Safeguarding our most vulnerable citizens - futility of background checks

httpete

Naturally, its very important that people who deal with our most vulnerable citizens - such as the elderly, those with mental health disorders, children in state care - are comprehenisvely vetted by the Gardai to make sure they can be trusted to be responsible and professional. In particular, the vetting is need to stop those with convictions for sexual offences, who have preyed on other members of a society, entering these positions of trust.

In light of the recent case involving the rape of a 73 year old woman in a nursing home, there are some interesting facts one should be aware of regarding how sexual offences are treated in some non-European countries. Well, actually 'offences' is not really a suitable term, because such actions are not considered offenses at all in some countries.

Statistics for 2017 in Nigeria (Nigeria Bureau of Statistics)

• 2279 reported cases of rape and indecent assault
• 1164 reported cases of "unnatural offences" (ie anal sex).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52889965

For comparison, the number or of rapes reported in the US for 2017 was 99,708. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191137/reported-forcible-rape-cases-in-the-usa-since-1990/

One reason why there were so few reported cases is that out of the 2279+1164=3443 sex crimes reported in Nigera, there were ZERO convictions in 2017.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52889965

An outlet who fact checked the claim that Nigera has only convicted 18 people for rape reported that this was false, and that they found 65 convictions for rape in Nigeria between 1973 and 2019. So that's 65/46 = 1.44 convictions per year on average for a country with 200 million population.
https://www.icirnigeria.org/fact-check-no-it-isnt-true-nigeria-has-recorded-only-18-convictions-in-rape-cases/

This Nigerian website has some information on the possible numbers of sexual crimes actually taking place:

• Dame Pauline Tallen, Nigeria's Minister of Women's Affairs and Social Development estimates that two million Nigerians are raped yearly
• Women At Risk Foundation in a 2018 report said the statistics at its disposal revealed that over 10,000 girls were being raped in Nigeria daily

https://punchng.com/rape-pandemic-why-elderly-men-are-preying-on-underage-girls/
So, possibly up to two million people raped per year, according to the Nigerian Minister of Women's Affairs and Social Development, yet 1.44 convictions on average.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was actually possible to obtain a valid background check on someone from Nigeria regarding possible convictions for sexual crimes. Of course it isn't possible as such records aren't kept, but suppose for a moment it was. Well, even if you could do the background check, you will never find any evidence of sexual offenses because in Nigera you cannot get convicted for sexual offenses. From the statistics outlined above, I imagine a person has a much greater chance of winning the Lotto in Ireland than a rapist/sexual offender has of getting convicted for a sexual offense in Nigera. There were lots of people who won the Lotto in Ireland in 2017, but there were zero people convicted of sexual offenses in Nigeria in 2017.

It would be interesting to find out how other countries in Africa treat sexual offenses, is the culture/justice system the same in these countries?

In any case, as it is impossible to perform a background check for sexual offenses on people whose country of origin does not consider a sexual offense to be a crime, it seems logical that to safeguard the vulnerable citizens of this country, people from countries such as these should not be allowed to hold jobs in which they will be responsible for the elderly, those with mental health disorders, or children in state care?

Actually, it would be very interesting to know how the Gardai approach a background check for sexual offenses on someone from Nigeria. How are the Gardai able to validate someone as being acceptable for a position of trust over vulnerable people, when surely they are well aware of the statistics which show that sexual offenses are not crimes in Nigeria? If anyone knows a member of the Gardai, or is a member themselves, it would be helpful if they could provide some clarity on this topic in this thread.

Kidchameleon

Until they find a way to improve the situation, no family member of mine will be going to a nursing home where there are staff from countries that cannot have proper background checks.

httpete

It seems somewhat similar to the issue of grooming cases in Rotherham, Oxford, Manchester etc, in the sense that clearly the authorities in Ireland are aware of very serious problems regarding the safety of vulnerable citizens due to the futility of background checks, but no preventative/remediative action is taken, out of what I can only imagine is a fear they will be called racist.

By the authorities, I mean the Gardai, the nursing homes and their regulatory body, the institutions for mental health disorders and their regulatory body, and the Government.

