Sex offenders paid to baby-sit

[classicman]

Cornelius Osborne may not seem like baby-sitting material.

He was convicted of raping two women. A succession of felonies, from robbery to failing to register as a sex offender, repeatedly sent him to prison, state records show.

But over more than two years, the state paid Osborne nearly $5,000 to baby-sit two children, before his latest conviction — for dealing drugs — put him back behind bars.

~snip~

All it took for Osborne was a 2004 application mailed with the help of his sister, whose two children he would be paid to watch in her Englewood apartment.

She was able to pick the baby sitter, and she told the Tribune she didn't worry about her brother hurting the kids. But she did worry the state would object.

"I thought he would be rejected," she said, "but they didn't. I never got a call. They never asked about it."

They should have. The program has long barred those convicted of sex crimes and the most violent felonies. But Osborne wasn't spotted because of how the form was filled out. It asked him if he had been convicted of any crimes and, if so, which ones. His response showed "drug trafficking" — a crime that at the time didn't disqualify him.

He didn't mention the prison stints for rape, robbery and kidnapping, which would have.

And there's no record anyone checked further.

At the time, the state trusted Osborne and tens of thousands of other applicants to be honest.

Link

Speechless.

[plthijinx]

jebus.

[Gravdigr]

Holy Jebus.

[Sundae]

Yeah, I might whine about how long it took for my enhanced CRB to come through (I was entitled to whine, being in >1% that took that long) but at least I know it was for the right reasons.

[BigV]

criminals lied? zomg.

What's the alternative? have EVERY application subject to a background check? of course, this is no guarantee of safety. The lead in this story, the mom CHOSE the babysitter, her brother, presumably knowing his background.

I wonder about the people that are scandalized by this story and how they feel about the government's responsibility to "keep us safe", "think of the children". And I compare this to other governmental functions, like, say, having to have inspections for deck building for instance? What is the right amount of government? Who is primarily responsible for the safety of one's children?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by BigV

criminals lied? zomg.

What's the alternative? have EVERY application subject to a background check? of course, this is no guarantee of safety. The lead in this story, the mom CHOSE the babysitter, her brother, presumably knowing his background.

I wonder about the people that are scandalized by this story and how they feel about the government's responsibility to "keep us safe", "think of the children". And I compare this to other governmental functions, like, say, having to have inspections for deck building for instance? What is the right amount of government? Who is primarily responsible for the safety of one's children?

And think of the cost, all you tea partiers.

[BigV]

Granted, this is Illinois, not Wisconnsin. But I wonder how "the state" can handle the increased workload to accomplish this task? Keep in mind, of the 70,000 state-paid caregivers, 60,000 are unlicensed. The licensed ones already are subject to background checks, which presumably would stop this kind of thing from happening. Of the remaining 60,000 caregivers, an audit found:

As part of a routine, wide-ranging audit of Human Services, state auditors compared the addresses of state-paid baby sitters with the sex offender registry. They found two payments made that year to a registered sex offender at the offender's address. Also, 83 baby sitters lived at addresses where sex offenders were registered, according to the auditors' report.

Auditors called it a "significant deficiency."

They found two payments. Uh huh. And they found 83 other matching addresses. Let's round up and say an even 100 suspicious connections. 100/60,000 == 1/600, a 0.16% chance of such a connection. How much money should be spent on this kind of risk?

[wolf]

Says he was a rapist, not a pedophile rapist.

And it was a family, not private placement.

Now, I wouldn't want him watching anything of mine ... but if his sister is dumb enough to want him to watch her kids, that's on her.

[BigV]

So wolf, (I know this isn't your OP...) what do you think is "news" here?

Is it the fact that some people defrauded the government?

Is it the fact that children have been placed in the care of convicted felons?

Is it the fact that the state paid convicted felons?

What if a convicted felon were watching three of fewer of his own children? Or watching three or fewer children not his own and not being paid? Or being paid privately? Is this about the safety of the children?

I wonder what classic, plt and grav are mindblown about. I further wonder what they feel could and should be done about it.

Please don't get me wrong, I love my children and I think children everywhere are to be treasured. "Think of the children!" is something I do every day. But I don't see how this story is really about child safety.

[monster]

Why is the state paying for him to babysit them? I mean great if chldcare makes her able to work rather than take welfare, but.... surely a care center would be a more financially sensible option? And more sensible on other level too... And if they need special care, then make sure you're paying for a specialist? maybe?

[classicman]

Auditors called it a "significant deficiency."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by monster

Why is the state paying for him to babysit them? I mean great if chldcare makes her able to work rather than take welfare, but.... surely a care center would be a more financially sensible option?

Maybe. Less than $1250 per kid per year? About $100/month?

That would be a nice price for daycare...

[Rrrraven]

Originally Posted by monster

Why is the state paying for him to babysit them? I mean great if chldcare makes her able to work rather than take welfare, but.... surely a care center would be a more financially sensible option? And more sensible on other level too... And if they need special care, then make sure you're paying for a specialist? maybe?

In Washington if you are enrolled in certain programs - say welfare-to-work or Work-First programs you can apply for funds to pay your childcare center expenses or you can choose to have an in-home child care provider as long as they pass criminal background checks and a few other tasks. The point is to help people get back to work by helping with their childcare costs while being retrained.

If you had a relative that you would rather use - grandparents do this a lot - you can ask them to apply to be a child care provider. I'm assuming that is what this person did.