Background Checks: How Do You Know What’s Okay?

When an organization has done the hard work of collecting applications, calling references, and running background checks, they will inevitably encounter a volunteer who loves the mission but has a “blip” on their record.

How much of a blip is okay? How much is not?

Be prepared to navigate these difficult decisions. Before screening begins, every organization must establish clear “Go” and “No-Go” criteria: a definitive line in the sand that separates those who can serve with children from those who cannot.

“No-Go”: Crimes Against Children

What boundaries should organizations set? Risk management experts generally agree that any history of crimes against a child, whether sexual abuse, physical abuse, or severe neglect, is an automatic and permanent disqualification from working with minors.

There is no statute of limitations on this rule. It does not matter if the offense was twenty years ago. It does not matter if the person has undergone extensive counseling and is a model citizen today. The duty to protect the vulnerable outweighs the desire to offer a redemption story in a specific role.

This does not mean the person is exiled from the community. Bob Wild, a security leader with Brotherhood Mutual, likes to say that they can always find other positions in the church. But the line in the sand regarding access to children must be absolute.

Gray Areas

While crimes against children are black and white, other offenses exist in the gray. What do you do with a volunteer who has a DUI from five years ago? What about a past theft charge or a history of drug use?

The key to deciding what is a go or a no go for your church exists in the context and the current reality of the applicant’s life.

This is where creating a “behavioral profile” becomes essential. Instead of a blanket rejection, the Gatekeeper must look at the context, the timeline, and the current reality of the applicant’s life.

• Time: A DUI from six months ago suggests an active struggle. A DUI from ten years ago may represent a past life.
• Interview: This is why the face-to-face interview is crucial. A volunteer with a spotted past should be given the chance to explain the story—ideally with their spouse present.

“Go”: A Case Study

Bob Wild gives the example of a man applying to work in children’s ministry. His background check revealed a felony DUI with children in the car from five years prior. On paper, this looks like a “No-Go.”

However, during the interview, the man was open about his past. He admitted to his failure and explained that the arrest was his “rock bottom.” His wife, sitting next to him, confirmed his story. She attested that he had been sober since that day, had become a devoted father, and had completely turned his life around. The church verified his attendance and stability over the last few years.

In this case, the line in the sand at Bob Wild’s church allowed for grace. The risk was deemed manageable because the behavior was historical, not current, and not specifically a crime against a child. He was approved to serve, though initially not in a leadership role. However, whether this would be a “go” or “no go” would depend on the individual church.

The Danger of Emotional Exceptions

While some blips in the record can be overlooked, the greatest threat to a “No-Go” policy is often the Senior Leader who leads with their heart rather than their head. There is a strong temptation in ministry to offer “second chances” because we believe in redemption.

Bob Wild shared a cautionary tale of a former inmate who had been convicted of kidnapping and drug trafficking. He was a dynamic Christian who had been “saved” in prison and was beloved by the pastor. The pastor wanted him to coach the church soccer team. The risk manager said it was a “No-Go” due to his violent history.

The pastor overruled the risk manager, making an emotional exception to the rule. Eight weeks later, the coach lost his temper during a game. The church faced a crisis that was entirely preventable.

Policy vs. Rules

This distinction highlights the difference between a “rule” and a “policy.” A rule is often seen as something flexible that can be bent for the right person. A policy is structural.

When you make an exception for a friend or a “good guy,” you are effectively declaring that you do not have a policy; you only have preferences. Establishing a “Line in the Sand” means deciding beforehand what you will tolerate. It means agreeing that certain red flags, regardless of how nice the person is, are automatic stops. By deciding this in the boardroom before the volunteer is standing in your office, you remove the emotion and prioritize the safety of the child.

Want to learn more? Watch this video with Bob Wild, a former security leader.