Volunteer in school made my life hell 3 years ago.. advice.

[Deleted User]

Thanks choccymouse. I just wanted to clarify my issues with this woman, which stemed from me not wanting to get involved in the things she did, as a result I suffered abuse that resulted in my having to move home.

The fear of her having access to my children through school made me panic yesterday, alot of my friends at the school my children go to know what she is like as alothough i had to move home i didn't need to move my childrens school, so a few other parents know how it came about that I had to move iykwim.

Today after some talk of her working at the school prompted me to wonder if I should have been more open when the head asked why we didn't get on ( I just told him it was complicated but stemed from us being very different).

But I know this sounds bad, but at the moment my concern is my children, and she may not even smoke the stuff anyomre, it was 3 years ago, but I needed to get advice from people who aren't involved, hence my original post and addition to the thread.

SL x

milliebear00001

Oops, missed a few posts there before mine was posted! I also think you haven't much to gain from saying anything about this woman's life outside school. Your particular issue has been dealt with and a person's lifestyle (give or take!) is their own business, and a Head is not likely to want to dig around in the family lives of his/her staff too much. Unless there is a real child-protection issue (i.e. she is stoned at school etc) then I would not take this further.

To answer devil's concerns - although it seems an invasion of privacy to rcod this sort of information, it is necessary to record serious allegations. If something untrue popped up you could always say 'the police investigation totally exonerated me'. It would be up to the organisation concerned to make a judgment whether to accept your word or not. In schools at least, an allegation (or conviction) for an offense unrelated to the job, may well be overlooked.

[Deleted User]

Milliebear00001.

your post makes sense, who's to say that one of his staff doesn't enjoy a smoke too, its not his job to poke around in his staffs lives unless it affects his school and the children in it.

I agree the issue has been dealt with and the issue being her being kept away from my children, and that has been resolved.

SL x

TokochickUK

Hiya, I noticed you said the head had said all references had come back ok,, but no actual mention of CRB? that kinda makes me think that maybe it hadn't been done?
I dont know much about schools except my son who is 4 started in sept and parents are free to go and volunteer to go in with no checks...

Could you check with the head again if maybe an enhanced CRB check had been done? as well as her not going near your children.
Good luck x

andyrules

Whilst I don't agree with drug use, whichever way they are categorised, I do concur with millie that the head may not wish to explore the personal lives of his staff - after all, alcohol is a drug that many of us use mostly without prejudice;).
I do believe the crb is relevant to this thread in that we are discussing what may/may not be revealed. It would be down to the discretion of the holder of the other disclosure whether to take action if there was something on it. I suspect there is nothing as she is working on a placement.

However, I'm willing to bet that you aren't the first or only victim - it does seem rather random from the situation you have described. I might want to find that out.

I would keep a very close eye on things. From what the head says, I doubt he's truly grasped the whole situation, difficult under the circumstances I know. However, it is in the woman's own interest not to cause trouble and not have any negative relationships with the children.

[Deleted User]

I'm assuming that she would've had a CRB because I did some volunteer work at the school while doing a course 2 years ago, and the school did a CRB too, however interestingly, i was still allowed to be left with children before my CRB came back.

So they may have done their own, i doubt the college would pay for one, so would she have had one done, I'm not sure, but he definately said her references were ok.

afaik, she had never worked, or so i was told when we met, so any reference will be from a college tutor she may have only known since September, or maybe last year depending on how long shes been on her course, or course, she may have worked in the last 3 years I am making assumptions here, which could be wrong

SL x

andyrules

I'd be surprised if she hadn't got one.

In your case - it is possible to apply for disclosure from 'List 99', which is a register of barred people, in the interim period between application and the full disclosure being returned. In addition, a head can opt for a risk assessment for occasional or one off volunteers.

devils_advocate

I know that I'd said that I'd shut up about CRB checks, so apologies for returning once more! Also, I'm aware that I've been proved wrong earlier on this thread, so I don't want to confuse my allegations of fact with my opinion.

AFAIK, an individual can't apply for a CRB check on themselves. It has to be done by an organisation registered with the CRB. I've got 2 separate extended checks, because I help with kids at 2 different organisations. The last time I applied for a renewal for one of the organisations, I tried to suggest that they use my still valid disclosure issued to the other organisation. I was told that this couldn't be done as they had to get their own done. For validity, whether these are CRB rules or their own, I don't know.

