Does theDBS Sensitve Application Route for trans applicants undermines the value of a DBS check and pose a safeguarding issue

*MrsOvertonsWindow *

Basically keeping your name secret is the priority rather than undertaking our role which is to prioritise the safety of children through rigorous checks for every adult. Doesn't generate much confidence in who the DBS is really concerned about does it?

The Civil Service must be full of scripts like this, straight out of "Yes, Minister" or Alan B'Stard's den in "The New Statesman" - played for stomach-churning dark humour, not belly-laughs:

"We need a system to make sure that Soham could never happen again. We failed Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and we must not fail any more children. What do you think of this? First Draft."

"Looks good so far - but what if the next Ian Huntley is a member of the vulnerable oppressed minority of men who identify as a women? This system would reveal Ms Huntley's 'dead name' and the employer would know that Ian is a man!!"

"OMG! You are so right! We need a special "get out" clause and a special system for those with such delicate sensibilities!"

"You are such an ally! We could call it the "Sensitive Applications" route, what do you think?"

"Oh anything! Just don't call it a 'Loophole' whatever you do!"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders

Yes, I’ve always thought that last paragraph looks like subtle advice to keep quiet about previous names. Wonder who phrased it.

Hmmm. That last para: 'You should be aware that if you have any convictions in your previous name/gender, they may show on your DBS check. If you do have a conviction which may reveal your previous name/ gender, it would be useful if you told us as soon as possible. You may be able to avoid previous identity details being disclosed, so advising us sooner rather than later will help speed up the process".

Basically keeping your name secret is the priority rather than undertaking our role which is to prioritise the safety of children through rigorous checks for every adult. Doesn't generate much confidence in who the DBS is really concerned about does it?

A GRC is not required in order to use the DBS "Sensitive Application Route".

DBS CHECKS AND IDENTITY VERIFICATION: SAFEGUARDING LOOPHOLES CREATED BY CHANGES OF IDENTITY
kpssinfo.org | September 2022

Page 19

The DBS Sensitive Applications Route

The Sensitive Applications Route is a confidential checking service for transgender individuals who are the subject of a DBS check. It is available to those both with and without a gender recognition certificate and for all levels of check. The purpose is to provide transgender applicants with the choice not to have “any gender or name information disclosed on their DBS certificate that could reveal their previous gender identity” to a potential employer or the organisation that requires the DBS check. In this way, an applicant’s previous names may be checked without the applicant having to reveal these during the application process or displayed on the certificate issued.

Transgender individuals are advised to contact the Sensitive Applications team prior to their application being made. The same DBS check online application form is completed. We contacted the Sensitive Applications team to determine the process for transgender applicants with and without a gender recognition certificate. We received the following information: 58

If an applicant doesn’t want their previous gender identity disclosed to their employer, and/or on their DBS certificate, and has the identity documents required by the employer to support this their now name, the Sensitive Applications team will set up a case file. The team require the information listed below to set up the case file before the DBS application is submitted. Once they have this information the applicant is exempt from answering the question, “Have you been known by any other name?” on the application form. The application should be completed using the now title, now name and now gender.

The information needed from the applicant to set up a case file is:

• full now name
• all previous name(s) including the dates they were used from and to, to allow us to begin the process, prior to receiving the applicant’s change of name deed
• gender as assigned at birth
• now gender: please note, the applicant must be living and using this now gender, if not then please contact the Sensitive Applications team for advice
• current full address including postcode
• date of birth
• contact telephone number/s
• whether the application is for a Basic, Standard or Enhanced DBS check
• job role applied for
• If you already have the DBS Application reference number beginning with an ‘E’ ‘F’ or ‘00’

In addition, if the applicant has a Change of Name deed the Sensitive Applications team require a scanned copy of this in PDF format or a photograph attachment.... If the applicant doesn’t have a Change of Name deed, we can accept a self-declaration instead, i.e. the personal details provided as above including a statement declaring the personal information supplied is true. Please note, Gender Recognition Certificates are not required by DBS.

