Background Checks
 

Here's a preview of an article on background checks of officials that will be included in a web site newsletter. I'm looking for any forum insights on the pre-view or the subject in general before completing a final version.

*****
High School Sports Official Background Checks

Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) background checks for sports officials begin with the 2009/10 school year. The good news for PIAA basketball officials is that fall sports go first. The other news is that the implementation of background checks poses a daunting challenge for officials, assignors, school administrators and oversight bodies such as the PIAA.

At least 11 high school state athletic associations mandate criminal background checks for sports officials. Pennsylvania joins Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. The Florida High State Association rescinded its requirement for criminal background checks in favor of a check of sex offender registries. Roughly half of the state associations require notification by officials of felony convictions during the registration process.

The case for criminal background checks of officials is compelling. Paramount is the potential risk to a student athlete from a felon who gains entree through officiating. State associations and school administrators are also concerned about legal liability and adverse publicity. In Pennsylvania, an investigation by the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette highlighted the issue. The review identified PIAA officials with felony convictions including sexual, assault and child related offenses.

There is another side to the issue. Background checks are expensive, time consuming and can be difficult to administer. Despite the best efforts to protect privacy, more information about more officials is being exposed to more parties.

Consider the new Pennsylvania mandate. Officials subject to background checks must be fingerprinted at an approved site, obtain reports from 3 government agencies and submit reports to the state athletic association as well as one or more school entities.

Common sense, no-cost approaches are most effective in preventing student-athlete abuse by adults. In particular, enforcing a policy of no student-official contact without school staff observation is likely to prevent escalation of student-official confrontation and other improprieties.

The trend is for more criminal background checks of officials. The officiating community can smooth the transition. State associations can lead with simple, coordinated processes and timely, well communicated procedures. Officials can help by diligently providing timely and accurate information. Schools and assignors are the initial gate keepers for ensuring that background clearance requirements are enforced. Coordination of their efforts is essential.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The PIAA has adopted the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) program for meeting the background checks requirements of Act 114 of 2006, Section 1-111 of the PA School code . Sports Officials are covered as independent contractors under the code. Key aspects of the PIAA program include:

- a background check is required only for officials with
--an initial PIAA registration after March 31, 2007 or
--a registration lapse after March 31, 2007

- the background check must include 3 reports
-- State Police Criminal History Record
-- Dept of Public Welfare Child Abuse Report
-- Federal Criminal History Report (CHRI) – FBI Report

- officials subject to checks must
-- request, pay for and obtain reports from 3 government agencies
-- complete fingerprinting at an approved site
-- submits reports to the PIAA and school entities
--make reports available at each sanctioned sport contest

An official who has been convicted within the last 5 years of one or more of the following crimes is not eligible for registration.

- criminal homicide
- aggravated assault, indecent assault
- stalking, kidnapping, unlawful restraint
- rape, sexual assault, indecent exposure, incest
- concealing death of child, endangering welfare of children

A backgound check guide for Philadelphia School District officials provides an example of a local implementation.

The Missouri State High School Activities Association also requires you to submit to a background check when you register every year. I think they started it for the 08-09 season.

The original posting is updated accordingly.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...thumbsdown.gif Talk about an overreaction by the states and school systems to a few incidents, most of which didn't even involve officials.

Since you asked for feedback...

I would challenge your initial assumption that "The case for criminal background checks of officials is compelling." I don't believe that it is anything more than a fearful reaction.

At worst mandatory background checks are a tremendous invasion of personal privacy, especially in those areas in which HS game officials are classified as independent contractors and not employees. Who does them? Who sees them? How are they secured? Do other officials learn the results? Why should officials have to get fingerprinted? What is next--taking a DNA sample?

Officiating a HS sporting event is not equivalent to working a government job. No one should be scrutinized as if he is running for political office just to blow a whistle.

At best the state has an interest in protecting the safety of the kids and Florida has it correct as it simply checks the sex offender registries. Why do people believe that anything else makes sense?

Why would any other crimes be relevant to officiating in a HS environment? Would a felony DUI or gun charge pose any risk to the student-athletes? Would a person who has a past drug related offense, theft, or embezzlement conviction be interested in bothering a kid? What is the connection?

I can see how these would reflect upon the individual's character and ability to provide an honest service and uphold the integrity of the game, but that is not at all the concern of the schools in instituting background checks. Let's face it they don't really care if the officials are cheaters or if the games are fair, and aren't trying to find out. They are only out to assuage the fears of mom and dad that some nasty officials is going to assault their child.

The solution isn't background checks. The solution is proper supervision by the school administrators, and not having the officials in situations in which they are alone with the children. If the schools would take care of that, then how could there possibly be a problem? However it is obvious that the schools will take the easy path, try to be politically correct, and desire to obtain something which they can tout as evidence that they are taking steps to protect "your children."

This whole background check issue is a farce. All it will do is cost a bunch of money and leave people with a false sense of security. It's not the answer.

For a point-by-point critique...

1. Please explain why the case for background checks is compelling. Support your statement with reasons.

2. Fear of bad publicity and liability are more likely at the heart of this drive than sound reasoning.

3. Expense and privacy concerns are two huge barriers to cross. When we weigh these factors against the "compelling interest" of the schools/state, which carries the day?

