CRB checks

[suedpantsoffem]

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask this question....

I currently have three CRB's running for different voluntary activities I do which involve children. One of these organisations has asked for a new CRB check to be done, as it's a long time since they did the last one.

Hypothetically (and I stress hypothetically!) If a new CRB check threw up some information that meant I was unsuitable for the activity - would the other two organisations which have also CRB'd me be informed? If they aren't, then CRB-ing seems a bit pointless really.

No. That was one of the changes that was going to be made under the Vetting and Barring Scheme but the introduction of that has been suspended. At the moment the onus is on the other organisations to conduct their own regular CRB checks.

No i don't think so, it would come up on the next time they did one.
CRB really only counts for the day it is done. A couple of weeks later you could have a crim record and it wouldn't show until the next time you had one done.

you might not have a crim record, but still not be suitable - ie could be a paedophile, but just not have been caught.

I see the intention behind CRBs is right, but really, like you say, they don't really prove anything, just that you haven't actually been caught doing anything wrong.

Seems daft that three separate organisations all have to pay for me to be CRBd too.

I know it's daft but suppose if something does get flagged up then the employer is aware. But if it doesn't they are none the wiser even if they are a baddie.

A CRB check is just one aspect of child protection. It proves that the individual has not yet been convicted of anything but the average child abuser offends around 100 times before they are caught (that could be the same child 100 times or 100 different children). An employer or voluntary organisation should therefore have other precautions in place, both to help them select appropriate people and to minimise any opportunity for abuse.

Of course, what an employer or voluntary organisation should do and what they actually do are not necessarily the same thing. I don't doubt that some place far too much reliance on clean CRB checks.

The changes to the vetting and barring scheme (the first of which come into force this September) means that CRBs may be portable in the future, with the consent of the individual - there may also be a charge for this, which the individual will have to bear. The coalition govt have scaled back the requirement to have a CRB for many settings (for example volunteers where there is suitable supervision in place). FWIW I have my concerns about this - "suitable supervision" is a pretty vague and ill-conceived term, and with the best will in the world, once someone has a foothold in your organisation, they can proceed to "groom" not only the children but other adults, so that they are seen as a "jolly good egg". The more embedded a potential abuser is, the harder it can be for their colleagues to see bad in them, IYKWIM. Child abusers can play a long game.

Prh47bridge is spot on; a CRB certificate is just a part of safe recruitment and safeguarding; organisations should take up references and ask safeguarding questions at recruitment, and have robust child protection and whistleblowing policies in place

Do you actually still NEED to be CRB under the new guidance?
DH does not because he visits each site less than once a month and is never alone with the children (HE makes darned sure of the last bit)
If he went back to doing stuff with residential groups, he'd need the CRB again.
And a school that recently asked to see his, we gave them the number of the most recent and told them if they wanted newer, they could pay for it.
All was OK without it ....

It is for the organisation to decide whether or not the post requires a CRB check. As long as the role is one for which they are legally allowed to request a check they can insist on one regardless of what the guidelines say. Voluntary organisations don't pay for checks so tend to err on the side of safety in deciding whether or not a particular role needs a check.

If the school referred to simply accepted the number off the CRB certificate with no further details they got it seriously wrong. They should have looked at the certificate to see what it said and check it was genuine, checked that the identity details on the certificate matched your husband and contacted the previous countersignatory to find out if any additional information was revealed in a separate letter.

Prh
interestingly what you say does NOT accord with the latest guidance I could find from the VBA, CRB, Dfe and Capita.
So long as they have written (email) permission to check a CRB under the portage system and have the number and original umbrella authority, it is fine for a non employee - which is exactly the area where CRBs got out of hand.

Because a CRB is technically out of date an hour later, its all a sick joke anyway.
The girls were murdered ten years ago and yet child harm and abuse rates are as high as they ever were and the number of convictions of CRB checked teachers etc show that a CRB is NOT watertight...

Anyone done any training in the last month or so ? I was speaking to someone in the Youth Service recently who had to go to a meeting about the latest changes, and she was told that "people with peripheral roles such as caretakers will no longer have to have CRBs under the next reincarnation of the system". Now, I may be wrong I often am, but wasn't this all set up after Ian Huntley - the school caretaker - murdered the two girls from his school all those years ago ?

I don't think portage will come into force until next year, and my understanding is that CRB information will only be portable if the employee opts for this (and the employer can't force the employee to accept portability), and there will be an annual charge made to the individual (NOT the employer).

Volunteers may not need a CRB in the future if they not left unsupervised... but there's no definition of "unsupervised" in the new guidance, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they may never be left alone with children / vulnerable adults. IMHO there's a risk that a plausible and personable volunteer can still groom children (and indeed lull adults into a false sense of security) even if theya re never left 1:1 with them. A child will perceive that adult to be a trustworthy person if they come across them outside the school / scouts / church / youth group.... this is EXACTLY what happened with Ian Huntley in Soham.

the fact that there are so many different opinions and experiences on this thread show what a mess the whole system is - a system that is changing on 10 September, but with little information being disseminated to organisations that need it.

x post about Soham BackforGood!

Ian Huntley would have passed a CRB
as up to the date that he met the girls for the last time, he had NO CONVICTIONS
as PRH rightly says above, most offenders have done so 100 times by the time they are caught.

