This gets to me in a really big way so I did some checking myself and of course sunday is a great day to find a human being at a church huh?
I know we like to believe that churches do background checks on everyone that is involved with our precious babies, cuz after all they are churches.
Heck, even my kids school only does a background check on teachers and only in this state. S/he might have a nasty history in another state and it won't show up. Yeah, yeah, they're working on 'doing something about that' uh huh. Only recently have they tried to get the budget money for doing the checks on volunteers and para pros like subs and even janitors. And again only in Michigan.
I called three churches this afternoon and asked about the reality, or lack thereof, of checking backgrounds on busdrivers who DO have access to our kids. Not one of them do them; not one of the three. Now, there are 9 more churches in my little town and I didn't call them all.
The responses were as follows:
"Dear, you grew up here, you know this town is safe, don't be silly". This was followed by further lecture that I listened to for a little while because the preacher has known me since I was but a glimmer in my mama's eye. He chastised me for being someone that worries too much and doesn't believe in God's ability to protect me and my children and suggested that I come to his church to get better instruction.
"Shellon, why would we spend money we don't have, you understand our little congregation is very limited fiscally"
"Background checks? For people that do the lords work, especially with little children? That's not necessary now is it?"
I also heard one mumbling of "Hmmmm we probably should do that" ummm uh huh.
We live in a very jaded society and yes indeed, I live here because the risk to my child is maybe (maybe!) less than perhaps a large city. But it's no secret that pedophiles only need children, any children, anywhere.
Aw, c'mon! It's Sunday morning. These kids weren't being invited to a free breakfast. They weren't just going to be loved and appreciated and sent home. The point in picking them up was to make Christians out of them. Loving and food added.
In Morgan's scenario, I could just see some 10-year-old deciding he'd like a free donut, going in the house and forging a "permission slip."
My area has a large influx of Somalis, who are mostly Muslim. There is a self-appointed MOG here who waits with a sound system just outside the border of the public school property, playing hymns and contemporary Christian music and inviting kids inside for the "Jesus Party" coffee house. He doesn't do this in the white, middle-class neighborhood; he does it in the black, poor, Muslim neighborhood. To the children walking home. Without their parents' permission.
but if someone in a bus, car or whatever tried to pick up my kids without ,speaking to me first
i would shoot first and ask questions later
come on people these are your kids!
remember sinceraty is no garentee of truth
or whatever cornfield vic used to say
The jaded wasn't insultive to you, it was a statement suggesting that we allow to much in the name of 'it's church, lighten up'. I'm in agreement with you.
I'm not exactly sure - but even IF the busdriver had gotten the permission slip signed - it stinks form a legal standpoint. I for one would ask to see a name tag and have th phone number of the Church to get an "OK" before I even signed the thing - because otherwise it would be a possible scenario that a sex offender would have a permission slip with him!
Now I do understand that the scenario didnt' get that far - and since my hubby did some work with prosecuting sex offenders a while back - we are naturally leary. (No pun intended)
The church can find a way to make parents feel safer AND get these kids in to church - without spending lots of extra money.
But doesn't it make any difference to anyone here that that isn't what happened? Morgan's children weren't approached by a pedophile. They weren't promised donuts for getting onto a bus. No one threw a paper bag over their heads, and stuffed them into the trunk. The kids weren't badgered, harassed, threatened, or enticed. They were invited to church. They declined. The bus driver drove away. Had they accepted, the bus driver would have gotten permission from the parent. And Morgan likely would have climbed into the van with them, and she would have been welcome to. Is there any reason to think this man was trying to separate the children from their parents? Most likely, they were ALL invited to church.
I thought Morgan talked to the driver to know what church he was from, but since she didn't, evidently it was clearly marked somewhere, because she was able to phone the church and find out what was happening. No one hid anything. There were no false pretenses, no lofty promises, no intimidation.
I just don't get what the fuss is about.
I'd like to repeat something Krysilis said, because I think it's an excellent point:
Being careful and using wisdom is a beautiful thing, but if you are too cautious you can back yourself into a corner where you cut yourself off from some experiences that could be enlightening, if not rich and joyful. I don't want to live backed into a corner.
The church can find a way to make parents feel safer AND get these kids in to church - without spending lots of extra money.
Indeed, and one would hope they could do it without cruising the streets looking for a "date".
I know this is standard procedure in the religion business, the local gospel mission offering free meals in exchange for attempted indoctrination and such like, but, like Shazdancer, I find the practice sleazy at best.
The schools get away with this stuff??????? Do they receive government (fed) monies? I'd seriously look into this on a funding level if not a legal level...because there is money in the funding to pay for background checks...unless size or some other loophole lets them off the hook. I'm just shocked.
