For people with criminal records
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.
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:
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.
The ABI guidance is available here.
Our guidance for insurers is here.
Our policy work on access to insurance is here.
Our practical information on buying insurance with convictions is here.
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
Comments from survey respondents
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.”
Commenting on today’s announcement (15 July) by the Ministry of Justice on plans to make changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:
“Unlock very much welcomes and supports today’s announcement by the Justice Secretary. If his commitment proceeds 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 regime 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. That is why we have long campaigned for a system that enables all convictions to become ‘spent’ at some point.
“This would enable more people that have received prison sentences of over 4 years to reach the stage, after a period of living crime-free, where their criminal record becomes ‘spent’, and for many others enable their conviction to become spent much sooner than at present, within a proportionate, evidence informed timeframe. This means they will no longer be required to unnecessarily disclose it for most jobs or education courses, nor for housing or insurance.
“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 of the stigma of their past. We urge the government to use this opportunity to do that work, and we look forward to working with them so that law-abiding people with convictions have a real chance to move on positively with their lives without their criminal record hanging over them.”
Notes
Today we’ve 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.
The full report can be downloaded: Double discrimination? Full report (Unlock, July 2019). An executive summary can also be downloaded: Double discrimination? Executive summary
Read our press release for the launch of the report.
This work is part of our Unlocking Experience project.
Today we’ve published our summer 2019 newsletter.
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.
Read: Summer 2019 Newsletter
Previous newsletters are available online. You can receive future newsletters direct to your inbox by signing up to our mailing list.
Commenting on a report published today by Onward, Unlocking a Better life, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:
“As things stand, although a prison sentence can end, the impact of a criminal conviction can be felt far beyond the conclusion of any sentence. People with convictions, and especially those leaving prison, face significant stigma and discrimination directly as a result of them having a criminal record and it frustrates access to employment long into the future. Many businesses are fearful of hiring people with a criminal record. 75% of companies admit to discriminating and not offering an applicant a job on the basis of them declaring a criminal record.”
“The government should recognise and champion those employers that are already employing people with convictions. Yet there are many more companies that need to be encouraged to change their recruitment practices to take on people with criminal convictions, and they need to be given the support to do so. So we would like to see the government pilot the use of financial incentives for those employers who actively employ people leaving prison, those on probation and those with unspent convictions. That’s why we welcome Onward’s recommendation that government should deliver on the manifesto commitment to give employers a national insurance tax break to employers who recruit people with convictions.”
Download the report by Onward.
Bloomsbury Institute becomes the first higher education provider to Ban the Box for all.
Bloomsbury Institute in London is the first higher education provider in the UK to adopt Ban the Box principles for staff as well as students, a move that could encourage other universities to follow suit.
The Ban the Box campaign is about giving law-abiding people with convictions a fair chance to compete for jobs. Applicants are not required to tick the box and disclose criminal convictions when they apply, so employers don’t miss out on talented applicants who might be put off, or be sifted out at the first stage because of misconceptions about what a criminal record really means.
Rachel Tynan, Policy and practice lead at Unlock, a founder member of the Ban the Box campaign said:
“Ban the Box can give people with convictions the confidence to apply. They know they’ve got more of a chance because they’ll be judged on their skills, strengths and experience, before their past.”
Diversity and inclusion are buzzwords in higher education, but what’s often overlooked is that many of the students universities are looking to recruit are disproportionately criminalised. Care leavers, forced migrants, first in family and students from some ethnic backgrounds are identified as under-represented at university – yet these are groups that are over-represented in the criminal justice system.
Whilst there has been progress on student recruitment, with many universities no longer asking applicants about criminal records unless there is a legal need to do so – for example, for teaching or healthcare courses – the sector has not yet done the same for staff. Until now. Rachel Tynan continued:
“Think about it, a graduate with a previous conviction wants to go on to teach where they studied – yet they’re faced with having to tick a box about their conviction and the possibility of rejection. That’s the reality of most universities’ recruitment at the moment. Banning the box is the first step to an open, fair and inclusive recruitment policy, ensures that universities are recruiting from the widest pool of talent, regardless of background.”
The issue of reducing reoffending and supporting those with convictions is clearly on the public and political agenda, with Home Secretary Sajid Javid acknowledging the need to act on the Supreme Court’s ruling that parts of the disclosure regime are unlawful. The court described the disclosure of warnings and reprimands given to under 18s for minor offence as ‘an error in principle’. These punishments were devised so that young people who committed minor crimes were not disadvantaged by a criminal record for the rest of their life.
