What’s New with DBS Checking; involving children, from September 2026

… and What Safeguarding Gaps Remain?

From 1st September 2026, important changes to DBS checking and regulated activity involving children come into force in England.

The changes are intended to strengthen safeguarding, particularly by closing a gap that previously meant some volunteers working closely and frequently with children could fall outside the definition of regulated activity simply because they were supervised by another person.

That is a significant change. However, it is important to understand exactly what the new law does, and what it does not do. The changes do not mean that every adult who comes into contact with children will now automatically have a DBS check. There remain important thresholds, exceptions and questions about how the wider safeguarding system operates.

For schools, colleges, childcare providers, volunteers and parents, the important question is therefore not simply: “Has the DBS law changed?”

It is: “What does the change mean for who can work with children, what checks are required, and where do safeguarding gaps remain?”

What is changing from 1st September 2026?

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 removes the previous supervision exemption from the definition of regulated activity involving children. The change follows recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Previously, some volunteers undertaking activities such as teaching, training, instructing, caring for or supervising children could fall outside regulated activity if they were appropriately supervised by someone who was themselves in regulated activity. From 1st September 2026, that supervision exemption is removed.

The Government’s guidance states that volunteers engaging in regulated activity will therefore require an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred-list information.

This primarily affects volunteers. The Government makes clear that paid staff who have contact with children are already in regulated activity where the relevant conditions are met, so this particular change does not create a new requirement for all paid school staff.

Why is this a positive safeguarding change?

✅ The supervision exemption is being removed

Previously, supervision could mean that a volunteer carrying out certain activities with children did not fall within regulated activity. That created a safeguarding gap. From September, where the relevant activity and frequency conditions are met, being supervised will no longer remove the activity from the regulated-activity framework. The Government says the change means schools and other employers can establish whether people working or volunteering closely and frequently with children are on the Children’s Barred List, regardless of whether they are working under supervision.

✅ The legal responsibility sits with the organisation

Schools, colleges and other organisations responsible for children must establish whether people undertaking regulated activity are barred from working with children. For volunteers who now fall within regulated activity, the organisation should obtain an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred-list information. This means that organisations cannot simply rely on the fact that a volunteer is supervised by a member of staff. The question becomes whether the person is undertaking regulated activity and, if so, whether the appropriate checks have been completed.

✅ It is an offence for a barred person to undertake regulated activity

The safeguarding framework has an important legal protection at its centre. A person who is barred from regulated activity must not undertake regulated activity with children. It is also an offence for someone to knowingly permit a barred person to engage in regulated activity. The Government has specifically highlighted this in its guidance accompanying the September change. This makes the Children’s Barred List more than an administrative database. It is a legal safeguarding mechanism.

✅ There is a legal duty to refer relevant cases to DBS

Safeguarding does not stop once someone has passed a DBS check. Where the statutory conditions are met, organisations have a legal duty to refer relevant individuals to DBS. This can arise where a person has been removed from regulated activity because they have harmed, or may pose a risk of harm to, a child or vulnerable adult. The purpose is to allow DBS to consider whether the individual should be barred from regulated activity in the future. That is an important part of the safeguarding system because it allows information arising during employment or volunteering to feed back into the barring process.

What the change does NOT mean

It is important not to overstate the reform. The new law does not introduce a universal DBS-checking requirement for every adult who comes into contact with children.

The regulated-activity framework remains. That means there are still circumstances in which an adult may have contact with children without being required to undergo an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred-list information.

Remaining safeguarding gaps

❌ DBS checks are still not universally compulsory

The September change brings more volunteers into regulated activity. It does not mean that every adult who enters a school, attends a school event, helps occasionally or has some contact with children must automatically have an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred-list information. The Government specifically states that occasional parents or carers helping out will not necessarily require such a check.

Schools therefore still have to determine:

• what the person is doing;
• how often they are doing it;
• whether the activity is regulated activity;
• whether the period condition is met;
• and what level of DBS check is appropriate.

❌ The frequency threshold remains

For specified activities involving children, the period condition remains relevant.