Churches and cost doesn't fly with me...'cause churches can obtain funding as well...no strings attached funding...from sources other than the government...and all it takes is someone computer literate to do a web search for the sources...and a willingness on the church's part to actually be concerned enough to protect themselves legally...if not concerned enough to protect the children.
Reactive logic v proactive logic...
As long as nothing happened, then nothing should be expected to happen...
Doing a background check on someone would cost less than $20 for sufficient information on anyone who is going to work with children. It is free to check the national and state sex offender's registry via internet - just that alone can help a lot! You can search by name, by zip code, by radius from a zip code, etc. If the churches checked with their insurance providers, they may find some of the cost can be deferred. Also, if the churches have a non-profit status they could write off the costs easily and perhaps even have some costs waived.
Don't be naive about how pedophiles can work themselves into communities and establish contact in children - in any way they can. Driving a bus for a church, working with a youth program, etc. - seemingly simple, wholesome things in the community - where they earn the trust of the children AND the parents - are some of the most dangerous. If you doubt my words, check out the Roman Catholic Church's fiasco over the past 5 years that has been brought to light by the media. Don't kid yourself.
The hospital that I work for does complete background checks on all employees, volunteers, and clergy. All employees must take a drug test. The volunteers - who are mostly granny-types - retired women - submit to these checks with no problems - or they don't get to participate.
In short, an ounce of prevention may save a pound of hurt - these churches who are balking at the idea of doing a check should better consider what may happen if they should find themselves in a lawsuit later on. These checks would be for the protection of the parishioners AND the church - why would the church want to harness themselves with someone who could be a HUGE liability to them?
Additionally - if they are having someone drive a bus, are their drivers properly licensed? Do they check their driving records? How well are they insured? What are their policies and procedures if there is an emergency or an accident while your child is with them? If they're cutting corners on background checks, what other safty precautions are they skipping all in the Holy Name of Saving Money?!
On another note, it is very disturbing to me, as a parent, that my children could be approached by a stranger and asked to get on a vehicle PRIOR to my chance to consider the invitation and whether I think my child should accept. I believe parent's permission should be obtained BEFORE the invite is presented to the child. To do otherwise is an insult to me and what I think is best for my child. It says that my child has the RIGHT to make decisions for himself - whether or not he has all the right information - when he is not emancipated from me. I would think that most children would be delighted to get on a bus to go somewhere and be with other children - I know that's how my 4 year old would think. I'm sure that 99.9% of these programs and church volunteers are harmless - it's the 0.01% that make me weary. Although it may have been a good idea 20 or 30 years ago, it has more risk and potential for harm today than good, and I live in a very low-crime area.
On another note, it is very disturbing to me, as a parent, that my children could be approached by a stranger and asked to get on a vehicle PRIOR to my chance to consider the invitation and whether I think my child should accept. I believe parent's permission should be obtained BEFORE the invite is presented to the child. To do otherwise is an insult to me and what I think is best for my child. It says that my child has the RIGHT to make decisions for himself - whether or not he has all the right information - when he is not emancipated from me. I would think that most children would be delighted to get on a bus to go somewhere and be with other children - I know that's how my 4 year old would think. I'm sure that 99.9% of these programs and church volunteers are harmless - it's the 0.01% that make me weary. Although it may have been a good idea 20 or 30 years ago, it has more risk and potential for harm today than good, and I live in a very low-crime area.
Good points, Chas. But I'm wondering if you find it equally offensive that the YMCA provides transportation to before- and after-school activities; that the Boys and Girls Clubs do the same. How about the Fresh Air Fund? They not only send buses, they drive the kids into neighboring states to stay with host families (complete strangers) for a couple of weeks in the summer, so the kids can be exposed to suburban or rural living. Is that a problem, too?
Do you think community groups should stop offering services to children, unless the child has a competent parent who seeks out these services first?
Just spoke with the directors of the Children's programs at both the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Kansas City.
In both organizations all people involved with children at any level have extensive background checks done, are finger-printed, and are monitored.
Also in both organizations, there is no such thing as going into neighborhoods willy-nilly, parents must be involved beforehand, and schools are involved.
These organizations are heavily monitored and must meet staunch requirements before even working with children, much less getting any funding to do the work.
As for the Fresh Air Fund, the toll free number is 800.367.0003. The staff is not in today and I was asked to call back tomorrow.
In both organizations all people involved with children at any level have extensive background checks done, are finger-printed, and are monitored.
You may have been misinformed, or maybe Kansas has a higher standard.
