Hit rate for Scottish Disclosures and PVG Scheme: FOI release

Thank you for your emails both dated 2 November 2018 requesting information. We have dealt with these as one freedom of information request and have provided the information from the last three full years.

Request 1

(a).  You asked if we could let you know what the overall hit rate for the Criminal Record (Basic), Criminal Record (Standard) and Criminal Record (Enhanced) was, defining ‘hit rate’ as the percentage of checks that come back with negative records, for example,  a criminal record has been found. You asked for the overall statistics and not only the checks that have been ordered/run by Verifile.

 (b).  You asked if we could  also provide you with a sample copy of any reports/certificates containing negative records.

Request 2

(a).  You asked if we could let you know what the overall hit rate for the PVG Scheme (Registration, Scotland) and PVG Scheme (Update, Scotland) was defining ‘hit rate’ as the  percentage of checks that come back with negative records, for example, a criminal record has been found preventing them from working with vulnerable groups. You asked for the overall statistics and not only the checks ordered/run by Verifile.

(b).  You asked if we could also provide you with a sample copy of any reports/certificates containing negative records.

On 5 November 2018  following a request for clarification on what you meant by ‘criminal records’ you advised that you meant ‘where individuals had been convicted of a criminal offence and this offence has not yet been spent’, therefore appearing on the certificate.

You also clarified in respect of request 2(a) that what you were looking for was two points of data:

1. From all the people who try to register with the PVG scheme, what is the percentage of those who are unsuitable to work with children and/or protected adults and to do 'regulated work' with these vulnerable groups?
2. From all the people who are already on the list (on the Update Service), what is the percentage of those who become unsuitable each year. I understand that this will slightly change each year, so we are happy with some average percentage over the last year or last three years, depending what data you have available.

To provide some context the  numbers in reponse table to your request 1a (attached) relate only to people who have been barred. The percentage of certificates which disclose criminal histories is much higher.

Our systems show when formal considerations for listing (barring) were initiated by conviction information, but the process of formally considering unsuitability to undertake regulated work allows the gathering of information from a number of different sources. It may be that the main reason for barring an individual came from additional information and was not solely the result of conviction information. 

Request 2 (b).

Please find sample, draft certificates attached.