Background Checks

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am very aware of that. But I was a kid when the Atlanta inner-city were missing and you would hear of kids that were missing across the country and found in some remote place dead. Many of these laws and values started to come out of the 80s to the 90s. It started to become or seem like an epidemic and then we felt that every kid needed to be watched at all times. I even remember when there was this big push to teach us (when I was a kid) to not talk to strangers and only talk to people we knew. Then it became obvious that the "strangers" were the uncle or aunt or the good family friend.

Peace

Gotcha. We're on the same page here. I knew you knew that, I was just pointing it out.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by zm1283

You're much more likely to be victimized by someone you already know and not by some random predator.

Violent crimes against children have declined steadily over the past generation. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 81 out of every 1,000 children between the ages of 12 and 15 were victims of violent crime in 1973, compared with 44 out of 1,000 in 2005.

The worst of those crimes - kidnappings, rapes and murders - are being committed not by strangers hunting innocents but by family members, neighbors or trusted adults the family knows.

Kidnappings by complete strangers, while terrifyingly sinister, are fairly rare events, representing only about one in every 2,900 abduction cases.

The most recent survey of kidnapping data conducted in 2002 for the U.S. Justice Department revealed that of the roughly 261,000 children who are abducted each year, the vast majority (203,900) are taken by a family member - often in a custody dispute - and just 90 to 115 are victims of kidnappings by complete strangers.

The idea of a child being dragged off to be tortured, raped and murdered by a stranger is so terrifying and so well reported in the news media that parents, educators, even law enforcement officers and politicians, have accepted as fact that stranger abductions are more commonplace than they actually are.

"Those are the ones that capture the public's imagination, and they should because they're awful" says Jim Beasley, supervisory special agent for the FBI and a specialist in crimes against children. "But because they hear the story told over and over, people tend to forget that this is the same incident."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rsl

Has anyone ever heard of an abuse case involving a referee? By the nature of our work, our every action is scrutinized by two coaches and numerous fans. We don't have much opportunity to misbehave.

The only exception is when administrators put us compromising situations, i.e., have us dress in inappropriate locations.

Yes, I have...I think the guy is still in jail....and even if the administrators don't put the official in a compromising situation, the official that desires to do so can find one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rsl

Has anyone ever heard of an abuse case involving a referee? By the nature of our work, our every action is scrutinized by two coaches and numerous fans. We don't have much opportunity to misbehave.

The only exception is when administrators put us compromising situations, i.e., have us dress in inappropriate locations.

Background checks would be better spent on coaches, who have close and continuing contact with players.

There have been a couple of documented cases of a game official engaging in inappropriate conduct with a student while on school grounds. However, the number is far fewer than those incidents involving coaches and teachers. I would even guess that the number of cases involving a random person walking in off the street are higher than those against HS sports officials.
Of course, someone thinks that this is a big problem and most people are jumping on the bandwagon and drinking their kool-aid. For those of us who take the time to think about the issue and question the core assumptions, concluding that it is really just a big PR job is more reasonable.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I have...I think the guy is still in jail....and even if the administrators don't put the official in a compromising situation, the official that desires to do so can find one.

Agreed. And after listening to all the arguments given here, I think I might support background checks in our association- cheap ones at least. We don't get paid enough to justify expensive ones.

What was described in Pennsylvania seems way over the top.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I have...I think the guy is still in jail....and even if the administrators don't put the official in a compromising situation, the official that desires to do so can find one.

Was he a prior offender?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Was he a prior offender?

I don't know.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I have...I think the guy is still in jail....and even if the administrators don't put the official in a compromising situation, the official that desires to do so can find one.

They can?

I cannot imagine how - I get to a game site, I go to a private locker room, I change, I officiate the game, I return to a private locker room.

When do I ever have access to kids alone?

This is a solution without a problem, and considering it is a solution that

A. Costs money
B. Takes time
C. Is prone to error, and
D. Most importantly is a blatant violation of basic privacy rights

it is utterly ridiculous.

We do background checks where I officiate, and I have nothing to hide. I am not willing to take a stand on principle in this case, but it does bother me. I don't like the idea of someone poking around in my private life without very good reason, and the fevered imagination of some busy body who thinks officials have any access to children is not a good reason.

I want statistics. I want verifiable, objective data defining the scope of the problem this "solution" is fixing.

Anyone have any?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

They can?

I cannot imagine how - I get to a game site, I go to a private locker room, I change, I officiate the game, I return to a private locker room.

When do I ever have access to kids alone?

Really? It wouldn't be that hard...unless someone is watching you every moment to ensure you don't leave that private locker room and escorts you around the facility never taking their eyes off of you when you're not on the court. Remeber, you're the upstanding one...the problem ones will find a way.

Originally Posted by Berkut

This is a solution without a problem, and considering it is a solution that

A. Costs money

I'm willing to pay $3-5 once every three years as we do here in Oregon for the additional check that any contractor (referees, electricians, computer technician, roofer, etc.) working in the school is at least not a known risk. That fact that it is so cheap and that it might stop just 1-2 incidents is worth it. Referees might be among those with the least opportunity but to be fair, they apply the requirements to all contractors and employees.

Originally Posted by Berkut

B. Takes time

All of about 5 seconds when I register...and only once every three years.

Originally Posted by Berkut

C. Is prone to error, and

And this is a reason not to take a precaution? Certainly some risks make be missed but missing 2% of the problems is no reason to not catch the other 98% (percentages made up just for illustration).
Anyone that is flagged as a risk should be reviewed for accuracy before taking action.

