Jump to content

Background checks for volunteers


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's play "what if" ---

 

What if you pass the background check and THEN you commit a crime but don't serve jail time? Would you know this happened to the other volunteers in your unit?

 

In a small town, likely. Where I live, the other leaders could be convicted of crimes that I would never know of.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that makes me a bit uneasy about this is the lack of details as to what is in the databases that BSA will rely on. Is this a database of convictions only? Does it include arrest records? In some states, a mere allegation, even if proven totally false and made with malice, of any form of child abuse will put you into the government's database forever. Is this the kind of information that will be used?

 

Clearly BSA has to allow people to see the adverse information and respond to it. There is too much erroneous information out there.

 

Nevertheless this is still a good and important thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we are talking different countries but I should think the protocols would be similar.

 

Here a check on a most people comes back within several hours clearing them for working with children.

 

Some checks take a few days, some take weeks. It all depends on what the person has in their background.

 

The interesting thing is that a computer does not make the decisions on clearing nor on giving advice on clearences. The computer records are just that and can have errors. People (not just police but other agencies ie Education, military etc) check on exactly what the records turn up. The person is sometimes phoned or interviewed to check until all reasonable doubt is extinguished. It is a very human process - hence a questionable past takes time to clear.

 

So not just convictions are uncovered. Departmental dismissals etc seem to be accessed. And the subjective elements already mentioned (20 years age he had a joint etc) are dealt with on the basis of 'reasonable man or woman would...'

 

Just did a workshop on this - hope it helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is just fine.

 

My personal and considered opinion is that this is just another CYA decision by the national organization. Where the responsibility should lie is with the people in the trench.

 

The problem is "high adventure."

 

The most obvious far flung ramification of this is that it will make it much more difficult to convince people who are expert in some outdoor activity to become involved in helping out a Scout Troop.

 

Suppose you find a likely person who is a very good climber, or rafter who normally would avoid getting involved with helping to teach and take Scouts on a trip, a service that would not only enrich the program, but fulfill the expectations of kids about Scouting. Suppose then that this person is convinced in the concept of providing what amounts to a very large service to a bunch of kids and adults they don't know. And then you lay it on them..."Well, we gotta make sure you arn't a SEX OFFENDER by making you undergo a BACKGROUND CHECK." Do you truely think that will help?

 

This very thing happened to me, a 11 year veteren in Scouting when I offered to help out another Troop with high adventure. I was asked if I was a SINGLE MALE. I am, having been divorced for a few years. I was then told that this Troop would not allow me around because I was basically a sex offender suspect! Well, they are NOT getting any help from me, nor will I recommend any of my married friends to do so. I am still angry, though I have put up with Scouters like this for years.

 

Is that what you really want? Don't the High Brass think that a potential, but undiscovered sexual preditor would NOT go to the trouble of the background check? Well, I can tell you that the outdoors people who really could do you some good as a favor WON'T. It is far easier for them to continue to practice their recreation without you. (These are the same High Brass that wanted Scouts who were going to climb at 18000 feet in high winds in arctic temperatures to wear 'visible' Scout uniforms!)

 

What this will effectively do is to insure that the only source of outdoor expertise will come from parents already expert in some outdoors activity. Outside people who could really contribute to your program will be excluded because of the trouble, and the obvious mistrust.

 

So, do you really care? Well, how many parents with a boy between 11 and 17 do each of you know that are capable of teaching the setting of effective and safe top-rope anchors? How many do you know capable of and interested in teaching how to read Class III swiftwater and swiftwater rescue. Not too many? I don't either.

 

In reality, most parents who do these kind of things DONT have their kids in Scouts, because for these kids, Scouts mostly DONT do anything near as exciting as they do with their own folks! I have met several.

 

Scouting is already too much like this: clannish and arrogant with too little to be arrogant about. Too many out of shape fathers are good at administration and expert at the Scout Method, but generally clueless in the outdoors, but ARE willing to put your boys at risk by taking them out there! Scouting already has a poor reputation in the larger outdoors community where our competance in the outdoors is in question. This will not fix it!

