As of September I will loose my ACSL and wil be faced with running a
Cub pack of 18 lads on my own. Realising that I can't do this I'm
planning to start a parents rota and would be grateful for your
advice. Should I go for one or two parents per night? Do they have to
be CRB'd? What do I do if a parent refuses?

TIA

Matthew
CSL 1st Ribchester

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Matthew 
wrote:

>As of September I will loose my ACSL and wil be faced with running a
>Cub pack of 18 lads on my own. Realising that I can't do this I'm
>planning to start a parents rota and would be grateful for your
>advice. Should I go for one or two parents per night? Do they have to
>be CRB'd? What do I do if a parent refuses?
>
Go for two parents per night, that way if one cancels you are still
okay.

Get them CRB'd, you cannot guarantee that they will not have
unsupervised access.

Make sure they have something to do.

If they refuse ...

Difficult one. The easy answer is to say their kids don't come to
Cubs. But that punishes the child for the sins of the parents.

Frankly, I'd say we will run on a parent Rota basis for not more than
12 months and if there are no new Leaders by that time we will close
the section. End of story.

After years' of looking for Leaders by all other methods, I held a
meting, laid the situation on the line and said if we don't get
Leaders we will have to shut the Beaver section down. I now have two
ABSLs and a skills helper, possibly a third ABSL in the pipeline.

Some of these are the same people I had asked directly and who had
refused at an earlier date.

In Beavers and Cubs I'd also run a parent rota even if you do have
leaders.  It is a bit more difficult in Scouts as they need more
independence.

In message , Ewan Scott 
 writes
>
>If they refuse ...
>
>Difficult one. The easy answer is to say their kids don't come to
>Cubs. But that punishes the child for the sins of the parents.
>
Always a difficult one if they refuse unless you know why but as Ewan 
said it isn't fair to punish the child.  Some Parents may work shifts, 
have evening jobs or partners who work nights, they may have health 
problems, be carers or have lot's of other young children who they can't 
leave.  Some of course may not be able to pass a CRB but most will 
hopefully be willing to assist and will enjoy it so much that they ask 
to join full time
-- 
Paul Harris

"Matthew"  wrote in message 
news:337f2476-8df7-4eb7-b406-1eaf901f0e6d@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> As of September I will loose my ACSL and wil be faced with running a
> Cub pack of 18 lads on my own. Realising that I can't do this I'm
> planning to start a parents rota and would be grateful for your
> advice. Should I go for one or two parents per night? Do they have to
> be CRB'd? What do I do if a parent refuses?
>
> TIA
>
> Matthew
> CSL 1st Ribchester

Your response to reading this contribution will probably be, " So?"
Following a previous discussion on this topic, I wrote to the parents of all 
3 sections when there was danger of closure due to a number of helpers & 
leaders moving away. Simple clear letter which included examples of easy 
jobs, even nice photos of parents happily doing stuff with kids.
Almost no responses from over 50 parents. 3 parents offered, one is a 
regular, 2 now help frequently.
But afterwards we sat-down and looked at all of the parents' circumstances; 
a few horrible people with huge nasty dogs we would not want near the 
kids(both), quite a few single parents with other kids to care for at home, 
several parents where they work long pooly paid & unsocial hours; drivers, 
security gaurds etc., other the very opposite highly professional working 
all hours all over the place; travelling university lecturers, 
psychotherapists, city wiz-kids.  Parents who were caring for their eldery 
parents miles away.  We simply did not have Mr & Mrs. Average.... so no 
wonder no-one volunteered!
And then I helped run a large camp for another inner-city leader  and met 
all of his leaders, and somehow he had managed to recuit all the very 'odd' 
parents that I have just written-off.
So?
I simply don't know why some groups do manage to attract loads of parents, 
and others don't. But looking into the mirror I see a bloke who has run 
around like a blue-ass fly doing ten things at once simply because it was 
easier than asking someone esle to do it . I don't think that has helped.

Eddie Langdown 16th Bermondsey London

On 17 Jul, 10:02, Matthew  wrote:
> As of September I will loose my ACSL

Oh dear.

> and wil be faced with running a
> Cub pack of 18 lads on my own. Realising that I can't do this

Erm...you can run (i.e. lead) a cub pack on your own but you shouldn't
run activities on your own.

> I'm
> planning to start a parents rota

Good idea.

> and would be grateful for your
> advice.

I'll see what I can do! A section in my group runs a parents' rota.

> Should I go for one or two parents per night?

Plan for 2. This gives you a little leeway if the (almost) inevitable
'My infant's just been sick and I can't turn up tonight' phone call
occurs.

> Do they have to
> be CRB'd?

Oh yes! Any assessment will say that any one of those on the rota will
likely have unsupervised access at some time or another. That's
plainly obvious and as such you must guard against it; hence, they
must be checked.

You should register these people as 'Occasional Helpers' according to
the procedures in your district. They do not complete an AA form but
may have to complete some local registration form (name, address,
contact details, etc). You must submit a CRB disclosure for each
person on the list. Check with your District Appointments Secretary as
regards the local process/procedures.

I hear that there is some delay with CRB disclosures at the moment so
you need to get this moving ASAP if you want to have something in
place for Sept.

> What do I do if a parent refuses?

Not a lot!

You need to explain to the parents the reason why you're taking this
course of action. Put the ball clealry in their court!

If you get little or no help you'll have to tell them that the GSL
will have little option but to close/suspend the section. (Closed/
suspended sections have minimal chance these days of re-opening given
the limited adult resources we face right now.) And don't make idle
threats!

More help will make things easier for those who volunteer. Ideally you
should suggest to parents supporting something such as two sessions
(meetings/activities) per term. Think about those occasions when you
might need more help (e.g. days-out, camps, etc.)

Run your rota on a termly basis and make sure you plan it a term in
advance.

Let the parents know that an Occasional Helper rota is an interim
measure. You need another warranted leader or at least 2 section
assistants! Keep pushing on this and don't relax once you've got your
rota up and running. Tell the parents you'll review the situation (in
maybe a year's time).

Hope it works out for you.