The Government guidance states that the activity must be carried out:

• on more than 3 days in a 30-day period; or
• overnight between 2am and 6am.

The removal of the supervision exemption does not remove these frequency conditions. This creates an important boundary. A person undertaking an activity frequently enough to meet the threshold may fall within regulated activity. Someone undertaking similar activity on a genuinely occasional basis may not.

That means schools need to look at the actual pattern of activity, rather than simply asking whether somebody is called a “volunteer”. There is also a potential safeguarding concern where activity is structured around the threshold. The law should not be interpreted as permitting organisations or individuals to deliberately arrange children’s activities in a way designed to avoid the relevant checking requirements.

The question should always be: What safeguarding risk does the person’s actual role and contact with children create?

❌ Occasional volunteers remain outside the highest level of checking

The Government gives examples of parents and carers who help occasionally. For example, an occasional volunteer helping with a school activity may not require an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred-list information where the regulated-activity conditions are not met. This is an important distinction for parents.

“No enhanced barred-list check required” does not mean “no safeguarding controls are required.” Schools should still have appropriate safeguarding arrangements for visitors, volunteers and people participating in school activities.

❌ DBS is only one part of safer recruitment

A DBS certificate is not a declaration that somebody is “safe”. It is a criminal-record and barring check.

It does not replace:

• identity verification;
• references;
• employment-history checks;
• professional-status checks;
• prohibition checks where applicable;
• safeguarding training;
• appropriate supervision;
• allegations procedures;
• or ongoing safeguarding oversight.

Schools therefore need a wider safer-recruitment system around DBS.

What about identity changes?

There is another issue which deserves attention, although it is important not to confuse it with the removal of the supervision exemption. The DBS has a confidential process for transgender applicants who do not wish to reveal details of their previous identity to the person requesting the DBS check.

The DBS guidance says that applicants using the transgender route can declare previous names and sexes to DBS without including them on the application form.

The DBS’s employer guidance confirms that the confidential process is designed for transgender applicants who do not wish to reveal their previous identity to the person who asked them to complete the DBS application. The DBS Update Service guidance also confirms that, where the sensitive applications route has been used, a person’s sex and any previous ‘identity’ will not be shown to others through the Update Service.

Changing identity does not make a criminal record disappear from DBS. The purpose of the confidential route is that the relevant previous identity information can be provided to DBS confidentially so that the DBS process can take it into account.

The safeguarding question is different:

There is a distinction between information DBS holds and searches, and information the recruiting organisation is able to see.

That distinction can matter where an organisation has information under a previous identity and needs to establish that it relates to the same individual.

The DBS itself recognises the importance of accurate identity information when conducting checks. Its identity-checking guidance states that the transgender application route allows applicants to declare previous names and ‘identities’ without including them on the application form.

The issue is whether any system of identity change can operate without creating a risk that relevant safeguarding information becomes disconnected from the individual to whom it relates.

The safeguarding principle should therefore be:

A change of identity must never result in relevant safeguarding information being lost, overlooked or disconnected from the person it concerns.

That is a legitimate question about the design of the system.

What about registered sex offenders changing their names?

There is a separate and particularly important development concerning registered sex offenders. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduces stronger notification requirements concerning changes of name by registered sex offenders. The Government explains that the reforms strengthen police management of registered sex offenders, including restrictions relating to name changes where there is a risk of sexual harm.

The legislation inserts new provisions into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 concerning notification of name changes. The Government’s explanatory material says the reforms are intended to strengthen the existing requirements, including requiring registered sex offenders to notify police in advance of an intended name change in the circumstances covered by the new provisions.

This is an important development because safeguarding depends upon police, DBS and other relevant authorities being able to connect a person’s current identity with their history and restrictions.

However, the provisions have their own commencement arrangements. Therefore, organisations should not assume that every element of the new registered-sex-offender regime is operational simply because the Crime and Policing Act has received Royal Assent.

The implementation timetable needs to be checked against the relevant commencement regulations and Government guidance.

No extra DBS capacity?

