Skip to main content

Category: News & Media

New report highlights ‘double discrimination’ faced by black, Asian and minority ethnic people with a criminal record

Unlock, the country’s leading charity for people with convictions, has today published research on the impact of criminal records as perceived by people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.

New data in the report, Double discrimination?, shows that over three-quarters of people surveyed (78%) felt their ethnicity made it harder for them to overcome the problems they faced as a result of having a criminal record. The overwhelming majority (79%) experienced problems gaining employment; these persisted over many years and affected all age groups. African and Caribbean people were most affected.

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

“The discrimination faced by people with a criminal record who are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background may not be ‘double’, but the difficulties they face are certainly cumulative. The perceptions of many people we surveyed were that the criminal record disclosure rules caused them more problems because, had they been white, they may not have been prosecuted, or the sentence they received would have been lower and therefore ‘spent’ earlier.

“These perceptions are borne out by other evidence that shows how the criminal justice system disproportionately impacts on people from some BAME groups because of over-criminalisation and harsher treatment. Put simply, ethnicity impacts on the type of criminal record someone gets. The disclosure regime exacerbates problems faced by people already treated more harshly at all stages in the criminal justice system.

“Black and Asian defendants have consistently been given the longest average custodial sentence length since 2012. Harsher sentences take longer to become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, if they ever do, meaning a criminal record will cause more difficulties for longer. This is an additional penalty for Black and Asian defendants. What David Lammy refers to as the double penalty can in fact be a triple penalty – the ethnic penalty, the criminal penalty and then the disclosure penalty.

“Ethnicity is often a visible characteristic to employers, but a criminal record is not. This means that, while tackling ethnicity-based discrimination requires a certain set of responses, tackling conviction-based discrimination needs a different set of responses. For example, minimising, or delaying, the use of criminal records, may benefit BAME groups in particular but would result in a much fairer system for everyone. The Lammy recommendations to address ethnic disproportionality must continue, but in the meantime simple changes to the disclosure regime can help level the playing field.

“We urge the government to take forward our recommendations, including to carry out a fundamental review of the criminal records regime and to implement reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, including reducing the time before convictions become spent and expanding the scope of legislation so that all convictions can become spent.”

In the foreword to the report, David Lammy, MP for Tottenham and chair of the Lammy Review, writes:

“Those who experience our criminal justice system, above all, need a different future to aspire to, but our criminal records regime is holding them back. Employers, universities, housing providers and even insurers, can and do discriminate against those who disclose this information. This is an issue for all people with a criminal record whatever their ethnic background. However, this report by Unlock demonstrates that our criminal records system disproportionately discriminates against those from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. Already facing discrimination when applying for employment, the barriers that BAME individuals face are solidified and compounded by our arcane criminal record process. This report shines a light on BAME individuals’ experiences of post-conviction problems – tied to the past and facing multiple disadvantage. I continue to urge the government to reflect hard on the impact of a criminal records regime that traps people in unemployment, contributes to high rates of recidivism and creates a double penalty for minorities. It’s time for urgent reform.”

Iqbal Wahhab OBE, chair of EQUAL, which focuses on action for race equality in the criminal justice system, said:

“When people of  BAME backgrounds make up 26% of the prison population yet 14% of the wider population, when young black men can be twice as likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population, when people of BAME backgrounds are significantly more likely to receive custodial sentences than their white counterparts and when every level of ethnic disproportionality in the criminal and legal justice system has risen since the Lammy report, we are facing a huge challenge to any claim that we live in a fair society. The problems are only getting bigger. The recommendations in Unlock’s report are essential steps that need to be taken to reverse these troubling trends. We keep hearing that companies with more diverse workforces perform better than those that haven’t. Employers need to be brought into these conversations more to become part of the solution whilst enhancing the performance of their own organisations as well as that of wider society at the same time.

“The ethnic penalty in employment is well documented and we welcome the evidence in Unlock’s report which shows the biggest challenge for BAME individuals post-conviction is securing employment. The government needs to do more to help BAME people overcome ethnic and conviction bias in the labour market. EQUAL supports Unlock’s call for the government to conduct a fundamental review of the wider criminal records disclosure regime.”

Sara Llewellin, CEO of the Barrow Cadbury Trust, said:

“The Barrow Cadbury Trust is proud to support the work of Unlock. This report into the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic people living with criminal records is eye-opening. David Lammy MP in his 2017 review on racial disproportionality called for changes to our criminal records regime. The data and personal testimony in this report lend more weight to that long-running debate on what those changes would look like, and the urgent need to reform the disclosure system to enable individuals to access education and employment opportunities.”

Notes

  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. 
  2. There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
  3. Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
  4. High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account.
  5. The full report is available here. An executive summary is available here.
  6. Black and Asian defendants have consistently had the longest average custodial sentence length since 2012. As set out on page 58 of the Ministry of Justice (2016) Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2016.

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.”

Unlock comment: Ministry of Justice plans on criminal record reform

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

  1. We understand that the plans are focused on the Ministry of Justice making changes to Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which sets out the time periods for which criminal records become ‘spent’, at which point they are not disclosed on basic criminal record checks. It is important to note that once convictions become spent, they are not wiped from police records, and they remain available for disclosure when applying for work in certain roles such as becoming a solicitor (which involves a standard DBS check) or roles involving children or vulnerable groups (which involve an enhanced DBS checks).
  2. Find out more about our policy work on reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  3. The government is yet to respond to the Supreme Court judgment from January of this year. That ruling is focused on the rules that determine what is disclosed (or filtered) from standard and enhanced criminal record checks.

