College football brings to mind trained athletes representing their school in a distinguished and competitive manner. Dangerous criminal behavior is probably the last thing anyone would associate with what is an essential American institution.

But a special report by Sports Illustrated.com brought to light how a lack of background screening in many schools’ football programs is placing individuals with a propensity for violent and criminal behavior on the playing fields and college campuses.

The phenomenon of crime in college football might not be new, but recent years have seen an increase in high profile arrests that have people asking where the necessary safeguards are? Shouldn’t a sports team have the same background checks in place like an employer?

Schools like the University of Pittsburgh (which had the highest rate of players in trouble in 2010 with 22 players charged) have thus had to reevaluate the manner in which they screen individuals. In many cases, athletic department evaluations of players’ potential criminal histories have been nonexistent or waived altogether

The University of Pittsburgh found itself forced to initiate a new “evaluation policy” after an incident in September, 2010 in which a freshman defensive back struck a female acquaintance.

In fact, 2010 saw a string of violent crimes perpetrated by Pittsburgh players that involved aggravated assault, resisting arrest, battery and, in one case, a man thrown a plate glass window during an incident at an art gallery

In a statement released by the University, the new player evaluation process stops short of being a straightforward criminal background check and reveals that it is more of a psychological questionnaire:

“This evaluation is not a legal criminal background check. Rather, it is a checklist of questions that attempts to gain greater knowledge of the behavior and citizenship of an individual prospect from a variety of people.”

Given the string of violent offenses committed by University of Pittsburgh players) it seems like the school would make more of an effort to screen players in the form of a fully qualified criminal background check.

The University of Pittsburgh is just one of many schools contending with athlete delinquency issues. Sports Illustrated revealed their findings of a study conducted of 25 total 2010 pre-season teams which pulled back the curtain on the clean cut image of the aspiring athletic champion:

• 40% of 277 uncovered incidents involved assault and battery (25 cases), domestic violence (6), robbery (4), aggravated assault (4), and sex offenses (4)
• 105 offenses involved drugs and alcohol, DUI offenses and drug possession.
• Of the 277 known criminal cases with substantiated outcomes, 60% of the players charged either pleaded guilty or paid some type of penalty charge.

NCAA President Mark Emmert stated, “It is a set of facts that obviously should concern all of us. You certainly don’t want a large number of people with criminal backgrounds involved in activities that represent the NCAA.”

No one wants someone who represents a criminal liability scoring the winning touchdown and then punching out their significant other after the game. But the flip side is that no coach or athletic department will want to initiate any sort of hiring conditions that would discourage a star player from choosing another school.

Sports Illustrated contacted several collegiate coaches and asked why they might not probe their players for past criminal issues. Some seemed daunted by the difficulty of juvenile criminal record availability, while others seemed to rely on former high school coaches or existing records maintained by the school system.

Said Ohio State Coach Jim Tressel, “Hopefully, through the school system we can find out just what we need.”

“Hopefully” however does not sound very reassuring. Privacy laws can make passing information along from one institution to another difficult or even impossible. Information coaches are hoping to get might not ever arrive and, given the fast pace of the sport itself, many coaches may simply waive the need to run a background screening aside in favor of getting a star player onto the roster.

However, universities simply cannot keep turning a blind eye or doling out free passes to players whose behavior is more suited to a penitentiary than the 40 yard line.   

Richard Lapchick, the Center for Sport in Society founder and CEO of the National Consortium for Academics and Sports at the University of Central Florida, is aware of escalation of off-field incidents and what they might spell for the future of the sport:

 ”This sounds an alarm bell that some new policies are going to have to be developed on individual campuses or at the national level to take a closer look at who we’re recruiting to our campuses. I think it’s almost incumbent on all those universities who play at this level to do criminal background checks on the people they’re recruiting. Not only for the nature of the football program itself, but for public safety on campus.”

It’s unfair to assume that all players will abuse their position given the opportunity. We can’t forget that college sports programs have helped turn people’s lives around and helped them shed a troubled past. Many coaches have seen troubled individuals turn into upstanding people capable of leading by example through honest and upstanding behavior on and off the field.

