If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If you just run a mothers and toddlers playgroup where the parents are there and responsible for their child, then its not necessary. I wasnt CRB checked for that. If it was a playgroup where the parents left the children there, then yes, they must be checked, even if it does mean some people are put off. Anyone with a brain can see why it would be necessary in those cases
Sure, you'd want the play group leaders CRB checked, but what about the mum that helps out occasionally with a craft session, not in sole charge of the kids or even alone with them, just there?
I like to think I have a brain and can see no need for a CRB check in that case. Good child protection policies and practise yes, but not for a CRB check.
That and although they are a good idea in reality they are very next to useless - they are a single snap shot, and only cover people who have been arrested.
well i think its pretty good that if youve been arrested for abusing children, then there is a way that this can be checked up on. It may not be perfect because not everyone who is a danger will have been arrested for it, but still a risk reduction thing.
i am really really surprised people would even kick up a fuss. Most jobs wont even require it and just because it may be voluntary work, doesnt mean they should be less stringent.
Adults who are going to be in main charge of children should be checked, fair enough but sense should also be applied.
If they didnt have a record but were still a danger anyway, then thats awful, but you did what you could. It would be stupid to not use that facility because it doesnt take into account first crimes or thought crimes or even because its a bit of a faff.
I suppose so, it may stop some previous offenders getting work with children, but do we actually have any evidence that it is reducing abuse?
I'm not suggesting we should remove the checks, but I just really dont think the provide the protection people think.
or an additional question, rather than a better question
A CRB check isn't a stand alone thing by any means - it litterally just says this person has or has not been arrested for xyz - it doesn't mean anything unless its set within a larger framework.
A properly implemented child protection policy puts suitable procedures in place for everyone to protect children (and adults from malicious accusations) will be safer than somewhere that puts excessive emphasis on CRB.
I'm not saying don't use CRB, I'm just saying that more people need to be aware of it's limitations and not think a) it's a completely wonderful thing that will stop child abuse ever happening again b) that everyone who ever does anything with kids needs one.
CRB checks mean that someone dodgy who gets caught, doesnt get a second chance to do it again in the workplace.
It wont do anything to stop child abuse in other environments and it wont completely banish it in the places where it is implemented, but its still useful
I think you and I actually agree.....
I don't think people should be haunted by their past for years to come (I'm referring to people with minor convictions/cautions from decades ago, who can have these exposed on an enhanced CRB, which can put them off volunteering/going for certain jobs in the first place.)
A friend of mine has a caution on her record because her dog bit someone when she was 15 and out walking it. She now does care work and that caution still comes up! The new scheme says it will only look at relevant convictions/cautions, which is far more sensible.
I wrote a blog post about this very issue last month, and got some interesting responses.
To answer the initial question (as someone who has had to deal with managing CRBs in my voluntary role), except for statutory roles such as teachers and nurses, currently the decision as to whether someone needs a CRB is down to the individual organisation. However there are a minimum set of requirements needed before someone can be requried to have a CRB disclosure; to prevent organisations simply deciding to get everyone to do one (or using a CRB to check up on someone outside the scope of what the CRB is there to do). The important point to note is the words "significant access".
The ISA, that Helen mentioned, comes into affect in October and roles out across the sector over the next two years. It will significantly change the requirements, so that *everyone* who has access to children/young people/vulnerable adults, whether working or volunteering, will need to be ISA registered.
Personally, I think CRBs should be the last form of defence, not the first. Only 25% of abuse cases outside the family involved someone with a previous conviction, which means in three-quarters of abuse cases a CRB would have been no protection what so ever.
Olly