In an effort to improve public safety, the Province of Manitoba recently proposed a bill that would prevent convicted sex offenders from legally changing their name. This follows a similar initiative in the province of Alberta a few years ago for dangerous offenders.
These initiatives receive mixed reviews across the political spectrum, as some feel the potential positives to public safety and law enforcement are outweighed by the increased challenges to offenders attempting to reintegrate and move on from their past transgressions. This article is not an effort to wade into that discussion, but to highlight the impact these policies (or lack of policies, to be accurate) have had on the background screening industry, and organizations conducting Vulnerable Sector Checks on new hires in Canada.
First, a bit of context. Of the millions of Criminal Record Checks completed in Canada each year, the majority do not use fingerprints to verify identity. The more convenient and economical approach is to verify identity with government-issued photo ID, and perform a Name-Based Criminal Record Check with – you guessed it – Name and Date of Birth. This process unfolds millions of times a year at a local police service, and online via a third-party screening provider. Although fingerprints serve as a unique identifier, they incur an expensive and time-consuming process that can take weeks or months. For this reason, fingerprint-based searches are often a last resort. More on this later.
Approximately 15 years ago, the issue of name changes for sex offenders made headlines when it was discovered that a former junior hockey coach – and noted sex offender – Graham James could potentially evade a criminal record check by legally changing his name.
Back then, most provinces did not have legislation to ensure dangerous offenders were not allowed to change their name. In fact, as this article from 2010 suggests, only British Columbia and Alberta appeared to have checks and balances in place to aid law enforcement on this topic. Thankfully, the RCMP were aware that provinces had different approaches to documenting name changes, and this Graham James scenario seemed to serve as a catalyst with respect to how Vulnerable Sector Checks (VSCs) were conducted.
In 2009, police services made some changes to how VSCs were processed, notably that VSC’s must be completed by the resident’s local police service, and (2) Name-based searches would trigger a request for fingerprints if an applicant’s gender or date of birth showed even a partial match to any individual with a criminal record. Fingerprints would then be required to rule out a name change scenario and disassociate the applicant from the record on file.
Both changes had an adverse impact on police resources and the communities they serve. First, the requirement to attend a local police station led to an influx of residents visiting the police front counter. Most major cities now see upwards of 50,000 people per year attend to order and pick up their Criminal Record Check. This has placed a significant strain on police resources, exacerbating turnaround times into weeks and sometimes months. While this has been relatively stable in recent years, it’s not uncommon for a police service to take 3-4 weeks to complete a Name-Based Criminal Record Check. Contrast this with third-party background screening companies who frequently complete standard Criminal Record Checks within an hour, and Canadians are now left with a two-tiered system where Basic and Enhanced Criminal Record Checks can be ordered online and completed in minutes by background screening companies, while local police take weeks. Since the police are the only option for Vulnerable Sector Searches, volunteer-based community groups, amateur sport, and faith-based organizations, who relied upon timely screening of volunteers for events and seasonal programs faced with substantial delays are forced to either postpone events or enlist volunteers without a vulnerable sector search. Thankfully, an Enhanced Police Information Check often provides the same amount of information, is faster to complete, and often a viable alternative.
The second process change relating to fingerprints, though, has arguably been even more disruptive. Requiring fingerprints for any partial matches of date of birth to any Criminal Record has delayed hundreds of thousands of Canadians from entering the workforce.
New hires for critical roles – such as nurses, teachers, and doctors – are forced to wait months to begin work, which was made painfully obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic when qualified healthcare workers were held on the sidelines while awaiting background checks.
This process also impacts men disproportionately. Since the majority of offenders are male (97% of sex offenders), organizations we’ve worked with have shared that 30% of their male applicants have been asked to provide fingerprints to confirm a Criminal Record does not belong to them. This process delays qualified, viable candidates from entering the workforce for months.
Even before the pandemic, one example shared with us involved 200,000 Canadians who were screened over three years. 80,000 of them were flagged to submit fingerprints to prove they had not changed their name, just because they had a partial DOB match to someone with the criminal record. Ultimately, those 80,000 sets of fingerprints matched to only three pardoned sexual offences. None of those three had changed their name, and the offences were all minor and old enough without any subsequent Criminal History that they were permitted to enter their profession of choice anyway.
This process delayed 79,997 people without records from entering the workforce in critical roles.
Compounding matters, police services do not retain copies of fingerprints to adhere to privacy laws, so anyone impacted by this process will have to re-prove their innocence and provide fingerprints every time they are re-screened. For most volunteers and regulated professions, this means being fingerprinted every 1-3 years.
So if you’re hoping to have an easier time next year when coaching your daughter’s soccer team, guess again.
There is good news, however.
This move by Manitoba is a step toward improving the process. Remember, police are only trying to ensure dangerous offenders cannot bypass a Criminal Record Check, especially a Vulnerable Sector Check specifically designed to ensure dangerous offenders are not able to be in a position of trust over the most vulnerable members of society. Once all provinces pass rules to close this loophole, the screening process could be simplified.
On the bright side, performing an Enhanced Police Information Check periodically will ensure any emerging concerns are flagged before the opportunity to apply for a record suspension would conceal it, rendering the offence to only be captured by a vulnerable sector check. If you want to avoid the hassle of fingerprinting, consider rescreening every year or two.
Otherwise, encourage lawmakers to address the name change issue at the source. Giving offenders a second chance and helping them re-integrate and contribute to society can benefit everyone. Statistics also show that recidivism rates are low, as over 90% do not commit subsequent offences. That’s important and worth noting.
The other side of the coin, however, is that approximately 10% of them do re-offend, and the most vulnerable members of our society deserve to be protected from them. It seems reasonable that dangerous offenders should be able to earn a living and contribute to society, but there are some roles in our community that should likely be off-limits, or only permitted with some reasonable accommodations.
Leave a Reply