>
> TIA

You're welcome!
>

GAGS

My scouting role these days is as the DC's hatchet man. My job is to
go into failing groups/sections with the clear intention of closing
them down. 'Give me a good reason why I shouldn't close you down?', is
what I demand as soon as I walk through the door. If the response is
weak/not interested then I move to recommend closure as quickly as
possible. If the response is such that they are moved into action and
help and support comes forward then they have a stay of execution.

Much better to have 10 groups well-resourced and capable of delivering
good scouting than to have 15 groups under-resourced, struggling and
living by the week on scraps.

If a community wants a scout group then it has to support it - no
support means no group.

Right now I'm trying very hard to close a 2-section Group down but
(thankfully) I'm struggling because parents and the community have
upped their support big time. Still a long way to go!

Matthew wrote:
> As of September I will loose my ACSL and wil be faced with running a
> Cub pack of 18 lads on my own. Realising that I can't do this I'm
> planning to start a parents rota and would be grateful for your
> advice. Should I go for one or two parents per night? 

Aim to have two parents attending each weekly meeting: Assuming 36 
meetings in the school year, you're asking each family to provide a 
parent/helper for four meetings a year.

Let them know that you will still need extra help for special meetings, 
activities outdoors, camps, etc.

And let them know that meetings and events will be cancelled unless you 
can guarantee the number of adults required to run each meeting safely. 
  This is a threat you may have to carry through a couple of times: It 
doesn't take too many cancelled meetings to get the message across!


Those parents who sign up for the rota before start of term get a free 
choice of dates.  Remaining dates are allocated to everyone else on a 
strict rota: They can either turn up or they're responsible for 
arranging someone else to be there.

Once the rota is worked out (and everyone has a copy!), contact the 
people a couple of weeks in advance of their meeting - both to check 
that they'll turn up, and to give them some indication of what you 
expect them to do.  You need to be better prepared for every meeting, 
because they will expect you to be: The Cubs won't care if there's an 
unexpected evening of random games, but your parent helpers won't be so 
happy.


> Do they have to be CRB'd?

"Regular" helpers, i.e., those likely to be at meetings once a term or 
more often, have to be checked.  "Occasional" helpers don't have to be, 
provided they're always going to be adequately supervised by someone who 
has already been cleared.

You must still check all adults helping with overnight activities or 
doing activities where supervision is more difficult, e.g., wide games, 
incident hikes, treasure hunts.

I would also offer to check parents/friends who drive each other's 
children to and from Cub meetings, and also anyone who does 
child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's parents to attend Cub 
meetings.


Your "regular" helpers should preferably be appointed as Pack Assistants 
- so they go on the census, get the benefits of Scout Association 
insurance, and do the 'Getting Started' training (two evenings).  It 
doesn't necessarily mean going into uniform, or taking any 
responsibility for the programme.  The Getting Started training can then 
be used as a further recruiting tool, with some of them persuaded into 
uniform or perhaps even to become Leaders.


> What do I do if a parent refuses?

Not much: Their child still gets the same opportunities as every other
child in Scouting.

What you can do is try and persuade them to help in some other way
instead - serving on the committee, helping with fund-raising 
activities, doing leaflet drops, going to the Scoutshop to buy things, 
repainting the hall, etc.

-- 
David D Miller
St Andrews

David D Miller wrote:

> 
> I would also offer to check parents/friends who drive each other's 
> children to and from Cub meetings, and also anyone who does 
> child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's parents to attend Cub 
> meetings.

Do you think when you have taken the money our of my wallet (for the 
benefit of people  who the CRB specifically say can't use their service) 
you could tuck it back into my pocket?

Hi Matthew,

Well, first, always go for two parents on the night.

The other thing is, don't ask - tell.

Set up your rota over the summer so that you include every parent on
your list.

You won't get many refusers provided that you couch your language in
the most positive terms.

Don't tell them that you MUST have parental help. Instead, tell them
how much fun they will have helping at meetings.

When your parents are there, get them involved as much as possible.
Write out the programme and then let them run it while you are in the
background setting up the next part of the evening.

Go round, during the meeting, ensuring that the parents are enjoying
themselves.

When new members join, point out to their parents that they get to
join in the fun as well.

They don;t have to be CRBd for a one off meeting, but you might like
to suggest to them that it might be a good idea. They will agree with
you and you'll soon build up a 'stock' of parents with CRB's.

One message I constantly put out is how much we love having parents at
meetings and trips out. You will find that dads then start getting
involved as well. I particularly enjoy having dads at meetings. They
do too, because they can connect with their sons in a way that they
would not usually because they are often at work during Beavers
meetings.

Always be positive and you will always get the help.

Hope this helps.

Shaun

Marc wrote:
> David D Miller wrote:
>> I would also offer to check parents/friends who drive each other's 
>> children to and from Cub meetings, and also anyone who does 
>> child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's parents to attend 
>> Cub meetings.
> 
> Do you think when you have taken the money our of my wallet (for the 
> benefit of people  who the CRB specifically say can't use their service) 
> you could tuck it back into my pocket?

It's my understanding that if we, as Leaders, make arrangements for car 
drivers to transport children other than their own (or our own), we 
either need to have the drivers checked or we need them to carry an 
adult passenger who's been checked - and we should also confirm that 
they're properly licensed and insured to drive.

Doing some of those checks in advance means those drivers are available 
when the need arises - and parents already involved in a car-pool are 
those most likely to say, "Yes" - both to be checked, and to drive.  As 
Shaun said, "you'll soon build up a 'stock' of parents with CRB's."

[The alternative is that we delegate all transport arrangements to the 
parents, and let them sort it out: "Scouts are responsible for their own 
travel to and from the camp."  It's not ideal, and I often get last 
minute phone calls because somebody hasn't arranged a lift.]


Similarly, if we arrange for some of our volunteers to provide 
child-care to allow other adults to become Leaders (or to go on a 
training course, etc.), I'd expect those people to be checked out in 
exactly the same way as any other adults in Scouting.  It shouldn't 
matter if they belong to Fellowship/Network, or they're just another 
parent who supports Scouting but doesn't want to become a Leader themselves.

[Again, if parents make their own arrangements for child-care for their 
own children, that's entirely up to them - and nothing to do with us.]


It should perhaps be made clear that no parents should ever be told the 
results of any CRB/Disclosure check done for Scouting - other than their 
own - just as the Group Scouters don't ever find out.  All we normally 
get is a simple "Yes" from District - or more often the Warrant card 
arriving in the post.  (I'm not certain I'd ever be aware of a "No": 
That's for the DC and GSL to decide.)

