Category: Latest

Criminal records webinar Wednesday 2 December

Do you deal with criminal records in your work? You might be helping people with convictions who are applying for jobs, or working in recruitment/HR and making hiring decisions or carrying out DBS checks.

If any of these apply to you, book a place and join us on Wednesday 2 December for our webinar on understanding the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the disclosure of criminal records.

The criminal records system in England and Wales is complex and often confusing. There are over 11 million people with a criminal record. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is a piece of legislation that sets out when convictions become ‘spent’, and it’s important to know the difference between unspent and spent convictions and when they need to be disclosed.

When and where?

Wednesday 2 December, 2-4pm, Online
(Please join at 1.45pm to begin promptly at 2pm – thank you)

Price: £49 (if booked before 1 November, normal price £59)

Price includes a course pack with materials and useful resources which will be sent to you before the webinar.

Places are limited, so book now to guarantee your place. If you wish to be notified on any future webinars, please email admin@unlockorg.uk

Who is it for?

The webinar is aimed at anyone who deals with criminal records in their work. You might be helping people with convictions who are applying for jobs, or you might be working in recruitment/HR and making hiring decisions or carrying on DBS checks.

What it will cover

The levels of DBS criminal record check and what they disclose
How individuals can find out about their criminal record
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and spent convictions
The ‘filtering’ rules and protected cautions/convictions
Good practice in asking about criminal records for employment and volunteering

To find out more and to book, visit our Eventbrite page.

Footer

If you have any questions, email admin@unlock.org.uk.

This webinar is part of the training that we provide.

A smarter approach to criminal records?

On the 16th September the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published it’s much anticipated white paper “A Smarter Approach To Sentencing”. It is a mixed bag, offering ‘tough on crime’ sentencing measures along with some more positive reforms to criminal record disclosure periods.

The MoJ says that they want to improve employment prospects for people with convictions, and so reduce reoffending, which sounds great. Given that they have also announced some positive changes you could be forgiven for thinking that reducing disclosure periods might actually ensure better access to employment. Unfortunately it’s a bit more complicated than that.

Seen in a vacuum the proposals are somewhat progressive. A significant number of people, 15,000 per year, would see their convictions become spent more quickly, and no longer have to disclose them for most jobs. Many other people who have been living with an unspent criminal record for decades would finally be able to move on, as the proposed changes would enable some sentences over four years to become spent. That’s a strong start.

Here are what the proposed disclosure periods look like in more detail:

There are three things that really jump out.

Firstly, some sentences over four years would have the opportunity to become spent. The asterisks are quite significant, with most violent, sexual and terrorist offences excluded, which means only about 30% of longer sentences are eligible. But in spite of this, it would still be a big change. At the last review in 2014, even this limited version seemed impossible.

Secondly, disclosure periods would be generally shortened, which would reduce the period people face discrimination for. This is certainly better than nothing, but the periods are still quite long even compared to other proposals from within Parliament. Lord Ramsbotham’s 2017 bill proposed cutting four year periods to two years, for example, but the MoJ has chosen to ignore this despite cross–party support.

Finally; the shortest period of disclosures would cover sentences under 12 months, instead of only six months. This is in line with the changes we saw in Scotland, with all magistrates sentences being spent at the same rate . This would result in far fewer cases where the differences between regions and judges leads to a major difference in disclosure length.

To put these changes into perspective; MoJ figures show 7,980 people were given sentences between six months and one year in 2019/20. At present they have to disclose their convictions for four years; under these proposals they would only have to disclose for one year. Around 7,500 people receive sentences of over 30 months each year, and they would only disclose for four years instead of seven after these changes.

However, while shortened disclosure periods will certainly help thousands of people get their lives back on track, the white paper still seems to have missed the point. The proposals are a general relaxation, but they do little to actually improve employment prospects.

The critical time for employment is at the beginning of the disclosure period, not the end. Finding the first job is the hardest part, when discrimination is most felt. Reducing the period of discrimination is positive, but the discrimination is still there and will still hold people back. Even while the MoJ is making the right argument about employment, they don’t offer proposals to tackle this core issue.

This can be seen in other places, especially in the rationale given for preventing most longer sentences becoming spent. The white paper justifies shortened disclosure periods by arguing that employment reduces reoffending. We completely agree, and the evidence backs this up. But a few paragraphs later, the paper says lifelong disclosure, and lifelong discrimination, is justified because reoffending would be particularly harmful. Surely if reoffending would be so bad it is even more important to do everything we can to reduce it, including improved access to employment?

People with more serious convictions face more serious discrimination, and for longer. The MoJ knows this is a big factor in reoffending, but they are not doing anything to change it. Most alarmingly, by continuing with lifelong disclosure the MoJ is signalling that many thousands of people cannot be rehabilitated and always present a risk to the public, even after 40 or 50 years.

