CHURCH BOARD GUIDE TO A CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION POLICY
disabled, senior citizens, or who serve in a counseling position. The phrase “unsupervised access to children” appears in both state and federal legislation to identify individuals requiring a higher level of screening and accountability. Unfortunately, the phrase is vague and its exact application to specific situations within a church is not always clear. The committee report that accompanied the federal National Child Protection Act contains the following comment that provides some clarification:
[not] all occupations and volunteer positions . . . merit the time and expense of criminal history records checks. There are other means available to protect children from abuse, including the checking of prior employment history and character references and proper training and supervision of employees and vol- unteers. The committee expects that the states, in deciding which types or cat- egories of positions require criminal history background checks, will consider the degree to which a particular position or child care activity offers oppor- tunities to those who would abuse children. The committee expects that the states will find, for example, that positions involving long-term or ongoing contact with children in one-on-one situations merit criminal records checks and that positions that involve infrequent direct contact or contact only in group settings do not merit such checks. The bill as amended leaves that deci- sion to the respective states.
Unfortunately, very few states have provided clarification or dis-
tinctions that churches can use in assessing which volunteer workers should have criminal records checks. If the above commentary is fol- lowed, then the number of adults present at an activity becomes one variable affecting the decision. The implication appears to be that when multiple adults are present, the need for a criminal records check declines. On the other hand, extended one-on-one contact merits the check. Group settings are presented as representing a lower risk. Infre- quent, indirect contact is a lower risk than frequent, direct contact. Churches that conduct criminal records checks on volunteers who
work with children, youth, the developmentally disabled, senior citi- zens, or who serve in a counseling position will be in a better position to defend against an allegation of negligent selection than those who do not conduct such checks. Not doing a criminal records check, however, does not mean that a church is negligent. It does increase the need for diligence in the use of a written application, reference checks, inter- views, and providing supervision.
24
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74
