No 53: Online checks for shortlisted staff

KCSiE 2022

KCSiE 2022 states within Part 3 paragraph 221:

“as part of the shortlisting process schools and colleges should consider carrying out an online search as part of their due diligence on the shortlisted candidates. This may help identify any incidents or issues that have happened, and are publicly available online, which the school or college might want to explore with the applicant at interview.”

The guidance below aims to provide schools with suggestions for school leaders, governors and trust boards to reflect upon to inform their recruitment policies and practice from September. It has been developed with support from the DCC pre-employment and HR team colleagues.

Schools and Trusts should work closely with their HR advisors to ensure that relevant policies detail how to interpret and put into practice the content of this paragraph. This could include at the point of advertising the post how an on-line check of shortlisted candidates will be undertaken.

Key aspects for leaders and governors to consider:

The DfE have used the term ‘should consider’. This term offers a degree of ambiguity as is not a ‘must’ statement. It is likely that inspections from September 2022, will seek information and evidence as to how this check, alongside existing requirements has been undertaken, or where not, the decision-making process for why this is the case.
The term ‘online search’ is used which, while not specifically mentioning social media, as an online application, along with any wider content should be considered. This could therefore include examples such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
An aspect within this paragraph of note if the term ‘part of due diligence’. It is important to remember that schools should still be able to confirm wider pre-employment checks such as (not a complete list) DBS checks, references and of course a recruitment process including an interview. These continue to be clarified in Part 3 of KCSiE.
The paragraph references ‘incidents or issues’. In considering these, there is a degree of interpretation. To support this, schools should be mindful of how such information available would question the individual’s suitability to work with children, or their ability to ‘harm’ the reputation of the school.
Finally, any search should reflect information that is ‘publicly available’. Schools should not be seeking access to individual’s social media account passwords, but clearly if accounts are ‘un-locked’, then any content can be considered.

What might constitute incidents or issues and how are these explore?

In considering what might constitute publicly available content, schools should consider completing an on-line check, for shortlisted candidates before they are invited or informed of their interview, and before references are called.

To ensure a consistent and fair approach is the case, the same person from the school should complete this ‘check’ and have an understanding of how to do so. This is likely to be an employee who holds Safer Recruitment training, often a senior leader of the school. Some schools will consider if this aspect can be ‘outsourced’ to an agency to complete, and a report returned. Some schools will consider if this person is included or separate from the recruitment process. Examples for schools to consider which are likely to require additional discussion, not an exhaustive list:

As an example of an online search, consider that you have shortlisted ‘Joseph Brown’ – putting the terms ‘Joseph Brown crown court / Joseph Brown magistrates court / Joseph Brown convicted’ may provide relevant information
Any content that is extremist in nature or demonstrates support for such views or beliefs
Shared views of a discriminatory nature
Information available online that contradicts information within the candidate’s employment history as shared on their application form
Information alluding to cautions or convictions such as those published in the press (see search phrasing above)
Images or information that brings their professional integrity into question

As a result of information being found of the nature above, schools need to consider, with the support of their HR team which of the following two options are appropriate:

That the content is shared with the shortlisted candidate at interview whereby the individual concerned is asked to provide greater clarity and context for the panel to consider in their deliberations alongside the rest of the recruitment process.
That due to the nature of the information found, the candidate is no-longer deemed suitable and is removed from the recruitment process.

What period of time should such due-diligence cover?

There is no current absolute answer to this question, and while there are likely to be a range of views and thoughts, a period of 5 years would mirror current requirement for references to be within. Similarly, there may be occasions where from looking at any publicly available information, there is a need to take into consideration information before this time – in essence you can’t ‘un-see’ something. Where this is the case, the named lead should consider making a written note of why this information is being applied. Again, the support and guidance from HR professionals would be strongly advised.

Further areas for school leaders, governors, and trustees to consider

Ensure that at the relevant level, any decisions as to how this aspect of due diligence is confirmed within relevant policies and is recorded via minutes of governor/trustee board meetings
Consider how applicants are informed of such checks at the point of advertising the post similar to the clarity given on the need for a DBS/Barred list check. Wording to the effect of: ‘an online check of publicly available information will be completed to assess shortlisted candidates’ suitability to work with children’
Ensure that the schools code of conduct reminds all current employees of their role in acceptable use of technology, including their sharing of concerns they might have (whistleblowing) about their colleagues including any agency or contractors who have a role at the school.
Seek support from relevant professionals including safeguarding advisors and HR colleagues or commissioned legal advisors.

Evidencing checks have been completed

Currently, there is no formal requirement to confirm that any online checks have been undertaken, however, if completing these checks, doing so would make sense. From September 2022, the schools Single Central Record template could have an additional column added to reflect this additional check. Where schools have a recruitment ‘check-list’ it could be that an additional check is added that can be ‘signed-off’. There is no requirement for this check to be backdated for employees whose start date is pre 1 September 2022.

There is no requirement for any documents such as screen shots or printed pages to be retained on an employee’s personnel file. It would though, as-is current advice to retain any notes taken by the interview panel that capture how, where required, the now employee, explained any available online content that was deemed appropriate. There is no current requirement for this check to be completed for volunteers (including governors and trustees) or those in an agency or contractor role.

Summary

Schools need to reflect on the guidance above their governing board and HR provider
Schools need to consider how they will amend relevant policies
Schools should consider how, for those appointed after September 1^st 2022 they evidence that an online check was undertaken, and where relevant, what actions were taken to explore any content deemed to be an ‘incident or issue’

Contents

Document resources