-- 
David D Miller
St Andrews

David D Miller wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>> David D Miller wrote:
>>> I would also offer to check parents/friends who drive each other's 
>>> children to and from Cub meetings, and also anyone who does 
>>> child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's parents to attend 
>>> Cub meetings.
>>
>> Do you think when you have taken the money our of my wallet (for the 
>> benefit of people  who the CRB specifically say can't use their 
>> service) you could tuck it back into my pocket?
> 
> It's my understanding that if we, as Leaders, make arrangements for car 
> drivers to transport children other than their own (or our own), 


"Let's first dismiss a common misconception: There is no legal 
requirement to vet all volunteers."
http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2228

we
> either need to have the drivers checked or we need them to carry an 
> adult passenger who's been checked

So don't make these arrangments! Why do people feel the need to fiddle 
and get more and more involved, making things ever more complicated?

  - and we should also confirm that
> they're properly licensed and insured to drive.

Are you qualified to  examine a  driving licence or an insurance document?
> 
> Doing some of those checks in advance means those drivers are available 
> when the need arises - and parents already involved in a car-pool are 
> those most likely to say, "Yes" - both to be checked, and to drive.  As 
> Shaun said, "you'll soon build up a 'stock' of parents with CRB's."

Why are you getting invloved in the car pool or taxi bussiness?
If little johnies mum wants to take litte sammy to cubs/scouts then it's 
between little sammy and little johnies mum to sort out.
> 
> [The alternative is that we delegate all transport arrangements to the 
> parents, and let them sort it out:

you mean the way the rest of the world deals with it? Sounds like a good 
idea to me!

  "Scouts are responsible for their own
> travel to and from the camp."  It's not ideal, and I often get last 
> minute phone calls because somebody hasn't arranged a lift.]

I'm not suprised, that's because they know you are running a free taxi 
service, stop the service and the phone calls dry up.

> 
> 
> Similarly, if we arrange for some of our volunteers to provide 
> child-care to allow other adults to become Leaders (or to go on a 
> training course, etc.),


So now in addition to running a taxi service you are also running a 
babysitting club?

  I'd expect those people to be checked out in
> exactly the same way as any other adults in Scouting.  It shouldn't 
> matter if they belong to Fellowship/Network, or they're just another 
> parent who supports Scouting but doesn't want to become a Leader 
> themselves.


"In addition, parents who employ a nanny/au pair/babysitter directly 
cannot apply for a CRB check;"
http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=381
> 
> [Again, if parents make their own arrangements for child-care for their 
> own children, that's entirely up to them - and nothing to do with us.]

Why on earth should a parent want to pay for a babysitter when they can 
get me to do it for them?
> 
> 
> It should perhaps be made clear that no parents should ever be told the 
> results of any CRB/Disclosure check done for Scouting - other than their 
> own - just as the Group Scouters don't ever find out.  All we normally 
> get is a simple "Yes" from District - or more often the Warrant card 
> arriving in the post.  (I'm not certain I'd ever be aware of a "No": 
> That's for the DC and GSL to decide.)

And when you are busy collecting all these CRB checked parents that I'm 
paying  for ( you never did answer if you would put my wallet back) what 
happens when a parent refuses or fails a CRB check ? How will your 
system cope with " Why does little willie's dad always get to duck out 
of the driving? Why can't he do his fair share?"

The wider you cast the net of CRB than is needed, the greater is the 
chance that you will end up with that result.
>

In message <g5od9s$lkn$1@north.jnrs.ja.net>, David D Miller 
 writes
>Marc wrote:

>>  Do you think when you have taken the money our of my wallet (for the 
>>benefit of people  who the CRB specifically say can't use their 
>>service) you could tuck it back into my pocket?
>
>It's my understanding that if we, as Leaders, make arrangements for car 
>drivers to transport children other than their own (or our own), we 
>either need to have the drivers checked or we need them to carry an 
>adult passenger who's been checked - and we should also confirm that 
>they're properly licensed and insured to drive.
>
If we arrange it then we should check but every check costs money and 
has to be paid for by someone and in these cases that is the tax payer 
and Parents could make their own arrangements.  You also mentioned also 
anyone who does child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's 
parents to attend Cub meetings.  Do you think the tax payer should pay 
for those checks?  It is difficult to decide exactly where the line 
should be drawn but it is equally possible to suggest that we run checks 
on virtually everyone who might happen to help out at some time provided 
of course that we don't have to pay.  Some people may object to the cost 
of paying for our spending their money in such a way when times are 
hard.
-- 
Paul Harris

On 17 Jul, 10:02, Matthew  wrote:
> As of September I will loose my ACSL and wil be faced with running a
> Cub pack of 18 lads on my own. Realising that I can't do this I'm
> planning to start a parents rota and would be grateful for your
> advice. Should I go for one or two parents per night? Do they have to
> be CRB'd? What do I do if a parent refuses?
>
> TIA
>
> Matthew
> CSL 1st Ribchester

You'll not get anyone to step into the breach if there is no breach.
Don't have your first meeting back, but have a meeting of the
parents.  Explain that you can't run the section on your own.  Without
some help there will be no Cubs.  Wait for them to volunteer.  If they
don't, find another Cub Pack.

You have more than enough to do organising the kids without trying to
organise the adults.  And I suspect that someone will come forward to
step into the breach.

Or - talk to your local Scout Network and see if any of them are
interested.  It may well count towards their Duke of Edinburgh Gold
Award.

Kind regards,

Andy

Intrepid ESU
www.explorerscout.net

Paul Harris wrote:
> In message <g5od9s$lkn$1@north.jnrs.ja.net>, David D Miller 
>  writes
>> Marc wrote:
> 
>>>  Do you think when you have taken the money our of my wallet (for the 
>>> benefit of people  who the CRB specifically say can't use their 
>>> service) you could tuck it back into my pocket?
>>
>> It's my understanding that if we, as Leaders, make arrangements for 
>> car drivers to transport children other than their own (or our own), 
>> we either need to have the drivers checked or we need them to carry an 
>> adult passenger who's been checked - and we should also confirm that 
>> they're properly licensed and insured to drive.
>>
> If we arrange it then we should check but every check costs money and 
> has to be paid for by someone and in these cases that is the tax payer 
> and Parents could make their own arrangements.  You also mentioned also 
> anyone who does child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's 
> parents to attend Cub meetings.  Do you think the tax payer should pay 
> for those checks?  It is difficult to decide exactly where the line 
> should be drawn but it is equally possible to suggest that we run checks 
> on virtually everyone who might happen to help out at some time provided 
> of course that we don't have to pay.  Some people may object to the cost 
> of paying for our spending their money in such a way when times are hard.

