Continuing my theme of what the possible consequences might be for the probation service if large chunks of it were privatised, my attention has been drawn to another piece of investigative journalism by the BBC.
As a result of a Freedom of Information request to the Care Quality Commission by the Inside Out team, it transpires that 217 companies supplying care staff in peoples homes have failed to carry out any CRB checks on staff. They also failed to check if any of these employees had been disqualified by relevant professional bodies and therefore were not deemed as 'suitably qualified' as required by the relevant legislation.
The CQC also found examples of employees that had criminal convictions, but were working unsupervised and without having been risk-assessed. Apparently Care Minister Mr Lamb described the findings as "deeply disturbing" and said that care providers "obviously" needed to be held to account by the Care Quality Commission. But he stressed individual failings did not mean "the whole system has failed." He went on "Inevitably, in all walks of life, sometimes things go wrong."
Now I absolutely love that last bit! Things do indeed go wrong sometimes and in our line of work people can get seriously injured or killed as a result. I do hope the responsible minister can think of something rather more nuanced to say than 'shit happens' when private contractors are supervising high risk probation cases and it goes horribly wrong. Believe me, the resulting media storm is simply unremitting and unforgiving, so it's to be hoped that any private contractors are well prepared for the inevitable negative publicity.
On a slightly different tack, I was bemused to see Emma Harrison of A4E giving an in-depth interview at the weekend in the Sunday Times. It would seem that she feels to have been unfairly treated by politicians and the media and is still smarting from the experience of being forced to resign. She just doesn't seem to understand that the public are not going to take kindly to her living the high life courtesy of huge government contracts, trousering dividends of £8.5million in one year, and all as allegations of fraud filter to the surface by her staff. But then shit happens, doesn't it?
Showing posts with label CRB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CRB. Show all posts
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Sunday, 2 September 2012
More on Sex Offending
The Archbishop of Canterbury's recent announcement concerning child sex abuse in the Diocese of Chichester will have surprised many, including professionals, not least because we all thought every public body had well-established procedures in place for safeguarding children. I guess the Church of England thought that as well, until that is the findings of this internal report made their way to Lambeth Palace.
The inquiry by the Archbishop of Canterbury's office concluded that the West Sussex diocese has "an appalling history" of child protection failures, with "fresh and disturbing" allegations continuing to emerge.
It is to be hoped that this situation is far from typical and Church authorities must be absolutely dreading the uncovering of similar and widespread systemic failures to that found in the Roman Catholic Church. In an unprecedented move, and no doubt in order to send a signal through the whole Church, Lambeth Palace will now oversee clergy appointments and the protection of all children and vulnerable adults in the diocese amid concerns that safeguarding procedures remain "dysfunctional."
The report went on to say that the abuse had been made worse by the "very slow" way the diocese recognised concerns and failed to act with "rigour and expedition". This is the key point for me really. Yes the inquiry found that, despite it being Church policy to have every cleric CRB-checked every 5 years at least, 138 hadn't. But this is a red herring in my view and merely a bit of a bureaucratic sop to the public.
It's obvious that CRB checks are out-of-date as soon as issued and reliance on this procedure alone can encourage a false sense of security. In the final analysis, everyone in any organisation involved with children or vulnerable adults has a legal and professional duty to be alert to any behaviour that is worrying or inappropriate, and act immediately.
The inquiry by the Archbishop of Canterbury's office concluded that the West Sussex diocese has "an appalling history" of child protection failures, with "fresh and disturbing" allegations continuing to emerge.
It is to be hoped that this situation is far from typical and Church authorities must be absolutely dreading the uncovering of similar and widespread systemic failures to that found in the Roman Catholic Church. In an unprecedented move, and no doubt in order to send a signal through the whole Church, Lambeth Palace will now oversee clergy appointments and the protection of all children and vulnerable adults in the diocese amid concerns that safeguarding procedures remain "dysfunctional."
The report went on to say that the abuse had been made worse by the "very slow" way the diocese recognised concerns and failed to act with "rigour and expedition". This is the key point for me really. Yes the inquiry found that, despite it being Church policy to have every cleric CRB-checked every 5 years at least, 138 hadn't. But this is a red herring in my view and merely a bit of a bureaucratic sop to the public.
