Anchorage Teaching Assistant Arrested and Charged for Possession of Child Pornography

By Michael Klazema on 1/21/2015

Background checks are particularly important in schools, where they function as the most prominent safeguard for keeping child abusers, sex offenders, and other predators away from children. But what about people who make, distribute, and possess child pornography? These are predators who can often go undetected for many years, and whose background checks can come back clean as a result. And yet these individuals pose a huge threat, especially because many of them seek out jobs with schools or daycare centers for a chance to have closer contact with children.

Such was the case recently in Anchorage, Alaska, where an elementary school teaching assistant was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. The teaching assistant, a male whose age has not been disclosed, was caught with child pornography in an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The United States Attorney's Office is handling his prosecution.

The teaching assistant, an employee at Huffman Elementary School in Huffman, was of course subjected to a background check prior to his hire date. The Anchorage School District, to which Huffman Elementary belongs, has a policy in place that requires every single district employee to undergo background checks. The district says that there were no indications in the arrested employee's history to indicate that he might be a predator. The good news is that the teaching assistant evidently did not harm or create pornographic images of any students. There was also no pornography on his school computer, suggesting that he confined his illegal habit to his residence.

Still, this case begs the question of what educational districts and youth-serving organizations can do to keep individuals like this outside the walls and away from children. Criminal and sex offender background checks are the norm now, but once again, many of the people who trade and possess child pornography have never been convicted of a crime.

As a result, these individuals often go undetected for long periods of time. Sometimes, they are arrested before they actively harm a child; other times, their indiscretions don't become evident until their interest in child pornography turns into something more obvious, like sexual assault, rape, misconduct, or abuse. Fortunately, the case in Anchorage falls into the former category. Unfortunately, there are others that won't.

There isn't much more that background checks alone can do. Pre-hiring screenings are doing their job and flagging people who have been convicted of wrongdoing in the past and were forced to register. However, many schools don't do regular repeat checks, which could be used to help hold teachers and other employees more accountable for their actions. Or perhaps what needs to be changed is the interview process, where tougher questions and body language observation could help flag applicants who have ulterior motives for wanting to work with children.


Industry News

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.