The pledge is the result of a 12-month project conducted by Unlock, a charity for people with convictions, and supported by the UPP Foundation, a charity founded by University Partnerships Programme, the leading provider of on campus student accommodation infrastructure and support services in the UK.
So far, ten UK universities have signed up to this important pledge which sees institutions make a commitment to offering a fair chance to students with a criminal record. The pledge also signals an institution’s support to giving individuals a second chance at life by opening doors to higher education, giving them the best chance of new employment prospects and opportunities.
The project, designed to support fair admissions and improve access and participation for universities has three key objectives. These include putting policies in place at each university; a toolkit for other universities to use to develop their admissions policies and a pledge for universities to sign up to. The pledge will be launched at a roundtable event with admissions leaders taking place in central London later today.
Universities that have signed the pledge include University of Nottingham, University of Liverpool, Birkbeck, University of London, University of Essex, University of Kent, University of Lincoln, University of the West of England, Bristol, London Metropolitan University, Bloomsbury Institute and University of Southampton. To ensure applicants are aware of the commitment, signatories will be asked to include a link to the pledge in their admissions policy going forward.
Richard Brabner, Director of The UPP Foundation said:
“We are proud to be working alongside Unlock to help universities remove the barriers to higher education that are currently facing people with convictions. We recognise that this is a relatively new area for universities and are delighted to see a number of universities signing the pledge and boldly taking steps towards a fairer admission policy.
“Access and participation is more important than ever. Removing barriers for students with convictions and improving access to universities benefits both students, the tax payer and higher education institutions.”
Christopher Stacey, Co-director at Unlock said:
“Education creates opportunities, opens doors, and changes people’s lives. We are delighted to be working alongside the UPP Foundation and higher education institutions to help people with convictions access the life changing opportunities that higher education can offer.
“People with convictions often face stigma and obstacles because of their criminal records, even long after they have served their sentence. There are over 11 million people in the UK with a criminal record. These people have the potential to make positive and meaningful contributions to our society but are often denied this opportunity because of their past. We are delighted to see universities leading the way in removing the systemic barriers that face people with convictions and look forward to more universities signing the pledge and committing to fairer admission policies in the coming months.”
Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence. Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
The UPP Foundation is a registered charity that offers grants to universities, charities and other higher education bodies. In recent years, as higher education has expanded, the burden of paying for a degree has shifted towards the individual. This naturally presents difficulties in terms of maintaining the ‘University for the Public Good’, as well as ensuring there is greater equity in terms of going to, succeeding at and benefiting from the university experience. We believe the UPP Foundation can make a small but significant contribution in helping universities and the wider higher education sector overcome these challenges. The UPP Foundation was created in 2016 by University Partnerships Programme (UPP), the leading provider of on campus student accommodation infrastructure and support services in the UK. UPP is the sole funder of the UPP Foundation. The UPP Foundation is an autonomous charity and all of its grants are reviewed and authorised by its Board of Trustees. The Foundation is supported by an Advisory Board. More information is available at the UPP Foundation website: www.upp-foundation.org.
The ‘Fair Chance for Students with Convictions’ pledge is below. More details are available here.
A toolkit to help universities make admissions fair has also been published. That is available here.
Details about the Unlocking students with conviction project are available here.
The Fair Chance for Students with Convictions pledge
We believe everyone with the potential and ambition to go to university should have the opportunity to do so, regardless of background. People with criminal convictions face obstacles and barriers to accessing university, yet higher education has the power to transform their lives by helping them move forward and make a positive contribution to society. Therefore, as the leaders of our institutions we pledge to give applicants with a criminal record a fair chance by…
Asking applicants about criminal records only if – and when – it is necessary
Asking targeted and proportionate questions during the admissions process
Making our policy transparent and accessible to all applicants
If necessary, offering applicants a chance to discuss their case in person before a decision is made
Considering flexible adjustments and alternatives for applicants
Ensuring staff are trained to make fair and impartial judgements about applicants
Supporting students with criminal records to help them achieve academic success
Communicating positively about the benefits of a fair admissions process
Blog – How can people with criminal records access higher education?
