Sign In
or Create a new account
What should be checked?
At a minimum, background checking will include a national criminal history check. The information contained in a national criminal history check is the same information currently obtained by employers or organisations conducting their own background checks.
There are however other types of available information that may be useful in determining whether or not there is a risk that an individual may harm a vulnerable person, including:
• criminal charges;
• factual information concerning the circumstances of individual criminal cases;
• Apprehended Violence Orders;
• Child Protection Orders; and
• past employment records.
It is important to remember that background checking is concerned only with estimating risk and is not tantamount read more
Relates to
document:
Discussion Paper: A Working with Vulnerable People Checking System for the ACT
Comment 1 19 Aug 2009, 11:08 PM
As part of the documentation that should be checked, I would like to see:
* two personal reference letters about character and suitability to work with 'vulnerable' people and children (answering standard questions provided on a form)
* some sort of records check - even if they were being investigated for drug trafficking for example (but hadn't yet been brought to court, or hadn't been found guilty) as an employer responsible for children, I would want to be made aware of this possible indicator of risk before taking on volunteers or childcare workers.
* some sort of financial check on folk who will be working with 'vulnerable adults' finances. Have they been bankrupt themselves in the last 5 years, for example?
Just some ideas....
Comment 1.1 16 Sep 2009, 11:43 AM
Of course, adding this many contingencies to a check would ensure that nobody ever passed the grade. May as well preclude everyone who has ever got a speeding ticket as well because this is evidence that they willingly break the law and/or drive recklessly.
Checks need to be realistic. And, while the current Police checks will never be perfect, they are a good place to start. And, with law enforcement agencies improving their cross referencing every day, police checks are becoming more comprehensive. CRIMTRAC is expanding it's services and appears to be getting better at accessing information.
For the record I have worked for a service that supports extremely vulnerable people for the past 20 years.
Comment 2 23 Aug 2009, 4:16 PM
Police checks just pick up the extreme cases that have been through the courts. From my experience in sporting organisations, it does not identify the bullies, tyrants and the 'paranoid' types that tend to make everybody's life a misery.
Police checking is an expensive process and I wonder about its value. It tends to make all volunteers feel like a criminal.
Comment 2.1 9 Sep 2009, 7:11 AM
I would also like to see a check done on the skills that the person has to actually work with and provide appropriate duty of care to vulnerable people.
I am thinking in particular of those working with people with a disability e.g someone who is deaf & blind. Does the person have the necessary communication skills (measured against an established benchmark like NAATI accreditation or CIT certificate) and mobility skills training (ie obtained from Vision Australia)
Without such checks, people with out the appropriate skills are putting people at incredible personal, physical and psychological risk.
Comment 2.1.1 9 Sep 2009, 7:14 AM
The same should occur with those working with deaf children who are using Australian Sign Language. Just because someone claims to be able to use sign language does not mean they actually can. The ACT Education dept does not currently check these skills against any established benchmarking system and so people are working as the primary communication model for the kids having never had their skills checked or assessed.
DHCS Facilitator Comment 2.2 DHCS Facilitator 15 Sep 2009, 11:45 AM
Thanks for leaving comments in this section.
It is intended that the checking system will allow registered persons to move between employers or orgainsations without being rechecked (for so long as the registration remains valid).
The inclusion of qualifications, skills and character references as part of the checking process would mean that checks are position specific, rather than general in nature. As a result, a person who has been checked for one position would need to be rechecked when moving to a different position that requires, for instance, different qualifications.
I would like to invite further comment with that consequence in mind. It is reasonable for the ACT Government to focus on assessing general risk factors applicable to all employers or organisations (e.g. criminal records) while individual employers and organisations remain responsible for assessing other factors which are specific to particular positions (e.g. professional qualifications)?
Comment 2.2.1 2 Oct 2009, 3:39 PM
My organisation is contemplating working with vision impaired people. If we all have to obtain specific skills for this, nothing will ever get off the ground. We need to be able to work things out, with the help of the vision-impaired community, as we go along. Don't forget that all checking will cost money, and in the end, we need to be practical about this. If it's made too involved, it will cost more, take longer, and turn perfectly honest and trustworthy people away.