In the end, while this paper says all the right things about employment and reoffending, the MoJ are content to leave the old system intact and not consider a genuinely new approach. They argue that discrimination is severe and needs to be addressed; but their proposals are only for less discrimination for some, and they don’t consider the possibility of zero discrimination.

Of course, Unlock will be pushing for any change that helps people with convictions, even small ones. Better is still better. But our real goal over the coming year or two as the paper moves forward is to push the Government to be bolder and less restricted in their thinking, and to deliver a criminal records system that works for everyone.

Written by Sam Doohan, Unlock Policy Officer

The Government’s White Paper
Recent Scottish updates to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
Our campaign for reform
Join the #FairChecks movement for disclosure reform

Criminal records: a comparison between England and Israel

We know that in the UK, people with criminal records can face stigma, discrimination and barriers which prevent them from being able to move on from their past and make a positive contribution to society. These barriers most commonly relate to employment, but people with convictions can also find themselves locked out of volunteering, access to housing and insurance.

Independent researcher Dana Segev wanted to look at how things could be done differently; in her article published by Unlock, she compares the treatment of people with convictions in England and Israel.

Download the article

Scottish Government Reforms criminal record disclosure

The Scottish Government has passed a significant reform to their criminal records regime. The Scottish system is separate from the one that applies in England and Wales, and had fallen behind the rest of the UK after Westminster made significant updates in 2014.

The reforms that Holyrood have now passed make for interesting reading. The Scottish reforms, which come into force in November, give an insight into how criminal records are seen inside government and should be seen as a barometer for the rest of the UK.

The new system does not just mirror England and Wales; It is broadly similar, but the changes are significant, especially when looked at in terms of the numbers of people who will be impacted. Note: the Ministry of Justice recently published a sentencing white paper, including proposed changes to the criminal records system in England and Wales.

The changes in Scotland

The most important difference is that the lowest tier for disclosing custodial sentences in Scotland now cuts off at 12 months, not six months as in England and Wales. This makes a significant difference, because short sentences are the most common, and those between six and 12 months are just under 20% of the annual total.

As a result, about 2,000 more people per year will fall into the two year disclosure period, instead of the four year period they would face in England and Wales. 80% of all custodial sentences in Scotland will now be in the lowest tier for disclosure, compared to 62% if they had adopted the same system as England and Wales.

This change also impacts the kinds of offences which will fall into the shortest disclosure period. Twelve months is the maximum sentence that can be imposed by a magistrate (summary process by a sheriff in Scotland). This means that all custodial sentences imposed by will have the same disclosure regime, which is a much fairer approach.

Minor variations in sentencing between individual sheriffs or magistrates will not lead to multiple additional years of disclosure. There will still be discretion over sentence lengths, but not over how long they will be disclosed for. This also shows more joined up thinking. It makes sense that the existing division between magistrates and crown court is reflected in the subsequent disclosure.

Another major change is that the Scottish legislation will allow – eventually – for sentences over 4 years to become spent. This will not happen automatically, but the Scottish government have committed to creating a review process to determine when, or if, they can become spent.

This is a significant shift in position, and it is the first attempt in the UK to handle these more serious convictions on a case by case basis. While longer sentences are less frequent overall, the current requirement to disclose indefinitely means they impact people for decades, regardless of how much they have moved on. The ability to review a conviction and have it become spent is much fairer than blanket rules.

We do not know what that review process will look like, or even necessarily the criteria that will be used, so there are still some hurdles to overcome. We are particularly concerned about the resources that will be available, because this will hugely impact how effective that system can be. However, this is still a big move in principle, and we hope it will be as meaningful in practice.

These changes are not huge in legislative terms, but they will make a major difference to a large number of people. 22% of annual sentences in Scotland will have a fairer disclosure regime than in England and Wales. 2,500 people per year will have a more positive future because of a more progressive criminal records system, with easier access to employment and education, and fair access to insurance.

How does this impact England and Wales?

It is very encouraging for our reform work in Westminster that Holyrood has made this move. We can see that political and government circles are interested in a more progressive approach, and that they do see the positives associated with a less draconian system.

Once the Scottish system is in action it will provide a continuous stream of data showing the impact that reducing disclosure has in numerous different ways. If the figures show lower reoffending and improved employment, as the Scottish government believes they will, this will be powerful evidence for making similar changes in England and Wales.

Equally, the Scottish Government has shown that the arguments that Unlock is making in Westminster do impact policy decisions. The Scottish Justice minister, Humza Yousaf, said: “Progressive changes to disclosure allow people to move on with their lives into employment, [and are] proven to reduce the likelihood of further offending. As a result, these changes] help keep crime down and communities safe.”

