AGB -Changes to Main Club Roles........

mediumtab

Member
AIUK Saviour
In the last AGBUK mag ,it seemed evident to me , that there has been a shift in emphasis by them, as to what are now considered as the Main Club Roles for Volunteers in a Club.
More importance has been placed on creating child orientated clubs,with the Welfare and Safeguarding Officer role having even more importance ,along side the Chair person. Previous roles have been replaced by Chairperson,Welfare/Safeguarding Officer (and Assistant -if poss),Secretary,and Treasurer. Fortunately ,the instances of the need to refer a concern to the Welfare officer seem small in Archery clubs,if at all.
What is the feeling of committee members from other clubs - are you aware of this current outlook,and how does it sit with some of the reluctant committee members ??
 
Last edited:

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
As someone who works within an organisation that has Safeguarding built in to it's workings at all levels it's not egregious at all.

You'll also find that parents and young people are used to working within this framework so if your club adopts this approach they will find it reassuring and familiar.
Of course, it's not just about children, but all vulnerable people. That could include adults with physical or other needs. It's about inclusivity.

So my question to those who are worried about this is: what's the reluctance? I know that sounds quite challenging, but it is meant to be.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Safeguarding and equal access are two different things but some of the wording on such things from AGB blur the distinction.
I would suggest that some clubs are worried they may be dragged over the coals of they get things wrong but have insufficient guidance as to what is right and what AGB actually expects clubs to do to promote or respond to such.
I will expand on this in a couple of weeks time when I get a response from a question to AGB on a similar vein
 

chrisgas

Supporter
Supporter
Should these people be volunteers or paid for their role?
It seems to be a role that carries a certain amount of responsibility that is possible to lead to litigation.
Would they be required to be qualified, would AGB pay for any required training? Would there be a need for them to be available at every session of the club shoots or beginner/youth sessions?
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
being paid changes the dynamic when it comes to what AGB will insure as a risk.
In simplest of temrs in the UK if you "work" with children or vulnerable people, even as a part time gardener you need to have a DBS check by the employer or organisation. the employer or organisation has to have safeguarding protocols in place to ensure as far as is parctible the safety of those children/vunnerable people. There are set procedures for reporting concerns etc and how the body responsible the next rung up the ladder responds to that concern.
Seems complicated but once you have seen the paperwork it isnt that hard to follow.
Only those who have DBS and permission form organisation may be involved in LONE working with children and DBS only covers 1 organisation so if you run a scout troop and work as a handyman at a nursery each will need one or you can splash out for a portable DBS yourself and it can cover dog walking for OAPs as well as your childrens archery coaching
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Even if you volunteer with children or vulnerable people you should have a DBS check. Coaches should already be aware of this. Often your local council or regional sports organisation will help with DBS costs. Maybe AGB regions should be taking a role here.

Every organisation should have a mechanism for formal reporting of concerns.

None of this is new.

Of course I know that inclusivity and Safeguarding are two different things however it's easy to make sure you have them at the heart of your club on the same basis.
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AGB have been offering Safeguarding training courses for well over a decade free to the end user. I went on one about 12 years ago. Obviously a lot has progressed since then, but it really is surprising me that anyone is finding this a shock.
 

emdrum

Member
According to a communication to our recent county meeting, the County is now supposed to appoint a Safeguarding and Welfare Officer (and an Assistant), and the same at Regional level. The purpose of these roles is unclear.

Surely, if you have a serious safeguarding incident involving children or vulnerable adults, you should report it to the Safeguarding Officer who should report it to the relevant authorities, and then to AGB. The last thing you should do is start a discussion with your County or Regional representative about who may or may not have done what. Any investigation or even clarification of the incident could lead to compromising evidence and undermining any subsequent court case. These are serious matters and the idea of involving a 'chain of command' is seriously flawed. The current approach seems fragmented.
 

Corax67

Well-known member
I have in the past 2 months appointed myself as Designated Safeguarding Lead for our club - a role I already hold with other organisations - written a complete suite of safeguarding documents, have arranged up to date enhanced DBS checks for all coaches and coaching assistants, am in the process of getting our club website updated with a dedicated section for safeguarding to contain online copies of all these documents.

Prior to this we had absolutely nothing in place which I was unaware of and the attitude was “nothing will ever happen here” but it can and it does and the damage is sometimes irreparable.

Safeguarding is paramount and although I take issue with many things AGB do this is one thing where I believe they have it right and I will back them to the hilt.

As far as I can make out my county (Kent Archery Assoc) has ceased to exist other than in name so I wouldn’t think of escalating issues to them for a moment.