Evidence shows that some groups are disproportionately criminalised: care leavers, people from low income households and some ethnic groups.
Despite education being widely recognised as a key factor in successful rehabilitation, admissions policies to date have presented psychological and practical challenges to access. When UCAS removed the criminal convictions tick box for applicants to non-regulated courses, universities had the perfect opportunity to re-evaluate their approach.
Now the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Nottingham have joined others in pledging to offer a fair chance to students with a criminal record. These universities have recognised that widening participation means looking at the range of barriers under-represented students face – including a criminal record.
Unlocking talent
Over the last 12 months Unlock, supported by the UPP Foundation, have worked with partner universities on their approach to applicants with criminal records. The project had three objectives: to get policies in place at each of the partner universities; a toolkit for other universities to use to develop their admissions policies; and a pledge for universities to sign up to.
The project was designed to focus on admissions, whilst recognising that this is only the first stage of the student journey. Accommodation, visa compliance and voluntary placements might require asking about criminal records but for admission to non-regulated courses this is almost always unnecessary. Admissions decisions should focus on an applicant’s ability to fulfil their potential. A fair chance means looking at ways to include rather than exclude those people who are trying to move on positively with their lives. People like Connor.
Connor applied for a post-graduate degree, disclosing his unspent conviction at that time. The university decided that as his offence was ‘serious’ his application could not be accepted. Determined not give up, Connor submitted information about his conviction and letters of support from previous tutors and others people in his life. Eventually, the university overturned its decision.
Concerns about safeguarding or capacity to complete the course could be managed by engaging with the applicant themself. Offering applicants the opportunity to disclose conditions or restrictions that could affect their ability to succeed on their programme means universities can advise on adjustments or alternatives, addressing their concerns. Applicants can feel confident to ask for support at the earliest stage and throughout their course.
Primarily this is a widening participation issue. Admissions decisions for students with convictions can and should be in line with the principles of fair admissions, as set out in the Schwartz review.
It’s also an issue of legal compliance; any organisation that processes criminal record data must have a lawful basis under Article 6 and a condition under Article 10 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It’s difficult for a university to identify an article 10 condition for non-regulated courses. Where a DBS check is needed for a placement based programme, universities have a legal obligation to check criminal records. For non-regulated courses, this doesn’t apply. Asking a voluntary question about restrictions or conditions means universities can rely on consent when processing criminal records data.
What have we learned?
Three key themes have emerged from the project and we encourage any university looking at this issue to bear these in mind.
First, focus on inclusion: ask ‘how can we safely include’ rather than ‘how can we legitimately exclude’. Applicants with criminal records are a diverse group and fit into traditional widening participation groups. Excluding people because of their past is likely to result in exclusion of under-represented groups
Second, take a ‘whole institution approach’: Identify what information is necessary – or not – at different stages in the student lifecycle; bringing decision makers together, as well as looking at support for students
Third, words matter: Policies of all kinds reflect the values and culture of the university. An inclusive culture begins with inclusive language. If a university is committed to widening participation and including all under-represented groups, the language used to address them is the starting point.
Students with convictions have usually overcome significant barriers already. They are determined and hardworking and, while they may need support to succeed, their inclusion ultimately benefits us all. Recidivism already costs the economy £18bn a year. Education, employment and opportunity are strongly associated with a reduction in reoffending. Can we really afford to ignore those who are working hard to get their lives on track?
What’s next?
Pledging to offer a Fair Chance to Students with Convictions means:
Asking applicants about criminal records only if – and when – it is necessary
Asking targeted and proportionate questions during the admissions process
Making the policy transparent and accessible to all applicants
Offering applicants a chance to discuss their case in person before a decision is made
Considering flexible adjustments and alternatives for applicants
Ensuring staff are trained to make fair and impartial judgements about applicants
Supporting students with criminal records to help them achieve academic success
Communicating positively about the benefits of a fair admissions process
Signatories include Universities of Nottingham, Lincoln, Kent, Southampton, Essex and Liverpool, UWE; Birkbeck, University of London; London Metropolitan University and the Bloomsbury Institute. We look forward to more universities signing the pledge in the coming months and working with them to make improvements to their practices.
