Background checks

[RMGuy]

What would be your thoughts if the church instituted criminal history/background checks for individuals that serve in Primary and YW. Theoretically these already exist for individuals in YM's callings if they are doing scouting. What about for positions like bishopric etc. Where they have the potential or even requirement to be alone with youth? Is this something you would support, or feel like it was detrimental to the Spirit of Inspiration.

-RM

[Vort]

What would be your thoughts if the church instituted criminal history/background checks for individuals that serve in Primary and YW. Theoretically these already exist for individuals in YM's callings if they are doing scouting. What about for positions like bishopric etc. Where they have the potential or even requirement to be alone with youth? Is this something you would support, or feel like it was detrimental to the Spirit of Inspiration.

If our leaders decided it was a wise move, of course I would support them in it. I try to sustain my leaders whenever and wherever I can.

[Wingnut]

I wouldn't object to it. I don't necessarily feel that it's a necessary measure, but I would be supportive of it if it were implemented, provided of course, that it was unilateral, and not just for men serving in Primary.

Is this something you would support, or feel like it was detrimental to the Spirit of Inspiration.

I don't believe that every calling comes about by revelation anyway, so I don't feel it would detract from that.

[Backroads]

I also wouldn't object to it, and I do see benefits from it.

But I also think it would potentially feed into the culture of fear we already have in our society, so I doubt I would go out of my way to advocate it.

[Bini]

I wouldn't object to it.

[Bini]

We've (the forum) have discussed this issue before.

Hopefully, individuals are honest when approached by church leaders to fulfil callings. I would like to think that everyone would be but there's always that exception. For me, someone who has been CONVICTED of sexually assaulting a child, has no place working with them. In addition, this knowledge would sway me to having my daughter removed from his/her class if the convicted individual were teaching.

[RMGuy]

We've (the forum) have discussed this issue before.

Hopefully, individuals are honest when approached by church leaders to fulfil callings. I would like to think that everyone would be but there's always that exception. For me, someone who has been CONVICTED of sexually assaulting a child, has no place working with them. In addition, this knowledge would sway me to having my daughter removed from his/her class if the convicted individual were teaching.

Honesty is a great thing, but the real problem is that someone who would be a problem probably isn't being honest. Which is precisely why we have lockers in the temple. I"m just thinking that if it is a requirement for individuals to have a background check prior to working with the YM in scouting that perhaps it is every bit as important for them to have the same before working with the YW or the primary.

-RM

[Just_A_Guy]

As a Mormon who is the father of three little girls who go to Primary, I have no problem with the policy.

If I were the Church's legal counsel, though, I'd have two concerns. First, it would be a horrendous cost. Second, I think it could be seen as the Church acknowledging that it has a legal (not just moral, but legal) obligation to any potential victims of Church office-holders who misuse their authority; which means that the Church will be in hurt-ville when the inevitable predator slips through whatever process has been set up.

[Backroads]

Now, the usual reason background checks are done for the YM problem is because an outside organization is making them do it. Perhaps if the church culture changed their view of that, backgrounds checks might be a more popular option. I see your point: We do it for one group, why not for all? I think one factor is the cost involved... would the church be willing to fund this for everyone?

Though, on a side note, it does bug me when people assume a background is some magical fool-proof barrier. All it means is you haven't been caught yet. Which, yes, does manage to do a pretty good job.

[RMGuy]

Good points backroads and JAG. I hate the "do it for the kids" arguement, but is the cost justified if it prevents avoidable abuse?

-RM

[Bini]

Though, on a side note, it does bug me when people assume a background is some magical fool-proof barrier. All it means is you haven't been caught yet. Which, yes, does manage to do a pretty good job.

For me it would mean that my husband and I can make our own decision based on fact, and whether or not we want our child to interact with the convicted abuser. In regards to non-convicted individuals, you just gotta pray for guidance and listen to your gut instinct when leaving your child in the hands of someone else.

[Backroads]

Good points backroads and JAG. I hate the "do it for the kids" arguement, but is the cost justified if it prevents avoidable abuse?

