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.

"CRB checks are vital"
have the rates of child abuse by non family members dropped in the years since CRB's were brought in?
as the rates of abduction / murder of children by non family members are unchanged since before the days of Mary Bell.
But MILLIONS of pounds have been spent on CRB's

As a long standing NCT volunteer I would like to make several points.

1. re CRBs, as during no normal NCT volunteering anyone is responsible for a child or vunerable adult they don't require a CRB, (in some situations, when working in certain places CRB checks are required and arrangments are made for them to be done).

2. The OP has made her point to the NCT Trustees, these people will carry the legal can if the charity is negligent, they have decided that the existing policy is robust and fit for purpose. I trust their judgment.

3)As raised earlier in the thread, I think the greatest risk NCT run is finanicial by not checking treasurers who in large branches are trusted with large sums of money at events.

4. Antenatal teachers, Breastfeeding councellors and Postnatal Leaders are trained in who to report suspisions about the welfare of a women or child too, I know this as when working alongside them they have mentioned that they have done this when for example they suspect domestic violence.
   Ordinary volunteers can seek their advice if concerned or do what the rest of us do if we are concerned about the welfare of someone we come across eg phone NSPCC, alert the police, report to SS, speak to a local health professional.

5. Child protection training, I have done some of this through another charity and it was relevant for my role. I accept that I was looking at it in regards to older children but I am uncertain to it's relevance to the NCT. I spent half a day talking about things that would make you suspect a child might be in a dangerous position, how to talk to them about it and who to report it too and the rest of the day at looking at protecting ourselves from being open to allegations.
   Neither of these seem relevant in an NCT role.
   Babies and toddlers are not going to talk to me and Iam not going to come across signs of physical abuse (eg bruised hidden by clothing) , if their parents are there. The presence of a second adult also (the childs parent) protects me from being accussed.

In conclusion I think the NCT's position is properly thought through and therefore correct.

I have heard before the argument that having volunteers who have done safeguarding training might put mums off coming to NCT groups if they're struggling with their parenting, and I think that's just rubbish. Struggling with parenting and harming your child are two very different things. If you're not harming your child you've got nothing to hide so why would you care if volunteers are child protection trained or not?

It is silly to talk about CRB checking the entire population. A mother attending the group with a child is a completely different proposition to a volunteer who has popped up from nowhere and may be volunteering regularly over a long period of time. Not all NCT volunteers are mothers - we used to recruit via the local volunteer bureau and sometimes we got strange people coming forward (in the absence of any guidance or means of checking their background/character I would tell these folk I didn't think the NCT was a good fit for them).

The NCT may not have a legal duty in this regard but I believe it has a moral duty. There's been a lot of talk on here about the informality of NCT groups - the fact is these are not informal groups, they meet under the banner of the NCT and the NCT must therefore take some responsibility for them. Complete lack of professionalism! In more ways than one.

Anyway, this will be my last post on this thread.

a) if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear argument is complete bollocks. Plenty of people with perfectly sensible concerns about their children feel anxious about raising them in case they will be judged as a bad or neglectful parent. Child protection systems cannot and never will be perfect so it is inevitable that sometimes parents will be investigated unnecessarily. Volunteers at NCT groups can apply commonsense and ask for help if they feel that a member of the group is really not coping for any reason. But it is far more important that all parents have an outlet where they can talk about how hard parenting is sometimes without worrying that someone with 'responsibility for safeguarding' will be assessing their every move. I've been really reassured by the frankness about the hard side of parenting that I've encountered at NCT groups. You also get it on Mumsnet. I've never seen it at a SureStart centre group or any other more formal setting and I'm sure it is because in informal settings people feel less inhibited about sharing.

b) the NCT does have a moral duty to protect the people who use its services from harm. Of course it does. But you still haven't given any indication of what you think that harm is. I don't care if it is unprofessional not to have CRB checks for NCT volunteers. Running low cost baby and toddler groups is not a profession.

YABVVVVVVU and have not listened or given any coherent response to the many people on this thread who have challenged your position. Why post here if you only want people to agree with you?

...If you're not harming your child you've got nothing to hide so why would you care if volunteers are child protection trained or not?

it is probably a good thing that you are no longer voluntering for the NCT - what right have you to tell anyone how they should feel? Any organisation providing support needs to start from how people do feel; not thell them that their feelings are somehow incorrect.

