Talk:Leaders in Community Wikipedia training

Reasonable checks for trainers

In consideration that we are planning this event to be directed to volunteers as young as 15 years old, I believe we would benefit from a public statement making it clear what checks we (or the Leaders in Community charity) require for the trainers, and to what extent they are considered legal representatives of the charity at this event. This should take special consideration that the trainers are not expected to be publicly using their identities as a natural person. Perhaps this is something the CEO can consider, and recommend whether we should have a statement or not, to the board of trustees before this event is delivered in ten days time? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is often a cause for anxiety and one that I have dealt with often as a teacher, teaching advisor and Sure Start Manager. The rules have moved on a little now so I quote the latest advice from OFSTED regarding what are now called DBS checks:

Are DBS checks required for all visitors or volunteers to schools and colleges?

Visitors DBS checks are not required for visitors. Visitors do not have unsupervised access to children.Volunteers Checks are required only for those who have regular and unsupervised access to children and young people. Under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where a volunteer is being adequately supervised, they are not considered to be working in regulated activity however often they do this, and the school does not need to request a DBS check. The Department for Education will shortly be publishing guidance to help schools decide what level of supervision would be considered adequate.

Therefore as long as our trainers are not having unsupervised access to the young people (or in other circumstances vulnerable adults) they can offer their services.

The onus in these circumstances is with the organisation who are sponsoring the event. If they felt uncomfortable with wikinames rather than real names they could indicate this and make a decision which we would of course respect.

I believe that in this context they are all volunteers, covered by out insurance, should they have an accident or injure someone, but not any more than that. I hope this helps.

Personally I am really pleased that our ex-Intern has contacted us and is giving us a way into a group of people we very seldom reach.

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jon, I have not a clue in this area, particularly as the rules are subject to change, so a clear position is useful. I suggest this is highlighted for attention of trustees, so we are aware of the limitations that apply to our events (i.e. no unsupervised access and that WMUK is not the sponsor of the event) and that any volunteers are made aware of this as a constraint on their activities during such an event where young people or vulnerable adults may take part. I would suggest that our volunteers stay aware of WMUK's position and should take up any concerns on the day with the event sponsor, for example they should not be left unsupervised. I'll leave it to your call as to whether we need more in writing as a policy or not for this legal/operational matter. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be good practice to consider checks for members of the community who might regularly be placed in these situations. Although the regulations are clear, it is also up to the school (or whatever) if they require checks (my parents run a business which involves going into schools to teach specialist classes and although they have no unsupervised access they often need to show a DBS check). I think this is something we should consider for several reasons:

• There is the potential for trainers to later interact with these individuals online (i.e. later unsupervised contact)
• There is potential for great reputational damage for the charity if it has not taken adequate steps (or at least considered them).

I can't say for sure whether it would be worth investing in this sort of thing, but it's worth at least considering from a risk perspective. Fæ is correct in that at the very least this information should be written up and communicated to everyone involved. --ErrantX (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that we have a Child Protection Policy, which would apply here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And indeed there is reference in Volunteer and Intern Agreement - "This applies simply to volunteers working to support the day-to-day office work by agreement with WMUK." This is why I would argue for a more generic Volunteer Agreement. The investment involved as regards volunteers is quite modest, and that for employees a little more. However there is an argument against requiring this unless necessary. Thus a Volunteer Agreement could offer the option of going through the CRB check for those who would like to offer to volunteer in circumstances involving children and vulnerable adults. I looked for a Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults Policy but could not find anything although there appears to have been some discussion of the issue by the board.Leutha (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We will be informing volunteers and the organising group of their rights and responsibilities. In practice this is currently a very rare position from WMUK to find itself in and in this instance we are ensuring that proper safeguards are in place. Should our work develop to include regular visits to schools or vulnerable adults where the possibility of unsupervised access becomes inevitable we will need to bring in our own checking systems. Our policies are a bit out of date now and could do with a review. Thanks for all the suggestions. On a wider front if we do become seriously involved in work with schools we would need to consider finding volunteers and staff with a good understanding of how to work with children. I wrote a short book about this once. It is more an art than a science, but get it wrong and you are wasting everyone's time. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the event (now cancelled) was to take place in a community centre, next door to St. Paul's Way Trust School. I was told the audience would be young people (under 18). Gordo (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)