The following article appeared in the Autumn 2001 edition of the NACRO publication Safer Society The Journal Of Crime Reduction And Community Safety. The article reflects NAVB’s dual concern that the indiscriminate use of checks will create new barriers to volunteering and that reliance on criminal record checks in isolation is a very inadequate form of vetting.
A number of leading voluntary agencies campaigned for free checks for volunteers seeking work with children and other vulnerable groups. But, argues Andy Forster of the National Association of Voluntary Bureaux, allowing free checks will neither ensure that the system is fair on those seeking voluntary work nor that it is effective in ensuring that the vulnerable are protected from unsuitable people.
On the 7th February 2001, the Government dropped plans that would have required voluntary groups to meet the costs of running criminal record checks. This represented a victory for a campaign by voluntary sector organisations that had been led by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Its Chief Executive, commented that ‘charging volunteers for a police check would have acted as a major disincentive to volunteering’. The voluntary sector, it appeared from the press reports, had got what it wanted. In fact, the National Association of Voluntary Bureaux (NAVB) played no active part in this campaign. At no point did NAVB advocate the position that volunteers should pay for checks, nor did it do anything to undermine the lobby on this issue. However, we did not agree, in principle, that the campaign was the right way to go.
Why, then, would a body that represents the interests of Volunteer Bureaux, (now known as Volunteering England), and the 500,000 volunteers that access voluntary work through them withhold its support from a campaign that, on the face of it, has saved voluntary organisations large amounts of money? In broad terms, the answer is that we believe that even if volunteers are not charged for checks their increased use will deter people with non-relevant convictions from applying for jobs and, where they do, may result in them being discriminated against in inappropriate circumstances. Volunteers have fewer rights, ways and means of challenging discrimination than those in paid employment, because there is no financial investment in them and they lack the legal protection arising out of a contract of employment.
In addition, the NAVB has real doubts that the indiscriminate use of checks by voluntary organisations is the most effective way to protect the vulnerable.
Indiscriminate use of checks:
To begin with, it is important to note that voluntary organisations now have a legal obligation to run checks on people applying for work that gives them access to children and other vulnerable people. NAVB does not dispute that the use of checks may act as a deterrent to people deliberately seeking voluntary opportunities in order to abuse the vulnerable. But many volunteers are not involved in such work. The fear is that checks – particularly now they are to be free will be used more or less indiscriminately in the voluntary sector. The requirements under the new legislation and accompanying guidance apply only to situations where an individual whether working in a paid, unpaid or voluntary capacity may pose a potential danger to others, such that vetting mechanisms are warranted and necessary.
However, there is already a widespread misapprehension amongst voluntary organisations that all volunteers are legally required to produce a criminal record certificate when applying for any kind of voluntary work. In a climate that has exaggerated the risk of abuse, which has increasing recourse to litigation and a misconstrued notion of the nature of the ‘duty of care’, it is likely that many voluntary organisations will seek checks where they are not really necessary and, indeed, that they will seek them at the highest possible level (for example, by applying for enhanced, rather than basic or standard, disclosures in inappropriate circumstances). Such indiscriminate use of checks will be a major disincentive on volunteering. People with non-relevant convictions are less likely to volunteer if they know it will lead to a request from a volunteer-deploying organisation for a criminal record certificate.
The campaign for free checks has tended to obscure this issue. Indeed, if voluntary organisations had been charged for checks, then this might have served as a legitimate means of exercising some sort of control over excessive and unjustified demand. It should be noted that the argument that volunteers should qualify for free checks is quite different from the view that where checks are genuinely in the public interest, then the associated costs should be met by the public purse. This latter argument provides no reason for treating volunteers differently from those applying for paid employment.
NAVB does not want a society in which it is the norm for everyone to have to produce a criminal record certificate in order to work whether on a paid or unpaid basis. This was one of our concerns about the campaign for free checks. This campaign argued that it would ‘be a catastrophe if millions of volunteers have to pay for a CRC’, this implies that millions of volunteers should produce a CRC and that the only cause for concern is that they could be required to pay.
