DBS checks are essential. But they have never told the full story.
A candidate can pass an Enhanced DBS check with flying colours, and still have a documented history of professional misconduct, regulatory sanctions, or reputational concerns that pose a real risk to your school. That gap is exactly what adverse media checks are designed to close.
In 2026, adverse media checks, also known as internet and social media (ISM) checks, are firmly established as safer recruitment best practice. More schools, Multi-Academy Trusts, and independent schools are now building them into their standard vetting process. Ofsted inspectors are taking notice. And the schools that are not yet running them are increasingly exposed.
This guide explains everything you need to know: what an adverse media check actually involves, what it finds that a DBS cannot, who needs one, how to stay GDPR-compliant, and how to record the outcome properly on your Single Central Record.
What is an adverse media check for schools?
An adverse media check is a structured search of publicly available online information about a candidate or member of staff. Unlike a DBS check, which draws exclusively from the Police National Computer, an adverse media check scans a broad range of open-source data to build a picture of an individual's online reputation and public record.
In education, these checks are often referred to as ISM (Internet Social Media) checks. A thorough ISM check will typically draw from:
- National and regional news archives
- Court records and tribunal decisions
- Online publications, forums, and community platforms
- Social media profiles and public posts
- Financial misconduct databases, including county court judgements and bankruptcy records
The goal is not to catch people out. It is to give your school a wider, more accurate picture of a candidate's suitability before you place them in a position of trust with children.
Why DBS checks alone are no longer enough
DBS checks remain a statutory requirement and a cornerstone of safer recruitment. But their scope is limited. An Enhanced DBS with barred list information will tell you:
- Whether someone has a criminal record
- Whether relevant intelligence is held by local police forces
- Whether they appear on the Children's Barred List
It will not tell you about:
- Professional misconduct that did not result in criminal charges
- Regulatory sanctions from teaching or other professional bodies
- Negative media coverage relating to safeguarding concerns
- Allegations that were investigated but not prosecuted
- Financial misconduct, including fraud allegations
- Discriminatory or harmful behaviour that is documented online but not in the criminal record
These are real gaps, and they matter. Some of the most serious safeguarding failures in UK schools in recent years have involved individuals who passed a DBS check without issue. A layered vetting approach that includes adverse media screening reduces the risk that someone with a documented history of harmful behaviour slips through.
What KCSIE 2025 says about online checks
Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) guidance is clear on online searches. Schools should consider conducting an online search as part of due diligence on shortlisted candidates. While this is currently framed as should rather than must, the direction of travel is unambiguous, and Ofsted inspectors are increasingly asking schools to evidence the quality of their safer recruitment process, not just whether boxes have been ticked.
KCSIE also requires that shortlisted candidates are informed that online searches may be carried out as part of the recruitment process. This is not optional. It must be included in your recruitment privacy notice and communicated explicitly at shortlisting stage.
Key point: KCSIE says schools 'should consider' online searches. In practice, being unable to demonstrate that you considered them, and have a process for doing so, is increasingly likely to attract questions during inspection.
Who should be subject to an adverse media check?
Best practice is to apply adverse media screening consistently to all individuals undertaking regulated activity with children. This includes:
- All teaching staff, including supply and peripatetic teachers
- Teaching assistants and learning support staff
- School governors and trustees
- Volunteers working regularly with pupils
- Contractors with unsupervised access to children
- Senior leadership team members
Consistency is important for both safeguarding and legal reasons. Under the Equality Act 2010, applying checks selectively to some candidates and not others could expose your school to claims of discriminatory treatment. A structured, policy-driven approach protects both pupils and the school.
Should adverse media checks be repeated for existing staff?
Some schools and MATs are now extending adverse media screening beyond recruitment to conduct periodic checks on existing staff, particularly those in senior or sensitive roles. This is not yet a statutory requirement, but it reflects an emerging best practice that demonstrates a proactive, rather than reactive, safeguarding culture.
If you choose to conduct periodic checks on existing staff, you should:
- Include this clearly in your safeguarding and data protection policies
- Obtain consent from staff as part of their employment terms
- Apply checks consistently and document your rationale
- Ensure the process is proportionate to the individual's role and level of access to children
Staying GDPR-compliant when running adverse media checks
Online reputation screening must be conducted lawfully under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. There are four key principles to get right:
1. Transparency and consent
Candidates must be told that online searches may be carried out. This should be included in your recruitment privacy notice and stated explicitly at shortlisting. For existing staff, you will need a clear policy basis and, in most cases, explicit consent.