  ME!

>
>I would also offer to check parents/friends who drive each other's 
>children to and from Cub meetings, and also anyone who does 
>child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's parents to attend Cub 
>meetings.
>
Whoa!  Now you are heading into boggy ground. If parents make their
own arrangements for car sharing, baby sitting, whatever, then they
are fully responsible if anything goes wrong. That is why you should
NEVER collate transport to meetings or camps where parents use their
own transport. 

Minimise your exposure to claims by staying out of areas that are not
your responsibility. If you start CRB ing parents giving lifts then
you are taking on an element of responsibility. So you check half, and
there is an incident with someone you have not checked. Why didn't you
check them? Why did you think it fit to check A and not B? 

The same applies with babysitters. Are you being serious? Where do you
stop this service? Do we check out their neighhbours and their
relatives for them, just in case?

Check those we need to check. That is anyone with a planned
involvement in Scouting, supervised or unsupervised. (and I can see
the next step in this debate already).

Ewan Scott
http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk

http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:24:12 +0100, David D Miller
 wrote:

>Marc wrote:
>> David D Miller wrote:
>>> I would also offer to check parents/friends who drive each other's 
>>> children to and from Cub meetings, and also anyone who does 
>>> child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's parents to attend 
>>> Cub meetings.
>> 
>> Do you think when you have taken the money our of my wallet (for the 
>> benefit of people  who the CRB specifically say can't use their service) 
>> you could tuck it back into my pocket?
>
>It's my understanding that if we, as Leaders, make arrangements for car 
>drivers to transport children other than their own (or our own), we 
>either need to have the drivers checked or we need them to carry an 
>adult passenger who's been checked - and we should also confirm that 
>they're properly licensed and insured to drive.
>
You are 100% correct. But you should NEVER make those arrangements.
They must be left to their own devices.

The child protection issue aside. You have no idea how any parent
behaves behind the wheel of a car. It would not be the first time that
a parent has been responsible for the deaths of child passengers
because of their driving style.

By making arrangements for the giving of lifts, by putting child A in
that car with driver B you are becoming directly responsible should
anything go wrong.

You could be putting a child in a car with a demon driver, he may have
9 points on his licence, he may be banned, uninsured, driving a car
with no MoT, whatever, and you have put a child in a car with that
driver.  That makes you partly responsible if something goes wrong.

You then start having to check documents so that you have "approved"
drivers, and then if you have "approved" them and something goes wrong
and they are at fault, you may still share some of the responsibility.

The Law is a mystery and it can take funny turns if the presiding
judge/ sheriff can be swayed by the arguments.

Don't do more than you have to in Law. By doing more than you have to
you expose yourself to involvement when things go wrong, or, you
create a precedent that makes life more difficult for others.

Ewan Scott
http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk

http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

"David D Miller"  wrote in message 
news:g5o1st$igi$1@north.jnrs.ja.net...
SNIP
> I would also offer to check parents/friends who drive each other's 
> children to and from Cub meetings,

That is nothing to do with Scouting unless you are organising it for taking 
kids to camps and activities. If it is purely for meetings it is parents to 
organise.

We have a group of parents who live on the same road and they take it in 
turns to bring the kids. We haven't arranged that and it is nothing to do 
with us.

>and also anyone who does child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's 
>parents to attend Cub meetings.
>
>

Again nothing to do with Scouting - a parent is likely to have their own 
chosen child minder for when they go out and if they don't then arrangements 
may need to be made either by them or to bring the child to a meeting. It is 
certainly nothing to do with Scouting getting a childminder checked out.

SNIP

DaveB
West Yorks

"David D Miller"  wrote in message 
news:g5od9s$lkn$1@north.jnrs.ja.net...
> Marc wrote:
>> David D Miller wrote:
>>> I would also offer to check parents/friends who drive each other's 
>>> children to and from Cub meetings, and also anyone who does 
>>> child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's parents to attend Cub 
>>> meetings.
>>
>> Do you think when you have taken the money our of my wallet (for the 
>> benefit of people  who the CRB specifically say can't use their service) 
>> you could tuck it back into my pocket?
>
> It's my understanding that if we, as Leaders, make arrangements for car 
> drivers to transport children other than their own (or our own), we either 
> need to have the drivers checked or we need them to carry an adult 
> passenger who's been checked - and we should also confirm that they're 
> properly licensed and insured to drive.
>

If we make that arrangement as part of a Scouting Activity then I would 
agree. But parents making arrangements to pick up the neighbours kid to 
bring them to the section meeting is not our responsibillity.

It could be argued that if we make it our responsibillity and make those 
checks that the person concerned could be considered to be employed even if 
they are not getting paid so perhaps then they need to be business insured.


> Doing some of those checks in advance means those drivers are available 
> when the need arises - and parents already involved in a car-pool are 
> those most likely to say, "Yes" - both to be checked, and to drive.  As 
> Shaun said, "you'll soon build up a 'stock' of parents with CRB's."
>
> [The alternative is that we delegate all transport arrangements to the 
> parents, and let them sort it out: "Scouts are responsible for their own 
> travel to and from the camp."  It's not ideal, and I often get last minute 
> phone calls because somebody hasn't arranged a lift.]
>
>
> Similarly, if we arrange for some of our volunteers to provide child-care 
> to allow other adults to become Leaders (or to go on a training course, 
> etc.), I'd expect those people to be checked out in exactly the same way 
> as any other adults in Scouting.  It shouldn't matter if they belong to 
> Fellowship/Network, or they're just another parent who supports Scouting 
> but doesn't want to become a Leader themselves.
>
> [Again, if parents make their own arrangements for child-care for their 
> own children, that's entirely up to them - and nothing to do with us.]
>
>
> It should perhaps be made clear that no parents should ever be told the 
> results of any CRB/Disclosure check done for Scouting - other than their 
> own - just as the Group Scouters don't ever find out.  All we normally get 
> is a simple "Yes" from District - or more often the Warrant card arriving 
> in the post.  (I'm not certain I'd ever be aware of a "No": That's for the 
> DC and GSL to decide.)
>


Just assume then for a minute that you get a person checked out to be a 
childminder and there is a record and you cannot "employ" them.

