Background Checks?

[Amulek]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

And lawsuits might be impacted by the presence or lack of a background check, but I doubt it has ever been the only relevant argument for liability in a suit. 

That may be part of the calculus, but I'm not certain. 

 

[rodheadlee]

Are you guys talking about those sexual offender list that you can get on by peeing in an alley behind a bar? 

[Amulek]

1 minute ago, rodheadlee said:

Are you guys talking about those sexual offender list that you can get on by peeing in an alley behind a bar? 

More likely it's because of something stupid they did when they were a kid.

In 2000, the US Department of Justice found that "the single age with the greatest number of offenders from the perspective of law enforcement was age 14." (link)

Which isn't really surprising when you think about it. You know, because kids often do stupid things with other kids - including things of a sexual nature.

I believe there's a technical term for this...idiots. 

But hey, if someone thinks that an 8 year old playing doctor with their 4 year old sibling should preclude them from ever being able to serve as a seminary teacher then so be it. 

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Seriously, why don't you just put your money where your mouth is and pay for background checks on the leaders who are working with your own children / grandchildren?

I don’t know, this sounds a little aggressive.  

Sorry, but I think it takes a certain amount of chutzpah for someone to complain about the church not spending millions and millions of dollars to perform background checks when - dollars to donuts - that self-same person has likely never even bothered to even spend the 15 minutes it would take to look up their own kids' leaders in freely available sex offender registries.

 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Amulek said:

More likely it's because of something stupid they did when they were a kid.

In 2000, the US Department of Justice found that "the single age with the greatest number of offenders from the perspective of law enforcement was age 14." (link)

Which isn't really surprising when you think about it. You know, because kids often do stupid things with other kids - including things of a sexual nature.

I believe there's a technical term for this...idiots. 

But hey, if someone thinks that an 8 year old playing doctor with their 4 year old sibling should preclude them from ever being able to serve as a seminary teacher then so be it. 

 

Juveniles (6-17) account for 35.6% of known child abuse cases.  Incidents go up rapidly at 12 and plateaus at 14.  7% are female, but these tend to be younger than males and be involved in multiple victim or multiple perpetrator circumstances.  Preteen offenders are most likely to be victims of abuse themselves.

Juvenile offenders have a low recividism rate (5-15%) and there are some quite successful treatments out there (besides just growing older).  There is a high correlation of behaviour with forms of delinquency.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf

With the info out there, it does not make sense to me to throw away the key for youth offenders.  However, important to research to see if the small, but high risk for reoffending group can be identified.  This is where money and attention wasted by treating all youth offenders as likely to reoffend could be spent to prevent future victims, imo.

Adult sex offenders also vary quite a bit.  There is a small percentage that has a huge numbers of child victims.  These are the type, imo from the data I have seen, that should be not given second chances when found and permanently locked away though if they come up with a treatment that works for this group, I am open to being persuaded if it lowers risks of abuse ( for reasons cited in bluebell's post above).

Let's see if this gets 403ed....

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sorry, but I think it takes a certain amount of chutzpah for someone to complain about the church not spending millions and millions of dollars to perform background checks when - dollars to donuts - that self-same person has likely never even bothered to even spend the 15 minutes it would take to look up their own kids' leaders in freely available sex offender registries.

 

I didn't argue with the content.  I commented on the delivery.  It takes a certain amount of skill for someone to influence someone to think differently than they thought 15 minutes ago, and usually aggression is not effective.  

And I don't think the questions or ideas were worthy of the aggressive "put your money where your mouth is" kind of demand.  We have zero influence here and nothing is going to come of it.  The church's money has zero threat as a result of this discussion.  It was a valid idea.  School districts spend our tax dollars on background checks.  IT was a valid wondering.  This is just my opinion. 

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

But not due just to lack of background checks in my memory.

I've not claimed that all of them could have been averted with a background check.  But if if it saved one child from being abused, I cannot imagine the argument that it would have cost too much is a acceptable explanation.  The church has the money, so I have to believe there are other reasons they have not opted to start doing these yet.  I cannot imagine any church leader putting that into words as some here have (that it's not worth spending the money).

I'd be happy to help pay for any that our ward needed and I'd imagine others would donate specifically for this as well.

Edited April 11, 2019 by ALarson

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Was there found to be a drop in abuse rates?  Just curious. 