 

Grow up, and take the responsiblity for yourselves. Check out potential helpers yourself. Get to know them. I pick mine after inviting them along on an outdoors trip that I run myself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

John:

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, I've been required to have potential volunteers fill out background check forms along with their Scout Leader application for years -- military requirement for anyone spending time around kids. I haven't had the experience you have with people taking offense or resenting an insinuation that they're criminals. They willingly complete the background check form, although some do lament the fact that it's necessary.

 

Regarding your comment about Scouting's reputation among the "larger outdoor community", I need to make a couple of inferences here. First, if by LOC you mean Backpacker magazine subscribers (I am one), the LOC is predominantly experienced adults, traveling in small groups, who, with disposable income, are for the most part well equipped with the state of the art.

 

On the other hand, Scout troops are predominantly inexperienced adolescent boys, traveling in larger groups, without the state of the art. If they're a little clumsier, noisier, not as well turned-out, or stick out more when on outings, what do you expect? Now, they should get better individually as they get more experience and maturity, but every troop will always be populated primarily by youngsters who are new at this, and that's the collective reality you'll see. Let's keep our perspective here. While the Outdoors Program is one of the eight methods, and an important one, it's only one of eight. After all, our mission is to prepare youth to make ethical choices over their lifetimes, not to create a corps of professional outfitters. Sure, we work to drill the Outdoor Code into them, but as I like to put it, this is a journey, not a destination...

 

So, I take your point overall, but rather than compare 11-year old Boy Scouts (apples) with experienced backcountry types (oranges), how about comparing adults in the backcountry who were Scouts as youths with adults in the backcountry who were not Scouts as youths? Probably too tough to do, and more of an editorial comment on my part, but would be a better comparison I think.

 

KS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been involved in scouting for 35 years. IF on any forms I have to fill out in the future request a background check, I will take my entire family out of scouting. I have nothing to hide and pass background checks for many jobs my company works on, but I will not undergo a background check for volunteer work. Plain and simple. Seems BSA is catching the right wing trend. Not gonna happen here.

 

ASM1

Link to post
Share on other sites

ASM1;

 

Take your whole family out of Scouting? Because BSA wants to screen out criminals? Ever heard the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

 

Besides, you may already be gettting your background checked. Look at the current adult application form...you consent to it when you fill it out. And, the GTSS says right in section 1: "The adult application requests background information that should be checked by the unit committee or the chartered organization before accepting an applicant for unit leadership." The new BSA policy only formalizes it.

 

I don't understand why anyone would object to something that will screen out creeps and protect our kids.

 

KS

Link to post
Share on other sites

KoreaScouter et al.

 

I still agree with ASM1 and the other antis. And for Mr. Mori's purulent interest, I have nothing to hide (unlike Rev. Baker), as I have passed 3 years of intrusive child abuse background checks in the adoption of my son. And that is just what they are.

 

And who will pay for these, mine were $25 each! Are you going to make the volunteers pay?

 

My big and vehement objection is that perhaps a high adventure, or other teacher/volunteer should be in a different catagory in this case. If not, Scouting will sink further into an indoor activity, or perhaps become even more dangerous in the outdoors while attempting more than car camping. Scouting needs the 'outing' implied in it. This blanket rule will make it harder to provide this experience safely. We already promise those kids all kinds of adventure right in their Handbook, but do we really provide it? Well, our groups do. Maybe our groups are the only ones, but I hope not.

 

And there is a great deal of difference between civilian and military life (eg: the Uniform Code of Military Justice vs. Civilian Justice System (having been in both, I perfer the latter)). It may be a matter of course for a soldier to be required a background check, but for a civilian, especially one that you ask to help your Scouts with an expertise they have for perhaps only for a week, the overt suggestion that they are a priori believed to be a child molester until being cleared is a slap in the face and ...and for what? A volunteer position? Perhaps a short time deal? Not only a volunteer position, but one for which a non-parent who is asked to impart a skill out of the goodness of their hearts, without a vested interest in Scouting (a child) is frankly a large burden to take on, even for a little while. For an outdoorsperson asked to share an expertise that the Troop doesn't have, but would like to provide for their Scouts, this is a double burden, and one that would really try their patience. It has mine. They don't have anything to hide, they just don't need the extra grief on top of a service.

