On Dec 16, 2007 8:31 AM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: Many small charity or volunteer organizations don't do detailed background checks. It's only very recently that schools started doing it with staff and teachers and volunteers around here. I know of charities which haven't done checks on anyone on staff. I know a number of companies that haven't checked anyone either, though some of the ones I worked for and worked at as a consultant do. There may have been an assumption that the contract or employment agency conducted a background check. In some cases, a contract or employment agency may do a check, and miss something. I've seen that happen, a criminal record later turn up outside the time scope of the check (11 years ago, with a 10 year check). I have seen Jimmy and Mike and Anthere step up and accept responsibility. Accepting "the blame" is more complicated and presumes that someone in the Foundation did something actively wrong, as opposed to a passive mistake. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On Dec 16, 2007 9:04 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have no idea, it's been done in Canada for around 20 years (teachers cannot be licensed without a background check). Anyone working with children, at least 8 years. Most liability insurers require that those with signing authority or otherwise handling money must be bondable, and that's been in place for at least 30 years...maybe not a legal requirement, but an insurance one. Risker

True, but conversely, many offenders do reoffend (I don't know how many, but it's definitely a significant number), so it still worth checking.

Matthew Brown wrote: The first step to getting the right answers is to ask the right questions. If a person is not asked about any criminality in his past, he should not feel obliged to volunteer that information. Some with criminal records will lie and say "No." That mostly comes from a perception that an honest answer results in unfair treatment. The lie may never surface, but it is nevertheless a compounding offence. It too needs to be judged in a context. The question then is what to do when we get a "Yes" answer. If the person was convicted in a trial only the judge and jury had any real say in the matter. Even with a highly publicized case none of the sensationalism stirred up by the journalists makes any difference. What purpose is served by a repeat performance of the public exposure? If you missed knitting in front of the guillotine the first time, too bad. Thomas' statement that a significant number of offenders do re-offend verges on the tautological. When you are faced with a real employment candidate you want to know if that person will re-offend, and a statistically determined likelihood is a very rough tool. If that person encounters enough rejections, that relatively higher proportion will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who are worried about an employee who has shot her boyfriend(s) should maybe avoid acting like male spiders. Ec

Absolutely. That's why I explicitly asked if Doran was asked that key question... I never received an answer.