[ChrisH]

Bill is right in one way. FIRST is protecting their backside. Having said that, I should further comment that in today's legal climate it is nearly essential that they do something along these lines. Any general who did not "protect the rear" of his army in battle would be court-martialed, assuming he survived.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in California, if a problem is reasonably forseeable, and you do nothing to mitigate the problem, then you may be held liable if the problem occurs. On the other hand, if you did take "reasonable" mitigation measures and the problem occurs anyway, then you are NOT liable. The question before the jury would basically be "Did the defendant make a reasonable effort to prevent this from occuring?".

I think this is the least intrusive and least expensive way to meet this requirement. Anytime you have adults working with minors, you have the potential for a problem. Picking out and removing obvious, known bad actors is one way to mitigate this hazard. The cost is minimal. Will it prevent the determined individual from becoming a problem? No. Will it detect the individual who has been clever enough to stay out of the hands of authority? No. Is it better than a plan to eliminate the possibilities by ensuring that no adult is ever alone with a student at any time? No. But it will probably count in a court's eyes as a "reasonable effort" and NOT doing at least this much would probably count as "negligence". The later can lead to huge verdicts which would basically bankrupt the organization.

I don't see that there is really an alternative and as the organization grows ever larger, it will be more and more essential to do something of the kind.

Welcome to the 21st century.