WeeklySA_AdminREGISTER: Legal expert warns that criminal-record checks alone are insufficient as education departments face a March 2027 deadline to screen employees against the child protection register…
By Lehlohonolo Lehana
Schools must treat staff vetting as a frontline measure to protect children rather than an administrative exercise, says Marissa van der Merwe, legal counsel at TPN Credit Bureau.
Her warning follows a court-backed settlement requiring the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and provincial education departments to complete checks on their existing employees against the National Child Protection Register (NCPR) by March 31 2027.
The agreement, secured through litigation brought by the Teddy Bear Foundation, represented by SECTION27, also requires quarterly progress reports and the integration of register checks into recruitment processes. People listed in Part B of the register may not be employed or retained in roles involving contact with children.
Van der Merwe said the settlement, while directed at public education authorities, highlighted responsibilities extending across the school sector.
“Staff vetting is far more than an administrative formality. It is a fundamental component of child safeguarding and an important part of a school’s broader governance and compliance responsibilities,” she said.
Screening flags
According to Van der Merwe, criminal-screening activity through TPN’s systems increased by 27% between 2025 and 2026.
Of the checks conducted for TPN-affiliated schools in 2026, 3.33% returned what the bureau classifies as a possible illicit-activity finding, down from 4.01% in 2025 and 3.81% in 2024.
The figures relate to checks conducted through TPN’s systems and should not be read as the proportion of South African school employees with criminal convictions. Flagged findings may include matters awaiting trial and require further assessment.
Van der Merwe said the overwhelming majority of checks returned no adverse findings, but screening continued to identify potential concerns before individuals were granted access to learners.
“The purpose of vetting is not to assume that risk exists across the workforce. Rather, it is to identify potential concerns before individuals are placed in positions where they may have direct or indirect access to learners,” she said.
Among flagged records, drug-related matters increased from 7.09% in 2025 to 11.41% in 2026. Firearms and weapons-related matters rose from 2.84% to 4.70%, while fraud and financial-crime matters increased from 1.42% to 4.03%.
Serious violent-crime matters declined from 5.67% to 2.68%. However, Van der Merwe said the combined violent and serious violent-crime categories accounted for 23.49% of the offences identified in 2026, remaining above 20% as they had since 2022.
These categories cover different types of conduct and do not, by themselves, establish that an individual has committed an offence against a child.
Criminal checks
Van der Merwe said schools needed to understand the distinction between criminal-record screening and checks against statutory child-protection registers.
Section 126 of the Children’s Act requires those managing schools and other specified institutions to establish whether a person appears in Part B of the NCPR before allowing them to work with or have access to children.
Part B, administered by the Department of Social Development, records people found unsuitable to work with children. It serves a different function from the National Register for Sex Offenders (NRSO), maintained by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
The DBE identifies both registers as essential safeguards in verifying the suitability of people working with learners. Its school-vetting campaign extends beyond teachers to support staff, volunteers, contractors and service providers with access to children.
“Schools should therefore view vetting as a layered process rather than relying on a single screening mechanism,” Van der Merwe said.
“Criminal-record checks and verification against statutory registers each serve different functions and together help build a more comprehensive safeguarding framework.”
She said responsibility for safeguarding was shared by those employing and managing school staff and could not be left solely to government departments.
The approaching deadline should therefore prompt schools to review recruitment procedures, confirm that the required checks have been completed and ensure that potential concerns receive appropriate follow-up.
“Ultimately, effective vetting is not simply about regulatory compliance,” Van der Merwe said.
“It is one of the most practical measures available to schools to support learner safety, manage risk and maintain the trust that parents and communities place in educational institutions every day.”