If an applicant doesn’t have enough of the identity documents required by employers to support a DBS application, they must let the Sensitive Applications team know who will advise of any alternative options available.

If an applicant doesn’t have enough of the identity documents required by employers to support a DBS application, they must let the Sensitive Applications team know who will advise of any alternative options available.

It’s the applicant’s responsibility to let the Sensitive Applications team know each time they apply fora DBS check. They should contact us before the application form is submitted. The Sensitive Applications team will set up a case file for every new application and this allows us to search for each specific application, monitor that application throughout its checks and make sure that no previous gender names are disclosed on the completed DBS certificate.

Please contact the Sensitive Applications team before submitting an application for a DBS check if you want to use the Sensitive Application route to ensure previous names are not disclosed.

You should be aware that if you have any convictions in your previous name/gender, they may show on your DBS check. If you do have a conviction which may reveal your previous name/ gender, it would be useful if you told us as soon as possible. You may be able to avoid previous identity details being disclosed, so advising us sooner rather than later will help speed up the process.

58 Email correspondence received 27 June 2022

kpssinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DBS-Checks-and-Identity-Verification.pdf

The number of people using the sensitive application route
significantly exceeds the number of GRC holders

The DBS protects the GRC holders privacy by allowing anyone to hide their sex and previous names. There's nothing on the form to indicate that previous names and real sex is hidden because of GRC or just because.

I agree its ridiculous to have trans days of awareness, people representing trans in work related groups and then not being able to mention they have a GRC. Its not the fact that they are trans that is private, its the fact that they have a GRC. But at the same time, having a grc is supposed to offer more inclusion into opposite sex spaces and opportunities?

It's all "Trans Pride" these days and attempts at "Stealth trans" do not seem to be much of a thing. So policies and procedures enabling "privacy" by hiding one's previous name seem anachronistic.

If the sole purpose of hiding one's previous name is to hide the fact that one is "trans": how about if someone who has used their "trans" status to go the "Confidential" DBS route to hide their previous name(s) and (ahem!) "go stealth" should have to forfeit the right to hide their previous name(s) if their public social media or IRL activities broadcast the fact that they are "trans"?

If this came to light then, for example, the Employer would be able to report to the DBS with evidence. The DBS would then be required to disclose that person's pervious name(s) to the Employer and they would be banned from using the Confidential DBS service in future.

Otherwise, the current system seems to allow some people to have their cake and eat it.

The norm seems to be that people who have no issue about advertising the fact that they have had a previous name are nevertheless permitted to conceal what that name actually was.

I might be wrong but DBS checks seem to be the only official mechanism whereby a previous name or names might be automatically disclosed to a potential employer, ie. for anyone who has NOT used the "Confidential" DBS service?

Happy to be corrected on that.

Full knowledge of a previous name or names can help potential employers screen applicants in other ways, eg. a currently or previously registered Health Care Professional who does not have a criminal conviction but who has a history of being investigated by their statutory body would have that history hidden by a secret name change.

I do not believe that anyone should have the right to conceal previous names from a potential employer.

Also, what might have been persuasive arguments about a need for "privacy" in 2004 are completely obsolete in 2024.

Wow. So we cannot suggest that 'trans' people should be able to see the gaping hole in this. Genuinely wow.

‘ I'm wondering if there is a false perception that transwomen in general "pass" while actually it's just people generally being polite. ‘

Polite….or scared of their employer, the owner of the facility ( gym, pool changing room, clothes store) or very occasionally of course, the person themselves.

It's a matter of safety for women to not give out any signal that they have clocked a transwoman in their spaces. You may think that women don't realise that you aren't a woman but the reality is women know that males in their spaces are a threat and will do everything they can to avoid you kicking off. Pretending that they think you are a woman is absolutely part of that defence mechanism.

As transwomen have attacked women and girls in supposedly female only places including public toilets, our perception of you as dangerous is proven to be real and therefore women will continue to pretend in your presence

The idea that men pass as women, are supported by the state to lie on dbs forms, then can work in areas supporting children and vulnerable adults when everyone believes they are women is a massive safeguarding fail.

