Category: Employment

Almost three-quarters of national companies continue to ask about criminal records at job application stage, new research shows

Unlock has today published new research that shows the vast majority of national companies continuing to have criminal record declarations as a core part of their initial job application forms.

Marking the 5-year anniversary of the Ban the Box campaign, the findings reveal the extent to which national employers have failed to recognise the negative consequences of criminal record tick-boxes on application forms.

Commenting on the report, A question of fairness, co-director of Unlock Christopher Stacey said:

“We’re proud to have co-founded the Ban the Box campaign and it’s really positive that over 110 companies – including Barclays, Boots, the Civil Service, and Virgin Trains – have signed up so far, but this new research shows that it remains the case that asking about criminal records at application stage is the default approach for almost three-quarters of national, big name companies. It’s also worrying that around 1 in 5 of them are asking for information they are not legally entitled to.

“These findings are unsurprising – employers are asking about criminal records at application stage as a way of deselecting applicants. We know this approach has a chilling effect on talented applicants with a criminal record, many of whom never apply because they think they don’t stand a chance. In fact, evidence from employers who do recruit people with criminal records shows that they make reliable, hardworking and loyal employees. Employers who are open about their inclusive recruitment practices report a positive impact on their reputation.

“Yet the numbers of employers removing criminal record questions from their application forms is not increasing fast enough. Earlier this month Unlock published new guidance for employers which showed that collecting criminal records data at the job application stage is unlikely to be compliant with the GDPR and data protection legislation. Government, business and charities need to seriously consider how to accelerate the changes in employer behaviour that Ban the Box encourages. Unless significant progress is made, increasingly it seems that the only way to make sure employers remove the tick-box is by looking to put Ban the Box on a statutory footing.”

Responding to the findings, Jessica Rose, Ban the Box campaign manager at Business in the Community, said:

“Unlock’s work to unearth the recruitment practices of some of the country’s biggest private sector employers paints a stark picture of confusion and inconsistency when it comes to managing risk around criminal convictions. This results in people being unfairly excluded from work and many more believing that no one is willing to give them a chance. Employers need to grasp the nettle and implement Ban the Box, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it will benefit their businesses and their communities.

“Some of the employers cited in this report already work with Business in the Community and other charities to support individuals into employment. This should give them the positive evidence they need to make the business case for changing their mainstream practices. We want to work with these businesses, alongside Unlock, to support them to put robust, fair and inclusive practices into place.”

We surveyed 80 large, national employers across eight sectors – supermarkets, retail, hotels, food and drink, construction, car manufacturing, utilities and communications and found that:

77 out of 80 employers had online application forms.
Of those 77, 54 employers (70%) asked about criminal records on their application form.
80% of employers who asked about criminal records provided no guidance to applicants.
22% of employers asked about criminal records in a way that was either potentially unlawful or misleading.
Collecting criminal records data at application stage is unlikely to be compliant with data protection legislation.
None of the employers surveyed provided information to applicants on why they collect criminal records data, or for how long it will be retained. Under the GDPR, employers who fail to provide this information are likely to be in breach of the law.
None of the construction companies and only around half the car manufacturers in our survey asked about criminal records at application stage.

The findings of this report show that there is still a long way to go in encouraging employers to stop asking about criminal records on application forms. In the conclusion we explore the broader implications of this report, but to achieve a fundamental shift in recruitment practice and seeing Ban the Box as business-as-usual, we believe there are steps that both government and employers should take. That is why we make a number of recommendations to both government and employers, which can be found on pages 4 and 5 of the report.

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.
The report can be downloaded here. A summary of the report can be downloaded here. The full list of employers we surveyed, along with the questions they ask, can be found in the Annex.
The report has been produced as part of Unlock’s Fair Access to Employment project, supported by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.
Unlock runs the website Recruit! – providing advice and support for employers on recruiting people with convictions and dealing with criminal records fairly. Employers looking for further advice about this guidance can contact recruit@unlock.org.uk.
For employers that want to sign up as a Ban the Box employer, please see bitc.org.uk/banthebox.

Our submission to the government’s call for evidence on the employment of people with convictions

Today we have submitted our written response to the government’s call for evidence on the employment for people with convictions.

Download our submission here.

You can find out more about the call for evidence in our recent post to encourage others to get involved.

Our submission draws on work that we’ve been doing as part of our Fair Access to Employment project.