These are exactly the arguments that Unlock make, and it is very positive to see officials citing these benefits as the reason for reducing disclosure. stance taken further, especially for intermediate-length sentences where Scotland will largely mirror the wider UK.

In the coming year, our calls to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will certainly be strengthened by the Scottish reforms. The arrival of new legislation will shine a spotlight on the regime in England and Wales, and help to break the inertia, as well as providing real world data. Unlock will be building from Scotland’s example to deliver a truly fair criminal record system that works for everyone.

Get involved

Join the FairChecks movement, and call on the government to reform criminal records checking in England and Wales.

Written by Sam Doohan, Unlock Policy Officer

More information

Open letter to Ministers Victoria Atkins and Chris Philp

Back in July, the government responded to a Supreme Court ruling from January 2019, requiring changes to the filtering system. This week these changes have finally gone through parliament – but we have learned that there will be a delay of several months before they are signed into law, ostensibly due to time needed for the DBS to prepare their systems. Together with Liberty and Just for Kids Law, today we publish the below letter sent yesterday to the ministers responsible:

Dear Ministers

Re: Timetable for implementing response to the Supreme Court judgment: [2019] UKSC 3

As organisations involved in the above Supreme Court case on criminal records, we are writing to seek urgent clarification on the timetable for implementing the changes that the ruling required.

This week Parliament approved two statutory instruments that the government had laid to amend the rules for criminal record disclosure, following the ruling of the Supreme Court ruling in January of 2019. These two simple changes will put an end to the disclosure of childhood cautions and will also end the automatic disclosure of multiple convictions as a result of the so-called ‘multiple conviction’ rule being abolished. The Home Office’s own analysis shows that, taken together, these two changes will help around 45,000 people per year to have a fresh start by having clear standard or enhanced DBS checks. 

However, these changes have yet to become law. We are deeply concerned at the potential for the changes to still not come into force for several months, as the Minister stated a “hope” for them to be “finalised by the end of the year.” This delay is simply intolerable, and we urge you, as Ministers with direct responsibility for delivering on the two respective Statutory Instruments, to take firm action.  

Given the amount of time that has passed since the Supreme Court ruling, we are concerned by the latest hold up. The verdict that drove the changes was delivered in January of 2019. This has given the Government ample time, at least 20 months, to make preparations. These are also not complex changes; they are minor updates to an existing rules-based system. 

Across England and Wales thousands of people are still being impacted each month by the current filtering rules. According to Home Office figures, over 45,000 people per year would not disclose any criminal offences under the new rules, but they will continue to do so until the new rules take effect. 120 people each day – 3,750 a month – are having their professional futures jeopardised by a disclosure regime which was described by the Supreme Court as having elements that were capricious, disproportionate and perverse. Many more will be putting their career plans on hold, waiting for the changes to come into effect before seeking employment – because of the stigma they know they will face if their criminal record is disclosed. 

It is critically important that the Home Office and Ministry of Justice are seen to respect the Supreme Court’s judgement. It reflects very poorly on the Government when it shows conspicuously little interest in realising the changes that have been ordered, and an indifference to the ongoing injustice. 

As three organisations who hear every day from people impacted by this system, Unlock, Liberty and Just for Kids Law strongly urge the Ministers to provide the necessary leadership to ensure that the Supreme Court’s decision is implemented immediately. We also urge you to investigate the cause of this delay, and reassure the public that your departments have not made any attempts to frustrate or undermine the Court’s ruling. Everyone deserves the opportunity of a fresh start. 

We look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Stacey – Co-director, Unlock

Enver Solomon – CEO, Just for Kids Law

Martha Spurrier – Director, Liberty

‘Anchoring, everlasting, uncertainty, resilience’: Researching the impact of criminal records acquired in youth

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. Here she blogs about some of her findings so far.

Almost three years into my PhD I am spending much of my time surrounded by scribbles, highlights and post-it-it-notes as I continue to draw together the key ‘themes’ and ideas which came out from the interviews I conducted. In a recent research update I shared that I had been to Ghent to present preliminary findings and ideas which this blog will discuss in more detail. The four themes I highlighted in this presentation are: ‘anchoring’, ‘everlasting’, ‘uncertainty’ and ‘resilience’. Whilst the thesis is still a work in progress I hope this blog will help give some indication of the experiences captured in this research. Thank you again to those who took part and placed their trust in me.

