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.”
[End of article]
The thing is, parents love their children so much there is no security measure that is too far to go - cameras, locked doors, ID bracelets or tatttoing of kids, security checks, DNA tests of caregivers and still parents will be concerned and have a right to be. The fact is we are dealing with a societal anomaly - small children not able to spend historically critical bonding time with those who love them. We are setting up all these safeguards instead, to calm us, to assuage our worry. But it won't work. The child will still be upset and crying over small things, just over tired and wanting a hug or a nap, scared or feeling bullied or excluded several times a day, happy joyous and wanting to get praise from the one he loves at many other points of the day - and the parent is not there. This gulf or gap in the child's mind will of course be surmountable. The child will confide in daycare workers, will bond with friends his own age, and will understand that being with the parent is not 'on' today. But let's step back and see if this is the best we can do for kids. We have permitted men, male-based economies and traditional economics to absolutely exclude all women's traditional roles of any notice at all.We are forcing all women out of the home as if to be there they are doing nothing useful at all. And so we get this tipped imbalance with kids cast aside as baggage. Parents know that's not fair so they march, petition, cry for more funding for daycare, better staffing, more security but I suspect given a choice they could really afford, what they really want is to be with the child more themselves.
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.
Actually, "traditionally," the nuclear, two-parent family is an anomaly of less than fifty years. And personally I'm glad to have the choice to be out of the so-called woman's "traditional" role.
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
Well great for you since you are doing the role that governments encourage, praise and endorse. But those whose whole life blood is in making another choice, it is important to recognize also. Equality is to never even use the phrase 'I have to work' because it is flawed in three ways.
-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
Great idea! How should we do that?
Comment By Beverley Smith, 2-01-08All funding for 'childcare' should be directed to the parent or legal guardian and in essence should flow with the child, that being the legal expression. It goes where the child goes and parents can choose which care style they prefer. And for sure they will try several, mix and match and do what suits their lifestyles as their careers and housing and health etc. shift. The advantage is flexibility and of course since the state funds the child there is a basic trust involved that parents are going to make good decisions with the child's best interests in mind. Money is not going to be an obstacle. There would be the very rare parent who might abuse this funding but let's face it we have many many laws in place already for child neglect and abuse that will quickly find those parents. Trusting the judgment of parents is consistent with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights too. The ones likely to object will be the daycares that prefer the money go to them not parents. But even they may be pleased to realize that those people who want daycare now can afford it, can pay to set up the 'spaces' they need and come to the daycare door in hand. Daycare use may not drop but it might shift to occasional, casual, and part-time not just what in Australia they are calling 'long daycare
= 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.
It'd be nice.
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