Get involved! Government consultation on employer practices towards people with criminal records

The Cabinet Office (in partnership with the Ministry of Justice) are calling for evidence on the employment for people with convictions, and they want to hear from employers about recruitment practices, employability initiatives and evidence/impact. As well as employers, the Cabinet Office want to hear from organisations or professionals who:

work with people with convictions through the provision of skills training, outreach, mentoring, work placements.
work with people with convictions to help them find employment?
work with or advise other organisations on creating fair recruitment practices and supporting people with convictions in the labour market
campaign to reduce the stigma associated with having, or hiring someone with, a criminal conviction

We’ve shared this call for evidence with our network of employers and encourage you to do the same. However, we expect that the majority of employers that respond will have a more positive view of hiring people with convictions. While this is important, it’s just as important to hear about employers with negative views of employing people with a criminal record, so please share examples – anonymised if you prefer – of both in your response to the Cabinet Office, and share them with us too to help inform our response.

Although the consultation is not directly targeted at individuals, anyone can respond to the consultation so we would encourage people with a criminal record who have evidence and experiences linked to the areas below to respond.

Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock said:

“We’re very pleased to see the Cabinet Office launch this call for evidence, and we’re keen to raise awareness of it so that it reaches as many employers as possible. We’d really like to to encourage responses from businesses that perhaps have less positive approaches approaches to applicants with a criminal record, so that the government understand what some of the barriers are for employers. Alongside a number of positive examples of where employers do this well, we know that there are widespread negative attitudes towards applicants with a criminal record, and we’ll be making sure that these are reflected in our response so that we can encourage the government to do more to help change this.”

The consultation is looking at three areas, and we’ve suggested some questions below to consider in your response:

Recruitment practices

What are employers doing – if anything – to promote fair recruitment for people with a criminal record?
Do employers impose restrictions and/or bans on the hiring of ex-offenders for some or all jobs – and if so, why?
What incentives or support could help employers sign up to Ban the Box?
Examples of employers that proactively hire people with a criminal convictions. Examples of companies that restrict or refuse employment to people with convictions.

Employability initiatives

Which companies run employability initiatives to support recruitment of people with criminal records?
What support could be offered to employers to improve prospects for people with criminal records?

Evidence and impact

What is the impact of employment – for business, for the individual, the community and the economy?
What evidence is there of impact and what evidence could be collected better?

How to get involved

Read the full call for evidence here and complete and return your response to aandi-socialresearch@cabinetoffice.gov.uk by 5pm on Friday 31 August 2018.

Unlock will be responding directly to the consultation too, so alongside making a response yourself, please do send us information that can help inform our response. You can email details (confidentially) to policy@unlock.org.uk.

Unlock comment: Government announces scrapping of ‘disqualification by association’ in schools

Commenting on today’s news of changes to the childcare disqualification arrangements, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“Today’s announcement to scrap the ‘disqualification by association’ rule from schools is long overdue but very welcomed. We’ve been calling for it to be scrapped for nearly 4 years because it did nothing to contribute towards safeguarding in schools. The arrangements were disproportionate, unfair and ineffective.

Yet the fallout should not be underestimated – we know significant numbers of people have been unnecessarily suspended and some have lost their jobs as a result. Only two weeks ago we featured the story of Donna, whose conviction meant her children lost their jobs in schools. These changes will make a huge difference to the families and loved ones of people with convictions.”

In draft guidance published by the Department of Education, it states that “schools should not ask their staff questions about cautions or convictions of someone living or working in their household.” In response to the change, schools should “review their staffing policies and safer recruitment procedures, and make changes accordingly”.

The changes will come into force on the 31^st August 2018. The ‘disqualification by association’ element will be removed from schools and other non-domestic settings; it will remain in place for roles such as home-based childminding. We will be updating our practical guidance for individuals and supporting schools to ensure that they properly implement the changes.

Notes

Read our submission to the government consultation in 2016
More information about our policy work on ‘disqualification by association’, including case studies of people affected.
78% of respondents to the government’s consultation felt that the current ‘disqualification by association’ arrangements were unfair and disproportionate to the risk to children. Read the government’s consultation response.

Blog – The answer to Oxfam’s safeguarding problems is not enhanced DBS checks

The latest blog by Christopher Stacey (published on the Huffington Post) questions the use of enhanced DBS checks as the answer to Oxfam’s safeguarding problems.

Read it here.

Decade-old criminal record disclosures? The need for reform

With the disclosure of old and irrelevant criminal records in the spotlight, Christopher Stacey looks at how the system is unfairly holding people back

Over four million jobs every year involve employers requesting an enhanced criminal record from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

Although these were originally for roles that involve close contact with children and vulnerable groups, the types of positions that often involve them has now gone way beyond the core purpose. For example, Unlock is regularly contacted by people who have been told they need an enhanced check for a job, for example, as a delivery driver or a receptionist.

These checks alone would not be so much of an issue, if it were not for the fact that, given the current rules for disclosing old and minor criminal records, it means that around 250,000 people every year are affected by old and minor cautions and convictions being revealed on enhanced DBS checks.

Couple that with the known negative reactions (and often blanket policies) of employers towards applicants with a criminal record, it is unsurprising that they are the least likely ‘disadvantaged group’ to be employed.