4. Why should the officiating community and associations help the process? Why shouldn't they resist it? Perhaps it is right to fight for the privacy and individual rights of their members than to simply acquiesce to the demands of a paranoid school system. Why should the officials simply hand over their private information to the school administrators and assignors? What right do these people have to know these personal details? Are they in turn going to forward their background checks to all officials? In many places the assignors are just other officials and they change from year to year. Does one become privy to this sensitive information simply by stepping into an assigning position?

5. Even in PA sports officials are independent contractors. What does the law say about requests for their background information?

6. Only officials who have signed up in the past two years are subject to this requirement? Apparently everyone else is automatically okay. WHAT???!!?!!? What kind of security does that provide? Please tell me that I am misunderstanding the PIAA policy because that is simply ridiculous.

7. How convenient that the provision is drawn up to make the officials bear the expense. What if the officials countered by telling the schools to pay for this? The official must submit this information to these school people and the PIAA....hmmm... I wonder how that would hold up to a privacy challenge. Who are these people to warrant them having access to this data?

8. The official has to make the reports available at EACH contest!!!! Are you kidding? Should they carry a packet with them and must they present it to whoever requests it? If mommy in the stands has a problem can see come down and demand to see it? Can she demand that a school administrator examine the documents right then and there? Talk about an overburdensome requirement. There is no way that would pass a legal test.

Well it may be an overreaction but the associations are being prudent. I see no problem with it.

I'm sure there are many people with sex crime convictions who have thought of officiating sports.

Background checks here are free for volunteer reasons which officiating amateur sports would most likely be considered since we don't consider it a job ( in Canada, amateur sports officiating income is NOT taxable
thankfully! ).

I don't see what the big issue is.

If you don't have anything to hide, what does it matter?

Reasonable efforts should be made not to facilitate potentially harmful access to children by individuals who have committed criminal acts to harm children in the past. We both agree that supervision of contact by school staff is the most effective method. However, officiating provides access after the game and beyond the jurisdiction of school staff. I often encounter and am recognized by athletes and their parents off the court. They often provide consideration to interact with me that they would not if they were not aware of me from officiating.

These are secondary but legitimate considerations. Public confidence is important for effective athletic programs. Liability can translate into money out the door.


I don't see this as an either/or proposition but rather an issue requiring balance. Expense should be limited and officials' privacy and resources respected while addressing the interests of athletes, schools and the states. It seems that early efforts are falling short by requiring multiple, cumbersome procedures for official compliance.

Keep in mind that most of the information regarding criminal activity is public. That being said, sharing of background check details should be strictly restricted and attempts are made to do so. Ideally, the information available to assignors would simply identify the eligibility of an official to officiate.

The law specifies access for school entity administrators. Only such administrators are given access to online reports. There is no restriction on officials submitting the reports to the PIAA which is not a school entity. A service that the PIAA is providing to school administrators is online access to a list of officials with registration dates and background report status.

Here's an explanation, not a defense. The cutoff date is related to the date the law became effective. The legislators apparently wanted to avoid imposing the requirement retroactively.

There is a rationale for some grandfather clause. For example, if someone has officiated for the past 20 years with no impropriety, an exemption from a background check is practical. The timing is more debatable.


Nothing to add.

I agree that this PA provision is over burdensome and expect/hope that an alternative will be forthcoming.

Of all the great points Nevada makes (I've never so completely agreed with any post on this board), I want to emphasize #8.

By making the officials have the reports available at each contest, the state is essentially waiving any privacy rights the officials may have. Frankly, if the organized officials in PA do not fight this, they are as negligent as the MA IAABO board.

Are the coaches required to have their background reports available at each contest site? Obviously, the home team's coaches would, but what about the visitors? What about neutral sites? What restrictions are in place for who can view these reports that are "available." In other words, to whom are they available?

The crimes listed are at least marginally related (although I would argue that anything that isn't very specifically a child-sex charge is not applicable for an official), but what happens when someone reads such a report and finds an official was charged with domestic abuse, but never convicted, or they learn he was convicted of shop-lifting when he was 22?

I think the worst thing about background checks is my own point #9.

It's a false sense of security. All the background checks in the world won't even get in the way of little Johnny being someone's first victim. Parental and administrative vigilance will, however. There is no reason to ever have students alone with officials, and we sure as hell shouldn't be changing in the wrestling locker room while the wrestlers are weighing in. But by forcing officials to pay for background checks and fingerprints, Mr. Snuffy gets to feel as if his elected officials are doing something to protect Jr. Snuffy.

Meanwhile, the previously uncaught (you know, the smart ones) offenders, the offenders smart enough to skirt the system, and the ones who have only thought about it are able to slip through and have unnecessarily unfettered access to these kids.

Something tells me that people who are interested in harming kids aren't going to go through all the trouble of being a sports official in order to do so.

Missouri doesn't require fingerprinting, and they don't require you to take anything to contests to "prove your innocence" like PA does. You just have to submit to a background check (I think it's just a highway patrol criminal record check) when you register online.

Can someone tell me what a background check will show that's both relevant and unavailable on a sex-offender registry?

I think back to the days in the 80s when we would be put in the same locker room as middle school and high school students (both adults and children/teens showering) and shudder.

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.

Our local kids rec league performs background checks on all coaches, assistant coaches and "parent helpers". We do this every year, even for those who have been with us for a long time. You just never know.

BTW - we don't do anything like this for officials. We have about 40 officials and we pretty much know all of them. About 15 or so are HS kids.

