Are Background Checks for Emergency Volunteers Necessary?

It ought to go without saying that a volunteer firefighter isn’t going to perpetrate a sex crime or rob a house when he’s supposed to be dousing the flames. Apparently it isn’t that obvious.

Last year New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a law requiring background checks to ensure volunteer firefighters weren’t carrying sex offense convictions. It’s up to individual fire companies to decide whether a prospective volunteer is fit to serve, in spite of a past sex offense, but everyone gets screened.

In Rush County, Ind., volunteers for Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) must submit to an even broader check, one that encompasses all past criminal history.

At first blush it might seem counterintuitive to run background checks on volunteers. These people have stepped up to help; they certainly appear to be of goodwill.

Yet advocates of background checks cite a number of reasons why a CERT or other response organization should dig into the history of potential volunteers. The emergency management community seems to be heeding these calls: Around the nation, volunteers at a range of levels are having their histories poked and prodded before they’re allowed to join the team.


The phrase heard most often in regard to background checks is “vulnerable populations.” When people are in crisis they may succumb more easily to predators, a premise that applies especially to children, the old and the infirm. When responders and rescuers come into contact with these populations, the argument goes, emergency managers need to be sure that these Samaritans can shoulder the task responsibly.

“The upside to a background check is that you have confidence in the people you are working with, you can feel comfortable sending them out in the community under your own banner,” said Bruce Fitzgerald, director of the Maine Emergency Management Agency. “If a CERT is associated with the emergency management office, you want to have that confidence in the people you are putting out there.”

In Rush County, Emergency Management Agency Director Charles Kemker suggests that background checks may help an agency to fortify its legal defense. If a volunteer’s bad actions should ever land on its doorstep in the form of some legal liability, “who is going to be held accountable for them?” he said. A background check may show the agency had done its due diligence to ensure the public good, perhaps absolving the agency of some culpability.

Background checks could also help to ensure public trust. When people see a first responder with a CERT credential, they likely presume this person is “safe,” someone they can rely on in a crisis. For example, children are taught to look for the person in uniform. An inspection of a volunteer’s past can help ensure that trust is well founded.
These arguments have proven compelling in public life, not just among emergency response organizations. In Howard County, Md., even the Recreation and Parks Department runs investigations on everyone from coaches and instructors to sports advisory board members. Adoption at this level suggests a high degree of confidence in the background check as a meaningful safeguard.

But it won’t be a perfect precaution. For example, many bad actors don’t have criminal records. In fact, some in the emergency community see a range of reasons to oppose the background check.

The process costs money. The funds don’t usually come out of the CERT budget, but someone has to pay for these background checks, whether it be the local police department or some other entity. Checks take time too, potentially slowing the intake process at a moment when volunteers are needed.

In addition, the prospect of a background check could scare away potential volunteers. Some might not want their personal history examined or may fear the details in the report will become public knowledge.

“With several hundred volunteers, to date, we have not performed background checks,” said Demetrius Kastros, a Monterey, Calif., CERT instructor. “Background checks are usually conducted by the law enforcement agency of a jurisdiction, and they usually have enough constraints on their time without doing background checks on the 35 students in a CERT class.”

In any case, he suggests, the very nature of an emergency likely would limit the kind of harm a potential criminal might perpetrate. “CERT members operate in teams and are not working with overly expensive or sensitive equipment, where there are concerns about loss of materials,” Kastros said.

Interestingly the business of vetting volunteers extends beyond the emergency management community. While CERTs tend to rely on state and local law enforcement to fund background checks, a growing niche industry has sprung up to conduct this work for others in the nonprofit community. Organizations such as First Advantage, AccuSource and True Hire’s subsidiary Background Checks for Volunteers all offer to help the nonprofit community conduct investigations for a fee.

Clearly strong cases exist for and against the use of background checks in emergency response. To see how these arguments play out in practice, it helps to look at a few specific situations.


The 400 active volunteers in the Austin, Texas, CERT represent a broad swath of the local population. Their ages, professions and ethnicities all may vary. But these green-vested responders all have one thing in common: clean criminal records.