Against unnecessary disclosure

We need to make sure that enhanced DBS checks do not unnecessarily disclose information that is old, minor or irrelevant to the job being sought. Up until now, there has been very little detail on what type of information gets disclosed on DBS checks, which is why the briefing published by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies is so welcome.

The research shows that in 2015, over one million criminal records were disclosed on standard or enhanced checks. Yet nearly three-quarters of those criminal records (742,482) were more than ten years old.

We know that the length of time since their last offence is one of the most important factors in establishing the likelihood of someone committing an offence in the future, so why is it that these criminal records are being disclosed over a decade later?

The desperate need for reform

The crux of the issue are the current ‘filtering’ rules. Although these are complex, they essentially mean that if someone has a certain criminal record, it will be disclosed on an enhanced DBS for the rest of their life. This includes someone:

With more than one conviction on their record, or
has been cautioned or convicted for a certain type of offence (there are over 1,000 of these, including aggravated bodily harm and soliciting for the purposes of prostitution), or
who has received any type of prison (or suspended prison) sentence.

This can affect somebody who stole two chocolate bars when they were 14 and who is now in their fifties. This puts a lot of people off applying and unnecessarily anchors people to their past. The routine rejection by employers locks people out of the labour market and has a considerable financial cost to society through out-of-work benefits.

At Unlock, we have argued that the filtering rules are in desperate need of reform. Earlier this year, Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that the current system is disproportionate and not in accordance with the law. The government is dragging its heels by appealing to the Supreme Court. It is clearly not listening to the compelling evidence that shows the significant and unnecessary barriers to rehabilitation that the current regime is creating.

Recent reports by David Lammy MP and the Justice Committee have also added weight to the need for changes.

It is common sense that certain offences need to be disclosed to employers. But we should not be unnecessarily blighting the lives of people who are trying to move on, by disclosing old, minor or irrelevant information that holds them back and stops them from reaching their potential.

A fairer and more flexible system would be one with expanded automatic filtering rules and a discretionary filtering process, with a review mechanism so that individual circumstances can be considered.

Alongside changes to the filtering rules, Unlock has long supported the introduction of a criminal records tribunal. This would allow enable individuals to apply for an end on the disclosure of their criminal record to employers on a relevant criminal record check.

There is evidence from overseas that this approach works. It would help to address the injustice that many people face as a result of what are currently arbitrary, fixed rules that take no account of the positive steps that people have taken since the actions that resulted in their receiving a criminal record.

Blog – ‘Through the gate’ services are failing to support people leaving prison into employment

‘Through the gate’ services are failing to support people into employment. That’s one of the conclusions in a report published last week by HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons into the ‘through the gate resettlement services’ that were introduced in 2015 and run by newly formed ‘Community Rehabilitation Companies’ (CRCs).

Right from the start of the government’s ‘transforming rehabilitation’ programme, there were a number of concerns about the problems that would arise. For me, there are three key things I took away from the report last week:

1. Too much focus on contracts

As the report found last week:

“There is much more CRCs should be doing to make a difference to the lives of those they are meant to be helping, but we found them focusing most of their efforts on meeting their contractual targets, to produce written resettlement plans. Responding to the needs of prisoners received much less attention, but meaningful expectations are not specified clearly in CRC contracts, and good, persistent work is not incentivised or rewarded sufficiently.”

This has been clear to me in the training I’ve delivered to practitioners working in (and for) CRCs. The training I deliver looks at criminal record and disclosure rules, and how best to deal with that in terms of employment. Generally, despite a real willingness to want to help their clients, the staff simply do not have the time or resources, and instead they’ve had to focus on the “must-do” parts of the contract.

The review of probation that the Ministry of Justice has been working on needs to respond to these issues. Things are clearly not working as they are.

2. Lack of support into employment

Of the 98 individuals looked at in the report, none were helped by ‘through the gate’ services to enter education, training or employment after release. This is a damning indictment:

“The impact of Through the Gate services on education, training and employment was minimal. No prisoners were helped by Through the Gate services to enter education, training or employment after release.”

“We did not see any cases where Through the Gate services had assisted a prisoner to get employment after release. We did not find CRCs promoting links to local colleges or education providers for the prisoners where this would have been appropriate. There were some examples, however, of handover to specialist ETE staff in the CRC in the community for them to make onward referrals.”

Sadly, none of this is surprising. I highlighted many of these issues last year to the Work and Pensions Committee’s as part of their “support for ex-offenders” inquiry. I’d urge the government to implement the recommendations of that inquiry. In particular, the government needs to state clearly who has ultimately responsibility for helping prison leavers into work. CRCs should be required to track the outcomes of the people they help, including whether they have helped them into work. This should be a key measure by which CRCs are deemed successful.

