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

[John Harrison]

My only concern with using what is employed in the Scouts (either girl
or boy....or any other organization) is that they do not have the smae
issues to contend with as we do.  I am not saying that the buddy
system is bad, I actually love the idea, I am jsut saying that the
same measures may not work.

My reasoning on this is simple.  Hypothetically speaking, if a child
molester were to attend an event they may not approach the child
during children activities or int eh designated child zones.  INstead
tehy may approach the child after those activities are done for the
day.  Places such as merchant's row, at or near a feast hall, near the
privies, or during a bardic performance.  These are problem places
that the background check will not help with.  These places may help
if the buddy system is instituted (which is why i like the idea), but
it may not.

As a father of a young girl, I am a little paranoid about SCA envents
for her...but that is more because I was once a young boy and less
because I fear about what the adults around her will do.

One idea that has been tickling my brain is a special camping area for
people with children.  I know it reeks of segregation (which is why it
would have to be voluntary), but it may be helpful in overall safety
for our children...it also might make it easier to implimetn the Harry
Potter style reward system...just a thought.

Please don't think I am trying to be negative, I am jsut trying to
ensure that the whole issue is looked at.

Yours in Service to the Dream,

Garath r' cath cara bardd

On 4/18/07, Xplex at aol.com <Xplex at aol.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>