I don't know what part of Autralia TheRedHen may have lived in, but I can find no evidence that backgrounds checks have been mandated by law for as long as s/he states. New South Wales, the largest state by population, only introduced its scheme in 2013. It was evaluated in 2015 and was determined to be financially unsustainable. It's still in operation however. I note that a review two years ago provides very limited information on its effectiveness. The review does note that 0.18 per cent of all applicants had been barred, but no data is given on whether or not there has been a drop in abuse rates, which would be the clear indicator that the scheme is working. This is its final conclusion: 'Despite the Check’s proven effectiveness as a tool for keeping children safe when used with other child-safe strategies,  it has recognised limitations as a cure-all for child protection issues'.

Where I live, we introduced mandatory background checks about five years ago as well. Last week the government tabled a bill to amend the scheme, and it's now my repsonsibility to work through that so that my member can, in consulation with party room, respond correctly. What I know so far is that our scheme is likewise financially unsustainable. Those seeking clearance are currently waiting many months for that clearance to be granted. In the meantime, they are allowed to work/serve as if the clearance had already been granted. (I just renewed mine, and the receipt alone makes me lawful.) In large part, this is because governments have no clue how many people actually volunteer with children. No clue.

In hearings on the incapacity of the scheme, our government has repeatedly blamed people seeking clearance when they don't need it, but we can document that they're wrong, and the opposition warned them of this outcome in the lead-up to the scheme's launch. In the Church of Jesus Christ, basically every adult needs to have clearance. This is because we all rotate through callings, in part, but it's also because we minister with minors and visit homes every month with children in them. It's because, as happened to me this past Sunday, we need to be able to step into a youth Sunday school class without warning when one of the assigned teachers doesn't show up. And so forth. This is actually what real life looks like for most people.

But our current government is comprised mainly of never-married 'progressive' politicians who don't belong to churches or community orgranisations and who never volunteer. The bulk of people in our community don't attend a church/mosque/temple/synagogue, but many do, and many, many of them volunteer at school, coach youth sports, tutor kids, etc. One of the current fixes being proposed, therefore, in the amendment bill is extending the renewal period from three years to five years. In the meantime, we have absolutely zero data -- I know because we've asked for it -- to indicate that the occurrence of abuse has been impacted in any way since the introduction of the scheme. My strong suspicion is that we're dealing with another example of 'security theatre' designed to make us feel better.

Well, that's my view from the trenches.

ETA: The Blue Card system mentioned by TheRedHen exists in Queensland. I can't pinpoint its origin. It was likewise reviewed two years ago. This is its key finding: 'There is limited research on the effectiveness of WWCCs [working with children checks]. However, the Royal Commission’s extensive work, data provided by Blue Card Services (BCS—the Department of Justice and Attorney-General business unit administering the blue card system), and stakeholder feedback suggests that WWCCs do contribute to improving safety for children —when implemented alongside other strategies'.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Sorry, but I think it takes a certain amount of chutzpah for someone to complain about the church not spending millions and millions of dollars to perform background checks when - dollars to donuts - that self-same person has likely never even bothered to even spend the 15 minutes it would take to look up their own kids' leaders in freely available sex offender registries.

 

If you are referring to me, then you could not be more wrong.   

And as I posted, I would be very willing to donate or help pay for background checks for our ward.  I'd have no problem helping out in that way regarding this.  I'm sure others would too (especially parents and grandparents....but others as well).

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If you are referring to me, then you could not be more wrong.   

And as I posted, I would be very willing to donate or help pay for background checks for our ward.  I'd have no problem helping out in that way regarding this.  I'm sure others would too (especially parents and grandparents....but others as well).

 

Is there anything preventing starting a group for your ward?  A church policy not allowing use of calling info?  Since it could be based on personal knowledge, seems unlikely to me.

I could see explaining to people you and perhaps others will be checking relevant callings to the extent you can manage and if anyone is interested in helping take it to more indepth levels, donations for that purpose would be accepted...make sure two people see the documentation, receipts for fees, so no one can claim they did a check by using false papers and pocket the money.

Grass root projects have been the beginning of Church wide programs before.

An additional help I would include if .I got involved in something like this is a handout or links to education on how to help your kids prepare, how to become better aware adults, etc.  maybe a once a month lesson passed on.

Encourage members to spread participation by word of mouth.

Not sure if one could get sued though if one shares background check info of a negative outcome.  If publicly available, even if only for a fee, seems unlikely.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there anything preventing starting a group for your ward?  A church policy not allowing use of calling info?  Since it could be based on personal knowledge, seems unlikely to me.

I could see explaining to people you and perhaps others will be checking relevant callings to the extent you can manage and if anyone is interested in helping take it to more indepth levels, donations for that purpose would be accepted...make sure two people see the documentation, receipts for fees, so no one can claim they did a check by using false papers and pocket the money.

Grass root projects have been the beginning of Church wide programs before.

