Skip to main content

Category: News for other groups

Ten UK universities lead the way by signing the ‘Fair Chance for Students with Convictions’ pledge

Trailblazing UK universities are leading the way in helping people with convictions access higher education by signing the ‘Fair Chance for Students with Convictions’ pledge.

The pledge is the result of a 12-month project conducted by Unlock, a charity for people with convictions, and supported by the UPP Foundation, a charity founded by University Partnerships Programme, the leading provider of on campus student accommodation infrastructure and support services in the UK.

So far, ten UK universities have signed up to this important pledge which sees institutions make a commitment to offering a fair chance to students with a criminal record. The pledge also signals an institution’s support to giving individuals a second chance at life by opening doors to higher education, giving them the best chance of new employment prospects and opportunities.

The project, designed to support fair admissions and improve access and participation for universities has three key objectives. These include putting policies in place at each university; a toolkit for other universities to use to develop their admissions policies and a pledge for universities to sign up to. The pledge will be launched at a roundtable event with admissions leaders taking place in central London later today.

Universities that have signed the pledge include University of Nottingham, University of Liverpool, Birkbeck, University of London, University of Essex, University of Kent, University of Lincoln, University of the West of England, Bristol, London Metropolitan University, Bloomsbury Institute and University of Southampton. To ensure applicants are aware of the commitment, signatories will be asked to include a link to the pledge in their admissions policy going forward.

Richard Brabner, Director of The UPP Foundation said:

“We are proud to be working alongside Unlock to help universities remove the barriers to higher education that are currently facing people with convictions. We recognise that this is a relatively new area for universities and are delighted to see a number of universities signing the pledge and boldly taking steps towards a fairer admission policy.

“Access and participation is more important than ever. Removing barriers for students with convictions and improving access to universities benefits both students, the tax payer and higher education institutions.”

Christopher Stacey, Co-director at Unlock said:

“Education creates opportunities, opens doors, and changes people’s lives. We are delighted to be working alongside the UPP Foundation and higher education institutions to help people with convictions access the life changing opportunities that higher education can offer.

“People with convictions often face stigma and obstacles because of their criminal records, even long after they have served their sentence. There are over 11 million people in the UK with a criminal record. These people have the potential to make positive and meaningful contributions to our society but are often denied this opportunity because of their past. We are delighted to see universities leading the way in removing the systemic barriers that face people with convictions and look forward to more universities signing the pledge and committing to fairer admission policies in the coming months.”

Notes

  1. For press/media enquiries,
  2. Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence. Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
  3. The UPP Foundation is a registered charity that offers grants to universities, charities and other higher education bodies. In recent years, as higher education has expanded, the burden of paying for a degree has shifted towards the individual. This naturally presents difficulties in terms of maintaining the ‘University for the Public Good’, as well as ensuring there is greater equity in terms of going to, succeeding at and benefiting from the university experience. We believe the UPP Foundation can make a small but significant contribution in helping universities and the wider higher education sector overcome these challenges. The UPP Foundation was created in 2016 by University Partnerships Programme (UPP), the leading provider of on campus student accommodation infrastructure and support services in the UK. UPP is the sole funder of the UPP Foundation. The UPP Foundation is an autonomous charity and all of its grants are reviewed and authorised by its Board of Trustees. The Foundation is supported by an Advisory Board. More information is available at the UPP Foundation website: www.upp-foundation.org.
  4. The ‘Fair Chance for Students with Convictions’ pledge is below. More details are available here.
  5. A toolkit to help universities make admissions fair has also been published. That is available here.
  6. Details about the Unlocking students with conviction project are available here.
  7. For more information about the project, email university@unlock.org.uk.

The Fair Chance for Students with Convictions pledge

We believe everyone with the potential and ambition to go to university should have the opportunity to do so, regardless of background. People with criminal convictions face obstacles and barriers to accessing university, yet higher education has the power to transform their lives by helping them move forward and make a positive contribution to society. Therefore, as the leaders of our institutions we pledge to give applicants with a criminal record a fair chance by…  

  • Asking applicants about criminal records only if – and when – it is necessary
  • Asking targeted and proportionate questions during the admissions process
  • Making our policy transparent and accessible to all applicants
  • If necessary, offering applicants a chance to discuss their case in person before a decision is made
  • Considering flexible adjustments and alternatives for applicants
  • Ensuring staff are trained to make fair and impartial judgements about applicants
  • Supporting students with criminal records to help them achieve academic success
  • Communicating positively about the benefits of a fair admissions process

Office for Students publish effective practice guidance on students with convictions

Office for Students are the independent regulator of higher education in England. As part of their work to promote equal opportunities, Office for Students publish information on effective ways of meeting the needs of different student groups.

