Safeguarding has become big business.
The process has been, as so many things are these days, monetised.
I remember as Director of a reasonably large organisation with a number of volunteers attending a meeting in London when the then new initiative of Criminal Records Bureau checks was being introduced.
I asked a question as to whether the CRB check, once completed, was transportable. The answer was as I recall it was that such checks would be transportable.
Clearly that is no longer the case.
So for better or worse I currently have two Disclosure and Barring Service, the successor to CRB, clearances and am awaiting a third.
Each of these clearances is issued to independent parts of the same organisation.
It needs to be said of course that the protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults is and should be paramount. The cases of reported abuse, and the social and emotional costs of that abuse, are simply unacceptable.
In the case of the Church even more so, individual clergy and more senior clergy, where abuse has been reported and individuals found guilty, are quite rightly called to account.
As someone who has cared for an adult who as a result of disability became increasingly vulnerable I am conscious of the personal and social costs of abuse. Where individuals are cared for by strangers that care must be carried out to the highest public standards.
Children are of course especially vulnerable. Again I know from personal experience the damage that abuse can do to a persons future well being as they grow older.
So, to be absolutely clear, checks are important generally and where individuals have closer more intimate contact with either young people or vulnerable adults then the checks need to be carried out scrupulously, fairly and independently.
That said however it seems that there are questions that can be properly asked and debated.
Possibly the first question is why the issue of DBS clearance cannot be debated? I am sure that there will be some who will be discomfited by my raising this issue at all in a blog presumably they will say surely it is obvious?
I have attended two safeguarding courses that were poorly delivered. As someone who has been a trainer and has experience of some 48 years in full time ministry as well as being a grandfather of eight grandchildren and a carer of a vulnerable adult I think that I am in a good position to make such a judgement.
If people are to be helped to understand safeguarding and indeed to undertake the important role of safeguarding officer in an organisation then the training needs to be sensitively delivered to allow the responsibilities of the role to be worn comfortably and exercised effectively.
The second question has to be one of context. As safeguarding becomes a way of stating publicly that an organisation takes seriously its responsibilities in the context of protecting the young people and the vulnerable it is important that it is seen not only as a personal but also an organisational responsibility. In other words all members of an organisation share the responsibility it is surely unacceptable for some to seek protection behind the screen whilst others are exposed and left vulnerable.
There is, it seems to me, also a wider political context that should be taken into account.
The number of children living in poverty has increased dramatically in the past few years of austerity, according to The Child Poverty Action Group, one in four children now lives in poverty. That is defined as 30% of children or 9 in a classroom of 30.
As safeguarding requirements are increasingly imposed on organisations seeking to work with young people the wider political reality is that more and more children are suffering the negative impact of poverty on their health and well-being.
Failing to invest in, or dare one say, safeguard children in poverty, results in a steady deterioration in life chances, poor long term health prospects and ultimately costs more in services, support and benefits over the long term.
Whilst one hears a good deal about the importance of safeguarding as a legal requirement I haven't heard that much, apart from The Child Poverty Action Group, about these wider political questions.
Again there is considerable debate about what makes an adult vulnerable. Age, poor health, poor diet, loneliness after the death of a partner. It is becoming clear that, as the population ages social needs support will increase in line with the demands made by an ageing population on health and social care services.
Again the focus on individual needs and risks is right, but the wider political question needs to be raised, recent austerity measures have meant that the providers of social care for vulnerable elderly, local councils have had their budgets cut by almost £7 billion resulting in planned cuts of £700 million.
The third question I have raised on different occasions has arisen in response to the demands that I have received in respect of DBS clearance. An example of this was a letter that I received saying that my permission to participate within the organisation, where I am involved as a volunteer, would be withdrawn if I failed to complete a safeguarding course despite my having DBS clearance.
It is, it seems to me, clear that a very basic principle of English justice is being compromised as DBS screening implies guilt until innocence is proven. Clearly a contradiction of the basic principle which has been in existence since Magna Carta was agreed.
Ergo:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
As I said at the outset of this piece individuals and organisations carry a degree of shame when the principles underlying safeguarding are not adhered to. Caring organisations, schools, churches all carry a responsibility to ensure that their staff are well trained and that their clients, young people and congregations are safe and well supported.
However all our actions as a society have wider implications than simply scrutinising individuals and making individuals personally accountable. It is essential to ensure that collective responsibility is shared more widely.
