. After registration, a consent form for a criminal background check must be submitted.
  
• If an applicant is denied, a record containing a conviction of a crime is forwarded to the vice president of appeals and abuse prevention, who then notifies the individual.
  
• The process is repeated every season in Michigan, including spring and summer leagues.
  

This is an expensive process, so there are cost considerations.

Thoughts? Comments?

Craig

[Fencergrl]

I think it's a really good idea. The RCMP doesn't charge for these checks, so this is a little easier in Canada

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

I think it's a really good idea. The RCMP doesn't charge for these checks, so this is a little easier in Canada

Is this a policy for the CFF?

Craig

[Fencergrl]

No, but it is the policy of the schools and community centres I work in. So I get checks done anytime they are requested. Most get the check done once and keep it on file.

The police do not have renewal dates on their checks because as they put it "You could commit a crime after you walk out of here". So every time I get a request, I need to get a check done again.

I was also told that Criminal Checks should be done for all people who work with children. Yeah... you and I both know that isn't the case. Doesn't make it a bad policy for an organization to have.

I'm thinking especially in the US, were people are more apt to sue. If a ref at a sanctioned USFA event does something inappropriate would the USFA be held partially to blame?

Even without the risk of being sued... it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect an organization to make some effort to ensure that kids are not at risk. Pedophiles are drawn to places where they are involved with kids.

[Delta]

I think this is a good idea, but I think cost remains an obstacle some people just can't afford to take the time/money to run.
I don't know a lot about this area, but consider if you were to run a club at an inner-city location. Your club's aim might be to provide the support of a mentoring program/keeping kids off the street. I want to say it's likely at least someone who joins your club, whether it be fencing or not will probably have a record, but considering the community and location of the club, your objectives might have to accomodate those circumstances.
Of course, if I were to consider opening a club at such a location, keeping kids off the street would be my primary goal while teaching the sport. Others may have other priorities which might be more profitable after deducting the costs of background checks.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that the aim of the Peter Westbrook foundation?

[keith]

You should have a check at what is required in the UK.

As I understand it, anyone who has, or may have, contact with children in a coaching/supervising role is required to have a police clearance (record check).

This is a general legal requirement so is not the responsibility of individual sports to enforce. I am sure someone more familiar with the current UK law will chime in to correct me.

It would strike me that the (minimum) requirements the USFA should have for anyone designating themselves as a coach should be;

Have an appropriately clean police record.
Be (or have been) accredited by a coaching body.
Have a current emergency first aid accreditation.

IMHO.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

This is my second year working at a premiere multi-sports camp as a counselor and athletics coach.

I can tell you straight up, that running background checks on every counselor and coach they hire has saved them a wad of $100 dollar bills so thick you could choke an Anaconda with it.

There are people out there who want to hurt kids, and its absolutely worth the time and money to make sure they stay clear of your business.

[Allen Evans]

Any time I've taught fencing in a school setting, I've gone through a criminal background check. If Dominion Fencing (my club) was every in a position to hire an additional coach, I would consider having a check done on any potential employee.

AE

[chefencer]

This is obviously a big issue with the Boy Scouts (success dealing with it has been a bigger issue). The BSA has a pretty good online Youth Protection Training program and distributes DVD programs aimed at scouts to help the kids spot and deal with abuse. Since 2003, all new registered leaders have been required to consent to a background check. This summer the BSA is setting up a consent website for all those long term leaders who have never been required to have a background check. These requirements and this support is provided for free by the National Office...

[Bryn Ralph]

I must concur w/ Mr. Allen. The safety and welfare of our children should always be in mind; especially, in light of the drift of our American culture.
Therefore, background checks should be mandatory for those who instruct in the art and science of fencing.

Bryn Ralph

[Fencergrl]

The only issue I can see (besides cost) is some people feeling like it's a witch hunt, unnecessary, or unfair to somebody who's been accused but not convicted.

My feelings on this is, if there's a simple procedure available to weed out pedophiles, then as an organization or a business we are being neglectful. If someone has been accused (and perhaps the charges dropped) should they still be allowed to work with kids?

To be honest, I would think that someone who has been falsely accused would make every effort to avoid having it happen again. They might work with adults, be on committees, ref etc... but not coach children. In short, they would ensure they are never alone with a child because having your behaviour misinterpreted or coming across another child prone to making false accusations would have serious consequences. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.

A pedophile, on the other hand would continue to be drawn to children, because they can't help it. They need to seek treatment, but they are in denial. Rather than come to terms with who they really are, they attack the process. They see themselves as being attacked rather than children being protected. The role of the victim gets changed.

