Regulatory Updates

Japan's New DBS Law: Protecting Children in Educational and Childcare Settings – Overview and Implications for Businesses

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 10 min read
Slide summary: Japan’s DBS Law—mandatory checks, employer duties, certification for private providers, HR implications
TL;DR: Japan’s new DBS Law mandates or enables criminal-record checks for people working with children. “School Establishments” must run checks and take “necessary measures,” while private providers may opt in via certification. Employers face new hiring, reassignment, and data-handling duties—failure risks administrative orders and reputational damage.

Table of Contents

  1. Rationale and Objectives: Why Now?
  2. Scope of Application: Who and What Is Covered?
  3. Core Mechanisms of the Law
  4. Practical Implications for Businesses
  5. Conclusion

Introduction

Ensuring the safety and well-being of children is a universal priority. In recent years, Japan, like many other nations, has intensified its focus on preventing child sexual abuse, particularly within environments where children learn and are cared for. A landmark development in this effort is the enactment of the "Act on Measures for the Prevention, etc. of Child Sexual Abuse by School Establishments, etc. and Private Education/Childcare Providers, etc." (Act No. 69 of 2024). Passed by the Diet on June 19, 2024, and promulgated on June 26, 2024, this legislation is commonly referred to as the "Japanese DBS Law," drawing parallels with the UK's Disclosure and Barring Service system.

The law introduces a framework requiring or enabling criminal record checks for individuals working closely with children in specified educational and childcare settings, alongside other preventive measures. Its passage followed extensive debate and recommendations from an expert committee convened by the Children and Families Agency (CFA), acknowledging the profound and lasting harm caused by such abuse and the specific vulnerabilities present in child-facing environments.

For businesses operating schools, nurseries, cram schools (juku), sports clubs, or other child-related services in Japan, this law brings significant new compliance obligations and operational considerations. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the Japanese DBS Law, outlining its key components and analyzing the practical implications for affected businesses, including international entities operating in Japan.

1. Rationale and Objectives: Why Now?

The impetus behind the Japanese DBS Law stems from a growing societal and governmental recognition of the need for stronger safeguards against child sexual abuse by individuals in positions of trust. Key drivers and objectives include:

  • Protecting Vulnerable Children: The law explicitly acknowledges that child sexual abuse constitutes a severe infringement of children's rights with potentially lifelong negative impacts (Article 1). Educational and childcare settings are recognized as environments where power imbalances, ongoing close contact, and potentially reduced supervision can create specific risks (often referred to using the concepts of shihaisei [dominance], keizokusei [continuity], and heisasei [closed nature]).
  • Establishing Provider Responsibility: The law clarifies the legal duty (sekimu) of entities providing education and childcare services – both public/mandated institutions and private businesses – to actively prevent abuse by their staff and to protect child victims if abuse occurs (Article 3, Paragraph 1).
  • Addressing Recidivism Risk: While controversial, the legislative process considered data and concerns regarding the risk of re-offense among individuals with prior convictions for certain sex crimes, positioning criminal record checks as one tool (among others) to mitigate this risk in high-contact settings. The expert committee report (September 12, 2023) highlighted this as a necessary measure.
  • Creating a National Framework: Establishing a standardized, government-administered system for checking relevant criminal history aims to create a more consistent approach than relying solely on individual employers' variable background check practices.

2. Scope of Application: Who and What Is Covered?

The law delineates specific entities, personnel, and criminal history information within its scope.

2.1. Covered Entities

The law applies differently to two main categories of providers:

  • "School Establishments, etc." (Gakkou Setchisha Tou): This group faces mandatory obligations under the law. It includes installers/operators of legally defined schools (excluding universities), nurseries (hoikusho), kindergartens (youchien), certified child centers (nintei kodomoen), and certain other specified childcare facilities and providers (e.g., operators of small-scale in-home childcare businesses) listed in Article 2, Paragraph 3. These entities are generally subject to significant public oversight or licensing.
  • "Private Education/Childcare Providers" (Minkan Kyouiku Hoiku Tou Jigyousha): This category covers a broader range of private businesses providing services to children, such as cram schools (juku), tutoring centers, sports clubs, music/art schools, and certain after-school care providers (defined in Article 2, Paragraph 5). For these entities, compliance with the core preventive measures, including criminal record checks, is voluntary but is a prerequisite for obtaining certification (nintei) under the law (Article 19). Certification grants access to the state-run criminal record check system.