Unlock were delighted to collaborate with them on their new guidance for higher education providers on students with criminal convictions

Find out more here.

Insurance industry trade body issues updated guidance to insurers on how they should treat people with convictions

Last week, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) published updated guidance on how insurers should treat people with convictions. The guide, first published in 2011 and revised in 2014, has been updated this year to reflect recommendations made by Unlock.

In research we published in September 2017, we found major problems in the way that insurance companies dealt with the criminal records of people applying for home insurance. We looked at the approaches of 42 high-street insurance companies and found that two-thirds failed to make it clear to people that they didn’t need to disclose convictions that were ‘spent’ under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We found that nearly 1 in 5 companies took into account a spent conviction when considering an application even though they were under a legal obligation to disregard it.

We recommended that the insurance industry updated its good practice and that insurers should implement clear and consistent wording in relation to asking about unspent convictions.

The ABI describes the aim of the updated guidance published last week as being “to ensure that insurers:

  • Only seek information about information relevant to the risk, asking clear, concise and explicit questions about unspent convictions. Spent convictions do not have to be disclosed and – if they are – insurers must ignore them;
  • Make clear to customers the consequences of not disclosing, or misrepresenting unspent convictions;
  • Ensure that staff are fully trained on relevant laws and regulations; and
  • Assist customers in finding insurance, through signposting and/or referral arrangements where they are unable to provide cover themselves.”

It is welcome to see the updated guidance be much clearer to insurers that they should not be asking questions which could lead customers to thinking they need to disclose spent convictions. However, in our 2017 research we also highlighted the blanket approaches taken towards applicants that declare any type of conviction. None of the companies gave any individual consideration online – 100% of the insurers refused to offer a policy online to an applicant that disclosed conviction, without any specific consideration about the relevance of the offence to the policy being taken out. Only one company offered a policy over the telephone.

Although the guidance is clear to insurers about only considering unspent convictions, it fails to explain the evidence base for approaching unspent convictions in such a generic way and appears to simply assume that any unspent conviction is material for insurance purposes. There remains a significant lack of transparency about what, if any, evidence insurers rely on. Critically, we have never seen any robust evidence for the claim that correlates criminal records with a higher insurance risk. Quite the opposite. The specialist brokers that work quietly behind the scenes have some of the best claims ratios of all of their customers. The updated guidance fails to address this.

It remains to be seen what impact this updated guidance will have on the practices of insurers. What is ultimately important is that insurers themselves update their policies and practices. This updated guidance is a welcome step forward towards achieving this, and we look forward to seeing how the ABI will be monitoring the take-up of this guidance amongst its members.

Notes

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.

Bloomsbury Institute breaks new ground with ban the box for staff and students

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

University admissions: what’s changed?

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.

What have we learned?

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.

  1. Take a ‘whole institution approach’: Identify what information is necessary – or not – at different stages in the student lifecycle; bringing decision makers together, as well as looking at support for students
  2. Focus on inclusion: ask ‘how can we safely include’ rather than ‘how can we legitimately exclude’. Applicants with criminal records are a diverse group and fir into traditional widening participation groups. Excluding people because of their past is likely to result in exclusion of under-represented groups
  3. Words matter: Policies of all kinds reflect the values and culture of the university. An inclusive culture begins with inclusive language. Compare the following opening paragraphs:

‘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.

What next?

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.

Unlock launches pilot project, supported by the UPP Foundation, to help universities take on students with criminal records

Unlock, an independent charity for people with convictions, has launched a new pilot project, funded by the UPP Foundation, the registered charity founded by University Partnerships Programme (UPP).