To become a CERT volunteer, it’s not enough to attend one of the twice-yearly, eight-session classes, or to join the monthly meetings for continuing education and training. To earn the ID emblazoned with city and CERT logos, volunteers must submit to the background check.

The police department runs the check and picks up the tab for any associated costs. Individuals are matched against the Texas penal code for past violations, and their fingerprints are run against an FBI database. It’s the same level of scrutiny as is applied to any city employee, said Jacob Dirr, a spokesman for the Austin Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.

“There is the potential for our volunteers to come into contact with children or vulnerable populations, and we want to ensure that in those instances we are doing our due diligence,” he said.

While some may be concerned that such checks will scare off potential volunteers, Dirr said he has never known that to be the case. Nor has the check impeded what some say is a vital aspect of emergency response: That is, the spontaneous volunteer. Such individuals have been a crucial component in many emergency operations, such as the 2014 Oso mudslide in Washington state, where hundreds of volunteers helped mitigate a landslide that killed more than 40 people.

Austin makes sure CERT’s background checks do not slow any emergency response. To do this it relies on a memorandum of understanding with the American Red Cross, which typically will lead the intake of volunteers during a major disaster. The CERT will put these people to work, even without the usual investigation. “If we are in an instance where we have spontaneous volunteers, nine times out of 10 we are going to be doing that with the American Red Cross, and they have their own very efficient ways of checking people before they are accepted as Red Cross volunteers,” Dirr said.


Not everyone agrees with this way of thinking. Sometimes the organization of a community’s emergency response mechanisms will actually mitigate against the need for a background check.

Among the 3,000 CERT volunteers in Palm Beach County, Fla., not one has even been subjected to investigation. Primarily the job of the public safety department is to collect a $50,000 state grant and then to pass it through to fund training at the local state college, said Vince Bonvento, an assistant county administrator and also director of the Public Safety Department.

Volunteers get trained and certified, but they also get badges stating they are not county employees or even sanctioned volunteers. “If they were volunteers for the county we would be responsible for their actions,” Bonvento explained. That’s not a weight the county wants to bear — not when most volunteers spend their time patrolling retirement communities.

To take responsibility for these helpers, the county would probably want to run background checks, and that raises a range of tough questions. “What are going to be the criteria you are going to use to deny someone a CERT certification? There are various levels of misdemeanor; there are these different levels of checks. All of that would have to be defined,” Bonvento said. “If there is cost involved, do you pass that on to the volunteers? Will it be allowable to take it out of the grant?”

Answers to these and other questions may be forthcoming, as Florida’s inspector general recommended recently that background checks be made mandatory for emergency volunteers. That would suit Bonvento just fine, as long as the state is willing to take on responsibility for the effort. “If it is going to be done it needs to be done by the state of Florida,” he said. “They need to come to the counties, and they need to give us direction.”


Even when checks are run, a dubious score doesn’t mean automatic rejection, at least not in Rush County. Most investigations, for example, will delve into credit history: A person with financial troubles may be more apt to abuse trust. But Kemker doesn’t look at those scores.

“There are a lot of people having financial hard times right now,” he said. “We are not going to exclude someone based on that.”

Even criminal blips may be overlooked. “We have had some that have been questionable, where maybe the people they run with have an extensive history with law enforcement and they are just ‘known associates,’” Kemker said. “We sit with them, we discuss it and we give them a chance.”

The returns on that effort can be mixed. “We have had a couple of them that have been straight with us, who have been willing to make a change and have become better citizens. Then we’ve had others who we find out they are still associating with those people, or they are making racial slurs or sexual innuendos on Facebook.”

So Kemker runs the check, but he relies most heavily on interviews between candidates and present volunteers. “They sometimes tend to get a better description of what the people will be like, bringing out things that would not normally show up on a background check as far as their attitude and their actions.”

In some states, investigations into the criminal histories of emergency volunteers remain something of a mixed bag.