I didn't want people to agree with me, I wanted to canvass opinion. I wasn't trying to convert anybody to my opinion, just explain where I'm coming from, but you seem to be trying to convert me to yours.

VeronicaCake, what you've said is incoherent. If parents have "perfectly sensible concerns" then they shouldn't have a problem raising them, should they? The concern is either sensible or it isn't. Again, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

A lot of NCT volunteers seem to be threatened by the thought that the NCT might be less than perfect - why is that? It's weird. Cult-ish.

I have listened to what people have said on here, and what I've taken away is that safeguarding training is the thing to really push for, which is exactly what a children's social worker I consulted said to me: the risk to children from un-CRB checked volunteers is minimal but safeguarding training allows volunteers to keep a responsible eye on both service users and each other.

I think maybe I've got a different perspective from a lot of people on here because I've done basic safeguarding training and I thought it was brilliant. I came away strongly feeling that anybody who comes into contact with children as part of their work should do it. We looked in detail at the case of Victoria Climbe and what was interesting was the number of people/organisations she came into contact with - a lot. Not just officials, like doctors, social workers and police, but nurseries and playgroups too. Yet they all failed to pick up on what was happening. Therefore I think there's a good case for training across the early years sector.

leicestershiregirl I also agree with the mandatory safeguarding training.

I've had safeguarding training and several CRB checks for working with children in loco parentis and vulnerable teens/young adults.

I was very aware that the first time my CRB came through with "none recorded" in every section that that was the crucial wording - none recorded. That didn't mean I'd never done anything, just that I'd never been caught!

It was then that I realised just how flimsy they are.

Safeguarding training on the other hand, is far more important. That puts the responsibility for welfare in everybody's hands, rather than enabling people to become complacent and think "well their CRB was clear" and thereby 'switching off' and putting any concerns they might have out of their mind.

soggy14, I worked bloody hard for the NCT and think I added value because I was prepared to question the way things were done to try to improve the service provided.

How did you get "telling people what they should feel" from what I said? Mothers know when they are harming their children or not, surely? Exactly what kind of things do you think it's ok for mothers to confess to at groups like the NCT's? When I discussed this issue on the NCT's Branch Chairs Yahoo group somebody said mothers wouldn't feel free to say things like 'Last night I couldn't cope with the baby crying so I just put it in its cot and left it crying whilst I went downstairs to have a glass of wine'. Now am I going bonkers or is this completely unacceptable behaviour and a volunteer who heard this would be right to have concerns? Leaving your baby crying whilst you're boozing in another room?! Your average mother would know this behaviour was dodgy and not share it with an NCT group/not do it in the first place. I'm not saying what she should feel, I saying what she would feel.

I would hope that that the NCT would provide a non-judgmental listening ear. I don't think your example shows "completely unacceptable behaviour" at all - in fact if you feel you can't cope with a crying baby, putting it down safely in its cot and going elsewhere to do something relaxing for 5 minutes, whether that's making a cup of tea, pouring a glass of wine, of just having a quiet scream, is pretty good advice.

Putting the baby down when you're getting fraught to take a breather - yes. Going off to drink alcohol - no.

CRB checks last 3 years although a lot of places now renew them after a year.

Absolutely nothing wrong with putting your baby down to go and have a glass of wine if it has got to that absolutely frazzled point. I know I often did.

And woith regards to th OP.

I used to run an NCT coffeee moriing then became branch secretary, then chair. I would not have objected to a CRB check as I have them coming out of my ears anyway and my involvment was over period of 3 years.

Most mums involvment in coffee mornings lasted maybe 6 months. They would hae been going back to work before it came through.

The rules currently state that CRB checks are needed for people with unsupervised access to children. We were going to each others houses on a rota, not running a creche.

CRB check incidentally don;t last a certain length of time. They become out of date the day after they are issued. It is best practice for people working with children to have a new one every 3 years, there is no hard and fast rule.

CRB checks is a prime example of well intentioned legislation becoming a quagmire in reality.

CRB checks are useless and give you nothing in practice other than the warm fuzzy feeling that the person checked hasn't been convicted. It doesn't prove diddly squat.