By clearly aware, I mean they must surely know of the that fact sexual offenses in Nigeria are not considered crimes since this topic falls under their remit. The statistics are readily available on the internet; the information in my post was obtained in in less than ten minutes with Google. I must assume they know at least as much as I do.

If it is technically impossible to background check someone, because in practice a sexual offense is not a crime in their country, I believe it is a systemic failure of protocol that the solution to this issue is to simply allow these people access to jobs where the well-being of a vulnerable citizen is their responsibility.

Vulnerable citizens in many cases may not be able to express themselves due to the nature of their condition, hence why background checks are so critical. We cannot rely on these citizens to help themselves, we are supposed to be safeguarding them.

Who knows what is going on in our institutions housing vulnerable citizens when the staff are hired from cultures where sexual offenses are not considered crimes. The recent case could be just one of many. Of course, if that is indeed the case, we may never even know of it because many of these vulnerable citizens will not be able to verbalize their situation.

Rodney Bathgate

Is this about that Nigerian lad who was convicted of raping an elderly resident in a nursing home and sentenced last week?

He should be deported back to Nigeria when he has served his full sentence.

Tip of the iceberg I suspect. How many other times has he done this?

StackSteevens

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Is this about that Nigerian lad who was convicted of raping an elderly resident in a nursing home and sentenced last week?

He should be deported back to Nigeria when he has served his full sentence.

Tip of the iceberg I suspect. How many other times has he done this?

The problem is that he's an Irish lad.

True, he may have been born in Nigeria, he may have been an illegal immigrant, he may have shagged an Irish slapper and fathered an Irish-born sprog to remain here, but today he's every bit as Irish as Gerry Adams, C J Stander or Mickey Dee Higginz.

And, unless our Gubberment man up and remove his citizenship, he'll be Irish until the day that he dies.

httpete

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Is this about that Nigerian lad who was convicted of raping an elderly resident in a nursing home and sentenced last week?

He should be deported back to Nigeria when he has served his full sentence.

Tip of the iceberg I suspect. How many other times has he done this?

No, this is about the general situation, that case is just a single example of a systemic failure of protocol.

Clearly the protocol is a failure because we have seen the results of it with that case.

How have we allowed people for whom a history of sexual offenses can't be checked to work with vulnerable citizens?

You would think in this country, in particular, with our history on letting down vulnerable citizens and leaving them prone to abuse from predators, that we would have learned something from the past and prevent such a situation arising again.

Rodney Bathgate

Drop him out of an airborne helicopter if we can’t deport him.

httpete

StackSteevens wrote: »

The problem is that he's an Irish lad.

True, he may have been born in Nigeria, he may have been an illegal immigrant, he may have shagged an Irish slapper and fathered an Irish-born sprog to remain here, but today he's every bit as Irish as Gerry Adams, C J Stander or Mickey Dee Higginz.

And, unless our Gubberment man up and remove his citizenship, he'll be Irish until the day that he dies.

The issue is that it is not just about him. His sentence and what happens to him after he serves his sentence is a different issue. The problem is that we have a system in this country which allows people whose background of sexual offenses can't be checked to work with vulnerable people.

And these people are coming from a culture with an extremely big problem with sexual abuse and rape.

The last person you would want to be responsible for a vulnerable citizen is one that comes from a culture where rape isn't a crime. But our approach to this issue is just to overlook it and allow such a person to take up a job where the well-being of the citizen is in their care. It really is quite hard to comprehend that this is considered a sufficient policy to safeguard citizens.

StackSteevens

httpete wrote: »

No, this is about the general situation, that case is just a single example of a systemic failure of protocol.

Clearly the protocol is a failure because we have seen the results of it with that case.

How have we allowed people for whom a history of sexual offenses can't be checked to work with vulnerable citizens?

You would think in this country, in particular, with our history on letting down vulnerable citizens and leaving them prone to abuse from predators, that we would have learned something from the past and prevent such a situation arising again.

Obviously you're confused!

You see, the way that things happen in Ireland is that everything is assumed to be hunky dory until, suddenly, out of the blue, a scandal arises, whereupon - after a court case which will normally be fiercly defended by the State - the Gubbernment of the day will issue a public apology and throw millions of euro of taxpayers' funds in the general direction of the victim(s) and their lawyer(s).