For six or seven years, I worked with children (babies and preschoolers) at the YMCA as a volunteer and was never fingerprinted. It wasn't even suggested to me at any time. There was no background check, either. As far as "monitoring," well, we monitored each other. I just asked my husband, who occasionally does volunteer work with the Y, and he was never fingerprinted, either. But he doesn't work directly with children.
In every community, boys and girls are left to find their own recreation and companionship in the streets. An increasing number of children are at home with no adult care or supervision. Young people need to know that someone cares about them.
Boys & Girls Clubs offer that and more. Club programs and services promote and enhance the development of boys and girls by instilling a sense of competence, usefulness, belonging and influence.
Boys & Girls Clubs are a safe place to learn and grow – all while having fun. They are truly The Positive Place For Kids.
The intro page at the Boys and Girls Club seems to be targeting children who don't have adult supervision, so I'm not clear on how or why they would contact the parents BEFOREHAND, meaning before inviting the children to participate, if the children they are offering services to are those who don't have adult supervision. But, okay, if they say so.
It seems more likely that they operate similarly to how the churches operate. Kids are invited, but to actually participate, they need permission.
The intro page at the Boys and Girls Club seems to be targeting children who don't have adult supervision, so I'm not clear on how or why they would contact the parents BEFOREHAND, meaning before inviting the children to participate, if the children they are offering services to are those who don't have adult supervision. But, okay, if they say so.
Oh fer gawd's sake. You're making a point by leaving out obvious information...like the difference between no adult supervision and no adult present in their lives at all...which would make them orphans...which would then require the Boys and Girls Club to report the situation to the state...which would mean that, all of a sudden, there's an adult present...unless, of course, you can personally exemplify a situation where you found orphans living in a project building and personally brought them to programs you volunteered at and had nobody question you and monitored yourself...and it goes on and on my friend, some people started it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue saying it just because it's the argument that never ends, yes it goes on and on...
It's 2006...people have awakened and smelled the wisdom.
ALL bus drivers (here in Minney-soda) have to have background checks, etc., done on them before they are hired. Same applies to health care workers (like myself) and other *public servants*. We don't get fingerprinted, but an extensive check into our background is required, or we don't get hired.
NOW ---- the other thing is --- this does not apply to churches (at least up here), who have volunteers driving said busses for the Sunday service. If a particular denomination has 5 busses, but only 4 drivers, they will gladly accept a new volunteer to drive that 5th bus.
The ONLY requirement for that driver is that they have a CDL license authorizing them to transport folks.
So -- here, the Sunday bus drivers have to have the proper license to drive the vehicle, but no background check is required for them, since they are in a voluntary position, and not hired by a public entity (such as YMCA, etc.)
I'm not offended that anyone is offering transportation. Your post indicates I'm upset about programs offering transportation, which would be faulty logic, at best, considering that public schools offer transportation. I'm CONCERNED about how the program presents itself to the CHILDREN first - not the parents. It seems to be designed to hook the children into wanting to go - on impulse, almost. I'm CONCERNED that there isn't enough fact-finding taking place before permission slips are signed, assuming all of these programs require permission slips. I'm CONCERNED that the churches haven't counted the cost when they offer these programs the way they do.
That's why - if you read my post - it's up to the RESPONSIBLE PARENTS to ASK QUESTIONS and be comfortable with the programs that are being offered to their children before allowing them to participate. All children have a guardian (parents, foster, relative, etc. - people who are responsible for their safety) who is there to make decisions for the child - even NO DECISION is a decision, if you think about it.
I was in the YMCA program as a child. Both of my parents worked two or more jobs all the time (they were both civil servents) and nannies, sitters, daycare programs, summer camp - you name it - were the norm for me. I can assure you that even back in the 70's, I remember my mother filling out forms, reading over program booklets, etc., for information prior to giving permission for me to participate. There were safety measures in place back then - these programs receive government money and have lots of red tape to prove it.
My CONCERN is about the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants church organization that has a lot of zeal and not a lot of brains who might be running these programs. It's not about the bus. It's about the possibilities of harm caused by recklessness - even in the most unintentional of situations.
On another note, it is very disturbing to me, as a parent, that my children could be approached by a stranger and asked to get on a vehicle PRIOR to my chance to consider the invitation and whether I think my child should accept.
According to Morgan's post, the children were not invited to get on a vehicle prior to obtaining parental permission. The driver simply asked them if they would like to go to church. From the response of the church when she called about the matter, had the children indicated a desire to go to church, the driver would have required permission from a parent before extending an invitation to board the bus. So the church seemingly met your condition as a matter of policy.