By extending their Ban the Box commitment to both staff and students, Bloomsbury Institute has taken a timely and important step in encouraging other institutions to open their doors to anyone with the determination to fulfil their potential.
At a ceremony celebrating Bloomsbury Institute’s new approach, Academic Principal and Managing Director John Fairhurst said:
“I’m delighted that Bloomsbury Institute has Banned the Box not only for students, but for employees as well. If our stated purpose – and the purpose of education – is to unlock potential, who are we to deny anyone the opportunity to rebuild their life because of a previous criminal conviction?”
Lord Neuberger, former President of the UK Supreme Court said:
I am proud to have been invited to Bloomsbury Institute’s Ban the Box signing ceremony. Educating, training, and, where appropriate, rehabilitating people of all ages is of inestimable value not only to the people concerned, but also to society. And that includes giving any former offender the opportunity to gain access to higher education.
Sarah Bailey, Deputy Director, Student Engagement, Wellbeing and Success at Bloomsbury Institute comments:
“We know there are numerous barriers that prevent thousands of talented, ambitious students from enjoying the opportunities of higher education. And we know that with the right support, people who may have been written off in the past can succeed and go onto achieve great things.”
We’ve published a guest blog from Senior Lecturer in Law, Joe Stevens, explaining more.
Notes
Unlock
Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who face 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 with a criminal record.
Unlock is a founder member of the Ban the Box campaign in the UK and we continue to promote it as part of our Fair Access to Employment project. We support employers to put the principles of the campaign into practice, using our knowledge and experience of working with both individuals who have convictions as well as employers who are actively looking to improve their recruitment policies and practices. In the last five years over 120 employers have signed up.
Unlock also campaigns for reform of the criminal records disclosure regime. In 2014 changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 came into force which reduced the time it takes for most convictions to become ‘spent’ and so longer need to be disclosed when applying for most jobs and education courses. However, we think more fundamental reform is needed – for example, sentences of more than four years in prison can never become spent.
In 2018 Unlock intervened in a case at the Supreme Court which involved the disclosure rules that apply to standard and enhanced criminal record checks. The Government appealed against earlier rulings in the High Court and Court of Appeal that found the rules to be incompatible with the law. The Supreme Court ruling in January 2019 found against the government and identified two areas in particular that must be amended. Currently anyone with more than one conviction automatically has all their convictions revealed on standard or enhanced checks, no matter how minor or how much time has passed.
The Supreme Court found this rule did not achieve its intended purpose of indicating propensity as it applies irrespective of the nature, similarity, number or time intervals of offences.
The Court also found that disclosure of warnings and reprimands, given to under 18s for minor offences, was in conflict with their aim of rehabilitation, rather than punishment.
Media contact: Ruth Davies Ruth.davies@unlock.org.uk / 07458 393 194
Bloomsbury Institute
We are a higher education institute specialising in business, law and accountancy. Established in 2002 as the London School of Business and Management, we now have 2,000 students on our foundation and full-time degree courses. We changed our name to Bloomsbury Institute in 2018 to better reflect our connection with London’s academic and cultural heartland and to signal our plans to award our own degrees in the coming years.
As an Associate College of the University of Northampton (UoN), our degrees are internationally-recognised and awarded by UoN after being designed and taught by Bloomsbury Institute lecturers.
If a student is struggling to adapt to life as an independent learner, we have the commitment, expertise and networks to offer the support they need through our sector-leading Centre for Student Engagement, Wellbeing and Success. That means tailored support covering everything from academic skills through to employability, disability and help with visa applications.
As a pioneering and progressive organisation that celebrates difference, our commitment to diversity and inclusion applies equally to colleagues and students. An individual’s potential, not their past, is what secures a place here. That’s why we’re recognised for our strong commitment to widening participation which, for us, means fair access for everyone and helping students overcome any barriers that may be holding them back.
Media Contact: Lydia Hesketh lydia@bil.ac.uk / 07730 041890
This blog is the lived experience of a charity working within the criminal justice system that was recently successful in getting a waiver from the Charity Commission for a Trustee applicant that was “disqualified” because of their criminal record.
The blog has been written by the charity itself (including input from the charity’s chief executive and the individual that needed to get a waiver to become a trustee), but the details have been anonymised where necessary to protect the identity of the individual and charity concerned.
“There are rules which disqualify certain people from being a trustee or senior manager of a charity. Being disqualified means that a person can’t take on, or stay in, a charity trustee position or senior manager position – even on an interim basis, unless the Charity Commission has removed (or ‘waived’) the disqualification.” (gov.uk)
“Automatic disqualification” (as it’s officially known) was extended to cover significantly more crimes through the passage of the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill 2015. The background to the Bill was the very public failings of The Cup Trust and The Kids Company. The failing at both of these charities was driven by the senior management and Trustees of the organisations, none of whom had criminal records. In fact, no-one with a conviction had anything to do with these failings, yet they were the ones impacted by the resulting legislation.
