Sensitive: Question regarding background checks before working with children.

[Lisa R.]

I know many people will have a strong opinion regarding my question. I'm asking feedback from those that have experience in screening people that will work with children or those with counseling experience or knowledge of this area.

 

I am supposed to fill out a form for a volunteer position for working with children. It states that they will run a back ground check for criminal history and sexual abuse. Background checks will be submitted on an annual basis. Fine. No problem.

 

After filling in the information required for this check it states, "If you were personally a victim of child abuse, we ask you to inform the leader with which you'll be working. Please understand this does not disqualify you, but we need to be aware of it. We will keep this information strictly confidential. We will not disclose this information to anyone else without your permission."

 

I actually hesitated awhile before even posting this here as it makes me so uncomfortable. I apologize ahead of time if I've made anyone else feel uncomfortable or insulted at what I just quoted.

 

While I am not a victim of abuse, I am very uncomfortable with such a statement on there. It feels so irrelevant and invasive. What am I missing here?

 

 

Edited to add: This volunteer position is not for a place that helps abused or at-risk children.

[TeacherZee]

I would ask them why they want that. To me (not a victim) it feels invasive.

[K&Rs Mom]

I recall something like this years ago when I was applying to be a CASA volunteer. Since it was a matter of working with abused/neglected kids, I can see how some things would be an unpleasant reminder or may trigger other memories if people have that background. Not enough to make them not volunteer, if they're willing, but just something that it makes sense for the leader to be aware of. So in that case, I found it appropriate to ask. I think it was actually part of the verbal interview, not on the background form.

 

I also spent a few years doing criminal background checks, mostly for employers, and a year as a court clerk (entering the info you'd find in a court background check). So I have to point out, they're all but worthless in most cases. Asking a more specific question, if it's relevant to the position, would be a lot more helpful to the leaders.

[Heatherwith4]

As a victim of sexual abuse growing up, I'm not comfortable with that question.

[LucyStoner]

Unless it is a postion that they are concerned will trigger survivors and they are making sure that any survivors have or are getting the help they need (say CASA or a child rape crisis clinic) to ensure the volunteers safety and the ability of the volunteer to not breech boundaries with clients they are mentoring I don't see why they would ask. I am not uncomfortable letting people know that I am a survivor but I am uncomfortable being asked on a paper form unless it is an intake form for my own healthcare. Especially when I have no idea how respectful and professional the staff and other volunteers are. In situations where it is relevant and needs to be asked, it is a verbal interview question and not a paper question.

[Lisa R.]

This volunteer position is not for a place that helps abused or at-risk children.

[LucyStoner]

This volunteer position is not for a place that helps abused or at-risk children.

 

Then it is out of line.

[*Lulu*]

It sounds like a UMC safe-sanctuary form. (The church we were at years ago had an almost identical form.)

 

And I vote for invasive.

 

And, as I have had it explained to me the reasoning is because victims are more likely to become abusers, insulting to boot.

[Joanne]

Statistics are such that being a victim is correlated with a higher liklihood of being an offfender.

 

Nonetheless, I would not disclose that info and I would lie.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I know many people will have a strong opinion regarding my question. I'm asking feedback from those that have experience in screening people that will work with children or those with counseling experience or knowledge of this area.

 

I am supposed to fill out a form for a volunteer position for working with children. It states that they will run a back ground check for criminal history and sexual abuse. Background checks will be submitted on an annual basis. Fine. No problem.

 

After filling in the information required for this check it states, "If you were personally a victim of child abuse, we ask you to inform the leader with which you'll be working. Please understand this does not disqualify you, but we need to be aware of it. We will keep this information strictly confidential. We will not disclose this information to anyone else without your permission."

 

I actually hesitated awhile before even posting this here as it makes me so uncomfortable. I apologize ahead of time if I've made anyone else feel uncomfortable or insulted at what I just quoted.

 

While I am not a victim of abuse, I am very uncomfortable with such a statement on there. It feels so irrelevant and invasive. What am I missing here?

 

 

Edited to add: This volunteer position is not for a place that helps abused or at-risk children.

 

 

I wouldn't recommend anyone answer that question. A vague n/a might suffice. I would not trust that such information would be kept confidential.

[regentrude]

I would not disclose this information. That is private, and IMO the employer does not have a right to know. I would not rely on information shared under such circumstances to remain confidential.

[Lisa R.]

Statistics are such that being a victim is correlated with a higher liklihood of being an offfender.

 

Nonetheless, I would not disclose that info and I would lie.

 

 

Joanne,

But how would you answer if you were not an abuse survivor? It still seems like there should be some sort of protest to the question. I'm picturing a note in the margin saying, "not an appropriate question."

[Jean in Newcastle]

http://www.churchlawandtax.com/web/2009/march/can-volunteers-children-be-asked-abuse.html

[*Lulu*]

Statistics are such that being a victim is correlated with a higher liklihood of being an offfender.

 

Nonetheless, I would not disclose that info and I would lie.

 

I know the statistic is valid. I just thought, in a church (which was where I ran across it), where the guidelines of the program dictate leadership/volunteers always be two deep, it was a potentially unnecessary question.