I can just about stomach them for teachers, police, doctors etc who all have legitimate reason to have extended and sensitive access to children on their own. But nowadays its morphed into some sort of anti-kiddly fiddling certification which is clearly isn't and never will be.

We have plumbers who get themselves CRB checked so they can market themselves to schools. We have schools banning parents entering school premises without CRB checks. My partner had to get a CRB check so she could translate for ADULTS.

It's become stupid, some parents think a check means they are safe and that's the stupidest thing. There's nothing worse than leaving your common sense at the door because someone has a piece of paper with a tick on it.

I applaud the NCT for not succumbing to the UK paranoia for CRB checking everyone to within an inch of their lives when its not legally required.

With respect leicestershiregirl, that's your opinion. I would have to disagree, and would have no problem with someone telling me they'd done this at an NCT group.

This is an interesting thread. I totally agree that CRB checks are not needed for NCT volunteers. Most do very low key tasks and are never alone with children. Even if they were 'paedophiles' what would they actually do to harm a baby at coffee morning with the mother there? Why would they even turn up in the first place - and surely someone would notice a random person turning up and quietly abusing children in the corner? Daft!

Also safeguarding training - why? NCT volunteers are not professionals, they are not there to judge and look after people, they are there to faciliate women in establishing friendship networks or to raise money for NCT campaigns. If I had a genuine concern I would simply mention it to a HV or similar, same as I imagine any sensible person would.

If you think someone leaving a child to cry for 5 mins and having a drink falls under 'safeguarding' type concerns then I think it is probably a good idea you aren't volunteering any more. I should think that such a judgemental and unsympathetica attitude would be pretty off putting.

I need to get a crb to help run the local (church run) parent /carer under fives group. As does my Mum if she wants to help make the tea.
I'm not sure really, maybe it is as much to cover themselves if there was an issue with any volunteer?

Bloody hell Leicestershire girl, I am going to start by caveating this by saying I am someone who has NEVER left their children to cry. However, if you think that we should be passing judgement and saying that leaving a baby to cry for 5 minutes while someone has a glass of wine is dodgy, I think you are successfully proving the point that there is a hell of a lot more to running NCT groups than having a CRB check.

No of course it's not "desirable" behaviour, but if someone is at the end of their tether, far better they put the baby down and go and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to calm them down - be that have a glass of wine, a cigarette, turn the telly up really loud to stop them hearing the baby crying. Like I say, I have never done it myself, but to say someone going away for 5 minutes and having a glass of wine is "boozing" is disgraceful. In an NCT coffee morning it is exactly that sort of thing people should feel free to say - then perhaps people who have dealt with it in maybe a better or more constructive way can make suggestions.

Do you know, when I had small babies, sometimes I would have TWO or even THREE glasses of wine? And I breastfed! Call in the social! What a terrible mother I am!

qwepoi WRT to the safeguarding, it doesn't qualify you to judge or look after people but does raise people's awareness. If you had a genuine concern you might mention it to HV/etc but there are many people who wouldn't, including some professionals, which is why the whole idea of 'safeguarding' came in in the first place.

Safeguarding training often includes info on the different types of abuse that exist, what qualify as these and gives people the opportunity to reflect on what behaviours they might see in the child as a result of one of these. The idea being that whereas someone might look at a child and think "ooh that's a bit odd" and ignore it, it might make them think "actually that's not right" and them knowing what to do about it without having to consult MN for advice .

Safeguarding training also challenges a lot of commonly held beliefs about child abuse - who is likely to commit it, who is likely to experience it, is it more common now than is used to be... etc.

And also challenges people's ideas on what constitutes abuse, i.e. as is happening here in terms of the is leaving a crying baby for 5 mins and having a glass of wine abuse or not. At what point would it be considered abuse? 2 glasses of wine? 30 mins? Why? What is different about one situation and another? Is intention more important than the act itself? Why?

FWIW, I did used to leave my baby if crying for 5-10 mins and have a small glass of wine in the kitchen before returning back upstairs feeling much better. But would it be the same if I went down stairs in a temper thinking "I'll show you" and had a glass of wine, 'punishing' the baby by leaving them alone for 5-10 mins. Because what the baby experiences is no different but the mother's intention is very different.

perhaps 'wrong' would have been a better word than 'abuse' in my example. sorry.