I've no problem with castigating people for what they do wrong, but I don't see castigating them for the possibility that someone else could maybe try to do something wrong.
Now, if the bus driver had invited Morgan's children to board the bus without her permission, then that would have been a different matter entirely. But that's not what happened, is not what happens in any similar church program/service of which I'm aware, and doesn't have a thing to do with the situation that Morgan described.
Yeah, I think poor Morgan has gotten overlooked in all the discussion.
Morgan, you are obviously a consciencious Mom, and you feel the way you do. Don't feel bad, you did the right thing by looking after your little ones.
Churches and other non-profits do this kind of thing as a way of trying to reach out to the community. It's not unusual, at least not in my little part of the world, but can be unnerving and questionable if one is not familiar.
I don't really want to speak to the broader issues, as I'm tired and got a pile of laundry to catch up on. B) But I must say that I like kids, and never thought of myself as "sleazy" for trying to reach out to them.
But I certainly don't fault anybody for their opinions and experiences. We all live where we do, and deal with what is.
Chas, I didn't mean to say or imply that you were offended. I didn't think you were upset. As far as a program presenting itself to children first -- that was my point in bringing up other community groups, although I probably didn't make my point well. Most of the kids who get involved in church and community groups get involved because someone (other than a parent) invited them to do so. I understand what you're saying about the YMCA, but they offer many types of programs -- those geared toward working parents (which it sounds like is the type you were involved in), and also those geared toward underprivileged children, which don't garner as much parental involvement. I was thinking more of the latter when I wrote my post.
I think it's a sad legacy from The Way that we now look so cynically at service organizations, and have so little expectation that the services they are providing are exactly as they say. But the exposure I've had to charitable organizations since The Way has been mostly positive. I've found very sincere, caring people who really are working toward bringing something better to their communities. My point (whether I've made it well or not) is that if we pull these groups out of the communities, or layer them with too many precautionary measures, the only ones who will be left in the community are the ones who couldn't care less about the well-being of your children, in fact, only want to exploit them. Honest volunteers will be run off by layers of regulations and the distrust they feel from the community. The type of parent Morgan is -- one who looks into a group before letting her children participate -- are, for the most part, exactly the kind of people who make up these organizations. They not only want something better for themselves and their own children, but for the rest of the community as well. So they look into what is being offered, and, once assured that things are as they seem, volunteer their own time and money to make the mission successful, if it's one that is in keeping with their own values. So when a church bus stops and asks your child if he wants to go to church, look into it, for sure. But after the phone calls have been made, and it turns out that the group is exactly who they say they are, at that point, there is no more cause for alarm. They're trying to do a good thing in the community. Give them kudos for that.
Good points, Chas. But I'm wondering if you find it equally offensive that the YMCA provides transportation to before- and after-school activities; that the Boys and Girls Clubs do the same. How about the Fresh Air Fund? They not only send buses, they drive the kids into neighboring states to stay with host families (complete strangers) for a couple of weeks in the summer, so the kids can be exposed to suburban or rural living. Is that a problem, too?
Do you think community groups should stop offering services to children, unless the child has a competent parent who seeks out these services first?
my anwer to this would be a big big yes
if you want your kids going with strangers maybe the way is the answer?
But I must say that I like kids, and never thought of myself as "sleazy" for trying to reach out to them.
For me, this discussion has not been about anybody being 'sleazy', but has been about the wisdom, or lack of wisdom, with which children are approached.
If one were driving one's car down a neighborhood street and stopped to invite children to, let's say, the matinee showing of Polar Express, how would one be viewed? The movie is good and could quite possibly introduce the children to values they may never have instilled in their lives otherwise. The vehicle may be a pink Caddy with Mary Kay identification all over it. The driver may be up for sainthood. The driver may even be carrying a permission slip for the parent(s) to sign after the child has accepted the invitation.
Would the scenario presented by Morgan be acceptable in any other situation besides that of being a church bus?
If so, why bother to teach children about strangers in the first place?
My point (whether I've made it well or not) is that if we pull these groups out of the communities...
Nobody has even remotely suggested that these groups be pulled out of the communities.
...or layer them with too many precautionary measures, the only ones who will be left in the community are the ones who couldn't care less about the well-being of your children, in fact, only want to exploit them. Honest volunteers will be run off by layers of regulations and the distrust they feel from the community.