There's interesting info on the CRB wesite:

Additional Information

Enhanced checks may contain ‘additional’ information. Occasionally the Chief Police Officer may, if thought necessary in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime, release ‘additional’ information to the Countersignatory only, in the form of a separate letter and should not be revealed to the applicant.
Approved Information

Enhanced checks may contain ‘approved’ information. This is non-conviction information provided by the police from their local records. The Chief Police Officer in each force will decide what, if any, information to provide. The CRB will print this information on both the applicant’s and the Countersignatory’s copy.

This suggests to me that someone will apply for their own check, but it has to be done through an organisation (the countersignatory). It also suggests that some information may only be thought of as relevant to certain organisations.

To answer devil's concerns - although it seems an invasion of privacy to rcod this sort of information, it is necessary to record serious allegations. If something untrue popped up you could always say 'the police investigation totally exonerated me'. It would be up to the organisation concerned to make a judgment whether to accept your word or not. In schools at least, an allegation (or conviction) for an offense unrelated to the job, may well be overlooked.

Milliebear, I suspect that it won't work like this. I've had (shared) responsibility to employ people to work in schools. If there was additional info that would have come along with Huntley's CRB check, I'm sure I wouldn't have recommended that he be employed. However, its easy in hindsight, and and in not recommending him for the job, I would be very aware that it would be easy for him to bring a case for discrimination on the grounds that my decision was based on unproven allegations. Remember, I'm a volunteer, not getting paid for all this, so the easiest thing for me to do is to not get involved, and not volunteer.

So assuming someone has unproven allegations on the crb check, such as harrassment against a mother and pre-school age children. This person tells me that they were completely exonerated. How can I check this? On one hand I want to be fair to them, and to follow a thought that if there had been any substance to this the accusation would have been tested in court. I have to make a decision then and there, and to have the correctness of this decision reviewed against facts which could emerge later. Who wants to be a volunteer when when you are opening yourself up to such personal criticism?

So what it really comes down to is this. If the professionals can't prove the allegation, they shouldn't abdicate responsibility and then pass the decision down to someone who is not as capable as them in making the decision.

Sure, if allegations against Huntley had been considered, he'd probably never have got a job as a school caretaker. But if someone is so screwed up mentally as to kill 2 little girls in the way that he did, I suspect that there would be some other poor victims sometime even if he weren't working at a school.

milliebear00001

And I suspect that last paragraph is absolutely true too, but that still doesn't mean it would have been the right decision to employ him as a school caretaker, if the prior allegations had been known.

As stated, in school, the decision is the Head's. Where there are issues of child protection, I believe a Head would not take the risk and employ somebody (e.g. if they'd been accused of assaulting a child). Where the allegations were murkier, e.g. the 'harassment' issue, then it would be a judgement call, and the Head might well want to extensively question the individual about the events and refer to the Governors. Many people with convictions are given the benefit of the doubt, often depending on the type of misdemeanor and timeframe involved. I doubt very much that anybody whose record looked as Huntley's did would be suing you for not giving him the job on the grounds of discrimination! The wole point of the enhanced disclosure is that nothing is 'spent' and so organisations should be exempted from the legislation regarding the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I doubt any tribunal would uphold such a claim either as the enhanced check is there for just such eventualities.

Upshot is, you can't 'check' and be sure! It's a judgement call and one best made by a senior body - it's their head on the block if they get it wrong. Can you imagine the furore if somebody with a past allegation against them was employed and went on to hurt a child? If you are stating that the Head of your school is not making personal decisions about who is employed in there school, I would suggest they are taking a huge risk with the safety of their children. Anybody who enters a school should have been scrutinised by the Head before being left alone with children.

There is no legal requirement for an institution to have a repeat disclosure done as the existing ones are transferable, however, in practice, many organisations (esp. school) will require an up to date one.

Yes, an individual cannot get their own check, but can apply via a third party organisation willing to act as counter-signatory.

andyrules

There is no legal requirement for an institution to have a repeat disclosure done as the existing ones are transferable, however, in practice, many organisations (esp. school) will require an up to date one.


I doubt that many organisations will be prepared to undertake that risk.
Taken from crb site -

• Are CRB checks portable?

Portability refers to the re-use of a CRB check (Disclosure), obtained for a position in one organisation and later used for another position in another organisation.

Please note: The CRB no longer facilitates portability, organisations that choose to accept a previously issued Disclosure do so at their own risk.