AND
The vast, vast majority of CRBs are for people like my DH who are NOT employees of the place where they are working.
And as either they are volunteers OR employees of companies who are not umbrella bodies - so CRBs are not relevant

NB
CRB checks did not stop the nursery worker in Plymouth doing what she did , nor many other recent cases of teachers and workers - and they never will.
CRB are not a panacea.

Once again, my disclaimer is that this is not amongst my areas of specialist knowledge, but I thought that if you applied for an enhanced CRB, then any noted suspcicions would be revealed. Wasn't this what it was all about. Previous police checks could only reveal criminal convictions, but the "new" (at the time) CRB check was supposed to be able to pick up information where there was (as in IH's case) a trail of reports without convictions.
As I type it, I can see the Human rights lawyers having a field day, but my memory is telling me that is what the CRB was supposed to do, that previous police checks hadn't.

Oh, and I agree about the CRB only being one thing that can help. Sadly, we have all come across too many cases where people with 'clean' CRBs have later been caught

You are correct that the enhanced CRB includes information the police hold on file that may be relevant. That should have revealed information about Ian Huntley but probably wouldn't have due to the incompetence of the Humberside Police who had deleted information about the earlier allegations.

I have no idea why TalkinPeace2 says CRBs are not relevant for volunteers or employees of companies who are not umbrellla bodies. If someone is working with children or vulnerable adults a CRB check is very relevant, regardless of whether you are a volunteer or an employee, and regardless of whether the organisation involved gets CRB checks direct from the CRB or has to go through an umbrella body.

Regarding portability, it is up to the employer/voluntary organisation to decide whether or not to accept a CRB check obtained for another organisation or insist on their own. If the organisation wished to proceed in this way they cannot get a copy of the CRB check themselves. They must therefore see the employee's copy of the certificate and check with the original countersignatory that there was no additional information. The countersignatory may only confirm whether or not such information was provided. They may not divulge the contents of the additional information. So, if there was additional information, the new employer/voluntary organisation must obtain its own CRB check. Those have been the rules for many years. You can find this by going to the CRB website (which is actually part of the Home Office website), looking at the FAQs and clicking on the "portability of CRB checks" link in the answer to question 13.

My understanding (as the 'owner' of 3 current CRBs) is the reason each organisation needs it's own, is that the organisation who applied for the CRB would be informed if anyone for whom they applied for a CRB then were arrested (or it might be 'charged' - I'm no lawyer) over something that would have prevented them getting the 'clean' CRB in the first place.

So, if organisation A did a CRB on me, and organisation B accepted A's CRB check, and then I were later charged with something that would have prevented me getting the CRB, Organisation A would be told about it and stop me working with vulnerable people, but organisation B would never know and would just let me carry on working with them.

What I can't understand though, is why, once you have your first CRB, other organisations can't just link in to that number - so the CRB offices are asked by the 2nd organisation about CRB number "xyz123" and, if the need came to disclose, they could disclose to all organisations who had checked against "xyz123" (ie, me). It just seems to me, that a large majority of people who have a CRB that I know, have 2, or 3 or more, and individual ones seems cumbersome.

At present the CRB has the information available up to the day it is produced, and there is no notification system in place for employers to be notified should any criminal charges be made. The revised system (coming into force in stages from the Sept) has an updating and portability option - but the employee must opt for this, and they will bear the cost.

Oh, thanks - perhaps that's where I got it from then.
I'm talking about volunteers, in the main.

When a company who do annual hedge cutting at schools have to turn staff away because of CRB rules, you know the system has gone mad.
That is where we were before the Coolition reined it all in.
Same goes for the plumber who mends the sink in a school during the day because it is blocked.
Or the person who mends the data projector
or the person who visits any one school every two years, but is in schools every day on a self employed basis.

The changes that are 'due to' come in during September are still deeply fluid.
I've been watching it (email updates) and have yet to get a coherent answer.

As he's a director of his company, he cannot CRB himself, but he works for his company, not the schools that hire him, so they cannot CRB him, and he's not a volunteer or an employee or a contractor.

And anyway, if one wanted to 'groom' children, a few evenings outside the local corner shop would do
PS
IH was NOT an employee at the school that the girls attended, his girlfriend was.
They trusted him because he was the BF of their teacher.
Nothing that a CRB or VBA could have done could have prevented that.
Knee jerk legislation is never a good idea.

No, that isn't where we were. That is where the VBS appeared to be going. The CRB has never been there.

Your DH cannot get a CRB for himself. However, if his role is one that involves working with children or vulnerable adults his company can get a CRB check. He may be a director of his company but his company is still a separate legal entity. Of course, if his company is small it would need to go through an umbrella organisation.

As I said previously, CRB checks on their own are not enough. They are just one aspect of child protection. However, speaking as someone who was for many years involved in voluntary youth work, I believe they are essential. I can pretty much guarantee that there are convicted child sex offenders living in your community, just as there are in mine. I don't know who they are but I know they exist. I know they are likely to be good with children and very plausible - just the kind of people you would trust to look after children. CRB checks are the only mechanism available to stop such people getting jobs working with children or vulnerable adults, or volunteering in similar roles. So in my view CRB checks are a necessary precaution but not sufficient on their own.