Originally Posted by Berkut

D. Most importantly is a blatant violation of basic privacy rights

There is no invasion of privacy. You are not forced to officate for the school system. You have the right to not work around the kids. An invasion of privacy would be if they did this without you having the option to decline the assignments.

Originally Posted by Berkut

it is utterly ridiculous.

We do background checks where I officiate, and I have nothing to hide. I am not willing to take a stand on principle in this case, but it does bother me. I don't like the idea of someone poking around in my private life without very good reason, and the fevered imagination of some busy body who thinks officials have any access to children is not a good reason.

I want statistics. I want verifiable, objective data defining the scope of the problem this "solution" is fixing.

Anyone have any?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really? It wouldn't be that hard...unless someone is watching you every moment to ensure you don't leave that private locker room and escorts you around the facility never taking their eyes off of you when you're not on the court. Remeber, you're the upstanding one...the problem ones will find a way.

So you have hypothesized a problem - officials leaving their locker rooms to go molest kids.

So, how often does this happen then?

I'm willing to pay $3-5 once every three years as we do here in Oregon for the additional check that any contractor (referees, electricians, computer technician, roofer, etc.) working in the school is at least not a known risk.

The check here in New York is $100 per person.

That fact that it is so cheap and that it might stop just 1-2 incidents is worth it. Referees might be among those with the least opportunity but to be fair, they apply the requirements to all contractors and employees.

All of about 5 seconds when I register...and only once every three years.

But it takes time to run the check - here in New York is a couple of weeks, and you are not supposed to officiate in that time. And *someone* is taking the time to do the background check,and make sure they are up to date, and all the administration necessary. Just some more school overhead, yeah!

And this is a reason not to take a precaution? Certainly some risks make be missed but missing 2% of the problems is no reason to not catch the other 98% (percentages made up just for illustration).

It is a reason to mitigate against the fact that there is no proven problem that this solves to begin with.

What about people who are unfairly accused as a result of some error? What about the fact that everytime you do a background check on someone, their data is out there in yet another place that it can be stolen or abused or simply mislaid or mishandled?

Anyone that is flagged as a risk should be reviewed for accuracy before taking action.

Of course - which takes more time and money, and runs more risk of abuse. Who is doing this checking? How do I know they will handle the data appropriately and with my best interests in mind? Are they qualified to have access to this data, and understand how it can be legally used or not used?

There is no invasion of privacy. You are not forced to officate for the school system. You have the right to not work around the kids. An invasion of privacy would be if they did this without you having the option to decline the assignments.

Semantics.

They are going to go through my background and try to find out things about me that they are not willing to ascertain simply by asking me. Anytime some governing body is going to demand information from me, simple privacy also demands that they have some justifiable reason for needing it that clearly outweighs the potential negatives (and *I* get to define those negatives, since it is MY information). Or rather, that *should* be the standard that is used, IMO.

Instead the standard is "Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you should not mind random people digging through your past, right?!?!"

Well, I do mind. It doesn't matter, since I have no leverage, and am not willing to give up officiating over it (although I know people who have), but it is ridiculous.

I notice you kind of cut out my request for objective and reliable statistics for how widespread the problem of officials molesting kids is, such that these kinds of measures are needed to solve the problem...

[JRutledge]

I see both arguments. I really do not think it is necessary to give a background check for someone that is really not accessible to kids. And if we are, it is not because we are allowed that access. What we do is really out in the open. If we are given close access to kids, that could be completely prevented by administrations on so many levels.

I also see the invasion on some level. But a background check is only going to find those that are convicted offenders. If you are not convicted, you still can slip through the cracks. And there are a lot of people that are not convicted that commit acts against minors. I also think it is kind of a waste of money on some level when you are not giving background checks to fans and other individuals who will have much more access to children. But a lot of policies are for nothing more than a peace of mind. I just think there are other way to achieve that peace.

Peace

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I also see the invasion on some level. But a background check is only going to find those that are convicted offenders. If you are not convicted, you still can slip through the cracks. And there are a lot of people that are not convicted that commit acts against minors.
Peace

I would be willing to bet a million fake internet dollars that more people will be excluded from officiating either by choice or error who are great officials who are zero danger to anyone's kids than actual threats will be found and eliminated.

In fact, I would bet the difference is an order of magnitude, maybe even 2 orders of magnitude.

And this is an injustice to those officials, it is in fact, a slight committed against them by society - our privacy tossed aside to assuage someones emotional hysteria.

[Berkut]

Sorry if I come across a little strong on this - it is one of my pet peeves, to be honest.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Berkut

So you have hypothesized a problem - officials leaving their locker rooms to go molest kids.

I don't think that's the real concern

I think the concern (the validity of the concern is different) is that an official will make friends with the kid, arrange to "accidentally" bump into the kid after practice the next night, and then offer him/her a ride home...

[jdmara]

I see both sides of the fence on this issue. I work in an occupation where an FBI security background check is required (because of the line of work I do and what I have access to). I will say that if they are truly concerned about anything in your background they are not doing EVERYTHING they can. My background check for work took around 4.5-5 months to complete (yes, I really meant to type months). I really believe that these superficial background checks are a good idea (at $3-$5) but not at a price tag of $100. That astounds me! I don't know if I could justify officiating for that price tag (although I'm assuming that would be something to be taken off of the taxes at the end of the year).

I believe as a predator, however, it would be just as easy to go into a school for a basketball game and molest someone as it would be for an official.

-Josh