I like how you're thinking and I'd be willing to do something like this.  The only thing I can think that would be frowned upon, is that it would look like fund raising (even if for a good cause).  I don't know if it would get approved, but it would certainly be for a great cause.

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know what part of Autralia TheRedHen may have lived in, but I can find no evidence that backgrounds checks have been mandated by law for as long as s/he states.

Here's this:

https://www.bluecard.qld.gov.au/volunteers/Churchesclubsandassociationsinvolvingchildren.html

Quote

Who needs a blue card?

Volunteers and trainee students need a blue card if their work or practical placement in a church, club, association or similar entity includes, or is likely to include, providing services that are mainly directed at children, or conducting activities that mainly involve children, unless an exemption applies

Examples of people who need a blue card...

• Volunteer coaches for children at sporting or recreational clubs
• Volunteers conducting children’s activities at churches
• Parents volunteering in an official capacity on a club’s committee, even if their child is a member of that club,
• Trainee students doing placements in a church, club or association as part of their studies with an education provider.

.Here's more information regarding the Blue Card system:

https://www.bluecard.qld.gov.au/about.html

Edited April 11, 2019 by ALarson

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's this:

I'm not sure what your point is. I've noted repeatedly in my post that WWCCs cover people at churches.

[Calm]

An FYI, this was very easy to use.  Found out I live in a good area, 5 in the whole town and most are along the state highway.  Otoh, not so good in my son's area, about two blocks away a former elementary teacher caught with child po-rn, though no kids in his school or area found to be victims.  I did a search on his name and pulled up a couple of news articles.  

And quite a few closer to 'downtown'.  

http://www.city-data.com/  go under "more" to sexoffenders.

This would be something a bishop or membership clerk could check once a month.  Given our wards are based on location, wouldn't even need to search each individual names if doing basic check.  Instead just pull up your area and then if small number read list for any familiar names; if large, might need to split the job with others if one wanted to keep up on everyone in the ward and not just certain callings.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not sure what your point is. I've noted repeatedly in my post that WWCCs cover people at churches.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

RedHen posted this:

Quote

I lived in Australia for 10 years.  The government implemented a Blue Card system that required that anyone dealing with children had to be background checked.  It included everything from teachers to little league coaches.  The Church had to comply and the Bishop was required to ensure that anyone involved with the youth had a valid Blue Card.  Seemed to be a really useful tool.

You posted this:

44 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know what part of Autralia TheRedHen may have lived in, but I can find no evidence that backgrounds checks have been mandated by law for as long as s/he states.

That's why I posted this:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71749-background-checks/?do=findComment&comment=1209899284

 

Were you not questioning this?  I haven't seen where RedHen posted how long it's been mandated....but I'll look (if that's what you're questioning).

 

[Amulek]

24 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I didn't argue with the content.  I commented on the delivery.  It takes a certain amount of skill for someone to influence someone to think differently than they thought 15 minutes ago, and usually aggression is not effective.  

And I don't think the questions or ideas were worthy of the aggressive "put your money where your mouth is" kind of demand. [...]

I don't entirely disagree. However, sometimes people are so emotionally invested in a certain position that there is likely nothing you can say that will change their mind.

In which case, what's the point of dancing around the issue. Better to get down to brass tacks.

If background checks are the silver bullet to preventing abuse, then why aren't people paying to have them run independently? Why wait for the church to do what one is perfectly capable of doing alone? And if one isn't doing it - why not? And what is the justification in your mind which allows you to excuse yourself but not the church for making the exact same choice?

 

 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I don't entirely disagree. However, sometimes people are so emotionally invested in a certain position that there is likely nothing you can say that will change their mind.

In which case, what's the point of dancing around the issue. Better to get down to brass tacks.

If background checks are the silver bullet to preventing abuse, then why aren't people paying to have them run independently? 

I think the person you’re attacking and accusing here has stated twice they’d do just that (help pay).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I like how you're thinking and I'd be willing to do something like this.  The only thing I can think that would be frowned upon, is that it would look like fund raising (even if for a good cause).  I don't know if it would get approved, but it would certainly be for a great cause.

Another way of doing it, is having people join and then taking turns on doing the work, so no money changes hands.  People then submitted their researched info to one person who can then email any alerts out.  People who can't afford to pay could do the freebie site checks.

One big deterrent is just not knowing how to go about it.  Just have a set of instructions to hand out could lead to lot of involvement.

I had done searches before, but hadn't realized how easy to use the sex offender list had gotten.  I am going to be talking to my son and his wife, though I suspect they are computer savvy and aware enough.

