DBS check, is it needed?

Kim_kim

JGB1955 wrote: »

A DBS check is out of date (and fairly meaningless) one minute after it's issued.

Do you have a better suggestion?c

jonnygee2

Does anyone know if employing friends, whom in the past have held DBS checks (ex teachers) to work a few hours per month with young adults with learning disabilities need to get DBS checked?

We the parents who are employing them and have known them for many years are all quite happy with them not having the DBS, but is this illegal not to have one?

There should not be a requirement for this, assuming you actually mean young adults and not old children.

There are provisions in law for people helping out with vulnerable adults which allow for people to help out on an individual basis without needing a DBS check. I think this would fall under this, as the relationship between you is a personal one. Generally for VAs the DBS requirement is for people working for care organisations.

YBR

As far as I can see, rtegular DBS checks are carried out because, in essence, no one is trusted to have any involvement whatsoever with children. The working assumption is that everyone is a sexual abuser but a DBS check will go some way towards validating that they haven't yet been caught.

Not quite. Regular DBS checks, and other best practice, reduce the risk of there being abuse in your organisation. There is a world of difference between "the assumption is that everyone is an abuser" and knowing that there are abusers and taking the proper measures to check your potential employee/volunteer is not.

As you hint, DBS checks are not the sole measure - they only identify those who have already been caught.

[Deleted User]

Kim_kim wrote: »

Are you saying that DBS checks are overkill?
Because for years we didn’t do things and trusted people on their “character” and how long we had known them or because they had a close connection with someone we knew/respected.

That didn’t work out so well :-(

I've don't know. I'm a layman when it comes to the issue. However, my wife works in a school and from what I hear the whole thing has got out of hand. Even the contractors mowing the grass on the playing fields now need a DBS check!


Slightly off topic - I have recently toyed with the idea of volunteering at the local food bank. I'm guessing you even need a DBS check for that mundane task. Can anyone reassure me that such stupidity is not the case?

motorguy

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

A full seven hours before the 'children' card is played; much longer than I anticipated.


I am merely commenting on the use of language. The examples you give in an earlier post are totally irrelevant to the point I was making. 'Trust but Verify' is a stupid phrase in all contexts. If you trust something or someone you don't need to verify it or them. If you do verify them it's because initially you don't trust them. A phrase such as 'Trust but Verify' is just the sort of meaningless clap-trap you can expect from the likes of the NSPCC, local councils and others.


As far as I can see, rtegular DBS checks are carried out because, in essence, no one is trusted to have any involvement whatsoever with children. The working assumption is that everyone is a sexual abuser but a DBS check will go some way towards validating that they haven't yet been caught.

I never mentioned "children". I referred to them in the terms the O/P did as young adults. The O/P has a duty of care to these young adults and as such i dont see the problem with ensuring those working with them have current DBS checks in place.

People with nothing to hide will have no issue with the request.

motorguy

Kim_kim wrote: »

Are you saying that DBS checks are overkill?
Because for years we didn’t do things and trusted people on their “character” and how long we had known them or because they had a close connection with someone we knew/respected.

That didn’t work out so well :-(

+1

Totally agree.

motorguy

YBR wrote: »

Not quite. Regular DBS checks, and other best practice, reduce the risk of there being abuse in your organisation. There is a world of difference between "the assumption is that everyone is an abuser" and knowing that there are abusers and taking the proper measures to check your potential employee/volunteer is not.

As you hint, DBS checks are not the sole measure - they only identify those who have already been caught.

+1

Totally agree.

motorguy

JGB1955 wrote: »

A DBS check is out of date (and fairly meaningless) one minute after it's issued.

What alternative would you suggest? If someone hasnt had a DBS check in the last 10 years, what assurance would you have that their circumstances hadnt changed?

Gut feeling and hope for the best?

kingfisherblue

You may be employing them, but who is paying? If it Direct Payments through the council, an enhanced DBS check will be mandatory. Even if it's not, it would be wise to have an up-to-date check, and regular checks every 3-5 years.

It is not just about sexual or physical abuse, it is also about other types of abuse including financial.

I knew someone for many years, from when we started secondary school on the same day. He was a decent bloke, a bit of a swot at school (like me), and generally quite quiet (also like me). We both enjoy books, and bumped into each other many times after leaving school, for the next thirty years. He was a bit soft, as we say in Lancashire, but essentially harmless. Then one day I saw a news story for my local paper on the internet. He had been found guilty of computer image offences against boys. He may not have laid a finger on them himself, but he was guilty of sexual offences. He is now in prison, and should stay there as far as I am concerned. He was the last person that I would have expected to commit such crimes.

Even when people appear trustworthy, or have had responsible jobs in the past, I would want to protect my child. My own son has SEND, and I would expect an enhanced DBS from someone who is paid to look after him. If they don't want to have one, I would definitely be asking why! A DBS may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.

peachyprice

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

I've don't know. I'm a layman when it comes to the issue. However, my wife works in a school and from what I hear the whole thing has got out of hand. Even the contractors mowing the grass on the playing fields now need a DBS check!

I think the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman would agree that's a good idea.