Also BTW - one of our Board members is an attorney and he has his firm run these for us at their cost, which is under $5 each. It's well worth it. In the past five years, we were able to "weed out" two guys who had a history of a crime against a child. We run about 250 of these a year and we wind up not allowing about 2 or 3 per year to coach. Usually, if someone has a record, they won't even apply, since the application makes them agree to a background check.

I have heard of cases where someone that was a referee got in trouble. I have never heard of a case where someone was in trouble based on doing their job specifically. It has usually been off the court/field where this has taken place. That being said, I still think background checks are necessary. You do not want people that have certain histories around kids or young adults. Or at least be able to identify those individuals so no one is shocked when things happen.

Peace

One rec league that I used to coach in over a decade ago has always background checks on coaches A second one that I still referee in just started this a few years ago.

I heard through the grapevine that the second league I am working in might start asking for background checks on officials.

IMO, I think the student-athletes have the least to worry about from officials or other predators. The student-athletes will usually be around their teammates, coaches and/or parents throughout the time they are at the gym.

If I were the school, I'd be worried about the students who are there to watch and support their teams since they run around unsupervised a lot of the time. I'd also be concerned with the spectators because ANYONE can pay money and come into the gym to watch a game.

Other than the warm-fuzzy, what tangible benefit could there possibly be that cannot be gained from running them against registered sex-offender registries?

I was not against it. I am just talking about the likelihood of an official being an actual violator in the current job. Of course anyone can be a violator easily outside of this profession. It really is not that big of a deal if you ask me. Most offenders are still people a child would know, not some stranger.

Peace

Sorry, I should have clipped. I was responding specifically to your comment that background checks are necessary. While there certainly have been sex offenders who happened to be officials; I have yet to hear of a case where an official was able to manipulate his position as a referee (or umpire) to gain private access to a child.

Even when I've been in uncomfortable situations (sharing locker rooms with kids or placed in a coach's office inside a locker room without adult coaching staff around), I can't imagine I'd be able to use my "authority" as an official for anything nefarious.

From what I understand, the key ingredient for that would be for the kids to trust and/or fear the adults; not very stinking likely for an official whom they see for a total of 5 minutes or less. That obviously doesn't apply to officials who work in other capacities, such as teachers or coaches.

That is why I made the original statement. If no one has heard of a case where an official used their role as an official, then do we really need them if the purpose is for sexual offenses? But what is sometimes necessary is not always done for those purposes. We have been doing background checks for years. They do not bother me because I have nothing to hide. I am sure this changes based on the person. And I hear of teachers and coaches having very inappropriate contact with minors all the time. Then again what we do is a privilege and everyone should not be doing it no matter how unnecessary a background check might be. ;)

Peace

It's when they start doing credit checks that we should begin worrying. :D

Here's a link to a newspaper article regarding an investigation of PIAA officials with criminal backgrounds.


A sex offender registry will not include serious, non-sexual offenses such as homicide and endangering the welfare of a minor unrelated to sex.

I'm with you on what I have to hide, but the question becomes what is worth hiding. I personally don't care if Coach Snuffy had a DUI when he was 22, but some parent might find it relevant. I would personally argue that other than sexual misconduct, there is no other reason for a background check. I don't see that anything else is even relevant.

I'm a little less trusting of those who say, "my intentions are good, please trust me with your information." Their intentions and actions may be good, but they won't be in charge forever, and there's no guarantee the next dictator will be just as benevolent. :)

I read the article and I have a question. What's a "crime of falsity"? Not declaring you're wearing false teeth? A female not declaring she's wearing .....er, never mind. :p

My question then is, "So what?"

Personally, I don't think they're relevant to whether a person should be allowed to officiate. What problem is this supposed to solve? How many convicted killers are officiating high school sports? What crime would we expect them to commit during a basketball game?

As for endangerment, the same question pertains. What exactly is this designed to prevent?

Look, I'd be ok with the privacy issues and the expense involved if it could be shown that it would prevent some crimes; but I have yet to see a single instance where a crime was committed by an official, as an official, that would have been prevented by a background check and subsequent screening.

We do not have background checks (yet). Here's the Ohio policy (from the OHSAA Officials Handbook):

7.5 Criminal Convictions
1. New License Application or Renewal. An Officiating Permit will not be issued or renewed for
anyone:
a. convicted, or adjudicated with a finding of fault, guilt or violation, in regard to an offense involving
a minor any sexual offense unless/until such offense has been reversed by proper authority with
jurisdiction over the matter; or,
b. convicted, or adjudicated with a finding of fault, guilt or violation, in regard to an offense involving
any illegal/illicit drug or controlled substance as prescribed by federal or state law or regulation,
prior to five (5) years following the completion of any sentence/parole/probation period imposed for
the offense; or,
c. currently serving a sentence or a parole/probation period for any offense or adjudication of guilt
imposed by any court, judge or administrative body, other than simple traffic violations.
2. Currently Licensed Officials
a. When a current OHSAA licensed official is indicted or charged with any criminal offense or charged
with a violation of any statute pertaining to minors, drugs or a controlled substance, such license
will automatically be suspended, pending resolution of the indictment or charge. Conviction or
adjudication of fault, guilt or a violation under any such indictment or charge shall result in
immediate and automatic forfeiture of the officiating permit.
b. Current OHSAA licensed sports officials must inform the OHSAA of any such indictment or charge
immediately upon receipt of or upon having knowledge of such indictment or charge. Failure to
notify the OHSAA shall itself be a basis for immediate and automatic forfeiture of the officiating
license.
3. Reinstatement/Reapplication of License. An official whose license has been forfeited, suspended or
revoked or an applicant who is denied a license, under the provisions of this policy, may petition for
reinstatement/reapplication based on the following:
a. If suspension, revocation or forfeiture of a license is based upon conviction, adjudication or finding
as a result of a felony: the official/applicant may petition for a license one year after the completion
of the parole/probation period; other than conviction of illegal illicit drugs, controlled substance
where a 5 year probation period is used, or immediately upon dismissal or reversal of the charge or
conviction (provided the offense was NOT involving a minor or a sexual offense).
b. If suspension, revocation, forfeiture or denial results from a misdemeanor or other non-felony
charge: the official/applicant may petition for a license immediately upon the completion of the
parole/probation period (provided the offense was NOT involving a minor or a sexual offense).
c. If suspension, revocation, forfeiture or denial of a license is based upon any conviction, adjudication
or finding involving a minor or sexual offense, reinstatement/reapplication will not be permitted,
unless/until such offense has been reversed by proper authority having jurisdiction over the matter.

