Any comments?

How effective are they at what?

They are probably pretty good at determine who has a criminal record.  I've never come across anything to suggest they are inaccurate.

They probably aren't as good at predicting what someone will do in the future, especially someone who has a history of criminal behavour but doesn't have a record.

As long as you keep this in mind, police checks are a good way of screening out potential risks. But they do, as chemgal says, only screen known risks (ie. ones that have actually had run-ins with the law already). They can't catch the ones who have been either getting away with something or are first-timers. Assuming that a simple police check gives you absolute security is an invitation for trouble.

Mendalla

There are also different types of Police checks.  In Ontario - you get your police check done by whoever looks after it in your area.  For instance, a police check done by city police is not the same as one being done by the Ontario Provincal Police - this is what the OPP have told me.

If you need to get one - I needed one because I work with youth - it can take up to 6 months - the older you are the more chances of it taking longer - I had to get mine down via the OPP - if am 55 - if anyone has been charged/conviced on born on my birth date it sends up a red flag - even though its not me - I had to go back in and get all my fingerprints done...then, 4 months later the police check arrived.   I will have to do it for next year as we have to get it done yearly for camp - will see how long it takes.

Free for volunteers through OPP.

Crazyheart, I think you paraphrased me pretty accurately.  Criminal record checks can never be used as predictors - they can only let you know what someone has been caught doing.

Hi crazyheart,

Police checks are a search to determine if individuals have ever been convicted of a criminal offence.  If there are no convictions nothing shows.  Not how many times charges have been laid or how many warnings have been given.

They are very effective at showing congregations have done due diligence to ensure that there are no predators working for the church in paid or volunteer positions.  Which means that our insurers will pay any damages assigned to us.

Without them our insurers would become our former insurers and we'd be out of pocket for all expenses in any suit brought against us.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The RCMP one I got done for work is a special one-I work with school kids-It means the RCMP will notify school board of any charges arising after the record check too.

Mandella puts it perfectly: assuming a clear police check means there are no risks is not accurate. In all cases, prudent checks and balances as far as oversight for volunteers and lay or ministry personnel should always (as much as possible) be in place.

Police checks are required for working with vulnerable persons, like children, the elderly and special needs folk; often the groups served by members of a church.

JUst a question: If the church or group finds that a person has the police records check done - and something of a criminal nature shows up, more than a speeding ticket?  Are they still allowed to bring that person into a leadership role of any kind? Or is the records check just advice that a group may or may not take?  I  have heard anecdotal stories of a UCC congregation who has a conviced peadofile volunteering in various roles in the congregation.  His situation would be well known.  Is this allowable or is it just bad choices on the part of the congregational leadership?

If he's a convicted pedophile, that role cannot involve children or youth. OTOH, should it keep him from being, say, treasurer or chair of a committee other than RE? Should a conviction for embezzlement keep him from doing roles that don't involve handling funds? It's a dicey game to figure out where that line lies.

Insurance would likely have something to say about it in the end. If there's any risk that could result in a claim or lawsuit, they will err on the side of caution.

Mendalla

We know of innocent people who are released from prison after years served. We know there are those who have never been convicted, charged or even suspected...and when they are caught folks will say, "I never would have guessed". People who are convicted are not all guilty and those who are found not guilty are not all innocent. The check seems to satisfy people and the insurance company... and the abides by the rules. IMO they are barely worth the paper they are printed on. Monday at 4:30 the search came back fine... they did what at 4:45? They did what on Thursday?

SG, that's what I was trying to say without as much finesse as you. Thank you.

I'm curious to hear more answers to this as it is a place my congregation may find itself in at some point in the near future.

Hi Matt81,

The Police background check is an insurance necessity.  It is not a Church solution to a Church problem.  It is an insurers solution to a litigation problem.

It is the proof that the insurer needs to see that congregations have done due diligence.  That way when Churches are named as defendants in suits where personnel issues exist the insurer, trusting that due diligence was exercised will fight the charges with their legal professionals and should they lose, they will pay the damages.