 

At a minimum it could be worded to encourage volunteers with a history of being abused to set aside time to discuss it with the minister/director in confidence.

[*Lulu*]

http://www.churchlawandtax.com/web/2009/march/can-volunteers-children-be-asked-abuse.html

 

Thanks for posting that.

[QueenCat]

It sounds like a UMC safe-sanctuary form. (The church we were at years ago had an almost identical form.)

 

And I vote for invasive.

 

And, as I have had it explained to me the reasoning is because victims are more likely to become abusers, insulting to boot.

 

It is not on the safe sanctuary form our UMC congregation uses. I keep ours on my computer so I just double checked it. However, people who have been abused are far more likely to abuse someone else. Ironically, I just finished writing an essay on the topic.

[*Lulu*]

 

 

It is not on the safe sanctuary form our UMC congregation uses. I keep ours on my computer so I just double checked it. However, people who have been abused are far more likely to abuse someone else. Ironically, I just finished writing an essay on the topic.

 

I wonder if they are developed on the conference, district, or the congregational level?

 

I have not volunteered with the children/teens in our new congregation so I have not seen the form here.

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I did a further Google check and numerous guidelines for screening volunteers (like from the CDC and other government programs) specifically say not to ask volunteers about their own possible past victimization. They did not specifically say it was illegal, however.

[Laurie4b]

It is a standard question recommended by companies that insure churches. I think it is inappropriate.

 

It treats victims in a separate category from others. Most perps were victims; most victims do not become perps. There are other ways of providing for the safety of children that don't invade the privacy of victims, such as policies about supervision, 2 volunteers at all times, etc.

 

Since you are not a victim, I would take the opportunity to speak up about the intrusiveness, violation of privacy for a sensitive area, and other ways to ensure kid safety.

[Truscifi]

I have gone through multiple background checks for jobs working with kids, and have never seen that question on a written form. Though I worked for a sheriff's department in my pre-SAHM days and that was one of the many extremely invasive questions I had to answer for my lie detector test.

 

In this context I would leave it blank. I would consider it to be an inappropriate question.

[TN Mama]

It sounds like a UMC safe-sanctuary form. (The church we were at years ago had an almost identical form.)

 

And I vote for invasive.

 

And, as I have had it explained to me the reasoning is because victims are more likely to become abusers, insulting to boot.

 

I've filled out a UMC safe-sanctuary form, and this was not on my form.

 

I also vote invasive.

[amy g.]

I'm not comfortable with that question at all. It is none of their bees wax.

[Tammyla]

I'm pretty shocked they would have that question on the application. Victims of abuse go through so much throughout their lives and this just feels so wrong to even ask.

[PentecostalMom]

I don't know where your are volunteering, but this may just be standard from they got from somewhere, online even. If you are planning on volunteering there, you could ask why the questions is on there, explain that you are not a victim, but still the question made you uncomfortable, and why they would need to know that. We ask for background checks on our volunteers at church for the safety of the children and I don't see how this would or could affect their ability to perform in their slots.

[mysticmomma]

I would inquire and refuse to answer.

[Harriet Vane]

It is a standard question recommended by companies that insure churches. I think it is inappropriate.

 

It treats victims in a separate category from others. Most perps were victims; most victims do not become perps. There are other ways of providing for the safety of children that don't invade the privacy of victims, such as policies about supervision, 2 volunteers at all times, etc.

 

Since you are not a victim, I would take the opportunity to speak up about the intrusiveness, violation of privacy for a sensitive area, and other ways to ensure kid safety.

 

:iagree: Well said.

[Mergath]

I've had background checks on multiple occasions because I used to work with autistic children, and I was never once asked that. I agree that you shouldn't tell them.

[G5052]

Yes, I've seen that before, although with the "you may refuse" phrase in there. If they required telling, I'd tell them that I changed my mind about volunteering. I don't like the implications of requiring that people tell of past issues while not probing about CURRENT behaviors with much broader implications. IMHO putting the focus on the past is the wrong focus.

[zoobie]

I would consider it an illegal invasion of privacy. You should not be required to disclose that you were the victim of any crime as a child or a sexual crime at any age. There's a federal law protecting children. Some states have law in place for adults. Not entirely sure as to the scope, and can't research while on my phone, but I vote HECK NO! to that being an appropriate question.

[Catwoman]

Lisa, I agree with you that the question is irrelevant and invasive, and I would find it very uncomfortable to see a question like that on a form I needed to fill out! I have never been a victim of abuse, but I don't think it is anyone's business either way.

[LucyStoner]

While I know and don't dispute that being a sexual abuse survivor increases the chances of becoming an abuser, I don't see how collecting this information does the organization any good in guarding against abuse. Unless they reject survivors out of hand (um, bye-bye a sizable chunk of all volunteers and hello nasty discrimination), there is no way to use that information responsibly to protect against abuse. Anyone who is looking to abuse kids via volunteering isn't going to say they have been abused. Many abusers don't see what happened to them as abuse because that makes it better in their mind. And any savvy abuser is going to be a very convincing liar when needed.