It makes everyone feel better like many policies implemented. It does not do much of anything else in my opinion.

Peace

Hence my question starting with "other than the warm-fuzzy." Making people feel better isn't enough of a reason to implement a policy that costs money, IMO. I'd say it's actually doing more harm than good if it makes people feel better for no real reason.

And reading the article linked above didn't do anything for me either. Unless someone show me two things, I remain unconvinced:

1. There is a statistical correlation between those who commit such crimes as fraud, theft, "falsities," and even violent crimes with those who commit sexual crimes against minors.

and

2. There is a vulnerability to sports officials in particular, in their capacity as sports officials, that can be at least partly solved by background checks.

I have doubts on both, to be honest.

I completely agree in principle. There is really no real reason to have a policy of background checks. But the problem too is that we are in a litigious culture. If anything happens to someone, we have a tendency to blame someone no matter how much they are to really blame. And I bet that if these policies were not in place, the minute someone gets in trouble or an incident happens, a lack of a policy would likely be apart of a lawsuit. That being said, it really does not hurt to have a policy. You get to check information that might be seen as threatening and most people feel good that organizations are doing something about it. But in a perfect world there is no need for any policy. But people are so paranoid of what happens with their children.

I just remember when I was a kid, we had no cell phones, GPS systems and we would be all over the neighborhood with no parental supervision and someone how we were not harmed or killed by some child predator. I am not saying things did not happen to kids of my era, but it was hardly a stranger it was a family member or a friend of the family. But because of the media attention, we have people convinced that there are people lurking in the shadows that you need to be the most concerned with.

Peace

It still is. You're much more likely to be victimized by someone you already know and not by some random predator. (i.e. those awful sports officials in this case :p)

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.

Just The Facts ...
 

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."

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.

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.

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.

Was he a prior offender?

I don't know.

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?

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

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

So, how often does this happen then?
The check here in New York is $100 per person.

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!
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?
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?

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...

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

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.

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

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...

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. :eek: 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

That seems rather far fetched - and if the concern is that anyone who has any contact with kids should get this same check...grocery store clerks? The guywho works at blockbuster?

I mean really - *anyone* could theoretically use a relationship to get closer to a child. You would have to background check *everyone* if that is your standard.

Of course, you know what my next comment is - can I see some stats for how often officials use their capacity as officials to create this relationship that they later exploit to molest children, and of course I would like to know what percentage of that number would be prevented by a background check.

You're not the first one who's asked this question in this thread.

My biggest problem relates to the questions of who has access to it, who is making the decisions on who can officiate and who can't, and where does that information get stored?

And if it's decided now that only sexual and violent crimes are relevant, but that information is stored, then it can be later decided that DUIs, petty theft, and fraud (for examples) are relevant. Maybe speeding tickets count, too? Domestic violence charges (as opposed to convictions), perhaps? All of this stuff is available on a basic criminal history.

And THAT is more or less what happened here in Portland with the official I'm aware of....that went to jail.

Those are very, very good questions.

Considering that most officiating groups are basically run by volunteers, I am not comfortable with private information about me being run by people who have no real training to deal with it, secure it, etc., etc.

For all we know, the chapter secretary is blabbing about what he finds out to anyone and everyone. Or leaving the data unsecure on his laptop that he forgot at the library, or sending it via email where it can easily be filtered.

I know this all sounds a little bit paranoid, and maybe it is - but the thing that bugs me is that there is, as far as I can see, and as far as anyone has ever been able to provide, ZERO objective reason to do any of this. I could live with it if it actually did some good, but I don't think it does ANY good at all.

Two questions:

1. Is there some reason to think that absent his position as an official, he would not have been able to find some child to befriend and molest?

2. Did he have a history that would have excluded him from officiating had a background check been done?

3. Does this happen a lot?

OK, so that is three questions...

