Background Checks

[wanja]

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 The Florida High State Association rescinded its requirement for criminal background checks in favor of a check of sex offender registries.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.

[zm1283]

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.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Nevadaref]

For a point-by-point critique...

Originally Posted by wanja

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 private 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.

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.

[constable]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?

[wanja]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

Nothing to add.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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

[Adam]

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.

[zm1283]

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.

[Adam]

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rsl

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.

[JRutledge]

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.

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

[coach41]

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.