How do you then tell the parents that they cannot leave their child with 
that person - you know so you have to tell them.

If on the other hand they apply to do something for the Group and there is a 
problem nobody need ever know.

DaveB
West Yorks

David D Miller wrote:

>[The alternative is that we delegate all transport arrangements to the 
>parents, and let them sort it out: "Scouts are responsible for their own 
>travel to and from the camp."  It's not ideal, and I often get last 
>minute phone calls because somebody hasn't arranged a lift.]

In my experience the parents are a damn sight better at sorting out their
own transport than if I tried to meddle in it.  They meet each other outside
the school gates and in the pub, they know each other and their
circumstances and their extended families better than I do.  Don't waste
your time and effort trying to do something that would work better without
you!


-- 
John Russell
CSL  1st Pinhoe  Exeter  Devon
http://www.pinhoescouts.org.uk/cubs/
Cubs don't care how much you know, but they need to know how much you care.

"Marc"  wrote in message 
news:pI2dnUPaxefFIOLVRVnyhQA@bt.com...


>> "Let's first dismiss a common misconception: There is no legal
> requirement to vet all volunteers."
> http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2228


Good God - we're in agreement again.

"Ewan Scott"  wrote in message 
news:fhi0849unfjf5fr1itnbkehisc7o5s8cus@4ax.com...


> The Law is a mystery and it can take funny turns if the presiding
> judge/ sheriff can be swayed by the arguments.


Agree entirely. In my experience "the law" has never been entirely reasonale 
or logical.

"John Russell"  wrote in message 
news:tfk084hb1lva1fjf49lt0k5gv16qrcokem@4ax.com...
> David D Miller wrote:
>
>>[The alternative is that we delegate all transport arrangements to the
>>parents, and let them sort it out: "Scouts are responsible for their own
>>travel to and from the camp."  It's not ideal, and I often get last
>>minute phone calls because somebody hasn't arranged a lift.]
>
> In my experience the parents are a damn sight better at sorting out their
> own transport than if I tried to meddle in it.  They meet each other 
> outside
> the school gates and in the pub, they know each other and their
> circumstances and their extended families better than I do.  Don't waste
> your time and effort trying to do something that would work better without
> you!
>
>
> -- 
> John Russell
> CSL  1st Pinhoe  Exeter  Devon
> http://www.pinhoescouts.org.uk/cubs/
> Cubs don't care how much you know, but they need to know how much you 
> care.
>

oooh you cut to the quick!

Eddie

On 17 Jul, 20:58, Shaun Joynson  wrote:
> snip

> They don;t have to be CRBd for a one off meeting,

Whoa be careful as this is not literally always true! The need for a
CRB check is based on an assessment of risk.

Take your one-off meeting (or activity). Two scenarios:

1. You turn up to an evening meeting expecting a fellow leader/
assistant to be there to assist you. They're not. Car broken down or
sudden illness in family, etc, means that at the last minute they
can't attend. You (the leader) ask a parent to stand in for them. The
parent does not have a disclosure. You modify your evening programme
to take account of this and ensure that the parent is not left alone/
unsupervised.

This is okay.

2. You plan an activity for your yp one evening in 4 weeks time. Your
assitant tells you that due to a prior engagement they can't attend.
You ask a parent to stand in for them. The parent does not have a
disclosure. You modify your evening programme to take account of this
and ensure, as far as possible, that the parent is not left alone/
unsupervised.

This looks the same as above, however, this situation is a little
different and potentially may not be okay.

Why not? Let's say in both cases the parent is, unknown to you, a bit
'dodgy. In case 1 s/he will not have any opportunity to plan an
'attack' and may have to rely on an unforeseen opportunity presenting
itself. Such an opportunity may be rare/low risk if they're being
supervised. In case 2 they'll have time to plan/prepare a way round
your close supervision; in this case they may be a #ble to plan/
foresee an opportunity.

Whether it's a one-off meeting or not you must assess the risk. Only
if the risk is 'not significant' can you then ask the parent to step
in without a CRB check. A situation where an adult can plan in advance
always carries a higher risk. Whether the risk is significant is
another question to answer.

> but you might like
> to suggest to them that it might be a good idea. They will agree with
> you and you'll soon build up a 'stock' of parents with CRB's.

Once you start putting people on a rota - a plan - then your
assessment will always say that anyone on that rota must be (CRB)
checked.

The 'one-off' instance you refer to really must be a real unplanned/ad
hoc one-off.

GAGS

"GAGS"  wrote in message 
news:e65833e8-5550-41de-8c00-88f22794d43b@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On 17 Jul, 19:09, David D Miller  wrote:
>
> > Do they have to be CRB'd?
>
> "Regular" helpers, i.e., those likely to be at meetings once a term or
> more often, have to be checked. "Occasional" helpers don't have to be,
> provided they're always going to be adequately supervised by someone who
> has already been cleared.

You need to be careful here not to set criteria for checking that
seemingly avoids the assessment of risk.

In general there are two categories of non-warranted 'assistant'. A
Section Assistant is principally either someone who supports section
activities on a regular basis, e.g. weekly, or a particular programme
activity, e.g. water activities. Their help is regular, constant and
planned. They must pass through Inquiry (inc. CRB check). The other
category is generally referred to as an 'Occasional Helper'. These are
generally parents who will assist on a less frequent, often non-
specific, basis, e.g. once or twice a term on a parents rota, helping
at a camp or on a day out, etc. As their involvement as a 'helper' is
planned and they will likely have oppoortunities for unsupervised
access, they must be checked. There may be occasions when completely
unforeseen you need to 'recruit' an adult ad hoc to help you. If so
you must ensure they are always supervised. The people, in the
circumstances, don't need checking. However, if you find that you're
always going to the same parent(s) when an ad hoc stand-in is needed,
then you need to step back, stop what you're doing, assess the risk,
and get them checked.