You said there was no opportunity. I only provided a perfectly viable opportunity.
The real complaint should be that they're overcharging, not that they're doing it at all. Of course, they're probably using the excess to pay for some other program that the politicians use to buy votes.
You make it sound like doing taxes....it is not that complicated. The check is not the problem, it is the timing of the check. Have officials register 1-2 months before the season...plenty of time to do a simple check. Schedule them anyway and revoke thier schedule if something shows up.
There are proven problems. The fact that sex offenders continue to assualt kids is enough of a reason to do a background check. It's easy and it is (should be) cheap. There is no good reason to not do it for the benefit it provides....even if it only saves a few victims the experience.
The assoications don't get the data here at all...they get an OK or not OK from the state activities association. The checks are done by the same people who do it for all school employees.
And, if you were a child molestor, you'd be perfectly willing to tell anyone that asked?
As I said before. You have the choice to meet the requirements of the job or look for a different job.
And those are the same people who think that everything is a consipiracy.I cut it out becasue I don't have data....but I do have direct knowledge of at least one incident that happened right here...by a guy I knew through officiating. That is all that I need to know. It happens. And this guy shouldn't be allowed to officiate anywhere again...and how is a place expected to stop him from doing so without a background check?

It basically comes down to the fact that the school system is responsible for protecting the safety of the children under their custody so far as it is feasable. When easily obtainable information that could have prevented a crime was not referenced, the school has not upheld thier responsibility.

His position put him in a place to befriend
Don't know but it will keep him from having that avenue open to him again somewhere else.
Isn't once too much?

So your basic position is that as long as someone somewhere did something then, tens of thousands of others people's right to simple privacy can and should be waived, whether they like it or not?

Does this apply to all crimes, or only those that involve kids?

Well, that is not all *I* need to know - if you want to argue that it is reasonable to pry into my private life, an anecdote about someone somewhere once doing something somewhere once is not really adequate to convice me. I want to see some data, I want to know the scope of the problem your prying is going to solve, and how it will solve it, and what the repurcussions are.

Granted, those kinds of anecdotes are (sadly) adequate to convince the emotional hyterics to go ahead and trample my privacy, but it isn't something we should be proud of, but rather something we should lament. Just another little slice of libery cut away to provide some fictional sense of security.

Not really - the fact that he is a human being who lives in a society puts him in place to befriend kids. He could have walked into the gym and sat down next to some kid and befriended him, or it is even likely that he is already friends with lots of kids, like his relatives.
Barn door, except this barn has no sides, roof, or door for that matter.

Officiating does not provide anyone with any special access to kids - that is the danger, not the fact that you are there and kids are there - that happens everytime I walk into my local grocery store.

Emotive nonsense. Of course once is too much - but that doesn't mean that any all imposition on others (99.999% of whom are perfectly innocent) is justified as long as it can stop one single instance of a crime being committed.

That same logic can (and has) been used to justify any kind of restriction of liberty or invasion of privacy. The reality is that bad things will happen. We don't want to live in a police state (and in fact most police states still ahve bad things happening anyway - generally much MORE bad things), so we have presumably decided that there should be some kind of balancing mechanism for how we restrict the innocent majority in order to protect ourselves from the criminal minority.

That balancing mechanism involves some sort of *objective* measure of risk weighed against the imposition the "fix" imposes on everyone else, and the effectiveness of the fix. So far, nobody has been able to EVER provide a single piece of data to measure the risk of NOT doing background checks on officials, or shown how the fix will reduce that risk.

And this should be easy to find, if in fact there is a problem. People have been officiating without background checks for decades - surely if this is a problem, there ought to be lots of data about it, right? Lots of police reports of officials who abuse their position to molest kids?

Right?

If some self select exclusion, that's their problem. They probably wear tinfoil hats too.

I'd bet that the errors are FAR fewer than the number of people it properly excludes....and that the errors are generally corrected very easily.

I would too...but in the opposite direction of what I'm guessing you're assuming.
Your fears of Big Brother are not justified.

It is rather ironic that you are accusing those who ask for some data and justification for background checks of over-reacting to a imagined issue.

Tin foil hats indeed. Your solution is to solve a problem that doesn't exist - and if it did exist, it would only provide the illusion of protection anyway.

No....officiating game gives an official acess that a fan wouldn't have had. They have repeated contacts with the same kids in a trusting environment that allows the offender to develop a trust with the child.
So, since you can't close all access, don't bother with any...particularly the most likely or the most easily addressed?
Sure it does. Positions of authority, even if in limited venues, give access that the random person does not have.
Citation please? You might be suprised to find that he number of offenders is a bit higher than 0.001%.

Do you not think that the whole idea of a background check was started by having kids molested only to find out that the teacher/coach/referee had a record of the same behavior elsewhere that would have been easily discovered with a simple background check?

Camron, I would argue that if it only has happened once or twice, it may in fact not be worth the burden of background checks (recognizing the level of burden they represent is under debate).

Legislation is often debated with this in mind, "if it even saves one life...." Well, with this particular topic, they could apply all sorts of draconian measures to ensure no child is harmed by an official. Let's put GPS tags on every one so we know who was where and when. Hey, if it stops even one instance, isn't it worth it?

Once is too much, but it's not a debate ending argument for anything.

Speed limits get the same treatment, "if it saves even one life...." Well, not really, we could virtually eliminate traffic accidents with a 20 mph limit everywhere combined with very heavy traffic enforcement. But it would bring commerce to a virtual halt.

Obviously background checks for officials isn't nearly as draconian as a 20 mph speed limit on the interstates. It all needs to be weighed, though, and if the benefit is just one or two, we can debate whether it's worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be spent on background checks nation wide.