Our toolkit for higher education providers provides a blueprint for universities to make sure their admissions processes are fair and inclusive. We worked with the Office for students on their effective practice guide to working with students with convictions.
Our longer term focus is on the retention and success of students with convictions – how universities can support them to achieve their potential, and to successfully transition into employment. This includes academic and pastoral support and links with employers. Education can be transformative, and universities have an opportunity to help transform the lives of individuals with convictions and their communities.
This blog was written by Rachel Tynan and originally published by Wonkhe
Blog – Government publishes summary of responses to call for evidence on the employment of people with convictions
Last week, more than a year since the consultation closed, the Cabinet Office published a summary of responses to their Call for Evidence (CfE) on employing people with convictions. But what does this summary of responses mean for the future? This blog looks at some of the promising signs, some areas for improvement, and questions the lack of any recommendations from government.
The report draws together responses from 76 organisations – a small sample for a national consultation, but that in itself tells us how much work there is to do. The report indicates that the public sector could do more to increase employment of people with convictions but highlights some pockets of good practice in the voluntary sector.
Firstly, the evidence is promising
The responses are promising – 76 organisations from the voluntary (46%), private (32%), and public (14%) sectors responded to the Call for Evidence. Overall, 73% of the organisations that responded said they hire people with a criminal conviction, either directly or through intermediary companies, suppliers or contractors. Over half (56%) of them ask about convictions in a later stage of the recruitment process (i.e. during interview, at the offer stage, etc.) – with 33% asking at the job offer stage. Public sector respondents were particularly poor at this – 71% ask at the initial stage. The chart below shows that the voluntary sector tends to ask the question about convictions at a later stage compared to the private and public sectors – although there is clearly much more work to do with all sectors.
Of those that ask about convictions, when in the recruitment process do they ask?
In summarising the response, the report states: “The Call for Evidence has provided very useful insights for the Civil Service and organisations in general on how to engage in activities that support people with a conviction in finding employment. Furthermore, the Call for Evidence has helped to identify barriers and challenges, both within and outside organisations, when employing people with convictions, and highlights the need for a communication strategy on the benefits of this practice.”
The key messages from the analysis are at the end of this blog, and the report concludes by saying the results “highlight how having specific recruitment practices and employability initiatives that reduce the barriers to employment for people with criminal records could have positive impact on the individuals involved, the organisations they are part of, and wider society as a whole in the long term.”
However, 76 responses is a very low number of employers and the proportion of private and public sectors is much lower than it should be. Most respondents were already actively engaged in recruiting from this population. It feels like this call for evidence was a missed opportunity to engage with a much wider range of employers across all sectors. How might the lessons from this call for evidence be used to engage with employers in the future?
There are positives in the analysis
Language – our response to the call for evidence explained why we use person-first language – people with convictions, not ex-offenders. We’re not taking credit for this, but the response refers to people with convictions, using the term ex-offenders only when referring to the questions asked and the initial title of the call for evidence. This alone is a really big step forward, and we hope it reflects an active decision by the Cabinet Office to use person-first language – and that it will be adopted by colleagues across Whitehall.
Highlights the variety of excellent work being done – predominantly by the third sector – in supporting people with convictions into, and during, employment.
