state politics: idaho
DNA Testing for Childcare Workers?
By Sharon Fisher, 1-31-08
People who work with children are accustomed to having to undergo a security check, sometimes including fingerprinting, but could a DNA test be in the future?
During a discussion on the Idaho State Police Forensics lab, Representative Frank Henderson, R-Post Falls, asked Colonel Jerry Russell, ISP director, whether there might be a move from fingerprinting to DNA testing for people working with vulnerable adults and children, in the context of whether the ISP Forensics lab would be able to handle the load.
As people who watch programs such as CSI know, the national DNA database is known as CODIS, for Combined DNA Index System. It is not technically a single database, but software that lets local, state, and national law enforcement crime laboratories compare DNA profiles electronically. For example, a law enforcement organization could use the system to link a criminal to a DNA sample at a crime site.
Currently, DNA testing is limited by Federal statute only to criminals, but different states define “criminal” in different ways. All 50 states require convicted sex offenders to provide a DNA sample, while 44 states require that convicted felons provide a DNA sample. Nine states require DNA samples from some people convicted of certain types of sex-based misdemeanors. Eleven states are taking DNA samples after certain arrests. Idaho requires DNA samples for most felons and some juveniles, but not for misdemeanors or arrestees.
There does not appear to be any movement at this point on either the federal or the state level to change the law to require background checks based on DNA samples, but there would be a number of issues if there were. First would be the logistical and financial challenges in producing and cataloging that many DNA samples, when state labs – including Idaho’s—are already backlogged. There would also be civil liberties issues with taking and maintaining DNA samples from people who are not criminals; even with criminals, case law on whether a DNA sample is a reasonable search and seizure is not determined. Finally, DNA samples contain a great deal of information about people’s family, medical history, and so on, which would need to be kept secure.
According to the FBI, Idaho has 3,606 offender profiles and 172 forensic samples on file, with a single lab. This is out of a total of 5,265,258 offender profiles and 194,785 forensic profiles for the U.S.
The ISP’s request to the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee included 8 new full-time equivalents, at a cost of $780,000 for the forensics lab, noting that DNA caseloads had increased by 14% since FY 2000. Governor Butch Otter recommended 6, for a cost of $637,000. In addition, the ISP requested $300,000 for fingerprinting support services for a pilot project of up to 20,000 criminal history background checks on people with “access to vulnerable adults or children in long-term care settings.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
And if that is what they want and the kids want, we should make it a top priority in society to fund it. Fund every child.
Yes when strangers and let's not kid ourselves these are strangers, take care of our precious vulnerable young, we have to run security checks and be very very vigilant, but let's not force all kids to be cared for by strangers.
That said, I agree that it would be nice if Idaho jobs paid a living wage that enabled one parent to stay home to raise the children, or if the U.S. government, like the governments of many foreign countries, paid to have a parent stay home with the children. But since that's not happening, it's true that many couples are finding that both of them have to work -- and that's not even considering women like myself who are divorced and who *have* to work.
Incidentally, according to the Department of Justice, half of child molestations are perpetrated by family members. http://www.tjeffersonlrev.org/272/Siverts.pdf
-the 'have' to implies you are forced and nobody should feel forced to make vital decisions without getting to do what they feel is best personally
-the 'have to ' implies a person has caved in to economic paradigms that define paid work as the only work of value, which insults the 1/3 of the economy which is actually unpaid work
-the 'work' part buys into the idea that only those whose work is paid are of value.
In fact all mothers work, (This is a NOW slogan even) and anyone with a crying baby is obliged to provide care of it, by law, and they 'have to' do this or they'll be charged with neglect.
There are a lot of 'have tos' in life and the ideal is to have governments respect all ways we deal with the obligations we take on. We have to have money We have to take care of our kids. We can divide up those roles any way we wish, for the best interests of the child but the state which is we the people, should empower all the options. Mom at home earning from home, nanny care, sittercare, telecommuting, home-based office, mom at home, dad at home, grandma care, nanny care, or daycare. The problem is that we are hearing way way too much from the commerically driven daycare industry which of course is very interested in defining itself as the only 'right' way to raise a child and the only way that women can 'work' That reasoning is so unfair to children, to women, to human rights and to democracy.
I agree with the writer that we should fund all care styles. We don't yet. We should
= the 10 hour day. That shift also would be good for kids. Some kids love daycare, some do not. Let parents watch and find care styles the child likes.
Meanwhile, here's an article about the FBI DNA system, which can process 500 samples per day.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18435256