Safer Recruitment Beyond DBS Checks: What Organisations Miss

2025-12-09 12:43

A DBS check is essential, but it's not enough. Some organisations treat it as the sole safeguarding measure in recruitment, missing critical opportunities to assess candidates' suitability to work with children. A clean DBS certificate tells you someone hasn't been caught—it doesn't tell you whether they're safe, suitable, or committed to child protection.

Safer recruitment is a comprehensive process that embeds safeguarding at every stage of hiring. It scrutinises applications, probes commitment during interviews, verifies employment history, and identifies concerning behaviour patterns.

Crucially this creates a barrier, putting off and preventing unsuitable individuals from even applying in the first place.

Why DBS Checks Aren't Enough

The limitations of relying solely on DBS checks are significant. A DBS certificate only shows recorded convictions, cautions, and barring decisions—it doesn't capture undetected abuse, concerning behaviour that hasn't led to prosecution, or individuals who've never been caught. Many perpetrators have clean records until they're finally reported, often after years of abuse.

Additionally, DBS checks are retrospective snapshots. They show historical records but don't predict future behaviour or assess current suitability. Someone might have no criminal record but display attitudes, behaviours, or gaps in understanding that make them unsuitable to work with children. Safer recruitment processes identify these red flags before employment begins.

Research consistently shows that perpetrators actively seek roles with access to children and especially those with weak recruitment processes. They're often charming, credible, and skilled at presenting themselves well. Without rigorous scrutiny beyond DBS checks, organisations inadvertently create opportunities for those with harmful intentions.

Application Scrutiny: The First Line of Defence

Safer recruitment begins before an application arrives. By clarifying your safe process at this stage filters out unsuitable candidates before you invest time in interviews. When you do get an application:

Check for completeness and accuracy. Incomplete applications, unexplained gaps in employment history, or vague descriptions of previous roles should raise questions. Why are they omitting information? What happened during those missing periods? Candidates who are evasive or reluctant to provide full details warrant further investigation.

Analyse employment patterns. Frequent job changes, particularly in roles working with children, can indicate problems. While career mobility isn't inherently concerning, a pattern of short tenures or leaving roles under unclear circumstances requires explanation. Similarly, candidates who've worked in multiple organisations without progression or references may be concealing issues.

Scrutinise reasons for leaving previous roles. Vague statements like "seeking new opportunities" or "personal reasons" aren't sufficient for safeguarding-critical roles. Probe deeper during interviews to understand the real reasons behind career moves, particularly if patterns emerge.

Assess the quality of personal statements. Does the candidate demonstrate genuine understanding of safeguarding? Do they articulate why child protection matters, or is it treated as a box-ticking requirement? Candidates who minimise safeguarding or show limited awareness of their responsibilities should be questioned further.

Interview Techniques to Assess Safeguarding Commitment

Interviews are your opportunity to assess not just competence, but character, values, and genuine commitment to child protection. Effective safer recruitment interviews go beyond standard questions to probe attitudes, motivations, and responses to safeguarding scenarios.

Ask about motivations for working with children. Why do they want this role? What draws them to working with young people? Genuine candidates articulate passion for education, development, or making a positive impact. Be wary of vague answers, overemphasis on personal fulfilment without reference to children's needs, or responses that seem rehearsed rather than authentic.

Explore understanding of safeguarding responsibilities. Ask candidates to explain what safeguarding means to them, how they'd recognise abuse, and what they'd do if they had concerns about a child or colleague. Strong candidates demonstrate clear knowledge, appropriate concern, and understanding of reporting procedures. Weak responses—minimising concerns, uncertainty about thresholds, or reluctance to report—are red flags.

Use scenario-based questions to assess judgement. Present realistic safeguarding scenarios and ask how they'd respond. For example: "A child mentions casually that they're often left home alone overnight. What would you do?" or "A colleague makes an inappropriate joke about a child's appearance. How would you handle it?" Responses reveal judgement, confidence, and willingness to act.

Probe responses to gaps or inconsistencies. If the application raised questions—employment gaps, frequent moves, vague explanations—address them directly in the interview. Observe how candidates respond. Defensive, evasive, or hostile reactions are concerning. Honest, transparent explanations with supporting evidence are reassuring.

Assess attitudes towards boundaries and professional conduct. Ask about maintaining appropriate relationships with children, managing boundaries, and handling situations where boundaries might be tested. Candidates should articulate clear understanding of professional conduct, the importance of boundaries, and strategies for maintaining them.