The project, Unlocking students with conviction, will see Unlock working with three UK universities – Cardiff University, Goldsmiths and the University of Southampton – supporting them to implement best practice procedures to prevent talented applicants being held back by their past and ensuring universities don’t miss out on untapped potential.

It will ensure that more people with convictions are able to access, and benefit from, university education – not just for themselves, but for their families, communities and for society at large.

Inception of the project comes following the decision by UCAS to remove the criminal conviction declaration box for applicants to the 2019 entry cycle, with universities looking at how to amend their admissions practices to reflect the change.

Over 11 million people in England and Wales have a criminal record and every year there are 1.2 million new convictions. The vast majority of convictions – more than 90% – do not involve a prison sentence. Unlock support thousands of people annually who face stigma, discrimination and ongoing disadvantages long after they have served their conviction. Many people choose not to apply for jobs, training or education if they know they will be asked about their criminal record.

The growth of partnerships between prisons and the university sector has renewed the belief that higher education is inclusive and can transform lives – raising the educational aspirations of people with criminal records. Evidence shows that education at every level has a huge impact on reducing reoffending, keeping us all safe.

Alongside working with the three institutions, Unlock will also be working with UCAS to disseminate good practice resources developed for institutions, as well as encouraging other universities to review and improve their policies and procedures.

Commenting on the project launch, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“We’re pleased to have the support of the UPP Foundation in launching this pilot project. Unlock has seen first-hand how people with convictions have been put off from applying to university. If universities are committed to widening participation, they should be considering the qualified applicants from all backgrounds. The decision by UCAS to remove the main criminal conviction box from the UCAS form for those applying to start university in 2019 signals to universities that criminal records shouldn’t feature in their assessment of academic potential.

 

“At a time when institutions are rightly looking to amend their policies and procedures, we look forward to working with these universities to support them in implementing best practice procedures, as well as encouraging other universities to do the same.”

Richard Brabner, Director of the UPP Foundation, said:

“We believe that everyone with the potential and ambition to go to and succeed at university should have the ability to do so.  The UPP Foundation is delighted to be working with Unlock to ensure more students with criminal convictions can access higher education, transforming their lives and supporting their transition back into society.”

 

Notes

  1. Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence. Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
  2. The UPP Foundation is a registered charity that offers grants to universities, charities and other higher education bodies. In recent years, as higher education has expanded, the burden of paying for a degree has shifted towards the individual. This presents difficulties in maintaining the ‘University for the Public Good’, as well as ensuring there is greater equity in going to, succeeding at and benefiting from the university experience. The UPP Foundation helps universities and the wider higher education sector overcome these challenges. The UPP Foundation was created in 2016 by University Partnerships Programme (UPP), the leading provider of on campus student accommodation infrastructure and support services in the UK. UPP is the sole funder of the UPP Foundation. The UPP Foundation is an independent charity and all of its grants are reviewed and authorised by its Board of Trustees. The Foundation is supported by an Advisory Board. More information is available at the UPP Foundation website: www.upp-foundation.org
  3. There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
  4. Details about the Unlocking students with conviction project are available here.
  5. Details about the decision by UCAS are available here.
  6. For more information about the project, email university@unlock.org.uk.

New good practice resources for higher education providers

The piece below has been published as part of new good practice resources for universities, published by UCAS, which Unlock has supported.

Unlock very much welcomes the removal of the main criminal conviction box from the UCAS application. Having worked with higher education providers for a number of years, the previous approach presented a barrier to individuals with a criminal record, and the decision by UCAS is a significant change that has the potential to help many people with convictions see higher education as a positive way forward in their lives. Unlock has seen first-hand how people have been put off from applying to university as a result of the box on application forms.

With the changes that UCAS has announced, the higher education sector now has a unique opportunity to question whether criminal records should feature at all when deciding whether someone should be accepted onto a university course. If universities are committed to widening participation, they should be considering the widest number of potential applicants. The change by UCAS provides a strong signal to universities that criminal records should not feature in their assessment of academic ability. Many institutions are now rightly looking at how to amend their policies and practices.

When you look at who actually has a criminal record, you can see how there are real benefits to universities in being open and inclusive towards people with a criminal record.

