|
It used to be we could drop our kids off at school or soccer practice without a
second thought. Unfortunately, several recent incidents involving the violation
of innocent children by public employees, state-licensed care workers and
volunteers with criminal backgrounds make us, as parents, rethink about whom we
entrust with the care of our children. Also, as was brought out in Emelyn Cruz
Lat's article, "look who got hired to care for the elderly and inform (Seattle
Times, Nov. 10) we may want to do so about the care received by our older
family members.
Certainly, it would be nice if we could personally screen everyone with whom our
child or elderly family member comes in contact outside the home. But isn't
that the job of the institutions and agencies? So it should seem. Often,
however, the laws governing background checks of employees and volunteers who
have unsupervised access to children and vulnerable adults are hazy and need
revisions. In fact, some laws even prohibit agencies from learning about the
background of these people.
For the past six months, the Senate subcommittee on Background Checks, which I
chair, has been working with representatives of concerned parent groups,
non-profit agencies, the medical profession, state agencies, educators and
employees groups to reform the laws governing background checks. We also have
visited the Washington State Patrol and the Division of Adult and Aging
Services to learn amore about how background checks are processed.
What we've found so far is that our laws are confusing and inconsistent. They
rest on the sometimes conflicting premises that the state must both protect our
vulnerable populations and, at the same time prevent widespread dissemination
of very sensitive and potentially damaging information that may invade a
person's privacy or be outdated.
Sadly, we have seen repeated instances in just the past few years where a
person's criminal history was not available to help decision-makers determine
the appropriateness of an individual's having unsupervised access to vulnerable
groups, such as children.
Take the now well-publicized case of Harold Pitcock, a former state social
worker who was recently sentenced to 17 years in prison for sexually abusing
boys-- some of whom were youngsters in foster homes whose care he was supposed
to oversee. While some might argue that justice has now prevailed,
the boys who trusted him were still exploited and abused. And while Pitcock's
background in our state had been checked, the check did not extend beyond
Washington's borders because our state statues are inadequate. It's clear,
however, that national background checks for social service public employees
who interact with children and other vulnerable populations could help prevent
tragedies like the Pitcock case.
(Excerpt from Seattle Times 11/96)
By Jeanne Kohl, Washington State Senator
|
