2021 Census predictions

[Paul o]

But does it actually achieve anything other than preventing people who have been the victims of false allegations from becoming leaders? Does it actually prevent children from coming to harm? Or does it cost a significant amount of money and achieve very little. If schools dont feel the need to do such checks on teachers, and youth clubs and sports clubs dont feel the need to do them on youth coaches / staff / volunteers, should Scouting be any different?

I think it is a necessary process for Leaders, but the point I made earlier is that if everyone is vetted over and above DBS, and the bulk of that vetting cost is for the biggest sector -parent helpers, Leader support etc. then maybe we should re-assess the value of such "helpers" who cost the TSA a huge amount and yet may attend a single camp or just a couple of meetings.

[shiftypete]

Now to tackle the answer to your question. How many people are on TSA's barred list because of falling out with a line manager, or a false allegation, or a minor breach of POR that didnt actually result in anyone coming to any harm. And therefore could be allowed to hold a future scouting role without actually presenting a risk to children? My understanding is that people are rejected and TSA will not tell them why. That's certainly what I was told by someone who was rejected from a role in scouting.

Entirely true, basicaly if you get removed from a Scouting role for an unsatisfactory reason good luck every trying to get a new role in Scouting again. As a private members organsiation TSA is under no obligation to explain why to anyone including the person themselves if and when they reject someone's applciation to membership.

[dralphs]

I think it is a necessary process for Leaders, but the point I made earlier is that if everyone is vetted over and above DBS, and the bulk of that vetting cost is for the biggest sector -parent helpers, Leader support etc. then maybe we should re-assess the value of such "helpers" who cost the TSA a huge amount and yet may attend a single camp or just a couple of meetings.

They also need to factor in the time that Group Admin spends doing them. Just done a dbs renewal yesterday, it takes time to chase up the person, set up a meeting then hoe they have the 3 key docs, they are accepted else you then run into problems and a lot more time.
If it goes smoothly its under half hour and at least via zoom i don't have to drive. If its face to face and they don't have some of the key docs it can easily be an hour and my time/mileage driving to meet them.

[Paul o]

I'm sure the TSA know how many people they vet per year and what the cost is >£100,000's I recall. So there must be an average cost of say £x00 per helper. So that cost would dissuade me from recruiting a one-night helper - the TSA can do a lot more with that money.

[richardnhunt]

I'm sure the TSA know how many people they vet per year and what the cost is >£100,000's I recall. So there must be an average cost of say £x00 per helper. So that cost would dissuade me from recruiting a one-night helper - the TSA can do a lot more with that money.

But that one night helper might be the next GSL or chair or helpful electrician.

[shiftypete]

Well having done our Group's census return today we are actually 22% down on last year and thats for a Group that has run virtual sessions from early on in lockdown one and that went back to face to face meetings (outdoors) in September. So actually thinking about it I would be suprised if the drop nationwide isn't going to be bigger than that so I can easily see 30 to 40% reduction in youth numbers (I wouldn't want to speculate how adult numbers have been affected by everything in the last year).

On a brighter note I think our Group will easily rebound numbers wise and it wouldn't suprise me if we had numbers higher than 2020 in 2022.

[Bushfella]

TSA runs its own vetting checks on every potential volunteer, they employ people to do this vetting, it must amount to at least tens of thousands of vetting checks a year given it includes every OH and every other person including those not in roles elligible for DBS checks.

Oh they certainly used to when we had a CE form.

I am not so sure that they actually do much in the way of additional enquiries any more. Maybe a search of social media. but if someone has a Police record then they will appear on the DBS. If they are under investigation but have not been arrested, then the Police will not reveal identity. A nod and a wink is a dangerous game to play, either way you look at it.

Equally, social services cannot reveal private data of subjects at risk.

So, unless TSA is above the law, I'm not sure just what extra they can do that costs so much.

I would hate to think that there were "gossip files" accrued on avery potential applicant. That smacks of something dystopian.

[Neil Williams]

Oh they certainly used to when we had a CE form.

I am not so sure that they actually do much in the way of additional enquiries any more. Maybe a search of social media. but if someone has a Police record then they will appear on the DBS. If they are under investigation but have not been arrested, then the Police will not reveal identity. A nod and a wink is a dangerous game to play, either way you look at it.

They can, that's the "Chief Commissioner's letter".

[shiftypete]

Oh they certainly used to when we had a CE form.

I am not so sure that they actually do much in the way of additional enquiries any more. Maybe a search of social media. but if someone has a Police record then they will appear on the DBS. If they are under investigation but have not been arrested, then the Police will not reveal identity. A nod and a wink is a dangerous game to play, either way you look at it.

Equally, social services cannot reveal private data of subjects at risk.

So, unless TSA is above the law, I'm not sure just what extra they can do that costs so much.

I would hate to think that there were "gossip files" accrued on avery potential applicant. That smacks of something dystopian.

As far as I understand it TSA has always maintained its own database of people that were basically blacklisted and not allowed to be members of TSA and that isn't limited to people with criminal convictions. Thomas Hamilton who went on to committ the Dunblane Massacre being the most famous example of someone that TSA kicked out as an ASL and refused to re-admit on multiple occasions despite him having no crimal convictions (hence him being able to get a firearms license)

[BigBadBaloo]

Surely all this recent discussion on this subject is a bit of a moot point anyway.