Anchoring

“…it was a really traumatic erm period of time in my life so when I have to disclose it or talk about it not only I’ve got the actions of the things I’ve done wrong…I’ve got the erm context of it all as well…which for me feels worse it’s like…I don’t know a little bit re-tr- re-traumatising”

Megan

“…this caution had an effect on me for…years. Literally for years. You know…it caused me a lot of grief in the sense that I had to re-live that situation over and over again”

Yasmeen

Throughout our lives we take part in interviews and assessments, fill in various different forms and go through an array of sorting processes designed to filtering people as they try to access different opportunities. This occurs in variety of life domains from employment and volunteering to insurance and travel. This has become a common often taken for granted feature of our lives. However, for several of my participants these processes can be emotionally harmful as they require not only the disclosure of a criminal record but further explanation of the context of their offending. This is the anchoring affect whereby individuals are emotionally drawn back to a time in their lives where they may have faced victimisation, trauma, addictions and other significant difficulties. It was explained to me that this experience of disclosure could be humiliating, embarrassing and felt to be deeply invasive.

Everlasting

“…it’s had an impact on my life when I thought it was done you know? I thought I’d I’d reinvented myself I’d left that life behind. I’ve I’ve done everythin’ since I’ve done volunteerin’ I’ve worked […] I came from nothin’ […] all I’ve done is jump through hurdles…for like ten years […] I’ve had a clean slate throughout uni nothin’s gone wrong but still…this is apparently the pinnacle of my life that should dictate where I can go”

Paul

The long-term enduring nature of a criminal record has been discussed by Unlock and other criminal record scholars and campaigners. Indeed, the everlasting effect of having interacted with the criminal justice system at a young age was something the majority of my participants discussed. Those in early adulthood shared how they felt nervous and lived with a degree of anxiety at the potential for their criminal record to resurface later in life. In contrast, those later in adulthood reflected back on how they had personally experienced the criminal record as everlasting, resurfacing after many years of it not being disclosed. There was a real sense of not being able to fully move on despite having developed maturity and grown older with more life experience.

Uncertainty

“I think it’s always that thought I think it’s always there I think it’s always that… that thing in the back of ya mind… that it will stop ya from from future opportunities from travelling erm from future job prospects”

Ben

Linking very closely to the everlasting potential of having a historical youth record disclosed later in life is the third theme uncertainty. Due to the knowledge that their criminal record may resurface almost all my participants, even those who felt they had been successful thus far, acknowledged a degree of uncertainty over their future plans. Indeed, whilst individuals felt they had a degree of control over their lives and have found ways to access opportunities, there was an awareness of their vulnerability to external changes in law and policy. For some this uncertainty was only a slight concern whilst for others it was a significant issue causing them to worry about future romantic relationships, travel post-Brexit and the ability to attain and advance in employment. At the time of writing we are all living through increased uncertainty due to the global pandemic, and I am wondering how this might be affecting those with criminal records who may need to seek new employment. Life is truly unpredictable and the added layer of precariousness given by having a criminal record further complicates things.

Resilience

“…the thing that I um you know I rate myself for is that fact that I I stood strong…and I persevered do you know what I mean?…I never I never like let it get me down”

Yasmeen

Whilst much of this blog post has captured the negatives and difficulties associated with living with a criminal record, my interviews with participants covered a range of different emotions. Through the tears and the anger was laughter and strength. As such, I am keen to ensure I acknowledge the positivity and ‘can do’ attitude some of my participants had. Whilst largely experiences were negative, many of those I spoke to discussed their motivation and drive to succeed despite the potential obstacles living with a criminal record creates. This resilience was shown by many and it was something people spoke proudly of.

NOTE: names have been changed

Read Nicola’s previous updates about her research

Unlock’s response to Ministry of Justice plans to make reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Commenting on today’s announcement (16 September) by the Ministry of Justice on plans to make changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the disclosure of criminal records, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

Unlock very much welcomes and supports today’s announcement by the Justice Secretary that disclosure periods for criminal records will be reduced. If these proposals proceed to statute, it will mean more people with criminal records being able to get jobs and make a positive contribution to society. The current criminal records disclosure system does little to promote rehabilitation or serve public protection, but it does result in people being locked out of jobs and opportunities, often for the rest of their life, because of a criminal record that serves as a second sentence.

England and Wales has one of the most punitive criminal record disclosure regimes in Europe – and there’s no evidence that it’s reducing crime. Getting people with convictions into work, supporting their families and contributing to the economy is one of the best ways of making communities safer. Evidence shows that more than half of men, and three quarters of women who receive a conviction, will never be convicted again.

Today’s announcement that some sentences of over four years in prison will no longer have to be disclosed when applying for most jobs if people are conviction-free seven years after completing their sentence is a positive step forward. We have long campaigned for a system that enables all convictions to become ‘spent’ at some point. For those that these proposals apply to, once they have completed their rehabilitation period they will no longer be required to disclose their conviction for most jobs or education courses, nor for housing or insurance.

However, more than 8,000 people every year receive sentences of over four years and today’s proposals have wide-ranging exclusions which we understand will mean that around two-thirds of people sentenced to more than four years in prison will continue to have a lifelong ‘never spent’ conviction.