Criminal checks are the only way to weed out people who have been convicted or suspected of abusing kids. It's not worth the risk for any sport to allow these people access to kids.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

The only issue I can see (besides cost) is some people feeling like it's a witch hunt, unnecessary, or unfair to somebody who's been accused but not convicted.

My feelings on this is, if there's a simple procedure available to weed out pedophiles, then as an organization or a business we are being neglectful. If someone has been accused (and perhaps the charges dropped) should they still be allowed to work with kids?

To be honest, I would think that someone who has been falsely accused would make every effort to avoid having it happen again. They might work with adults, be on committees, ref etc... but not coach children. In short, they would ensure they are never alone with a child because having your behaviour misinterpreted or coming across another child prone to making false accusations would have serious consequences. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.

A pedophile, on the other hand would continue to be drawn to children, because they can't help it. They need to seek treatment, but they are in denial. Rather than come to terms with who they really are, they attack the process. They see themselves as being attacked rather than children being protected. The role of the victim gets changed.

Criminal checks are the only way to weed out people who have been convicted or suspected of abusing kids. It's not worth the risk for any sport to allow these people access to kids.

For once, I agree with you entirely.

As an added note, the wrong sort of people do make an effort to apply to the types of jobs they really don't need to have.

Number of pedos that apply for a job at a hardware store?

(low number) out of 100.

Number of pedos that apply for a job at a camp/school/sport?

(much higher number) out of 100.

Background checks are like a tap-water filter. You don't realize how important they are until you take a look at it a year later and see how much crap it saved you.

[academe]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Number of pedos that apply for a job at a camp/school/sport?

(much higher number) out of 100.

Background checks are like a tap-water filter. You don't realize how important they are until you take a look at it a year later and see how much crap it saved you.

There have been several reports lately about how pedophiles are getting jobs driving ice cream trucks. Basically any place that attracts kids will attract those interested in kids for the wrong reasons.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I thought of everyone just knew that the ice cream man was a pedo selling frozen roofies.

[Empty Wallet]

Where I live things have become very strict in relation to a more formalized system of police checks and records. A card is issued with a photograph, like the drivers licence.

People working with children in a whole range of categories (including coaches who are paid) must have a check that is run through a national system. If you are earning income from the activity there is a fee of less than $100 and a clearance for several years.

Volunteers in a whole range of settings must also have the checks done. So, I have a check card so I can accompany kids from school on various outings (mostly female teachers in elementary school -- need for males to supervise activities, rest stops, etc). These are free.

Many of our students who are on placements in settings with kids, or whose research involves kids, must also get a card, which is free.

The free cards cannot be used for incoming earning employment, so now I have to make a new application because I now need one for work.

When I was on the School Board there was a lot of concern from parents who had some history for minor crime -- usually shoplifting, minor theft, or alcohol related behaviour when younger. They were worried this would stop them being involved in their kids' education. As the checks are only for behaviour related to things that would jeopardise children, they were in the clear for this level of involvement.

The big question after all this bureaucracy is whether these systems actually work. This is seriously debatable it only picks ups people who already have a record. Also, the vast majority of abuse occurs within the family or close family friend context, and you require not qualifications to be a family member.

[battleaxe]

Here is an example of a check for convicted sex offenders. This is from New Jersey but most states have something similiar. It helps to have a photo of the person you are checking. This is not as thorough as a regular background check as it is just for sex offenders but it is free and quick.

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/njsp/info/reg_sexoffend.html

[Philistine]

On the general background checks for other organizations/sports--is any conviction disabling? Would someone convicted of, say, passing a bad check be prohibited from being a coach/volunteer?

Should that be the case with fencing?

On the background requests themselves--how are they done? I'm somewhat familiar with the system in PA. Here, it only returns information on PA crimes--arrests which do not result in convictions are supposed to be removed after 3 years go by. It's a $10 charge.

--Philistine

[foiled once again]

Originally Posted by battleaxe

Here is an example of a check for convicted sex offenders. This is from New Jersey but most states have something similiar. It helps to have a photo of the person you are checking. This is not as thorough as a regular background check as it is just for sex offenders but it is free and quick.

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/njsp/info/reg_sexoffend.html

So is the idea to ban convicted sex offenders from the sport altogether? That is a superb idea in today's atmosphere and climate. We don't want the USFA overrun with sexual offenders who are seeking out our youth.

What about other criminals..... Murders, asaultist, and the such. I think the USFA should create guidelines to keep everyone safe

I thought a registered sex offender was not allowed to be around youth anyway per law. Is that not the case?

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by foiled once again

I thought a registered sex offender was not allowed to be around youth anyway per law. Is that not the case?

Yes but the ones who believe they're "innocent" think it isn't a problem.