Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
With regard to the CRBs for Volunteer diggers, I'd imagine they are as much worried about the potential for theft as anything to do with children?? It's obviously a policy you've got to apply to all (or not at all) and be very very careful about possible discrimination.
As a Council, all our staff get CRB'd and rechecked on a regular basis. Volunteers also have to be checked if they are going to be involved with children or vulnerable adults. The procedures with placements include the stipulation that staff don't work alone with them. This can make organising work for them difficult and we are simply not allowed to drive them from site to site now, unless two staff are present. A sad reflection on our society, but necessary for your own protection as well as theirs.
As for the medical question, I'd imagine there are few jobs you can walk into now without some scrutiny and with the insurance issue in mind, you can't afford as a company to ignore possible problems with volunteers health. Better safe than sorry.
:face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
A sad reflection on our society... >> says it all really.
you speak the truth though Doc.
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
I used to work for a council. They too said that all staff had to be CRB checked. They never gave a reason. The guidance is pretty clear that its for those with unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults. Which didn't actually occur at any point in my job (no under 18s, no vulnerable adults).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
And btw, asking people to divulge medical history without good reason being stated is a REALLY big no no. You can ask if someone considers themselves to have a disability (that being the important test) or for their specific access needs, but not medical information: as the trainer said, 'what does it matter if I've got some medical condition with a Latin name that I can't spell- What you need to know is that I need a level floor in an office big enough to turn my wheelchair around.' The rest, and justly so, opens you up for the discrimination claim.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
You can, however, ask for first aider information purposes whether anyone has any specific health issues that the first aider needs to know about, but that must come AFTER any selection, not before. Or the lawyers will be waiting. Same goes for CRB- it's not an element of the selection, the question to the applicant whether they have unspent convictions is...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2008
Some of the requirements for volunteers are over the top, but some of them are entirely justified. It just depends on the situation.
There has been a shift in the not-for-profit volunteer "industry" towards increasing levels of professionalism in volunteer management over the past five to ten years. There are two significant components to this;
- First, a move away from the concept that the simple act of volunteering makes a volunteer inviolate from rules, regulations etc. Previously there was this idea that you couldn't tell a volunteer what to do, that the selfless act of giving their time meant that they were treated differently from employees. Under the new framework the question has been asked "how is a volunteer different from an employee when they are at a workplace?". They still need to be managed, they are at the same risk of hurting themselves etc, but the fact that they don't get paid changes that how?
- Second, there has been a move towards acknowledging the rights of organisations that use volunteers to put rules, regulations, screening processes etc in place. This is based on the idea that volunteering is a reciprocal relationship, where the organisation has a responsibility towards the rights of the volunteer, but that the volunteer also has a responsibility towards the organisation to help it meet its aims, to protect its reputation etc.
Some people have great difficulty accepting this shift away from the old model of volunteering, but having been involved in volunteer organisations for the past 20 years, both as a volunteer, and as a volunteer manager, I would suggest that the new model provides a balance of outcomes that are best for both volunteers and volunteer organisations. Volunteers are not all sweetness and light, and there are plenty of people out there who volunteer, who have an agenda entirely contrary to that of the organisations they volunteer for. Protecting the organisation, and other volunteers from such people is just as important as recognising the rights of individual volunteers.
What has come from this new model is a requirement for criminal checks, health checks, selection criteria for volunteers etc. However, instead of being applied appropriately dependent on circumstance, they are often just applied as a blanket approach regardless of whether they are needed or not. Often these checks are entirely appropriate, often they are not.
In this case the question is whether they are appropriate or not, and without knowing the circumstances of the actual dig, I wouldn't want to make comment.
Final comments: criminal checks are not just to protect children, they protect everyone. A person with a history of theft is no real danger to children, but is pretty hazardous for the organisation and other volunteers. Additionally, common sense should be applied to criminal checks. Obviously if a person has a single conviction from 20 years ago, you would ignore it in most cases. Finally, health checks don't just protect the organisation, they protect the volunteer as well. A health check on a prospective volunteer in the volunteer fire brigade I am a member of, discovered an unknown heart defect that would have killed him the first time he responded to a fire.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Quote:quote: a person with a history of theft is no real danger to children, but is pretty hazardous for the organisation and other volunteers
again... granted... but in this society, I was under the impression that you considered having done your time after conviction of a crime.. therefore, to suggest that if you saw a person had previous for theft, they would be barred from volunteering (ps.. not saying this is the case in the original post content) is just the sort of thing to create a career criminal.. nobody will touch them, because of their past. just a thought.
the health check idea as well, seems to swing about a bit.. health check on a fire brigade volunteer ( hats off to you Sean by the way) is a bit different from a person doing some gentle troweling .. (even less so if it is the remarkable and sharpened bladed Battiferro Trowel! http://www.pasthorizons.com/shop/default...duct_id=72 [:I] cough)
I agree with this:
Quote:quote:You can, however, ask for first aider information purposes whether anyone has any specific health issues that the first aider needs to know about, but that must come AFTER any selection, not before.
there have been over the years a few adverts that asked for fitness and health as part of the advert content.. I refused every time.. and the reworded advert went ahead (in BAJR anyway) arguement with the americans did not work though...
can I remind people that no matter what, you will descriminate, whether you mean to or not. IF you see a person with theft as a conviction, or a person in a wheelchair.. you no longer put them on an equal footing with everyone who applies... they are 'different' they are discriminated against.
Perhaps the trouble is in our heads... there are lots of good reasons to know about health issues, lots of good reasons to know if a person is a habitual criminal... but with knowledge of a disibility that couldbe overcome, or a petty crime that should not affect the persons future, the bottom line is, these are negatives in the selection process.
:face-huh:
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Quote:quote: a person with a history of theft is no real danger to children, but is pretty hazardous for the organisation and other volunteers
Perhaps the trouble is in our heads... there are lots of good reasons to know about health issues, lots of good reasons to know if a person is a habitual criminal... but with knowledge of a disibility that couldbe overcome, or a petty crime that should not affect the persons future, the bottom line is, these are negatives in the selection process.
:face-huh:
A criminal record that requires disclosure means that the details go to the Human Resources/Personnel dept. The details are not given to the interviewers. However, the fact that a disclosure has been made may sway a mind, but it shouldn't.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
Just to reassure everyone, I know someone very well that undertakes CRB checks on behalf of the government. The level of disclosure of your criminal record depends on the sensitivity of the activity you will undertake. So if you're going to be working with particularly vulnerable groups then higher levels of disclosure will be allowed.
Employers quite often ask for disclosure of all criminal record information, but only information relevant to the job is disclosed by the CRB. Your minor indiscretions (and everyone does them, even if they don't get caught) are very unlikely to be disclosed unless you're applying for a very sensitive job (like being a CRB officer)
If you're worried about a criminal record prejudicing your chances of getting a job, then don't be. You're four times more likely to be knocked back from employment if you admit to a history of mental illness.
Apologies if I've repeated what others have said.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
cool avatar- didn't even ask for it!
|
