[Artemisia] Question(s) re risk from system errors; Other positive steps

[Xplex at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/17/2007 9:51:11 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
artemisia-request at lists.gallowglass.org [Gareth] writes:
 


>> unless there is a way to know why the fail status occured.
 
Exactly.
 
However, more is needed than simply a way to know why the "fail"  status 
occurred.
 
Even in cases where someone actually has nothing on their record, and  has 
done nothing that might cause them to fear a background check, the system  WILL, 
on occasion, malfunction somehow, and produce a "fail" status for this  
person, in error, anyway (...whether due to tech error, human error, the  
never-ending side-effects of ID theft, or whatever -- please see my earlier post  for 
examples and clarification of this concern).
 
These kinds of non-human-based systems tend to breed major  bureaucratic 
nightmares for actual human beings, due to the nature of the  "corporate/legal 
machine" aspect to which others have recently alluded. And  being "innocent" 
doesn't help, when you then have to spend eons  and/or $Ks fixing the problem, 
through no fault of your own, all too  often with no recourse for restitution.
 
My question is: Will the SCA, and whoever the outside contractor  is, be able 
to ensure there's a speedy,  free, and non-insanity-inducing way to FIX the 
resulting  mess, WHEN this happens, without it eating a big chunk out of 
everyone's  lives involved? This (and the perils of not addressing it -- again, see  
previous post) is what's setting off alarm bells for me. 
 
(And after the previous mention of the possibility of libel-related  
problems, it occurs to me that libel accusations, or something of that  nature, by the 
person whose good name is sullied by the "system," could also  result from 
false "fails." Is this also a risk for the SCA?)
 
The first step in helping with this is, indeed, having a way to  know why the 
"fail" status occurred. But there also needs to be a sane, speedy,  free 
*correction* (not "appeal") process, for when errors  do occur.
 
In summary:
Background checks = hoorah! 
Implementation = much risk in instances of false 'fail' status;  can this 
risk be avoided; and if so, perhaps someone could please  enlighten us as to how 
it's being effectively addressed, so we can run kids  activities and/or 
volunteer for them without fear of incurring exorbitant  personal or Society costs 
when the inevitable system errors do occur... 
 
(Dumb rookie question: Do the folks who are setting up the process get  any 
input from lists like this one, or should these concerns be  sent separately to 
the address that someone mentioned in an  earlier message?)
 
=====
A slightly different subject: someone mentioned the freeform nature of  kids' 
activities in the SCA... this does contrast with some other groups (not to  
say that's a bad thing)...
 
With Girl Scouts, for any event, the kids have to have a release form.  
Larger scale events they have to be signed in and out when their parent drops  them 
off and picks them up, and the perimeters of the property are scouted by  
participating adults to prevent/intercept wanderers, whether in or out. The  
girls also always go in pairs -- you always have to do things with your  "buddy," 
including going to the restroom, getting something from your backpack,  etc. 
In most kids programs I've run across, they also avoid problems by  requiring 
two adults to be present at meetings. 
 
However, as others have mentioned, most of these precautions, including  
background checks, do not make children safe. They're only a part. Parents  (and 
kids, to the degree they're able) have to be wise and use common sense, and  
understand the need for "due diligence" on their own parts, as well. 
 
In response to the "how do we really fix the problem" question, a few  
possible additions: 
(1) Educational endeavors (handouts at check-in, classes, articles,  
whatever) to make people more aware of the risks and therefore, one might hope,  
safer, due to their personal choices; 
(2) Start/encourage a "buddy system" as mentioned above, for SCA  kids. 
(3) During a local Girl Scouts "Harry Potter" day camp a couple of  years 
ago, the girls were divided into "houses" and their houses  got points for the 
good deeds, fine behavior, etc., of the individual  girls, and were docked for 
the opposite. At the end, the winning "house" had  some sort of recognition. 
This was used by the adults, in part, to reward girls  "caught" ;-)  following 
the safety rules. Some of the more  responsible older kids were enlisted as 
"prefects" for each house (as  in the books), and helped with this as well. This 
was fun for the kids,  and seems like something that could be adapted to the 
SCA  environment.
(4) We've also toyed with the idea, in Arrows' Flight, of adding some sort  
of visual identifiers to our Shire's youngsters (seems like someone  suggested 
using henna to inscribe "Please return to Arrows' Flight" on  their foreheads! 
;-) ). We never actually got so far as to devise a real  plan :-) , but some 
sort of color coding or something (we used colored  paint, on t-shirts the 
kids decorated themselves, to ID and  sort the Girl Scouts' Harry Potter houses 
quickly) could  help supervising adults (and other event participants, as well) 
to  steer unfamiliar kids toward the places they're supposed to be, if they  
stray...
 
Some thoughts, anyway... :-)
 
CJ



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.