After reports of widespread sexual abuse of children in the late 1980s, several leading youth organizations began conducting criminal background checks of volunteers and staff members.
Big Brothers Big Sisters ordered the checks for all volunteers starting in 1986. Boys and Girls Clubs of America recommended their use the same year.
One of the nation’s oldest and largest youth groups, however, was opposed — the Boy Scouts of America.
Scouting officials argued that background checks would cost too much, scare away volunteers and provide a false sense of security. They successfully lobbied to kill state legislation that would have mandated FBI fingerprint screening.
While touting their efforts to protect children, the Scouts for years resisted one of the most basic tools for preventing abuse. As a result, the organization let in hundreds of men with criminal histories of child molestation, many of whom went on to abuse more children, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of the Scouts’ confidential abuse files.
Scouting did not require criminal background checks for all volunteers until 2008 despite calls from parents and staff who said its vetting system didn’t work.
In 1989, a Scout committee chairman in St. Paul, Minn., decried the organization’s “half-hearted” screening in a letter to headquarters.
“BSA is only creating an illusion of performing what they claim,” K. Russell Sias wrote to Scout chief executive Ben Love. “It becomes quite clear that BSA is more concerned in ’passing the buck’ than in accepting responsibility for those who are its adult leaders.”
That same year, a Las Vegas scoutmaster with a criminal history of exposing himself to boys was arrested for sexually abusing a 12-year-old Scout.
One parent said casinos did a better job of screening workers. “The black eye which Scouting has suffered in this could easily have been avoided if the council had taken the simple expedient of doing a background investigation,” the parent wrote to Scouting officials.