Then an expensive and protracted public inquiry will take place, weaknesses will be identified, loopholes will be closed - and, most importantly of all - lessons will have been learned.

Notmything

It's also easy for Irish people to cheat the vetting system. It's not a full proof system.

I'm aware of one person who worked with vulnerable children in Ireland for years who had been convicted of child abuse while they lived in the UK. They never declared that they had lived abroad when filling out the form.

From vetting experience individuals from abroad,or indeed Irish people who have lived abroad, have to supply a police report from that country. However, not every country has such a thing, nor are they easy to check. Plus Gardai do not have the authority to check a person's history when they did not reside in Ireland.

StackSteevens

Notmything wrote: »

Plus Gardai do not have the authority to check a person's history when they did not reside in Ireland.

Is that yet another thing for which we should all kneel down and thank the EU for giving us the wonderful GDPR?

Notmything

StackSteevens wrote: »

Is that yet another thing for which we should all kneel down and thank the EU for giving us the wonderful GDPR?

Same was as the UK police don't have the authority to check people living in Ireland.

Been that way since long before gdpr.

httpete

Notmything wrote: »

It's also easy for Irish people to cheat the vetting system. It's not a full proof system.

I'm aware of one person who worked with vulnerable children in Ireland for years who had been convicted of child abuse while they lived in the UK. They never declared that they had lived abroad when filling out the form.

From vetting experience individuals from abroad,or indeed Irish people who have lived abroad, have to supply a police report from that country. However, not every country has such a thing, nor are they easy to check. Plus Gardai do not have the authority to check a person's history when they did not reside in Ireland.

The standard policy should then be to bar people whose criminal history can't be checked from taking up these jobs.

It is well known that sexual predators seek out positions where they will come into contact with and have power over people they can abuse. For instance, the Irish swimming scandals, the Church scandals, boy scouts scandals, etc.

So a job in a care home, or an institution for children or adults with mental health disorders, would be a nature choice of employment for a predator. That is the entire reason why background checks are supposed to be crucial in the first place.

StackSteevens

Notmything wrote: »

Same was as the UK police don't have the authority to check people living in Ireland.

Been that way since long before gdpr.

Define "the authority"? Because my understanding is that there is widespread exchange of information between the police and security forces of every EU member state.

Notmything

But how can you guarantee that even those who submit the necessary information for vetting are being truthful?

You have to give them every address you have live at and when. I'm not saying it's right but plenty don't put down every address, usually cause it was for a short period or they don't remember when.

Imo the issue is with criminal records not being kept on a central database so that backgrounds are not easily checked. Each address has to be individually checked

I have plenty of issues with the vetting process, I've seen how people and companies can get around issues such as people not having the necessary paperwork from other jurisdictions. They usually don't declare the lived about so no check is done.

Otoh, the reason so many non nationals work in the care sector is because the money is awful, conditions worse and employers know that there will always be someone willing to do the work.

Wibbs

I've some previous experience of this because of dealing with a relative with dementia. Luckily I was able to keep them at home, but did have them go in for a week of respite here and there and in two cases of two different centres, one that came with glowing reports.... well there were issues, a couple of them serious, and this was only for a week. Christ knows if they had been in them permanently. On digging I found both places had a few HIQA reports that outlined some serious issues, including things like major hygiene issues, what looked like neglect all the way to cases of apparent physical and sexual assault and neither made the news and neither were shut down.

So we need to look at the nursing home industry itself too. It's a huge moneyspinner and you can be sure there are the usual mumbled backhanders in play. Some are run very well, the directly run HSE ones as a general rule for example, but too many are real cut price outfits(while charging like a wounded bull elephant) and when costs are cut paying trained staff tends to be bottom of the list.

In one of those I mentioned above a fair number of the staff were on that jobseekers placement and I talked with one woman who was originally from Africa and she herself was very worried as she had no training and had apparently only the most cursory of background checks. Kudos to her actually as she was the one who informed me of one incident that I wouldn't have ever found out about otherwise. Nice woman. Now bear in mind this was a well rated "fancy" place with HSE oversight, so imagine the less well observed. Having had many conversations with actually trained in such things women working in the private homecare sector(some of those private companies can be "concerning" too as far as qualifications go), the stories they told me of some homes would beggar belief. And they knew what to look for. One woman had moved her father four times because of really basic stuff they were negligent about.

