Student Criminal Backgrounds
Students will complete programs even though they know that their negative background screenings may prevent them from getting jobs in the their fields of study. In the long run it hurts the programs' placement numbers. The students who are unemployable due to their background screenings should not be counted in the programs' placement numbers.
I absolutely agree in this case. The information was known well in advance and they should have signed an aknowledgement as well. Sometimes an extern site cannot be secured for the person thus preventing them from completing all the requirements for graduation. These cases should not be included in the placement metrics.
I think this was one of the concerns that was raised by schools during the "discussion" stage of the negotiated rulemaking process. It is certainly a challege for schools to balance "admissions requirements" with "graduation requirements" to determine if otherwise eligible applicants should be allowed to participate in the program, knowing there may be an adverse impact to placement rates.
Negative background checks may prevent a student from license testing. It can hinder clinical placement. Should students be discouraged to enter a clincinal prgram with this preknowledge?
Institutions vary in policies regarding students with criminal or other background issues. If a school does opt to admit students with backgrounds that could prohibit or limit entry to their career field, documentation acknowledging such is usually required from the student.
We should make sure each student is a good fit in the program they are appyling for through testing, back ground checks and asking questions.
We are not doing the student or the school justice by enrolling someone we cannot help get employement in the field of training.
I completely agree. I believe the student should be fully aware of the limitations with licensing, externship placement and obtaining a job even if they pass all of the required coursework. There should be a signed acknowledgement from the student of the possible outcomes. I also agree, that given this information, these students should not be included in the placment rates.
Licensure is required for many health related fields. It is a common practice for an applicant’s criminal background history to be considered for licensure. If a student has a criminal background, and they sign an acknowledgement that they know that a criminal back ground can affect their future school success for field experience, licensure and employment, then the student is assuming the risk. I have had students with criminal history issues receive a licenses. It is ultimately an issue between the student and the future licensing board and/or prospective employer. The key to me is informed consent on the part of the student that they know the possible risks and they acknowledge that they are willing to assume those risks.
Having said that, I do think that there should be a waiver of the placement requirements for students with criminal history.
Very well put and I agree with the waiver.
Our clincial placement sites won't even take them for training with criminal background issues.
It is between the student and the licensing board, however in this state, they won't even discuss the issue with the student until they graduate, and pass the licensing exam.
Therefore; it is important that the student understand the risks
Currently, the state of CA are holding license of students who have criminal backrounds issues regardless of the age or time period. These individuals are being looked at closely by the board and if future issues arrive their license would be revoked.
We can help our students that have a criminal background by fully disclosing the risks the student may encounter in finding clinical sites, extern sites or in placement. Also, determining the severity of the charges could affect their possible outcome. In-depth interviewing and acting in the student's best interest is the most professional approach.
I found myself wondering several times during this mod, "what about our non-discrimination requirements?" Several times it was mentioned that students who cannot be reasonably expected to succeed or find a job should not be encouraged to enroll, but when we do that, are we sometimes in danger of discriminating?
I think because the educational instituition does not carry out the licensing piece, it can get sticky to make assumptions about what will be accepted for licensure or not. It would be nice if more profeessional boards would have a formal process that a candidate could explore the likelihood of setting for licensure. There are some states already that offer this service for their constituents.
We can explain the risks to the students and present them with waivers but it would be misleading to do so if we know that they cannot get job in the healthcare industry. So why have students incur debts in the thousands of dollars for an education for which they will not be able to obtain gainful employment.
I think the word "encouraged" should be changed to educated. I like when a candidate who has criminal background is met with by the team that will be involved with their challenging situation. We have had many students with criminal backgrounds be successful graduates and find employment as there are some employers willing to go with the second chance mentality. But this candidate needs to meet with not only admissions and get the extra disclosures, but I believe they should meet with the Program Director and the Director of Graduate Employment so we can review the challenges that this candidate will face and the decision to move forward by the candidate is an informed one. We are lucky to have a Board of Nurses who will review these situstions prior to enrollment and give declaration to if they will be eligible to take boards. These are tough situations for everyone, but there is no cookie cutter answer. Each individul needs to be met with individually and delt with individually.
I like this response. I completely agree with the team approach. This is somethign we instituted last year and we too have had positive results.
I feel that knowing a student has a negative background and allowing them access to the educational program creates more of a negative impact than positive. First, the clinical affiliates are more and more unwilling to take a student with anything on their background; be it a charge or conviction. Second, even if the school is able to obtain a clinical site for one rotation we may be unable to gain access to a specialty area that is required. Then what? The student gets further into the program, but unable to complete his/her program because the school can not find a specialty clinical area for the student to attend due to the negative background. The student has then incurred debt, possible wasted time, and has nothing to show for it. This could lead to a disgruntled individual. A third consideration is the fact that if the student is able to get through the program the school has know way of knowing that the graduate will be able to obtain a state license. Fourth and final; if they graduate, obtain a state license, but can not get a job because of their negative background, then what have we really done for them. I am aware of one individual that met the Fourth and final consideration. He/She graduated from a program, received a license from the state, but it came with limitations. He/She could not work alone, could not have access to medications without supervision, etc. These limitations made him/her undesirable as an employee and medical facilities were unwilling to work with him/her because of it.
I totally agree with this comment. To not follow appropriate guidelines sets the school and student up for failure ultimately.
You do a great job summarizing the challenges associated with students with backgrounds of concern. Institutions need to seriously consider appropriate admissions and progression criteria in order to address the concerns. Some schools have conveyed concerns about allegations of discrimation which I think can be mitigated by having clear criteria defining these areas.
That is true. The licensing board will ultimately decide whether the student could proceed or not proceed in taking the licensure examination even if the student completed the program. The licensing board decides on a case-by-case basis. That said, the student needs to be informed of this process. In addition, even if this student becomes a licensed professional, the potential employer will ultimately make the decision whether hiring is appropriate or not.
The required written confirmation of student's intention to finish the program and being able to secure a job in spite of the prior criminal record, excluding any cases outlined by law as unacceptable for the profession, should be a reasonable safety valve. Your thoughts?