But next step, I would be googling names and wondering how worthwhile the various background check sites are.  Someone did this homework on how to search effectively for me...much more likely to think about it and then do it.

Going and talking to your bishop,to get permission to hand out a "how to" sheet in PH and RS and to youth teachers (maybe pass around a clipboard with a list to check off your name for receiving it) or for him to email the ward list that info (our bishop just sent out financial info links) might be useful.  Make it 'church friendly' by including Ensign articles and conference talks about protecting our children and keeping it simple with maybe a link to a website that explains the how tos.

Avoid offending parents by not handing it out in general meetings or activities where kids might pick it up if discarded by someone or ask about it.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Were you not questioning this?  I haven't seen where RedHen posted how long it's been mandated....but I'll look (if that's what you're questioning).

Understood now. When I read this -- 'I lived in Australia for 10 years' -- I jumped to the conclusion that the Blue Card system had been around that long. My guess is that no WWCC system has been operating in Australia longer than about five years, though Queensland may have been the first. And they still don't seem to have any conclusive data, just 'suggestions' that their mandatory backgroung checks might be helping but only if they're accompanied by 'other strategies'. Did you read the review? It's filled with recommendations for trying to make the system work better.

[Amulek]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If you are referring to me, then you could not be more wrong.   

So, to be clear, you are saying that you do check all of your kids teachers at church against the sex offender registry? 

 

Quote

And as I posted, I would be very willing to donate or help pay for background checks for our ward.  I'd have no problem helping out in that way regarding this.  I'm sure others would too (especially parents and grandparents....but others as well).

Then do it. As calm noted, I can't think of anything that is stopping you.

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Understood now. When I read this -- 'I lived in Australia for 10 years' -- I jumped to the conclusion that the Blue Card system had been around that long. My guess is that no WWCC system has been operating in Australia longer than about five years, though Queensland may have been the first. And they still don't seem to have any conclusive data, just 'suggestions' that their mandatory backgroung checks might be helping but only if they're accompanied by 'other strategies'. Did you read the review? It's filled with recommendations for trying to make the system work better.

No, but I'll take a look.  I was just responding and trying to help give some links to information.  (I read some about it over on the website I linked to.)

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So, to be clear, you are saying that you do check all of your kids teachers at church against the sex offender registry? 

Yes.  This is an issue of utmost importance for me.....for my own reasons.

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Then do it. As calm noted, I can't think of anything that is stopping you.

Good grief.  This is a discussion and we're talking about options.  I have no idea if that would get approved (me paying for doing background checks on members of my ward).  I'd imagine approval from higher up would have to take place first (possibly for legal reasons).   I serve in the bishopric and I'll approach the Bishop about it in our next meeting together.  I tend to believe he will react positively (to background checks),  but will also say we would need approval to just start doing them in our ward.

But like I said, I would be more than happy to donate toward this if the leaders asked and felt it was important to implement.  I honestly believe many would donate to a fund for this.

Why are you so hung up on the cost?

Edited April 11, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think the person you’re attacking and accusing here has stated twice they’d do just that (help pay).

I saw it as Amulek just observing/making a general statement that few say when pushing for the Church to do it "This is something I have done for my kids' teachers and I want to see it available to all members, including those not able to afford it, and it makes sense for efforts to be centralized so work isn't duplicated."

It is really easy to see stuff like this as someone else's responsibility because we generally think of this kind of stuff as done by police, forgetting their attention needs to be caught first and this is often done by individuals making reports.  And the punishment and restrictions are generally done by the government as well.  Or if in an organization, I assume it is the HR dept.

The internet has allowed for this to become more a personal and parental ability...it will take sometime for both education for how to do it as well attitudes to catch up...besides the problems inherent to funding the more costly checks. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think the person you’re attacking and accusing here has stated twice they’d do just that (help pay).

He stated that he would be willing to help pay for something in the future that he has, to date, never actually paid for himself. 

I don't doubt his sincerity. 

However, my point remains: If background checks are so effective at preventing abuse that they are a necessity, then why aren't people running them independently already? 

And I think everyone knows the answer to that question: Nobody wants to throw away money just to find out that the retired Kindergarten teacher and registered nurse who are serving as your kid's CTR 7 teachers really aren't pedophiles.

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

If you are referring to me, then you could not be more wrong.   

And as I posted, I would be very willing to donate or help pay for background checks for our ward.  I'd have no problem helping out in that way regarding this.  I'm sure others would too (especially parents and grandparents....but others as well).

For sure, we would.  This is something my husband and I are very aware of with our kids. 

Maybe the church could add a place for donations (like with a welfare or building or missionary donation)?  I’d think it would have to come from the top.