The risk of reoffending is consistently lower for those who have served longer sentences, and data on reoffending by index offence shows sexual and violent offences have lower rates of reoffending than many other categories. Exclusions by offence type risk creating unfairness and anomalies at the margins, further entrenching racial injustice and embedding the idea that some people are inherently incapable of rehabilitation. We do not believe that to be the case.

We have long-supported Lord Ramsbotham’s Criminal Records Bill, and the proposals in that Bill are a pragmatic attempt to see positive change, given the rehabilitation periods for adults were recommended in the Breaking the Circle report in 2003, and accepted by the government of the time. The proposals today fall short by comparison.

Making changes so that more people have their convictions become spent sooner is a positive change. However, there is little point in having more people reach this stage if employers can continue to discriminate. There are fundamental questions as to how effective the legislation is in a society where information remains online and employers regularly ask about spent convictions even if they are not entitled to know about them.

The government needs to make sure that the legislation does what it is intended to do – give people a chance to live free from the stigma of their past. Today’s proposals do nothing to address these issues, which is why we continue to call for a root-and-branch review of the criminal records regime.

Everyone should have the opportunity to unleash their potential and make a positive contribution to society. Everyone should have the opportunity of a fresh start. We hope the government will listen and make sure that law-abiding people with convictions have a real chance to move on with their lives without their criminal record hanging over them.

ENDS

For media enquiries, please contact Ruth Davies, Digital and Communications Manager. Email ruth.davies@unlock.org.uk or call 07458 393 194

Notes to editors

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.

Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.

High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account.

Spent convictions can still be disclosed for jobs working with children or vulnerable adults, or in some trusted professions. What shows up on standard and enhanced DBS checks is determined by the filtering rules.

Case studies

Below are case studies of individuals where their conviction will remain a lifelong ‘never spent’ conviction because their offences are excluded under the proposals by the Ministry of Justice.

Case study – Ian

Ian joined his well-known firm in the early 1990s when few employers asked about criminal records. Over the years he developed his skills and now managed the office, earning a good salary.

In 2019, the firm introduced new HR systems and retrospectively carried out basic DBS checks on all staff. Ian had been sentenced to 7.5 years in prison in the 1980s for his involvement in an armed robbery. Ian explained this to his employer, hopeful that his 25 years of service and exemplary work record would stand him in good stead. Despite this, the firm let Ian go – they said they couldn’t risk anyone finding out that one of their employees had an unspent conviction. Ian is claiming JSA while he looks for work.

Case study – Amir

At 17 Amir was convicted, under joint enterprise, for a serious assault on a man. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison. On release, he moved with his family to a new area and completed qualifications in business and IT. Amir eventually started a small business from home doing computer repairs and providing training.

Now 29, Amir applied for a job in the training department of one of the big four accounting firms. After a telephone interview, assessment centre and face-to-face interview Amir was selected over the 18 other candidates. On receiving the offer, Amir disclosed his unspent conviction. The HR manager told him someone would be in touch. After three months of waiting, Amir contacted the UK Director of HR who said the company had a policy of not employing anyone with an unspent conviction.

Case study – Anne

Anne was convicted of the manslaughter of her husband and sentenced to 7 years. At her trial it was accepted that she was suffering from a psychiatric condition resulting from her husband’s abusive behaviour over two decades. Anne is out of prison now and volunteers as a speaker for a charity that supports victims of domestic abuse.

Anne has applied for part-time work at a supermarket and a high street retailer but has been turned down both times because of her unspent conviction. She felt the interviewers were sympathetic when she disclosed but afterwards was told it was ‘company policy’ not to employ anyone with an unspent conviction.

Better advice and information could increase employers’ confidence in hiring people convicted of sexual offences

Over half of employers would feel more confident hiring people with sexual convictions if they had access to management advice, or if they believed that the applicant wouldn’t reoffend, a joint report by the Prison Reform Trust and Unlock reveals.

Almost half of employers surveyed would be reassured by knowing the person would be under strict probation supervision, and over a third if they believed that other workers would accept them.

Thinking Differently, written by Dr Mia Harris, Dr Rachel Tynan and Dr Kimmett Edgar, explores employers’ attitudes towards hiring people convicted of sexual offences. Its findings are based on a survey of employers and interviews with prison resettlement officers, employers, charities and other professionals.

Sexual offences cover a wide range of very different behaviours, from some of the most serious crime on the statute book to, for example, 17-year-olds sending sexual images of themselves to their partners. In the year ending March 2020, police recorded 154,113 sexual offences. However, given the lack of reporting, this figure is likely to underestimate the true extent of sexual offending.

Reoffending rates for people convicted of sex offences are low compared to other offence types. On average, between 10 and 15% of people convicted of sex offences are charged for another sexual offence within five years.

