Lawmaker Wants Probe After CPS Employees Fail Background Checks

Lawmaker Wants Probe After CPS Employees Fail Background Checks

By Phil Riske

A state senator has called for an investigation regarding a number of
Child Protective Services employees whose background checks revealed
criminal offenses.

“This is something we need to look into,” said Sen. Ron Gould, R-3, in
a speech on the Senate floor Feb. 23. “Apparently 50 of the employees
of Child Protective Services were unable to pass this [criminal
background checks] and are sitting in their chairs and not doing
anything.”

CPS issued a statement on Feb. 22 that 37 employees were denied a
fingerprint clearance card, including 21 case managers, for old
charges ranging from shoplifting to DUI. Agency spokesman Liz Barker
told Arizona Capitol Times none of the offenses involved sex crimes or
crimes against children.

“This is us following the law,” she said, adding that the average
amount of time elapsed since an offense was nearly 22 years. “We’re
giving them due process.”

Workers Reassigned

All employees denied clearance were immediately assigned to duties
that do not involve client contact, and 14 with past DUI arrests could
be let go if they fail to find positions in CPS that do not require
driving.

Those assigned to desk duties are “doing critical jobs,” Ms. Barker
said.

An additional 18 employees were given a clearance card, but with
restrictions on driving, meaning they may not transport children and
adults, including fellow employees. Three of the 18 with driving
restrictions have since been left the agency.

Sixteen employees were given until Feb. 25 to show that they have
applied for “good cause exceptions,” and if they have not applied or
are turned down for clearance, they will be fired, Ms. Barker said.

Fifteen employees have been granted “good cause exceptions,” CPS said,
and six have pending applications.

An employee denied a clearance card has the right to apply for a good
cause exception, Ms. Barker said. The Board of Fingerprinting (part of
the Department of Public Safety) processes the application and takes
into consideration the nature and circumstances of the offense, the
employee’s history since the offense and the amount of time passed
since the offense.

The law requires that employees be re-fingerprinted every three years,
and that led to discovery of old crimes among veteran employees, Ms.
Barker said.

Last Year’s Bill Required Clearance Card

As part of CPS reform legislation passed during a special legislative
session last year, H2073 required CPS employees covered under reform
package to have a clearance card by last Oct. 26. The bill also puts
CPS and the Department of Economic Security on a system that notifies
officials within 24 hours if an employee is arrested for a new
offense.

“This bill was seen as a positive step in ensuring that CPS staff
reflect the highest ethical and professional standards,” CPS stated in
its Feb. 22 statement.

In his floor speech, Mr. Gould said, “We need to be good stewards of
the taxpayers’ money. The employees should be out investigating cases
and protecting children. And I hope you will support me as I
investigate this.”

On KFYI Radio Feb. 24, he said he had not received any reaction to his
call for an investigation, but added he will personally investigate.

“I am not a windbag,” Mr. Gould said. —
http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/main.a...ArticleID=1823

"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For
you are crunchy and taste good with catsup."

One of the problems with this will be the loss of so many black male
employees.

Black men are often profiled and cited and hassled into reactions so
they can be cited at a massive rate over white people.

It will be interesting to see how this washes out. I wonder what other
areas of human services will be given the same mandate.

A great many very good people have some criminal problems in their
background.

Kane

Kane wrote:
One of the problems with this will be the loss of so many black male
employees.

That's an incredibly racist comment, Kane. MADD themselves state that
white high school kids have a higher rate of driving under the
influence than any other race (12.9% of whites, 9.1% of blacks), and
that that the rate of "alcohol involvement" of drivers is statistically
equal among adult white and blacks.

www.madd.org

Black men are often profiled and cited and hassled into reactions so
they can be cited at a massive rate over white people.

The story makes no mention of the race of the folks that have arrests -
what makes you make this jump?

It will be interesting to see how this washes out. I wonder what
other
areas of human services will be given the same mandate.

A great many very good people have some criminal problems in their
background.

Kane

chickeyd

chickeyd wrote:
Kane wrote:
One of the problems with this will be the loss of so many black
male
employees.

That's an incredibly racist comment, Kane.

No, it would be if it were a lie. It is not. Black males are more often
targetted for stops, arrests, than whites are for the same offenses.

I'm curious how you find this "racist?" Do you think I'm accusing
blacks of being more criminal than whites? I am pointing out they are
unfairly profiled.

You ever been stopped for being white in the wrong neighborhood? I
never have.

I have black friends, professional people, that have been stopped for
things like DWB (Driving While Black) repeatedly. To nice a car, to
white a neighborhood.