In Maine, where there is no statewide oversight of volunteer programs, counties manage their own CERTs, Fitzgerald said, and it is hit and miss as to which choose to run background checks.

Fitzgerald knows of cases in which a volunteer’s checkered past has caused planners to shift direction or even decline assistance. “I have heard of instances where a background check turned up something that might be concerning, and we have either had to change the role of that volunteer and think about where we might use their skills, or else say thanks but no thanks.”

While counties are free to choose the level of scrutiny they wish to apply, Fitzgerald’s bottom line is pragmatic: Unless there is some compelling reason not to, let’s get those people into the pipeline. “If there is a need in a community and you have a group of people who want to get training, you want to take advantage of that,” he said. “It’s hard enough to find people who are willing to volunteer and do this kind of work.”




Story by Adam Stone
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/training/Emergency-Managers-Debate-Background-Checks-for-Volunteers.html

Ebola: Fear the Fear not the Virus

Ebola: Fear the Fear not the Virus

 

Recent weeks have seen the proliferation of fear messaging about the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). The inconsistent messaging that has been targeted at the citizenry of the United Stated and Ohio residents in particular is nothing more than shameful. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the White House, and the media at large have unwittingly or perhaps purposefully created ambiguous messages about EVD that have led to wide spread panic and paralysis. Keeping children home from school out of fear of contracting EVD, servers in restaurants wearing gloves so as not to come in contact with a potential infected person are but a few futile behaviors that develop as a result of such ineffective messaging. Why are we engaging in fear control messages when we should be sending messages designed not only to educate the public but also have them engage in proactive behaviors that serve to mitigate any perceived or real threat? Messages resulting in fear control paralyze publics and have no value as to actually addressing any given threat. Further, fear control messages result in wide-spread hysteria and panic that could threaten public safety. Such irresponsible messaging is not limited to the CDC, White House, and media outlets. If we are to truly take risk and crisis messaging seriously, we need to engage in message creation designed to control danger or danger control messages. Being told by government officials that “they are on it” or “there is nothing to worry about” do little for public safety. These types of messages fuel uncertainty and speculation. Instead, danger control messages advocate not only a realistic degree of susceptibility to the threat but also advocates behaviors that people can engage in to mitigate their susceptibility to the risk. Messages that are designed to educate and advocate are ALWAYS more favorable and effective than messages designed to threaten, perpetuate fear, and do not advocate any proactive behavior on the part of the public. I hope that after the Ebola Virus Disease hype dies down and the media moves on to their next “if it bleeds it leads” story, all of us reflect on how the spread of ineffective fear messages was so much more far reaching than EVD ever was. It is in the realm of health communication, risk communication, and crisis communication where effective messages can be created, disseminated, and assessed. The containment of Ebola Virus Disease is indeed an entity best addressed by healthcare personnel. The messaging about Ebola Virus Disease is indeed and entity best addressed by communication professionals.

 

Theodore A. Avtgis, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair

Department of Communication Studies

Dr. Avtgis Presents at ECA

Theodore A. Avtgis, Professor and Chair in the Department of Communication Studies, presented two papers titled "The Impact of Communication Technology on Healthcare Organizations and Patient-Provider Interaction" and "Recent Research Involving Biological Approaches toward Understanding Trait Verbal Aggressiveness 2010-2014" at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association in Providence, RI.

How Safe is the Medicine in Your House?

Dr. Dan O'Rourke

Associate Professor

Department of Communication Studies 

            Americans are fortunate to have access to some the finest medical professionals and facilities in the world. Combined with government oversight agencies and independent researchers to test medical products for safety, we are afforded a great deal of confidence when we go to the medical cabinets in our homes. A recent story by Pro Publica, a non-profit investigative journalism agency, in cooperation with the National Public Radio program, This American Life, however, warns us that we must be ever vigilant as consumers of over the counter medicines.