  1. There are large numbers of people with convictions who could potentially be admitted to university who are not because they are being deterred from applying. The numbers of prison-university partnerships are growing. Less than 10% of people with a criminal record go to prison, yet there are over 11 million people with a criminal record and approximately three-quarters of a million people with an unspent criminal record.
  2. This issue should be seen through the lens of widening participation, which remains at the forefront of government policy in higher education. People of Black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME) background are disproportionately represented amongst those who are arrested and imprisoned; the racial disproportionality in the UK criminal justice system is actually greater than that in the US system. Just under three quarters of the prison population in England and Wales was from the white ethnic group. When compared to the general population, those who identified as BAME are over represented in the prison population; 13% in the general population compared to 26% in prison. People with convictions also often represent other groups who are disproportionately under-represented at university, including care leavers, people from low income households, mature students, people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities and first-in-family. Nearly a quarter of people in prison (compared with 2% of the general population) have spent time in the care system as children.

People with convictions who are applying to university are showing a huge commitment to turning their lives around. As a society, we should be doing all that we can to support them. The opportunity to go to university can help people to move away from their criminal past, build careers and contribute positively to society. Their presence is also hugely beneficial to universities themselves, which gain highly committed students who help create a more diverse and inclusive learning environment.

Whether universities should ask at all

It’s important to understand why UCAS have dropped the need for applicants to disclose relevant unspent convictions; they recognised that the question at application stage could deter people from applying, and wanted to reaffirm that higher education is open to everyone.

In Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, universities don’t ask about criminal records. Most European universities do not ask, nor do Australian institutions. The 23 California state universities do not ask. The 64 State University of New York colleges and universities do not ask. Research from the US found no evidence that admitting people with criminal convictions led to a higher rate of crime on campus. It is also consistent with the ban the box campaign that is spreading amongst employers, removing the question about criminal records from job application forms.

How should universities respond to the change?

It is our view that the starting point should be that criminal records should not be a part of a university’s assessment of academic merit. The change by UCAS sends a strong signal to universities that they should not be collecting criminal records from all potential students at application stage, and we expect to see the majority of institutions decide not to ask about criminal records for admissions purposes for most courses. Criminal record disclosure (of, say, certain offences) may feature in other parts, like when applying for university accommodation, but that’s further down the line and a separate process to that of admissions with different considerations.

In considering concerns about people recently convicted of serious offences applying to universities and not having to declare whether they have a criminal record, this is where a key understanding of the role of others outside of universities is important, and Unlock has produced a separate briefing on understanding applicants with a criminal record.

For courses that involve enhanced criminal record checks, the briefing also looks at how universities should approach applicants that have a criminal record. There remains work to be done to ensure that there is a proportionate approach to assessing the relevance of the applicant’s criminal record and that the right decisions are reached. While it’s right that individuals should be aware of what future challenges they might encounter, universities shouldn’t be preventing them the opportunity to try.

Throughout all of this, universities need to have a strong, inclusive mindset with student support at the heart. Unless you are proactively including, you are probably accidentally excluding. Many institutions are now rightly looking at how to amend their policies and practices. I hope to see a number of universities step forward and make changes to their processes following consideration of this good practice. Unlock will continue to work with UCAS and institutions to ensure fair admissions policies towards applicants with criminal records.

This was originally published in the Criminal convictions – Good practice guide, which is part of a wider set of resources published by UCAS.

New paper published: University admissions and criminal records – Lessons learned and next steps

Today Unlock has published a paper, University admissions and criminal records: Lessons learned and next steps.

For the last two decades, access to higher education in the UK for people with a criminal record has been seen to be much more difficult. This is, in part, because of the way that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) has required all applicants to disclose whether or not they have a certain criminal record when completing the standard UCAS application.

But that is now changing. UCAS has announced that it is removing the requirement for applicants to disclose if they have relevant unspent convictions on the application form.

That is why this paper is so timely; it brings together three short essays that look at the lessons that can be learned from the US, and what is next for university admissions and criminal records in the UK.

Drawing on newly published research (by Bradley Custer), sharing lessons from the US (by Dr Alexandra Cox), and looking at the UK context (by Christopher Stacey), this paper provides some useful insights that will be helpful in the work that will now need to be done to ensure that the changes announced by UCAS are followed through by individual institutions to remove unnecessary barriers to higher education for students with a criminal record.

