Volunteer Screening?

[KathieK]

I just noticed that FIRST is requiring volunteer screening for Lego League teams Adult Coaches. Does anyone know if FIRST is going to implement the same screening at the FIRST Robotics level?

http://www.usfirst.org/jrobtcs/flg_screening.htm

[Nick Seidl]

As a college advisor for Team 461, I had to sign papers allowing the West Lafaytte School Corporation to run a police background check on me. I think this was part of a school policy rather than a FIRST policy, but it makes sense to me, in that it protects the kids. I know that the Boy Scouts requires similar checks, as I had to sign for one of those when I turned 18 and had to register as an Assistant Scoutmaster, rather than a Scout.

[KathieK]

http://my.usfirst.org/frc/tims/

FIRST is going to require screening of all adults for the robotics teams as well as the Lego Leagues.

[Elgin Clock]

It makes sense.

Wouldn't you like to know that the people who are in charge of your kids (at any age) have been approved by someone, if not yourself??

I would just be curious as to how this information is being used and what would happen if there was something on the BG check that was questionable.

[Bill Beatty]

This issue was brought up over drinks by folks who were "in the know" when we were in Manchester in July. It was presented as something to " protect the students." What a crock!

Some guidelines of a few simple policies put in place by the teams goes a long way to "that" protection. In my opinion, it is really being put in by FIRST to try and protect it's own butt! I am trying to figure out just who makes the call if a person is ineligible depending on the results of the background check?

Hey FIRST. Maybe after passing the check, a simple numbered tattoo on the arm of each participant proving they have passed, because that wouldn't cost very much............

A very disgusted MR. Bill

[MattK]

Originally posted by Bill Beatty
This issue was brought up over drinks by folks who were "in the know" when we were in Manchester in July. It was presented as something to " protect the students." What a crock!

Some guidelines of a few simple policies put in place by the teams goes a long way to "that" protection. In my opinion, it is really being put in by FIRST to try and protect it's own butt! I am trying to figure out just who makes the call if a person is ineligible depending on the results of the background check?

Hey FIRST. Maybe after passing the check, a simple numbered tattoo on the arm of each participant proving they have passed, because that wouldn't cost very much............

A very disgusted MR. Bill

Even if it is to cover FIRST's butt, it will still protect the students.

FIRST requires that everyone wear safety glasses to protect them, why not this?

I don't think this is FIRST acting as "Big Brother". They are keeping everything confidential and its not like what they have needs any kinda of security clearance... They are going to have nothing more than what presidential campaigns have- trust me I work on one. Its all public information

Originally posted by MattK
Even if it is to cover FIRST's butt, it will still protect the students.

FIRST requires that everyone wear safety glasses to protect them, why not this?

I don't think this is FIRST acting as "Big Brother". They are keeping everything confidential and its not like what they have needs any kinda of security clearance... They are going to have nothing more than what presidential campaigns have- trust me I work on one. Its all public information

Honestly, I agree with Mr. Bill. I don't believe FIRST should stick their nose into something like this. If a team suspects that a volunteer is questionable or if they feel that background checks are necessary, they should take care of the situation themselves and keep it on the "local level" so to speak. Anyway, many teams already have some kind of screening process/waiver that the volunteers have to fill out or follow anyway. Its just another expense and FIRST would be wasting their time when they could be working on other problems that need addressing. Oh and Mr. Bill, maybe the back of the neck would be better

[sanddrag]

I do agree with the new policy but I have some questions.

1) How do they know how many people and exactly who is an adult volunteer on your team?

2) What if your main contact has a problem according to the background check. Who will they notify, the main contact?

[Steve W]

Personally as a volunteer not associated with the school, I have no problem with it. I already approached one of the teachers to find out about school policy and how to get one done. I am doing it on my own and paying for it. It gives parents a good feeling knowing that the mentors whom their children are with to all hours of the night, have been checked.
How to ensure that all are done? I guess the same as most FIRST things, ask if rules are met and accept the answer from those that gave it.