Personally, I'm not convinced it would even prevent one; not in ways a simple sex-registry check wouldn't cover. But then again, I seem to be in the minority by thinking only sex-related crimes should be relevant for this particular issue.

No. I think the teachers and coaches got started that way. Officials got thrown in when someone realized we weren't included in the background checks. IOW, it didn't matter that the problem wasn't there, only that we weren't included in the solution.

It's a warm-fuzzy that does more harm than good, IMO.

I doubt that anyone has been harmed by being asked to submit to a basic background check....not a full investigation into your full life including what books you checked out from the library 20 years ago.

Anyone that is denied officiating because of what is revealed on the backgorund check can only blame themselves. Bad choices have consequences. Just because they'd like them to be forgotten about doesn't mean they should. When certain lines are crossed, there are opportunities that should no longer exist for that person...ever.

Did Mary Kay Letourneau hurt any child before she was convicted as a sex offender? And Letourneau was a teacher that was able to gain the trust of a young man when he was vulnerable and powerless (I know many here might suggest they wish it was them, but that is not the point ;)). But the point I am trying to make here is a lot of sex offense happen much more from people that have direct access to those children. I have dated a couple of people that were molested and it did not happen to them by people other than family members or close friends. These individuals were never convicted or even prosecuted in any way. So what if someone is never prosecuted and is totally guilty of a crime is around children? I think the point Berut is making is a very valid one. It makes us all feel better, but as an official I cannot think of any situation where I even knew a kid beyond the court or field other than them recognizing me as an official. And if that is the standard, I do not need to be an official, I could be a fan. When we are on that field or court, everyone sees my interaction with them.

If anything I have been afraid of being put in places by the school that might be seen as inappropriate. Ever been in a girl's locker room and had a young girl walk in the locker room with a bunch of naked men? Not a good feeling and all it would take is the right complaint and one of us in that room might get accused of some inappropriate behavior. And if a charge was made, would that make a child safer the next time?

There was a coach in my area that was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl. He went to jail for 50+ years or so. And as an official I see many more fans having interactions with kids that I will never have. I might only see a player once. A fan of a school might be at all the games and talk to the kids afterwards. I do not see how officials have that kind of interaction realistically without being accused of being totally unprofessional in other ways. If we talk to a coach too long our motives are questioned. So how do we have a relationship with a player and no one says a word?

Peace

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

Did she tell the first employer that she was engaging in inappropriate contact? Of course not, but the point is she had more access to this kid (now her husband) much more than I will ever have with a young person during and after a game.

Well anyone can sue over anything. I am sure someone might one day sue over how far the background checks should go.

The bottom line is that policy should not be made on whether it stops one person out of thousands. All I am saying is that you need more than a background check. You need policies that keep kids away from adults in inappropriate ways.

Peace

I still stand by my point- if you have nothing to hide than WHO CARES.

Define "nothing to hide." We all make mistakes when we're young. Look, I'm confident I would pass a background check. But I know there are people who have made mistakes they wouldn't want made public, and that have no bearing on their ability to officiate.

A DUI when you're 19 shouldn't preclude you from officiating, and it may well be something you don't want made public. A background check, when completed, will need to be stored some place. What happens when Nosy Ned gets a hold of it and publicizes it. Or what about an arrest at a political demonstration?

I know it's not the same thing, but the founders of our country made it clear the "if you have nothing to hide" mantra meant nothing to them. There's a reason illegal search and seizures are prohibited. Hell, I'm sure if we had mandatory inspections of everyone's personal computers, we'd catch a lot more child porn afficianados and prevent quite a few crimes.

If you've got nothing to hide....

Sorry, Camron, I wasn't clear. First, let me address this point, then I'll clarify what I actually meant. A basic background check will likely pull up any arrests during adulthood, and will definitely pull any convictions that haven't been stricken from the record.

Do you really think a marijuana possession charge (personal quantities) from 15 years ago is relevant? What about an assault charge from a bar fight 12 years ago? Or maybe the guy who was convicted of blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic or a Marine Recruiting Office when he was in college. There's a lot of information about someone that can be gleened from a background check that should remain private.

There's nothing that can be accomplished with this that couldn't be done with a sex registry check.

Now, back to what I meant that post. I didn't really mean anything with regard to harm to the officials submitting background checks. I am more concerned with Mrs. Basketball Mom thinking all is well because everyone who works in that school has had their background checked. There's a false sense of security stemming from an action that has no benefit.

"It's a warm fuzzy" means simply that it makes people feel better without any real benefit.

"Does more harm" refers to the false sense of security. They're just rearranging the deck chairs, IMO.

If it costs $5, maybe. If it costs $100, as it apparently does in New York, I care. As many have pointed out, the cost/benefit ratio is small given the risk with referees, and we may lose some good referees.

Oh, and by the way, I do have nothing to hide. :)

The entire "If you ahve nothing to hide, you should not care if I have access to your private information" argument is really rather fascist.

I guess I just broke Godwins law, but there it is.

The standard is not "Do you have anything to hide", the standard is "Can you prove to me why you NEED to go poking around in my life?". Whether or not I have "something to hide" is completely irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to demand access to my private life.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Agreed, there must be some demonstrable benefit before we should be able to require people to turn over aspects of their private lives.

That said, I found out this week that CO is has pretty open records. You can go to the CBI website and pay < $10 and request a background check on anyone for any reason.

