The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) was launched in March 2002 as an Executive Agency of the Home Office to provide wider access to criminal record information through its checking service.  This service enables organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain work, especially around posts that involve regular or sustained contact with children or vulnerable adults. 

Prior to 2002, access to police checks was mainly confined to organisations in the statutory sector for staff who had ‘substantial unsupervised access’ to children.  In a response to public concern of increasing rises in child abuse, the Criminal Records Bureau was designed to be able to include the many other organisations that could not previously access these checks and yet had staff with similar contact with vulnerable groups.  The CRB enables many more organisations to access these checks as part of good recruitment practice.

Organisations wishing to use the service can ask successful job applicants to apply for one of two types of CRB check.  The type of check required will depend upon the nature of the position.  These are known as Enhanced and Standard Checks, both require a fee but are free of charge to volunteers and need to be obtained via a Registered Body.

A Registered Body is an organisation that is registered to access the Disclosure service to check the staff that it recruits directly to eligible posts. Some Registered Bodies may also undertake checks for other organisations that provide eligible positions but which are not themselves directly registered with the CRB.  This is referred to as an Umbrella Body.

Registered Bodies are entitled to ask exempted questions under the Exceptions Order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) 1974, Exceptions Order 1975, with Umbrella Bodies also entitled to countersign applications on behalf of people or organisations that are entitled to ask exempted questions.

The Registered Body's role is to:

• Check and validate the information provided by the applicant on the application form
• Establish the true identity of the applicant, through the examination of a range of documents using guidance provided by the CRB
• Ensure the application form is fully completed and the information it contains is accurate
• Countersign applications to confirm that the organisation has an entitlement to access criminal record information
• Comply with the CRB’s Code of Practice

Registered Bodies that provide access to the CRB service to other organisations are called Umbrella Bodies.  For example, a large organisation that has registered with the CRB to check out its own staff and/or volunteers may decide to offer access to CRB checks to smaller organisations.  Umbrella Bodies have the same responsibilities as Registered Bodies and must take reasonable steps to ensure that any organisation they are countersigning on behalf of also complies with the relevant responsibilities and obligations.

Umbrella Bodies play an important role in the success of the CRB as they provide the mechanism by which many smaller organisations will access CRB checks.

 A CRB check can provide access to a range of different types of information, such as, information:

• held on the Police National Computer (PNC), including Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands and Warnings in England and Wales, and most of the relevant convictions in Scotland and Northern Ireland may also be included. (The CRB reserves the right to add new data sources;
• held by local police forces and other agencies, relating to relevant non-conviction information;
• held on lists maintained by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA);
• other data sources such as the British Transport Police; the Royal Military Police; the Ministry of Defence Police;
• Scottish Criminal Records Office  - if you have spent any time living in Scotland.

In answer to a Parliamentary question on 2^nd April 2009, asking what evidence there is that Criminal Records Bureau checks have reduced the incidence of child abuse. Lord West of Spithead, an Under-secretary of State to the Home Office replied,

“Analysis from independent research conducted by Ipsos MORI between 2004 and 2007 indicates that the CRB is making a real difference to the protection of children and vulnerable adults; 80,000 unsuitable people have had offers of employment which involved working with children and vulnerable adults withdrawn on the basis of information contained on their disclosure. Many more unsuitable people are thought to be deterred from applying to work with children as a result of the requirement for a CRB check.” (Hansard, 2 Apr 2009 : Column WA262.)

Of course all of this has a cost, The Management Board of the Criminal Records Bureau have approved the budget for 2009/10 and set out their planned activity for next year, including a recommendation to Ministers that there will not be any fee increases during 2009/10. Their budget shows a forecast of some 4.17 million requests for CRB checks, up from 3.9 million in 2008, giving an income of £116.38 million.

The Government’s and the CRB’s shared view is that CRB checks are having a major impact on reducing the risk of harm to young and vulnerable people. However figures contained from local authorities show an alarming paradox. Children and young people subject to Child Protection Plans (CPP’s) in England have continued to rise year on year since 2005 with an overall increase of over 25% in the numbers coming under the protection of plans.

On the surface this suggests that far from increasing protection, the CRB measures have made no impact on the numbers of children and young people at risk. If anything, the entire bureaucracy has made the problem worse, in that offending behaviour has continued unabated, but is continuing away from the places where extensive controls have been put in place. Far from preventing abuse happening, the CRB structure seems instead to have moved abuse to less informal environments that remain outside of any firm controls.

The Criminal Records Bureau is costing almost £120million pounds a year to operate as an Agency.  Add to this any anticipated saving from a reduction in the number of abuse cases that has failed to materialise, along with the added costs of more intensive investigations by social work departments, police and other agencies owing to the difficulties of identifying new offending behaviour patterns and policing strategies then there is a case for the Government to review its whole policy approach to safeguarding.

There is no price that can be placed on the safety of a single child or other vulnerable person and any future debate on the Criminal Records Bureau should not focus on costs alone when there is evidence that it is failing to secure a reduction in the number of offences against the very people it was designed to protect.