Re: Top age-range for Explorers


<steviephilips@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155985796.421565.7600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At present it looks like CRB checks will continue to be free for the
voluntary sector but I was just wondering if people did have to pay
whether they would take the same casual attitude to the real cost of
their actions in trying to process everyone. Would every member be
willing to cough up GBP36 on their eighteenth birthday? I think not.

Exactly, I think the Scout Association only check members (as apposed
to leaders)

Eh? The SA Child Protection Policy (CPP) incorporates a mandatory personal
enquiry process for every adult (i.e. any person aged 18 or over),
irrespective of whether they are a leader or a member, who is likely to have
substantial unsupervised access to its yp (i.e. members aged under 18).

The SA's CPP is widely recognised as being an example of good/best practice.

when they are 18 because its free (at the moment).

No it's not because it's free! It's done because it's seen to be best/good
practice. Not following good/best practice would increase risk (of CP
violations), attract a lot of criticism, and alienate us from a wide range
of youth-based organisations who are committed to developing, maintaining,
and upholding effective CPP's that attract the confidence of the public.

If it
was not free I am sure they would not be done.

No, they would still be done!

Sure if there was a direct cost there would be a significant financial
impact and a large number of problems to overcome, but 'going against the
flow' in the area of CP is not an option, believe me.

Where the voluntary sector has to be careful, I believe, is in the area of
repeated checking - i.e. using the disclosure service frequently to
effectively have some measure of continuous vetting. One wonders how many of
the 20% of (CRB) checks that come from the voluntary sector are 'repeat
checks'. Those organisations that repeatedly do this I believe are those who
have abdicated responsibility for having effective (continuous) internal
checks. Disclosure is a one-off, one point in time, service used to support
a recruitment decision. After that all that should be needed is a good
policy of internal vetting. That's what I always say to a new leader 'you
keep an eye on me, I'll keep an eye on you' and if either of us have any
concerns then we'll go to the DC. If suspicions are raised or someone
disappears off the map for some time then we should insist on a re-check.
But someone who, following an inquiry, has been recruited and continues to
have an unblemished record should not need re-checking.

Constant re-checking 'just to make sure' (and there isn't any 100% certainty
in the checks anyways) is a scandalous waste of (other people's) money and
an admission that their own orgnaisation's internal vetting policy is weak.


And I cant see why in the case of ordinary members it 'needs' to be
done anyway.

Who's an ordinary member? I am! Do you think I (an adult a little :-) over
18 years of age) who is an ordinary member shouldn't be checked?


Do they CRB check school children when they reach 18 ?

No. 18yo school-children don't have the roles and responsibilities in school
that adults (e.g. teachers) there do. There is more of a risk that a teacher
will use their role and responsibility to create opportunities to place
children at increased risk of harm. There is very much less risk that the
same will happen for an 18 yo adult 'schoolchild'.

Yes there is a grey area here. An 18 yo adult 'schoolchild' does have access
to yp under 18, but the risk of them doing harm to those u18 is extremely
low and, furthermore, those 18 yo's are supervised (to a very large degree)
by checked adults (teachers/staff).

Where does one draw the line? Well 18 just happens to be where it is drawn!
Sure there are those just u18 who could be a risk, more so than those just
over 18. On the whole the risk is more for those 18+ than those 18-. Trying
to be specific - looking at every individual - would be impractical.

What we do try and do is to look at some individuals in that 18 grey area
and try and make an assessment.

So if we have, say, an 18 yo Explorer taking advantage of the flexibility to
stay on in the unit for a few months more to finish the Explorer
programme/awards, and who will be supervised by an ESL/Leader, then we don't
force them on becoming 18 to go through personal inquiry.

Or if that 18 yo Explorer takes on an assistant role in a junior section
(maybe as a final part of their Explorer award programme) then again we have
to put them through inquiry.

We consider the person and the context.

What about an 18 yo transferring to the Network who is not going to be
taking on any leadership/superivsory role and/or responsibilities, i.e. just
doing Network stuff? Well if we have an 18yo Explorer who transfers to the
SN then we do put them through inquiry because a member of the SN is an
adult who is likely to/may have unsupervised access to yp and is themself
unlikely to be directly supervised - there is no guarantee that just doing
the Network programme will not bring them into contact with yp aged 18-..

As regards where the top-end line should be drawn, I agree with PJ, 18 is
fine with a flexibility to finish awards up to 18.5. Good programme
scheduling and consideration of inviduals' programme needs should reduce the
problems that BO perceives with a fixed demarcation at 18 rather than a more
flexible year-group demarcation. Someone who is, say, 18.5 now and 'needs'
to stay on for the final 'year-end' expedition should really have had their
'need' met the previous year when they were 17.5. Sure, due to unforeseen
circumstances, there may be someone who really is at an awkward age, but
there's no reason why they can't continue on with their scouting targets and
achievements in Network.

We have to draw a line somewhere! (A resonably solid black line with only
little grey bits on each side!) If we don't we'll end up with people staying
on 'forever' in sections rather than progressing. I sure don't want to see
an 18 yo Sixer or PL!

GAGS


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time Based Distribution List?
    ... There is a risk to the specific list you are modifying, ... changetype: modify ... in the member section where you have ... For the 8am scheduled task: ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: New Jersey State Route 495 video
    ... door, asking for your answers to the following questions: ... victimless crime, even if it increases risk: being an adult is about ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: Walkers
    ... Don't assess the safety, assess the risk, e.g. not significant, low ... One of those control measures might be adult supervision. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Another reason to despise the police
    ... chance that you might be able to rescue at least one person - albeit ... It is perfectly possible that a member of the public has enough ... It may carry a very high risk, ... then any police officer will most definitely have far more experience of ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Telegraph Discrimination Story, more information
    ... THE GOD PROMISE as you call it. ... It can be varied to suit the member. ... I know of at least three children and one adult who have not been ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)