[indieFan]

I normally do not put a disclaimer on my posts, but I will on this one. The views taken in this post are mine and mine alone. They do not represent the schools, students, or coaches I work with. I am also hesitant to post my views on this matter as they are not currently in keeping with the norm; however, I do believe that there are two sides to this topic that should be explored.

I hope this is not the case.

1. When I read the page that was linked to from this thread, it said that the team was to pay for the background checks. If this is the case, and the cost of the check is $10 each, that would cost one of the teams I work with $100 to get all of the mentors checked out.

2. How many professional engineers and machinists and others that donate their time to this program have the time to get the background check taken care of? How many of them will not have their "integrity" insulted by such a thing? How many of them will not return due to the background check?

3. The Dept. of Justice took 4 weeks to get my background check taken care of when I was a teacher several years ago. It was supposed to take 2-3 days. This meant that I was unable to go into the classroom until almost a month after school started. (Can you say "dead duck"? I knew you could.) In terms of FIRST, what happens to these mentors if there is a backlog in the system?

4. How many people really think that a background check will "protect the kids"? Perhaps it's just the pessimist in me, but I do not believe that it will. If I were to have the background check today, it would come back clean. Who is to say that my temper will not get the best of me one of these days due to all the stresses and cause me to lash out at one of the students physically? My background check would not have led anyone to suspect anything about me. The other coaches that I work with, on the other hand, see my temper on a regular basis and know how I generally deal with it. They are the ones that would sense any change that would necessitate some action to ensure the safety of the students.

I do believe that these background checks are performed more for sexual misconduct, but I also believe that most of the mentors within this program are smart enough to know how to "hide" their activities from the law. Therefore, the background check would show nothing on most people.

In my opinion, the best thing that can be done is to observe the students and their behavior. Not only will changes in the student's behavior, attitude, clothes, etc. signal something might have happened, but the students often spread news around like wildfire whether its intended to or not. How many teachers out there have heard something from the students long before you heard it from your administrators?

Yes, I understand the need for background checks on people who are performing service jobs, such as teachers. The difference between a teacher and the mentors is not the amount of time that is spent with the students, but rather the circumstances. The teacher is often the only adult working with a group of students (in an individual classroom), whereas the mentor is usually one of at least two adults working with the students at any given time.

Against background checks for the FIRST program,
indieFan

[Manoel]

I would *really* like to know how this is going to apply to a foreign , private school.
In any case, I feel this is really disrespectful to the mentors that dedicate serious time of their life to FIRST teams.

[Amanda Morrison]

I've got to stick with Mr. Bill on this one.

As far as my experiences with teams go, most are comprised of people who have known each other or worked together for quite some times.

This is, in my opinion, not necessary at this time.

[Gadget470]

If it is mainly to protect students from people with "sexual misconduct" on their record, I know some states (Michigan does) have a Registered Sex Offender list availible free on the web. All you need to know is their Zip Code and you can look them up. (Assuming they aren't using a fake name with you).

[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.

[Madison]

This again raises a question I posed quite a long time ago to these forum, but with a slightly different twist.

To what degree is FIRST (the organization based in Manchester, NH) legally liable when something bad happens to a participating team or team member? Is FIRST responsible for every person on every team in the country?

If I were to injure myself while at a FIRST sponsored event, like at a regional, it makes sense that they might be held responsible for my injuries. If I were to experience that same injury while working in the shop on my FIRST robot, is FIRST still responsible? I'm still very unclear as to where the line in the sand here is. So much so, in fact, that I wouldn't consider volunteering for any sort of background check until FIRST takes steps to show what is their domain and what is the domain of the teams. I'm sure that they retain a lawfirm or lawyer who has advised them on the practicality and applicability of these background checks to given situations. I'd also like to know what those assessments were.

I see that this is a legal strategy designed to protect a very tender target and that it was inevitable. I don't see how it's really effective in preventing anything, however, and am insulted by this cursory measure.

It also means that, personally, I can't ever be a team contact again -- not because I've ever done anything wrong, but because the only person endangered by my past is me. I realize I'm probably the sole exception, but understand that measures like this also have the potential to work in the opposite ways.