 

Perhaps your Troops need no exceptional expertise, but mine does as do the Venture Crews I help. We have an excellent safety and high adventure record.

 

I will also reiterate that for a real high adventure program, you need more than a child abuse background check, and a Wood Badge. You need real experience in that form of high adventure you want to present, whether backpacking or white water rafting. Otherwise your children can be in danger of death due to your inexperience (probably a good clue as to why Scouting is heading more indoors). I also reiterate that parents who are already experts in an outdoor activity seldom feel the need to have their youngsters in Scouts as what they provide is often far more than a Troop can provide. I also know this through esxperience. I lost one kid and his family to this, but have luckily retained another partially by co-opting his family on raft trips which is their expertise, and by providing this Scout with rock climbing. From most of the comments, I don't believe that many of you have in reality experienced either of these phenomena.

 

Sure Scouts is more than High Adventure, but High Adventure allows you to get that other training, and philosophy to them much easier, and to advance the cause to more kids.

 

Does Scouting have problems that can be helped by this kind of expertise? Yes. Though I have heard of others, I personally remember (2001) an event where a young Scout on the Moab Daily river route had been abandoned from a canoe trip by his SM on the bank to walk the 2-3 miles back to the parking lot (for not paddling enough) barefoot, near naked and hypothermic. Well, at least he wasn't sexually abused, but perhaps help with outdoor expertise could have prevented the incident. At least, it wouldn't have happened with my Troop.

 

In my experience, and in this catagory it is pretty extensive, most people who are interested enough in the outdoors to become an expert kayaker, rafter, climber etc. are not interested in pedofilia, or even kids for that matter. In fact these people, in my experience, would rather not be burdened to help a bunch of Scouts and getting them to share their expertise with Scouts is pretty hard.

 

It would stand to reason that those interested in pedofilia might be inclined to spend time trying to get close to a Scout group, including arranging to get a background check for no good reason. If you have to have a background check, target it with reason.

 

It is hard enough to get someone who has gone through a real swift water rescue course, or is a climber capable of putting up 5.11 routes to take "Safety Afloat" or "Climb on Safely," both of which I am forced to train regular Scouters beyond for safety reasons. Why slap them in the face with this? Most don't have a good opinion of Scouts to start with, but they have something every Scout Troop should have access to. So go right ahead and imply they molest children! Go car camping instead.

 

Though I very much believe in child abuse protection, but I feel that this background check is NOT the blanket instrument to use in this situation. I rather believe that is yet another method to state that "national cares," instituted without thorough thought. But mark my words, it will drive off the very people who can bring Scouts what is promised to them, but in practice mostly denied, in half the pictures in the Scout Handbook, what the Scouts call "high adventure."

 

I fully believe that the two-on leadership system of two adults with kids at all times, family participation, and instituting a personal relationship with your adult co-volunteers has shown to be effective, at least in my Troop.

 

So, try another method.

 

Remember that high adventure Troop in Washington State that got fed up with the whole thing, turned in their charter and joined the Mountaineers en masse? ASM1 is right. Tread lightly on those who could (and in many cases should) help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Background checks, I have no problem with them at all. The Council that I belong to has been performing background checks utilizing the County Sheriff's department for years.

 

My concerns are what they will do with the information they receive. Should any action be taken if a personal bankruptcy is found? What about spousal abuse? What about a firearms violation? What about drunken driving convictions twenty years ago? Divorces? Child custody disputes? Traffic violations? The list can go on and on. There is a trade-off between erring on the the side of safety and erring on the side of acceptance. BSA should be very clear on what the groundrules of the background check are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ASM1,

 

So it's worth the trouble to undergo a background check to obtain a job, but not to ensure the safety of children? I see.

 

If this idea is going to be credited to the "vast right wing conspiracy" group, then count me among them. When kids are involved - a background check equals common sense.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids are far too important to not take extra precautions. Backround checks are a good idea. And if you have undergone them in the past johnmbowen what's the problem now?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...