You aren’t getting it. We need the staff too, yet every Single one who has applied to join has gone through it. Yes some leave along the way, but cite reasons other than “my DBS took ages”.
I am getting it… We just have different experiences.
That’s the point of a forum - everyone can input. If you don’t want to hear from other people, start a blog on ACO administration.
Yes, we have all been through the process, but up until now, we were still allowed to actively take part in activities, albeit under supervision, while we waited for the DBS. Now, new members of staff will have to kick their heels and not get involved while we wait for the DBS. That’s a massive change.
We need to grab the enthusiastic people at the point they walk through the door and let them run. Not show them the door with a handful of forms and say come back when this is all fine.
1 Like
Say again the problems we have are caused by the antiquated processes. Our kids have applied for jobs all done online direct to employers or via agencies. At work we haven’t had a handwritten application in years. The first time pen touches paper is signing a contract.
Why the ACO lags so far behind what seems to be modern business practices, when it likes to give this image of being wiv it, is a mystery. I imagine it is because the MOD works this way.
As said we need staff and if they fall off at any point during the application process, then this needs to be investigated and addressed. I’ve lost potential staff because it has taken so long overall. I’ve lost CIs because paperwork has been ‘lost’ and because WSOs couldn’t be arsed to come and talk to them. Why a WSO needs to specifically get involved baffles me, they are no more qualified than any of us to say yay or nay. Many years ago I lost a CI because apparently HQAC ran out of numbers. I explained the situation and I remember the look on his face and non-internet comment as he said it joke. I could add 1 from now and for every second of my life and not run out of numbers.
People are reluctant to volunteer for anything (even more so wrt youth) and if we get someone who does, we need to get them in and fully onboard asap and not find that we are being tripped up by our own processes, which we at sqn level lose control of very early on. Yes we can advise that the DBS will take 6-8 weeks, but that timeframe should be for the whole process. We are not that special or brilliant as an organisation that taking any longer demands.
I wonder if we embraced transferring DBS things would speed up for some.
So back to my question 29 days ago, has this new ruling been distributed because I still haven’t seen anything yet…
We’ve had it and there was general groan at yet more admin BS from HQAC. While there wasn’t anything against the waiting for the DBS clearance, the CIs on the sqn all have very jaundiced views of the process.
Anybody who lets a randomers walk in off the street needs their head examining.
Anyone who thinks its OK to do this need their head examining
Anyone expecting to walk in to access to minors isn’t someone I want near my cadets.
Continuing the discussion from Policy change – dbs and probationary dates:
Then how do you recruit staff.
People do walk in off the street. HQAC has just sent out a massive banner stating “Adult Volunteers wanted” I have just put it up on the front of my building. So hopefully somebody will walk in off the street as ask to join.
One on my best new staff members is an ex cadet from the 70s how decided to come back as his son wanted to join as a cadet. I didn’t know him from Adam. Just wanted to help out.
Isn’t that how recruiting works.
So far no one here has been complaining about the fact we need to do DBS. We just want it quicker. It should be walk in, interview, here’s your DBS form, see you in two to three weeks (or not, as the case may be) with the result. Boom.
Like every single voluntary organisation we struggle to recruit people (ignore retaining) and we need to have processes and timescales that are expedient and encouraging, which currently we don’t. An issue is that far too many of our staff think they are bees knees and like to think that as an organisation we are special, we are not.
The problem is unless we encourage people from outside, or at least ex-cadets who’ve been away for several years, we will become increasingly insular if all we get are cadets going straight from cadet to adult. I was one of these but have always acknowledged that we need new people in with a broader experience, the best source of these are parents who want to contribute and get involved while their children are cadets.
The DBS process can be a deterrent, but only for those with something to hide, but then only if they have been caught, cautioned etc.
The word ‘randomers’ is quite offensive and the view they aren’t welcome just takes it to a new level.
Don’t be facetious. I meant walk straight in and start working with kids.
I’m not wholly opposed to what you are saying. My point is everyone thinks this is unique to the ACO and is all HQACs fault. It simply isn’t.
It’s not unique to the ACO and it’s not all HQAC’s fault, but it needs improvement.
Regardless of the current state of affairs, it doesn’t have to be bad to be made better.
I think what Sgt Bilko - sorry, Plt Off Prune - is saying is that as he’s a WSO with his nose up the chocolate starfishes of those that count in his VR(T) career, that no-one should whine or whinge about the extant processes.
The average CFAV, commissioned, non-commissioned or CI, should simply shut up and go with what he and his masters feel is right.
1 Like
There is nothing wrong with the change, BUT and the big BUT is the whole process for new staff especially has to be improved.
It is pointless having a new member of staff who has their DBS, but they don’t officially exist, ie they don’t have a number ergo record on SMS. This could be anything from 3 to 12 months after they get their DBS through. This is where the process is broken and needs some serious updating, as suggested by making the whole process online/electronic would be best. This might cause some haemorrhaging in the heads of those at HQAC, RHQ and WHQ as it wouldn’t mean having bits of paper turning up in an envelope, to stick in a pile and lose. The irony is they will live most of their lives online; emailing, banking, shopping, imparting irrelevances on the world via social media etc. The beauty of doing things electronically is that things cannot be irrevocably ‘lost’ as regularly happens, as someone in the chain will have it somewhere, even if just as an email attachment. When they are ‘lost’ now, forms are resent, filled out and posted again and it is this that means people say stuff it and walk away. I had a member of staff who filled out forms 3 times as Wing denied getting them, his wife accused me of not sending them, so when Wing said they had lost them I gave them to him to post the other 2 times. If these had been emailed this wouldn’t have happened as they would have been attached or if the email deleted, re-sent in seconds.
Every return I have put in for the last 18 years is electronic or scanned. In the last couple of years I have emailed returns for most things.
You couldn’t be further from the truth dear fellow. I have a reputation of saying my thoughts out loud regardless of the audience and their rank.
This is the third time you alluded to another name. Perhaps increase the size of your text because it doesn’t mean anything to me let alone anyone else.
Whatever you say, Bilko…
I don’t get your point and to be honest your approach is the very attitude we teach our kids about online bullying. Very sad to see from an adult let alone one who is supposed to be a member of staff. Then again I’ve quickly realised you have form for this.
Shame on you.
1 Like
Common problem. No point giving technology to people who don’t understand or exploit the technology, or write the software that actually does the drudge, the thinking for you so you can do more of it and faster.
The civil and public sector, NHS and the forces are very much guilty of this approach.
If we truly exploited the tech, profits would go up, earnings would go up, efficiency and customer/client satifaction would go up and working hours would reduce, giving us all more time for volunteering.
Technology introduced in the 19th and 20th centuries has improved our lives steadily. There is no reason why it should not continue other than lack of vision
Is anyone having problems with SC since the requirement for it in regards to weapons came in ? As every member of staff in NI needs SC before appointment and on renewal it is causing problems, three cases I know off two involving my unit .
-
CI application , applied last Sept , his Access NI came through in ten days , SC still “completed, ongoing” now as it is more than six months he now has to resubmit his Access NI as the certificate has to be within six months to be accepted by Cranwell, he is probably going to walk.
-
CWO moving to adult service, turns 20 this month, SC “completed ,ongoing” so she can not continue unless this come through in the next couple of weeks, applied in January /
3 VRT Sqn Cdr, renewal , applied Feb, suspended yesterday as his SC “completed, ongoing” and previous expired.
Is anywhere else having these problems ?