The process has been, as so many things are these days, monetised.
I remember as Director of a reasonably large organisation with a number of volunteers attending a meeting in London when the then new initiative of Criminal Records Bureau checks was being introduced.
I asked a question as to whether the CRB check, once completed, was transportable. The answer was as I recall it was that such checks would be transportable.
Clearly that is no longer the case.
So for better or worse I currently have two Disclosure and Barring Service, the successor to CRB, clearances and am awaiting a third.
Each of these clearances is issued to independent parts of the same organisation.
It needs to be said of course that the protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults is and should be paramount. The cases of reported abuse, and the social and emotional costs of that abuse, are simply unacceptable.
In the case of the Church even more so, individual clergy and more senior clergy, where abuse has been reported and individuals found guilty, are quite rightly called to account.
As someone who has cared for an adult who as a result of disability became increasingly vulnerable I am conscious of the personal and social costs of abuse. Where individuals are cared for by strangers that care must be carried out to the highest public standards.
Children are of course especially vulnerable. Again I know from personal experience the damage that abuse can do to a persons future well being as they grow older.
So, to be absolutely clear, checks are important generally and where individuals have closer more intimate contact with either young people or vulnerable adults then the checks need to be carried out scrupulously, fairly and independently.
That said however it seems that there are questions that can be properly asked and debated.
Possibly the first question is why the issue of DBS clearance cannot be debated? I am sure that there will be some who will be discomfited by my raising this issue at all in a blog presumably they will say surely it is obvious?
I have attended two safeguarding courses that were poorly delivered. As someone who has been a trainer and has experience of some 48 years in full time ministry as well as being a grandfather of eight grandchildren and a carer of a vulnerable adult I think that I am in a good position to make such a judgement.
If people are to be helped to understand safeguarding and indeed to undertake the important role of safeguarding officer in an organisation then the training needs to be sensitively delivered to allow the responsibilities of the role to be worn comfortably and exercised effectively.
The second question has to be one of context. As safeguarding becomes a way of stating publicly that an organisation takes seriously its responsibilities in the context of protecting the young people and the vulnerable it is important that it is seen not only as a personal but also an organisational responsibility. In other words all members of an organisation share the responsibility it is surely unacceptable for some to seek protection behind the screen whilst others are exposed and left vulnerable.
There is, it seems to me, also a wider political context that should be taken into account.
The number of children living in poverty has increased dramatically in the past few years of austerity, according to The Child Poverty Action Group, one in four children now lives in poverty. That is defined as 30% of children or 9 in a classroom of 30.
As safeguarding requirements are increasingly imposed on organisations seeking to work with young people the wider political reality is that more and more children are suffering the negative impact of poverty on their health and well-being.
Failing to invest in, or dare one say, safeguard children in poverty, results in a steady deterioration in life chances, poor long term health prospects and ultimately costs more in services, support and benefits over the long term.
Whilst one hears a good deal about the importance of safeguarding as a legal requirement I haven't heard that much, apart from The Child Poverty Action Group, about these wider political questions.
Again there is considerable debate about what makes an adult vulnerable. Age, poor health, poor diet, loneliness after the death of a partner. It is becoming clear that, as the population ages social needs support will increase in line with the demands made by an ageing population on health and social care services.
Again the focus on individual needs and risks is right, but the wider political question needs to be raised, recent austerity measures have meant that the providers of social care for vulnerable elderly, local councils have had their budgets cut by almost £7 billion resulting in planned cuts of £700 million.
The third question I have raised on different occasions has arisen in response to the demands that I have received in respect of DBS clearance. An example of this was a letter that I received saying that my permission to participate within the organisation, where I am involved as a volunteer, would be withdrawn if I failed to complete a safeguarding course despite my having DBS clearance.
It is, it seems to me, clear that a very basic principle of English justice is being compromised as DBS screening implies guilt until innocence is proven. Clearly a contradiction of the basic principle which has been in existence since Magna Carta was agreed.
Ergo:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
As I said at the outset of this piece individuals and organisations carry a degree of shame when the principles underlying safeguarding are not adhered to. Caring organisations, schools, churches all carry a responsibility to ensure that their staff are well trained and that their clients, young people and congregations are safe and well supported.
However all our actions as a society have wider implications than simply scrutinising individuals and making individuals personally accountable. It is essential to ensure that collective responsibility is shared more widely.
