Acronym

I'm not sure what to do with this "participatory panopticon" trend ---knowing who the 'bad guys' are all around us. On the one hand, I'm a believer that once a person has served his or her sentence, society has a collective obligation to reintegrate them back into the community. And it strikes me that there are certain volunteer roles (youth crime intervention, for example) that would benefit from the contributions of rehabilitated offenders - who better to talk to at-risk teens than someone who made the wrong choice and now knows better?

On the other hand, the last thing any association needs is tawdry revelations about a member's past. Yet how many small associations could possibly afford to screen everyone? And in a lefty-libertarian state like mine, who would volunteer if they felt they had to throw open their entire past to scrutiny? As a matter of principle, though I've done nothing wrong, I don't like the mistrust such exchanges imply.

I think I share some of Betsy's concerns. When I read this today I was a little troubled by the somewhat-breathless quote "more than 189,000 individuals with at least one criminal conviction had tried to volunteer or work for a nonprofit organization." I can't help but think it matters WHAT they were convicted of, not THAT they were convicted.

Obviously people with certain pasts should not be allowed near children. But I wonder if non-profit service organizations that can barely afford to do the screening in the first place are then going to make judgment calls about what criminal backgrounds (now duly-punished) render someone inappropriate to volunteer (with all the liability problems they shoulder by simply making that judgment).

I don't have an answer. I'm just someone with a clean record and a strong belief that America, despite what F. Scott Fitzgerald said, is a land where second acts are not just possible but promised. I worry about the trend in society to begin using our many databases to pigeonhole people into past behaviors that may have well been left far behind (and in some cases, as Betsy suggests, left them as better role models for it).

While screening may be appropriate for people working with vulnerable populations - e.g. children, elderly, disabled - it is not necessary for most volunteer tasks.

There is no reason to do a criminal check on someone handing out flyers at a trade show, greeting visitors at a meeting, or setting up tables at a festival. Besides, association volunteers are usually drawn from the membership, not the general public.

Most associations don't follow these four rules for hiring employees. Applying them to volunteer recruitment will just drive away scads of helpful volunteers.

As a risk management consultant I have mixed emotions about NCVC's survey and the audit. First the survey was funded by ChoicePoint one of the leading providers of criminal background checks. The audit was of ChoicePoint's screening of 3.7 million people. I am sure the findings are accurate but they are designed to move you to action (not necessarily a bad thing) - to start getting criminal histories.

Since it is a survey and audit, the authors don't address the "how to" of screening volunteers and employees. Volunteer and employee screening techniques are based upon a continuum - the more access the volunteer/employee has to a vulnerable population the more strict the screening. So I agree that members greeting attendees, setting up tables and staffing registration and information tables are not very risky. However if people are working in the day care center or taking kids on field trips then it is a different story with different screening needs.

NCVC surveyed human services organizations so I assume that these organizations are working with vulnerable populations - children, elderly, abused women, homeless, people with disabilities, etc. I am not too worried about the criminal history of associations'/components' board members and leaders unless they are interacting with vulnerable populations.

The first step in establishing a volunteer management program is to identify the various volunteer positions and what the risks are. If the risks are low all you need to do is get the volunteers' names, addresses and emergency contact information. You want the names and addressses to thank them and recruit them to help you again. Also if anything bad happens you know who was there in case you need to notify them. The emergency contact is useful if the person gets hurt (falls down the steps) you will know who to call.

If you decide to conduct a criminal background check (usually because they have access to a vulnerable population or required by law), you need to decide which convictions will prohibit them from participating. If you are running a mentoring program staffed with convicted felons then your screening criteria is different from another mentoring organization. In addition to which convictions would exclude someone also consider when the convict occurred - someone in their 30's with a drunk and disorderly while in college may not be a big risk today. Whatever criteria you establish give yourself "wiggle room" to accept or deny participation by someone. There are few absolutes in this world.

Another word of caution is that no criminal database is complete. The FBI database which is the most comprehensive database using fingerprints still only has approximately 25% of all criminal convictions. The FBI database is dependent upon thousands of local police/sheriff departments submitting information electronically to the FBI. This has been a monumental task costing millions if not billions of dollars at a time when local municipalities have extreme financial pressures on all aspects of their operations - police, public safety (homeland security), education, water, pollution etc. So it it more likely that you will get a "false negative" reprot when you receive a criminal background history - the record is "clean" when in fact the person has been convicted of a crime.

Does this mean you don't do criminal checks? No, the public (potential jurors)has established the standard of care for organizations serving vulnerable populations to include criminal background checks on volunteers and employees working with vulnerable clientele. What is equally, if not more, important is to properly supervise your volunteers and establish program guidelines that minimize the opportunity for the volunteer to cause or get into trouble. Due to the high percentage of false negatives, you have to use supervision to prevent the person from having the opportunity to harm the clients.

In summary, review how your association or organization uses volunteers and decide if you need to conduct criminal background checks for any of the volunteer positions. This is much more of an issue for charitable (c3) organizations than most professional or trade associations. If you have a corporate volunteer program there are different issues to consider - that is a topic for another time.