CULTURAL RESPONSE In the past 10 years , headlines critical of the Church and other childserving organizations have been inescapable . The American public has become angry and intolerant about this issue — as it should be . Litigation is skyrocketing , and the cost to resolve sexual abuse claims continues to climb ; currently : $ 2.5 million per victim if settled , $ 10.3 million per victim if damages are determined by a jury . Out of necessity , insurance carriers are responding by requiring specific child protection protocols for reinsurance . Initially slow to respond , churches , camps , Christian schools and youth sport organizations now understand the need for an effective safety system to prevent child sexual abuse . A fundamental element of any safety system is the background check of any applicant for paid or volunteer positions . When a ministry considers someone applying to work with children or vulnerable populations , it is critically important to determine whether the applicant has a past history suggesting that he or she has engaged in sexual abuse or violent crime .
BACKGROUND CHECK LIMITATIONS Background checks provide a first line of defense for child-serving ministries ; the proverbial ‘ low-hanging fruit ’. While it ’ s no ‘ silver bullet ’ or stand-alone safety system , the background check has become a standard of care for ministries and secular organizations offering services to children . Clearly , the background check has limitations where child sexual abuse risk is concerned , because two out of three children don ’ t report abuse until they reach adulthood , if ever . As a result , 90 % of sexual abusers have never encountered the criminal justice system and have no past criminal record to unearth . As awareness of the risk grows , however , and ministry leaders and parents better understand the abuser ’ s grooming process and legal reporting requirements mandated by law , abusers will encounter a higher likelihood of prosecution . When a ministry applicant has a criminal record ( arrest or conviction ) related to violent crime or injury to a member of a vulnerable population ( children , adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities , adults or children with special needs that limit or negate competency ), the ministry should have access to all such information for staffing purposes , whether the applicant is applying to serve as an employee or volunteer . Unfortunately , this is not currently the case .
FEDERAL AND STATE LAW Federal legislation governing reportability of criminal histories is the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The FCRA is designed to balance an employer ’ s need for adverse criminal information with the need for previously convicted individuals to find employment and housing . Under the current FCRA framework , background check providers are allowed to report ( 1 ) convictions indefinitely and ( 2 ) nonconvictions within seven years only . As a result , arrests not leading to conviction cannot be reported after seven years . Clearly , this opens up opportunities for employment , especially when most employers assume a “ no records found ” background check means that no records exist . At the same time , withholding this information creates enormous risk when the employment position involves access to children . In fact , this practice disables the first line of defense in child safety : preemployment screening . Many states further restrict background information that may be reported . California , for example , limits reportable information to convictions only — and within seven years . Effectively , this means a convicted molester with an older conviction could apply to work or serve in child-serving contexts , and the ministry would never know of the conviction , unless told of it by the applicant himself . Washington , New York , and several other states operate under the same framework . churchexecutive . com STOP CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE • CHURCH EXECUTIVE 75