My very first volunteer position that was working with children was teaching Sunday School. I was not a member of the church. I did not attend the church. The position was advertised in the local newspaper because the church felt that they would try bringing in outside volunteers for the children's services so that their members could attend adult services. The church did a background check on me. I was not fingerprinted, but that was in 1976. The church found out about my involvement with twi. I was questioned extensively about the views of twi towards children...as was my limb leader's wife who ran the limb's children's programs. Because of doctrinal issues, I was given a specific set parameters within which I must stay when teaching the children...and I was not allowed to introduce the wooden spoon in any way, shape or form.
In 1979 both my husband and I began volunteering in shelters and soup kitchens. Extensive background checks were done. Not until 1990 was fingerprinting introduced as part of the background check.
Since 1990, when I first became a tutor for the Upward Bound program, whenever I have volunteered to work with children, I was fingerprinted as well.
Never has it bothered me. Why? Because if it were my children involved in these programs, I would be very happy to know such precautions had been taken.
No more than it bothers me to obey reduced speed limits in school zones does it bother me to subject myself to 'layers of regulations and distrust' from the community.
IMO, any volunteer 'run off by layers of regulations and the distrust they feel from the community' is not honest.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
4
6
9
Popular Days
Feb 5
34
Feb 6
15
Feb 7
4
Feb 8
2
Top Posters In This Topic
ex10 4 posts
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net 4 posts
laleo 6 posts
CoolWaters 9 posts
Popular Days
Feb 5 2006
34 posts
Feb 6 2006
15 posts
Feb 7 2006
4 posts
Feb 8 2006
2 posts
Shellon
This gets to me in a really big way so I did some checking myself and of course sunday is a great day to find a human being at a church huh?
I know we like to believe that churches do background checks on everyone that is involved with our precious babies, cuz after all they are churches.
Heck, even my kids school only does a background check on teachers and only in this state. S/he might have a nasty history in another state and it won't show up. Yeah, yeah, they're working on 'doing something about that' uh huh. Only recently have they tried to get the budget money for doing the checks on volunteers and para pros like subs and even janitors. And again only in Michigan.
I called three churches this afternoon and asked about the reality, or lack thereof, of checking backgrounds on busdrivers who DO have access to our kids. Not one of them do them; not one of the three. Now, there are 9 more churches in my little town and I didn't call them all.
The responses were as follows:
"Dear, you grew up here, you know this town is safe, don't be silly". This was followed by further lecture that I listened to for a little while because the preacher has known me since I was but a glimmer in my mama's eye. He chastised me for being someone that worries too much and doesn't believe in God's ability to protect me and my children and suggested that I come to his church to get better instruction.
"Shellon, why would we spend money we don't have, you understand our little congregation is very limited fiscally"
"Background checks? For people that do the lords work, especially with little children? That's not necessary now is it?"
I also heard one mumbling of "Hmmmm we probably should do that" ummm uh huh.
We live in a very jaded society and yes indeed, I live here because the risk to my child is maybe (maybe!) less than perhaps a large city. But it's no secret that pedophiles only need children, any children, anywhere.
Unbelievable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
call me jaded if you wish
but if someone in a bus, car or whatever tried to pick up my kids without ,speaking to me first
i would shoot first and ask questions later
come on people these are your kids!
remember sinceraty is no garentee of truth
or whatever cornfield vic used to say
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Aw, c'mon! It's Sunday morning. These kids weren't being invited to a free breakfast. They weren't just going to be loved and appreciated and sent home. The point in picking them up was to make Christians out of them. Loving and food added.
In Morgan's scenario, I could just see some 10-year-old deciding he'd like a free donut, going in the house and forging a "permission slip."
My area has a large influx of Somalis, who are mostly Muslim. There is a self-appointed MOG here who waits with a sound system just outside the border of the public school property, playing hymns and contemporary Christian music and inviting kids inside for the "Jesus Party" coffee house. He doesn't do this in the white, middle-class neighborhood; he does it in the black, poor, Muslim neighborhood. To the children walking home. Without their parents' permission.
I am a Christian. And it offends me.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
The jaded wasn't insultive to you, it was a statement suggesting that we allow to much in the name of 'it's church, lighten up'. I'm in agreement with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm not exactly sure - but even IF the busdriver had gotten the permission slip signed - it stinks form a legal standpoint. I for one would ask to see a name tag and have th phone number of the Church to get an "OK" before I even signed the thing - because otherwise it would be a possible scenario that a sex offender would have a permission slip with him!