            Three years ago in 2010, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that more than 300 people (321) died from acetaminophen toxicity. Acetaminophen is the active drug found in Tylenol, which is one of the reasons this finding was so startling. In 1982, someone tampered with and poisoned bottles of Tylenol in the Chicago area. (content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1878063.html) The makers of the product acted decisively and withdrew millions of bottles of the medicine from the shelves at great cost to the product company. Since that time, Tylenol has benefited from the public perception that it is one of the safest products on the market. Advertising campaigns for the medicine echoed this perception and declared that Tylenol was the pain reliever that “hospitals used most.” It was “recommended by pediatricians” and provided “safe, fast, pain relief.” Ironically, this belief may have contributed to the problem.

            The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been aware of the potential problem of acetaminophen toxicity for some time. In 1977, an expert panel strongly recommended that a warning be placed on the painkiller that excess use could cause “severe liver damage.” Great Britain, Switzerland, and New Zealand have required that it be sold only by pharmacies or regulated the amount that can be purchased. In America, however, public perception of safety has negated these findings. The FDA asserts that this has created a “special risk” for the product as twenty-five percent of Americans routinely take more pills than prescribed. The FDA sets the maximum recommended daily dose at 4 grams, or eight pills; as few as two extra pills has been reported to cause liver failure. From 2001 to 2010, acetaminophen-related deaths amounted to twice the number of all other over-the counter-pain relievers. This is information that must be communicated to the general public. A careful examination of the potentially fatal consequences of what may be considered simple miscommunication between drug manufacturers, health practioners, and innocent patients is at the heart of this issue. Once again, we see a need for greater consumer awareness and the development of health and risk communication in the medical profession.  

 Sources:  www.propublica.org/about

                 content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1878063.html

                 With thanks to Dr. Pravin Rodrigues for his ideas and input

Is Genetic Testing Right For You?

Kimberly Field-Springer, PhD

Assistant Professor

Department of Communication Studies

Recently Angelina Jolie, actress, director, writer, winner of an Academy Award, and 3 Golden Globes, shared her personal medical decisions about genetic testing for a breast cancer gene, BRCA1, mutation in an op-ed piece published by The New York Times. Jolie, known for playing fierce roles, including the vigilante, Lara Croft in Tomb Raider and CIA operative, Evelyn Salt in Salt, opened about her risks of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Jolie’s mother died of cancer at the age of 56. And when Jolie’s children asked her what happened to “Mommy’s, mommy,” Jolie had difficulty talking about the disease that took her mom’s life.¹ These conversations led the nation to discuss decisions we make based from the role of genetic testing in identifying breast and ovarian cancer risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment options.

But is genetic testing right for everyone? First and foremost, genetic testing is a personal choice; therefore, there is no clear answer to this question. Yet, we tend to under- and over-estimate our susceptibility to certain risks. We live in a risk society where we are constantly bombarded with new information suggesting that we can calculate risks about the possibility of developing certain diseases. Some of us who are at high risk may decide not to undergo genetic testing for fear of receiving undesirable results. Others of us may decide to undergo genetic testing precipitated by fear that is unwarranted. When we receive results from genetic testing, we then must make sense of this information. Yet, in reality, the decision to act on this information introduces new risks into our situation that affects us personally as well as our close loved ones. And we tend to take for granted the psychological, physiological, and emotional aspects of the information we receive about risks.

So, what do we know about the BRCA1 (breast cancer susceptibility gene 1) and BRCA2 (breast cancer susceptibility gene 2) genetic testing for mutations? How is this information linked to our risk of cancer? A woman or man is at high risk for developing cancer if she or he inherits a harmful mutation of either gene. The gene mutation affects women and men differently. According to Kate Shane-Carson, MS, Certified Genetic Counselor, Assistant Professor, Clinical Internal Medicine at The Ohio State University Division of Human Genetics, “In the general population, women have about a 10-12% lifetime risk to develop breast cancer and a 1.5% lifetime risk to develop ovarian cancer. However, women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation have a 50-85% lifetime risk to develop breast cancer. Women with a BRCA1 mutation have a 40-60% lifetime risk to develop ovarian cancer, and women with a BRCA2 mutation have a 10-20% lifetime risk to develop ovarian cancer. In the general population, men have less than a 1% lifetime risk to develop breast cancer. Men with a BRCA1 mutation have about a 1% lifetime risk to develop breast cancer, and men with a BRCA2 mutation have about a 5-10% lifetime risk to develop breast cancer. Men also have an increased risk to develop prostate cancer with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation. The BRCA2 gene has also been associated with an increased risk for pancreatic, throat, stomach, and melanoma skin cancer.” Studies conducted to understand the association of these gene mutations linked to cancer has most often only been investigated in families with past histories of cancer.² We have an abundant amount of information about the association between gene mutation and risk of cancer. However, there is limited research that examines psychological and emotion risks associated with genetic testing.

