Checking the screening profile for your VOG application

A VOG assesses a specific target

A VOG is not a blanket statement that someone is suitable for every conceivable position. Justis assesses judicial data in connection with the work or purpose for which the application is made. The Justis assessment process connects the screening profile with, among other things, the review period and a weighing of interests. That is why the first substantive question is not only what happened in the past, but also what work is currently being done. (assessment process of Justis)

That distinction changes the preparation. Anyone who only writes a long explanation about a previous conviction can leave the current risk undiscussed. Anyone who only says that an employer has trust may leave it unclear why that trust is justified within the concrete tasks. A convincing substantiation brings past and function onto the same map. You do not have to come up with a more favorable job title for this: a verifiable description of the daily practice is more informative.

General risk areas and specific profiles

Justis distinguishes between a general screening profile and specific screening profiles. The current overview of screening profiles mentions nine risk areas in the general profile, including information, money, goods, people and locations. Some professions or goals have a specific profile. Take the applicable codes from the current official information and the application; a random old screenshot is not a reliable guide to a new feature.

The most important thing is what a code assumes about the activities. Can someone only view information or also change it? Is there independent contact with vulnerable people? Can an employee enter amounts, approve payment orders or both? Differences that appear small on an organizational chart can be major for a risk analysis. The job description therefore forms the bridge between an abstract form and the concrete work. Checking a profile does not replace that description.

Create a job profile matrix

Write five details per task on a worksheet: the action, the access or authority, the interests involved, the supervision and the frequency. For example: adjusting customer data, writing rights in the system, protection of personal data, subsequent checking and daily use. A second rule can deal with payments with a separate approver. This makes it clear whether different risks are rightly placed next to each other and where the application may give an incorrect picture.

Add a column with the source of each entry. Consider a job description, authorization matrix or short confirmation from a manager. A job interview can lead to expectations that differ from the formal vacancy. State such a difference explicitly. The worksheet is not a legal conclusion and does not replace a decision of Justis. It does help you to ask specific questions and prevents an advisor from having to guess what you are actually going to do.

Correct inaccuracies along a recognizable route

The employer or organization indicates at the start of the application what the screening should focus on. If you discover an error, discuss which task or authority is incorrect and which document supports it. Then ask how to fix that error for the pending request. The stage of the application can make a difference. Do not assume that a telephone comment will automatically change the file and every letter already sent.

A correction must also be substantively honest. If someone actually manages keys, has access to a warehouse or independently visits clients, those activities do not disappear by omitting them from a letter. Requesting a narrower profile while the work remains wider does not make the request more careful. Record what was discussed, who confirmed the change and whether the original application needs to be amended or resubmitted. If necessary, please ask Justis for clarification about this directly.

A profile is not a tickable list of crimes

A common fallacy is that a fact outside the example risks mentioned should automatically be ignored. Justis explains that the examples for a risk area or specific profile are not exhaustive. What may be relevant is what risk a piece of information poses for this function or purpose. The assessment cannot therefore be reduced to the question of whether the name of a previous offense is literally on a public list.

A practical way of responding follows: discuss the substantive connection. Which activities would be problematic according to the plan? Is the assumed authority correct? Has a specific risk been recognized or is only a general association made? These questions are stronger than a loose statement that an offense does not belong to a certain code. The Policy Rules VOG -NP-RP 2025 provide the assessment framework; have its application assessed on the real application.

Supervision can be relevant without removing all risk

Employers often mention checks as a reason why a previous fact would not pose a problem. Make such a check concrete. A second signature for payments is different from a colleague who occasionally watches. A restriction in system rights is different from an unwritten agreement not to open certain screens. Describe what is enforced technically or organizationally, who checks and what happens in the event of a deviation.

Do not draw an automatic guarantee from this. Some job-related risks do not disappear because an employer is prepared to provide someone with intensive guidance. Furthermore, special assessment rules may apply in certain contexts. The value of an actual guarantee lies in the information it adds to the assessment, not in a general right of release. Therefore, avoid letters that only promise that nothing will happen. Rather, provide a realistic picture of powers, supervision and remaining uncertainties.

Fictional example: two administrative jobs

In a fictional example, Nora applies for a job at two organizations. With the first she scans incoming mail and cannot edit files. In the second, she manages payment details, issues refunds and handles complaints without direct control. Both vacancies use the same job title. Nora has a previous property crime to her name. A general statement that administrative work poses no risk does not do justice to either function.

A useful preparation shows each employer what Nora can actually do and what powers she does not have. For the second function, the financial tasks must be explicitly discussed; it would be incorrect to only describe the scanning from the first vacancy. This example does not predict a decision. It shows why the same history does not automatically yield the same analysis when the function changes. The relevant facts change with the work.

Connect an opinion to the correct application

If you receive an intention to refuse, first place the application and the letter side by side. Check the purpose, the activities mentioned, the data on which Justis relies and the response time. Distinguish between an error in the description of the work, a possible incorrect judicial information and a difference of opinion about the weighting. These issues do not necessarily require the same response or the same underlying documents.

Then write specifically about the underlying reasons. An employer can explain the actual position, but does not automatically know all relevant judicial information. A lawyer can explain how decision-making is challenged, but needs reliable information about the work. Only share privacy-sensitive documents to the extent necessary for the purpose. Moreover, the legal system of judicial data and the VOG decision are different subjects: an application does not change the underlying criminal history.

Documents with which you prepare the assessment

Save a readable set associated with this request. The Justis documents page links to current forms and policies. Check versions and do not use a colleague's completed application as proof that your work will be assessed the same. Previous release can provide context, but does not make a new feature, new data, or changed policy irrelevant. (documents page of Justis)

• Application: purpose, date, applicant organization and chosen profile or job aspects.
• Function: concrete tasks, access, independence and actual contact with people.
• Privileges: system rights, money flows, keys and decision space.
• Guarantees: real controls, responsible persons and existing work instructions.
• Differences: what is incorrect in the application and which part makes this verifiable?
• Correspondence: the intention or decision, date of receipt and stated period.
• Help question: what substantive reason requires legal advice or additional information?

The best application makes the work understandable

The temptation to treat a VOG procedure as a form with favorable and unfavorable boxes is great. Precisely because of this, the most important information can disappear: what the job actually entails. A job profile matrix can significantly improve the conversation because it makes assumptions visible. It also provides room for unfavorable data. Care means that relevant risks are discussed and that limitations of your own information remain recognizable.

Our conclusion is therefore practical. First investigate whether the application gives a true picture of the purpose. Then substantiate the points on which there is a real difference of opinion and ask for help in a timely manner in the event of a proposed refusal. Use the main guide on a VOG with a criminal record for the wider process and the explanation of look back periods for that individual question. An appropriate profile improves the assessment, but does not promise the outcome.