Now I do understand that the scenario didnt' get that far - and since my hubby did some work with prosecuting sex offenders a while back - we are naturally leary. (No pun intended)
The church can find a way to make parents feel safer AND get these kids in to church - without spending lots of extra money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I have to admit that I think it's extremely bad judgement to solicit kids before talking to parents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
But doesn't it make any difference to anyone here that that isn't what happened? Morgan's children weren't approached by a pedophile. They weren't promised donuts for getting onto a bus. No one threw a paper bag over their heads, and stuffed them into the trunk. The kids weren't badgered, harassed, threatened, or enticed. They were invited to church. They declined. The bus driver drove away. Had they accepted, the bus driver would have gotten permission from the parent. And Morgan likely would have climbed into the van with them, and she would have been welcome to. Is there any reason to think this man was trying to separate the children from their parents? Most likely, they were ALL invited to church.
I thought Morgan talked to the driver to know what church he was from, but since she didn't, evidently it was clearly marked somewhere, because she was able to phone the church and find out what was happening. No one hid anything. There were no false pretenses, no lofty promises, no intimidation.
I just don't get what the fuss is about.
I'd like to repeat something Krysilis said, because I think it's an excellent point:
Edited by laleoLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Indeed, and one would hope they could do it without cruising the streets looking for a "date".
I know this is standard procedure in the religion business, the local gospel mission offering free meals in exchange for attempted indoctrination and such like, but, like Shazdancer, I find the practice sleazy at best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
The schools get away with this stuff??????? Do they receive government (fed) monies? I'd seriously look into this on a funding level if not a legal level...because there is money in the funding to pay for background checks...unless size or some other loophole lets them off the hook. I'm just shocked.
Churches and cost doesn't fly with me...'cause churches can obtain funding as well...no strings attached funding...from sources other than the government...and all it takes is someone computer literate to do a web search for the sources...and a willingness on the church's part to actually be concerned enough to protect themselves legally...if not concerned enough to protect the children.
Reactive logic v proactive logic...
As long as nothing happened, then nothing should be expected to happen...
'Cause it's a good thing...
Unless something happens...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Doing a background check on someone would cost less than $20 for sufficient information on anyone who is going to work with children. It is free to check the national and state sex offender's registry via internet - just that alone can help a lot! You can search by name, by zip code, by radius from a zip code, etc. If the churches checked with their insurance providers, they may find some of the cost can be deferred. Also, if the churches have a non-profit status they could write off the costs easily and perhaps even have some costs waived.
Don't be naive about how pedophiles can work themselves into communities and establish contact in children - in any way they can. Driving a bus for a church, working with a youth program, etc. - seemingly simple, wholesome things in the community - where they earn the trust of the children AND the parents - are some of the most dangerous. If you doubt my words, check out the Roman Catholic Church's fiasco over the past 5 years that has been brought to light by the media. Don't kid yourself.
The hospital that I work for does complete background checks on all employees, volunteers, and clergy. All employees must take a drug test. The volunteers - who are mostly granny-types - retired women - submit to these checks with no problems - or they don't get to participate.
In short, an ounce of prevention may save a pound of hurt - these churches who are balking at the idea of doing a check should better consider what may happen if they should find themselves in a lawsuit later on. These checks would be for the protection of the parishioners AND the church - why would the church want to harness themselves with someone who could be a HUGE liability to them?
Additionally - if they are having someone drive a bus, are their drivers properly licensed? Do they check their driving records? How well are they insured? What are their policies and procedures if there is an emergency or an accident while your child is with them? If they're cutting corners on background checks, what other safty precautions are they skipping all in the Holy Name of Saving Money?!
=============================================================
On another note, it is very disturbing to me, as a parent, that my children could be approached by a stranger and asked to get on a vehicle PRIOR to my chance to consider the invitation and whether I think my child should accept. I believe parent's permission should be obtained BEFORE the invite is presented to the child. To do otherwise is an insult to me and what I think is best for my child. It says that my child has the RIGHT to make decisions for himself - whether or not he has all the right information - when he is not emancipated from me. I would think that most children would be delighted to get on a bus to go somewhere and be with other children - I know that's how my 4 year old would think. I'm sure that 99.9% of these programs and church volunteers are harmless - it's the 0.01% that make me weary. Although it may have been a good idea 20 or 30 years ago, it has more risk and potential for harm today than good, and I live in a very low-crime area.
Edited by ChasUFarleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
chas
you hit the nail right on the head
you couldn't be any more in agreement with what i think
thanks these are kids we are talking about
many of {whom?] have not as yet learned good judgement
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Good points, Chas. But I'm wondering if you find it equally offensive that the YMCA provides transportation to before- and after-school activities; that the Boys and Girls Clubs do the same. How about the Fresh Air Fund? They not only send buses, they drive the kids into neighboring states to stay with host families (complete strangers) for a couple of weeks in the summer, so the kids can be exposed to suburban or rural living. Is that a problem, too?