Is there a rule-of-thumb for all of this? No. That's why I'm saying
you must be careful not to demarcate a 'regular' (needs checking) and
'occasional' (doesn't need checking) set of situations.

It is perfectly likely that you can have a parent at one activity/
meeting in the term and they need checking. It is also perfectly
likely that you can have a parent at one activity/meeting in the term
and they don't need checking! It's not a numbers game.

>
> You must still check all adults helping with overnight activities or
> doing activities where supervision is more difficult, e.g., wide games,
> incident hikes, treasure hunts.

Essentially true, however, be careful not to demarcate the need for
checking based solely on the type of activity.

Irrespective of the type of activity, if the assessment for including
an unchecked parent becomes 'significant' - because maybe you can't
supervise effectively due to limited resources or because of the
conditions/context - then you must either stop/not do the activity or
get the person checked.

> snip

> Your "regular" helpers should preferably be appointed as Pack Assistants

A section assist is someone who is going to have regular 'contact'
with the section and work closely with the warranted leaders.

> - so they go on the census, get the benefits of Scout Association
> insurance,

You should take out an extended PAME to cover 'supporters' such as
'Occasional Helpers'.

> and do the 'Getting Started' training (two evenings). It
> doesn't necessarily mean going into uniform, or taking any
> responsibility for the programme.

Section Assistants have no responsibility for the programme. Period.

> The Getting Started training can then
> be used as a further recruiting tool, with some of them persuaded into
> uniform or perhaps even to become Leaders.

Quite possibly.
>

GAGS

I agree with what you have said, however I would add to aid completeness - 
that sometimes you may have a person come to lead an activity (may be a 
parent or may not), for instance they may keep snakes or birds of prey.

You get them to attend a few times a year and they are not going to have 
unsupervised access to the YP. These generally will not need to be CRB 
checked but as GAGS says you need to assess the risk.

DaveB
West Yorks

>I simply don't know why some groups do manage to attract loads of parents, 
>and others don't. But looking into the mirror I see a bloke who has run 
>around like a blue-ass fly doing ten things at once simply because it was 
>easier than asking someone esle to do it . I don't think that has helped.

Ho yes. I know that chap very well. The problem is that all too often
when you ask someone to do something, they don't do it the way you
would want it done.

The trick, as I am learning is to just let them get on with it their
way so long as some semblance of the job is done.

Ewan Scott
http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk

http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

Eddie Langdown wrote:

>
>"John Russell"  wrote in message 
>news:tfk084hb1lva1fjf49lt0k5gv16qrcokem@4ax.com...
>> David D Miller wrote:
>>
>>>[The alternative is that we delegate all transport arrangements to the
>>>parents, and let them sort it out: "Scouts are responsible for their own
>>>travel to and from the camp."  It's not ideal, and I often get last
>>>minute phone calls because somebody hasn't arranged a lift.]
>>
>> In my experience the parents are a damn sight better at sorting out their
>> own transport than if I tried to meddle in it.  They meet each other 
>> outside
>> the school gates and in the pub, they know each other and their
>> circumstances and their extended families better than I do.  Don't waste
>> your time and effort trying to do something that would work better without
>> you!
>
>oooh you cut to the quick!
>
>Eddie 

Sorry, I didn't mean to be vicious about it!  What I meant to say is that
David has things to do that are important and which only he can do - leading
the kids in activities.  He should expend all his effort on making that core
requirement as good as it can possibly be and not let that effort be diluted
by taking on extra tasks that can be done equally well (or better) by
parents.

'Mission creep' - it's been the death of very many brilliant ideas.


-- 
John Russell
CSL  1st Pinhoe  Exeter  Devon
http://www.pinhoescouts.org.uk/cubs/
Cubs don't care how much you know, but they need to know how much you care.

Dave wrote:
>> and also anyone who does child-minding/babysitting to allow the children's 
>> parents to attend Cub meetings.
> 
> Again nothing to do with Scouting - a parent is likely to have their own 
> chosen child minder for when they go out and if they don't then arrangements 
> may need to be made either by them or to bring the child to a meeting. It is 
> certainly nothing to do with Scouting getting a childminder checked out.

Provision of childcare within Scouting is something we should be doing: 
See Factsheet FS185095 "Diversity Guidelines for Event Organisers".

Childcare is also listed as a possible Service activity for the Duke of 
Edinburgh's Award scheme.


-- 
David D Miller
St Andrews

Marc wrote:
> "Let's first dismiss a common misconception: There is no legal 
> requirement to vet all volunteers."
> http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2228

In Scotland, there is a legal requirement to check all volunteers "whose 
normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under 
arrangements made by a responsible person".  That's just one of a long 
list of definitions, between them covering virtually every adult role 
within Scouting.

Guidance from SHQ is that every Form AA must be accompanied by a 
Disclosure Scotland application.  Additionally, we need DS clearance for 
all Network and SSAGO members, all Fellowship members, all adults going 
to camp, all adults living in a household offering HoHo, anyone else who 
will have unsupervised access to children, etc.

Occasional parent helpers, "who would normally act as an additional pair
of hands under supervision", don't need to be checked, but should be 
asked to complete a "self-declaration form" - a signed statement that 
they're not disqualified from working with children.

It's up to the leader in charge of the meeting to decide whether the 
people on the parents rota are "occasional parent helpers" and will 
always be supervised, or whether they're really doing more than that. 
If they're the designated second adult at a meeting, and expected to 
look after the group in the event of an accident or emergency that takes 
the leader away, they're obviously doing more.

Once someone has been accepted into Scouting, even for a role that 
doesn't obviously meet the POSCA definitions, they can take on 
additional roles and responsibilities within the Scout District without 
further checks being done.  The assumption is that if someone is already 
active in Scouting, they've been cleared: If we didn't check everyone 
when they first joined, we couldn't make that assumption.


Scotland is about three years ahead of England in this: Disclosure 
Scotland checks were required for all new Scouting appointments from 
2005, and retrospective checks on all existing volunteers must be 
completed by the end of December 2008.