Most people we speak to want those with convictions to reintegrate into society and to find a way to legally contribute to their communities as much as they are personally able to. Ironically, most people we know with convictions want to do the same.
Whilst it is entirely understandable that failings need actions, these actions can prohibit someone with a conviction from rehabilitating. Barring an individual with a criminal record from becoming a Trustee will not eliminate the risk that someone without a conviction may still cause a failing.
To help future applicants produce successful Trustee waiver applications, we aim in this blog to provide as much information as possible on how we approached the process (see Part two – Helpful hints & tips) but we will start by sharing the perspective of our Trustee applicant and charity CEO.
As challenging as we found the required work (we spent two months trying to decipher the requirements, drafting and redrafting the forms), as time-consuming as we found the process (it took nearly four months for what we were told would be a four-week turnaround), this was not as difficult as the emotional turbulence we had to navigate while applying.
Was this an appropriate and necessary level of scrutiny? Surely, there are much better ways of achieving the same intended outcome.
Charity CEO: “Despite the stated positive intention behind this process of protecting the best interests of the charity, it didn’t feel that way.
“The process itself felt degrading and patronising. Putting together the required documentation meant that all of our existing Trustees had access to information on the worst decision that the waiver applicant had ever made. That imbalance of information could warp the power dynamic present on the Board and unintentionally manifest all sorts of implicit biases.
“In addition, the way in which the letters had to be written further puts the waiver applicant in a degrading position: instead of taking an asset-based approach, beginning with the reasons why the applicant should be considered for a Trustee position, it takes a deficits and risk-based approach, requiring the charity to defend itself against the harm this person could cause going forwards.”
Waiver trustee applicant: “When a process is difficult, intrusive and drawn out it is only natural to get frustrated but remember it’s not directly the fault of the people you are dealing with. For me I handled this by remembering the ‘why’.
“Why am I doing this? I’m doing it because I am deeply passionate about helping people in a difficult situation. If I get frustrated or take anything too personally it risks me being able to do something that I passionately want to do. So be smart, work with the people involved and not against them. Be humble and grateful for anything they do to help you accomplish your goals.”
Charity CEO: “People with convictions are told (and often believe) that it’s important to give back to the community through volunteering. Charities are told (and often believe) that their governance bodies should include people with lived experience of the issues that they’re working on. For charities like ours working in the criminal justice sector, accountability to our stakeholders means we should have strong representation of Trustees with lived experience of the system.
“And yet, the barrier to doing so is high – potential Trustees with convictions need to go through a charity’s normal application process without any guarantee of being able to accept the role, even if it is offered to them, given the waiver requirement. They must then go through a non-transparent waiver application process, which could take any number of months, handled virtually by the Charity Commission without a stated contact for questions. For applicants who have recently left prison and are trying to navigate the challenges of re-entry to society, this would add even more uncertainty and instability at a pivotal stage in their lives.”
Waiver trustee applicant: “As anyone with a conviction will tell you, one of the things you have to learn quickly and accept, is that life will be harder from the moment you return to society. You will have to work harder than anyone else; likely have to accept lower compensation than everyone else; prove yourself far more than others have to – but you won’t be able to change this. The only approach that made sense to me was to see it as a challenge.
“Each hurdle I overcome gives me great satisfaction and enduring strength. Becoming a trustee is certainly one of those challenges and I would encourage any applicant to develop the same mind-set.”
Charity CEO: “In many ways, the waiver requirement felt like yet another restriction placed to curtail the power of charities to hire and recruit the talent we need to do our work well. Otherwise, why would this restriction only apply to charities and not to other types of organisations? I’m not recommending that it should; but if companies can freely choose their Board of Directors, why can’t charities?”
Waiver trustee applicant: “It is entirely proper that the governance and management of charities continues to improve, as indeed it should for any corporation. I very much support due process but wonder why it is applied to one group of people in exclusion. Why is it acceptable that companies can freely choose their Board of Directors but charities cannot?
“Vetting for positions of responsibility should be fair and unbiased and most importantly based on the merit of the individual. The Trustee recruitment process this charity ran was one of the most inclusive and comprehensive processes I have ever been a part of – public or private.
“Whilst I respect the due process of the Charity Commission in this regard, it should be aware of just how much importance charities place on good governance themselves.”
