We’ve written an article for Inside Time on the ‘filtering of convictions.
Category: Unlock in the media
Unlock on BBC Radio West Midlands talking about second chances and employers
Last night we contributed to a discussion on BBC Radio West Midlands, which looked at the case of Natalie Atkinson, and looked at the role of employers in giving people with convictions a second chance.
You can listen to the programme below:
Former MP Denis MacShane writes about the role of financial services
Denis MacShane, former MP and former prisoner, argues in a feature for this months’ Financial World magazine, that the financial services industry needs to do more to help discharged prisoners reintegrate into society.
Thanks to Financial World, you can download the specific article here.
The two main issues that Denis raises are that of bank accounts and insurance. We were pleased to be able to speak to Denis when he was writing this article, and we’re glad that he’s raised some of the core issues that remain on these fronts.
Unlock article on TheJusticeGap about ‘filtering’
We’ve written an article for The Justice Gap, arguing that the ‘filtering’ process doesn’t go far enough.
Dealing with criminal convictions – embedding a positive process of disclosure
Christopher Stacey, Co-Director, Unlock comments on the issues discussed in a recent Ban the Box webinar.
Quite rightly, the Ban the Box campaign is focused on a specific issue, that being the tick-box that appears on many job application forms, frightening the life out of somebody who has a criminal record.
Many people with convictions see “the box” and immediately de-select themselves out of the job opportunity, usually because their experiences to date have been ones of rejection whenever they’ve ticked that dreaded box. The obvious result to employers is that you’re missing out on a huge pool of talent, which is why this issue is so important.
But ‘banning the box’ is only one part of the puzzle. What this simple concept allows organisations to do is have a much considered recruitment process that firstly focuses on finding the best person for the job, while also recognising that, as an organisation, you might still need to look at criminal convictions once you have a preferred candidate.
This is something that I know from experience. Having worked with employers for many years, I know that some employers can see the benefit of this issue in principle, but when you begin to try and ‘implement’ this, it’s then that it can feel like it’s getting more complicated. What do we do if somebody discloses a conviction? Are we allowed to employ them? Who do we have to tell?
These are all genuine questions that you have to think about, and often this means looking in the round as to what your policy and process are. If you don’t have either of these, you’ll need to seriously consider getting them.
It’s all about building on the principle of ‘banning the box’ and establishing something that works for your organisation. Ultimately, there’s no one-size-fits-all model. As we heard from Interserve in the a recent Ban the Box webinar, they have developed a policy and process that’s unique to them. We have developed a policy at Unlock which we think sends the kind of message that we want to applicants to hear.
However, no matter how good your policy, if this isn’t embedded within your organisation, it probably won’t work. Policies are only as good as the people that use them. Senior managers, HR colleagues and recruiting managers in particular need to feel equipped to make positive decisions about employing somebody with a conviction. That’s one reason why we provide support to employers, because lots of recruiters have myths about criminal records. They don’t understand what they can and can’t ask for, and don’t understand how to deal on an individual case-by-case basis with people with have convictions.
Ultimately, ‘banning the box’ could easily be meaningless to an organisation, even if they’ve signed up to it. It’s perfectly possible (and a genuine risk for the campaign) for the ‘banning of the box’ to end up simply delaying the rejection of applicants with convictions. In many organisations, this requires a cultural shift away from seeing convictions as a ‘negative’ part of the process, and rather looking at how you can deal with them in a positive, informed way. ‘Banning the box’ is a simple but effective first step on a journey which enables employers to see beyond the label of ‘criminal record’ and see the person for the fantastic employee that they could potentially become.
This blog was originally published on the 10th June 2014 at www.bitc.org.uk . The direct link [accessed 13th June 2014] is http://www.bitc.org.uk/blog/post/dealing-criminal-convictions-embedding-positive-process-disclosure
Unlock on Prison Radio talking about the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
We’ve recorded a piece with the Prison Radio Association as part of their ‘Outside In’ programme, which is run in partnership with the BBC andgets aired across the prison radio network.
Christopher Stacey spoke about the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and what this means for people serving a prison sentence.
You can listen to the interview below.