-- 
David D Miller
St Andrews

On 17 Jul, 19:09, David D Miller  wrote:
>
> > Do they have to be CRB'd?
>
> "Regular" helpers, i.e., those likely to be at meetings once a term or
> more often, have to be checked.  "Occasional" helpers don't have to be,
> provided they're always going to be adequately supervised by someone who
> has already been cleared.

You need to be careful here not to set criteria for checking that
seemingly avoids the assessment of risk.

In general there are two categories of non-warranted 'assistant'. A
Section Assistant is principally either someone who supports section
activities on a regular basis, e.g. weekly, or a particular programme
activity, e.g. water activities. Their help is regular, constant and
planned. They must pass through Inquiry (inc. CRB check). The other
category is generally referred to as an 'Occasional Helper'. These are
generally parents who will assist on a less frequent, often non-
specific, basis, e.g. once or twice a term on a parents rota, helping
at a camp or on a day out, etc. As their involvement as a 'helper' is
planned and they will likely have oppoortunities for unsupervised
access, they must be checked. There may be occasions when completely
unforeseen you need to 'recruit' an adult ad hoc to help you. If so
you must ensure they are always supervised. The people, in the
circumstances, don't need checking. However, if you find that you're
always going to the same parent(s) when an ad hoc stand-in is needed,
then you need to step back, stop what you're doing, assess the risk,
and get them checked.

Is there a rule-of-thumb for all of this? No. That's why I'm saying
you must be careful not to demarcate a 'regular' (needs checking) and
'occasional' (doesn't need checking) set of situations.

It is perfectly likely that you can have a parent at one activity/
meeting in the term and they need checking. It is also perfectly
likely that you can have a parent at one activity/meeting in the term
and they don't need checking! It's not a numbers game.

>
> You must still check all adults helping with overnight activities or
> doing activities where supervision is more difficult, e.g., wide games,
> incident hikes, treasure hunts.

Essentially true, however, be careful not to demarcate the need for
checking based solely on the type of activity.

Irrespective of the type of activity, if the assessment for including
an unchecked parent becomes 'significant' - because maybe you can't
supervise effectively due to limited resources or because of the
conditions/context - then you must either stop/not do the activity or
get the person checked.

> snip

> Your "regular" helpers should preferably be appointed as Pack Assistants

A section assist is someone who is going to have regular 'contact'
with the section and work closely with the warranted leaders.

> - so they go on the census, get the benefits of Scout Association
> insurance,

You should take out an extended PAME to cover 'supporters' such as
'Occasional Helpers'.

> and do the 'Getting Started' training (two evenings).  It
> doesn't necessarily mean going into uniform, or taking any
> responsibility for the programme.

Section Assistants have no responsibility for the programme. Period.

>  The Getting Started training can then
> be used as a further recruiting tool, with some of them persuaded into
> uniform or perhaps even to become Leaders.

Quite possibly.
>

GAGS

"Ewan Scott"  wrote in message 
news:pf3184t3qoo5nvhnoka6v1bh5m9qodcoii@4ax.com...
>
>>I simply don't know why some groups do manage to attract loads of parents,
>>and others don't. But looking into the mirror I see a bloke who has run
>>around like a blue-ass fly doing ten things at once simply because it was
>>easier than asking someone esle to do it . I don't think that has helped.
>
> Ho yes. I know that chap very well. The problem is that all too often
> when you ask someone to do something, they don't do it the way you
> would want it done.
>
> The trick, as I am learning is to just let them get on with it their
> way so long as some semblance of the job is done.
>
> Ewan Scott

Yep, I'm afraid so!

Eddie

"Ewan Scott"  wrote in message 
news:pf3184t3qoo5nvhnoka6v1bh5m9qodcoii@4ax.com...
>
>>I simply don't know why some groups do manage to attract loads of parents,
>>and others don't. But looking into the mirror I see a bloke who has run
>>around like a blue-ass fly doing ten things at once simply because it was
>>easier than asking someone esle to do it . I don't think that has helped.
>
> Ho yes. I know that chap very well. The problem is that all too often
> when you ask someone to do something, they don't do it the way you
> would want it done.
>
> The trick, as I am learning is to just let them get on with it their
> way so long as some semblance of the job is done.
>
> Ewan Scott

There is a saying often describing small churches, "Those who keep it open 
keep it empty."

i.e. " Can I help you with the washing-up?"
"No that's ok, its nearly done and we know where everything goes..."

Eddie

David D Miller wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>> "Let's first dismiss a common misconception: There is no legal 
>> requirement to vet all volunteers."
>> http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2228
> 
> In Scotland, there is a legal requirement to check all volunteers "whose 
> normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under 
> arrangements made by a responsible person".  That's just one of a long 
> list of definitions, between them covering virtually every adult role 
> within Scouting.
> 
> Guidance from SHQ is that every Form AA must be accompanied by a 
> Disclosure Scotland application. 

Where on the AA form do you tick for taxi driver or babysitter? The last 
time I looked the AA form was a form for Adult Appointments, and was for 
those joining the movement
  Additionally, we need DS clearance for
> all Network and SSAGO members, all Fellowship members, all adults going 
> to camp, all adults living in a household offering HoHo, anyone else who 
> will have unsupervised access to children, etc.
> 
> Occasional parent helpers, "who would normally act as an additional pair
> of hands under supervision", don't need to be checked, but should be 
> asked to complete a "self-declaration form" - a signed statement that 
> they're not disqualified from working with children.
> 
> It's up to the leader in charge of the meeting to decide whether the 
> people on the parents rota are "occasional parent helpers" and will 
> always be supervised, or whether they're really doing more than that. If 
> they're the designated second adult at a meeting, and expected to look 
> after the group in the event of an accident or emergency that takes the 
> leader away, they're obviously doing more.
> 
> Once someone has been accepted into Scouting, even for a role that 
> doesn't obviously meet the POSCA definitions, they can take on 
> additional roles and responsibilities within the Scout District without 
> further checks being done.  The assumption is that if someone is already 
> active in Scouting, they've been cleared: If we didn't check everyone 
> when they first joined, we couldn't make that assumption.

WHAT? Do you understand how a CP policy is meant to work?

What you are describing is a situation where as long as someone was 
undiscovered on joining then they remain unchecked ....