 

‘Double discrimination?’ report published

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.

Some examples of people we’ve helped

Looking back over the last couple of months, we’ve written up a few examples of the people we’ve helped.

We hope they give a good idea of how we help people.

However, more importantly than our role, we think that these examples show how people with convictions are able to overcome some of the barriers that have been put in their way due to their criminal record.

We’ve posted the examples below as case studies in the support section of our website:

Alan – Successfully making representation to be placed on a Council’s housing register

Gerry – Excessive interventions by the police and probation can affect an individuals ability to move on with their lives

Hilary – Having the confidence to challenge a Public Protection Officers decision enabled my son to find employment

KatieUnderstanding my rights under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) heled me keep my job

Monthly update – June 2019

We’ve just published our update for June 2019.

This months update includes:

  1. Some new information which aims to assist anybody travelling to the USA to identify whether their offence is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude.
  2. An update on our page covering deportation due to a criminal record highlighting details of a successful Court of Appeal deportation case.
  3. A personal story setting out an individual’s experience of applying for a job with a ‘progressive’ organisation with an unspent conviction.
  4. A link to a discussion on theForum on applying for a job through a recruitment agency.
  5. Details of some new dates for Unlock’s criminal record disclosing training.

The full update provides a summary of:

  1. the latest updates to our self-help information site for people with convictions
  2. recent posts to our online magazine, theRecord
  3. discussions on our online forum
  4. other news and developments that might be of interest to individuals with a criminal record.

Read the June 2019 update in full.

Best wishes,

Unlock

Notes

Report backs tax breaks to employers that recruit people with convictions

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.

Monthly update – May 2019

We’ve just published our update for May 2019.

This months update includes:

  1. An advice post detailing how you can request that an organisation delete your personal data once it’s no longer necessary for them to retain it.
  2. A personal story highlighting an individuals experience of working as a teacher following a caution for affray.
  3. A link to a discussion on theForum from a gentleman who has been suspended from work due to the non-disclosure of a conviction he was not asked to disclose.
  4. A blog written by a charity working within the criminal justice system who’ve successfully applied for a waiver from the Charity Commission for a trustee applicant “disqualified” due to their criminal record.

The full update provides a summary of:

  1. the latest updates to our self-help information site for people with convictions
  2. recent posts to our online magazine, theRecord
  3. discussions on our online forum
  4. other news and developments that might be of interest to individuals with a criminal record.

Read the May 2019 update in full.

Best wishes,

Unlock

Notes

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

Appointing a trustee with a criminal record: reflections of a successful applicant and charity

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.

Context

“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.

Part one – Our perspective

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.

1. Positive intentions & negative experience

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.”

2. Contribution barriers

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.”

3. An uneven playing field

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.”  

Part two – Helpful hints and tips

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.”

Tips for approaching the application

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. The covering letter
  2. A letter from the board (with e-signatures) – we recommend including an Appendix (see below)
  3. A letter from the waiver applicant (and application)

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:

  • Is our agreed and preferred appointment to the Board of Trustees to fill the skillset of XXXX, supporting our strategic growth plans
  • Has been selected through a comprehensive, rigorous and open recruitment process, including DETAILS OF INTERVIEW/APPLICATION PROCESS
  • Is uniquely placed to support the charity, DETAIL SKILLS/FIT
  • Is not regarded as a risk to the charity’s governance or assets
  • Will not be in the role of Treasurer or be a signatory to the charity’s accounts
  • Would most effectively support the charity’s governance and strategic growth plans as a Board Trustee.

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):

  • Details of the recruitment process that led to the applicant’s appointment or proposed appointment. Here you should emphasise your recruitment process (open is best practice) and this applicant was the best appointment as a result of that.
  • Support for the waiver by the Board of Trustees. Whether a majority of the trustees support the waiver application
  • Details of the duties and responsibilities of the trustee position that the applicant holds or wants to take up. Explain any relevance (or otherwise) of the reason the applicant is disqualified to the roles and responsibilities of the position. For example, if an unspent conviction is unrelated to the position, explain this.
  • The applicant’s unique contributions. Why the trustees consider that the applicant is the best appointment, for example, what special skills does this individual have which are not otherwise available from other applicants? Here you should mention the relevance of your charity objects/purpose, and highlight the user perspective your applicant can provide in this role.
  • Why the applicant cannot act in an advisory capacity rather than act as a trustee. You should emphasise that you were specifically seeking trustees. You should express your belief that the role you have is one that the charity should have the ability to appoint an individual to.
  • The view of the board of trustees. The trustees’ views on the position and reputation of the charity if the applicant’s appointment is made or maintained. You should also emphasise here the repercussions on the charity’s reputation if the waiver is refused.
  • Risk management. Whether the trustees have assessed, and can manage any risk to the charity and its assets in making or maintaining the appointment. For example, if the disqualification reason is financial mismanagement, if you have decided the applicant will not be in a treasurer position.

More information

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.

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