It can all start by educating schools and coaches in a uniform manner how background checks work, reasons for running them and their effectiveness in helping prevent liability. There would bring about a greater willingness to address crime in college football and develop screening solutions tailored to the needs of individual schools, while respecting the need for public safety both on and off campus.

David Hartshorn, a little league coach who once earned the coveted title “Coach of the Year” now stands disgraced amid accusations of molesting three young players under his care while employed by the Rochdale Village Little League.

Hartshorn is alleged to have sexually assaulted the victims who ranged from 13 to 14 years of age at his home between July of 2009 and January 2011. A raid on his home by police uncovered a disgusting trove of child porn material and movies…some of which supposedly feature some of the young players that frequented Hartshorne’s home. Additional details too chilling for us to recap can be found in the
NY Daily News article.

Neighbors described young boys at Hartshorn’s home as pretty typical sight, one which wasn’t given much of a second thought.

“It was just like they lived there.” said neighbor Wanda Harris. “I’m totally blown away, I’m flabbergasted”

Ms. Harris and fellow neighbors are not the only ones shocked by the fact a predator of this caliber was living in their community. Hartshorn was briefly employed as the campaign manager for Alan Gerson, a former Manhattan Councilman who made a failed bid for reelection.

During the campaign, Hartshorn has enlisted the aid of several kids to hand out election literature and candidate information. It is unknown if any of the kids employed by Hartshorne at the time were victimized but working with someone like him is bad enough

Alan Gerson was shocked to learn of the former coaches history and found it hard to believe he had employed someone with a criminal record that includes child endangerment and sodomy.

“It just sickens me. It angers me. It’s not the David Hartshorn I knew. If this is all true, he led a complete double life.”

The final shocker is that Hartshorns history of sexual deviance was revealed by a swift and simple background check by authorities. Why a check was never run on him prior to placement in a position working with children is unknown as calls to the Rochadale Village Community center seeking comment were not returned. And apparently he slipped through the cracks as well working on Alan Gersons reelection campaign.

There are many reasons to screen your applicants and this particular episode where the Rochdale Village Little Leagues failure to properly execute a background check  is one of the more tragic examples. The addition of a extra layer in your hiring process in the form of a solid background check can hardly be considered an inconvenience when it ensures the safety of not only your employees but the people you serve.

What do three Sacramento individuals, a karate teacher, a basketball coach and a Mormon youth sports director all have in common? Your first guess might be they all work with children. Correct. However, they also have a far uglier commonality: arrested on charges of child molestation and child pornography charges.

These three were a part of a larger bust executed by Federal Agents in the Sacramento area in recent weeks. Online sting operations allowed agents to determine the identities of individuals possessing and distributing child pornography. This particular bust is more than a  little unsettling having included so many individuals whose primary occupations had them working with youth on a consistent basis.

 Background checks for coaches and youth oriented sports league volunteers have become more commonplace in recent years as incidents of harassment, abuse and exploitation have risen. The perpetrators are thus developing tactics to try to remain under the radar to avoid detection.

While background checks are an extremely effective method for preventing the wrong people from getting involved with children, parents also need to apply their own intuition and common sense, especially if they feel something is amiss.

Ken Rosenfeld, FOX40 legal analyst and veteran criminal defense lawyer says, “You have to as a parent involve yourself and watch. There’s always signs, some of them subliminal, some of them not. But there are always signs when someone seems a little too involved with children.”

One of the men arrested, Peter Graham, taught a Kenpo karate program to kids. While he had no criminal record, other red flags in plain view were a little hard to ignore.

Consider that at 29 years of age, he was still living at home with his mother. His Facebook page displayed photos of him at a Plumas Lake pool party frolicking with young boys in 2009.

Issues interacting with other adults? Check. Cause for suspicion if you are a parent? Check. Had my son or daughter been involved in this guys class they would have been pulled out quicker than Bruce Lee breaking a stack of concrete blocks.

While it is unlikely Peter Graham and company will be around kids anytime soon, it’s necessary to supplement your organizations background check policy with your own vigilance and good decision making ability. If you suspect something is amiss with your child’s sports mentor despite a clean background sweep, do not wait to vocalize your concern until it is too late.