Talk:Leaders in Community Wikipedia training

Reasonable checks for trainers

In consideration that we are planning this event to be directed to volunteers as young as 15 years old, I believe we would benefit from a public statement making it clear what checks we (or the Leaders in Community charity) require for the trainers, and to what extent they are considered legal representatives of the charity at this event. This should take special consideration that the trainers are not expected to be publicly using their identities as a natural person. Perhaps this is something the CEO can consider, and recommend whether we should have a statement or not, to the board of trustees before this event is delivered in ten days time? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is often a cause for anxiety and one that I have dealt with often as a teacher, teaching advisor and Sure Start Manager. The rules have moved on a little now so I quote the latest advice from OFSTED regarding what are now called DBS checks:

Are DBS checks required for all visitors or volunteers to schools and colleges?

Visitors DBS checks are not required for visitors. Visitors do not have unsupervised access to children.Volunteers Checks are required only for those who have regular and unsupervised access to children and young people. Under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where a volunteer is being adequately supervised, they are not considered to be working in regulated activity however often they do this, and the school does not need to request a DBS check. The Department for Education will shortly be publishing guidance to help schools decide what level of supervision would be considered adequate.

Therefore as long as our trainers are not having unsupervised access to the young people (or in other circumstances vulnerable adults) they can offer their services.

The onus in these circumstances is with the organisation who are sponsoring the event. If they felt uncomfortable with wikinames rather than real names they could indicate this and make a decision which we would of course respect.

I believe that in this context they are all volunteers, covered by out insurance, should they have an accident or injure someone, but not any more than that. I hope this helps.

Personally I am really pleased that our ex-Intern has contacted us and is giving us a way into a group of people we very seldom reach.

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jon, I have not a clue in this area, particularly as the rules are subject to change, so a clear position is useful. I suggest this is highlighted for attention of trustees, so we are aware of the limitations that apply to our events (i.e. no unsupervised access and that WMUK is not the sponsor of the event) and that any volunteers are made aware of this as a constraint on their activities during such an event where young people or vulnerable adults may take part. I would suggest that our volunteers stay aware of WMUK's position and should take up any concerns on the day with the event sponsor, for example they should not be left unsupervised. I'll leave it to your call as to whether we need more in writing as a policy or not for this legal/operational matter. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)