And another aspect we have to look to, and it's a harder one for many, is the fact that quite the number of families drop their relatives off, write the cheques, job done, move on and visit once a month if that. I remember that home that was in the news a good few years back(apologies the name escapes) where the elderly were abused and it was on video. Big stink, investigations and primetime reports and much gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts. Fast forward six months and it transpired that out of all the people living there, only one family had removed their elderly relative and moved them somewhere else.

httpete

Notmything wrote: »

But how can you guarantee that even those who submit the necessary information for vetting are being truthful?

You have to give them every address you have live at and when. I'm not saying it's right but plenty don't put down every address, usually cause it was for a short period or they don't remember when.

Imo the issue is with criminal records not being kept on a central database so that backgrounds are not easily checked. Each address has to be individually checked

I have plenty of issues with the vetting process, I've seen how people and companies can get around issues such as people not having the necessary paperwork from other jurisdictions. They usually don't declare the lived about so no check is done.

Otoh, the reason so many non nationals work in the care sector is because the money is awful, conditions worse and employers know that there will always be someone willing to do the work.

It is bad enough that we have issues checking criminal histories of EU citizens, but we should be particularly careful when it comes to background checking people who come from countries where sexual offenses are not viewed as crimes because people from these cultures may have profoundly different views on the seriousness of sexual assaults.

People in the EU have been conditioned by society from birth to view sexual offenses as extremely offensive crimes, so it is reasonable to assume that, on average, EU citizens will be much less likely to engage in such behavior than people from countries who have been conditioned by society from to birth view sexual offenses as insignificant and merely part and parcel of life. In essence, when a country of 200 million people has zero convictions for rape in 2017, it is clear that rape and sexual assaults are considered normal behavior in this country, not criminal behavior. So we should be extra vigilant when hiring people from such countries to work with vulnerable citizens, and by extra vigilant I mean we should just not hire them full stop.

Wibbs

httpete wrote: »

People in the EU have been conditioned by society from birth to view sexual offenses as extremely offensive crimes, so it is reasonable to assume that, on average, EU citizens will be much less likely to engage in such behavior than people from countries who have been conditioned by society from to birth view sexual offenses as insignificant and merely part and parcel of life.

Ah here, whatever about differing attitudes to sexual assault in the wider sense, you could pick any country and culture on earth you like and ask someone from that culture what they feel about the sexual assault of an elderly lady with dementia and I can pretty much guarantee they'd be appalled and disgusted and just as likely to call for the ultimate punishment for any scumbag who did such a thing. There are few enough black and white moralities worldwide but that would be one of them.

httpete

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah here, whatever about differing attitudes to sexual assault in the wider sense, you could pick any country and culture on earth you like and ask someone from that culture what they feel about the sexual assault of an elderly lady with dementia and I can pretty much guarantee they'd be appalled and disgusted and just as likely to call for the ultimate punishment for any scumbag who did such a thing. There are few enough black and white moralities worldwide but that would be one of them.

No, I am not quite sure about that. I wouldn't be so quick to transfer values that you or I have been conditioned with over decades of living in the EU to someone from a completely different background who has grown up in a country of 200 million people with an average of 1.44 rape convictions per year.

Out of the estimated two million incidences of rape in Nigeria in 2017, I assume plenty of the victims were elderly women with mental impairments. But there was not one conviction, for those victims, or indeed any victims.

I imagine at least the close relatives of the victims were unhappy, but clearly it is not such a significant issue for wider society if rape is not considered a crime.

If they were appalled and disgusted it would be treated as a crime and people would be convicted. I think you are underestimating the difference in attitudes between cultures.

Wibbs

I suppose. If you look at the utter sh1thole that is rural India where rapes and murders of women, often in plain sight, goes on there are very different attitudes out there alright.

