to think the NCT should CRB check its volunteers?

[leicestershiregirl]

Just wanted to sound some mums out about this. Until last year I was a volunteer for the NCT and something that always bothered me about it was the fact that they don't CRB check their volunteers or require them to do safeguarding children training. This is in spite of the fact that volunteers are often in close proximity to children e.g. at mother and baby groups.

Comparable organisations e.g. Homestart, La Leche League and the Breastfeeding Network all require CRBs. Everybody working in a school or hospital requires one even if they don't have direct contact with students/patients. For my job with the NHS I also had to have safeguarding children training and we were told we have a duty of care to any children we come across, even if they are just visitors to the hospital.

This seems good and right to me, but when I brought it up with the NCT, first with other volunteers then with the Board of Trustees I was told NCT volunteers do not require CRB checks by law because they are never alone with children, they would be too expensive and they're not effective anyway because they can't tell you if somebody is going to commit a crime.

Am I alone in thinking this is absolutely crazy? Teaching assistants or Sure Start workers are never alone with children but they have to get checked, and rightly so - a school is not an appropriate place to work for somebody convicted of child abuse (and neither is an NCT mother and baby group). As for the expense, what is more important than child protection? And as for the argument they're not effective, that's just dumb.

Please tell me what you think.

I think people who think like you stop a lot of good things being done because of crappy paperwork

Firstly, people who work in libraries are CRB checked.

Secondly, erring on the side of caution - that's exactly what I think the NCT should be doing. If just one case of child abuse was prevented it would be worth the money and the possible problems recruiting volunteers. My feeling is volunteers who aren't prepared to get checked and/or undergo safeguarding training aren't worth having.

I once volunteered for a charity in a highly sensitive role which I can't talk too much about but what I can say is the basic training for that role takes 6 months and only about 1 in 10 people make it through. This didn't put me off in the slightest - it showed the charity had high expectations of its volunteers and aspired to provide an excellent level of service for its clients. I respected its professionalism. I did not, conversely, respect the NCT's professionalism. It needs to raise its game.

That sounds like the NCT! As an organisation, it seems it's their way or the highway on many subjects.

I must be going crazy then. So people on here would be happy to take their baby to a group being run by somebody with a conviction for child abuse? What's wrong with having high expectations where child safety is concerned?

Should say that all the NCT volunteers I met were lovely people and never gave me any cause to worry but I don't like that the potential is there for something bad to happen.

Also if government organisations require CRB checks what does that say?

I can see the logic in CRB checking specialist workers (although I'm not a huge CRB fan generally) - who are having a more 'invasive' and powerful role. For someone who runs a B&B group (ie turns up, sorts out toys, chats to some mums, tidies up)? Nah, can't see a need tbh. Totally different role and relationship with children to a TA/Homestart volunteer.

And the cost would be huge - NCT volunteers by their nature tend to do the role for a short while (unlike say a role where you've trained for 6 months). So CRB-ing everyone would mean that, say, the NCT class cost would need to go up (& don't get mn started on NCT class prices )

I can see a bit more logic in safeguarded training, or indeed general counselling training for B&B leaders if anything...

"If just one case of child abuse was prevented it would be worth the money and the possible problems recruiting volunteers."

And how exactly is a CRB check going to prevent it? The people volunteering are never alone with the children! And an abuser will not always have a record...

That paying money for a bit of paper makes people feel better. Doesn't it just mean they haven't been covicted yet? AFAIK child abusers often go unkown for years - the victims being children and all ofetn don't come forward.

I work in a job which has a large element of child protection. a senior manager was imprisoned for child abuse a few years back - he was security cleared to a high level and it was his DSD.

Meant to add, the library is a government organization. Everyone working for the government, regardless in what capacity, needs to have a CRB. Two totally different things.

Yabu. The turn over of Nct volunteers is so high due to it mainly being from birth to a year or so. It would never be practical. I ran our local bumps and bundles group and now work as a photographer there. In the five yrs I've been there the group has been run by at least 7 ladies. All mums attending the group. We are all in one room and everyone can see what's going on. I accept this may vary but I'd expect that's usual as I attend lots of toddler baby groups in my work and they are all the sane set up.

The only exception I'd say is for volunteers that do breast feeding councilli g or birth support and I'd expect them to stay in the role a lot longer as there is training involved.
Btw I am crb checked as a childrens photographer

Of course I wouldn't be happy to take my baby to a group being run by a child abuser.