Do you think community groups should stop offering services to children, unless the child has a competent parent who seeks out these services first?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Just spoke with the directors of the Children's programs at both the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Kansas City.
In both organizations all people involved with children at any level have extensive background checks done, are finger-printed, and are monitored.
Also in both organizations, there is no such thing as going into neighborhoods willy-nilly, parents must be involved beforehand, and schools are involved.
These organizations are heavily monitored and must meet staunch requirements before even working with children, much less getting any funding to do the work.
As for the Fresh Air Fund, the toll free number is 800.367.0003. The staff is not in today and I was asked to call back tomorrow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
An interesting link concerning Fresh Air Fund...
http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/excerpt_battle_3.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
You may have been misinformed, or maybe Kansas has a higher standard.
For six or seven years, I worked with children (babies and preschoolers) at the YMCA as a volunteer and was never fingerprinted. It wasn't even suggested to me at any time. There was no background check, either. As far as "monitoring," well, we monitored each other. I just asked my husband, who occasionally does volunteer work with the Y, and he was never fingerprinted, either. But he doesn't work directly with children.
The intro page at the Boys and Girls Club seems to be targeting children who don't have adult supervision, so I'm not clear on how or why they would contact the parents BEFOREHAND, meaning before inviting the children to participate, if the children they are offering services to are those who don't have adult supervision. But, okay, if they say so.
It seems more likely that they operate similarly to how the churches operate. Kids are invited, but to actually participate, they need permission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Oh fer gawd's sake. You're making a point by leaving out obvious information...like the difference between no adult supervision and no adult present in their lives at all...which would make them orphans...which would then require the Boys and Girls Club to report the situation to the state...which would mean that, all of a sudden, there's an adult present...unless, of course, you can personally exemplify a situation where you found orphans living in a project building and personally brought them to programs you volunteered at and had nobody question you and monitored yourself...and it goes on and on my friend, some people started it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue saying it just because it's the argument that never ends, yes it goes on and on...
It's 2006...people have awakened and smelled the wisdom.
Edited by CoolWatersLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
........... Just a quick FYI here.
ALL bus drivers (here in Minney-soda) have to have background checks, etc., done on them before they are hired. Same applies to health care workers (like myself) and other *public servants*. We don't get fingerprinted, but an extensive check into our background is required, or we don't get hired.
NOW ---- the other thing is --- this does not apply to churches (at least up here), who have volunteers driving said busses for the Sunday service. If a particular denomination has 5 busses, but only 4 drivers, they will gladly accept a new volunteer to drive that 5th bus.
The ONLY requirement for that driver is that they have a CDL license authorizing them to transport folks.
So -- here, the Sunday bus drivers have to have the proper license to drive the vehicle, but no background check is required for them, since they are in a voluntary position, and not hired by a public entity (such as YMCA, etc.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Lalao --
I'm not offended that anyone is offering transportation. Your post indicates I'm upset about programs offering transportation, which would be faulty logic, at best, considering that public schools offer transportation. I'm CONCERNED about how the program presents itself to the CHILDREN first - not the parents. It seems to be designed to hook the children into wanting to go - on impulse, almost. I'm CONCERNED that there isn't enough fact-finding taking place before permission slips are signed, assuming all of these programs require permission slips. I'm CONCERNED that the churches haven't counted the cost when they offer these programs the way they do.
That's why - if you read my post - it's up to the RESPONSIBLE PARENTS to ASK QUESTIONS and be comfortable with the programs that are being offered to their children before allowing them to participate. All children have a guardian (parents, foster, relative, etc. - people who are responsible for their safety) who is there to make decisions for the child - even NO DECISION is a decision, if you think about it.
I was in the YMCA program as a child. Both of my parents worked two or more jobs all the time (they were both civil servents) and nannies, sitters, daycare programs, summer camp - you name it - were the norm for me. I can assure you that even back in the 70's, I remember my mother filling out forms, reading over program booklets, etc., for information prior to giving permission for me to participate. There were safety measures in place back then - these programs receive government money and have lots of red tape to prove it.
My CONCERN is about the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants church organization that has a lot of zeal and not a lot of brains who might be running these programs. It's not about the bus. It's about the possibilities of harm caused by recklessness - even in the most unintentional of situations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
According to Morgan's post, the children were not invited to get on a vehicle prior to obtaining parental permission. The driver simply asked them if they would like to go to church. From the response of the church when she called about the matter, had the children indicated a desire to go to church, the driver would have required permission from a parent before extending an invitation to board the bus. So the church seemingly met your condition as a matter of policy.