There's also or can be a difference between judicial attitudes in a culture and more local cultural attitudes and responses. I mean we arguably have that here. Look at the revolving door career criminals who walk free with a slap of the wrist after many convictions on a near daily basis and the vast majority of Irish people are not happy with that at all. In the case of Nigeria I'd not be too surprised at all that a fair number of the rapists the courts ignore are found in ditches with their heads stoved in. All accidental like.

Mrs OBumble

There are plenty of Irish who have carried out sexual offenses which they've never been convicted of, and which have never even been reported even. Their background checks will be clear.

Background checking can only ever be part of the story of safeguarding. The real deal lies in having procedures which don't give predators opportunity to do stuff.

Charles Babbage

Notmything wrote: »

Same was as the UK police don't have the authority to check people living in Ireland.

Been that way since long before gdpr.

This has nothing to do with GDPR, any applicant for a sensitive job should be required to sign a consent form to allow any relevant information be retrieved. This would include other relevant government agencies, for instance Revenue may know you lived abroad. If you lived for a long period in a country without records then please go for one of the thousands of non sensitive jobs.

Notmything

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This has nothing to do with GDPR, any applicant for a sensitive job should be required to sign a consent form to allow any relevant information be retrieved. This would include other relevant government agencies, for instance Revenue may know you lived abroad. If you lived for a long period in a country without records then please go for one of the thousands of non sensitive jobs.

From my experience of vetting the applicant applies for police clearance certs from the jurisdiction they lived in. That's it. No giving permission for a deeper background check or anything like that, to me that is an issue with our current system.

I would gamble that most people in social care would know someone who failed to declare they lived abroad to avoid the rigmarole. And when their employer finds out they don't do anything.

My comment about gdpr was in reply to someone suggesting gdpr was the reason for no check.

Phoebas

Reporting of sexual offences are very low everywhere and convictions are even lower, so I can't imagine that particularly low reporting and conviction rates in Africa or elsewhere would have much of a material effect on risk.
Ireland isn't too far ahead of what we'd consider developing nations in how we deal with sexual offences - for example, marital rape wasn't an offence until 1990, with the first actual conviction in 2002.

Physiological assesments might be a better tool for testing prospective employees and, as someone else has pointed out, proper ongoing procedures for protecting vulnerable people.

biko

It's called Elder Abuse

If you search google for nursing home rapes until 2005 there aren't any reported cases from newspapers. I'm not saying they didn't happen, just that there are no reports I could find.

According to a 2014 report by the HSE Elder Abuse Service of the reported cases of elder abuse:
83% happened in the victim’s home
7% in a private nursing home
4% in a relative’s home
4% in public continuing care.

suicide_circus

You leave Nigeria alone, prosecuting people for sexual offences is a tool of white colonialism.

httpete

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There are plenty of Irish who have carried out sexual offenses which they've never been convicted of, and which have never even been reported even. Their background checks will be clear.

Anyone who has been convicted of any form of sexual offenses in Ireland will not pass a background check and be allowed work with vulnerable citizens. I am guessing that this technicality is preventing hundreds/thousands of Irish people with disturbing background from entering employment in this area. Even getting charged with or cautioned for a sexual offense will have you logged on the PULSE system.

However, if you have committed a sexual offense in Nigeria and come to Ireland, you are allowed to take up a position working with our vulnerable citizens. Because sexual offenses aren't considered crimes in Nigeria so you automatically have a clean record.

That's bad enough, but that fact that we allow people into these jobs who come from a culture where rape and sexual offending appears to be normalized behaviour (given that out of the estimated 2 million rapes in Nigeria in 2017, nevermind other sexual offenses, there was not one conviction), is very hard to reconcile.

I also think it is reasonable to deduce that, since sexual abuse is normalized in some African countries, on average, a person coming from one of these countries who applys for a job working with our vulnerable citizens is of a far higher risk than a person from a European country, since in European countries the general consensus is that rape is on a par with murder as the worst form of criminality.

So for possibly the highest risk demographic, we have no background checking procedure. Is it any wonder that we had the recent case of the 73 year old woman, when we allow ththis demographic take up these jobs with no background checks.

We don't have to single out any particular country when trying to fix this policy and prevent similar abuse of our vulnerable citizens in future. We can simply require that unless your background can be credibly checked, you are not allowed take up such a position. This will automatically rule out countries where rape and sexual offenses are not treated as crimes, it will also rule out people coming from European countries if a detailed and credible history of their criminal background is not accessible.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Background checking can only ever be part of the story of safeguarding. The real deal lies in having procedures which don't give predators opportunity to do stuff.