Charity CEO: “Give yourself a good six months for this process (two to comfortably draft the documents, and four to receive the final decision). Ensure you address every point and subpoint, even if it feels repetitive. Prepare yourselves emotionally for the way in which you’ll need to write about a human being, and someone you respect enough to want on your Board (or Senior Management Team).
“And when you successfully complete the process, contact Unlock, and help them to demand change to this process. There is a much better way to ensure charities operate effectively, efficiently and in the best interests of the public without going through a humiliating process like this.”
Waiver trustee applicant: “The reason I wanted to write this blog was to help applicants and charities to understand the process a little better. The charity has done an amazing job laying out the roadmap of what needs to be done and by whom. I am honoured and excited to be joining their Board and look forward to contributing as much as I can.
“Follow this template carefully – it works. I also wanted to encourage all stakeholders to stick with it, the process is long and there are extended periods of radio silence. Charities and applicants alike remember why you are doing this – to be a resource for and to develop structures that really help people in need. Let’s get more Charity Commission waivers granted.”
Until this process is drastically changed, to save other charities some time, here is an honest take on what, how and why we drafted our application in a certain way in the hope that it can help you too.
The three sections you’ll need to prepare are:
1. Covering letter
This was the easiest part: we’ve included an outline of what we submitted, which you can use to draft yours.
2. Letter from the board
The first obstacle was to understand what the Charity Commission guidance for the Trustee Letter meant. We struggled to find helpful, practical information – it took days of combing through various articles. We leaned heavily on the charity Unlock to support us.
We summarised the information to be covered in the Trustee letter in the list available here. We then drafted a letter with the same subject headings, and addressed each bullet point individually and in depth.
We then took a further step: of thinking through each of the concerns that people at the Charity Commission might have (whether rational or irrational) including stereotypes about people with convictions. We responded to each one proactively e.g. the waiver applicant would not be the treasurer, they would not have access to the bank account, they would not be an account signatory… Yes, it felt demeaning; but also it felt necessary to include to get the waiver approved.
We also included an appendix that had the role specification for the Trustee (skills, expected commitments), information on our charity, and details of the open recruitment process that we underwent to select them.
The whole way through, we worked collaboratively with the waiver applicant, keeping them updated at every stage. We wrote multiple drafts and sent them back and forth, ensuring we were aligned throughout. The final version ended up being 10 pages with some repetition throughout – but we covered everything.
3. Letter from the waiver applicant (and application)
We downloaded the application questions and pasted them into word, a more accessible format – especially as we learned it was possible to email in the form, rather than submit it through the online portal. Some questions were confusing too – we didn’t understand what they meant and kept circling back to Unlock for help. Again, the waiver applicant and I passed the documents back and forth until we felt it was ready to submit.
I want to add that the applicant’s letter requirements (which were required to be focused on their crime and remorse) made me question whether the net harm caused to the applicant, in the discomfort, degradation and patronisation that we were requesting them to go through, was really worth the net benefit to the charity and the public as a result of having them as a Trustee. We envision a society where criminal records don’t come into the employment process, and if they must, they are considered against pre-conviction and post-release records rather than simply the crime itself. Every person must be given a chance to move on.
Covering letter skeleton
To Whom It May Concern:
CHARITY, a registered charity (no. XX) supports the application for a Trustee waiver by APPLICANT NAME.
On behalf of the Board of Trustees of CHARITY, we unanimously confirm that APPLICANT:
This reference is signed by the complete Board of CHARITY
Trustee letter
The following sections need to be included in the letter from the Board of Trustees (based on information from Unlock):
We have shared this blog to help charities and individuals feel more confident in applying for a waiver for someone who might be disqualified because of their criminal record.
We have more information about doing this through our “Changes to charity rules” project page, in our practical guidance for charities and in our guidance for individuals.
You can also find details of Unlock’s policy work on this issue.
Following the decision by UCAS to remove the question about criminal convictions for all applicants, universities had to consider if, when and how to collect this information. UCAS still ask applicants to regulated programmes – for example medicine or teaching – to declare criminal records. Having worked with UCAS and universities for some time, we felt this was an important opportunity to support universities to develop fair admissions policies for applicants with previous criminal records. This blog details the work we have been doing in the last year or so, what we have learned so far and our plans for future work in this area, and has been written to coincide with the recent UCAS Admissions conference, at which our co-director Christopher Stacey appeared.
In September 2018 Unlock began work with three universities – Southampton, Cardiff and Goldsmiths – on a year-long project to develop best practice admissions policies for applicants with criminal records. The three universities were selected to reflect different size, location and student body, and because they had an interest in the subject – Southampton and Cardiff were involved in the UCAS working group from an early stage, and Goldsmiths have hosted the award-winning Open Book for over a decade.