There is also a practical question about capacity. The September changes potentially bring additional volunteers into the enhanced DBS checking system.

The Government says volunteer DBS checks are free of charge and explains how schools can deal with volunteers who are now within regulated activity. It also encourages schools using the same volunteers to work together where appropriate.

Organisations should consider the practical implications of increased checking requirements and should not assume that the existence of a new legal requirement automatically guarantees immediate or frictionless processing. Schools need to plan accordingly.

What should schools do from September?

Schools and colleges should review their volunteer and visitor arrangements before the changes come into force.

They should establish:

• Who is undertaking regulated activity?

Identify volunteers who teach, train, instruct, care for or supervise children and determine whether the relevant frequency or overnight conditions are met.

• Who now requires an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred-list information?

Where the person is undertaking regulated activity, the organisation must ensure that the appropriate barred-list protection is in place.

• Who remains outside regulated activity?

Occasional volunteers may remain outside the enhanced barred-list checking requirement. That does not mean that no safeguarding controls are needed.

• What happens when a safeguarding concern arises?

Schools need to know when they must remove someone from activity, investigate concerns, and make a referral to DBS.

• Are the school’s recruitment records robust?

DBS should sit alongside references, employment history, identity checks and other safer-recruitment processes.

What should parents ask?

Parents should not assume that every adult who has contact with their children is now fully DBS checked. The September changes are significant, but they are not a universal DBS requirement.

Parents can reasonably ask their child’s school:

“How are you implementing the changes to regulated activity and DBS checking from 1 September 2026?”

They can also ask:

• Which volunteers will now require enhanced DBS checks with children’s barred-list information?
• How does the school determine whether someone is undertaking regulated activity?
• How are occasional volunteers dealt with?
• What checks are carried out on adults who do not fall within regulated activity?
• How does the school manage volunteers who work across more than one setting?
• What is the school’s procedure when a safeguarding concern arises about a volunteer?
• When would the school make a referral to DBS?

These are reasonable safeguarding questions. They are not accusations against individual volunteers.

A significant improvement; but not a complete safeguarding solution

The removal of the supervision exemption is a positive safeguarding development. It closes a genuine gap in the previous system and brings more volunteers undertaking regulated activity with children within the enhanced DBS and Children’s Barred List framework.

The Government itself describes the reform as enabling schools and other employers to establish whether people working or volunteering closely and frequently with children are on the Children’s Barred List, regardless of whether they are supervised.

But the change should not be oversold.

There is still:

• No universal DBS check for every adult who comes into contact with children.
• A frequency threshold remains.
• Occasional volunteers can remain outside the highest level of barred-list checking.
• DBS remains only one component of safer recruitment.
• Questions remain about the interaction between identity changes, confidential DBS applications and the ability of organisations to connect information held under different identities.
• The new registered-sex-offender name-change provisions also require careful attention to their implementation and commencement.

The right response is therefore neither complacency nor panic.

It is proper scrutiny of how the system actually operates in practice.

Parents and schools: ask the question

From September, parents should not simply be told: “The DBS rules have changed.”

They should be able to ask:

“What has our school actually changed to keep children safer?”

Schools should be able to explain:

• who is now within regulated activity;
• who requires an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred-list information;
• how occasional volunteers are managed;
• how safeguarding concerns are handled;
• and how the school ensures that information relevant to safeguarding remains connected to the correct individual.

A stronger law is only as effective as the systems used to implement it.

Protecting children requires both robust legislation and robust practice.

---

References and Sources

The following sources were used to verify the legal, regulatory and safeguarding information in this article. Primary legislation and official Government/DBS sources are prioritised.

---

Source note

This article is based primarily on primary legislation, GOV.UK, Department for Education guidance and Disclosure and Barring Service guidance.

Where the article identifies a “gap” or raises a safeguarding concern, this refers to a policy or operational issue arising from the structure of the current system.

The central safeguarding principle is that organisations should be able to identify who is undertaking regulated activity, establish what checks are legally required, act on safeguarding concerns, and ensure that relevant safeguarding information remains correctly connected to the individual concerned.

Share this: