Blogs

The dire consequences of inadequate checks on trustees and volunteers

Governance | Sir Christopher Kelly | 1 May 2009

Trustees must act to ensure the children and vulnerable beneficiaries in their charity's care are kept safe from harm, say Susan Daniels and Sir Christopher Kelly.

The scenario:

This is a medium-sized charity which works with disabled youngsters and other vulnerable children in three counties. It provides recreational activities for the youngsters and depends heavily on volunteers. Most volunteers, including trustees, are recruited through current trustees and volunteers who recommend their friends and contacts.

Its website shows several policies including a child protection policy. The child protection policy details steps that must be taken when recruiting volunteers and trustees. This includes taking upreferences and enhanced CRB checks. However, because most of the work is done by volunteers who are already overworked and overstretched, references are rarely taken up and CRB checks are hardly ever undertaken.

Before Rupert was appointed a trustee, he told his friend Jason (who was a trustee) that he had an unspent conviction for sexual assault. Jason felt that as Rupert had been so open about his conviction, he must be trustworthy and there was no need to pass this information on to the other trustees.

Rupert became a very effective trustee and a devoted volunteer. He was often alone with beneficiaries. Susan, a trustee and volunteer, became concerned about Rupert's behaviour and visited the local police station but did not report her concerns to the remaining trustees. The police took no action.

A year passed without any further problems. Then, one afternoon, a very distressed beneficiary claimed she was attacked and raped by Rupert. The volunteers called in the police. The police surgeon confirmed that a rape had taken place. Social services were informed. When news got round, two other youngsters came forward and claimed that Rupert had sexually assaulted them.

A chief executive responds..

This case study shows how failures across a governance framework can have disastrous consequences for a charity and, more importantly, for its beneficiaries. For me there are three major areas of concern: the welfare of beneficiaries; whether the trustees are fit for the job; and how well they are governing the charity.

Trustees have a fundamental duty to keep beneficiaries safe and must ensure that there are appropriate child protection policies which are rigorously applied. For example, they should ensure that current CRB checks are recorded for all trustees, staff and volunteers. An enhanced CRB check on Rupert would have established his unsuitability. His criminal conviction for a sexual offence disqualifies him from serving as a trustee. This would have come to light if, before appointing him, the charity had asked him to sign the Charity Commission's declaration of eligibility to serve as a trustee. This should be a mandatory step in the appointment process.

A charity needs competent trustees who understand their role. While volunteers can make excellent trustees, they should all go through an effective recruitment and selection process that matches candidates against the skills and experience needed. Trustees need ongoing training and development to ensure that they can undertake all aspects of their responsibilities. Jason did not understand the serious implications of what Rupert had told him. Despite her suspicions about Rupert, Susan did not share the results of her own investigations with other trustees. Had the charity had a whistle blowing policy in place for its trustees and staff, she would have understood her responsibility to take the matter further.

The fact that volunteers are overstretched and overworked raises some major concerns about the way in which the charity is being run. This is a charity in crisis - and accountability lies with its trustees. For the sake of the beneficiaries the charity needs to review its governance and put a strong and effective framework in place, in all the counties where it operates.

Susan Daniels is chief executive of the National Deaf Children's Society

A chair of trustees responds...

This case study demonstrates the devastating consequences that can arise when a charity fails to take seriously its responsibilities for protecting children. Trustees and volunteers commonly involve friends and acquaintances in working for their cause. As this case shows, reliance on personal knowledge of an individual is unreliable and potentially dangerous.

It is a key responsibility of trustees to ensure that their charity has a child protection policy in place if it involves children in its activities, even if this is not the main focus. The policy should set out clear arrangements for recruitment and training of trustees, staff and volunteers, and what they should do if they are worried about the behaviour of a colleague or the safety of a child.

As this example illustrates, a policy is pointless unless everyone in the organisation knows about it and uses it. Rupert, upon his appointment as a trustee, should have been made aware of his child protection responsibilities through induction and training.

Had the trustees made the necessary CRB checks, they would have received formal notice of Rupert's criminal record and been able to conduct a risk assessment about his suitability. From October 2009 anyone working with children and volunteers will be required to register with the new Vetting and Barring Scheme and it will become a criminal offence for an employer to allow someone to work with children if they are barred or not registered under the scheme.

Trustees should identify a designated person who can advise on recruitment and act as the contact point for child protection concerns - someone who knows how to listen to a child or an adult and is able to take the right action. If these arrangements had been in place both Jason and Susan could have found someone to talk to in the expectation of effective advice. Children and young people should be made aware of the policy so that they can voice complaints or concerns at an early stage.

The police response to Susan's concerns is questionable, but their responsibility is to investigate an alleged crime and we do not know how specific Susan was. Your responsibilities as a trustee are much wider; to take the action necessary to ensure the safety of all children involved with your charity.

Sir Christopher Kelly is chair of trustees at NSPCC

Tweet

Directory: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)
Who's Who: Sir Christopher Kelly | Susan Daniels