Underlines the value to employers of recruiting people with convictions. In our experience, hearing from employers who already do this cuts through and shows other employers what can be achieved. For example, one respondent said “These staff tend to work extremely well, are productive and eager to learn. They are committed, have a good understanding and knowledge of themselves making for a supportive team member”
There are some areas for improvement
The majority of respondents ask at application stage. Even if the employer takes a proactive approach to people with convictions, there’s rarely a need to ask all applicants at this stage and the Cabinet Office should take this as an action to look at wider promotion of Ban the Box, including considering placing it on a statutory footing
The issue of enhanced checks and security vetting. This paragraph in the analysis raises some concerns – “In relation to the security clearance level needed for the role, out of the 76 organisations, only 64% responded. Of these, the large majority need to conduct a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, or an enhanced DBS. A few others indicated they required a full security clearance, vetting checks, or Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.” Respondents might have used DBS check/enhanced DBS check interchangeably but it’s worth thinking about the implications of this. It could be a function of the large number of voluntary organisations who proactively recruit from this population – lived experience/peer roles etc. It’s interesting that a significant majority of employers require enhanced checks, security clearance and vetting – if employers in sensitive fields can recruit people with convictions, surely mainstream employers can do more too? It’s a shame this wasn’t analysed further. It could also be a misunderstanding of the ‘need’ to conduct a basic check. And I’d be interested to see how many say they need ‘CRB checks’ – it makes you wonder how out of date their processes are (the CRB was replaced by the DBS over 6 years ago!)
No clear recommendations from government
Although publishing a summary of responses and carrying out some analysis of them is helpful, a “summary of responses” is very different to a “government response”. There are no concrete recommendations or actions that the government is taking in response to this consultation – and it’s unclear why not. In the “conclusions and next steps” section, the report states “The value of this Call for Evidence does not merely derive from the immediate actions taken as a result of it, but from inspiring further Civil Service and Government reforms in this field. The Civil Service looks forward to working with its stakeholders to be more inclusive, and promoting a culture that supports people with convictions on their path to employment.”
Yet the report makes no mention of these “immediate actions”. And what are the “further Civil Service and Government reforms”? Given the time it’s taken the publish this summary, and the lack of any further clear commitments, one wonders whether this reflects a deprioritisation of this work for the Cabinet Office?
There has been some progress since we made our own submission back in August last year, and below as an addition to this blog we’ve set out how things have progressed against the areas that we called for government action on. Given the importance of this work, the Cabinet Office had a real opportunity to set the scene by producing a detailed response to this call for evidence and making a number of commitments. Given what ended up being published, we’ll be raising this with both the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice, who jointly published the initial consultation, to understand what their future plans are.
Promising signs from the civil service pilot
One thing that the summary of responses does highlight is the progress that has been made on the Civil Service pilot scheme, ‘Going Forward into Employment’ (GFiE), where people in prison and near to release have been matched to fixed-term office-based and field-based jobs in participating government departments, via a two-year recruitment exception route. We know that there has been an evaluation done of this pilot, and it seems that this Call for Evidence was initiated (at least in part) to support that project. It’s positive that the pilot is now continuing as a mainstream programme which looks at a range of other groups as well, including veterans, and I hope that the programme will be able to offer more opportunities to those people with convictions who are serving sentences in the community, as well as those near to release from prison who were the focus of the initial pilot. We hope that the evaluation of the pilot is published so that there is a better understanding of how it works and what lessons have been learnt.
Written by Christopher Stacey, Co-director at Unlock
Progress since we made our submission
Written by Rachel Tynan, Policy and practice lead at Unlock
Unlock’s submission to the consultation last year emphasised the need for fair recruitment practices, the range of issues to consider when developing employability initiatives, and evidence on what works and what needs to change so that law abiding people with convictions can secure employment. We called on the government to:
Develop a cross-government strategy on employment of people with convictions
Pilot financial incentives for employers who pro-actively recruit people with convictions
Put Ban the Box on a legislative footing
Fix the broken DBS filtering system
Develop a legal framework to ensure individuals’ right to be forgotten where convictions are spent
Support the Private Members’ Bill on amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
Looking at the areas we called on the government to look at, below we’ve set out how things have progressed since:
Cross government strategy
Since the CfE the government has launched the New Futures Network and a new ROTL framework. The Ministry of Justice and Department for Work and Pensions have launched a three year programme, working in partnership. By committing resources to the recruitment of people with convictions the government has signalled its intent – but as the report shows, there is a lot of work to do.
