Skip to main content
For people with criminal records
For people with criminal records

Category: Unlock’s blog

Blog – How can people with criminal records access higher education?

Evidence shows that some groups are disproportionately criminalised: care leavers, people from low income households and some ethnic groups.

Despite education being widely recognised as a key factor in successful rehabilitation, admissions policies to date have presented psychological and practical challenges to access. When UCAS removed the criminal convictions tick box for applicants to non-regulated courses, universities had the perfect opportunity to re-evaluate their approach.

Now the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Nottingham have joined others in pledging to offer a fair chance to students with a criminal record. These universities have recognised that widening participation means looking at the range of barriers under-represented students face – including a criminal record.

Unlocking talent

Over the last 12 months Unlock, supported by the UPP Foundation, have worked with partner universities on their approach to applicants with criminal records. The project had three objectives: to get policies in place at each of the partner universities; a toolkit for other universities to use to develop their admissions policies; and a pledge for universities to sign up to.

The project was designed to focus on admissions, whilst recognising that this is only the first stage of the student journey. Accommodation, visa compliance and voluntary placements might require asking about criminal records but for admission to non-regulated courses this is almost always unnecessary. Admissions decisions should focus on an applicant’s ability to fulfil their potential. A fair chance means looking at ways to include rather than exclude those people who are trying to move on positively with their lives.  People like Connor.

Connor applied for a post-graduate degree, disclosing his unspent conviction at that time. The university decided that as his offence was ‘serious’ his application could not be accepted. Determined not give up, Connor submitted information about his conviction and letters of support from previous tutors and others people in his life. Eventually, the university overturned its decision.

Concerns about safeguarding or capacity to complete the course could be managed by engaging with the applicant themself. Offering applicants the opportunity to disclose conditions or restrictions that could affect their ability to succeed on their programme means universities can advise on adjustments or alternatives, addressing their concerns. Applicants can feel confident to ask for support at the earliest stage and throughout their course.

Primarily this is a widening participation issue. Admissions decisions for students with convictions can and should be in line with the principles of fair admissions, as set out in the Schwartz review.

It’s also an issue of legal compliance; any organisation that processes criminal record data must have a lawful basis under Article 6 and a condition under Article 10 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It’s difficult for a university to identify an article 10 condition for non-regulated courses. Where a DBS check is needed for a placement based programme, universities have a legal obligation to check criminal records. For non-regulated courses, this doesn’t apply. Asking a voluntary question about restrictions or conditions means universities can rely on consent when processing criminal records data.

What have we learned?

Three key themes have emerged from the project and we encourage any university looking at this issue to bear these in mind.

First, 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 fit into traditional widening participation groups. Excluding people because of their past is likely to result in exclusion of under-represented groups

Second, 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

Third, words matter: Policies of all kinds reflect the values and culture of the university. An inclusive culture begins with inclusive language. If a university is committed to widening participation and including all under-represented groups, the language used to address them is the starting point.

Students with convictions have usually overcome significant barriers already. They are determined and hardworking and, while they may need support to succeed, their inclusion ultimately benefits us all. Recidivism already costs the economy £18bn a year. Education, employment and opportunity are strongly associated with a reduction in reoffending. Can we really afford to ignore those who are working hard to get their lives on track?

What’s next?

Pledging to offer a Fair Chance to Students with Convictions means:

  • Asking applicants about criminal records only if – and when – it is necessary
  • Asking targeted and proportionate questions during the admissions process
  • Making the policy transparent and accessible to all applicants
  • 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

Signatories include Universities of Nottingham, Lincoln, Kent, Southampton, Essex and Liverpool, UWE; Birkbeck, University of London; London Metropolitan University and the Bloomsbury Institute. We look forward to more universities signing the pledge in the coming months and working with them to make improvements to their practices.

Our toolkit for higher education providers provides a blueprint for universities to make sure their admissions processes are fair and inclusive. We worked with the Office for students on their effective practice guide to working with students with convictions.

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.

