Soccer Coach Arrested for Videotaping Players Changing Clothes

Written by PC News on . Posted in Coaches, Molestation, Volunteer Management, Volunteer Screening

In Lee’s Summit, Missouri, the 3500 player Lee’s Summit Soccer Association has been shaken by the arrest of one of their coaches on charges that he videotaped players on teams he coached in various states of undress. (Full story here).  He was also accused of touching sleeping players and videotaping himself while doing so.  The acts were discovered when the coach was arrested on charges of theft while attending a US Men’s National Team qualifier.  Videos in his possession were confiscated and later reviewed by police.  The videos showed the coach placing a camera in a room in his house.  Players would later enter the room to change and he would later reappear and retrieve the camera.  Neighbors reported that the coach was known to host late night swim parties for young girls, often continuing until 3 a.m. in the morning.  Further investigation showed that although the coach had previously been charged with peeping at a tanning salon, the charge was reduced to simple trespassing when it was disposed of.  (Full story here).  Although the coach in this instance had a conviction, because of the reduction in charges, it would likely not have triggered any red flags on a background check.

This story demonstrates again that background checking is not enough.  A comprehensive risk management program would have addressed extra-organizational contact.  The parents of his players expressed full knowledge that the children were going to his house.  If limits on extra-organizational contact existed and reporting methods were available, this coach could have come to the attention of the soccer association well before his arrest.  One of the benefits a strong child protection policy is that it provides awareness for the participants and their parents of the limitations on player-coach interaction, and a means for reporting actions that violate the policies.  In the absence of a strong policy, parents may be uncomfortable with some interactions, but not feel justified in bringing them to the attention of the soccer board.

At Placek Consulting, in addition to designing your child protection policies, we can also help you with an implementation and reporting plan to make sure that the policies serve not only to protect your youth participants, but to empower your members to help act as your eyes and ears on matters of child protection.

Evaluating Criminal Background Checks: Arrested Florida Football Coach Had Prior Drug Arrest

Written by PC News on . Posted in Coaches, Molestation, Volunteer Screening

In Florida, a youth football and basketball coach with over 30 years of service as a volunteer coach was arrested on charges of lewd or lascivious exhibition, performing a lewd act in the presence of a child and two counts of soliciting or committing a lewd assault or act on a child.  (Full story here.)  The allegations arose after a ten year old player reported to his father that the coach had offered him $40 to perform a sex act.  When the boy refused, the coach raised his offer to $100.  Since the initial investigation, up to seven players have made allegations against their former coach.

A spokesman for the city parks department noted that the coach had a 14 year old conviction for possession of a controlled substance.  However since the conviction did not relate to children and was so far in the past, it was decided he could continue as a volunteer.  This, of course, is a common outcome in background checking.  Various matrices exist that rate convictions by severity and recency to determine if a positive result should act as a disqualifier.  There is some merit to that.  A law abiding citizen who has a minor drug charge from their college days should not be permanently excluded as a volunteer.  A conviction for passing a bad check should not necessarily mean a person can’t be a youth coach.

However, there are other considerations in properly utilizing a criminal background check.  First, as discussed extensively on this site, a criminal background check is only one part of a risk management program.  A positive result, even if it is from a long time ago, may call for more intensive screening using your other risk management tools.  Moreover, even if a conviction is remote in time or unrelated to youth safety, it may give rise to other clues that the volunteer poses a risk.  In the case of the Florida youth coach, the drug conviction arose in his late 30s.  Moreover, further reporting shows that after serving his sentence, he violated his probation and was incarcerated again.  This factor alone should have been enough to red flag the volunteer.  A minor criminal conviction is a regrettable thing that has happened to many people.  However, after that experience, the failure to adhere to probation guidelines signifies an individual with a serious lack of understanding of boundaries and conforming to expectations.  A youth association would be perfectly correct in denying participation out of a concern that the volunteer would not comply with association rules or policies.  In this case, it is not the conviction that provides important information in screening, it is the volunteer’s response to that conviction.

At Placek Consulting, we can help you develop background check matrices or consult on individual results.  More importantly, however, we can help you put in place a full volunteer screening program. so that you are not wholly reliant on criminal background checking.

Cheer Coach Arrest Again Illustrates Limitations of Criminal Background Checks

Written by PC News on . Posted in Coaches, Molestation, Volunteer Management, Volunteer Screening

A Dallas area cheer and dance coach was arrested while attempting to board a flight for France on charges of molesting three of his students. (Full Story Here).  A variety of stories are posted on the internet that detail various aspects of the case.  These articles paint a picture that is far too familiar.  Moreover, the articles and the comments of the police highlight a growing myth in risk management that frankly is reaching the point of creating as much or more risk to the participants than it prevents.  The issue again, is the over-reliance on background checks, and the myth that conducting a background check somehow absolves the association of the need to do anything further.

Let’s be clear.  Criminal background checks are a good thing.  They serve a purpose as one part of a risk management plan.  However, they are simply that.  One part.  Let’s remember that criminal background checks have very clear limitations:

  • They only detect people who have previous criminal convictions.  Since a NIMH study reported that the average child molester begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense, it is clear that much abuse takes place well before the initial arrest or conviction of an offender.  Those people will not be caught by a criminal background check.
  • There is no national database for criminal background checks available to private parties.
  • Each state has different standards for what offenses are reported to their state database.
  • Many background checks screen by how recent and how serious the offenses are.  Older, minor offenses may not cause a background screen to return with a red flag.
  • Most background checks will not detect civil actions such as lawsuits or restraining orders.

Yet despite these known shortcomings of background checks, the police in this case still made the extraordinary statement that “”[t]he gym did the background checks. They did everything they needed to do to ensure to themselves and to the parents and the children that it was a safe environment to be.”  But the reports received to date suggest that there were many red flags that a good risk management program would address.  Let’s look at some of the reported facts:

  • The coach had worked for three gyms in a short period of time.
  • The coach was fired from one gym for inappropriate communication.
  • The coach had pictures of himself shirtless with young girls in bikini type clothing on his publicly viewable social media page.
  • The coach was known to offer private lessons to some girls.
  • At least one gymnast reported that he was “creepy” and made her feel “uncomfortable.”

Even setting aside the subjective feelings of a young gymnast, how many issues are identified that a good risk management program addresses?  The private lessons are extra-organizational contact, time with students away from the supervised environment of the gym.  Why was this permitted by the gym?  Did the screening include looking at his social media pages, which showed him shirtless with young girls in non-gym settings?  What type of reference checking was done between the three gyms he worked at, or was he considered a “prize catch” who might bring new students/customers with him, so checking with a competitor was not considered?  Who did the gym that fired him for inappropriate communication report that to?  Child protection?  Police?  A sanctioning body?  Or did they just let him go on his way?  The inappropriate communication was via text message.  Were there no policies prohibiting the coaching staff from texting minor children?

And I have one simple question: Other than running a criminal background check, what was your risk management plan?  Far too often, the answer is nothing.  So, finally, can we please stop pretending that running a criminal background check is “doing everything”  that can be done.  It is doing one small part; but it is not addressing the far greater risks that are out there.  And that is the danger of the criminal background check.  People see it as a cure-all or a get out of jail free card.  What it ought to be seen as is one piece of a jigsaw puzzle.  And if you only place the one piece, not only are you not finished, you have barely started.