A recreational softball league in Wilmington, Ohio, needed a volunteer pitcher for a girls’ team and found one in William Ide, a registered sex offender who was more than happy to take the job.

While the city routinely runs background checks on coaches and assistant coaches across a range of league sports, the occasional parent volunteer or fill-in does not have to undergo the standard screening process.

 The loophole allowed Ide to pitch during a few practice meetings as well as during a game…not exactly the type of individual a parent would want pitching to their 7-8 year old daughter

Convicted for attempted corruption of a female minor, Ide was tapped to fill in for an assistant coach by coach Ashley Crampton, who incidentally is also Ide’s future sister in-law.

Since his background came to light, Ide has been issued a no-trespass letter by the city. The incident has also been reported to Ide’s supervising officer who will be determining if the conditions of his parole were violated.

While the article didn’t mention if Ms. Crampton was aware of Ide’s sex offender status, Coach Crampton was relieved of her coaching responsibilities as of June 3^rd, because of “bad judgment and misconduct”.

Concerned parents met with city and police officials to express their concern, including Katie Bryant who said “He’s been aware that he’s not to be around kids and then again he came, pitched to the girls and coached.”

City Mayor, David Raizk, issued a press release addressing the incident stating, “The safety of our children is of utmost importance. We have met and heard concerns from parents and we are looking to move forward in continuing to evaluate our processes in order for children to have a safe and happy time in our recreational activities. Suggestions are welcome.”

A recent city council meeting in Vineland, New Jersey, saw a group of coaches and parents make their case to institute an appeals process for applicants undergoing background checks to volunteer with city recreation programs.

Presently, city policy requires backgrounds on volunteers working with individuals under 18 years of age. If a red flag comes up during the screening process, a volunteer candidate is barred from participation until the disqualifying mark on their record is removed.

However, with an appeals committee in place, applicants would be given the opportunity to plead their case in order to serve as a volunteer.

An appeals board for volunteer workers has been considered before by the Vineland City Council. However, the city has chosen to wait until the background check program has passed the one year mark before considering an appeals process.

Councilman Louis Cresci said, “It’s a wise thing to look at this again…I think we have a little bit of homework to do.”

Cumberland County Prosecutor, Jennifer Webb-McCrae, was in attendance at the Tuesday night meeting. Speaking from a resident point of view, she summed up what was likely on everyone’s mind.

“This issue is too important to allow the recreation commission to simply say it’s too tricky or difficult to have an appeals board,” she said.

An appeals policy does in fact have the support of Mayor Robert Romano and City Police Chief Timothy Codispoti, both of whom have agreed to serve on an appeals committee.

Per the New Jersey League of Municipalities, an appeals board typically takes into account the volunteers age, nature of the offense, age when the offense was committed, etc.

For some residents, such as Ricky Bluitt, the chance to appeal a rejected application would be greatly appreciated. Bluitt, a sports coach of ten years, won’t be able to continue his role until he can settle a long-standing issue on his criminal record. 

“I’ve been living in this community all my life and I’ve made some bad choices,” he said. “For the last 23 years, I’ve made a lot of good choices.”

Instituting an appeals board will add a tremendous amount of fairness to the application process and will no doubt allow the city to clear qualified individuals who may have otherwise been shown the door.

Detroit’s metro-area booster clubs are changing volunteer screening policies and policing the movement of funding much more closely after a rash of embezzlements topping tens of thousands of dollars by volunteer workers.

If the term sounds foreign to you, “booster clubs” provide schools with an extra “boost” of funding for athletic programs. With state and district budgets cinched tight, they remain a vital source of funding for many school sports clubs.

However, rough economic times have made these benevolent organizations more vulnerable to the predations of crooks and people desperate for a quick solution to money problems.

While statistics aren’t kept on the frequency of embezzlement-related crimes, police say the recent spike can be attributed to the economic downturn, which has made some people desperate.

Because volunteers aren’t school district employees, they are not subject to the standardized background checks. Adding to the problem is a lack of government oversight since booster organizations are not governed under state law.

The emphasis on trust and absence of a formal applicant screening process has resulted in costly lessons for some high school booster clubs like those in Riverview.

In 2010, the Riverview High School varsity football team was stunned to find the team booster account whittled down to a meager $1800 from what was supposed to be a $30,000 funding reserve.

It was later determined the club’s treasurer was behind the theft. He has pleaded guilty and has agreed to pay $35,000 in reparations.

Riverview took a second hit in 2010 from the president of Riverview Baseball Dugout Booster Club. Alan Wade Benson admitted to embezzlement and writing bad checks.

Lightning struck a THIRD time when the now-former treasurer of the Riverview Community High School’s Football Booster Club, Shellie Ann Gedron, was busted for stealing over $14,000 between April and November of 2010.

Riverview Superintendent, Dennis Desmarais, said, “Riverview probably has some of the best guidelines when it comes to boosters, but once again it’s trust and someone took advantage of us.”