2.2. Covered Personnel

The law focuses on individuals directly involved in providing services to children within covered entities:

  • "Teachers, etc." (Kyouin Tou): Personnel within "School Establishments, etc.," including school teachers (as defined in the School Education Act), nursery staff involved in childcare, and others listed in Article 2, Paragraph 4.
  • "Education/Childcare Workers" (Kyouiku Hoiku Tou Juujisha): Personnel within "Private Education/Childcare Providers," including managers and those directly teaching or providing services to children (Article 2, Paragraph 6).

The focus is on roles involving substantial, direct contact and potential positions of authority over children. Administrative or ancillary staff without such contact (e.g., cleaners, guards) are generally considered outside the scope requiring checks.

2.3. Covered Conduct and Criminal History

  • "Child Sexual Abuse, etc." (Jidou Taishou Seibouryoku Tou): The conduct the law seeks to prevent is broadly defined, encompassing acts corresponding to child sexual abuse under the related Teacher Sexual Violence Prevention Act and similar acts against children (Article 2, Paragraph 2).
  • "Specific Sex Crimes" (Tokutei Seihanzai): The criminal record check system focuses only on convictions for a defined list of offenses deemed relevant to the risk of child sexual abuse (Article 2, Paragraph 7). This list includes:
    • Certain serious Penal Code offenses (e.g., non-consensual sexual intercourse/indecency, intercourse/indecency by guardian).
    • Violations of the Child Welfare Act related to inducing obscene acts.
    • Violations of the Act on Punishment of Activities Related to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and the Protection of Children.
    • Violations of the Act on Punishment of Photographing Sexual Bodily Parts, etc. (addressing voyeurism and illicit recording/distribution).
    • Certain violations of Prefectural Ordinances (typically covering public nuisance acts like groping [chikan] or voyeurism [tousatsu]) as specified by subsequent government order.
  • "Persons Corresponding to Specific Sex Crime Facts" (Tokutei Seihanzai Jijitsu Gaitousha): An individual is subject to being flagged by the system if they have a conviction for a "Specific Sex Crime" within defined look-back periods (Article 2, Paragraph 8):
    • Custodial Sentence (served): Within 20 years from the date of sentence completion or remission.
    • Custodial Sentence (fully suspended): Within 10 years from the date the conviction became final (unless the suspension was revoked).
    • Fine: Within 10 years from the date the fine was paid or the obligation extinguished.

Crucially, the check is limited to these specific offenses and timeframes; it does not cover all criminal history or offenses committed outside these periods. It also does not cover arrests without conviction, acquittals, or disciplinary actions not resulting in a relevant conviction.

3. Core Mechanisms of the Law

The law establishes several key mechanisms:

3.1. Mandatory Measures for "School Establishments, etc."

Entities falling under this category must implement the following:

  • Mandatory Criminal Record Checks (CRCs): Before allowing an individual ("Teachers, etc.") to engage in their core duties involving children, the establishment must use the state system to verify whether the person has a relevant conviction within the specified look-back periods (Article 4, Paragraph 1). This applies to both new hires and existing staff (with phased implementation for current staff – Article 4, Paragraph 3). Checks must be repeated periodically (typically every 5 years - Article 4, Paragraph 4).
  • Duty to Take Necessary Measures: If the CRC reveals a relevant conviction, and considering other factors (like information from child consultations), the establishment determines there is a risk (osore) of child sexual abuse occurring, it must take necessary measures. This explicitly includes not assigning the person to their core child-facing duties (Article 6). Alternative measures could involve reassignment to non-child-facing roles.
  • Other Preventive Duties: Mandatory implementation of staff training on abuse prevention (Article 8), measures for early detection of potential risks (e.g., monitoring, interviews) (Article 5, Paragraph 1), and establishing accessible consultation systems for children to report concerns (Article 5, Paragraph 2).
  • Investigation and Support: Duty to investigate suspected incidents of abuse and provide appropriate protection and support to victims (Article 7).