Research evidence suggests that having a stable job can help reduce reoffending, including by those convicted of sexual offences, by providing structure, a sense of belonging, personal fulfilment, and a perception of something to lose. However, employers tend to discriminate against people with convictions in general, and people convicted of sexual offences are the most stigmatised within that group.

There are some jobs, for instance those involving contact with children or vulnerable adults, where a sexual conviction may be a legitimate reason for not employing an individual due to safeguarding concerns.

However, there are many jobs for which a sexual conviction should not be a bar to employment and in which any risk presented by the individual could be safely managed. But too often discriminatory employment practices and attitudes prevent people with sexual convictions from entering the workplace. Understanding employers’ views about hiring people convicted of sexual offences is therefore an important part of any strategy to increase opportunities for employment, in pursuit of reintegration and safer communities.

As well as exploring the attitudes of employers to hiring people with sexual convictions, the report sought to assess whether better-informed employers might be more open to hiring people from this group. In order to do so, two versions of the survey were used. The long version of the survey provided information about sexual offending, supervision and support in the community and reoffending rates.

Employers who were given additional information about sexual offending were found to be three times less likely to list reoffending as a reason not to employ people with sexual convictions than those employers who were not sent the longer survey. These findings must be treated with caution, because employers taking the long version of the survey were more likely to report from the outset that they were open to hiring people with convictions, and actively promoting the recruitment of people with criminal records.

Among the report’s recommendations are for employers to be provided with factual information about all offending, but particularly sexual and violent offending. This should include detail on risk factors and assessment and supervision and safeguards.

Commenting in the Foreword of the report, Dr Lynn Saunders OBE, governor at HMP Whatton and Chair and co-founder of the Safer Living Foundation, a charity established to prevent sexual (re)offending, said:

“People with sexual convictions find it difficult to obtain work even though they are often well motivated, skilled, and have a good work ethic—desirable characteristics for any employer. Although the impact of a sexual offence on an individual victim should not be underestimated, neither should the importance of reducing the likelihood of the creation of future victims. Providing a person with the opportunity to obtain stable employment has a significant impact on the prevention of sexual crime. Given advice about how they can be safely managed in the workplace, employers can assist their successful rehabilitation.”

Peter Dawson, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

“This detailed and thorough report tackles a subject that it would be all too easy to ignore. But stigma thrives on ignorance, and ultimately harms public safety. Balanced, accurate information about the huge range of behaviour that is categorised as sexual offending, and about the supervision of people convicted of those crimes, can build employers’ confidence. Just as people need safe places to live when they leave prison, so they also need a way to earn a living – our communities will be safer when we remove the barriers that stop that from happening.”

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, said:

“People with convictions face stigma and obstacles many years after their sentence is complete. For people convicted of sexual offences that is amplified and we regularly hear from skilled and motivated people who cannot find a job as a result. Employment enables people to give back – to their family, community and by contributing to the economy – and it makes society safer too. This report shows that employers can, with the right information and support, start to see people with convictions for sexual offences as potential employees.”

Notes

Employer case study: Goodwill Solutions CIC

As well as being a logistics business, Goodwill Solutions CIC also runs programmes of training and support to help those with additional challenges become more employable.

A question we are asked many times by organisations like Probation and the Police is, “Is there anyone you won’t work with”? At first I wondered ‘why that question?’ Surely when you say you want to try and help people to turn their lives around and become fully functioning members of their local communities you don’t say ‘no’ to anyone. However, it turns out that even in a sector which pushes an agenda of inclusivity, significant prejudice remains amongst those organisations and businesses who support ex-offenders.

At Goodwill we have supported, and where we’ve been able also employed, offenders of all kinds including those convicted of sexual offences. It’s not easy because we have to be mindful of their restrictions and make sure we aren’t putting them or others in danger.

There are very few jobs which cannot be done safely by people convicted of a sexual offence. In most instances it is a mindset challenge for employers and other employees but one that we believe is key to the whole community. Many have families, parents, children who depend on them for support. If we ostracise that person we condemn not just them but their families too.

The key is open and honest communication both about their convictions and their restrictions. We believe that a person able to turn their life around is far less likely to reoffend than someone abandoned and left feeling that society wants him to fail.

Overall, our experience has been a positive one. Most are older with a good work ethic and record of stable employment in the past but in some cases unable to go back into the sector they worked within. In many cases they are just looking for a way to try and move on with their lives, earn a salary, find a stable home, and move away from their offending past like so many other ex-offenders.

Methodology

We emailed the surveys to approximately 250 employers – half received one survey, and half received the other. The employers varied in size, and covered a range of industries, including retail, food, construction, hospitality and the charity sector. We also shared the surveys via Prison Reform Trust’s Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn accounts. Given that both surveys were posted several times across all three platforms, participants should effectively have been randomly allocated to each version. In total, 43 people took the surveys – 18 took the standard version, and 25 took the survey with additional information. Not all survey responses were complete.

