Background checks for volunteers

[eisely 13]

In principle I have no problem with these background checks, although I agree they will be largely ineffectual. A few people will be screened out as a result of this, but serious pedophiles without records will not be screened out with this. I agree that scouts today are probably in greater danger from incompetent outdoor leaders than from pedophiles. If YP is followed, there is little risk of a boy being harmed by a pedophile, although the recent case I posted from Florida shows there is still a risk.

 

I regret that anybody would be motivated to quit scouting over this and I urge you to rethink your position.

 

According to our council's December newsletter there is a new version of the adult volunteer application coming out that specifically mentions these additional background checks.

 

I remain concerned about what kind of databases will be used. We know there are lots of errors and superceded information in these databases.

 

Merry Christmas everybody.

[Rooster7 11]

I agree that scouts today are probably in greater danger from incompetent outdoor leaders than from pedophiles.

 

While I recognize that untrained and/or reckless leaders can pose a serious threat, I would not elevate them as a threat greater than that of the pedophile. Even if they are more common, I'd rather deal with boys lost in the woods for a day or two, or even broken bones, then the broken lives that pedophiles create. As to the effectualness of background checks, I suggest that while the effort may only snag a few, many predators would not submit their names knowing that they could be revealed (as the monsters they truly are). Furthermore, it seems to me that most pedophiles do have records. These sick puppies persist to prey on our children, even after being exposed via our justice system. From the studies I've read and heard about, very few of these men turn from their perversity. To the contrary, they slide further and further down a hill toward absolute evil. I say every little bit helps, and background checks would be a big step toward protecting these boys.

 

How many lives do you know about that were ruined because of an incompetent outdoor leader? Do they outnumber those of the pedophile? I seriously doubt it.

[ozemu 10]

On the basis that BSA has not yet shown its method of operation here and that your country has no national system of screening people in place let me again offer our experience. It may help to allay some worries based on the unknown. This is our experience. Please forgive the long post. Only one personal opinion promise.

 

 

1. Screening checks.

 

To follow johnmbowen's concerns for a bit our experience may help show the implementation of the screening checks.

 

Only people 'in charge' of Scouts will need to be checked.

 

This means the high adventure guide doing a one week tuition / guide with BSA Scouters (checked of course) would (technically speaking) not need to be screened - although for seven days it would still be a good idea. The key is that they are the guide and not the leader, or even a leader, in the party. Never without another adult in speaking distance. Hard to do over that period of time. And accidents sometimes need a reorganisation on the fly. So best get them screened (see point 4 for the administrative burden this causes).

 

For a night of tuition - forget it. Keep the helper in the company of a BSA Scouter and you are ensuring that nothing untoward could happen. And the volunteer is protected from the occasional attention seeking and vindictive child (false accusations are rare but happen). I make it a point to NEVER be alone with a child - other than my own and I ensure that my volunteer helpers are never put in that position.

 

 

2. Declarations.

 

The parent who car-pools and takes several Scouts to the campsite is 'in charge' during of the car load during the journey. However they are working under supervision from the SM in charge of the convoy and the task is one off and of limited duration less than one day.

 

All of our parents sign a declaration that they are not a 'prohibited person' for this reason. The form is quite clear about what people cannot be employed (voluntary or paid) working with children.

 

See the link for Scouts Australia's declaration - incidentally identical to the declaration of every other youth organisation/business in the country but with our logo.

 

http://www.nsw.scouts.com.au/atd/forms/m5.dot

 

This declaration is (in my opinion) a politically correct action that doesn't provide any protection. But when an offence is committed it allows the prosecution to hit the child abuser with another crime - false declaration. I think this part of our child protection has yet to be developed and is the best that can be done at the moment.

 

 

 

3. What constitutes a failure to pass the screening in our system?

 

I'm no expert but the concerns are convictions or official action in someones past concerning any of the following:

physical abuse,

emotional abuse,

neglect,

sexual abuse,

domestic violence.

 

No age range is considered (ie victims may be of any age).

 

The 'official action' idea is a bit odd. A teacher found to have acted inappropriately in a violent school incident (they deliberately caused pain (by squeezing the back of a childs neck) to stop that child who was hurting others may not have done anything wrong by law but may not have followed department guidelines and may be administratively disciplined. This would show up in a screening check - again no illegal act nor conviction.

 

I know of such a case.

 

The screening has passed this person as being allowed to work with children. No-one even knows of the incident at the local level. The screening can check the circumstances of a previous incident and dismiss the incident as not likely to occur again.

 

As I stated before the screening is actioned by people (not computers) on the basis of being 'reasonable'. It is not always a mandatory fail - the facts of the case are considered.

 

 

4. What is the administrative burden?

 

All applicants for Scouter positions sign the declaration. Any other person we want to work with the kids where they cannot be supervised directly (car pool etc) is also required to sign a declaration. These declarations are filed at regional headquarters. Leader application declarations are all sent to state HQ and screened. Anyone else we want to screen also goes to state HQ. If it all happens at the last minute they can sign the declaration as they enter the scout hall.

 

In our case a clear history can result in a clearance within 24 hours (of its arrival at state HQ). The more murky the past the longer it will take. Those who take many weeks normally result in the person withdrawing their application for screening, the application is binned and they do not get to work with kids.

 

The system has revealed child abuse perpetrators who have served their time and tried to enter Scouts and cadets as voluntary leaders. They never get a second chance. Prior to this system they would not be found out unless they re-offended, which was no protection at all as they move from state to state etc to escape their past.

 

[KoreaScouter 13]

BSA's new policy is "criminal only"; not financial, divorce, or other factors.

 

Real volunteers aren't driven away because of a background check; they're driven away because they get burned out or are unappreciated.

 

Being a Scout leader, like driving a car, is a privilege, not a right. You have to pass a test to get a driver's license, and you'll have to pass a criminal background check to be a Scout leader.

 

I don't care how qualified or experienced somebody is...unwillingness to follow rules is a character flaw in my opinion. I think some are unnecessary and overly restrictive (such as not traveling in convoys), but I follow them nonetheless. The main reason I do is because if an accident happened as a result of my not doing so, I'd probably be removed and my troop would be minus one good SM (also my opinion).

 

This seems like a silly reason to stage a "Boston Tea Party"...

 

KS