Recent stories in the news regarding museum volunteers being involved in potential criminal activity with minors got me thinking:

Does your organization screen potential volunteers? Are they given a criminal background check? What about checking against the sex offender registry?

Does your organization have policies and procedures in place to deal with museum volunteers who may supervise youth, or deal with youth?

Does your organization have procedures in place with regard to the reporting of unlawful behavior by volunteers?

Well, my group does not do any such screening, So, Mr Wilkin, no worries, come on over, you can join us!

It's Mr. Wilkins, and no, I really do not think my original post had any tone of humor in it.

http://www.aamv.org/resources/standards-and-best-practices/

Taking these steps to protect our visitors, without which we would cease to exist, should be a high priority.
Taking steps to do so not only protects each museum and their reputation, but it also provides protection for the volunteers.
Would a paid staff that had regular interaction with children receive background checks? If so would the best practice be for volunteers in the same capacity to receive them as well.

Steve

No, it didn't, but you really opened yourself for that response. I'm still snickering at that...

Because potentially having pedophiles in your museum ranks is funny....

This, my friends, is an example of why we can't have nice things.

Yep. By the way, why can't we find funders for project "XYZ"?

It seems that more often then not the question is why can you find funders for project "XYZ"?.

The better our practices are as a group the easier it is to find funding and support. Furthermore it is what the public and volunteers deserve.

That being said, to address David's original questions:

-Yes, they do screen volunteers and they are given a background check that includes the sex offender registry.

-The policies include a directive for all members who will be working with children to take a course with a classroom training portion and complete regular online updates. It also places certain restrictions on how adults work with children (always in a group), including email, etc.

-Yes. Many of us are mandated reporters which means we legally must report anything we see. Others become mandated reporters as well, although they are not legally required to do so.

Steve

Maybe a sense of humor here would be a good thing. I review lots of documents as part of my job. I have been trained to look for what should be there, but is not.

All I attempted to do was point out, with humor, that the OP did not actually state the purpose of the post; it just asked a series of questions. (I think it has since been edited, according to the time-stamps) It did not say "Please let's discuss what background checks are commonly used", or say someting like "'I worry about some volunteers at my local museum" or "My museum does this, but can we do this too?" or any such reason to post the list of questions.

Thus the readers are asked to find the implied question, when it better suits all to just state the purpose. So, the un-asked question that I decided to answer was: "Can I join?"

The humor may be in part to hide the underlying reality-that many preservation groups aren't organized enough to really get their primary mission taken care of reliably, now you want criminal background checks?

I have seen and worked with groups with just about every extreme, from "no checks of any kind" to "full background check on anyone that a child can even SEE". The latter tends to be with larger groups with some form of government oversight, i.e. city, county, or state government administration that routinely has background-check companies on retainer anyway.

As a cautionary tale, I will offer the story of someone who left a somewhat large estate to one museum with which I have worked. The guy was well-known and well-liked among his circles, but he died without any family we ever knew of. It wasn't until museum staff were in the house with an executor to collect the collections bequeathed that a dark secret emerged. What info surfaced was only leaked on a "need to know" basis, and even I, one of the "movers," was kept in the dark, but as best as I can figure they involved overseas travel for things not considered legal here with those under a certain age....... as I was to understand it, the "executor" was chosen to destroy "incriminating evidence."

The specifics are irrelevant. What's worth understanding about this case is that no one suspected, because no one had any reason to suspect, nor was it really their job to be suspicious. As far as I know, any such impropriety had nothing whatsoever to do with his relationship with the organizations to which he bequeathed stuff. He, as far as I know, never dealt with the public in that capacity. Nor did he portray Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or "Fondles the Clown" for the museum/tourist rides. He, like a great many of us in this field, kept his professional work, his hobbies, and whatever "extracurricular" activity neatly compartmentalized. Do you really know which of your fellow volunteers is a terrific jazz guitarist, a former seminary student, a drag queen, a wine collector, and/or a problem gambler?

I am told that organizations like HIT (Day out with Thomas) take this kind of stuff serious for their events. The organization that I'm with has utilized a State run list of sex offenders to check the names, etc. of our potential volunteers for DOWT. I am told that we did turn down one of our members from working a DOWT event several years ago.

Even before that, I recall visiting an aquarium with a museum professional group. We were told that they check out their volunteers that help with children and school visits. This to avoid the potential of an adverse situation with a pedophilia.

Things to think about.

It is important to tread carefully here. You cannot paint with a broad brush when a person's civil rights are involved. It is illegal to use a background check to discriminate against or otherwise mistreat a sex offender. The use of background checks for hiring or firing is very much a murky area of potential law suits.

In my profession, I worked with a trusted person for many years who unfortunately had an unsavory side that led to Megan's Law registration and other things associated with the Adam Walsh act. This occurred after he had been with the company 15 years. His duties did not involve interaction with children and due to his importance to our organization; the decision was made to retain him. Before jumping to conclusions, let me tell you that I learned a lot about the process as his immediate supervisor. Despite my early misgivings as a father and former school teacher (I contemplated quitting in protest), I eventually became comfortable with his continued participation in our company. My co worker attended multiple mens support groups and was under the care of a qualified sex offender therapist. He took ownership of his previous mistakes and an active role in his rehabilitation. We developed a safety plan in concert with his therapist that protected both my co worker and our company. In the four years since his issues and the decision to retain him was made, no further incidents have occurred and all of us who work with him feel that he is a trustworthy and valuable member of our team.

If a person like that is, let us say, the best stencil man in the hobby or a wealth of knowledge on proper COTS; would it not be in a preservation organization's best interests to work with their therapist to devise a safety plan that allows for them to make a contribution? Perhaps participation in the hobby may provide society with the added benefit of rehabilitation for such a person? I know that my points here are not popular and as recently as five years ago I would have likely punched myself in the face for making such a case. However, with a little more insight and education, I have found that this is far from a black and white issue.

Most museums are private organizations, and thus can set their own membership/volunteer criteria. In other words, you do not have a right to be a member or volunteer. Further, such a restriction on not allowing registered sex offenders to volunteer would probably survive a rational basis test. If Union Pacific can refuse to hire smokers, you are on pretty solid footing to not allow that person to volunteer/interact with the public.



That is a risk management question any organization's board of directors and/or other governing body will have to develop. Do you carry enough liability insurance? I do know that sex offenders, compared to other criminals, have very high rates of recidivism. In other words, is it worth it?

Let me put in other terms, would you let someone who pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter and reckless homicide have operating privileges at your organization?

I think we have our best answer here for the "humor" on this serious subject.

I guess a deeper issue here is the belief in rehabilitation vs. lifelong social degenerate. Can a person rise above previous transgression and be a trustworthy person moving forward? When and what was the infraction is the likely next question after they failed the background check.

I find it interesting that not too terribly long ago some museums and preservation societies put in a great deal of effort to track down the last remaining depression era hobos. They were invited speakers and were asked to set up mini reconstructed versions of their camps. I wonder how background checks would have impacted those interpretive activities?