Use registry to protect kids

A controversial blacklist is about to get an overhaul, after Gov. Terry Branstad signed off on legislation revising the state's child abuse registry last week.

You might not know much about the registry, which was started decades ago as an internal Department of Human Services database - a way to make sure social workers didn't accidentally place children in homes with someone who had a history of abusive or neglectful behavior.

Since then, it's become standard for schools, day cares, nursing homes and other businesses to check potential employees and volunteers against the registry. All it takes is written permission from the job-seeker.

But when the word comes back, it's either “yes” or “no” - no details about the nature or severity of abuse - no context whatsoever. DHS grants full access to only some officials - like law enforcement.

The problem is, people placed on the abuse registry haven't necessarily been convicted of, or even charged with, a crime. If DHS workers think it's more likely than not that you abused or neglected a child, you're on the list.

And after a one-shot appeal process, you stay there for 10 years. That means a mom whose baby tested positive for drugs, for example, could be on the list years after she's gotten clean and gotten her kids back.

Getting a job, however - you tell me: Given a choice between candidates, one labeled “abuser,” who would you hire?

DHS argues it's up to employers to decide if the “abuser” is still worth hiring. Theoretically, I guess.

But now that H.F. 562 has been signed, that might change.

Last fall, the State Supreme Court ruled that DHS overstepped by including founded neglect cases in the abuse registry - to the tune of about 53,000 names.

But instead of removing those cases, DHS pushed legislators to broaden the code's language to include neglect.

Legislators did that with H.F. 562, but they pushed back, too, directing DHS to take a hard look at the registry itself.

DHS must consider ways to speed up the appeals process and consider, at minimum, a way to separate relatively minor cases from more severe ones. They must look into ways to make it possible for a listed abuser to be removed from the registry before their 10 years are up, if they've truly reformed. That's good.

But I wonder if even those necessary improvements will make the registry as well suited to employment screenings as it is to its intended purpose: protecting kids.

DHS should take a hard look at that question, too.

Comments: (319) 339-3154; jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net