There is on way to bring some sort of decision to this matter, you state 
which Scout Group you belong to ( the one running the taxi and 
babysittign service ) how many Scouts you have and how many people you 
have let me pay to have CRB check in the last 3 years and I will send 
the details to the CRB and let's see if they agree that you are spending 
my money wisely.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:14:15 +0100, David D Miller
 wrote:

>Marc wrote:
>> "Let's first dismiss a common misconception: There is no legal 
>> requirement to vet all volunteers."
>> http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2228
>
>In Scotland, there is a legal requirement to check all volunteers "whose 
>normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under 
>arrangements made by a responsible person".  That's just one of a long 
>list of definitions, between them covering virtually every adult role 
>within Scouting.
>
>Guidance from SHQ is that every Form AA must be accompanied by a 
>Disclosure Scotland application.  Additionally, we need DS clearance for 
>all Network and SSAGO members, all Fellowship members, all adults going 
>to camp, all adults living in a household offering HoHo, anyone else who 
>will have unsupervised access to children, etc.
>
>Occasional parent helpers, "who would normally act as an additional pair
>of hands under supervision", don't need to be checked, but should be 
>asked to complete a "self-declaration form" - a signed statement that 
>they're not disqualified from working with children.
>
>It's up to the leader in charge of the meeting to decide whether the 
>people on the parents rota are "occasional parent helpers" and will 
>always be supervised, or whether they're really doing more than that. 
>If they're the designated second adult at a meeting, and expected to 
>look after the group in the event of an accident or emergency that takes 
>the leader away, they're obviously doing more.
>
>Once someone has been accepted into Scouting, even for a role that 
>doesn't obviously meet the POSCA definitions, they can take on 
>additional roles and responsibilities within the Scout District without 
>further checks being done.  The assumption is that if someone is already 
>active in Scouting, they've been cleared: If we didn't check everyone 
>when they first joined, we couldn't make that assumption.
>
>
>Scotland is about three years ahead of England in this: Disclosure 
>Scotland checks were required for all new Scouting appointments from 
>2005, and retrospective checks on all existing volunteers must be 
>completed by the end of December 2008.

Not sure what your point is here. I see no difference in the
requirements and I see no reference to checking drivers or
babysitters, neighbours, or shopkeepers the family may use.

Ewan Scott
http://www.claytonwestscouts.org.uk

http://www.whitleybeaumont.co.uk

In message <g5q817$6r0$1@north.jnrs.ja.net>, David D Miller 
 writes
>
>Provision of childcare within Scouting is something we should be doing: 
>See Factsheet FS185095 "Diversity Guidelines for Event Organisers".
>
If someone is struggling to find enough Leaders to run the Pack wouldn't 
it be better for them to focus their time on achieving the main aim 
rather than in worrying about doing things that don't need to be done? 
They need to focus on recruitment and at least getting a number of 
Parents up and running as occasional helpers.  Those people will need to 
be checked, trained, supported etc. much better to spend time on getting 
them going than to worry about arranging lifts to Cubs and CRB checking 
drivers and baby sitters when Parents could make their own arrangements. 
It doesn't seem sensible to take on responsibilities that are beyond 
your remit.

>Childcare is also listed as a possible Service activity for the Duke of 
>Edinburgh's Award scheme.
>
So are lot's of other things but a Cub Pack that is short of Leaders and 
needs to find help wouldn't necessarily benefit from arranging many of 
the other DoE activities.  This poor chap is loosing his ACSL and will 
be running a Cub Pack single handed he needs to focus on what is 
important and urgent.
-- 
Paul Harris

"David D Miller"  wrote in message 
news:g5q8fn$6rf$1@north.jnrs.ja.net...
> Marc wrote:
>> "Let's first dismiss a common misconception: There is no legal 
>> requirement to vet all volunteers."
>> http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2228
>
> In Scotland, there is a legal requirement to check all volunteers "whose 
> normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under 
> arrangements made by a responsible person".  That's just one of a long 
> list of definitions, between them covering virtually every adult role 
> within Scouting.
>

That may be the case. But you are taking on that role because you are making 
the arrangements - as a Leader it is not your job to make those 
arrangements.

The role of childminder and "taxi driver" are not job roles within Scouting.

> Guidance from SHQ is that every Form AA must be accompanied by a 
> Disclosure Scotland application.

OK so those who are going to be "taxi driver" and childminder are obliged to 
complete a AA form and be interviewed by the Appointments panel too?

Additionally, we need DS clearance for
> all Network and SSAGO members, all Fellowship members, all adults going to 
> camp, all adults living in a household offering HoHo, anyone else who will 
> have unsupervised access to children, etc.
>

WITHIN Scouting  - I agree but the ones you mention as taxi drivers and 
childminders are not within Scouting so are you going to check everyone down 
the street just in case they come into contact with one of your members and 
are not supervised by another.

> Occasional parent helpers, "who would normally act as an additional pair
> of hands under supervision", don't need to be checked, but should be asked 
> to complete a "self-declaration form" - a signed statement that they're 
> not disqualified from working with children.
>

So there appears to be no real following of the rules. Why is this person 
less of a risk than the others if to quote you "all volunteers "whose > 
normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under
> arrangements made by a responsible person"


> It's up to the leader in charge of the meeting to decide whether the 
> people on the parents rota are "occasional parent helpers" and will always 
> be supervised, or whether they're really doing more than that. If they're 
> the designated second adult at a meeting, and expected to look after the 
> group in the event of an accident or emergency that takes the leader away, 
> they're obviously doing more.
>

So is this a local rule or one that runs Nationally within Scotland.

> Once someone has been accepted into Scouting, even for a role that doesn't 
> obviously meet the POSCA definitions, they can take on additional roles 
> and responsibilities within the Scout District without further checks 
> being done.  The assumption is that if someone is already active in 
> Scouting, they've been cleared: If we didn't check everyone when they 
> first joined, we couldn't make that assumption.
>
>

So are you saying that 100% of those involved in Scouting in Scotland and 
100% of those who are childminders and taxi drivers to Scouting are checked, 
but an occasional helper is not.

> Scotland is about three years ahead of England in this: Disclosure 
> Scotland checks were required for all new Scouting appointments from 2005, 
> and retrospective checks on all existing volunteers must be completed by 
> the end of December 2008.

But will they be?

Incidentally CRB checks in Endland and Wales have been in place well before 
2005.

DaveB
West Yorks