-RM

I suppose the Church could ask people to pay for their own background checks, and I'm sure some people would agree. That might cut the costs down a bit (Though in my case, I would simply turn down the calling).

I would like to think the Church could afford it, but background checks are expensive and I know a lot of wards have fairly high turnovers in their youth callings. That would add up quite fast.

Now, I do agree with "if it saves one kid" but I also think other measures can work just as well. I believe the Church has a policy on how many adults can be with how many kids?

[Guest]

There is already a public file of child molesters and sexual abusers. I don't think this is necessary at all. And I even think that instituting this kind of process hurts the Church more than it helps.

There are times when we, as parents, have to take the responsibility to protect our children instead of having the Church do it for us.

[Dravin]

Are we just talking about criminal history checks? I presume credit history (or verifying educational attainment) isn't particularly important for what the concern is here. Just how much do these check costs and who is going to do them? And how often will they be redone?Every X years? Good until you leave the Stake? If you've been inactive? After Excommunication? If you're doing a background check on all primary teachers, young women advisers and presidency and young men advisers, presidency, and scouting, in addition to any temporary helpers (say camp helpers) and if we're doing them each time a call is extended that could get really expensive as a Church wide protocol.

I know, some will be aghast at the thought of thinking about cost, but there is a cost benefit analysis to be done for decisions like this (and cost can be more than money, that's just the most obvious), particularly if there are other possible ways to reduce risk for a lesser cost. And of course some ways of doing it may be cheaper than others, for instance, having headquarters hire people to look through public records as opposed to having the FBI or State Police do criminal background checks.

Now I'm not opposed to such a policy, and if SLC proposed it my opinion I'm confident they would take such considerations (and more) into account. It's just if I hypothetically were going to be given the authority to make the decision I'd want to consider more than just the cursory, "Sounds good."

Edited November 19, 2012 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

I would like to think the Church could afford it, but background checks are expensive and I know a lot of wards have fairly high turnovers in their youth callings. That would add up quite fast.

This would be one way to cut down on the obscenely high turnover rates in the youth organizations. :)

[Backroads]

There is already a public file of child molesters and sexual abusers. I don't think this is necessary at all. And I even think that instituting this kind of process hurts the Church more than it helps.

There are times when we, as parents, have to take the responsibility to protect our children instead of having the Church do it for us.

And I completely agree with this. Yes, molesters and abusers exist even within the Church, but I think the attitude "Your primary teacher is an evil being who can't be trusted so we do a background check" is not what we need. We do not, as a Church, need to be foundlessly fearing one another.

Again, I'm not altogether opposed to the idea, but it would have to be done in the right frame of mind.

[RMGuy]

Dravin, those are some great questions. Schools (at least here in Michigan) are required to run those checks annually. I'm not sure how an organization like the BSA covers those costs, but I would assume that there is a cost effective method. We run criminal backgrounds on all new hires and this runs approximately $7/check.

You are right there are other safe guards in place such as two deep leadership etc., but that isn't always the case, for example seminary teachers. Also members of the bishopric are many times alone with youth/children without an open door, and without two deep leadership.

-RM

[Wingnut]

The only time I've ever heard the term "two-deep leadership" is with reference to Scouting, and by extension, Young Men. I was a ward YW president for 2.5 years, and never heard it.

[Bini]

There is already a public file of child molesters and sexual abusers. I don't think this is necessary at all. And I even think that instituting this kind of process hurts the Church more than it helps.

There are times when we, as parents, have to take the responsibility to protect our children instead of having the Church do it for us.

I agree with this, and I hadn't thought about it. Convicted sex offenders are searchable online and in your area. I suppose you could just run a search and then make your own decision.

If a sex offender winds up accepting a calling, and no one is aware that he/she is a pedophile, except me (after having ran a search online), I would then inform the bishop. I am confident that he would investigate the situation and release that individual. Being a sex offender is PUBLIC knowledge.

