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

devils_advocate

Milliebear, you’re right it is a judgement call. It’s all very well to say that the responsibility should be passed to a senior body – don’t forget school governors don’t get paid and if they are required to make such a call, they all have liability and personal reputational risk, whether they have any prior experience in this area or not! Who else can a Head pass a decision to?

I agree that all convictions should not be spent for the purposes of enhanced disclosure. What I do object to is a judgement being made on the basis of unproved allegations, especially where someone’s employment is concerned, and where the lack of a definite process could result in the serious being trivialised and vice versa.

(Another flaw with CRB checks is where someone has spent long periods of time overseas. In my own case, the decade overseas resulted in no more than a point on my overseas driving licence for a parking offence, but had I been convicted for armed robbery or worse, this would not have shown on my CRB check. I’ve met a number of Aussie, Kiwi and other teachers who have had long experience of teaching overseas. Who can tell what risks they may present?)

Don’t get me wrong. The current system is better than none, in the case of criminal convictions, and possibly even not guilty verdicts in criminal courts for certain offences. It’s the disclosure of unsubstantiated allegations which I find unacceptable, as it is unfair to the person against whom the allegation is made, as they cannot defend themselves. It’s also unfair on those who have to make decisions, as the professionals are effectively saying “with all our specialist detailed knowledge and experience, we can’t make a decision, so we’re leaving it up to you, who may have had no training or experience in this area, to get it right.”

Where this hits hardest is in the voluntary sector, for sports club coaches and guide leaders and the like. It’s difficult enough to get volunteers to work with children, or to run the club. But to put an additional burden on a voluntary committee of having to make a value judgement on someone on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation is, I believe, unacceptable.

I take child protection very seriously and for this reason, I tend to err on the side of caution But I don’t believe that a system which can eliminate the good as well as the bad is necessarily serving the best interests of children.

Savvy_Sue

forgive me for going on even more about CRBs, but some of this may be relevant to the OP, at least insofar as she needs to know what she can and can't ask the Head and expect to get an answer about!

choccymoose wrote: »

Employers do not recieve the CRB, it is the propery of the employee/ volunteer, they just have to show the origional document recieved from the CRB company and the employer takes a copy of the serial number. The CRB is the property of the employee/volunteer. If she is a student her she would have shown her CRB to the college/ NVQ training establishment, who would in turn have a contract of some kind with childcare providers/schools to ensure that their students are CRB'd

It is true that the employee/volunteer is sent their own copy of the Check, BUT the Employer or Umbrella Body does get a copy. The CRB recommends that they don't keep it on file, but they WILL receive it direct, and the employee / volunteer's copy is irrelevant.

devils_advocate wrote: »

However, notwithstanding the Huntley case, I still find it absolutely amazing that unsubstantiated allegations will appear on extended CRB disclosures. To twist the circumstances of this case, assume the OP herself worked with children and was subject to extended CRB disclosure. What would happen if as part of the harassment campaign by this woman, she had reported the OP for harassment? This would have then have shown up on the OP's CRB disclosure, with subsequent consequences for her employment..

We have had some discussions about that on the Employment board, so you might like to continue in that vein over there ...

milliebear00001 wrote: »

It isn't correct that CRB checks 'expire' - the organisation that requested it may want it renewed then, but that is at their discretion.

True, and how often to re-do the check varies from one organisation to another, 6 monthly in some cases ...

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Also, the copy that the named individual receives should record exactly the same information as that on the copy sent to the counter-signer. I don't know if it's compulsory to record all complaints relating to children.

Not true for an Enhanced check. As already said.

TokochickUK wrote: »

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?

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.

You could ask, but the Head could not do more than confirm or deny that a check had been carried out, if that, and it would be an EXTREMELY serious breach of confidentiality to say whether there was anything noteworthy on it. Plus if this lady is on a placement, it will NOT have been the head's responsibility to get the check done, only to be satisfied that the college has had one done. And yes, the college will have had to pay for this. Again, the college cannot tell the head whether there was anything noteworthy on the Check, only that one has been carried out.

devils_advocate wrote: »

AFAIK, an individual can't apply for a CRB check on themselves.

True.

devils_advocate wrote: »

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.

CRB's recommendations, if not rules. Someone else has quoted the 'portability' bit of the CRB website!

devils_advocate wrote: »

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.

When I've been involved directly in looking at CRB checks, I've always discussed with one other person what's on the check without saying whose check it is, IYSWIM. We've taken into consideration what kind of offences are involved, how long ago, and what the person concerned has to say about them in their disclosure letter. It's not a perfect system, and I'm sure some employers have a blanket rejection policy if anything comes back, which I feel is unjustified. If we were left with any lingering concerns we'd probably ask for a reference from someone who knew something about the incident(s) on the CRB check.

However, I've highlighted one part of your post in red, because I don't see there would be grounds for discrimination if you reject someone because of something on their CRB check. If you were willing to employ men / black / gay / disabled people with a conviction but not women / white / straight / non-disabled people, that would be discrimination.