Unlock’s approach to universities has always been to recognise that different functions have different needs: this means recognising the various parts (admissions, accommodation, Tier 4 visas, careers) require different information and different management. When UCAS collected criminal records information from all applicants, universities had access to this at the outset and could share it across departments. The removal of this question – and the constraints of the GDPR – mean that universities must carefully develop new ways of collecting and sharing necessary information. The first task is to identify whether criminal records information is really necessary. The project was designed to focus on admissions, whilst recognising that this is only the first stage of the student journey.
Supported by the UPP foundation, the project has three objectives: fair admissions policies in place at each university; a toolkit for other universities to use to develop fair admissions policies; a fair admissions pledge for universities to sign up to. To date, each of the partner universities have published their new policies and – well, two out of three isn’t bad.
Southampton and Cardiff were both represented at this April’s UCAS Admissions conference where they set out their approach in detail. In summary, neither are asking a mandatory question about criminal convictions for non-regulated courses. Instead, applicants are given the opportunity to disclose licence conditions or restrictions that could hamper success. This helps applicants feel confident that they will be treated fairly. Where students might find it difficult to complete the chosen programme because of restrictions, the university can advise on adjustments or alternatives.
Goldsmiths elected to follow their existing policy – asking all applicants to declare unspent convictions. This will happen at enrolment stage (in August) and applicants to non-DBS courses will be risk assessed before a final decision to admit (or not) is made. It’s not clear whether the applicant will be involved in this process. Unlock’s position is that asking all potential students about unspent convictions, potentially asking them to provide references from criminal justice practitioners or others, is unnecessary and unfair, and that concerns about safeguarding or capacity to complete the course could be managed by asking about restrictions. It is unclear whether students will be offered support or whether adjustments or alternatives will be offered. Furthermore, asking at such a late stage means that applicants may turn down other offers only to be rejected by Goldsmiths. Disappointingly, Open Book merits only a cursory mention in the published policy.
You can read more about each of these universities approaches on our project page.
Three overarching ideas have emerged over the course of the project so far, and we encourage other universities who are considering if, when and how to ask about criminal records to bear these in mind.
‘The University is committed to widening participation, and ensuring that all students with the potential to succeed, regardless of their background, are encouraged to apply to study with us. This includes welcoming applications from individuals who have previously been convicted of a criminal offence.’ (Southampton)
Compared with:
‘To help reduce the risk of harm or injury to our students and staff caused by the criminal behaviour of other students, we must know about any relevant criminal convictions that an applicant may have. If you have a relevant criminal conviction you must let us know.’
(LSE)
Or
‘We welcome applications from people from all backgrounds with the potential and determination to succeed on our programmes of study. Cardiff University understands that, for applicants with a criminal conviction, accessing education can be an important part of moving on and gaining the skills, knowledge and qualifications necessary to tackle the challenges of employment. Having a criminal conviction is not an automatic bar to enrolling on a programme of study at the University.’ (Cardiff)
Compared with:
‘The University is committed to the fair treatment of all applicants and having a criminal record will not necessarily bar an applicant from gaining admission to the University. However, the University recognises its duty to protect its students, staff and others within its community and reserves the right to exclude an individual from a course of study, or from the University, where their attendance would pose a threat to the safety or property of staff, students, visitors, those coming into contact with the applicant during their studies, or others involved in University business; or would be contrary to the law or the requirements of any relevant professional, statutory or regulatory body.’ (Roehampton)
If your university is committed to widening participation an including all under-represented groups, the language you use to address them is the starting point.
Since the project began we have become aware of a variety of approaches. UCAS have surveyed all universities and it appears that about 60% of universities who responded are asking about criminal records at some stage. Westminster were first to make the decision to only ask a voluntary question about restrictions post offer; Birkbeck, Essex, the Open University and Newcastle are doing the same. The Universities of Brighton and Sussex, Winchester and Kingston will not be asking at all from an admissions perspective but we hope they will look at how they can provide support to students who may need it. The aims of asking vary – from ensuring students are able to complete their course to providing advice and guidance on careers and pastoral support.
Our principles of fair admissions will form the basis of our toolkit for universities and the fair admissions pledge. The next phase of the project is to publish the toolkit for other universities later in the spring, and launch a pledge for fair admissions by the end of summer.
We’re also building a map of what other universities are doing – there are over 160 institutions offering higher education in the UK, and we want applicants with criminal records to know what they can expect.
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.
If you’d like to know more about our university work or to find out about the support, contact us.
Written by Rachel Tynan.
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?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