This blog was written by Rachel Tynan and originally published by Wonkhe

Blog – Westminster Hall debate on the disclosure of youth criminal records

The 28th March saw a Westminster Hall debate on the disclosure of youth criminal records (read here or watch here). This followed the publication of the Justice Select Committee’s report on the subject, back in 2017. The report itself was a result of the Committee’s inquiry into disclosure of youth criminal records, launched in 2016, and in some ways a follow-up to their inquiry on the treatment of young adults in the justice system.

Bob Neill MP, Chair of the Committee, introduced the debate and thanked Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice for the evidence we provided. As part of the inquiry, we had arranged a seminar for Committee members and people with convictions to meet and discuss the impact of disclosing criminal records from childhood.

The government had committed to considering the Committee’s recommendations following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the filtering rules.

The debate was well informed and MPs highlighted the effects of disclosure on employment, education, housing, travel and insurance. Key points included:

John Spellar: “Is not there also an overall, macroeconomic issue, particularly as a number of employers are expressing concerns about shortfalls in labour either leading up to or following Brexit? Artificially restricting people from working and, indeed, from advancing is not just bad for those individuals, shocking though that is, but very bad for society and the economy.”

Bob Neill: “Low-paid and unsatisfactory jobs create burdens at every level, so the point is entirely true”.

David Lammy: “Trident – They were the ones who said to me, “Could you put this [criminal records] into your review? We are aware of a group of offenders who reach about 25 or 26 years old and want to move away from their criminal past but continue to reoffend because, as they grow up, they cannot get a job due to the [disclosure] regime that we have.”

This, in particular, resonates at a time when serious youth violence is dominating the headlines. What hope is there of reducing violence if young people with even minor criminal records see that it is impossible for them to get into legitimate, sustainable employment? This has an impact on these young men, their communities and wider society. As Victoria Prentis said:

“Does ruining their lives serve any real, practical purpose for the rest of society?”

The fundamental issue is the purpose of ongoing disclosure, and whether the existing regime delivers on that purpose – or actually hampers other good work going on in the justice system.

As David Lammy said, the Supreme Court judgment provides an opportunity:

“The Supreme Court decision could be interpreted narrowly by the Government, but from reading the report, the Committee’s mood suggests that it is an opportunity, notwithstanding all that is going on in Parliament, for the Government to take a broader view and to review our criminal records regime.

“My view is that there should be a balance between a rules-based system, which is largely what we have, and which is clearly cheaper—that is effectively why we have it, because there is time and one makes a judgment about spent convictions and disclosure—and a system that is slightly more sophisticated and might cost slightly more. There is a question about who pays. In the Canadian jurisdiction, the individuals seeking to get their criminal records looked at again pay for the system. In my view, a parole board, a magistrate or a judge could make the assessment.”

David Hanson has recently published his review into prison education provision in Wales. In the debate, he said:

“We focus in the report on training, employment and through-the-gate services, including prison and youth offender institution training and community rehabilitation companies in adult prisons and elsewhere…but whatever the system does with that training, someone ultimately has to get a job with a public sector body or an employer.”

Ban the Box was supported by all contributors – it’s not a silver bullet, said Bob Neill, but a base on which to build.

The Civil Service has now rolled out Ban the Box across all departments, and Liz Savile Roberts MP asked how many people with criminal records were employed in the Ministry of Justice – more on this later.

David Hanson is a keen advocate for Ban the Box. As he put it:

“The simple idea…is that disclosure happens after the job interview and job offer. The right to refuse is still there, but the judgments are made on the merits of the application and the individual in front of the employer—not on a conviction that may have happened some years ago.”

This is exactly the approach Unlock advocates: ask about criminal records only after an offer has been made (although we know not all Ban the Box employers do it this way).

As David Lammy highlighted, it’s important to understand where Ban the Box sits within reform of criminal records disclosure:

“…the problem with that initiative is, first, that it is voluntary and, secondly, that it is about the recruitment stage? The fundamental point about the work by the Select Committee and others who have raised this issue is that, beyond recruitment, there are questions about whether things should be disclosed to employers in the first place. It would be important for the Government not to lose that principle.”

