THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE DEVIOUS

Should CRB’s be got rid of for volunteers? (A response)

It has been proposed that CRB checks for volunteers should be got rid of, as such I write this latest blog in response to Jamie T’s piece, and in respect of:
http://natcenblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/should-we-get-rid-of-crb-checks-for.html

Now, for many amongst us the obvious and natural reaction/response is to say how foolish this proposition is; getting rid of the CRB check for volunteers is shear folly; we must protect vulnerable adults and children at all costs; and of course very few would realistically argue against this.

However, I do think that we should all consider this in a wider objective context rather than in isolation viz volunteers per’s a, in fact I think we all have a duty to do so. For it seems to me that in our focus on CRB checking volunteers and paid staff alike… this in part may lead to our undoing in another way, and play its part in providing the perfect cover, distraction, and mis-direction in enabling unsavoury, undesirable, abusive characters to get in through the unguarded organisational back door?

However, before I expand upon this train of thought, which I will do shortly, lets get the obvious but necessary stuff out of the way, in respect of the value or otherwise of CRB checking.

Firstly, is there any published independent empirical data/evidence; that proves there are any more “bad” people out there, than there were when we didn’t have CRB checking?

Secondly, is there any published independent supporting empirical evidence that CRB checking has made any difference?

Now, if for the sake of argument and discussion we grant the last two points as having evidence based support in respect of CRB checking, this still does not overcome some crucial facts, about the process, and real value, as opposed to often perceived and desirable value.

1. CRB checking only identifies those who have been caught; therefore a “bad” person would have a clear CRB, in exactly the same way as a “good” person, and this would be the case until they were caught, assuming they ever were.

2. CRB’s are out of date before the ink dries, in so much as, even whilst the CRB is being processed, a person could be committing an offence and/or have committed an offence, again unless caught and convicted, this would be an unknown

3. If CRB checking is seen as being the only “evidence” needed in respect of a person being deemed “fit and proper”, as opposed to a wider on going holistic approach, then this can lead to over reliance, and complacency

Ok; now that I have stated what is for many the obvious; let’s now take a look at this in the wider context; and how abusive characters may well already be getting in through the organisational backdoor, whilst we are pre-occupied; and whom would get in not as paid staff, nor as volunteers, but as “Service users”!

Yes that’s right, service users!

For in many instances all one needs to do, for example in the case of obtaining sustained unsupervised access to vulnerable adults, is to join one of the ever increasing number of service user led, self help, self support groups; in relation to a specific problem, issue, identification.
Such groups tend to have free and open access, and often all one would need to do to become a member is to self proclaim that you identify with that particular problem/issue…and your in!
After all, who from within such a self help group is going to challenge an apparently genuine person, and say to them, that they don’t have for example, a mental health condition such as depression?
Equally as a “service user” a person would be by default, deemed a vulnerable adult in their own right…thus providing the infiltrator and potential abuser with further unwitting organisational cover, and legitimacy.

To this end, in joining a group and becoming a “vulnerable adult” an unsavoury person would have access to exploit and abuse; as in the main, in respect of such groups, there are no CRB checks carried out on members, and adjunct to this there is often little or no monitoring in respect of such self help, self supporting, self determining groups; after all, they are service user led, “self help” groups, and which by their very nature are facilitated by members, with many of these groups proudly emphasising that they are “experts by experience” in respect of the particular issue/problem; and as such, they often do not welcome “helping professionals” taking part, and/or being involved in such groups.

NB. Not all self help groups operate within organisations, organisational frameworks.

It is also worth remembering that such abuse need not be the typical headline things one would automatically think of, and which may be easier to identify in terms of a persons behaviour and modus operandi, but such abuse could be far more insidious and subtle, in respect of, for example, financial abuse, and/or bullying, intimidation, and victimisation within the group setting, and beyond.

So one needs to always consider the threat of “abuse” from all angles; at all times…and subsequently always ask yourself; as part of an holistic approach in ensuring genuine “vulnerable adults” are protected

Why would a potential abuser go down the paid staff/volunteer route, when there are easier options, and paths of least resistance, placed before them?

So going back the original question “Should we get rid of CRB checks?”, well despite the obvious flaws in CRB checking and process, they are I feel in the main still a useful, and important tool; but only when used appropriately, with intelligence and common sense; based on the role, identified mitigation (if any), subjectivity, and as part of a wider ongoing holistic process; and one should never be complacent, and nieve, personally and/or organisationally in focusing all of your attention on one group or another, i.e. volunteers; but rather we all need to be intelligently mindful, that the devious, by their nature do devious things, and only the stupid of this group will knock at the organisations front door, i.e. in respect of becoming a volunteer. It is the “stupid” ones that get caught out this way, however the crucial and most salient point of this piece, is that the “clever” ones may already be in an organisation, maybe your organisation!?

UC