It might be in tra interests not to advertise that they are doing this.

My life is honestly made easier by people continuing to believe this so thankyou I suppose.

Not one single transwoman is 'hidden'. They all stand out. Not one 100% passes. Not one single one. There is absolutely no such thing as a 'hidden' transwoman. In fact, its an oxymoron.

Your experiences are not universal and confirmation bias plays a significant part here since, by definition, those of us who remain hidden won't be included within your model of the world.

I've never claimed this. What point are you trying to make here?

"Do you understand the significance of being outed in a transphobic workplace?"

I would really like to understand the likelihood of this happening as I have always been able to deduct a transwoman within 2 minutes of meeting them based on visual appearance, voice, movement pattern etc. Of course that does not change my behaviour to the person in question. I'm wondering if there is a false perception that transwomen in general "pass" while actually it's just people generally being polite.

Considering that trans is the most powerful, most privileged and most protected sacred caste where 99% of workplaces bend over backwards to prioritise them at the expense of females, that's rich. Its gaslighting and DARVO to say they're under threat. There is no single 'minority' group in history more powerful than trans. Not even gay people or heterosexual men have anywhere near the level of power trans particularly transwomen do. They are at the top of the totem pole.

Males - the oppressor and predatorial sex class - wearing a dress are not a 'vulnerable minority', that is deeply offensive and taking the piss. They are 50% of the population. Females, the oppressed and prey sex class, are the only vulnerable ones here.

The process shouldn't need to be adjusted. DBS must focus on facts like sex and past history. Trans people still retain their birth sex their whole lives as does everyone, they just choose to add a label called gender to themselves. From an evidenced-based perspective all people should complete the form with the same transparency.

More importantly, it’s really clear from your posts that you do not understand safeguarding. Nobody has a right to be treated in a special or deferential way if they’re seeking to work with vulnerable adults or children.

This.

Nobody working with children and vulnerable adults should have the attitude that they themselves are the most vulnerable and need to be protected at the expense of safeguarding.

I suspect that we are seeing the same thing from opposite ends. You see the need for a trans person to have their trans history protected. I see the need for a prospective employer to be able to ensure the safety of the vulnerable people that they are responsible for.

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · Today 20:26

I couldn't agree more. Anyone claiming to be lovely and in need of special consideration in these cases is likely to be the exact opposite.

How do you know people are “non-trans”?

More importantly, it’s really clear from your posts that you do not understand safeguarding. Nobody has a right to be treated in a special or deferential way if they’re seeking to work with vulnerable adults or children.

Anyone insisting they’re a special case is, in fact, a red flag.

No.
Safeguarding risks identified by KPSS include:

"where legal gender or self-declared gender identity is displayed instead of sex registered at birth, there is a particular safeguarding risk when the DBS check has been requested for the purposes of a role specified in accordance with the provisions in Schedule 9 Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 to provide single-sex services. As a general principle, when working with children or vulnerable adults, there will always be sex-based safeguarding considerations even if Schedule 9 is not formally invoked".

and

"an individual who is eligible to use the Sensitive Applications Route, a service specifically intended to protect the privacy of transgender applicants, can request that their DBS certificate does not show their previous identities. Whilst the DBS considers that the individual privacy rights of those who change their gender outweigh some of the requirements for safeguarding, this level of privacy is not granted to any other group. No other individual is entitled to have their previous names hidden in this way. By enabling those who have changed their gender to keep their previous identities secret from those responsible for safeguarding, the DBS has created a loophole that is ripe for exploitation. "

See:
https://kpssinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DBS-Checks-and-Identity-Verification.pdf

All this has happened because of self interested lobbying by trans groups a la Denton's report - positioning themselves as the most vulnerable and requiring special treatment. In fact, it's children who have always been the most vulnerable group and it defies belief that any of our institutions / regulatory bodies have prioritised the demands of these groups over the safety of children.

No exceptions when safeguarding for any adults.