There were many other excellent points made but I want to turn now to the responses from Edward Argar, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, on behalf of the government. The government has yet to formally respond to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the cases of P and others. No formal response was forthcoming here either, instead the Minister said:

“We work closely with the Home Office to give these things proper consideration. Although that judgment has been handed down, the order behind it has not yet been sent over to us. We await that order. When it is received, it is important that we are speedy and timely in addressing it.”

The Minister agreed that employment is a crucial factor in reducing reoffending – which costs 15bn a year on some estimates.

“…employers should not regard the disclosure of a criminal record as an automatic barrier to employment. A balanced judgment should be exercised, having regard to factors such as a person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago it was, and the relevance to the application or post in question.”

Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that employers do regard a criminal record as a barrier to employment. This point was made several times during the debate, and also by Lord Kerr in the Supreme Court judgment. Given the government’s efforts to get prisoners into work on release, and their manifesto commitment to incentivising employers to recruit people with convictions, it seems odd to not acknowledge the real difficulties people face in gaining employment.

Perhaps the Minister’s perception is skewed by the apparently impressively inclusive approach of his own department. In response to Liz Savile Roberts’ question on the number of people with convictions employed at the Ministry of Justice, he said:

“My understanding is that of those people with a previous conviction who applied through the approach that has been taken in the civil service since 2016, 92% subsequently secured employment, which is a positive outcome.”

That certainly seems like a positive outcome. However, there doesn’t appear to be an official source for that figure, and we would welcome publication of the data because it’s important to understand this is context, such as the numbers it involves, what types of criminal records, how long ago, and why the 8% were refused.

I was pleased to see that the Minister agreed that the judgment – and the actions that must follow – creates an opportunity to consider the Committee’s recommendations for reform of the criminal records system. I hope this will mean that the Ministry of Justice (along with the Home Office) taken an holistic view of the current regime, its aims and the evidence, and look to make changes that benefit individuals with convictions, their communities and wider society.

 

Written by Christopher Stacey

Find out the latest on reform of the criminal records regime in our policy section on DBS filtering.

Looking back at 2018 – A month-by-month review of our work and criminal record developments

With the Christmas break almost upon us and 2018 coming to an end, it’s a good time to reflect on the last 12 months and the developments relating to criminal records.

Once again it’s been an incredibly busy year for Unlock, with lots of positive news and progress to report in terms of the charity itself:

  1. We’ve continued to expand the information, advice and support we provide to help people overcome the stigma of their convictions.
  2. We have yet again seen large numbers of people accessing our helpline and websites. Building on last years’ unprecedented rise, our helpline will have dealt with around 8,000 enquiries this year. Our information site has yet again had over 1 million visitors and our disclosure calculator will have helped around 50,000 people work out when their convictions become spent.
  3. We’ve welcomed four new trustees and a full-time member of staff.
  4. We’ve started a whole new programme of work around access to higher education.

As you can see in the month-by-month highlights below, there’s been some significant positive policy changes; UCAS made changes to the university application process by dropping the question about criminal records, and the ‘disqualification by association’ requirements in primary schools were finally scrapped.

But it’s not all been positive. There continues to be new and extended policies and practices that treat people with convictions unfairly and punish people long after they’ve served their sentence. We’ve had to grapple with helping individuals and charities respond to changes to the rules that apply to charities which impact on the involvement of people with criminal records. Our research on employer practices published in October showed how the vast majority of national companies continue to ask about criminal records on job application forms.

A significant amount of effort went into the Supreme Court hearing in June, where we formally intervened for the first time in our 18-year history to help challenge the Government’s claim that the current criminal records disclosure regime is fair. We are incredibly grateful to all those who donated to help us cover our legal costs. We’re still awaiting a judgment and that should come in the first half of 2019.

This all means that, now more than ever, it’s vital that we continue to work hard to provide support and a voice for people with convictions, so we look forward to yet another strong year in 2019 and we are grateful to those of you that continue to support our vital work.

On a practical note, our helpline will be closed for the Christmas holidays from 4pm on Friday 21st December and will reopen at 10am on Wednesday 2nd January 2019. Our information site has details on what to do if you have questions over the festive period.