That's the whole point, when it comes to vulnerable citizens they are often in positions where their well-being is fully and solely in the power of an employee. The very nature of these jobs is what allows 'predators opportunity to do stuff'.

That's why background checking is required for these jobs, and it needs to be rigorous, which as of now it is not. We have absolutely no background checking on people coming from African countries like Nigeria because sexual abuse is not considered a crime there.

httpete

I would be very interested to know how the people at https://vetting.garda.ie/ vet people coming from countries like Nigera where rape/sexual assault is not a crime.

From the website:

National Vetting Bureau wrote:

Garda Vetting is conducted in respect of any person who is carrying out work or activity, a necessary and regular part of which consists mainly of the person having access to, or contact with, children or vulnerable persons. It is a service designed to enhance the protection of children and vulnerable persons.

We provide potential employers and voluntary sector organisations with relevant criminal history information on individuals applying for relevant work. We issue disclosures which give details of an individual’s criminal convictions or state that they have none. Using these disclosures will assist a potential employer or voluntary organisation in their recruitment decision, helping to protect children and vulnerable persons.

So the system is designed to 'enhance the protection of children and vulnerable persons', but if the employee comes from Nigeria how is the system enhancing the protection of children and vulnerable persons when that person automatically has a clean background due to sexual offense not being considered a crime in that country?

I can only assume the vetting office are handing out documents saying said person from Nigeria passes their check, even though the background check is completely worthless. What a system.

ronivek

Garda vetting is not a rubber stamp which states 'this person is not a sex offender'; it is simply a best effort to provide information to a prospective employer which may impact their suitability for a role.

Even if Garda vetting was 100% accurate in terms of prior convictions it still wouldn't prevent all sex offenders from obtaining employment; because quite simply not all sex offenders have been or will be caught.

The reality is that in order to prevent the abuse of vulnerable people there need to be strict guidelines and monitoring procedures in place; such as never allowing any single employee to be alone with a vulnerable person in any situation where they could be abused.

You can vet people and subject them to lie detectors and psychological tests and you simply will not prevent all instances of abuse; it's just not effective and moreover is wildly impractical and expensive.

The real questions you need to be asking are: why are our vulnerable people's carers paid such low wages? Why are half of carer positions in Ireland filled by non-Irish people in the first place? Why as a society do we seem to value those who care for our most vulnerable less than we do those who mindlessly hammer nails into walls or mindlessly drive a vehicle from one point to another over and over?

httpete

ronivek wrote: »

Garda vetting is not a rubber stamp which states 'this person is not a sex offender'; it is simply a best effort to provide information to a prospective employer which may impact their suitability for a role.

Even if Garda vetting was 100% accurate in terms of prior convictions it still wouldn't prevent all sex offenders from obtaining employment; because quite simply not all sex offenders have been or will be caught.

They certainly weren't caught in Nigeria in 2017 with 0 convictions for for any kind of sexual offense in a country of two hundred million.

I would prefer not to have vulnerable relatives under the care of people coming from a country and culture where rape is not considered a crime.

A good start on improving our policy would be to bar people from such countries from taking up these jobs. The cultural outlook in these countries automatically means these people of a higher risk when it comes to being responsible for vulnerable citizens.

StackSteevens

httpete wrote: »

I would prefer not to have vulnerable relatives under the care of people coming from a country and culture where rape is not considered a crime.

A good start on improving our policy would be to bar people from such countries from taking up these jobs. The cultural outlook in these countries automatically means these people of a higher risk when it comes to being responsible for vulnerable citizens.

Just image the fun! SJWs like Kitty Holland would literally explode with indignation - and she wouldn't be the only one!

Maybe throw in a bit of sexism while you're at it and add that only males "from such countries" should be barred from taking up such jobs!

That said, and joking apart, I find it unacceptable that any male employee of a nursing home could visit the bedroom of any female patient in the middle of the night without a second female being present. Surely some regulation could be introduced quickly to prevent that from happening again.