Ban the Box
Our submission stressed how putting Ban the Box on a legislative footing – or even finding ways to incentivise business to sign up – would signal government’s commitment to ensuring people with convictions have a fair chance of employment. Disappointingly, only around 30% of organisations responding to the CfE knew about Ban the Box suggesting much more needs to be to increase awareness and encourage take-up. There are 140 employers now signed up to Ban the Box but clearly a long way to go. Based on this evidence, we think the government should be more strident in its approach to employers.
Filtering
Since the CfE the Supreme Court ruled that the current filtering rules are unlawful and must be changed in two key respects – the multiple conviction rule was found to be disproportionate, and reprimands and warnings (followed by youth cautions) should not be disclosed. We have written to the government calling on them to implement changes in line with the ruling, but also to commit to carrying out a fundamental review of the wider regime. The government is yet to formally respond to the Supreme Court ruling.
Reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
Looking at the range of recruitment practices reported to the CfE, most employers still ask about criminal records at application stage – echoing Unlock’s research last year which found that three-quarters of national employers do just that.
We know that this is hugely off putting to people with criminal records – over half of people with a criminal record say they would not apply for a job where they needed to disclose their criminal record. 75% of employers discriminate against an applicant with a conviction.
Not only is asking at application stage off-putting, it’s also unnecessary – and very likely a breach of the GDPR. In the absence of clear guidance or enforcement action from the Information Commissioner’s Office, employers are unlikely to change these practices, and again we call on government to take legislative steps to ensure Ban the Box becomes the norm.
This also highlights the discrimination people with convictions face. Most convictions will eventually become spent, but people can find themselves out of work, or only able to secure temporary or unskilled work in the meantime. The economic impact hits the individual, their family and wider society – can we afford that? That’s why we have and continue to call on government to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. In July the Ministry of Justice announced plans to reform the criminal records regime to improve employment prospects and we look forward to working with the new Secretary of State on this.
Key messages from the analysis
The summary of responses includes a set of “key messages from the analysis”. These were:
a. There are some indications (from the respondents to this Call for Evidence) that variations exist across the different sectors in relation to employing people with criminal records and at which stage of the recruitment this information is taken into account. Asking about criminal records should not constitute a barrier or a filtering criteria for offering employment;
b. Organisations that employ people with convictions across different roles – and responsibilities – reported having positive experiences, and affirmed that this part of the workforce constitutes an important asset thanks to their skills, commitment and experiences;
c. Attitudinal barriers across stakeholders, including customers, colleagues, and even people with criminal records themselves, are reported to be the main challenges to offering employment to someone with a conviction; consequentially cultural change is likely needed;
d. It is important to have activities that support and prepare people with convictions to be in the job market; examples are CV surgeries, mock interviews, mentoring schemes;
e. There is the need to produce and collect more robust evidence – in addition to case studies – that prove the positive impact of hiring people with convictions.
The newsletter provides an update of the news at Unlock in the last three months. It’s sent to everyone who’s on our public mailing list, and we hope it’s a useful way of keeping up to date with what we’ve been up to.
Update on research – The right to a fair future: understanding the influence of an early life criminal record on adult life courses
Nicola Collett, a PhD student at Keele University, is currently researching the potential influence of a criminal record acquired between the ages of 10-25, later on in adulthood. Following a request for participants in February of this year, Nicola writes here about how her research is progressing.
I would first like to thank everyone who has contacted me wanting to take part in my research. I have received such a positive response to my call for participants and it has been a great source of encouragement highlighting just how important this topic is. Following my call for participants in February, I am excited to share with you an update on my PhD research exploring the potential influence of an early life criminal record later on in adulthood.
What have I done?
I have been travelling around the Midlands and North West conducting interviews with adult men and women living in the UK with a criminal record attained when aged twenty-five or under. Overall, I have met with fourteen people twice, in order to hear about their experiences with the criminal justice system, and how they feel their criminal record has influenced them later on in life. Of these fourteen, eight identified as female and six as male. Four had served custodial sentences and most had at least two non-custodial convictions. There was an age range from twenty-five to sixty-six.