In the meantime, on behalf of all the staff and the board of trustees, I would like to wish the people we help, our volunteers, supporters and funders a very merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year.

 

Some highlights month-by-month

January – We published guidance and advice about the DBS’s newly introduced basic criminal record check.

February – Our blog about how enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks are not a panacea for safeguarding issues was published on the Huffington Post website.

March – Together with SCYJ, we wrote to the Justice Committee with concerns about how the Government had responded to their report on the disclosure of youth criminal records.

April – We launched a CrowdJustice appeal to help us cover the legal costs of intervening in the Supreme Court and raised over £17,000 (see June below).

May – We published A life sentence for young people – a report into the impact of criminal records acquired in childhood and early adulthood. And UCAS announced positive changes to the university application process that will benefit students with criminal records.

June – We were at the Supreme Court helping to challenge the Government’s claim that the current criminal records disclosure regime is fair.

July – After four years of campaigning, we were delighted that the government announced the scrapping of the disproportionate, unfair and ineffective “disqualification by association” rule for schools.

August – We published guidance and an online tool to help people affected by new legislation which automatically disqualifies some people from running a charity.

September – We published guidance for employers explaining that collecting information about criminal records at the initial application stage of recruitment is likely to be a breach of data protection law (GDPR).

October – We published A Question of Fairness – the results of our own research, showing that the vast majority of national companies continue to ask about criminal records on job application forms.

November – Our annual report for the financial year 2017-18 was published, providing full details of all our work, and spoke on BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action – “Should have a past block a child’s future?”

December – We started a new phase of research with a call-out to people of BAME backgrounds for examples of where their background has compounded problems with their criminal record.

 

Blog – What will be the impact of today’s charity rule changes?

There are over 11 million people in this country with a criminal record. Many of them play a vital role in contributing to the work of charities. There are many charities, including those working with people in the criminal justice system, that are ‘user led’ or actively involve their beneficiaries at a senior level in their organisation.

Almost anyone is allowed to run a charity, but there are rules that mean some people with a criminal record are prevented from being able to unless they have clearance from the Charity Commission.

Those rules have changed today (1st August 2018). Changes to the ‘automatic disqualification’ rules mean some people with certain convictions will be prevented from being able to run a charity, unless they have clearance from the Charity Commission. The changes cover a wider range of criminal records and apply to certain senior manager roles as well as trustee positions.

Unlock has long opposed these changes – we continue to argue that they are disproportionate and an ineffective way of protecting charities. However, pragmatically we also need to make sure that both charities and individuals respond to the changes.

But worryingly, awareness of the changes is low. Research of small charities carried out by the Foundation for Social Improvement in partnership with Unlock has shown a low level of awareness and understanding of these changes amongst the voluntary sector. Of the 83 respondents to an online survey held in July 2018:

  1. 70% were not aware of the changes
  2. On a small of 1-10 on how confident charities were on understanding the impact on people involved in the charity:
    1. 34% scored 1 (the least confident)
    2. 65% scored 5 or less
    3. Only 10% scored 10 (the most confident)
  3. 4 charities had identified individuals that might be directly affected (i.e. potentially disqualified), yet none of those individuals had applied for a waiver.

It’s important that charities of all shapes and sizes get to grips with these changes, not just those that work in criminal justice. If you particularly involve people with criminal convictions in your organisation’s leadership, it is vital to understand what you can do to support people who are effected to be involved.

We published guidance, with the support of Clinks, in February of this year, to coincide with a new ‘advance’ waiver system that people could use if they were affected by the changes coming in next week. We’ve now updated the guidance, published today, to reflect the changes having fully come into force –  to help charities understand these changes and look at what steps to take to maintain and increase the involvement of people with criminal records within charities.