But am I prepared to take the risk that an NCT volunteer is a child abuser? Absolutely I am.

Here's the crunch point: an NCT volunteer will not be caring for my baby. Therefore it comes down to me not wanting to spend time in the company of a child abuser. Not a huge risk issue. I'd rather the NCT saved its time and money.

"Secondly, erring on the side of caution - that's exactly what I think the NCT should be doing. If just one case of child abuse was prevented it would be worth the money and the possible problems recruiting volunteers. My feeling is volunteers who aren't prepared to get checked and/or undergo safeguarding training aren't worth having. "

Rubbish, I volunteer for the NCT at a very basic level I help out at NNS and put dates in diarys (i.e. walk with X on Y date with kids). I would not do this if I had to be CRB checked, it's not worth the hassle (and yes I do know what goes into a CRB check as I do have one for other reasons). I am never alone with children whilst working as a NCT volunteer. the NCT couldn't AFFORD to CRB check all it's volunteers and the volunteers won't pay.

FFS, I used to be treasurer for our local group until we moved - I worked full time too, it was meant to be "giving something back" as it were. Who would be paying for that check? Me?

And a lovely comment from Banana, "it's their way or the highway on many subjects" - whilst I agree that NCT are not for everyone, I also think that people are fairly blooming naive if they go to the classes and DON'T expect it to be pro natural birth, pro breastfeeding. Nothing wrong with people wanting to formula feed from the start in my opinion - but don't get all funny if NCT is pushing the breastfeeding!

In this instance they are absolutely right in my opinion - we used to get loads of comments that the classes were SO expensive, weren't we supposed to be a charity etc... so either it's going to be volunteers funding their own checks (sorry, but that would have stopped me volunteering, I'm not that nice) or alternatively NCT funding it, hence more costs, hence more money needing to be raised ad infinitum.

As other people have said, when are all these paedo volunteers left alone with the children anyway? And is there ONE instance of even any suspicious behaviour or something?

YBU re CRB checks -there are loads of non-NCT toddler groups also run by volunteers who also won't be CRB checked - but I think some kind of safe guarding training might be a good idea

Oh I wasn't talking about classes: those are varied afaik.
I meant the organisation. Know too many people who've had run-ins high up.

The world has gone mad if you have to have a CRB check if the mother is there!

People think CRB checks are some sort of child protection magic wand, and the multi-million pound child protection industry is happy to let them think that, whereas all they are is an expensive and useless bit of paper designed to act as a sop to the panicky voters who think round every corner is a paedo. I think the NCT are spot on here and should continue to apply common sense.

Technically pg women as classed with vulnerable adults as a special category requiring CRB checks in certain circumstances.

Daft.

I think la leche and the Bf network might need crb checks for the mother's safety not the chlildren. NCT is just coffeee mornings really. You might as well crb check all of starbucks, while the parents are in the room it is their responsibilty to look after children. A parents has the right to not use their services

CRB checks are effective in identifying people who have a criminal record, but they are not going to stop child abuse, and they most certainly aren't going to stop abusers getting jobs with children. NCT volunteers don't need CRB checks as they aren't alone with children YABU

I would like to point out what somebody said earlier - CRB checks can't tell you who will commit a crime in the future - nothing can do that - but they can tell you who has commited a crime in the past and that is surely rather important to know! Otherwise as a society we'd be letting convicted paedophiles work as teachers and all sorts. Really, arguing that CRB checks are ineffective is dumb.

Breastfeeding counsellors are expected to work for the NCT for a minimum of three years once they finish their training. So yes, they are in post for a substantial amount of time.

The chance of anything happening at a Bumps and Babies group is very tiny, because of parents being there, everybody being in one room etc. What I think is a slightly bigger, albeit still very very small, possibility is somebody snatching a child when the mother isn't looking. We are talking about highly improbable events here. But when you read in the newspapers about the tragic things that sometimes happen to children isn't that exactly what they are, highly improbable events? Yet you still think somebody somewhere should have prevented that. There is a loophole here I believe needs closing.

Oh fair enough Banana, no experience of the upper echelons etc! Although still think they're right on this one.

(Is it now we have the talk about measuring risk in life? Can someone else do it for me?)

I do too grubbalo, it was the 'needs to raise its game' I agree with (but not nec on this score). Really a bit OT, sorry.

We already had something called List 99 which listed paedophiles and the life explicitly so they could not be employed as teachers. Teachers still have to be checked against that as well as having a CRB check, which indicates the latter is pretty pointless.