Backround Checks and Volunteers

[Guest]

Since we all seem to be reading and discussing volunteers and emergency services personell being arrested, I was hoping for some insight from the forum on running backround checks for prospective members/applicants.

Currently, my depratment does not run full backround checks on prospects. Our application asks about motor vehicle convictions or other matters/ legal issues, and our backround checking goes as far as contacting the applicants "character" references.

What do some of your deparments/agency's do?

Do you have agreements with your local Police Department?

How much does it cost per applicant?

Anyone in CT know of any available resources?

My former department in Pennsylvania ran each applicant through the PA State Police and it cost $50 per applicant. So I was hoping for some other points of reference.

[AFS1970 504]

Before I saw this topic, I had posted the following in the current arrest thread:

I am not sure that there is a simple solution to this. Since nothing in this story mentioned previous arrests or convictions, I can assume that there are not any relevant ones. So while I am generally in favor of background checks I am not sure that they would be of much value in the majority of cases we read about.

As I was reading this thread there was a news story on TV about a Priest in another part of my state who was arrested on similar charges. The spokesman for the church said that they do background checks and annual revies of all priests. The story also stated there were no known previous complaints against this priest.

I am in favor of doing a background check, and I know that here in CT the State Police will do one for Public Safety agencies. I am not sure if there is a fee. It was covered when I took my last NCIC recertification at work, because they were warning us not to do checks personally and to refer requests up to the state. I will have to look up the full info.

We currently have a question on our application asking about arrests and convictions, and another one asking if the applicant has a problem with us verifying their answers. But that is not really enough. I know of one applicant that listed an arrest without conviction in another state and another who very likely had a sealed juvenile record, a CT background check would not have provided information on either of these cases.

Most often we talk about this when we read about an arson case. Most of these people are first time offenders, which also would obviously not show up on a check of previous incidents. Perhaps a Psych test would be more to the point, but I have no idea if these conditions have any warning indicators that would show up on that kind of test, so a psych test might be just as worthless.

[ltjay157 10]

In CT, the CT State Police will do background checks for a $25 fee per person. It'll be form DPS-846c off of the CT Dept of Public Safety website. You also need to submit fingerprints and it tells you where to get those cards. It's a small price to pay to find out any criminal history someone may have before a majority of problems begin. If only we had used this earlier, we could have found the bad apples before they did stupid things.

[pd125 0]

At the VAC that I ride on use a commerical service to do the backround checks. Also DMV checks are done. We have had a couple of people who were not trueful in their application. It is worth the money. The problem with Peskill is the member may have no record when he joined.

Edited August 3, 2007 by pd125

[Guest feraldan]

I agree with BFD, I don't know that background checks will prevent many of the incidents that occur because so many of them are first time offenses. That said, many are not first time offenses and if a company has a policy in place that rules out volunteers who have a criminal record, by all means, take care of the problem before it even occurs. Background checks are not a catch-all for preventing issues like this. With the exception of some very rural communities, most PD outfits require psych evaluations and obviously some people slip through the cracks there. I don't know that its possible to put in place a system that is 100% effective. We just need to condemn those among us who choose to do the wrong thing and swiftly remove them from a position to cause further harm.

All these checks and evaluations are a double-edged sword. There are plenty of people who make dumb mistakes and come around later to be great people who would make superb volunteers and genuinely want to help people. If people are not dealt with on a case by case basis and given some measure of trust, a lot of well intentioned people can be lost.