It's obvious that CRB checks are out-of-date as soon as issued and reliance on this procedure alone can encourage a false sense of security. In the final analysis, everyone in any organisation involved with children or vulnerable adults has a legal and professional duty to be alert to any behaviour that is worrying or inappropriate, and act immediately.
Friday, 9 March 2012
An Apology
As children I suspect most of us are taught to tell the truth. I can well remember getting a good hiding when a pathetic attempt to plant blame on someone else failed and I was reminded of the virtue of honesty. But as we grow older the issue begins to get a little blurred when the mixed messages start. When asked if we like auntie's new outfit, we're suddenly told that telling the truth about its awfulness is not acceptable.
As we get older, hopefully we begin to learn the concept of 'good' and 'bad' lies and the general nuances of life that make things so difficult for those people who suffer from a learning disability for instance. Most of us would agree that at some point in our life we will be faced with a 'cost benefit analysis' dilemma when we have to balance the chances of getting caught against some possible reward or advantage. In other words, a moral dilemma.
One of the most challenging aspects of being a Probation Officer is highlighted in this post by Tony on Prisoners Families Voices. He frankly admits to having reached the age of 39, never having had a job. He's been in and out of prison most of his adult life and bemoans how little help his Probation Officer had been following his release in 2011. I suspect he hoped that his PO could help him find a job, and that would be a realistic and normal expectation in my view. But the issue is always what to put on the bloody CV? Just how can you cover 20-odd years constructively and in the absense of any work record?
Tony quite quickly identified the inherent problem in following the no doubt sound advice from his PO to tell the truth and hope that a sympathetic employer will still call him for interview. I've given this advice myself many times with a heavy heart, both of us knowing deep down that, especially in a worsening economic climate, the chances of it bearing fruit are close to zero.
No wonder then that many clients like Tony decide to ignore advice from probation and instead concoct fairytale CV's. There're not alone in doing that though are they? The middle classes have always indulged in a bit of 'creative accounting' where employment histories are concerned, so is it really that terrible? Of course there is always the risk of being found out, but there is also an inherent and huge incentive on the part of the client to become a model hard-working employee and establish a work record. We call that rehabilitation of course.
There are potential problems, such as in relation to Schedule 1 offenders where there is a clear duty to inform employers if there is likely to be any contact with children or vulnerable adults. But this is a pretty unlikely scenario nowadays with the advent of CRB checks. I really hope it works out well for Tony in his minimum wage job and that he's able to progress to greater and better things. I'm just so sorry we weren't much help.
As we get older, hopefully we begin to learn the concept of 'good' and 'bad' lies and the general nuances of life that make things so difficult for those people who suffer from a learning disability for instance. Most of us would agree that at some point in our life we will be faced with a 'cost benefit analysis' dilemma when we have to balance the chances of getting caught against some possible reward or advantage. In other words, a moral dilemma.
One of the most challenging aspects of being a Probation Officer is highlighted in this post by Tony on Prisoners Families Voices. He frankly admits to having reached the age of 39, never having had a job. He's been in and out of prison most of his adult life and bemoans how little help his Probation Officer had been following his release in 2011. I suspect he hoped that his PO could help him find a job, and that would be a realistic and normal expectation in my view. But the issue is always what to put on the bloody CV? Just how can you cover 20-odd years constructively and in the absense of any work record?
Tony quite quickly identified the inherent problem in following the no doubt sound advice from his PO to tell the truth and hope that a sympathetic employer will still call him for interview. I've given this advice myself many times with a heavy heart, both of us knowing deep down that, especially in a worsening economic climate, the chances of it bearing fruit are close to zero.
No wonder then that many clients like Tony decide to ignore advice from probation and instead concoct fairytale CV's. There're not alone in doing that though are they? The middle classes have always indulged in a bit of 'creative accounting' where employment histories are concerned, so is it really that terrible? Of course there is always the risk of being found out, but there is also an inherent and huge incentive on the part of the client to become a model hard-working employee and establish a work record. We call that rehabilitation of course.
There are potential problems, such as in relation to Schedule 1 offenders where there is a clear duty to inform employers if there is likely to be any contact with children or vulnerable adults. But this is a pretty unlikely scenario nowadays with the advent of CRB checks. I really hope it works out well for Tony in his minimum wage job and that he's able to progress to greater and better things. I'm just so sorry we weren't much help.