Commenting on the paper, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock and author of one of the essays, said:

“These three short essays collectively show why the change that UCAS announced last week is the right way forward. The starting point should be that criminal records should not be a part of a university’s assessment of academic merit. The change by UCAS sends a strong signal to universities that they should not be collecting criminal records from all potential students at application stage, and I expect to see the majority of institutions decide not to ask about criminal records for admissions purposes for most courses.”

Bradley Custer, from Michigan State University and author of one of the essays, said:

“Research on the use of criminal histories in university admissions in the UK and the US casts serious doubt as to whether the practice yields any net benefit to campus safety, as intended. Rather, more signs point to the process being harmful barriers to prospective students who seek second chances and opportunities to pursue higher education. Dropping the criminal history question was the right move by UCAS, and thousands of people with criminal histories can now access higher education because of it.”

Dr Alexandra Cox, from University of Essex and author of the one of the essays, said:

“Universities should not create any extra barriers to participation in higher education beyond those that relate to legally enshrined aspects of a criminal conviction.  At State University of New York, we recognised that there would be a number of degree programs, from nursing to law, which involved career paths that would require criminal background checks and, in some cases, exclude applicants with convictions.  However, should an individual with a conviction apply to a law program, for example, we felt that they should not be barred from participating in a program even if the barriers to entry in the profession were high. It also recognises the evolving common sense about risk and public safety in the professions.”

 

Download: University admissions and criminal records: Lessons learned and next steps

Unlock is taking forward many of the areas discussed in the paper as part of its Unlocking students with conviction project.

Unlock comment: Positive changes by UCAS to university application process for students with criminal records

Commenting on news that UCAS, the university admissions service, will no longer ask applicants to declare criminal convictions when they apply for most courses, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“Unlock very much welcomes the removal of the main criminal conviction box from the UCAS form. This is a significant change that has the potential to help many people with convictions see a university education as a positive way forward in their lives. For far too long, universities have operated arbitrary, unfair admissions practices towards those who ticked the box. Unlock has seen first-hand how people have been put off from applying to university as a result.

 

“If universities are committed to widening participation, they should be considering the widest number of potential applicants. The change by UCAS provides a strong signal to universities that criminal records shouldn’t feature in their assessment of academic ability.

 

“Many institutions are now rightly looking at how to amend their policies and practices. We look forward to working with UCAS and individual universities in developing fairer admissions policies towards students with criminal records.”

 

The move by UCAS was reported in a Guardian article published yesterday. UCAS also posted details on its website.

Unlock is working on university admissions as part of our Unlocking students with conviction project.

 

Unlock has worked alongside the Prisoners’ Education Trust and the Longford Trust to push for this change by UCAS.

Nina Champion, Head of Policy at Prisoners’ Education Trust, said:

“A week after the Justice Secretary encouraged businesses to employ people with convictions, Prisoners’ Education Trust (PET) warmly welcomees the decision by UCAS to promote second chances when it comes to higher education. The charities PET, Longford Trust and Unlock have been working with UCAS to address some of the arbitrary and discriminatory practices that have gone on in university admissions processes, which have prevented many talented and qualified people from studying at university level.

 

“People with convictions who are applying to university are showing a huge commitment to turning their lives around. As a society, we should be doing all we can to support them. The chance to go to university helps people to move fully away from crime, build careers and contribute to our communities. Their presence is also hugely beneficial for universities, which gain highly committed students, who help create a more diverse and inclusive learning environment for everyone.”

 

“We look forward to working with universities at revising their own admissions procedures in light of UCAS’ decision, ensuring fair chances for every student.”

 

Peter Stanford, Director of the Longford Trust, said:

“The Longford Trust wholeheartedly welcomes the removal of the criminal conviction box from UCAS forms. Among the many obstacles that serving and ex-prisoners have to face when they decide that studying for a degree is the best way of continuing their rehabilitation, this box on UCAS forms has loomed particularly large for many of those we work to support. To many it simply says, ‘we don’t want people like you’ and they decide not to apply. For others, it can be an ordeal by fire, with no consistent practice, even between faculties at the same university, no transparency, and no right to appeal judgements that they feel are unfair. Those who ‘get through’ are left feeling stigmatised, which is hardly a good basis on which to embrace the world of higher education, and share in all the benefits that life on campus offers.