That'll come in handy when my daughter starts bringing boys around. "What's your birthday, young man?" "Oh, don't worry, it's just for a scrapbook I like to keep."

pssst: Instead of "fascist," maybe you could have used "authoritarian."

I think the cost in New York is so high because they do fingerprinting and a pretty full check.

So you get the added bonus of having your fingerprints on file with the State somewhere as well. Joy!

Every point being brought up in opposition to the checks are all in reference to PUBLIC information. Prior convictions are public record. All the background check does is gather public information from various public sources. The person who was convicted has to forever live with the fact that they messed up. These background checks don't delve into private information. The person convicted might like them to be private, but that doesn't make it so.

Note that while various indiscretions may lead being disqulified, not all do...at least in Oregon. In fact, many of the given examples are not considered exclusionary.

Talk about being paranoid. Do you worry about your photo being on file with the DMV....it is basically the same thing....they have something to identifiy you with. What about your income history? They have that too.

Just as you don't have the right to drive, you don't have the right to officiate. Both of them are privileges that you can choose to engage in as long as you follow the requirements of that choice. Those granting the privilege basically have the authority to set the requirements for that privilege. Don't like them, do something else.

Maybe, but what happens when some enterprising reporter decides an official's fraud conviction is worthy of plastering all over the region? Oh, wait, background checks aren't required for that information to happen, but they sure as hell would make it easier.

Look, personally, if I thought it would prevent abuse, I'd be for it. I just don't see it. And no, "even one" might not be enough.

Again, let me ask this question. What exactly would be found in criminal background check that can't be found in a sex offender registry that is relevant to officiating?

I think a history of convictions for violent crimes, even if not committed against children, should disqualify someone from officiating. Do you want someone who served 25+ years for manslaughter being around your kid?

Frankly, I don't think that alone should be disqualifying. From coaching? Probably (depending on the specifics). From officiating? No.

I will give another quick example.

There was an official in my area that worked a major conference in college. The league started doing background checks. They found out that this individual had a charge of domestic violence or some kind of charge towards his wife. This apparently happened during a time when they were getting divorced and we all know how messy those things can be. There were no convictions and much of the information was found out to be bogus, but it took time to prove that information. Now this person was also in law enforcement and had the resources to likely take care of this information. But soon after this information was revealed, he was released from that conference even thought he had been suspended and brought back for a short time. We must keep in mind that certain charges carry stigmas to them as well and even if there is no conviction, people think you have done something wrong and this could obviously affect someone just trying to officiate.

I do agree with Mark that someone convicted of Manslaughter might not be a good person to officiate, but I would personally think the circumstances might also be a factor as well. People serve time for defending themselves or harming someone that did something against them. And they do not always spend massive amounts of years in jail either, but they are still convicted of a felony.

Peace

Exactly, if you were going to push drugs or sex on a kid you could get more access than a sports official does by being a fan in the first row. Everyone is watching officials.

Background checks on everyone who attends a sporting event, or enters a public building, or talks to a potential victim makes more sense than targeting a group that has 10 - 10,000+ people watching them

Well, well, after reading this post, sleeping on it, waking up, going to work for 15 hours, come back and read somemore. I say everyone who attends a sporting event involving kids should be subject to a background check. This way Mrs. Basketball Mom can have a warm and fuzzy about everyone in attendance knowing they are safe for kids to be around.

Have fun officiating with Charles Manson.

Your original post mentioned manslaughter, which can be negligent or involuntary (and where do they sentence people 25+ years for that?). Hitting someone with your car can be manslaughter. That disqualifies people from officiating?

Charles Manson is not notorious for his manslaughter convictions.

Mark, this kind of hyperbole doens't serve this discussion well. As mbyron indicates, the manslaughter charge is pretty vague and can emcompass any number of things that may or may not show poor character rather than a momentary lapse in judgment.

20 year old college kid gets drunk, drives, and causes a fatal accident. He serves time for vehicular manslaughter. You going to exclude him from officiating?

Similar kid gets into a bar fight defending a date, uses too much force and gets charged by an overzealous prosecutor and convicted for whatever reason. He spends 10 years in prison for manslaughter. You going to exclude him from officiating on that basis alone?

I think we can all agree that Manson would never be allowed to officiate, his demeanor would disqualify him immediately. That's the other part of this no one has brought up yet. These non-sexual offenses should not be, IMO, strict deal breakers. The people we're talking about will either have reformed or not, and as long as they're not working in a vacuum, that will come out.

My next question is this, what do you expect someone with a manslaughter conviction to do on the court (or in the locker room) that would endanger the kids?

Like I said, I can see looking at that with a teacher or a coach; but officials just aren't in a position for this stuff to matter.

I guess that means we should disqualify anyone who has ever been convicted of conspiracy.

Been waiting for someone to ask if they're then going to subject scorekeepers, scoreboard operators and announcers ("They say my name soooo nice ...") to background checks, too. Granted, many might be teachers or other school personnel, but not all.

Does anyone know if someone can request a background check for certain offenses, and the report will only contain the information about those certain offenses, and not a full report on everything?

I wouldn't have a problem if the reports were selective, based on the criteria required by the state. If the state does not want any officials who have prior convictions relating to drug distribution and offenses related to minors, and the report doesn't show the arrest for flag and bra burning back when they were young, then I would think that should satisfy the biggest complaints on both sides of this issue.

If there was no need to take my picture to get a drivers license, yes, I would question why they wanted to do so.