2. Data minimisation
Only information that is relevant to the individual's suitability for the role should be retained. If a search surfaces information that has no bearing on their role with children, for example, an old dispute unrelated to professional conduct, that information should not be retained.
3. Consistency and fairness
Checks must be applied consistently across candidates for the same role. Selective application creates both safeguarding gaps and legal risk.
4. Secure handling and audit trail
Results should be reviewed by an appropriate person, a decision should be documented, and the outcome, including who reviewed it and when, should be recorded. Results themselves are not stored in the SCR; only the date of the check and the evidence of review.
How to record an adverse media check on your SCR
This is one of the most common points of confusion. The results of an adverse media check are not stored centrally in your SCR, they are sent to the employer for review. What your SCR should record is:
- The date the check was ordered
- Who reviewed the results (Evidenced By field)
- The date the results were reviewed (Date Evidenced field)
This creates a clear, auditable record that confirms vetting was ordered, completed, and properly reviewed, without storing sensitive personal data centrally.
For schools using School SCR, these fields are built into the platform. You can log the date of the check and mark it as reviewed with a single update, keeping your SCR inspection-ready at all times.
What to do if the check finds something concerning
Not every adverse finding requires the same response. If something concerning surfaces in an adverse media check, the steps below reflect best practice:
- Do not automatically withdraw the application. Consider the information in context first.
- Give the candidate an opportunity to respond. If you proceed to interview, allow them to address the findings.
- Consider relevance and recency. A ten-year-old news article about an unrelated matter is very different from a recent safeguarding allegation.
- Consult your HR provider, legal adviser, or local authority if you are unsure how to proceed.
- Document your decision clearly, what was found, what was considered, and what action was taken.
- Complete your SCR. Update the Evidenced By and Date Evidenced fields to reflect that results have been reviewed and a decision made.
Why manual Google searches are not enough
Some schools attempt to run their own online searches as an alternative to a structured adverse media check. The problem with this approach is that it is inconsistent, undocumented, and almost impossible to defend at inspection.
A manual search by one person on a given day will surface different results to a search by another person on a different day. There is no standardised scope, no evidence trail, and no way to demonstrate that the search was thorough and fair. If challenged by an inspector, a candidate, or a regulator, 'we Googled them' does not provide the level of assurance that a structured, documented process does.
A purpose-built adverse media check provides a consistent scope, a clear record of what was searched, and a reportable outcome, all of which contribute to a defensible, inspection-ready safeguarding process.
Common questions about adverse media checks for schools
Are adverse media checks a legal requirement?
Not currently, but KCSIE guidance says schools should consider them, and Ofsted inspectors are increasingly asking schools to demonstrate the quality of their safer recruitment process. The gap between 'should consider' and 'must do' is narrowing.
Do they replace DBS checks?
No. DBS checks remain a statutory requirement and must be completed for all individuals in regulated activity. Adverse media checks are a complementary layer of vetting that covers ground a DBS cannot. You need both.
How long do results take?
Turnaround times vary by provider. Many return results within 24 to 48 hours, making them practical to include within a standard recruitment timeline without slowing the process down.
Do we need to tell candidates?
Yes. KCSIE is explicit on this point. Shortlisted candidates must be informed that online searches may be conducted as part of the due diligence process.
What if the candidate disputes the findings?
Give them an opportunity to respond and provide context. Document the conversation and your decision. If you are unsure how to proceed, take advice from your HR provider or legal counsel.
Building adverse media checks into your safer recruitment process
The schools that handle this well do not treat adverse media checks as an afterthought. They build them into their safer recruitment policy, communicate the process clearly to candidates, and use a structured system that creates an auditable record.
Practically, that means:
- Adding a reference to adverse media screening in your recruitment privacy notice
- Informing shortlisted candidates that online searches will be conducted
- Using a consistent, structured check process rather than ad hoc searching
- Logging the date, reviewer, and outcome in your SCR
- Reviewing your approach annually as KCSIE guidance evolves
School SCR makes this straightforward. The platform includes dedicated fields for recording adverse media and check dates, review status, and evidence, keeping everything in one place and your SCR inspection-ready.
Ready to strengthen your safer recruitment process? Book a free demo of School SCR to see how we help schools manage adverse media checks alongside every other vetting requirement in one place.