3.2. Voluntary Certification System for Private Providers

Private entities like cram schools or sports clubs are not automatically required to conduct CRCs. However, they can apply for certification (nintei) from the CFA (Article 19).

  • Certification Requirements (Article 20): To be certified, a provider must demonstrate it has systems in place equivalent to those mandated for "School Establishments, etc." This includes establishing internal rules (jidou taishou seibouryoku tou taisho kitei) covering risk assessment, investigation procedures, victim support, and, crucially, committing to conduct CRCs for relevant staff.
  • Benefit of Certification: The primary advantage is gaining access to the state-run CRC system (Article 26 mandates checks for certified providers; Article 33 allows them to apply). Certification status is made public (Article 22) and can be displayed by the provider (Article 23), potentially serving as a signal of commitment to child safety for parents and the public.
  • Obligations of Certified Providers: Once certified, these providers essentially take on the same core obligations as mandated entities, including conducting CRCs, taking necessary measures based on results, managing data securely, and complying with other preventive duties outlined in their internal rules (Articles 25-28).

3.3. The State-Run Criminal Record Check (CRC) System

This is the operational core often referred to as "Japan DBS."

  • Application: The employer (mandated establishment or certified provider) applies to the CFA for a check on a specific prospective or current employee (Article 33). The employee must typically provide supporting documents like their family register (koseki) extract via the employer.
  • Process: The CFA requests the necessary check from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), providing identifying information (Article 34). The MOJ checks its criminal records for convictions matching the "Specific Sex Crimes" list and look-back periods.
  • Result Notification: The MOJ informs the CFA only whether the individual is or is not a "Person Corresponding to Specific Sex Crime Facts." If they are, the notification includes only the category of offense (e.g., Penal Code violation vs. ordinance violation) and the date the relevant conviction became final – not the specific crime, victim details, or circumstances (Article 34, Paragraph 2; Article 35, Paragraph 4).
  • Confirmation Document (Hanzai Jijitsu Kakuninsho): The CFA then issues a "Confirmation Document" to the employer relaying this limited information (Article 35).
  • Employee Rights: Before the CFA issues a confirmation document indicating a relevant record exists, it must notify the employee of the intended content. The employee then has a period (typically 2 weeks) to request correction if they believe the information is inaccurate (Article 35, Paragraph 5; Article 37). This provides a safeguard against errors and allows individuals to potentially withdraw from the hiring process before adverse information reaches the employer.

3.4. Information Management and Penalties

Given the sensitivity of criminal record information, the law imposes strict data management obligations on employers receiving Confirmation Documents:

  • Secure Management: Duty to take necessary measures for proper management, including appointing a responsible person (Article 11, 27).
  • Purpose Limitation: Information can only be used for the purpose of conducting the legally required check and implementing necessary preventive measures (Article 12, 27). Providing the information to third parties is prohibited.
  • Confidentiality: Strict confidentiality obligations apply to anyone handling the information (Article 39). Unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal penalties (Article 45, Paragraph 2).
  • Record Keeping and Deletion: Employers must maintain records of checks conducted but must securely dispose of Confirmation Documents and related records after a prescribed period (typically 5 years after the check, subject to earlier deletion if employment ends or is not commenced) (Article 15, 28, 38).
  • Oversight: The CFA has supervisory powers, including requesting reports, conducting inspections, and issuing correction orders (Articles 16-18, 29-30). Failure to comply can lead to penalties, including publication of non-compliance (Article 17) or revocation of certification for private providers (Article 32).

