I absolutely agree that some form of background checks should be done. As we all are aware, this research attracts some..uh…fringe personalities, and from a client perspective I would take issue with these folks just being in my home and would follow them like a hawk. Years ago, when I had my own group, I met a young man to interview for a team member position. On the phone he was very enthusiastic and for all intents and purposes seemed normal. Meeting him in person shed a different light on the matter. He came to the interview wearing a black leather trenchcoat, was carrying a jewel encrusted 8 inch sheathed dagger on his belt, and had a large, leather-bound book on Egyptian spells. Of course I was shocked, and as you probably have guessed, he never made it to the second stage of the interview. It wasn't a reflection of his belief system, merely how he chose to present himself as a professional paranormal researcher. I could just imagine the look of shock on client's faces if he showed up for a residential investigation.

Back to background checks, I fully welcome it. A police officer by trade, I am no stranger to it. I know that there are plans in the works to have this mandated on a state level in some states, and I certainly think that is a step in the right direction. I do however think that it should be somewhat a uniform policy, and that might be a challenge. I live in Oklahoma, secure in the Bible belt, and I doubt any elected officials here would jump on the wagon to promote this and risk offending their highly religious constituents. Perhaps, as Ryan said, if that was added in a comprehensive package to other professions, it might make more headway. Never know until it is tried, I suppose.

My only fear is that mandantory background checks will lead to state-level licensing of paranormal investigators. That sounds great in theory, but I think that too much regulation will begin shut out the grassroots investigator/researcher. If as a prerequisite to licensing, the state required you and your group to carry insurance, or be bonded (great idea, but highly cost prohibative), not many small groups would survive. In the meantime, all we can do is have ironclad (as much as possible) release of indemnity agreements with the owner/custodian of the property and pray for the best. A responsible group leader will have done his/her homework on folks, and should pass that along to prospective clients. It is, imho, the mark of a proffessional group that can approach clients and truthfully provide proof of background checks and member drug screening. I wouldn't necessarily go around everywhere dropping that one on every residential investigation, but it might put location managers of larger sites at ease to know that you took the time to properly screen your members.

On the subject of drug screening, I recognize that paranormal research is a hobby to some, and folks might object to that kind of measure, as it may interfere with other aspects of their life. I am certainly not about to judge anyone on their private activities, but I think that the ability to provide proof on request of clean drug screens of group members to managers of sensitive/larger/or state run sites will raise the bar against other groups or investigators, and might make the difference on whether your group obtains access to the site. Clearly a choice that should be agreed on by all comprising members, but I think it goes a long way to showing professionalism in the field.

thanks

Andy

My only fear is that mandantory background checks will lead to state-level licensing of paranormal investigators. That sounds great in theory, but I think that too much regulation will begin shut out the grassroots investigator/researcher. If as a prerequisite to licensing, the state required you and your group to carry insurance, or be bonded (great idea, but highly cost prohibative), not many small groups would survive.

This is not a fear of mine but a dream of mine. Yes this might even shut out 99% of the Ghost Hunters but would open the door for serious investigators. I see state licensing as a positive step in standardizing the field also. They would employ background checks and ensure that these people are at least serious about what they are doing.

I don't see the big deal. People get hunting and fishing licenses. They will wait for background checks for their weapons. Why balk at being a licensed Paranormal Investigator unless you had something to hide? Let’s see, licensed by the state or certified by some yahoo on the internet? Who would you call?

Besides, state licensing would probably require some type of proof you knew what you were doing. Which might just get people more interested in being educated in the science of investigation rather than just hunting making the field more respectable and acceptable.

Yes a lot of groups wouldn't survive but I don't see it as being a money thing. Licensing could be as little as a hunting or fishing license. What I see killing most of the groups would be the standard for licensing, not the cost.

Back on topic… As far as what I would want to see if choosing someone for myself? At this point I would just ask to see an actual case file of a previous investigation. I would want to see that they were actually investigating and not just mimicking what they see on TV or even worse.

Although I have my opinions about this subject and have expressed that in this thread already, but I have serious doubt that it would ever happen anyway. The paranormal in spiritual matters tunes close to people and their religion many times it seems. I could see a state being sued and losing if they required licensing for hunting spirits. If the "clients" are giving their own permission for a ghost hunter/paranormal investigator to enter their property to hunt for spirits, then who is the state to dictate that? Especially with the religious connotations for some.

Here's something to consider. If licensing eliminated a bunch of teams who couldn't or wouldn't meet licensing requirements, don't you think they'd still find a way to ghost hunt, only they'd switch to guerrilla tactics like going to cemeteries and abandoned buildings? Just a thought. I'm guessing people would still ghost hunt and they'd still do what they saw on TV. It would just make them less responsible about doing it.

I think some people will always look for a way to get around the laws but this isn't for the casual ghost hunter it would be for the serious investigator I think. It would also put them into their own categories. I don't think it would make a responsible person less responsible if they were truly serious about what they were doing. Besides we have plenty of irresponsible ones already out there already and something needs to be done. I wonder what else could be done?

Here's something to consider. If licensing eliminated a bunch of teams who couldn't or wouldn't meet licensing requirements, don't you think they'd still find a way to ghost hunt, only they'd switch to guerrilla tactics like going to cemeteries and abandoned buildings? Just a thought. I'm guessing people would still ghost hunt and they'd still do what they saw on TV. It would just make them less responsible about doing it.

True, there's a always a black market for something that is regulated.

I truly doubt that it will ever come to the point of licensing. Are there any states that require psychics or fortune tellers to be licensed? I'm sure there are some but most states don't even require home builders to have a license. Before a state could regulate ghost hunters they need a board of review – to review what? ghosts? the paranormal? legislatures have rarely treaded on such shaky ground. There are a few states that require a seller to disclose that they believe their house is haunted when it is for sale but when it has been put to a test in the courts about half the time it is dismissed by the judge on grounds of lack of evidence.

Would you or your group be willing to take time off from your regular job to go to court and testify that a home is or is not haunted? Never mind the further questioning you will receive from the judge on the basis of your qualifications to make such a statement. Yes it really could happen, the very first investigation I was invited on was with a group to a house that was for sale and the realtor had wanted some kind of proof that the place was not haunted because a couple of potential buyers had made comments about it being creepy.

What is needed is a self regulation. Once groups start truly conducting themselves in a professional manner then the trouble caused by thrill seekers will be minimized or eliminated. How many groups do you know of that have gone to the effort to incorporate, become a true 503-C or other type of corporation? Most don't even go to their county or city registrar and register a DBA (doing business as) for their groups name. Have you ever heard of a group being bonded so that a client will have some recourse should damage happen to their home? Is your group bonded or are you willing to risk everything defending yourself when someone sees a chance to sue? Are the people in your group even willing to pay for bonding?

Most groups say that they conduct themselves as professionals but don't realize what is also needed is to conduct yourself in a business like manner. Many (hopefully most) do conduct themselves in a courteous and thoughtful manner in regards to their clients. Many do conduct their investigations in a somewhat organized and planned order and offer a thorough review of items found that could explain the problems seen. But most if they were asked for references would come up empty because they have promised client confidentiality. Truthfully I've seem some fly-by-night roofing companies that appear more professional than some "paranormal invesitgators" I know.

Almost all groups will claim that they conduct themselves in a scientific manner. But very few will publish an article that could withstand a peer review. The articles in the Paranormal Underground are informative, well written and very enjoyable but it is a magazine not a scholarly journal.

Sorry to go on like this with my first post but it is an area that needs serious thought. Hopefully future posts will be in a lighter mood / tone.