Other athletic booster clubs besides those in Riverview have suffered thefts with groups in Livonia and Westland dealing with headaches of their own.

However, boosters don’t have to remain helpless and can take measures to protect themselves. Riverview Deputy Police Chief Clifford Rosebohm offered the following advice:

“What organizations can do is make sure they’re structured properly and make sure there are checks and balances. Organizations have to operate with the idea of transparency.”

Riverview has since uploaded its accounts online to facilitate easier tracking of withdrawals and deposits. Printed copies of transactions are also provided to key organization staff such as the treasurer and board members.

Most importantly, background checks are now run on all individuals who will have a role handling money or finances. If someone with a shady history was hoping to buck the boosters in Riverview, they’re going to find their background red-flagging them from the get-go.

Other booster clubs in neighboring districts have followed suit insofar as adjusting policy to make breaches of trust and security a far less likely occurrence.

Fred Smith, Athletic Director for Buchanen Community Schools, already feels a greater sense of security.

“This is the first year we’ve brought everything inside, and now everything is run through the school accounts,” Smith said. “It’s better this way. If you left a $20 bill on a counter, the temptation is there for someone to walk away with it. We have checks and balances when it comes to deposits. Everything is accounted for.”

Giving back to the community soon to be a legal requirement?

Recipients of unemployment benefits in the state of North Carolina may soon be required to set aside a portion of their time every week to provide volunteer services throughout their community.

Under Senate Bill 737, any individual required to show they are seeking full-time employment would need to contribute part of their week to helping out within their community.

The required amount of volunteer time would be minimal, about 5-10 hours of volunteer services a week depending on the length of time an individual has been collecting benefits.

If you’re someone who has ever been unemployed, you know despite your best efforts, there WILL be some periods of idle time. And if there’s enough of it, those empty periods can potentially derail one’s motivation to stay focused and upbeat.

Charlie Diggs is the assistant manager at the Massachusetts Employment Security Commissions Office. Like many others, Mr. Diggs thinks volunteer work will keep unemployed individuals in a constructive frame of mind.

Diggs acknowledges the values of volunteer time “Especially in today’s service industry where teamwork and customer service is a premium. It’s a good way to keep those skills sharp.”

Hey, you also never know when a volunteer opportunity could translate into a full time job given the right circumstances. Shining as a volunteer could lead to an offer of employment.

Additionally, volunteer work is a great way to plug gaps of employment on a resume. Potential employers appreciate individuals who take the initiative to keep themselves busy.

But some job seekers think the bill may be placing an additional burden on their efforts to find work.

“It takes a lot of effort both money-wise and time-wise to find a job these days.’ says Steven Crocket, a High Point resident who has been out of work for 10 months

“You have three jobs that you have to look for every week and you want those to be quality.”

Overall however, the bill has received overall positive support.

Individuals like Latasha Nixon already volunteer they time during the week. Nixon lends a hand at the Open Door Ministries in between applying for different jobs.

“I set the tables, I clean up after people, I help in the kitchen, whatever they need done, it’s actually kind of fun.”

Columnist Lenore Skenazy wants you to think that requiring parents to undergo fingerprint checks prior to volunteering for youth sports leagues is on a level with Soviet-era police state methodology and will actually harm the parental volunteer movement.

Wait, really?

Ms. Skenazy is referencing Tenafly, New Jersey, where the Little League set in place a new rule that any adult wishing to volunteer with the team would need to undergo a background check.

Reasonable initiative, right? After all, if you can run a fingerprint check on someone, odds are they aren’t going to be able to mask any past criminal acts which would call into question their suitability to work with young kids.

Ms. Skenazy, however, feels it’s a drastic policy, one that blurs the line between “the United States and the former Soviet Union.” Her perspective is that actions like fingerprinting and background checks create a society where we are trained to distrust, where people are assumed guilty before proven innocent.

Officials who initiate background check policies recognize that we’re not living in a perfect world. While it’s comforting to think we’re still capable of trusting our fellow human beings, there is also the reality that we also live among human predators.

Is Ms. Skenazy aware of how many news pieces one can call up detailing the number of creeps that have deliberately hidden their crimes behind trusting façades?

Honest individuals shouldn’t feel as though their personal integrity is being called into question. This isn’t colonial America where individuals are being called out before a large assembly of their peers. It’s providing your fingerprint, waiting for the results, and boom, you’re clear. 

No one is being singled out when these background check procedures are instituted. If anything, the matter of legal liability ensures that any reputable organization will conduct checks in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

So, if we’re all making a big deal out of wanting to keep our kids safe, what’s the alternative?

Ms. Skenazy suggests that “parents to teach their kids “the three R’s” of abuse — recognize, resist and report” which actually is a very sensible suggestion, but she is basically suggesting that the “three R’s” supplant background checks entirely.