4. Implications for Businesses

The Japanese DBS Law creates significant operational and legal considerations for businesses in the covered sectors:

  • Compliance Burden: Mandated entities face immediate obligations. Private providers must decide whether the benefits of certification outweigh the compliance costs. Key tasks include:
    • Developing or updating internal policies and the detailed taisho kitei (for certified providers).
    • Implementing mandatory staff training programs.
    • Integrating the CRC application process into recruitment and ongoing employment procedures (including obtaining necessary documents from individuals).
    • Establishing robust, secure systems for managing highly sensitive criminal record data, including tracking deletion deadlines.
  • Human Resources and Labor Law:
    • Recruitment: CRCs become a mandatory step for relevant roles in mandated/certified entities. Job descriptions and offer letters may need adjustment.
    • Managing Existing Staff: Phased checks for current employees may reveal relevant histories. Employers must navigate the duty under Article 6 (or equivalent internal rules) to take "necessary measures" if a risk is identified. This could involve:
      • Reassignment: Moving the employee to a role without child contact (if feasible and contractually permissible).
      • Dismissal: If reassignment is impossible or refused, dismissal may be considered. However, Japanese labor law provides strong protection against unfair dismissal. Dismissal based solely on a past conviction, especially an older one, without a concrete assessment of current risk, could be legally challenged. Employers will need careful legal advice.
    • Avoiding Discrimination: Care must be taken to ensure that CRC results are used solely for the purpose defined by the law (preventing child sexual abuse risk) and do not lead to broader discrimination based on unrelated criminal history.
  • Operational Adjustments: Beyond CRCs, businesses need effective systems for early risk detection (supervision, monitoring interactions) and accessible channels for children to raise concerns safely and confidentially. Physical environment modifications to reduce isolated spaces might also be considered.
  • Reputational Management: For private providers, certification offers a potential competitive advantage and signal of commitment to safety. Conversely, failure to manage compliance or address incidents effectively carries significant reputational risk.

5. Wider Context and Ongoing Debates

It's important to view the Japanese DBS Law in context:

  • Limitations: The system has inherent limitations. It cannot identify first-time offenders, those whose offenses did not lead to a relevant conviction (e.g., due to acquittal, dropped charges, or disciplinary action only), or those with relevant offenses committed abroad. The effectiveness also depends on the accuracy and completeness of the underlying criminal records.
  • Balancing Rights: The law attempts to balance the critical need for child protection against fundamental rights, including privacy, the right to work, and principles of rehabilitation for past offenders. Debates continue about whether the scope of included offenses, the look-back periods, and the reliance on convictions strike the right balance.
  • Part of a Broader Strategy: The DBS check is intended as one component of a multi-layered approach to child safety, alongside training, vigilance, reporting mechanisms, and victim support. Its effectiveness relies on being integrated into a comprehensive safeguarding culture.
  • Implementation and Review: As the law is relatively new (likely commencing enforcement in late 2024 or early 2025), its practical operation will evolve. The mandated review after three years of enforcement provides an opportunity to assess its effectiveness and make adjustments based on real-world experience and data. Businesses should monitor the release of detailed Cabinet Orders and official guidelines, which will further shape implementation.

Conclusion

The Japanese DBS Law marks a significant policy shift, introducing a national system for checking specific criminal records for individuals working closely with children. For mandated entities like schools and nurseries, it imposes direct legal obligations regarding checks, training, and risk management. For private providers in sectors like supplementary education and recreation, it presents a strategic choice regarding voluntary certification to access the system and demonstrate a commitment to child safety.

The implications for businesses are substantial, requiring careful attention to compliance procedures, HR policies, data protection, and operational practices. While aiming to strengthen child protection, the law also navigates complex legal and ethical terrain concerning privacy and employment rights. Businesses operating in Japan's education and childcare sectors must proactively understand their obligations and potential liabilities under this new framework, ensuring they not only comply with the letter of the law but also foster a genuine culture of safeguarding for the children they serve. Staying informed about forthcoming regulations and practical guidance from the authorities will be crucial for effective implementation.