[Backroads]

Dravin, those are some great questions. Schools (at least here in Michigan) are required to run those checks annually. I'm not sure how an organization like the BSA covers those costs, but I would assume that there is a cost effective method. We run criminal backgrounds on all new hires and this runs approximately $7/check.

I always assumed it was a "bulk" deal to cover costs. The Church pays $15 dollars per person in the Scouting program--which includes background checks on the adults. I suppose if the Church found a different program for the rest of them, that would save funds.

[Backroads]

I agree with this, and I hadn't thought about it. Convicted sex offenders are searchable online and in your area. I suppose you could just run a search and then make your own decision.

If a sex offender winds up accepting a calling, and no one is aware that he/she is a pedophile, except me (after having ran a search online), I would then inform the bishop. I am confident that he would investigate the situation and release that individual. Being a sex offender is PUBLIC knowledge.

Indeed, sometimes we have to just make our own decision.

One of the silliest background-check related issues I had at my office was a ward who called someone into Scouting KNOWING he was on the sex offender's list and then wondered "why did you submit him for a background check? We know he's a sex offender and that we can't register him." (Why the devil did you give him this calling if you knew you couldn't have him in it?) To me, it spoke of a group of people who couldn't use common sense in making a ward decision.

[slamjet]

So, what if a background check showed that a leader caught a narc charge when he was 18 or 23? Does the church put the same weight on a charge as a conviction? Do they keep the person out of the youth program? Or how about a registered offender? Will they no longer be allowed to teach Gospel Doctrine or Essentials? So is the next step to nail young women leaders who may have had an abortion they repented of? Or how about telling them to not even bother coming to church? Or letting the Bishop know that his wisdom on a persons recovery or character judgement is no longer relevant? Because that would be the effect of the church doing background checks.

Yes, I am about as against it as one can get.

[Dravin]

Dravin, those are some great questions. Schools (at least here in Michigan) are required to run those checks annually. I'm not sure how an organization like the BSA covers those costs, but I would assume that there is a cost effective method. We run criminal backgrounds on all new hires and this runs approximately $7/check.

You are right there are other safe guards in place such as two deep leadership etc., but that isn't always the case, for example seminary teachers. Also members of the bishopric are many times alone with youth/children without an open door, and without two deep leadership.

-RM

And I think a greater case could be made for such individuals over primary teachers.

[Wingnut]

So, what if a background check showed that a leader caught a narc charge when he was 18 or 23? Does the church put the same weight on a charge as a conviction? Do they keep the person out of the youth program? Or how about a registered offender? Will they no longer be allowed to teach Gospel Doctrine or Essentials? So is the next step to nail young women leaders who may have had an abortion they repented of? Or how about telling them to not even bother coming to church? Or letting the Bishop know that his wisdom on a persons recovery or character judgement is no longer relevant? Because that would be the effect of the church doing background checks.

Yes, I am about as against it as one can get.

These are all great points. Perhaps we should add another dimension to the discussion: if the Church were to implement background checks for any calling with direct contact with children/youth under 18 (YM, YW, youth SS teachers, Primary, Nursery, Bishopric), to what end? Does a check that isn't completely clean automatically disqualify someone from the proposed calling? Or if they're 47 and have been completely clean since that 18-year-old narc charge, should they still be considered?

Should a background check only add to the bishop's information, or should it eliminate possibilities?

[Bini]

So, what if a background check showed that a leader caught a narc charge when he was 18 or 23? Does the church put the same weight on a charge as a conviction? Do they keep the person out of the youth program? Or how about a registered offender? Will they no longer be allowed to teach Gospel Doctrine or Essentials? So is the next step to nail young women leaders who may have had an abortion they repented of? Or how about telling them to not even bother coming to church? Or letting the Bishop know that his wisdom on a persons recovery or character judgement is no longer relevant? Because that would be the effect of the church doing background checks.

Yes, I am about as against it as one can get.

A child rapist/molester is not someone I would ever trust with my own child, as their "desires" potentially directly effect how they interact and respond to children. A woman that undergoes an abortion, as unfortunate as that is, does not pose the same threat as a pedophile to children.