But where ‘four million volunteers’ is linked to ‘free criminal record checks’ in a newspaper headline, many will infer that the voluntary sector is condoning even welcoming this magnitude of checks. There is no evidence that such a large number of checks is necessary. It is clear, however, that they will be sought and – particularly now they are free for the voluntary sector that demand will be excessive and disproportionate.
Protecting the vulnerable:
Of course, everyone is concerned that children and other vulnerable groups should be protected from unsuitable people, and checks have a role to play here. However, their usefulness should not be exaggerated. In fact the use of criminal records is a very inadequate form of vetting. For example, it is no help in identifying those people who do not have relevant convictions but may nonetheless pose risks to vulnerable groups. A substantial increase in the use of checks may, perversely, make matters worse. This could be the case if it results in voluntary organisations becoming over-reliant on checks and doing little else to assess the suitability of volunteers. Particularly where checks are free, this could foster a climate in which little is done to improve practice in relation to the recruitment, selection, support and supervision of workers.
In particular, much more thought needs to be given to how services are delivered and to ensuring that volunteers receive proper support and are subject to appropriate supervision. In relation to voluntary work in care settings, afterschools, youth clubs, playschemes, scout troops and so on, there is no sensible reason why any worker should be left unsupported and in sole charge of young people. This places both the young people and the worker at unnecessary risk and for many reasons other than the exceedingly remote possibility that there will be deliberate and direct abuse. Risk is best minimised by encouraging and supporting good practice, rather than over-reliance on criminal record checks.
It is instructive to note that in Northern Ireland the introduction of PECS, an integrated vetting procedure backed up with guidance and training, has significantly raised standards of selection and supervision in voluntary organisations working with children and young people. There has been very little recourse to criminal record checks. Agencies in Northern Ireland have expressed dismay that the progress that they have made will be jeopardised by the implementation of Part V of the Police Act, which has application in Northern Ireland as well as in England and Wales.
Conclusion:
It is vital to recognise that demand for criminal record checks is not the same thing as the need for checks. Rather than using any further public resources to extend free checks to all or some volunteers applying for Basic Disclosures following their introduction in 2002, it would be better to use any available money to enable the CRB to establish and apply strict criteria for assessing the bona fides of requests for checks. Any move that controls access to checks as payment would tend to do will have the effect of forcing voluntary agencies to think carefully about their need to run checks. They should also be encouraged to recognise the limitations of the new system and to invest greater time and energy in ensuring that recruitment, support and selection procedures are effective.
Overall, NAVB believes that there are few circumstances in which recourse to CRC's is warranted once proper consideration is given to the degree of risk posed by taking on a volunteer to work in a particular setting. Access to the Disclosure Service should be based on proper risk assessment and management. Even when relevant criteria are met, and the application for a CRC is justified, it is vital to get the message across that this is only a minor part of any solution to the problem of protecting the vulnerable while dealing in a fair and non-discriminatory manner with voluntary work.
The apparent level of demand for CRC's amongst voluntary organisations is worrying, both because in many cases there is no genuine need for a check and because it suggests that too many organisations see the establishment of the CRB as the solution to inadequate recruitment practices. It is not - not least, because it leaves open the question of how (and indeed whether) organisations are going to identify those seeking voluntary work who pose a serious risk but have no criminal record. The worry , then, is that the introduction of checks will not improve practice but simply provide organisations with an easy way in which they can appear to be meeting their responsibilities to protect the vulnerable by simply excluding anyone from voluntary work who does not have a clean sheet. This is unfair to volunteers with records. It is also unfair to vulnerable groups, who should be properly protected from those people who pose a genuine threat to them.
SAMPLE
- Recruitment of Ex-Offenders Policy -
Background:
All individuals or organisations using the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Disclosure service to help assess the suitability of applicants for positions of trust and who are recipients of Disclosure information must comply fully with the CRB Code of Practice. Amongst other things, this requires them to treat all applicants for positions who have a criminal record fairly and not to discriminate unfairly against the subject of a Disclosure on the basis of conviction or other information revealed. It also obliges them to have a written policy on the recruitment of such individuals, which can be given to all applicants for positions where a Disclosure is requested and to ensure that a body or individual at whose request applications are countersigned has such a written policy. Also, if necessary, to provide a model for that body or individual to use or adapt for this purpose.