 

“We would therefore urge that, whatever arrangements universities now decide to put in place around risk assessment for those with criminal convictions, they do so in a manner that learns from the mistakes of the recent past, and enables the widest possible levels of participation”

 

 

 

Insurance companies are breaking the law by taking into account old criminal records

Unlock, the leading charity for people with convictions, has today published new research which highlights major problems in the way that insurance companies deal with the criminal records of people applying for home insurance.

The charity 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. They also 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.

The research also highlights the blanket approaches taken towards applicants that declare a 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.

Commenting on the research, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“We regularly get contacted by people who are confused by what they’re being asked to disclose when applying for insurance, and these findings show that when they mistakenly reveal something they didn’t need to, they’re getting punished for it. It doesn’t have to be this way, and insurance companies themselves are contributing to this problem.

 

“The insurance industry needs to update its good practice and insurers should implement clear and consistent wording in relation to asking about unspent convictions. Given that two-thirds of the insurers we looked at are not doing this at the moment, there’s a lot of work to do. That’s why we’ll be referring these findings to the Information Commissioners Office, as we believe insurers are breaching the principles of the Data Protection Act.

 

“For an industry that prides itself on assessing risk, it was astounding to find that all of the insurers blanketly refused to offer cover online where an unspent conviction was disclosed – there is clearly a widespread policy of ‘computer says no’. Given there’s nearly three-quarters of a million people in England & Wales with an unspent conviction, with thousands of people having convictions from decades ago that are still unspent, one has to ask whether insurers are taking a proportionate approach to risk by simply refusing to offer cover to people in this situation.”

 

Notes

  1. Press/media enquiries
  2. The research is available to download from Unlock’s website.

 

Coverage

The findings of this research were featured in:

 

Background

Insurance companies ask about criminal records when a person applies for cover across a range of insurance products, including buildings, contents, motor and public liability insurance. Convictions that are now ‘spent’ (as set out by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974) do not need to be disclosed for insurance purposes and they should not be taken into account by insurance companies when providing quotes.

Unlock’s helpline regularly receives enquiries from people with convictions that are looking for insurance. Common problems include:

  1. Individuals being unable to obtain quotes from mainstream insurance providers when they reveal that they’ve got a criminal record.
  2. Others with spent convictions being confused by the questions they are being asked by insurers, with many wrongly believing that spent convictions need to be disclosed and may be taken into account.
  3. Instances where insurers take into account spent convictions when they have a legal obligation to disregard them.
  4. Policies being withdrawn because, instead of asking a question, the insurer includes some form of “no convictions” statement in the assumptions of the quote. When the individual discovers this and informs the insurer, they revoke the policy.

 

Case study – Paula

Paula was convicted of an overpayment of benefits 6 years ago. She was given a 4 month suspended prison sentence. The conviction became spent around three and half years ago, because under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, that sentence becomes spent 2 years after the end of the 4-month sentence.

“Pretty much straight after my conviction, we had to renew our home contents insurance, and our existing insurer refused to renew it because I told them of the conviction. The only companies we ended up being able to get quotes from were specialist brokers that specifically helped people with unspent convictions.

 

“When I was originally convicted, nobody told me when my conviction would become spent, or what that would mean at that point. So for the last 3 years, I’ve been continuing to use specialist brokers for my insurance.

 

“Recently, I tried to get a quote online through the Post Office, but I ticked the box about convictions because they asked “Has anyone in the property ever been convicted…?” – I thought the right answer was “yes”, because I had, and they were unable to give me a quote.

 

“It wasn’t until I spoke to Unlock that they told me that my conviction was now spent and that I didn’t need to tell insurance companies anymore. Two weeks ago, I went and got a quote from Admiral. They made it clear that they only needed to know about unspent convictions, so I could confidently answer “no” to that without feeling like I was doing anything wrong.

 

“Why don’t insurers make that clear when they ask you the conviction question on the quote form? For the last couple of years, I feel like I’ve been paying over the odds with specialist brokers when I could have been using mainstream comparison websites and getting a much better deal.” Paula

 

Case study – John

John was convicted of attempted murder in 1971. He got a life sentence. He’s been out of prison for nearly 30 years. But when he discloses that conviction to insurance firms, they refuse to cover the contents of his flat.