The guidelines and structures are simple and clear - if you are advised of an issue you document it & report it to AGB directly or if there is an immediate risk of harm then you 999 it.
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
According to a communication to our recent county meeting, the County is now supposed to appoint a Safeguarding and Welfare Officer (and an Assistant), and the same at Regional level. The purpose of these roles is unclear.
Their role *should* be to organise/facilitate DBS checks and make sure each club is compliant, offering assistance if they are not.
 

Corax67

Well-known member
Their role *should* be to organise/facilitate DBS checks and make sure each club is compliant, offering assistance if they are not.
Surely the club is responsible for their own housekeeping re: DBS checks not county?

Making sure every club is compliant would be a full time job in a county as large as ours and that’s not going to happen.

Each club should have in place as a minimum :

Safeguarding children policy
Safeguarding vulnerable adults policy
Anti bullying policy
Equality & diversity policy
Social media policy
Code of conduct for young archers, adult archers, coaches & leaders, spectators & parents
Posters detailing the lead and assistant safeguarding officers & their contact details.

Additionally every club’s constitution needs to embed these documents and have a robust disciplinary & appeals process detailed within it for dealing with any incidents pertaining to the above.

Whilst much of this is available as templates from AGB or Sport England checking all of this is up to date and available for every club in a county would be impractical.
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Housekeeping, yes, but a central person responsible for overseeing DBS (and maybe county paying for them) would lift the load from nervous/resistant clubs.
 

Corax67

Well-known member
Housekeeping, yes, but a central person responsible for overseeing DBS (and maybe county paying for them) would lift the load from nervous/resistant clubs.
A nervous/resistant club doesn’t need a “load” lifting from them they need a kick in the unmentionables because if they can’t manage something as simple as DBS checks (an email to AGB and the individual completing a form) you can guarantee they certainly won’t be treating the rest of safeguarding with anything like the level of seriousness required.
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
I quite agree and if you read my responses from the top of the thread you'll see my standpoint. However, as you can also see from the original post, there is discomfort and reticence, so I can understand the issues. I also feel that AGB want to be seen as approaching this holistically through the organisation, so it isn't just up to clubs.
 

Eugen

Member
I agree that safeguarding and equality are important.
EDBS is now mandatory for coaches, and I agree with this.
‘BUT what I find ’not-good’ is:
1. All accents and everything from AGB is now coming only about children and looks like they don’t care about non-teens at all…. Everything what is done and has been doing is solely about children. Shame but non-teen-age archers excluded significantly from ‘look’. (Even learning styles and motor development will be different)
2. AGB thinks only about volunteering, I mean that all their work they gladly would like to see on shoulders of volunteers. But they don’t train them for free and renew their qualifications for free…. So I concerned how long this ‘charity’ can be stable in time when AGB significantly lowering standards of quality.
3. And yes, AGB has still not any position about what they try to develop - sport or recreational activity
4. General quality of system - need significant (very very much) update and improvement. Not sure that volunteers ready to do it AS A charity to job for commercial organisation
 

Corax67

Well-known member
I agree that safeguarding and equality are important.
EDBS is now mandatory for coaches, and I agree with this.
‘BUT what I find ’not-good’ is:
1. All accents and everything from AGB is now coming only about children and looks like they don’t care about non-teens at all…. Everything what is done and has been doing is solely about children. Shame but non-teen-age archers excluded significantly from ‘look’. (Even learning styles and motor development will be different)
2. AGB thinks only about volunteering, I mean that all their work they gladly would like to see on shoulders of volunteers. But they don’t train them for free and renew their qualifications for free…. So I concerned how long this ‘charity’ can be stable in time when AGB significantly lowering standards of quality.
3. And yes, AGB has still not any position about what they try to develop - sport or recreational activity
4. General quality of system - need significant (very very much) update and improvement. Not sure that volunteers ready to do it AS A charity to job for commercial organisation
AGB being child/youth focussed isn’t new - if you’ve hit 18 they generally aren’t interested for pathway, 20+ and you’ve no chance.

They need Olympic success for continued significant lottery funding so they are blinkered towards competiton rather than recreation.

Just look at the creation and promotion of Ontarget Performance clubs - funding and effort going into a few select clubs to solely generate competition recurve archers. Grass roots recreational clubs are left to their own devices to plod along and sink or swim.

I am happy to volunteer and they’ve pitched the cost of training modules in line with other sports such as football, rugby, badminton.

Every sporting club and society (scouting for example) in the country relies on unpaid volunteers so AGB is no different.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
When you trawl AGB output on this you can find quite a bit about the topics when it comes to their role as employers but little on what they expect clubs to actually do. A draft policy would make a huge difference.
I occasionally work in schools and some interpretations of how they safeguard children by not allowing me to be in an empty room out of school hours on my own seems a little prescriptive.
 
Top