To be shocked I won't be DBS checked?

[Newjob12345]

I've just started a new job working in a children's soft play, was fully expecting to be police checked as obviously I'll be around children every day.
They do not do this anymore as there is no need, we'll never be alone with children so it's ok
Also a leisure centre attached where apparently the lifeguards aren't checked either, even though they are in and out of the changing room.

I'm really shocked tbh but not sure what I can do. Is this normal these days?

That's really dodgy. I need to be dbs checked as a supervisor at a stay and play at church for an a hour and a half a week.

Referring to "CRB clearance" makes me think that page is exceptionally out of date - CRB ceased to exist over 5 years ago.

I do think it is relevant that the children are never in their care. The parents are responsible. So I don't see a problem.

What about the Ian Huntley situation ? He was a caretaker so not in charge of the children . I thought they said they had done a check on him but because there wasn't a 'national data base' he was missed.

DBS was introduced in response to high-profile cases such as Huntley. Different levels of checks for different roles - basic, enhanced. People working in schools with access to children (such as teachers and caretakers) will need enhanced checks which in adition to convictions will show up things like cautions and police intelligence held on someone if felt to be relevant.

There is a huge misconception that everyone who works or volunteers with children or vulnerable adults in any capacity needs DBS checking and that's not the case as the soft play scenario demonstrated.

I'm a DBS verifier and things have changed a lot in recent years. It used to be in my settings that we CRBed (the old system) everyone who had child contact, but under the new system we are advised by DBS that unless a worker will have unsupervised access to children/adults at risk they should not have a DBS check. The view was that too many people were being checked unnecessarily, and usually because organisations were scared to be not seen to do the right thing, so did belt and braces.

In this case the supervisor has an enhanced check and is responsible for ensuring that guidelines are kept to.

However, what my setting, and many others, do is good practice around recruitment. This means that a job description for every post is drawn up (even if it's a voluntary role) and the description is risk assessed around safeguarding etc. Then the applicant completes a job application form, in which they give details of previous experience relative to the post, and more generally. They are then asked to self-declare any relevant convictions, and warned that the "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act" doesn't apply. They also give two references for people who have known them in a work related capacity, or has a position to give a character reference (e.g. teacher, magistrate, doctor, church minister, not friend or relative) and these are then taken up. The referees are asked if they know of any reasons why the person should not work with C/AAR.

Workers should then be given guidelines and regular training about appropriate behaviour around service users, good practice, when to report etc.

It's not perfect, and a determined person will find a way, but it's intended to make sure that good, skilled people work with C/AaR, and to send a signal to the predatory that this organisation is on the ball and knows what it's doing around safeguarding.

What makes me cross is when volunteers refuse to engage with training and good practice, saying it's unnecessary because they've had a DBS check. NO! A DBS check doesn't automatically make you a good practitioner, so please take that child off your knee!

Also, after Soham, the DBS check does take account of investigations and queries, not just convictions.

Ian Huntley should have been checked as children are in school without parents, and as any school staff sees the children every single working day, so the grooming risk is high compared with soft play where it is different children on different days and not a situation where the child gets to know and feel safe with a familiar face.

Part of the problem with Huntley was that he got away with stuff by name changing and moving areas, so the local police force didn't have a good overview of his previous form for seeking out teenage girls as it never got to the point of conviction. In theory the DBS should rectify this.

Unfortunately a DBS will only show up someone who has already been caught out in the past.
The criteria for having a DBS check is totally different to the old CRB checks and carrying one out unnecessarily can lead to employers being sued.
It's a really poor system IMO.

I teach in FE, where only about 5% of students are under 16 between starting at summer and Christmas - new starts have to pay for their own checks, after that the college pays for renewals.

DBS check is only needed for some roles. This does not include soft play areas

They dont have to at soft play. Your not in charge of children your take on as an assistant to serve food clean etc. Not to look after children

The parents are soley responsible for children in a play centre they are probably right you don"t need one. Not sure about the lifeguards though

Unfortunately a DBS will only show up someone who has already been caught out in the past

Depends. If the role requires an enhanced check (teaching, nursing, nursery worker etc) the form will also list other information held about you on the police computer IF it's relevant. So things like cautions which never resulted in prosecutions. Or arrests, or intelligence held by the police. The police make decisions about whether information is relevant on a case by case basis. This came about after the Huntley case because his criminal record was clean - he had never been convicted of any crime. He had been charged with several, but never had a conviction.

I think people are very hung up on DBS - yes it's an effective way of weeding out your determined, convicted paedophile who will try to apply for a job in teaching with a string of convictions as long as your arm. Most people doing this sort of thing aren't on the police radar at all, and too many parents fall into the trap of assuming DBS = cast iron guarantee of sound character. I'm not advocating that we all be suspicious of everyone else at all times, but encouraging childrne to discuss these things openly and being aware that family poses the greatest risk makes more sense.

Good God, so much hysteria about DBS checks. They will only pick up those who have been convicted in this country and the checks are only valid on the day they are done. You don't need to be DBS checked just to be in the same room as a child.

I know this as a member of staff got locked up and since charged for sexual assult.

But surely that member of staff shouldn't be allowed to work w children? As a Pp said you ask staff to disclose whether they have convictions and remind them that rehabilitation of offenders doesn't apply. If people are subsequently found guilty of a sexually offence they shouldn't be working with young people? Surely?

Yes it's normal. I worked in a public library and I was not, at the time, CRB checked - even at basic level. Even though there were lots of children in there, and they were not all accompanied by parents.

DBS not needed for soft play. From memory some insurers request it.

Even so for soft play insurance, the rule for cover was that a member of staff was never allowed to be in sole charge of a child for anything. So no member f staff would lead an activity without their parent or carer present.

They will be getting round DBS checking soft play and lifeguards by saying that the parents have to supervise at all times. Or, if there's any situations in which they don't (e.g. swimming lessons), the swimming teacher would be checked.

No DBS check needed when parents are present and in charge of their own children

But most leisure centres admit under 16s without parents being present - certainly around here they do - so the children aren't always under parental supervision. Might be different for this particular one of course.

Soft play is definitely more debatable; I know some of our locals do check as we've had staff apply who have previously worked for them and had the checks.

Statistically At a leisure centre under 16's are under parental supervision because the parents have chosen to allow them to go on their own, knowing the risks.
Schools are different as parents are unable to be present.

I don't think that's the case caroldecker, certainly not here. That same argument could apply to childcare, sports clubs, scouts etc - none of those are compulsory either.

Lifeguard job in Angus - requires pvg required

Modern apprentice leisure assistant (pool supervision) Aberdeen requires PVG

Dunbar lifeguard, PVG required

ayrshire, PVG...

Softplay is more debatable, I'd agree. But certainly in Scotland it looks very much like lifeguards should be PVG checked (unless it's an adult only pool)