“In 1971, I was attacked and I retaliated a couple of weeks later. I was convicted of attempted murder. I got a life sentence. I was 23 years old.

 

“In 1986 I had a stroke and was discharged from prison and came to live here. I’ve lived here a number of years, and I can’t get household contents insurance. I’ve tried many times but because I answer the question “do you have any criminal convictions”, because I put “yes”, I’m declined insurance because they say that thee sentence isn’t spent. Well, it can’t be spent because I’m on life parole. So, the only way I can get insurance is to lie, but if I do lie and they find out, I’ll have paid money for years, possibly for nothing, becuase they will find any excuse not to pay out, and that would be a valid reason because I hadn’t answered the question truthfully.

 

“I just feel like I’m still being sentenced. I’m vulnerable because I’m now getting on; I’m 72 years of age. I would feel comfortable if I could have household contents insurance; I just want to insure the few bits and pieces I’ve got.

 

“I’ve been to a broker. The housing authority offer household insurance but they declined to insure me. I’ve been to Aviva, I’ve been to Direct Line. None of them will insure me because I have an unspent conviction. There are several politicians that have been to jail for fraud yet their convictions will be spent. Well mines never spent because it was a life sentence.

 

“How can I integrate with society if I can’t have household contents insurance. I feel like I’m missing. I think I should be treated as everyone else. I have been almost 30 years out of prison. I can get car insurance. I get travel insurance. Why can I not have household contents insurance? And why should I pay a higher premium? I think I should be treated just as Joe Bloggs in the street is treated, who’s 72 years of age, living in a local authority property and just gets on with life.”  John

 

Responses from insurers

In response to Radio 4’s Money Box featuring the launch of the research, a number of insurers provided a comment to the BBC (see below)

 

Co-op

“We insure customers with spent convictions, and we apologise that in this instance we incorrectly declined the quote, which is not our standard policy.

“We are now implementing additional training to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.

“For customers that take out insurance online, we have a Q&A on our website to provide information on convictions.  However we are also reviewing the wording within our quote process, to ensure that it is clear.”

 

esure/Sheila’sWheels

“esure and Sheilas’ Wheels do not ask customers to disclose spent convictions when they apply for a motor or home insurance policy. Our approach is entirely in line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

“Spent convictions are therefore not taken into account in our underwriting or pricing policies regardless of the time when the conviction was spent.”

 

Aviva

“We want to help customers understand whether a conviction should be declared so we invite customers with previous convictions to phone in and speak to one of our experts to ensure there are no issues around non-disclosure.

“Aviva does not ask customers to declare spent convictions nor do we take into account spent convictions when offering home insurance.

“We continually review our customer journeys and later this year will be making some changes to our online home quote journey to ask customers only to consider unspent convictions, and we will be providing a link to Unlock so that customers are fully informed and are able to establish for themselves whether their conviction is spent or not.”

 

Littlewoods/Very

“Shop Direct introduces Very and Littlewoods Home Insurance to consumers, with the products sold by Ryan Direct Group and underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance. We were unaware of this issue and would like to thank Money Box for bringing it to our attention. We have since reached out to Royal & Sun Alliance to understand more and will take any steps necessary to ensure that its practices are both fair and clear.”

 

LV

“We’d like to thank Unlock for bringing this issue to our attention, it is absolutely not our intention to decline customers with spent criminal convictions.

“The majority of our business comes from price comparison websites who all ask about unspent criminal convictions. Our website is in line with this, we ask about criminal convictions within the last 5 years and have text on the page explaining that we don’t need to know about spent criminal convictions.

“However, on the telephone, we simply ask for criminal convictions in the last 5 years. We recognise that this is not right and have already begun a process to educate staff on this matter. This will ensure they are aligned and there’s no risk of inadvertently considering spent criminal convictions.”

We want to make sure that our website is as helpful as possible.

Letting us know if you easily found what you were looking for or not enables us to continue to improve our service for you and others.

Was it easy to find what you were looking for?

Thank you for your feedback.

12.5 million people have criminal records in the UK. We need your help to help them.

Help support us now