Criminal Records Don't Prohibit Child Care Work
Job applicants with some criminal history on their resumes have no problem getting approved to work among the state’s most vulnerable foster care children, according to a Texas Tribune/Houston Chronicle investigation.
A review of background check letters the Department of Family and Protective Services sent Daystar Residential Inc. — a Houston-area facility that made headlines for forcing disabled girls to fight each other — shows that dozens of potential workers were approved for hire by the state despite arrests ranging from prostitution to assault with a deadly weapon.
It’s unclear whether Daystar hired these workers; the state redacted all ...
Comments (5)
nccpr
What this story overlooks is what the Tribune always overlooks: No one wants people with records for serious crime taking care of vulnerable children. But you could hire an army of Mother Teresas to staff Residential Treatment Centers and they’d still fail – because residential treatment itself doesn’t work. (We’ve summarized the research on our website here: http://bit.ly/6neiVw) Better, safer alternatives also happen to cost less. That’s the real crime.
But since some of those alternatives involve not taking children from their parents, it’s a tougher story, and one that challenges some of Ms. Langford and Ms. Ramshaw’s most cherished assumptions, don’t expect to see it in the Tribune or the Chronicle.
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
www.nccpr.org
outsider
At first I thought this article was talking about *convictions* for crimes rather than arrests. That's probably due to the misleading headlines. "Con Jobs"? The article has little to do with convictions. When people think of "criminal records", they think of convictions, not arrests. To make matters worse, the image that accompanies the article shows someone stating that they have been *convicted* of arrgravated assault, but the article mentions no such convictions.
The only conviction mentioned in the article is for reckless driving, which I think you'd agree has little impact on one's suitability for a child care job. The article suggests that mere arrests for crimes should disqualify an applicant for a position, which is ridiculous. You've demonstrated that if the state or a child care establishment approves someone who has been arrested for a position, then they'll end up in the news, which harms the employment prospects of innocent people.
If you're poor, you probably live in a neighborhood with plenty of crime. If you're a minority, you're likely to "fit the description". You've made life harder for the innocent people who get arrested because they can't afford to move away from crime. Congratulations.
mfish
Good reporting, Emily. I never realized arrests without convictions showed up. Either way, shouldn't we be hiring people to care for vulnerable kids with a better safe than sorry standard?
Mary Lynn VanZandt Neill via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Good,solid investigative journalism.Keep it up.Name names,kick ass,too.
Gritsforbreakfast
Emily, y'all did this at DMN after the TYC scandal and you caused dozens of good people who had nothing to do with abusing kids to lose their jobs. Is there any evidence the employees forcing kids to fight had criminal histories? If not, how does this have anything to do with the subject? I hope these abuse stories don't just become a sort of cookie cutter deal where step two after the initial coverage is always to mow down the career of every employee with even a minor criminal history.
With respect, because both you and Terri usually do good work, this story is fearmongering claptrap. I wish instead you'd been at the House Corrections Commitee hearing in Houston to report on the public safety impacts of ex-cons being unable to find employment.