I think their only recourse would be against the police / CRB for recording inaccurate information - IF they could establish that it was inaccurate!

devils_advocate wrote: »

It’s also unfair on those who have to make decisions, as the professionals are effectively saying “with all our specialist detailed knowledge and experience, we can’t make a decision, so we’re leaving it up to you, who may have had no training or experience in this area, to get it right.”

I'm not sure which 'professionals' you are referring to. It would be unreasonable to expect the CRB to say whose convictions made them unsuitable for employment / volunteering in any given setting. If the police have not been able to prosecute, then they haven't been able to prosecute, and in some cases it's surely better for the allegation to rest on the file and appear on enhanced CRB checks than for the police to push to trial and have the person found not guilty because witnesses were too young or whatever.

But that's probably off topic, so apologies ...

andyrules

Quite. It is recommended the the employer/umbrella keeps the paper for up to 6 months until they are satisfied, but I believe they then retain the serial number and date for evidence. There are also strict rules about storage and destruction so the head would need to be very tightlipped about disclosing information.

Heads have to rely on the information they have to make their judgement call (and at least one person on the interview panel will have received training on Child Protection in recruitment), and would be foolish to disregard something relevant. That said, if the paperwork is in order then he will most likely be satisfied with that.

It isn't a perfect system, but it's the one we have and I'm sure will evolve. We will pay the price for the mistakes over the Huntley case for a long time - but not as highly as the families. The paperwork from a crb will reveal only the information available during the snapshot of the search on a given date.

The op's situation is difficult, however, as I said earlier - it is possible, likely, even that she is not the only victim. I believe that prolonged dope usage can cause the paranoia that may spark this kind of targeted and vindictive behaviour. From the information she has given I personally feel uneasy that such an unpredictable character has close and prolonged contact with children; worse if she is teacher training will have enormous influence and power over the children. But that is my own judgement there;)

When the woman has completed her training and is considered to be in a responsible and professional position then she will find it is not a good idea to abuse someone in the street, so you may find that she has to either behave herself or risk her position.

ellies_angel

As far as I am aware students are not disclosure checked. A student would (should) never be left unsupervised and also a new disclosure check would have to be done for every placement they went into.

I know from working as an assessor in nurseries, playgroups that there was a lot of talk about parent helpers having the checks and who would pay for it, the parent helper or the non profit making toddler group....

This is in Scotland so might be different where you are.

With regards to this lady, what can I say, she will be a role model to these children, should be a positive role model, can someone who has been abusive and a bully be a positive role model. I'm not sure. I think you have every right to be worried.

Krystaltips

When I was studying childcare at college we were all CRB checked in our first year by the college and the schools we did work experience in accepted these...

I now volunteer in my daughters school, they automatically list 99 people who volunteer and they will accept sight of CRB checks from other organisations rather than go to the expense of doing it themselves... I had 3 to show them, from volunteering in my church creche, the charity I volunteer for and the hospital where I will be working...

Savvy_Sue

but you don't have to pay for checks on volunteers, UNLESS someone is using their volunteering to gain 'professional' or work experience.

so I can't see that parents volunteering in schools would have to be paid for, unless they said up front "I am doing this to get experience before applying for a teaching course" or something like that.

We have a fair few students at work (vulnerable adults plus children) and the colleges trying to place them do the CRB checks. We don't get to see them.

izoomzoom

I won't try to find this on line, but remember reading in our local paper about some woman who had problems on her enhanced CRB. She had been admitted to hospital, and somewhere on her records it recorded a problem with abuse of alcohol. Now this woman flatly denied that she had any problem with alcohol but this 'record' was following her around, haunting her, as it was revealed on her enhanced crb chech ....

andyrules

Student teachers work alone, having regular lesson observations, normally after a short supervised period. I did my training before crb, but still had the old police check before I went into a school. Schools accept the college crb because they are not responsible for hiring the student - the college is. I can't speak for student nursery nurses. Savvy is correct, volunteers don't pay.

[Deleted User]

So is, if you're doing a college course that'll involve placments with children, its the college who ensure their students are CRB checked?

SL x

milliebear00001

I think everyone is agreed that the system is not perfect! It is however, the best one we've got. I can only speak for schools really (I am a teacher) but child protection is rightly the first priority of any school when it comes to hiring staff. Heads make the ultimate decision about who is hired in schools, and Governors may be involved. Governors have huge legal responsibilities to schools often not realised by outsiders, and they DO receive training to deal with these - ultimately, they are responsible for appointing the Head!

I feel for people involved in other organisations, but they should be placing child protection above any other consideration. Certainly, I would rather risk an adult unfairly losing a job, than a child in my care be injured by somebody I gave the benefit of the doubt.

Volunteers do not HAVE to be checked. It is again a judgement call based on how much contact they are likely to have with children, whether this will be unsupervised etc.