SAMPLE of Ex Offenders Policy Statement:
As an organisation using the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Disclosure service to assess applicant’s suitability for positions of trust, Organisation Name complies fully with the CRB Code of Practice and undertakes to treat all applicants for positions fairly. It undertakes not to discriminate unfairly against any subject of a Disclosure on the basis of conviction or other information revealed.
Organisation Name is committed to the fair treatment of it’s staff, potential staff or users of it’s service, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, responsibilities for dependants, age, physical / mental disability or offending background.
Organisation Name have a written policy on the recruitment of ex –offenders, which is made available to all Disclosure applicants at the outset of the recruitment process.
Organisation Name actively promote equality of opportunity for all with the right mix of talent, skills and potential and welcome applications from a wide range of candidates, including those with criminal records. Organisation Name select all candidates for interview based on their skills, qualifications and experience.
A Disclosure is only requested after a thorough risk assessment has indicated that one is both proportionate and relevant to the position concerned. For those positions where a Disclosure is required, all application forms, job adverts and recruitment briefs will contain a statement that a Disclosure will be requested in the event of the individual being offered the position.
Where a Disclosure is to form part of the recruitment process, we encourage all applicants called for interview to provide details of their criminal record at an early stage in the application progress. We request that this information is sent under a separate, confidential cover to a designated person within Organisation Name and we guarantee that this information will only be seen by those who need to see it as part of the recruitment process.
Unless the nature of the position allows Organisation Name to ask questions about your entire criminal record we only ask about ‘unspent’ convictions as defined in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
We ensure that all those in Organisation Name who are involved in the recruitment process have been suitably trained to identify and assess the relevance and circumstances of offences. We also ensure that they have received appropriate guidance and training in the relevant legislation relation to the employment of ex–offenders, e.g. the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
At interview, or in separate discussion, we ensure that an open and measured discussion takes place on the subject of any offences or other matters that might be relevant to the position. Failure to reveal information that is directly relevant to the position sought could lead to withdrawal of an offer of employment.
We make every subject of a CRB Disclosure aware of the existence of the CRB Code of Practice and make a copy available on request.
We undertake to discuss any matter revealed in a Disclosure with the person seeking the position before withdrawing a conditional offer of employment.
- POLICY ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF EX-OFFENDERS -
Policy Statement:
Employers should, and normally are committed to achieving equality and diversity in employment, and to recruiting the right people for the right jobs at the right time and in the right numbers, in a fair, consistent and cost effective manner.
In practice this means that all appointments are made on the basis of clear and justifiable job related criteria. We aim to ensure that no applicant or employee suffers unfair treatment on the basis of unjustifiable criteria, this includes discrimination on the grounds of criminal convictions.
To meet this aim we will:
Ask only about “unspent convictions” unless the nature of the vacancy allows us to receive details of the entire criminal record.
Ensure that all those involved in the recruitment selection process have been suitably trained.
When considering the relevance of a previous conviction, undertake an objective assessment.
At the interview, on in a separate meeting, discuss any offences and the circumstances with the individual.
Individuals with criminal records will not be automatically barred from employment with an employer. Decisions will base wholly on the nature of the position and the circumstances and background of the offences.
If you would like to see a full copy of the Policy on the Employment of Ex-Offenders please contact the employers Departmental Human Resource Service on the telephone number on the covering letter or application pack that is provided when applying for a post.
NOTE: Simply click on each of the above, or highlight/copy and paste the above hyperlink to web address browser and click return. The file will automatically download. Dependant upon the Server/ISP used it may take some little while to download owing to the size of the above data file(s).
The Journal Of Crime Reduction And Community Safety. The article reflects NAVB’s dual concern that the indiscriminate use of checks will create new barriers to volunteering and that reliance on criminal record checks in isolation is a very inadequate form of vetting.
Messrs G Owen & Co : 2004.