Reference Checking: More Than a Formality

References are often treated as administrative tasks, but they're critical safeguarding tools. Too many organisations accept generic, brief references without probing for meaningful information about suitability and conduct.

Always obtain at least two references, including the most recent employer. References from friends, family, or distant former colleagues aren't sufficient. You need perspectives from people who've directly supervised the candidate's work with children or vulnerable individuals.

Ask specific, safeguarding-focused questions. Don't just request confirmation of employment dates and job titles. Ask directly: "Are you aware of any safeguarding concerns involving this candidate?" "Would you rehire them to work with children?" "Have there been any allegations, investigations, or disciplinary actions related to conduct with children?" These questions require clear, documented answers.

Follow up vague or lukewarm references. If a reference is brief, generic, or lacks enthusiasm, probe further. Speak to the referee directly rather than accepting written responses alone. Ask why they've provided limited information and whether there's anything you should know. Reluctance to provide detailed, positive references can indicate undisclosed concerns.

Verify references are genuine. Confirm that referees are who they claim to be and that contact details are legitimate. Fraudulent references, though rare, do occur. Use official organisational contact details rather than personal emails or mobile numbers provided by the candidate.

Document everything. Keep detailed records of all references, including dates, questions asked, responses received, and any follow-up conversations. This documentation is essential if concerns arise later or if your recruitment process is scrutinised.

Identifying Red Flags in Candidate Behaviour

Certain behaviours and patterns during recruitment should trigger additional scrutiny. While none are definitive proof of unsuitability, they warrant careful consideration and further investigation.

Reluctance to undergo checks or provide information. Candidates who hesitate, make excuses, or express frustration about DBS checks, references, or identity verification may be concealing something. Genuine candidates understand and accept these requirements as necessary safeguards.

Inconsistencies between application, interview, and references. Discrepancies in dates, roles, responsibilities, or reasons for leaving should be explored. Are they forgetful, or are they deliberately misrepresenting their history?

Overemphasis on access to children. While enthusiasm for working with young people is positive, candidates who focus excessively on spending time alone with children, having unsupervised access, or building close personal relationships should be questioned. Healthy professional boundaries are essential.

Dismissive or minimising attitudes towards safeguarding. Candidates who treat safeguarding as bureaucratic box-ticking, express frustration with "over-the-top" procedures, or suggest that concerns are often exaggerated demonstrate poor understanding and potentially concerning attitudes.

Hostile or defensive responses to questions. Appropriate questions about employment history, safeguarding knowledge, or professional conduct should be met with openness and transparency. Aggression, defensiveness, or attempts to deflect questions are red flags.

Integrating Safeguarding Throughout the Recruitment Process

Safer recruitment isn't a single check—it's a culture embedded throughout hiring. Every stage, from job advertisements to induction, should reinforce that safeguarding is paramount.

Job advertisements should explicitly state safeguarding commitment. Include statements like "We are committed to safeguarding children and expect all staff to share this commitment" and "This role requires an enhanced DBS check." This signals expectations from the outset and may deter unsuitable applicants.

Application forms should include safeguarding-specific questions. Ask about understanding of safeguarding, previous training, and experience managing child protection concerns. Require candidates to declare any convictions, cautions, or ongoing investigations, and explain the relevance of this information.

Interview panels should include safeguarding-trained members. At least one panel member should have safer recruitment training and be able to assess safeguarding competence and commitment effectively.

Pre-employment checks should be comprehensive and verified. Beyond DBS checks, verify identity, right to work, qualifications, and professional registration. Ensure all checks are complete before employment begins—never allow someone to start work with checks pending.

Induction should reinforce safeguarding expectations. From day one, new staff should receive comprehensive safeguarding training, understand reporting procedures, and know that child protection is their primary responsibility.

Conclusion

DBS checks are essential, but they're just one component of safer recruitment. Organisations that rely solely on criminal record checks miss critical opportunities to assess suitability, probe commitment, and identify concerning behaviours. Comprehensive safer recruitment—scrutinising applications, conducting rigorous interviews, verifying references, and identifying red flags—protects children by preventing unsuitable individuals from gaining access in the first place.

Embedding safeguarding throughout recruitment isn't just good practice—it's a moral and legal responsibility. Every stage of hiring should ask: "Is this person safe, suitable, and committed to protecting children?" If you can't answer yes with confidence, don't proceed.

Streamline safer recruitment without compromising rigour. Our digital platform centralises vetting, tracks checks in real-time, and ensures comprehensive verification, reducing recruitment delays whilst maintaining the highest safeguarding standards.