Whilst often the conversations have been of a difficult nature, the interviews have been incredibly informative with people being able to reflect on both the positive and negative influences their experiences have had. People have discussed the barriers they have faced with regards to travel and visa applications, and access to employment and volunteering opportunities. More personally, people have shared the difficulties they have had establishing a new life and identity whilst having a criminal record ‘pulling them back to the past’. Disclosure can be incredibly disruptive and people have discussed anxiety and stress over people ‘finding out’ and how this might change people’s opinions of them. Some of the more positive reflections people have made include being able to understand and empathise with those in difficult circumstances and having the ability to help them either via a professional role or through being a positive role model
I would like to thank everyone who has taken part and shared their personal experiences with me.
What’s next?
In September I am travelling to Ghent to present some preliminary findings and reflections at the European Society of Criminology conference. At this event I will be putting forward the experiences of those who I have spoken to highlighting the current state of things in the UK. By doing so, I will be making people aware of the difficulties faced and putting forwards the voices of those who have taken part. This will help to inform the research of a new European research working group looking to challenge some of the so-called ‘collateral consequences’ arising from criminal records.
I am currently working through all the interview material I have collected to identify the main themes and arguments I wish to make in my thesis. Writing has already begun and I aim to be near-completion by September 2020. After this, I will be developing a summary report to be shared with Unlock highlighting the key findings of the research.
I look forward to providing another update in the New Year.
Written by Nicola Collett
New policy briefing – EU nationals, settled status and criminal records
This new briefing sets out the concerns that Unlock has about the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) in relation to those EU nationals in the UK that have a criminal record.
Our aim is to help secure the rights of EU nationals who are eligible for settled status in the UK by ensuring that a criminal record does not unfairly exclude them.
The briefing aims to inform the ongoing work that the Home Office and other key stakeholders are doing on the process to better understand the policy and to improve practice.
Are you female and have a criminal record? We want to hear from you!
A criminal record can be a real obstacle in getting on in life. But what we don’t know is what additional barriers women face that men don’t.
Last year, we published a report (A life sentence for young people) that looked at the specific problems people face from criminal records they acquired in their youth. In July this year, we published a report (Double discrimination?) that focused on the impact of criminal records as perceived by people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.
Now we want to understand the structural barriers women face in terms of their criminal record.
Although our focus is mainly on the issues that women have faced after they’ve received their criminal record, we’re also keen to identify any issues that might relate to earlier on in the process that had an impact later on in terms of the criminal record and its consequences.
We’re keen to hear from women with every type of criminal record – so whether you’ve been fined, spent time in prison, had a caution or spent time on probation, we want to hear from you about the problems your criminal record has caused for you.
We also want to hear from practitioners and organisations that have experience in this area.
Your answers will be treated in confidence and will directly inform our recommendations for structural and practical changes. These recommendations will be shared with people who have the power to make things better.
So what do we want to know?
We’ve put together an online survey for women with a criminal record – it should only take about 15 minutes, all responses will be confidential and no personal details shared externally. You can read our full privacy policy on our website.
Office for Students publish effective practice guidance on students with convictions
Office for Students are the independent regulator of higher education in England. As part of their work to promote equal opportunities, Office for Students publish information on effective ways of meeting the needs of different student groups.
Unlock were delighted to collaborate with them on their new guidance for higher education providers on students with criminal convictions.
Insurance industry trade body issues updated guidance to insurers on how they should treat people with convictions
Last week, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) published updated guidance on how insurers should treat people with convictions. The guide, first published in 2011 and revised in 2014, has been updated this year to reflect recommendations made by Unlock.
In research we published in September 2017, we found major problems in the way that insurance companies dealt with the criminal records of people applying for home insurance. We looked at the approaches of 42 high-street insurance companies and found that two-thirds failed to make it clear to people that they didn’t need to disclose convictions that were ‘spent’ under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We found that nearly 1 in 5 companies took into account a spent conviction when considering an application even though they were under a legal obligation to disregard it.
We recommended that the insurance industry updated its good practice and that insurers should implement clear and consistent wording in relation to asking about unspent convictions.