An attorney aquaintence of mine that holds a high public appointed job
in state service, and inherited a great deal of money and can afford to
live like a prince, has about one a year of these DWBs since his mid
20's. He's a 45 year old man now. And it still goes on. He is very
"black" looking, and he's married to a white women, herself an
attorney.

He's been put over the hood of his car just about every stop. He tends,
since he's an attorney, to ask the officers for their authority to make
the stop. It seems to **** them off, somehow.

Imagine if this family can't put a stop to it how prevalent this
practice is.

I lived in da 'hood. I know what is what on this issue.

MADD themselves state that
white high school kids have a higher rate of driving under the
influence than any other race (12.9% of whites, 9.1% of blacks), and
that that the rate of "alcohol involvement" of drivers is
statistically
equal among adult white and blacks.

I'm not arguing the facts you cite. This isn't the only criminal charge
involved. Black males get charged a lot for "resisting an officer."
Viewing a few videos of stops of black men and how things proceed would
make it clear the officers pushed the pain levels before the reaction.
I've been stopped by cops plenty. They rarely even touched me, and then
most carefully. I am white.

Ever see the video a black cop, in plain clothes, made of himself
getting hassled by white cops. As I recall they managed to bust a plate
glass window using his body. He did nothing more than ask the same
questions I have asked, and I got polite answers and no bodily contact
from the officers.

Even Jesse Jackson has admitted, shamefully, that he's found himself,
when hearing footsteps behind him on a dark street, to being "relieved"
that when he looked it was white people behind him. That's how
prevalent racism is...even blacks are victims of suspecting other
blacks without proper warrant to do so.

www.madd.org

Black men are often profiled and cited and hassled into reactions
so
they can be cited at a massive rate over white people.

The story makes no mention of the race of the folks that have arrests
-
what makes you make this jump?

Because of the loss of talented and dedicated people that would ensue
if the criteria is used that past "arrests and convictions" are used. I
don't doubt, for instance, that white youths have the same incidence
(and even higher) of driving and alcohol involvement. What I believe
(by my experience in both communities) is that black youths will get
busted for it, while white youth will be more often let off with a
"warning."

Yah have to remember, I was a white male youth at one time. No special
connections, but I got away with things my brothers of color did not.
That includes other than blacks. Indians, hispanics. I've watched cops,
when I was a kid, haul them away and leave me behind and I was part of
the party.

It's just too common to ignore.

In other words, blacks will have more "crime" in their background for
no other reason than they are black, and I would assume there is a high
number of black people employeed in DHS in Florida.

What I find amusing or interesting or the same usual crappola, about
this particular article is the careful avoidance of job description.
Some people that are employeed by CPS are in non client critical
positions. They don't directly interact with clients. I don't think
that was sufficiently sorted out here, and the reader is left to assume
it's all caseworkers.

All the article says, allowing the reader to assume all are
casecarrying is that "employees" were failing background checks. None
casecarrying employees of CPS in my area outnumber caseworkers. There
are various kinds of clerical duties that have no client contact. There
are those that work exclusively with foster parents. Those that run
printing and mailroom functions at all levels, from branch office to
central state office.

An article that pinpointed caseworkers with criminal backgrounds would
have been a very good use of the media. Why didn't they do so? I
suspect because the number was so insignificant.

It will be interesting to see how this washes out. I wonder what
other
areas of human services will be given the same mandate.

A great many very good people have some criminal problems in their
background.

Kane

chickeyd

Kane

Opps, in my prior response I think I used the state of "Florida" rather
than Arizona. My bad.

Kane

Kane writes:

What I find amusing or interesting or the same usual crappola, about
this particular article is the careful avoidance of job description.

All the article says, allowing the reader to assume all are
casecarrying is that "employees" were failing background checks. None
casecarrying employees of CPS in my area outnumber caseworkers. There
are various kinds of clerical duties that have no client contact.

An article that pinpointed caseworkers with criminal backgrounds would
have been a very good use of the media. Why didn't they do so? I
suspect because the number was so insignificant.

Hi, Kane,

This article seems to be a good use of the media then, since a good many of
those 37 CPS workers were involved with clients. We don't know exactly how
many were caseworkers, but we know that 21 of them were case managers.

And all of those with criminal records were placed in positions that did not
involve client contact...which leads one to understand they were removed
from positions that did.

"All employees denied clearance were immediately assigned to duties that do
not involve client contact, and 14 with past DUI arrests could be let go if
they fail to find positions in CPS that do not require driving," the article
says.

So, at least in this particular episode of fact, the mean old media is not
out to "get" the nice little CPS people.

Doug