Kids are smart, but predators are often smarter and can take advantage of their victims in ways that a child might not even recognize as abuse. I’d much rather have the dual protections of a background screening system in addition to educating my child.

If someone loses the resolve to want to help their kids through volunteer work because of a required background check, maybe they aren’t adult enough to accept the reality of modern society. As long as you know you’re an honorable and decent human being, why should you allow a standardized background check to call that into question?

If you’re going to say that the cost of the check will deter volunteers, it’s often quite the contrary. Many school districts and recreation departments provide waivers or alternate payment plans for families in difficult financial circumstances. No one wants to shut out an honest individual willing to lend a hand.

Ms. Skenazy, there are bad people out there and they’re often individuals holding positions of trust you would never question…a reality that crosses political, religious and economic lines. Asking parents to arm their kids with simple common sense isn’t going to work in a world where the depredations of specific people aren’t going to be held by bay by the three R’s alone.

Fair and balanced background checks on volunteers aren’t robbing anyone of their dignity. They are ensuring the safety and well-being of organizations, parents and of course, the kids.

And that’s something I’m sure folks in the United States and Russia will both agree on.

School Administrators at a Fort Worth school are dealing with an embarrassing situation in which convicted sex offender Jon Coots was actively serving as a parent volunteer on the PTA as well as volunteer worker during school hours! Outraged parents want to know how this could have happened.

For reasons unspecified in the WFAA.com article, parents Sean Young and his wife were motivated to run Coots named through the Texas state sex offender registry. There, they found that Coots had served 8 years for a 1996 sex crime committed with a child.

Mr. Young immediately recognized Coots as the fellow PTA member he frequently worked with.
“He’s a very active member at the school. he’s a member of the PTA.” and also adding “I’ve seen him alone in hallways during school hours. To me, that’s alarming.”

Young printed off the information he had uncovered and presented it to the East Handley Elementary School Principal.

After having looked it over the school replied that it was an error that should have been caught earlier. The forms to complete the mandatory volunteer background screening were sent to Coots house but that “he never complied.”

A spokesperson for the Fort Worth Independent School District admitted that school officials should have initiated the appropriate follow up when Coots had not submitted to the background check prior to volunteering.

A notification of the “error” made by East Handley Elementary School administration is being sent to all district principals to allow for appropriate update of existing screening policy.

No new criminal charges have been filed against Coots since the 1996 incident and since he has completed his parole, he is not prohibited from helping out at the school. However, Coots will be allowed at school only under escort and only to see his own children.

The moment Mr. Coots deviated from the background report request, school officials should have seen it for the red flag that it was. Assuming that the screening will play itself out favorably without enforcing its basic tenants from start to finish is simply too risky. Background screening protocols require firm enforcement in order to remain effective in netting individuals who have no business volunteering with kids.

Boston.com reporteon the murder of a group home counselor in Revere, assachusetts by a mentally ill resident. The article begs the question whether private group home and rehabilitation centers should be screening residents for past violent behavior to minimize risk to the direct-care providers working for them.

On January 20th, Deshawn James Chappell,a patient living in a group home in Revere,allegedly murdered 25-year old Stephanie Moulton who worked with Chappell and other residents.

Chappell apparently has had a long history of violence and issuing threats prior to the murder as revealed during the course of the police investigation. But despite his dangerous track record he was deemed acceptable for placement in the group home run by North Suffolk Mental Health, an agency under contract by the state of Massachusetts to work with the mentally ill. There is little to no indication the staff, let alone Ms. Moulton, was aware of Chappell’s hazardous tendencies.

You may find it surprising, but private sector mental care providers may know very little of the history of the patients they are working with. Very little may be disclosed to the public regarding the background of a mentally ill individual because of medical privacy laws and concern of social stigmatization.

But what if someone’s condition gives them propensity for violent behavior? Wouldn’t you want to know if someone had tried to attack their therapist in a state facility before counseling them in the socially intimate environment of a group home?

However, criminal background checks on any patient of a group home requires their consent and some of the mentally ill may be reluctant to permit a check to be run on them. Health information privacy law also makes private access to information on someone’s condition extremely difficult if not impossible.

Disclosing information regarding criminal history and violent behavior would hardly be an invasion of patients’ privacy. Data access could be controlled and information applied in a manner that would allow for focused and effective treatment. Private facilitates would know what type of security protocols to have in place to protect the safety of their staff and patients.

You wouldn’t have a munitions expert dismantle a bomb without the proper safety gear, so why expect a direct care worker to provide aid to a potentially dangerous person without granting them some awareness of the situation they are dealing with?

There must exist a good balance of privacy and disclosure to give patient and provider alike would have a clear picture of what to expect from their rehabilitation experience. By introducing a uniform background screening methodology for the private mental healthcare industry we ensure a safer working environment in the mental healthcare industry.