The ABI describes the aim of the updated guidance published last week as being “to ensure that insurers:
Only seek information about information relevant to the risk, asking clear, concise and explicit questions about unspent convictions. Spent convictions do not have to be disclosed and – if they are – insurers must ignore them;
Make clear to customers the consequences of not disclosing, or misrepresenting unspent convictions;
Ensure that staff are fully trained on relevant laws and regulations; and
Assist customers in finding insurance, through signposting and/or referral arrangements where they are unable to provide cover themselves.”
It is welcome to see the updated guidance be much clearer to insurers that they should not be asking questions which could lead customers to thinking they need to disclose spent convictions. However, in our 2017 research we also highlighted the blanket approaches taken towards applicants that declare any type of conviction. None of the companies gave any individual consideration online – 100% of the insurers refused to offer a policy online to an applicant that disclosed conviction, without any specific consideration about the relevance of the offence to the policy being taken out. Only one company offered a policy over the telephone.
Although the guidance is clear to insurers about only considering unspent convictions, it fails to explain the evidence base for approaching unspent convictions in such a generic way and appears to simply assume that any unspent conviction is material for insurance purposes. There remains a significant lack of transparency about what, if any, evidence insurers rely on. Critically, we have never seen any robust evidence for the claim that correlates criminal records with a higher insurance risk. Quite the opposite. The specialist brokers that work quietly behind the scenes have some of the best claims ratios of all of their customers. The updated guidance fails to address this.
It remains to be seen what impact this updated guidance will have on the practices of insurers. What is ultimately important is that insurers themselves update their policies and practices. This updated guidance is a welcome step forward towards achieving this, and we look forward to seeing how the ABI will be monitoring the take-up of this guidance amongst its members.
New report highlights ‘double discrimination’ faced by black, Asian and minority ethnic people with a criminal record
Unlock, the country’s leading charity for people with convictions, has today published research on the impact of criminal records as perceived by people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.
New data in the report, Double discrimination?, shows that over three-quarters of people surveyed (78%) felt their ethnicity made it harder for them to overcome the problems they faced as a result of having a criminal record. The overwhelming majority (79%) experienced problems gaining employment; these persisted over many years and affected all age groups. African and Caribbean people were most affected.
Commenting on the report, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:
“The discrimination faced by people with a criminal record who are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background may not be ‘double’, but the difficulties they face are certainly cumulative. The perceptions of many people we surveyed were that the criminal record disclosure rules caused them more problems because, had they been white, they may not have been prosecuted, or the sentence they received would have been lower and therefore ‘spent’ earlier.
“These perceptions are borne out by other evidence that shows how the criminal justice system disproportionately impacts on people from some BAME groups because of over-criminalisation and harsher treatment. Put simply, ethnicity impacts on the type of criminal record someone gets. The disclosure regime exacerbates problems faced by people already treated more harshly at all stages in the criminal justice system.
“Black and Asian defendants have consistently been given the longest average custodial sentence length since 2012. Harsher sentences take longer to become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, if they ever do, meaning a criminal record will cause more difficulties for longer. This is an additional penalty for Black and Asian defendants. What David Lammy refers to as the double penalty can in fact be a triple penalty – the ethnic penalty, the criminal penalty and then the disclosure penalty.
“Ethnicity is often a visible characteristic to employers, but a criminal record is not. This means that, while tackling ethnicity-based discrimination requires a certain set of responses, tackling conviction-based discrimination needs a different set of responses. For example, minimising, or delaying, the use of criminal records, may benefit BAME groups in particular but would result in a much fairer system for everyone. The Lammy recommendations to address ethnic disproportionality must continue, but in the meantime simple changes to the disclosure regime can help level the playing field.
“We urge the government to take forward our recommendations, including to carry out a fundamental review of the criminal records regime and to implement reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, including reducing the time before convictions become spent and expanding the scope of legislation so that all convictions can become spent.”
