To not want to disclose reasons for gap on CV?

[llaying]

I know this is supposed to be part of safer recruitment: I could have been in prison or under investigation for any sort of offences.

But my (enhanced) DBS would disclose this if I was. So genuinely, what’s the point of it?

In my experience on being trained in safer recruitment (of which the gaps is one part) the emphasis was completely on safeguarding.
However I’m sure all employers want to know about gaps for different reasons

It does strike me as a sort of box ticking exercise which has nothing to do with ensuring the forty something woman in front of you was actually raising her children for three years rather than under investigation for sex offences in Thailand!

Gaps being part of safer recruitment does not mean that the (overwhelming majority of) employers who ask about gaps are doing so because of safer recruitment (or that safer recruitment is even on their radar). Like I said, I’ve never heard it be tied to that.

It also doesn’t mean that even employers who practice safer recruitment sole reason for questioning gaps is because of safer recruitment. They also probably want to know for the same reason most employers do.

Yes it is, some services are regulated so have to demonstrate any gaps have been accounted for.

I recruit for a social care organisation. I'm not sure it ever catches people we wouldn't want to hire.
It does make good people nervous and actively discriminates against women, who are more likely to take time out for caring in their families.
Our HR department try to insist on 5 years of references but in practice roll over when told its impractical for many

I wouldn't want to hire anyone who wouldn't want to discuss CV gaps.

I would be particularly suspicious of anyone who didn't offer a reason, and would even prefer if they gave me something that's difficult to verify.

If it's a real reason, why not just be honest about it.

I think it’s an overreaction OP. There are many seemingly pointless things to do with recruitment, particularly sectors such as care where there’s a lot of box ticking to ensure they are doing their due diligence (such as requesting references from now defunct companies you worked for 20 years ago).
Just say you had caring duties or something inoffensive. The recruiter has a job to do and processes to follow and you either want the job or you don’t, so you follow the process or you choose not to.

Now if they asked for something like a full body photo for a care assistant job I’d see your point, but questioning something so banal as them wanting a full picture of your work history, or lack of, just makes you seem difficult and not someone they should hire. It also makes the gaps seem way more suspicious than they need to.

Yep I've never understood this. Nobody who was actually doing anything dodgy would admit it on a job application, and absolutely anyone can put a non-checkable reason for the gap on their cv, so what's the point? Mine says that I took time off to be a SAHM, which happens to be true. But I don't see how a potential employer would be able to verify that.

I think this is the thing - you end up over a bit of a barrel really. And in my specific case it’s because I will end up having to disclose personal things I don’t want to talk about with anybody, especially not strangers. But apart from that it’s largely because I’m not a fan of things that are in place to tick boxes and don’t actually do what they claim to do.

I only put the last 10 years on my CV, otherwise it would be about 4 pages long. It’s not been an issue for me so far, and I have an enhanced DBS in my current role.

@llayingthen I would probably suggest your not made for care/education industries that use ‘safer recruitment’ anyway- a lot of box ticking goes on to evidence for Ofsted/CQC

I had an 18 month gap after being made redundant - I was early 50s. I wasn’t looking for a job and basically had a bit of a break for a while. I simply put on my CV - career break/extended travel opportunity.

It is safeguarding because it's largely about honesty and trust. Obviously you are unlikely disclose if you were doing something dodgy / undesirable to an employer which wouldn't show up on a DBS. However, if you semed reluctant to discuss it and a bit cagey, or your story fell apart with a couple of follow up questions why should they trust you to tell the truth and keep children safe (if in a school for example). It's part of building a picture of a whole person to decide if you are safe to work with vulnerable people.

You don't have to go into detail at all.

Raising children.
Caring for family.
Illness.
I lived abroad & was fortunate enough to not need to work at the time.

"I'm glad you asked. There's a gap in my CV because it meant sense for me not to work for a specific time and I was fortunate enough not to have to work. I'm aware a gap may be a concern for an employer but please be assure that I am more than ready to get stuck in and am looking forward to returning to the workplace"

You don't have to give specifics or disclose anything private but refusing to answer whatsoever is a red flag no matter how you look at it.

If I’m hiring someone I’d want to know what a gap was about, not because I’ve ever suspected anyone was in prison, but because I want a sense of who this person is as part of deciding if I want to hire them or not.

I think this is pretty normal so I’d be brief but not too vague - looking after my mum with dementia and two preschoolers etc. They aren’t going to drill into it.

Bit late now - I’ve worked in education for twenty three years! 😅 And yes, there is a lot of box ticking, but box ticking for a useful purpose is one thing, box ticking for no point is another.

I think it’s also dangerous to say ‘oh well, they seemed honest and open when they talked about when they travelled to china in 2008.’ Being a trustworthy person and acting as a trustworthy person are not the same thing.

Why are you being so vague in an anonymous forum? There will be an acceptable way to word your gap without revealing lots of personal emotions. People have suggested wording.

I would have said in the grand scale of pointless box ticking I have come across in care this is along way down the list!
Yes of course you can’t rely on it alone and you can never prove someone is suitable to work with vulnerable people (only that they have never been caught) but you have to use anyway you can to try to get a feel for people and this is just another way in.
Plus as I said it saves time and money applying for a DBS for someone who wouldn’t be able to be employed because of convictions etc. A colleague had someone admit that a gap in their CV was due to a stay in prison for a serious offence that would have meant they would never have been employable. Candidate didn’t disclose until asked so without asking we wouldn’t have known until money and time had been spent on DBS and references etc.

I know you've said it's not the only reason you haven't applied. But if it was, you've saved wasting everyone's time by being weeded out by the existence of the question. If you were this cagey at interview you'd be highly unlikely to get the job. Yours and employers time wasted.

I was thinking this.

@TookTheBook because I’m not actually asking advice, it was intended as a discussion thread.

@KrisAkabusi i wouldn’t be cagey. But quite honestly I don’t want to get into a period of my life which wasn’t particularly happy, so another way of looking at it is that a school have lost a good potential candidate. Of course it doesn’t matter, I’m sure they’ll get someone just as good. But not wanting to talk about something doesn’t equate to cagey and poor candidate. Private and cagey aren’t the same things.

But safeguarding IS a reason for it! Employers need to know if there is anything untoward in your background. It's not the only reason but it is definitely a key reason.

You're being really odd. I can't imagine why anyone would object to this. Unless of course they have something to hide...!

@HoskinsChoice the point is that it’s unlikely someone trying to get a job to work with children or otherwise vulnerable people for nefarious purposes would be upfront and honest about any dubious action on their CV. Someone has rightly pointed out that it can lead to disclosures which mean DBS checks aren’t carried out at cost to the organisation, but since you have to answer whether you have any criminal convictions anyway I can’t see that being a reason.

I think the whole ‘ooh, you don’t want to talk about why you weren’t working for three months twelve years ago, you must have something to hide!’ sums up why I don’t like this. It’s both intrusive and pointless.

A DBS check shows what you were caught doing. It doesn’t show how you supported yourself. Which could have been illegal means without being caught. So yes, it is part of safer recruitment.

But you wouldn’t admit to that, would you …?

You wouldn’t say ‘March - June 2012; dismissed for gross misconduct, dealt class C drugs then decided to stop!’