Genetic testing is a blood sample that investigates any alterations in proteins associated with the mutation. The results of this test can take several weeks to obtain. The cost of the test can range up into the thousands of dollars and may or may not be covered by health insurance. Prior to scheduling a genetic test, it is suggested that one seeks advice from a genetic counselor for a risk assessment and psychological outcomes resulting from positive or negative test results. Results of genetic testing can lead to depression, anxiety, and/or anger. Positive results may cause one to undergo preventive surgeries with the possibility of lifelong complications. Negative results may cause one to feel survivor’s guilt associated with knowing that one is at low risk for developing cancer. According to Kate Shane-Carson, “It is also important to note that if a mutation has not been previously identified in the family, and a person has a negative BRCA1/BRCA2 test result, they and their family members may still be considered at an increased risk for cancer based on their personal and family history, due to other genetic and environmental factors for which we cannot test for or have a good understanding of at this time. In these cases, it is important for patients to talk with their genetic counselors and physicians for a complete evaluation of their personal and family history to see if increased screening and possible consideration of preventive surgery is still indicated.” The social and psychological effects of genetic testing may involve family tensions and an increase in individual surveillance of the self (e.g., issues of confidentiality of genetic testing and individual responsibility for screening).³

Because of the limited amount of information about how we individually cope with the results of genetic testing, there are some issues that we should take into consideration. First, you may want to investigate your own individual risk factors. In Jolie’s case, her family medical history motivated her to schedule a genetic test. Second, you should try to learn as much as you can about genetic testing and how you may respond to positive or negative outcomes. Third, talk to an expert or genetic counselor if you decide to move forward and make sure to discuss any concerns or questions you may have about genetic testing. Finally, you should understand that the decision to act upon results is a personal choice. For Jolie her calculated risk for developing breast cancer was 87 percent based upon a genetic test of the BRCA1 gene. Jolie was a high risk candidate for developing breast cancer and her decision to undergo a prophylactic double mastectomy was a personal choice. There are several options for positive test results that range from low risk referred to as surveillance measures (e.g., screenings) to high risk referred to as prophylactic measures (e.g., surgery). Whatever personal decision you make involves physiological, psychological, social, financial, and emotional, sometimes unintended, effects for both an individual and their family that should be considered when acting upon risk information.

For more information about genetic testing, you can visit the OSU Clinical Cancer Genetics website at http://cancer.osu.edu/patientsandvisitors/cancerinfo/prevention/cancergenetics/pages/index.aspx?ref=go and/or Family HealthLink at https://familyhealthlink.osumc.edu/Notice.aspx.

¹ Jolie, A. (2013 May, 14). My medical choice. The New York Times, p. A25.

² National Cancer Institute. (2009). BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer risk and genetic testing [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA

³ National Cancer Institute. (2009). BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer risk and genetic testing [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA

The Role of the Lived Body in Social Activism

Dr. Kimberly Field-Springer, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, and her colleague, Dr. Anna Wiederhold, recently published an article in The Journal of Gender Studies, titled: "Embodying imperfect unity: womanhood and synchronicity in antiwar protest." 

The authors explore "the power and constraints of gendered bodies in political activism through a rhetorical analysis of the Lysistrata Project, a global theatrical act of dissent against preemptive war in Iraq."

Click here to read the full article.