If "TSA" (and I use the quote marks to denote the whole organisation) decide an applicant is not a "fit and proper person" the application will be rejected in any event, notwithstanding the fact the applicant has a "clear" DBS and, as far as I am aware, there is no obligation on TSA to advise the applicant of the reasons for their decision.

There is a reason I am a former CSL!

[Bushfella]

As far as I understand it TSA has always maintained its own database of people that were basically blacklisted and not allowed to be members of TSA and that isn't limited to people with criminal convictions. Thomas Hamilton who went on to committ the Dunblane Massacre being the most famous example of someone that TSA kicked out as an ASL and refused to re-admit on multiple occasions despite him having no crimal convictions (hence him being able to get a firearms license)

I alluded to that, but that was supposed to have been removed when GDPR came in.

As for Hamilton, he was an enigma. I once reported him for carrying a revolver in public on the day of an Orange Walk. Nothing was done. I reported gunfire from his "boys club" and nothing was done - I was told by the Police that it must have been a car backfiring ( which was a nonsense).

I get a little emotive about Dunblane and one of my customers lost a kid in the incident, and before moving south we had considered moving to Dunblane, and my kids would have been in that class. I have always wondered, if Scouts Scotland had disclosed what they knew, would Hamilton have been in the position he was in? I remember watching the Chief Commissioner(whoever) being interviewed after Dunblane and he still refused to disclose what they knew - which, in my cynical mind raises even more questions!

[daveb123]

Entirely true, basicaly if you get removed from a Scouting role for an unsatisfactory reason good luck every trying to get a new role in Scouting again. As a private members organsiation TSA is under no obligation to explain why to anyone including the person themselves if and when they reject someone's applciation to membership.

I wonder where people stand on submitting a subject access request from Scouting and what reasons HQ would give for not providing one or at least everything they hold.

I realise that the Police and other Government agencies are allowed to ‘hide’ certain information if it falls into certain categories but not sure that HQ would be holding that type of information.

At least if you can get access to the info you would have an idea of why they say no. And if that info is incorrect you could challenge them to correct it, not that they would change their mind on accepting you and not that you would want to try to join if it was clear that they didn’t want you.

[Big George]

I wonder where people stand on submitting a subject access request from Scouting and what reasons HQ would give for not providing one or at least everything they hold.

I realise that the Police and other Government agencies are allowed to ‘hide’ certain information if it falls into certain categories but not sure that HQ would be holding that type of information.

At least if you can get access to the info you would have an idea of why they say no. And if that info is incorrect you could challenge them to correct it, not that they would change their mind on accepting you and not that you would want to try to join if it was clear that they didn’t want you.

It’s an interesting question. I remember there used to be blacklists held by the construction industry, not on computer but written on paper which fell outside of the then data protection laws. The laws were changed to bring all such data under the remit of the then DPR which allowed people to get access to them.
One of the points of GDPR is that you should not be holding incorrect data, if you don’t give people access to the information you hold how are they able to ensure it is correct?

[Richard T]

The question with regards to challenging a decision is: do people join up to be members of TSA or as members of the scout group /section in their local community?

[campwarden]

If there is a massive cost to vetting people to just help out as occaisional helpers, maybe a change in rules is needed. If they're not camping overnight, and only helping less than once in every 4 weeks then it should be enough for them to be supervised by someone who holds a valid DBS check.

https://www.archerygb.org/wp-content...Flow-Chart.pdf is a fairly useful link that shows when DBS checks should be carried out. It would follow that other vetting processes should follow the same system.

The role of OH could specifically be written to prohibit volunteering more often than the rules allow and overnight, and add in a role of "regular helper" for those who are helping more often but dont want an official (ie Section Assistant etc) role.

I still think the best solution is for groups to be independent when it comes to vetting, for them to make decisions on suitability directly at an executive and GSL level, and for TSA to be purely a brand and a programme system that groups can buy into if they wish.

There are a number of people on this forum who have never (to the best of my knowledge) had a child safeguarding concern raised against them but who, for various reasons, would, i suspect, be unlikely to be accepted back into TSA were they to apply. It may be led by the safeguarding department but the vetting system isnt used purely for safeguarding purposes. If it was, i might be more sympathetic towards it. Just because a volunteer has been involved in a dispute with their scouting line management in the past doesnt mean they arent a good scout leader and should be banned for life. Indeed i know leaders who were extremely unpopular with their district team but were running excellent sections and doing a great job for their kids.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder where people stand on submitting a subject access request from Scouting and what reasons HQ would give for not providing one or at least everything they hold.

I realise that the Police and other Government agencies are allowed to ‘hide’ certain information if it falls into certain categories but not sure that HQ would be holding that type of information.

At least if you can get access to the info you would have an idea of why they say no. And if that info is incorrect you could challenge them to correct it, not that they would change their mind on accepting you and not that you would want to try to join if it was clear that they didn’t want you.

https://www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers...cess-requests/

Tempted to give it a go just for the sake of it.