Unlock complaint leads to ruling that the Disclosure and Barring Service breached the Data Protection Act
We’re pleased to report that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has today issued a press release which sets out their ruling that the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) has breached the Data Protection Action after failing to stop collecting information about criminal conviction data that was no longer required because of a filtering regime that was introduced in May 2013.
The DBS hadn’t updated their application forms, and so although the ‘filtering’ process meant that certain cautions and convictions are no longer disclosed on standard and enhanced checks, the DBS were still asking whether applicants had “ever been convicted of a criminal offence or received a caution…” as part of their application form. The result of this was that employers were finding out information which they weren’t entitled to know about.
We made the original complaint to the ICO in September 2013, after our helpline had received a number of calls about this problem. In particular, we highlighted two cases where individuals had disclosed information they no longer needed to disclose, but had subsequently had their offers of employment withdrawn. The two cases are explained in more detail below.
Christopher Stacey, Co-Director at Unlock, said; “We’re pleased to see that the DBS has responded to this issue by updating their application form and improving their guidance to applicants. It is important that people with convictions are able to understand what they do and don’t have to disclose during the recruitment process, and the DBS have an important part to play to make this clear and easy to understand.”
“It remains difficult for people to find out whether a caution or conviction that they have is eligible for filtering, and we would like to see the DBS respond to this issue by introducing a system which allows individuals to obtain a copy of their DBS certificate before they start applying for jobs or volunteer work, so that they can be confident that they’re disclosing the appropriate level of information. We would also like to encourage employers that are entitled to carry out standard and enhanced checks to make sure that they look at their own recruitment processes and make sure that they are only asking about cautions and convictions that would not be filtered by the DBS”.
Brief details of the cases that formed part of our complaint to the ICO
Case One
An individual ticked ‘Yes’ to the question because the question hadn’t changed, and they didn’t see the accompanying guidance. To them, it was clear what question they were being asked, and so despite their conviction being one that would be filtered, they ticked ‘Yes’ which meant, because they handed the form back to the employer to submit, they had disclosed they had a conviction to the employer. The employer asked further questions about this, and decided to withdraw the job offer.
Case Two
An individual ticked ‘Yes’ to this question because they were not sure whether their conviction would be filtered. As there was no other means of definitively finding out whether it would be filtered or not, they erred on the side of caution and ticked ‘Yes’, believing that, if it would be filtered, it wouldn’t matter what they put. It turned out that their conviction was due to be filtered, but because they had ticked yes, their employer got to find out when they handed the form back, and subsequently decided to withdraw the job offer.
-END-
Notes to editors
- Press/media
- More information relating to the filtering process is available here.
Raising awareness in prisons of changes to the ROA
We’re continuing our efforts to raise awareness of the changes to the ROA, but this time we’ve been focusing on prisons.
Firstly, we wrote a news piece for the March 2014 edition of Inside Time. A copy of the news piece is below.
We’ve also recorded a piece for the Prison Radio Associations’ ‘Outside In’ programme, which is done in partnership with Radio 4 and recorded by former prisoners. A copy of the audio will be available here shortly.
Criminals get better insurance – but not speeding motorists
The Telegraph’s Money section has published a very interesting article about the changes to the ROA and how these do (or don’t) impact on people with motoring offences.
We spoke with the journalist as she was developing this piece, although we’re not specifically referenced.
This article highlights a number of issues that we’re taking forward as part of our ongoing work around the ROA.
You can read the article here.
Raising awareness of the changes to the ROA
In the last couple of days, we’ve been very busy. We’ve been working hard to raise awareness of the changes to the ROA.
Yesterday (10th March) we appeared on BBC Breakfast.
We also took part in a number of regional radio discussions, including BBC London, BBC Radio 5 Live, BBC Leeds, BBC Coventry, BBC West Midlands, BBC Merseyside and BBC Kent.
We also worked with ITN News to provide them with a case study of somebody who’s convictions became spent as of yesterday. This was briefly featured in their lunchtime news programme.
More broadly, we wrote an article for Open Democracy (The right of offenders to get back on track) and an article for Criminal Law and Justice Weekly (Changing laws on disclosure)
