Once in awhile I come across and excellent article from abroad. Such is the case in one posting that ran in The Telegraph. The article was written by Julie Spence, a three parter, really, where she discusses the pitfalls of background checks as they are bogged down in bureaucracy. Spence certainly knows of what she speaks, being the former Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire.
As most who read this blog will know, I report fairly regularly on the failure of state and regional government agencies to administer adequate background checks and to review them carefully. As for both employment screening purposes and in the case of public service agencies and school boards, background checks are used for vetting volunteers. Often the screening process has its lapses and job applicants or volunteers are hired and then only after some terrible headline grabbing incident, be it child molestation, an act of violence, or employee theft, it is discovered that the person had a criminal record, a history of mental disorders, was on the sex offender registry, or some other form of bad behavior that should have been noted on the background check.
With the economic slowdown and with state and local governments suffering budgetary constraints, some of are slow to conduct background checks or to administer them thoroughly. although, lately, I have read about more school boards and governmental services actuating some form of employment screening process. A good sign. One vital government mandate, after all, is to protect the public from harm.
Julie Spence had conducted a most comprehensive investigation into the world of background checks and the accompany bureaucratic obstructions. This is but a small section of her article. She refers here to the 2002 murder of two little girls at the hands of one Ian Huntley. This is what she writes…
“When I started working as the Chief Constable for Cambridgeshire, the county was still reeling from the shock of Soham. More rigorous checks on Huntley may have prevented him from taking up his job as the caretaker of the Soham Community College as they would have revealed unproven allegations of burglary and sexual offences. Yet Huntley did not work at Holly and Jessica’s school; his link to them was via his girlfriend, Maxine Carr, who was a teaching assistant at St Andrew’s Primary in Soham.
The purpose of criminal record checks is to protect children and vulnerable adults from abuse. The standard checks look at the Police National Computer convictions database, while the enhanced checks, for those with greater contact and responsibility, look at convictions and information held on police intelligence systems. Before releasing the information to employers, the police have to consider whether the information is more likely than not to be true, and whether or not it ought to be disclosed.”
I would advise readers to log onto the website and read the entire three part article. It is most informative and fascinating for anyone who utilizes background checks.
