Richmond rapes - helped by California law?

The whole country is abuzz about the horrific hours-long attack by several perpetrators on a 16 year old girl during a high school homecoming event.  Every angle seems to have been discussed, from the demographics of the local populace, to the level of police presence in the area, to the prevailing attitudes of the neighbors to crime, and so forth and so on.

One fact keeps popping up:  Though there were four police in the vicinity, working on over-time (tax dollars at work!), no parents were there to supervise at the dance.  Many explanations have been offered, and judgments decreed on the parents, but many don't realize how hard the State has made it for well-meaning adults to volunteer at school activities.

All personnel who wish to work with children, volunteer or otherwise, must now submit to fingerprinting, ostensibly so prior criminal activity can be discovered and the individual can be removed from contact with children.  On its face, this seems like a fabulous idea.  Parents shudder at the very thought of pedophiles and other beasties getting anywhere near their offspring.

Yet, this regulation is a nightmare of unintended consequences.  First, the fingerprinting process isn't just some simple matter of pressing inked hands onto a card at the school office.  Would-be volunteers must drive, sometimes long distances, to specific locations where very expensive machines scan fingers directly.  Furthermore, the process itself costs money, and not all districts are able or willing to absorb the amount, so they're charging the volunteers for this service.

Volunteerism in California schools is already facing challenges as our weakening economy forces more stay-at-home parents into the paid workforce.  Working parents who can only help out occasionally don't have much incentive to jump through one more hoop just to pass out cookies at Junior's Valentine's Day party.

But will the fingerprinting requirement actually protect children?  Consider:

• More restrictions mean fewer volunteers
• Fewer volunteers mean less supervision and general protection of children
• Pedophiles are highly motivated to be near children
• Pedophiles seek positions of high trust
• Pedophiles are good at not getting caught
• Fewer other volunteers give adults working with children more opportunities to be alone with their charges

Support for the fingerprint requirement among pedophile experts solicited for this article showed a full spectrum from support to concern that the requirement would do little more than create a false sense of security.  Even some of the supporters admitted that most abusers are already known, and trusted by the family.  Dr. Nancy Irwin noted, "Unfortunately, more children are molested in the home by a family member, neighbor, clergyperson, soccer coach, etc. than in the schools."  Counselor Cheryl McKinzie observes, "[Pedophiles] are sneaky.  And they do not believe there is anything wrong with their behavior."  She further noted that uncaught pedophiles came to her for counseling not because of their concern with their "aberrant sexual behavior, but something peripheral, like depression that they can't have proper relationships." 

Former victim and security expert Dan Houser decried the fingerprint requirement as "knee-jerk" legislation and expressed the concern that "adding 5 million fingerprints to a database won't solve crimes, it will slow down searches for real criminals by flooding the database with law-abiding citizens."  He points out that a 1% error rate means manually checking 5000 fingerprints - a week's worth of work that is prone to error."

Dr. Lisa Paz remarked, "The thinking behind fingerprinting is that it creates a barrier, holds people accountable, and allows for background checks.  However... pedophiles and molesters are motivated and will happily jump through the hoops."  Her suggestion is to "educate kids on safe an unsafe touch and educate parents on molestation patterns."

Some parents may feel that any method that catches even one person intent on harming children is well worth any obstacle to volunteers, and one respondent, Clinical Psychologist Carol Kryder heartily agrees, "Pedophiles tend to pick a certain age and sex of child and would want to volunteer for a specific grade level."  She predicts that "there will be very little resistance to this new law."

Dr. Kryder is right.  No one wants to publicly complain about the extra work and lost personal privacy, lest they be accused of aiding and abetting criminals, but the number of volunteers seems to be dropping considerably (though solid numbers for this year are not yet available), especially in districts where applicants are forced to pay for the process. 

In the Mt. Diablo School District, which is the largest in Contra Costa County, California, officials not only require payment for the fingerprinting, but have further tacked on a tuberculosis test, to be retested every four years, all at the expense of the volunteer.  Outings using the District buses are few and far between, and volunteer drivers further have to show proof of insurance with a minimum dollar amount coverage, as they assume all liability for transporting students to field trips.  With finances already stretched because of the recession, some parents just aren't willing or able to make the effort.  Several parents have admitted to this reporter that they resent the extra expense, effort and scrutiny just because they want to help. The sudden dearth of extra hands has been keenly felt.  Most dangerous is the difficulty the District is experiencing getting enough volunteers to supervise lunch periods, a time of free play when many teachers are on break.

So, were some parents deterred from supervising the Richmond school event because of the fingerprinting requirement?   It's an question that deserves further scrutiny.