3. Not enough being done to help open bank accounts before release

This problem is well-known to Unlock. A basic bank account is a fundamental necessity in modern society, particularly when seeking employment. That was the case over 10 years ago when we first started to look at this.

I led a project for many years to persuade banks to open their doors to applications from people in prison who were near to their release. Once we’d managed that, we then worked with both prisons and banks to implement safe and effective systems. To cut a long story short, it was very successful – by the end of the project in 2014 we had set up 74 prison-bank partnerships, and overall 114 prisons had links with high-street banks. The job wasn’t finished completely – which is why we made a number of recommendations (particularly to NOMS, as it was then) to act upon.

Unfortunately, the end of this project was closely followed by the ‘transforming rehabilitation’ changes. Again, to cut a long story short, it seems that things have been going downhill ever since.

In the executive summary of the report, it states:

“All except one of the prisons we visited were able to set bank accounts up for prisoners, but even where this service was available, some prisoners were still released without bank accounts. Other work on finance, benefits and debt was not being delivered to any great extent.”

In the main body of the report, it states:

“Some prisoners do not have their own bank accounts, and this can cause lengthy delays in claiming benefits. We expected that all the prisons we visited would be able to arrange bank accounts where needed. We saw some cases where this was recognised and assistance was given, but in others this need was recognised too late or overlooked completely.”

This has all the hallmarks of operational issues in the prisons. That wouldn’t be a surprise, give many of the changes in the last few years. Although it’s part of the contract of CRCs to help people open a bank account before release, what last week’s report clearly highlighted is how, generally, the ‘through the gate’ element to their work is not working well enough.

That’s why today I’ve written to the Prisons and Probation Minister, Sam Gyimah, to raise my concerns. I’ve recommended that he launch an immediate review into the provision of opening basic bank accounts for people in prison before they’re released. It’s clear that, operationally, the arrangements in prisons to open basic bank are not working as well as they should be. Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service need to get a grip of this, understand what the problems are, and find solutions to them.

Christopher Stacey

More information

The report published last week is available to download.
We’re working on improving the support to people with convictions into employment
We continue to encourage the implementation of the recommendations we made around opening basic bank accounts for people before release from when we finished our project in 2014.

Government “exploring” incentives for businesses that take on ex-offenders

Today the Work and Pensions Committee has published the Government’s response to its report on the support for ex-offenders leaving prison, which indicates that the Government has accepted the case made for many of the Committee’s recommendations and is looking for ways to take them forward, including considering a range of ways to incentive employers to take on ex-offenders leaving prison. The suggestion of offering reduced National Insurance contributions to those employers is particularly “noted with interest”.

This follows on from the Committee’s published report in December, which made recommendations after hearing evidence from organisations including Unlock.

Unlocking the potential of the UK’s ex-offenders

An article published by Nat West suggests that one remedy to fill the UK’s skills gap could be to hire more ex-offenders and discusses what is the best way to go about it.

Christopher Stacey contributes to the article, stating “We know from employers that have been proactive in recruiting people with convictions that they make good employees. The first thing we recommend any company does is look at its current policy and approach. ”

You can read the full article , including tips for employers who are considering hiring an ex-offender, here.

New ’10 things about criminal records’ guide for employability professionals

February 2019 update – We have done some work to update the original guide and have now published a version 2 of the guide.

People with criminal records make up a sizeable proportion of the unemployed population – 33% of Job Seekers Allowance claimants have received a criminal record in the last ten years. For many, it can be their main barrier to employment; people with convictions are the least likely ‘disadvantaged group’ to be employed, with nearly three-quarters (73%) of people unemployed on release from prison.

We know that employability professionals provide a vital form of support to people in the community. Yet according to a recent government report, only 29% of prison leavers received advice on dealing with their criminal record from the Work Programme. Historically, they have had very little training on supporting their clients with the complex laws around criminal records and how to practically deal with disclosing their criminal record to employers and others.

That’s why we deliver training to employability professionals; so that we improve the quality of the support provided to people with criminal records. We know from the feedback that we get that the training is high-quality and relevant to their work.

That’s also why we’ve recently worked with the Institute of Employability Professionals (IEP) and today have published a ’10 things about criminal records’ guide aimed specifically at employability professionals.

The guide is designed for practitioners that support people with criminal records into employment, including employability professionals, job centre advisors, careers advisors and probation officers.

The guide is available to download and forms part of IEP’s range of ’10 things’ guides. We hope it serves as a useful introduction and reference point for employability professionals. It provides an overview of the key areas, following a similar structure to that taken by our ‘Advising with Convictions’ one-day training course.

Our training courses are regularly run in London. Places can be booked online. In-house training sessions for larger teams are also available; if you’re interested in learning more, details are available online or you can email admin@unlock.org.uk.

Useful links

The ’10 things about criminal records’ guide is available to download.