GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»GSDRC Publications»Vetting Public Employees

Vetting Public Employees

Helpdesk Report
  • Brian Lucas
December 2009

Question

Please provide examples of current policies, good practices, and lessons learned for vetting public employees in various countries. What restrictions should there be on holding public sector positions for people who have a criminal record? How can sensitive public sector posts be defined that require a higher level of vetting? Are there examples of vetting policies that could be shared?

Summary

Vetting refers to “processes for assessing an individual’s integrity as a means of determining his or her suitability for public employment.” Vetting may be applied to people who already hold public service positions, typically in post-conflict, post-authoritarian, or otherwise transitional contexts with the objective of removing individuals responsible for war crimes, human rights abuses, corruption, or other malpractice. Lustration is a related term applied in Eastern Europe, referring to removing public officials with links to the former Communist-era security services. Both vetting and lustration involve examination of individuals’ personal histories, while the more indiscriminate approach of purging refers to removing people from office on more general grounds of membership of a group without considering personal culpability. Vetting also refers to screening job applicants before they take up a post, most often where access to confidential information is required or national security is involved, but also in situations where post-holders would be working with children or vulnerable groups or might otherwise pose specific risks.

Vetting processes always have multiple levels linked to the degree of risk or sensitivity involved in a position. Basic vetting usually involves checking official records (such as criminal or intelligence service records). Positions with greater responsibility and risk often require credit and financial checks, interviews with the person being vetted, interviews with people familiar with the person, and background checks on people living in the same household.

Criminal records are not normally an absolute bar to employment in the public sector, except in certain sensitive positions. Applicants with criminal records are generally considered eligible for positions if their offenses are unrelated to the post in question, if they occurred a long time ago, or if they otherwise appear to present a low risk of re-offending in the context of the job.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Institutional partnerships and twinning between civil service organisations
Helpdesk Report
2017
Factors important to the establishment, renewal or rehabilitation of the civil service
Literature Review
2017
Public service reform
E-Learning
2015
Prioritising and sequencing public sector reform
Helpdesk Report
2014

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".