In the foreword to the report, David Lammy, MP for Tottenham and chair of the Lammy Review, writes:
“Those who experience our criminal justice system, above all, need a different future to aspire to, but our criminal records regime is holding them back. Employers, universities, housing providers and even insurers, can and do discriminate against those who disclose this information. This is an issue for all people with a criminal record whatever their ethnic background. However, this report by Unlock demonstrates that our criminal records system disproportionately discriminates against those from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. Already facing discrimination when applying for employment, the barriers that BAME individuals face are solidified and compounded by our arcane criminal record process. This report shines a light on BAME individuals’ experiences of post-conviction problems – tied to the past and facing multiple disadvantage. I continue to urge the government to reflect hard on the impact of a criminal records regime that traps people in unemployment, contributes to high rates of recidivism and creates a double penalty for minorities. It’s time for urgent reform.”
Iqbal Wahhab OBE, chair of EQUAL, which focuses on action for race equality in the criminal justice system, said:
“When people of BAME backgrounds make up 26% of the prison population yet 14% of the wider population, when young black men can be twice as likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population, when people of BAME backgrounds are significantly more likely to receive custodial sentences than their white counterparts and when every level of ethnic disproportionality in the criminal and legal justice system has risen since the Lammy report, we are facing a huge challenge to any claim that we live in a fair society. The problems are only getting bigger. The recommendations in Unlock’s report are essential steps that need to be taken to reverse these troubling trends. We keep hearing that companies with more diverse workforces perform better than those that haven’t. Employers need to be brought into these conversations more to become part of the solution whilst enhancing the performance of their own organisations as well as that of wider society at the same time.
“The ethnic penalty in employment is well documented and we welcome the evidence in Unlock’s report which shows the biggest challenge for BAME individuals post-conviction is securing employment. The government needs to do more to help BAME people overcome ethnic and conviction bias in the labour market. EQUAL supports Unlock’s call for the government to conduct a fundamental review of the wider criminal records disclosure regime.”
Sara Llewellin, CEO of the Barrow Cadbury Trust, said:
“The Barrow Cadbury Trust is proud to support the work of Unlock. This report into the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic people living with criminal records is eye-opening. David Lammy MP in his 2017 review on racial disproportionality called for changes to our criminal records regime. The data and personal testimony in this report lend more weight to that long-running debate on what those changes would look like, and the urgent need to reform the disclosure system to enable individuals to access education and employment opportunities.”
Notes
Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence.
There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
An Indian man, now aged 36-45. He was convicted 10 years ago for 6 counts of theft and given a community sentence. He said: “There is already conscious and unconscious bias in the workplace, it’s a widely reported phenomenon. The combination of the conviction has made it worse. In the NHS where I work bullying and discrimination are rife, and made that much worse due to my ethnicity.”
An African man, aged 56-65. He got two convictions 40 years ago for shoplifting and fined for both. He said: “My experience is that BAME people are more heavily policed and (at least in the past) are put under pressure to admit to offences whether they committed them or not. Also, a bigger proportion of BAME people are socially disadvantaged. That means there is a higher risk of delinquency and convictions as children. I have been plagued by the fact that my convictions will never be spent as far as Civil Service vetting is concerned. I really don’t think a shoplifting conviction from the 1970s as a child should have remained on my record when I became an adult and started my career. They also led to me being refused visas for the USA and stopped me getting a second nationality (of my wife).”
An Indian woman, aged 46-55. She received one conviction 4 years ago for benefit fraud and sentenced to prison. She said: “The Indian community turned their back on me and I feel isolated. My house insurance was terminated. The cost of car and new house insurance increased. A loss of self-esteem stops me from applying for jobs. I don’t know where to find jobs which do not require a DBS. I can’t pass credit checks for private rented sector housing. People from the community avoid me so I am isolated and suffer from serious mental health issues. I live in poverty and risk of homelessness. I’ve had serious health issues linked to stress.”
We want to make sure that our website is as helpful as possible.
Letting us know if you easily found what you were looking for or not enables us to continue to improve our service for you and others.
Was it easy to find what you were looking for?
Thank you for your feedback.
12.5 million people have criminal records in the UK. We need your help to help them.
We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites. Find out more
