They are, generally speaking, unqualified amateurs in the field of safeguarding and I believe their historical “welfare” hat is somewhat anachronistic. They are also not truly independent.
We need to be drifting towards a more professional approach to this sort of thing and that may mean engaging an actual, external agency for support.
I think the real issue is the difference between ‘training standards’ and actual standards. Whether trained or not, there are levels of common-sense in these current days.
My regrettable experience in more recent situations exposes that the robust policies depended on are too robust for senoir
Agreed - bring it on - couldn’t be soon enough.
Training and open discussion are the way forward. I wouldn’t write-off Civcomms too readily though. There will be some among them who are qualified (as I think you acknowledge) and in many cases, standard daily workplace practises carry across a degree of common sense that would be a good start.
So would the ACO sticking to its procedures and not actually preventing CivComms from this aspect of their role (many members of whom are actually cadet parents after all!).
It comes back to the simple desire to achieve and exceed safeguarding standards, or whether the potential embarrassment of a situation bends things towards protectionism and cover up.
Something an external agency would no doubt get to grips with as you say.
Don’t hold your breath.
From the Government site …
The importance of safeguarding and protecting people
Safeguarding is a key governance priority for all trustees, not just those working with groups traditionally considered at risk.
You should read the guidance about safeguarding duties for charity trustees which was recently updated.
We advise you to carry out a thorough review of your charity’s safeguarding governance and management arrangements and performance, if you haven’t done in the last 12 months.
It is also important that you contact us about any safeguarding issues, or serious safeguarding incidents, complaints or allegations which have not previously been reported to us.
Find out about reporting serious incidents in your charity as a trustee.
Find out about reporting serious wrongdoing at a charity as a worker or volunteer.
Though, to play devil’s advocate for a moment…
This would certainly apply to a charity which looked after children, or adults with learning difficulties for example - where the primary work of the charity is in caring for those people.
In a CivCom stance, the “charity” doesn’t extend beyond the money. The Sqn is not part of the “charity”, the charity merely exists to financially support the Squadron. The charity’s business isn’t to provide care or safeguarding to the cadets.
Now, before Teflon or Aries do the same as last time and put words into my mouth - I’m not saying that the CivCom can’t be open to seeing if there are problems; nor am I saying that if they are concerned they shouldn’t raise that.
But I’d question any specific responsibility placed upon them to oversee safeguarding practices which are technically outside their remit.
The Civ Com should receive training in CP and perhaps some of them have had it through their employment, but it should be across the board. As also the Civ Com should have a session with the cadets every couple of months, so that both sides can explain what they are doing and how to improve for the future and what is required to do so. This sort of meeting would give the committee a different perspective from what they are being told from the staff.
I don’t necessarily disagree with those ideas.
We certainly involve the cadets at the AGM so that the Parents and elected committee can see the results of their work and can hear from the cadets where it might be well spent again during the year.
We don’t currently have any similar sessions at other times, but there is a logic to more frequent “catch-ups”.
I do however question whether CivCom actually “need” CP training - since they are not routinely in a position to actually notice anything. They’re not present, so even with training how much of a difference are they going to make?
In fact I’d go further to suggest that, since I don’t see a specific need, would requiring them to all undertake CP training be yet another obstacle which might put people off?
Many squadron’s struggle as it is to fill the spaces in a committee. Would dumping more responsibilities onto them, particularly one so important and which they are fundamentally unable to properly fulfill, be counterproductive?
If I remember correctly registered civ com have to go through the same processes as a CI.
True, but that is for specific reasons and a bit of a red herring in this discussions.
Consider RegCC to be double-hatted as CIs and therefore needing to meet the same requirements as CIs. It is not applicable to the Civilian Committee role as it stands.
The more people, in my opinion, who have knowledge of CP issues and how to raise them the better. something that could be organised for a committe meeting with the WSO responsible for CP.
As much as I disregard the current ACP-11 as confused ramblings from a legal standpoint, it does seem to define that CivComm members are required to follow a process as Bob says - including safeguarding training every three years.
That said, this is for a different class of CivComm member … SuperCivvy! who wish to be selected by, and under the orders of the uniform cadre, despite not actually being a member of the ACO or having any say. (Nope … not Brexit!).
This is entirely distinct from the normal Civcomm members from whom trustees are nominated and voted outside independently from the ACO. But then all CivComm members get treated the same way in discussion and despite playing an important role (some might say critical … but hey ho).
I think Bob has the right idea in the widest possible training and awareness.