Key findings

Almost all employers surveyed would consider hiring people with convictions and almost half said they actively promoted hiring them. For most, the nature of the offence was an important deciding factor.
Most employers asked applicants to disclose criminal convictions, and used DBS checks. Some did not have a written policy on recruiting people with convictions, meaning they were not fully complying with the DBS Code of Practice. Most employers (56%) did not know that it is illegal to carry out DBS checks at a higher level than required.
Most employers knew that people convicted of serious sexual offences are strictly supervised; sexual offences cover a broad range of behaviours; and employment reduces the risk of re-offending for any type of offence.
The majority of employers said that their main concerns about hiring people with sexual convictions were other employees’ reactions (65%), customer safety (62%), and workplace safety (54%). Fewer than half said they would be concerned about reoffending, managing them, or public opinion. Only 11% were concerned about reliability.
Employers were much more likely to be concerned about reliability for non-sexual offences than for sexual offences. Only 35% of employers were concerned about public opinion if they hired people convicted of sex offences, but this was much higher than non-sexual offences (13%).
Employers were also much more likely to express concerns about employee reactions (65% compared to 39%) and customer safety (62% compared to 32%) when considering hiring people with sexual compared to non-sexual convictions. Employers were more concerned about workplace safety when considering hiring someone convicted of a violent (68%) than a sexual offence (54%).
More than half of employers would feel more confident hiring people with sexual convictions if they had access to management advice, or if they believed that the applicant wouldn’t reoffend. Almost half would be reassured by knowing the person would be under strict probation supervision, and over a third if they believed that other workers would accept them. For 30% of employers, knowing the offence was not ‘too serious’ would boost their confidence.

To assess whether better-informed employers might be more open to hiring people with sexual convictions, two versions of the survey were used. The long version of the survey provided information about sexual offending, supervision and support in the community and reoffending rates.

Employers who received additional information were less concerned, in some ways, about hiring people with sexual convictions. They were substantially less likely to be concerned about reoffending (21% compared to 61%), workplace safety (42% compared to 67%), and customer safety (47% compared to 78%). They were more likely to be reassured by a sexual offence not being too serious (44% compared to 13%).

These findings must be treated with caution, because employers taking the long version were more likely to report from the outset that they were open to hiring people with convictions, and actively promoting the recruitment of people with criminal records.

Report recommendations

Government should:

Reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so that rehabilitation periods are fair and proportionate and nearly all convictions are capable of becoming spent.
Review the punitive effect of Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPOs) and Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) in preventing convictions from becoming spent.
Provide a legal remedy when potential employers discriminate against people on the grounds of a conviction which is spent.
Consult on amendments to the Police Act to ensure that the DBS shoulder the responsibility for preventing ineligible checks.
Provide comprehensive, clear and consistent information to employers about recruiting people with convictions.
Ensure that schemes to promote the employment of people with convictions in the public sector are evidence-led and do not place blanket exclusions on applications from people with sexual convictions.
Adequately fund projects that support people with sexual convictions to reintegrate into the community, such as Circles of Support and Accountability, and Lincolnshire Action Trust.

The New Futures Network (NFN) should:

Create a workstream for employment opportunities for people convicted of sexual offences, recognising the challenges the group and employers face.
Provide specific training for employment brokers about sexual offending. This should include information about what constitutes a sexual offence, reoffending rates, and supervision and support in the community, as well as how to communicate effectively with employers regarding this group, and how to counteract inaccurate perceptions of people with sexual convictions.
When brokering employment opportunities, take into account the varying ages, fitness levels, work backgrounds, and skills of people with sexual convictions.
Provide employers with factual information about all offending, but particularly sexual and violent offending. This should include detail on risk factors and assessment and supervision and safeguards.
Promote the business and social benefits of hiring people with sexual convictions, facilitating employers meeting people from this group.
Ensure that partner employers providing prison industries workshops, working with the New Futures Network and on the Ministry of Justice’s preferred supplier list have a fair approach to applicants in the community with criminal convictions.

Others:

The DBS should establish a review process whereby an employer found to be requesting ineligible checks is required to provide more detailed information for future standard and enhanced checks.
Organisations involved in employer engagement or employment support (for example: the Department for Work and Pensions; Information, Advice and Guidance providers in prisons; and members of the Employment Support Retraining Agency and Recruitment and Employment Confederation) should have an evidence-based approach to people convicted of sexual offences.
Organisations such as the Employers Forum for Reducing Reoffending and Business in the Community should encourage businesses to share their experiences of hiring people with sexual convictions, including examples of best practice.
Employer networks should work with probation to improve employers’ understanding of supervision and support for people with sexual convictions in the community.
The National Probation Service and the College of Policing should develop guidance for probation and police to increase their awareness of the impact of disclosure of a sexual conviction on employment prospects. This would help practitioners make proportionate decisions about disclosing information to employers, balancing the risk of harm with the rehabilitation needs of those they are supervising.