I've no problem with castigating people for what they do wrong, but I don't see castigating them for the possibility that someone else could maybe try to do something wrong.
Now, if the bus driver had invited Morgan's children to board the bus without her permission, then that would have been a different matter entirely. But that's not what happened, is not what happens in any similar church program/service of which I'm aware, and doesn't have a thing to do with the situation that Morgan described.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Yeah, I think poor Morgan has gotten overlooked in all the discussion.
Morgan, you are obviously a consciencious Mom, and you feel the way you do. Don't feel bad, you did the right thing by looking after your little ones.
Churches and other non-profits do this kind of thing as a way of trying to reach out to the community. It's not unusual, at least not in my little part of the world, but can be unnerving and questionable if one is not familiar.
I don't really want to speak to the broader issues, as I'm tired and got a pile of laundry to catch up on. B) But I must say that I like kids, and never thought of myself as "sleazy" for trying to reach out to them.
But I certainly don't fault anybody for their opinions and experiences. We all live where we do, and deal with what is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
B) --- nice answer. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Chas, I didn't mean to say or imply that you were offended. I didn't think you were upset. As far as a program presenting itself to children first -- that was my point in bringing up other community groups, although I probably didn't make my point well. Most of the kids who get involved in church and community groups get involved because someone (other than a parent) invited them to do so. I understand what you're saying about the YMCA, but they offer many types of programs -- those geared toward working parents (which it sounds like is the type you were involved in), and also those geared toward underprivileged children, which don't garner as much parental involvement. I was thinking more of the latter when I wrote my post.
I think it's a sad legacy from The Way that we now look so cynically at service organizations, and have so little expectation that the services they are providing are exactly as they say. But the exposure I've had to charitable organizations since The Way has been mostly positive. I've found very sincere, caring people who really are working toward bringing something better to their communities. My point (whether I've made it well or not) is that if we pull these groups out of the communities, or layer them with too many precautionary measures, the only ones who will be left in the community are the ones who couldn't care less about the well-being of your children, in fact, only want to exploit them. Honest volunteers will be run off by layers of regulations and the distrust they feel from the community. The type of parent Morgan is -- one who looks into a group before letting her children participate -- are, for the most part, exactly the kind of people who make up these organizations. They not only want something better for themselves and their own children, but for the rest of the community as well. So they look into what is being offered, and, once assured that things are as they seem, volunteer their own time and money to make the mission successful, if it's one that is in keeping with their own values. So when a church bus stops and asks your child if he wants to go to church, look into it, for sure. But after the phone calls have been made, and it turns out that the group is exactly who they say they are, at that point, there is no more cause for alarm. They're trying to do a good thing in the community. Give them kudos for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
my anwer to this would be a big big yes
if you want your kids going with strangers maybe the way is the answer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
If one were driving one's car down a neighborhood street and stopped to invite children to, let's say, the matinee showing of Polar Express, how would one be viewed? The movie is good and could quite possibly introduce the children to values they may never have instilled in their lives otherwise. The vehicle may be a pink Caddy with Mary Kay identification all over it. The driver may be up for sainthood. The driver may even be carrying a permission slip for the parent(s) to sign after the child has accepted the invitation.
Would the scenario presented by Morgan be acceptable in any other situation besides that of being a church bus?
If so, why bother to teach children about strangers in the first place?
Nobody has even remotely suggested that these groups be pulled out of the communities.
My very first volunteer position that was working with children was teaching Sunday School. I was not a member of the church. I did not attend the church. The position was advertised in the local newspaper because the church felt that they would try bringing in outside volunteers for the children's services so that their members could attend adult services. The church did a background check on me. I was not fingerprinted, but that was in 1976. The church found out about my involvement with twi. I was questioned extensively about the views of twi towards children...as was my limb leader's wife who ran the limb's children's programs. Because of doctrinal issues, I was given a specific set parameters within which I must stay when teaching the children...and I was not allowed to introduce the wooden spoon in any way, shape or form.
In 1979 both my husband and I began volunteering in shelters and soup kitchens. Extensive background checks were done. Not until 1990 was fingerprinting introduced as part of the background check.
Since 1990, when I first became a tutor for the Upward Bound program, whenever I have volunteered to work with children, I was fingerprinted as well.
Never has it bothered me. Why? Because if it were my children involved in these programs, I would be very happy to know such precautions had been taken.
No more than it bothers me to obey reduced speed limits in school zones does it bother me to subject myself to 'layers of regulations and distrust' from the community.
IMO, any volunteer 'run off by layers of regulations and the distrust they feel from the community' is not honest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.