By Andy McCue, 21 July 2005 16:20
NEWS The number of charity organisations and other agencies using the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database to vet recruits working with children and vulnerable adults is to be restricted because of spiralling costs of carrying out the checks.
The £400m private finance CRB contract with Capita was slammed last year by the National Audit Office for being "appallingly planned" and will not break even until a year later than planned, leaving the taxpayer to foot a deficit of nearly £70m.
The cost of supporting the increasing number of bodies wanting to carry out criminal record checks on employees and new recruits is placing a "major burden" on the overall cost of the service, according to the CRB's annual report out today.
Over 1,665 new organisations registered with the CRB to vet employees during the last year and as a result the Home Office plans to set a threshold on the number of checks that can be carried out.
"Over the course of 2005 the CRB will introduce measures to reduce the number of organisations currently registered with the CRB through the setting of an annual threshold for the submission of Disclosure applications by Registered Bodies," the report said.
The number of free checks for volunteers has grown from the original estimate of 15 per cent of all disclosures issued to around 21 per cent. The Home Office is also considering a revision of the eligibility criteria for organisations and agencies qualifying for free checks.
The move comes as the CRB faces increasing pressure to meet a deadline of breaking even by next year, although it cut losses from £22m to £8m in the last 12 months. The report says next year remains the target to break even but admits it may not be met.
"The Home Office, however, remains committed to the work of the CRB as a vital element of its programme to protect children and vulnerable adults and will not sacrifice accuracy and quality of disclosures in order to achieve financial break-even," the report said.
Along with pressure on the cost of supporting free criminal records checks for voluntary and charity organisations, the CRB is facing increased costs of integrating with the national police intelligence database as a result of the Bichard Report into the investigation of the Soham murders.
Because of revised procedures implemented after the Bichard Report, the CRB has failed to meet the target of completing 90 per cent of enhanced criminal record checks on people working with children and vulnerable adults within four weeks due to delays in getting information back from some police forces.
But Vince Gaskell, chief executive of the CRB, claims it has been a year of progress with successes such as the implementation of the interim police intelligence facility allowing the CRB to check police databases nationally and reducing the reliance on applicants being honest in providing previous addresses.
Gaskell said in a statement: "The CRB continues to build on the solid foundations laid down last year. For the second year running, we've achieved our public service standards, expanded our customer base and introduced new services."
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Derek Cullen
One of the problems with the CRB system is that some organisations will not accept disclosures obtained by others. I belong to three organisations who all insist on obtaining their own disclosure.
The system should be that a disclosure is issued against a person only once and that other organisations must accept this, unless the new application is at a higher level. Even better, why not only have one level, the highest?
2. Gary
Why doesn't the CRB just impliment a system whereby one check is valid for all organisation?? I helped with my son's local school on a field trip and am a FA referee. I need to be vetted TWICE (so paying twice). Both checks are exactly the same .... that would remove a lot of the burden.
Then again the government seem to use the same old IT companies over and over regardless of the fact the past projects have failed/ are over budget/are late.
3. Nick Cole
Told you so! Even when this was advised to the authorities they continued with their ill-conceived scheme.
A further fall-out, also 'told you so' was a reduction in the range of activities available to children because of the bureaucracy imposed on voluntary groups and inidividuals. As usual with government led initiatives problems are dismissed and ignored when they should have been taken account of during the design and specification stage. And they continue to wonder why major government projects fail so often! They forget that unlike business where a commercial decision can be taken to restrict their market to a manageable size government systems have to accommodate 100% of the population in all its various permutations.
What's the solution? Employ more civil servants to make the system perform to acceptable standards? Raise charges for a flawed system they invented? Limit the scope so that only businesses have to run checks? Or spend more taxpayers money absorbing the additional and inevitable costs?
And what about the situation when someone slips through the net because of reduced standards, who will carry the can?
The government cannot have complex and ever intrusive legislation and rules without an associated employment and cost consequence.
4. Derek Cullen
Where does one read the comments?