DBS checks cost less. Could they deliver more?

The reduction in DBS fees is good news. Schools, care providers and charities have enough pressure on their budgets. A saving on a check they need to carry out is worth having.

From 5 October 2026, an Enhanced DBS check costs £41, down from £49.50. Basic and Standard checks now cost £20, and the annual Update Service subscription has fallen from £16 to £15. DBS says the reductions do not affect the rigour of its checks. Any administration charge from an intermediary should be shown separately.

I would like this to open up a wider discussion.

Government has been able to bring the cost down. What can it now do, alongside employers and the screening sector, to improve the value of vetting?

For someone making a recruitment decision, the concern is practical. What do I know about this person? What does the check establish? Are there relevant questions it cannot answer, and how do I deal with those fairly?

The fee announcement does not expand what DBS checks cover. I am arguing that improving the decisions they support should be the next ambition.

What does a DBS check show?

The answer depends on the level of check and the role’s eligibility.

• Basic: unspent convictions and conditional cautions.
• Standard: spent and unspent convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer, subject to filtering rules.
• Enhanced: the Standard information, plus relevant information held by local police that ought to be disclosed.
• Enhanced with Barred List checks: the Enhanced information, plus a check of the Children’s Barred List, Adults’ Barred List or both, where the role is eligible.

Employers must establish which level they are legally entitled to request. Greater responsibility does not automatically create entitlement to a higher-level check.

An Enhanced DBS check can include relevant non-conviction police information. Describing it simply as a list of convictions understates its value. Equally, it is not a complete assessment of someone’s present conduct, judgement or suitability for every responsibility they might later hold.

For the fuller comparison, see DBS checks explained: what each level shows.

What would actually help an employer?

Consider a school appointing someone who will work independently with children. The appropriate DBS check has been completed. A separate online search brings up concerning material under the same name.

The school now has work to do. Is it the same person? Is the material genuine? When was it published, what is the context, and does it have any bearing on the role? What does the applicant say about it?

A folder of screenshots leaves those questions with the person making the appointment. Someone still has to investigate them.

For me, this is where additional screening has to earn its place. It should help establish what happened, who was involved and why it matters. If the evidence is weak or the identity uncertain, the report should say so plainly. An allegation must remain an allegation.

The same discipline applies when someone is already employed. Their responsibilities may have changed since recruitment. A current certificate does not tell you whether their supervision, permissions or training still fit the job.

Government should be part of this discussion. Which improvements belong within DBS? Where should complementary checks sit? How do we set a useful standard for evidence, protect privacy and give people a fair opportunity to challenge mistakes?

I am talking about improving the wider process. The statutory Enhanced DBS check has its own defined scope and eligibility. Collecting more information without working out how it should be used would create another problem for employers to manage.

Does an Enhanced DBS check show internet history or social media?

A DBS check does not provide an employer with someone’s private browsing history. It is not a general search of their social media accounts or digital footprint.

There is an important qualification. If online conduct has resulted in information held by the police, relevant information may be disclosed through an Enhanced check where the disclosure conditions are met. The distinction is between disclosing eligible police information and carrying out a separate online assessment.

Employers need to be clear about that boundary before deciding what else to check. Any additional search needs a defined purpose, a lawful basis and a scope that is proportionate to the role.

What the Update Service illustrates

The DBS Update Service employer guide provides a useful example of how information and responsibility need to work together.

DBS does not notify employers automatically when a certificate’s status changes. Someone must carry out status checks, with the individual’s consent and the necessary legal entitlement. The service covers eligible Standard and Enhanced certificates, not Basic checks. Employers must meet the guide’s identity, original-certificate, workforce and check-level requirements.

The guide recommends a risk-based schedule alongside wider safer recruitment and employment practices. It prescribes no single frequency for every role. An employer still needs to decide who checks, when, and who follows up.

If a certificate is no longer current, a new DBS check is needed to see the updated information. The status result does not explain the change; DBS also recommends discussing it with the individual.

An unchanged result cannot resolve every concern either. An employee may have gained responsibility for contractors, sensitive areas or more independent work with vulnerable people. Their record could be unchanged while the responsibilities need fresh consideration.

The value comes from understanding what the information establishes and acting on the questions that remain. Sometimes the appropriate response will be better supervision, different access or additional training, rather than another check.

Where Digital Risk Screening checks fit

Digital Risk Screening (DRS) checks can help answer some of the questions a DBS certificate leaves open. Their usefulness depends on the quality of the research and the judgement applied to it.

At Safehire, we combine AI-assisted research with trained human analyst review of potential digital-risk associations. The analyst needs to examine attribution and context, and explain what a finding does and does not establish. An association alone does not prove misconduct.

Employers also need to hear the individual’s explanation where appropriate and remain responsible for the decision. A report cannot make that responsibility disappear.

Using digital checks during employment requires a lawful basis, appropriate transparency and clear limits. Neither the fee saving nor the availability of technology justifies unrestricted monitoring of staff.

What should happen next?

I would like government, employers and screening providers to take one real recruitment decision and work through it. What did the DBS check establish? What remained unanswered? Would additional evidence have helped, and could it have been obtained and assessed fairly?

Providers should be able to explain the value of the extra work they are asking an employer to pay for. Government should be asking how the service and the standards around it can develop. Employers need to be honest about the limits of the checks they rely on.

The test is whether the person making the appointment can explain their decision with better evidence and fewer assumptions. Lower fees are welcome. Helping that person make a sound decision is worth pursuing just as seriously.

‍