This report was part of a joint project between Unlock and Prison Reform Trust

Introducing two new team members

We’re pleased to welcome two new colleagues to the team at Unlock: Sam Doohan – our first Policy Officer – and Ruth Davies – our first Digital and Communications Manager.

We’re a small team with big ambitions, and these two new roles will help us to broaden our reach and increase our impact through digital, policy and influencing.

Sam will build on Unlock’s recent success – including successful legal intervention in the Supreme Court, the #FairChecks movement and work on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 – to influence policy makers and key stakeholders to secure changes to legislation and government policy.   

Sam said:

‘Criminal records unfairly impact the lives of millions of people. Everyone deserves the chance to move on with their life without facing stigma or discrimination. Unlock have had some major successes in the past few years, and it’s my job make sure that they keep happening.’

As the charity’s first Digital and Communications Manager, Ruth will co-ordinate Unlock’s digital presence to ensure that we reach as many people as possible, optimising our digital tools – websites, video, communications, email and social media. She will also work with the team to increase awareness of Unlock’s work, and support our policy and influencing work to challenge the stigma and discrimination that people face.  

Ruth said:

‘It’s really exciting to be joining a charity with such a proven track record of making a real difference to people’s lives. I’m looking forward to helping raise the voices of people with criminal records, and supporting the team to drive real change for people who are so often unheard by those in power.’

Taxi! New guidance for licensing authorities recommends exclusions for even minor convictions

In July 2020 the Department for Transport published new guidance for statutory taxi and private hire vehicles licensing authorities. This followed a consultation in April 2019 to gather views on the recommendations and draft statutory guidance. Recommendations included that licensees undergo enhanced DBS and barring list checks and minimum exclusion periods by offence category and our response focused on those exclusions.

Passengers getting into a taxi or PHV are placing themselves in the hands of the driver and it’s right that licensing decisions take into account all relevant information. The problem is, the draft guidance didn’t advise taking into account all relevant information. Instead, it proposed a blanket approach based on broad offence categories. The guidance was based on the Institute of Licensing’s 2018 recommendations which emphasised the need to consider individual circumstances but then went on to propose blanket exclusions based on broad offence categories, along with lengthy exclusion periods.

Unfortunately, the final version of the guidance includes the same offence categories and exclusion periods recommended in 2018. The long exclusion periods are not scaled to the circumstances or gravity of an offence – a person convicted of possession of a firearm will be refused a licence for seven years, the same as a person who over-claimed benefits. An applicant with a conviction for common assault where the victim sustained no injuries would be treated the same as a serious assault in which a victim required surgery and refused a licence for at least 10 years.

Department for Transport has published a summary of responses to the consultation and acknowledged that

The proportionality of some of the baseline exclusion periods was questioned by some respondents, as was the range of offences that would fall under a particular heading.

However, they went on to say that:

The final version provides additional clarity and reinforces that the decision as to whether a person who has convictions should be licensed is and will remain dependent on the individual circumstance of each case.

Licensing authorities are not bound by the guidance but it would be a brave authority that would strike out on its own. Indeed, the president of the Institute of Licensing, James Button, is keen for the guidance to become law. In a comment to the Daily Mirror, he said:

In most authorities, when someone has previous convictions which fall outside that council’s policy, the decision is made by councillors. They can be swayed by sob stories. It has always surprised me why there is acceptance of a level of criminality among a significant minority of the taxi trade.

We can’t be sure what Mr Button would consider ‘a sob story’ but the proposed exclusions would mean a woman with childhood convictions for soliciting, as a result of child sexual exploitation would be treated the same as a man with a recent conviction for rape, and prevented from ever obtaining a licence. That same woman, if she had convictions for possession of a weapon or affray, would be refused a licence for a minimum of 7 to 10 years after the conviction, regardless of the circumstances. One such woman, Sammy Woodhouse, bravely waived her right to anonymity and spoke out on behalf of others still having to disclose criminal records acquired as a result of their abuse. Ironically, the guidance also recommends that drivers are trained in safeguarding and spotting signs of criminal or sexual exploitation.

In principle, a national framework can help with consistency – and let applicants know what to expect. We support clear guidelines to assist licensing authorities. This guidance, if taken up by local authorities, means law abiding people with convictions are likely to be unnecessarily excluded from the trade for years, or indefinitely. That has a ripple effect, reinforcing the idea that everyone with a conviction is a danger to the public. Thankfully this is not true – there 11 million people in the UK with a criminal record – about 1 in 6 of the population. Most want to move on positively with their lives, and they deserve a fair chance to do that.

Written by Rachel Tynan, Policy and practice lead at Unlock