Just pausing for a moment … I have seen problems with CivCom members running off with the purse or other financial misdemeanour. But I can’t recall a reported safeguarding problem prosecution that didn’t involve a uniformed member of staff. By which I simply mean, why the hangup on CivComm members when the thrust of the issue would seem to be from within those who apparently are already well trained, cleared and more on the case?
if there is a push and desire for CWC members to get CP trained where does it end?
will our Squadron president, a former RAF Senior officer who sees the Cadets once maybe twice a year at a formal function (dining in and awards night) need it as well??
He is more likely to be in contact (quite literally shaking their hand for a grip and grin) than any of the CWC
I’d correct that to CFAV rather than uniformed - CIs have been involved in cases just the same.
But then, it’s hardly surprising that cases have involved CFAV rather than Civcom members - because the CivCom members aren’t there with the cadets.
Yes - everybody should be aware of how to spot and escalate CP issues. No more.
Beyond that we need to maintain a strict need-to-know policy and involve only those who can directly help. The context here seems to be setting up the civcom as the go-to welfare people for raised CP issues and that is not an appropriate mechanism.
Why? Civcom members don’t have unsupervised access to cadets (stand fast reg civcom) and have minimal contact full-stop.
Given that the main reason for becoming Civcom rather than CFAV tends to be the level of commitment I can’t see that something which uneccessarily increases that commitment is helpful or wise.
I’d have no problem with Civcom members attending - for example - a safeguarding refresher or similar if they wish, but I disagree that there should be any expectation or requirement placed upon them.
That is the place I am coming from, that they need to know the signs and who to report it to either in the Squadron or the WSO responsible. no More no less, but ACP 11and ACP 4 should make this clear.
That’s the bit I disagree with - I don’t think there’s a need. It’s a nice-to-have, but it’s the staff - who are in frequent contact - who need it.
How many things have gone on within plain sight and only when a third pair of eyes has seen something have alarms been triggered.
I understand the concept, I just disagree that the effectiveness would justify the effort and downsides of implementation. If extra eyes are needed, then I’d suggest WSO/sector & wing WO visits would be a better avenue.
Realistically though, it’s training the other (particularly junior) CFAVs and older cadets as to what is right and normal that is going to lead to things being noticed, not someone who pops in to the squadron occasionally for a meeting.
We are all unqualified amateurs.
I would argue that just because we sit in a room for a death by powerpoint run by one of us, with some scenarios, does not mean we are not trained and certainly not qualified, only slightly better informed. I get the impression that safeguarding is something you don’t get trained in per se, anyone can report a safeguarding concern. But those who are ‘qualified”, are trained in dealing with the effects and using combinations of other organisations to try and resolve the problem(s). Which we do not have the time or access to do anything, other than play “in-house” games.
I think it would be better if our training was delivered by LSCBs as they would be experienced professionals and if done on say an area basis, they would be local, know of any local issues in the community and be potential POCs for us and actually give us external referral points. It might still be death by ppt but it would be delivered by people who have experience day to day, and if questions were asked be able to give answers relating to real life. Also they would be people dealing with things ranging in complexity, rather than us who might get something specific to the organisation once in a blue moon. While it would be almost impossible to achieve, I feel if we all shadowed a children’s social worker for a couple of days it would show just what really working with in this subject area really entails and put some things into stark perspective.
This could be open to all people involved at the squadron including CWC members on a voluntary basis, unless they are those with a foot in both camps.
Frankly how much contact people have with others, has no bearing on the harm they can cause or being able to see problems. I think sometimes we CFAV are too close and too busy to really see things.
Couldn’t agree more. Every LSCB course I’ve ever done has been engaging and relevant. They have exceeded the various RAFAC courses I’ve been subjected to over the years by a factor of at least 10. For me though, one of the best bits of the LSCB courses has been that they are often delivered by the people who pick up the case in Childrens Services - knowing that these people are there, they are human and that it’s their job gives a lot more confidence than phoning a partial trained WExO or CPO to flag concerns.
Also, with it being local, they can walk you through the local processes. There will undoubtedly be variations (I had one 3 months ago, who was a resident in a neighbouring LA) which had an online reporting system rather than phone based. But that local knowledge, the type and range of support services available, and how they take forward and manage cases gives so much more confidence in making the reports.
Our LCSB do free courses for voluntary organisations. They run them on weekdays, evenings and weekends. 2, 3 and 6 hour courses available. As well as Universal Safeguarding training, some targetted courses are available which cover off some of the issues we’ve experienced on sqn - or which are more relevant to some than others to (Mental health, CSE, County Lines, Knife Crime, Prevent, FGM, Gangs, e-safety).
I just wish RAFAC would stop banging on about “their” course over ones provided by trained professionals rather than trained volunteers.