If congregations refuse to engage in this exercise of due diligence then our insurers will claim that we are acting in bad faith and refuse coverage.  Insurance also requires that we contest any claim made against the Church aggressively.  As was displayed during the Blackwater v The United Church of Canada case in the late 90's.

So the question stands, is the information advice we may disregard or not?

Yes and no.

If a police records check revealed that an individual had been charged with sexual interference against a minor it would be difficult for the Church to allow that individual to hold a leadership position in any youth ministry.  It would also be potential folly to allow the individual to participate in such types of ministry.

Which is not me saying that individuals cannot be reformed.  It is me saying that the Church does nobody any favours by putting individuals with known weaknesses into areas where those weaknesses can be exploited.

We would not put someone convicted of fraud in charge of money.

We would not put someone with rage issues in charge of hospitality.

Unless we also implemented safeguards which a) kept the worshipping public safe from them and b) kept them safe from the worshipping public.

Having served a congregation which caught one of its financial officers with their hands in the till I know what a difficult road it is to walk to restore relationships.  Ultimately we were able to affect a reconciliation and the board included in the congregational minutes that this individual was never to hold a similar office within the Church in the future.

This individual has been restored to the choir and the men's group.  Is much more contrite and quite grateful for the grace that particular congregation gave to him.

It has been eight years since that restoration and I have not heard, and I do inquire, of any new problems with this individual.

As a chair of Pastoral Oversight for Erie Presbytery there have been two instances in the last three years where Treasurers have absconded Church funds.  In one instance there was collusion with the assistant treasurer and while all funds were recovered there was no remorse shown and more than a little hostility was directed at Presbytery (me) and the clergy on the Pastoral Charge for not keeping the crime quiet.  In the second instance it looks like recovery of the money will not happen easily if it ever happens at all and there is no remorse for that crime either.

So I know of three individuals who I wouldn't allow anywhere near congregational money in the future.

Their lack of remorse effectively separates them from the faith community they serve.

Congregations who take seriously the teachings of Christ to be merciful and forgiving will wrestle with what to do with members convicted with this or that crime.  Even when the remember we are forgiven in the same measure we forgive others.

Grace and peace to you.

John

So John, if I understand you right, if a police check shows that a person has been convicted of shop-lifting at Walmart the church could still have them teach Sunday School, or the police check shows that someone is on the sex-crimes registery for sexual assault twenty years ago could still be church treasurer or sing in the choir or read scripture.    What effect would that have on their insurance?   If the church takes reasonable percautions to keep the x-sex offender away from children and youth, or the shoplifter away from the finances, can the church get insurance in good faith?

Hi seeler,

Yes.

Due diligence means that the Church is not simply setting the fox among the chickens so to speak.  That there is an awareness of some presenting issues and steps taken to mitigate repeat offences and reduce threats to the wider community.

Depends on the action taken with the information given.  If, the congregation knowing that individual X had a long history of fraud and decided to make them Treasurer anyway because everyone deserves a second chance the insurer might simply laugh at them and refuse any kind of coverage when the Treasurer goes missing with as much cash as their hands can carry.

If you allow the fraudster to teach Sunday school you might want to think about how the Sunday School offering is collected and ensure that individual X is not involved in that collection process anywhere.  That way, should there be an accounting glitch (as commonly happens) folk don't immediately leap to the conclusion that individual X has been stealing from them.

Having individual Z (who has a conviction for sexual assault) read scripture is going to be hit or miss but it isn't going to be an insurance issue.  It will be hit and miss because even though we talk a good game about forgiveness in the Church it is still an individual action and all it takes is for one other individual to complain for the fireworks around forgiveness to begin.

Couple that with the fact that the guilty among us also talk a good game about repentance without actually turning away from whatever temptations may present themselves.

I can imagine that it would be very difficult for individual H who has been a victim of sexual assault to sit and listen to individual Z read scriptures about forgiveness or judgment (ie. judge not lest ye be judged).

That is a pastoral issue and not an insurance issue though.

Yes, they can.  They might face higher premiums simply because there is, in some instances, higher risk to reoffend and yet if the Church is smart and closes those particular avenues to temptation it has shown good faith and insurers will likely honour their coverage.

Grace and peace to you.

John