Monday, 22 November 2010
Criminal Records
I notice that NACRO's campaign 'Change the Record' has steadily gained momentum with a range of organisations pledging support. This is indeed an old chestnut with numerous previous calls to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and update it. All probation officers will be acutely aware of the thorny issue of how clients deal with previous convictions on application forms for jobs or accommodation. Really this should have been addressed at the same time as legislation was enacted setting up the Criminal Records Bureau.
I first became aware of previous conviction disclosure becoming an issue when clients started being routinely refused Local Authority accommodation. I discovered that my ever-sympathetic council had started paying for the secondment of police officers to their Housing Department. At the time I thought it was outrageous that data from the Police National Computer could be routinely used for this purpose, and as far as I know without Parliamentary Approval. But of course this was the era of 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' and the ASBO, so public sympathy was in somewhat short supply for a group broadly regarded as undeserving.
Of course it was not a huge issue prior to the CRB coming along, because despite any advice officers might give their clients, many simply neglected to answer the question, or just lied. Increasingly it seems that potential employers and educational institutions are insisting that details of all convictions, cautions, final warnings or reprimands are disclosed, whether spent or not and irrespective of the requirements of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. At least the new government have announced that a full review will be undertaken into how criminality information is to be handled in the future.
It may not be generally known, but the Probation Service has never had direct access to a persons antecedent history, or 'pre-cons' as they are universally referred to. We have to rely on the police or CPS supplying us with printouts as we have no direct access to the computer database. I guess we are simply not trusted enough. The other group who have no access are clients and they routinely ask probation staff for copies because their memories are never that good. Strictly speaking we shouldn't oblige, but it's always struck me as very strange that the person that the record relates to is denied a paper copy. There is a regular ritual in open court when the prosecutor shows the defendant a list of pre-cons to confirm their accuracy and you just know that its length and scope comes as something of a surprise to them. Memory can be very selective sometimes.
Over the years the other things that have surprised me about pre-cons are firstly how often they are incorrect and secondly just how many people have exactly the same name and birthdate. Several times when following proceedings as a CDO in court I've been horrified at what was recorded on the pre-cons, only to be told by the prosecutor when they sat down that 'oh that's the wrong Joe Bloggs'. Amazing, but it does make you wonder.
I first became aware of previous conviction disclosure becoming an issue when clients started being routinely refused Local Authority accommodation. I discovered that my ever-sympathetic council had started paying for the secondment of police officers to their Housing Department. At the time I thought it was outrageous that data from the Police National Computer could be routinely used for this purpose, and as far as I know without Parliamentary Approval. But of course this was the era of 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' and the ASBO, so public sympathy was in somewhat short supply for a group broadly regarded as undeserving.
Of course it was not a huge issue prior to the CRB coming along, because despite any advice officers might give their clients, many simply neglected to answer the question, or just lied. Increasingly it seems that potential employers and educational institutions are insisting that details of all convictions, cautions, final warnings or reprimands are disclosed, whether spent or not and irrespective of the requirements of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. At least the new government have announced that a full review will be undertaken into how criminality information is to be handled in the future.
It may not be generally known, but the Probation Service has never had direct access to a persons antecedent history, or 'pre-cons' as they are universally referred to. We have to rely on the police or CPS supplying us with printouts as we have no direct access to the computer database. I guess we are simply not trusted enough. The other group who have no access are clients and they routinely ask probation staff for copies because their memories are never that good. Strictly speaking we shouldn't oblige, but it's always struck me as very strange that the person that the record relates to is denied a paper copy. There is a regular ritual in open court when the prosecutor shows the defendant a list of pre-cons to confirm their accuracy and you just know that its length and scope comes as something of a surprise to them. Memory can be very selective sometimes.
Over the years the other things that have surprised me about pre-cons are firstly how often they are incorrect and secondly just how many people have exactly the same name and birthdate. Several times when following proceedings as a CDO in court I've been horrified at what was recorded on the pre-cons, only to be told by the prosecutor when they sat down that 'oh that's the wrong Joe Bloggs'. Amazing, but it does make you wonder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)