However, it seems rather clear that it is in fact necessary to the concept of licensing drivers that their picture be taken, so I accept that as a reasonable request.

There is nothing "paranoid" about this - I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I don't think this technology is available yet, M&M. It may be, but I think I would have heard about it. Those databases are pretty heavy, so adding the filter functionality based on offenses would be burdensom from a storage and programming perspective; and thus expensive for law enforcement.

On top of that, each jurisdiction codes their statutes and charges differently.

Well, I don't want everyone knowing about bra-burning incidents from the past. It wasn't even my bra. You see, there was this chick that originally said she would go to the prom with me...

...wait a minute...oh, crap, never mind.

Anyway, isn't there some sort of national database or clearinghouse that handles these records? How else do records from other jurisdictions show up? I assume someone in Mayberry, NC would enter the info so that someone else in Beverly Hills can see the record. And there has to be some sort of "conversion" from the local statute to the national database. And then, by extension, an easy way to filter by types of arrests and convictions. Isn't that also how credit report information is handled?

With no apparent control over who is allowed to see, and thus use, the information provided in the checks, I would not have a problem if the only information shown is what is requested. I would have a problem with allowing anyone to see everything. Even if I had nothing to hide.

Credit checks are very different because there are 3 different reporting databases. Criminal procedures are very different and sometimes states are not as technologically advanced in how they report the information from one county to another. I have heard of some information not being held databases based on where you were charged or convicted. I think some information falls through the cracks.

Peace

Rut is right. With credit, there are three clearing houses for the information. That's not the case with the states. They're getting better about sharing, but it's more about getting the various databases to communicate with each other as opposed to some sort of convenience store for criminal histories.

The system in place works well for what it's used for, but it's just not set up for a filtered background check only looking for certain types of crimes. Mayberry will likely have a different set of codes for a given offense, and the guys in Hollywood would be confused as hell. And to filter based on offense you'd have to have some sort of standardized basis (criminal code, key words, etc) that just doesn't exist.

It is? I have had a US driver's license that did not have a picture. Pictures have only become standard on driver's licenses in the past 20-25 years. For the 1st 100 years or so of cars, pictures were not part of driver's licenses. So, it is demonstrably clear that they are not a necessity.

That is exactly what it is.

What type of controls will exist over this information? How will officials know that only the information necessary will be used, and that the rest will be ignored and/or protected?

Why would I want some secretary in some state high school association somewhere knowing about my bra-burning incident? What if she personally finds it offensive, mentions it to several co-workers over lunch, they agree, and I get put on the banned list, even though I met the official criteria? Or, what if an official does have a manslaughter conviction in their past, and someone who feels like Mark in the office sees that and decides he is going to take it upon himself to send out e-mails to all of the official's associations "informing" them of this Manson-like individual? What if an official has a prior DUI, stops by the local gas station on the way out of town after a game to pick up a beer, and hits a student in the parking lot - won't the school still get sued for allowing that official to work, knowing they had the background check that already showed that particular "problem"?

Will everyone else with the same level of contact with the kids be subject to the same checks? How about the parents who work the concession stands?

It just seems to bring up too many questions for the apparent "problems" it might solve.

Ironic that you would say that. This year's president of our local rec league is the spitting image of Floyd the barber! Not kidding.

http://www.salamandersociety.com/sla...nent/floyd.jpg

Open Wide And Say Ahhh ...
 

Is a cheek swab next?

This is NOT an employer/employee relationship. The schools have gone out of their way over the past decade to declare sports officials to be independent contractors. This was clearly done to save money. The schools did not wish to pay for workmans comp if an official was injured during a game, pick up the insurance premiums for officials, provide any health benefits, send out W-2 forms, deal with state registration fees, etc.
This is a legal classification is a really big deal.

My opinion is that if they are going to dump all of these costs on the officials and claim that they are NOT their boss, then they do not have a right to certain information which an employer would.

If my state decides to force officials to submit to background checks, I will immediately contend that they are establishing an employer/employee relationship, and must remove sports officials from the independent contractor classification. We'll see how they like the consequences of that. I'm sure that the officials association could get a court hearing on that issue.

Are you aware that that is what one is charged with if crash into someone while driving drunk and kill that person?

Legal Definition of Manslaughter

So if someone went to party while in college, got drunk, tried to drive home anyway, and ended up in a crash which killed someone, then is convicted of manslaughter and serves his time, you are saying that should disqualify this individual from officiating HS sports?

What does that have to do being around kids?

Sorry, Padgett, but you are off the mark with that example. Now had you written murder, which "requires malicious intent," then I would be with you.

Man some people are paranoid.

Hey, you don't have anything to hide, do you? What is a small DNA sample for us law abiding citizens with nothing to hide?

I may be paranoid, but there still could be people out to get me...

You tell me, which happens more often?:
- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

There is a compelling reason for law enforcement officers to be able to positively identify a driver during a traffic stop. No, it's not so they make sure they write the ticket for the right person. It's for officer safety, so they know whether or not the driver has a history of violence. Without a picture ID, such positive identification is impossible.

So, maybe they did it without pictures for the first 80 years (I would say that's an overstatement as I think most states have had pictures on the licenses for quite a few years.) I think there is a very clear distinction here between having your picture on a license and submitting your background check to every venue you officiate.

The picture on your license provides a very clear benefit. The background checks do not.