Two main things are now covered in the latest guidance:

  1. Advice on checking your governing documents – it’s quite common for provisions in articles that prevent people from being disqualified. Depending on how they’re worded, it can mean that a waiver from the Charity Commission has no effect. We’ve sought legal advice and advice from the Charity Commission, and included examples of where this might cause a problem, and provided suggested wording.
  2. Sample declarations for charities to use for trustees and senior managers covered by the rules

We’ve also got guidance for individuals – to help people understand if they’re affected, we’ve got a simple online tool – and also detailed guidance on applying for a waiver. In practice, people that are disqualified can apply for a waiver which, if granted, will mean they can still take up the role that they were previously disqualified from.

Moving forward, there’s a big question about the impact of these changes. We’ve always been concerned that these changes will make it much more difficult for charities to involve people with criminal records at senior levels in their organisation.

Ultimately, it’s important that neither individuals nor charities think that these changes mean people with criminal records can’t be involved in charities – they can and they should. To help with this, we encourage charities to make a firm commitment to involving people from diverse backgrounds, including people with convictions (particularly given the strong links to over-representation of Black and Minority Ethnic groups in the criminal justice system) and recruiting people on their skills and abilities first.

We are also encouraging charities to take 4 simple steps in dealing with the rules:

  1. Work out who the new rules cover in your charity and check your governing documents
  2. Ask those people in roles covered by the new rules if they are disqualified
  3. Support any individuals disqualified
  4. Update your policies and practices for recruiting new trustees and certain senior manager positions

We expect the commission to grant waivers to people who are clearly adding value to the charities that they’re involved in, and we’ll be keeping a close eye on any decisions they make to refuse waivers. The number of waiver applications so far is small – only a handle of people with convictions have applied for a waiver since 1st February, and many are still awaiting a decision.

Over the coming months we will be supporting charities that have individuals affected, as well as supporting individuals that are applying for a waiver, and continuing our policy work with the Charity Commission.

 

 

 

More information

  1. A news post about the changes coming into force today
  2. Our updated guidance for charities
  3. Our updated guidance for individuals
  4. The charity rule changes page on our website.

Blog – Standing up to the government in the Supreme Court – Some reflections on last month’s landmark criminal record disclosure hearing

The latest blog by Christopher Stacey reflects on last month’s landmark criminal record disclosure hearing.  

For people with criminal records, last month was pretty significant. The Supreme Court heard the appeal of the Government, which is arguing that their current approach to disclosing old and minor cautions and convictions on standard and enhanced criminal record checks, often decades later, is fair. We disagree with the Government. And so did the High Court when in January 2016 it ruled that the current system is unlawful. Appealing against the ruling, the Government lost again at Court of Appeal in May 2017.

At that point, the Government could (and in my view should) have accepted the verdict and got on with the job of changing the system. Instead, it dug its heels in and appealed to the highest court in the country. That brings us to last month’s hearing.

Given it was the first time in Unlock’s 18-year history that we’d intervened in a legal case, it was always going to be an interesting experience, but couple that with the magnitude of the issues at stake, and the government’s approach to defending the current system, I think it is important to look back at what happened. Having spent 3 days in the Supreme Court, I wanted to take some time to reflect on what was a pretty intense experience (and don’t forget you can watch the full hearing on the Supreme Court website).

First, it’s important to recognise the huge amount of support that we’ve received. We’ve been crowdfunding to cover our legal costs and a huge thank you goes out to everyone that has donated. Now that we’ve raised enough to cover those costs, we’re continuing to raise money through CrowdJustice and everything we now raise will go directly towards our campaign work to help make sure the government takes action when the judgment is delivered.

What lies at the heart of this case is whether it’s right that old/minor criminal records are disclosed on standard/enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. In general terms, that’s perhaps an easier argument for the government to stand behind – they can (and often do) cite general concerns around safeguarding, and default to the position that “it’s up to employers to make a decision” as to how relevant the information is. But what’s interesting here is that the Supreme Court case involves 4 different individuals, and the government argued that, on the facts of the cases before the court, it was right to continue to disclose, effectively forever. That’s obviously consistent with their position, but when you look at the facts of the cases, it’s quite staggering that the government believes this to be the case. For example, one of the cases involves a man who over 35 years ago, when he was 16 (and so a child), was convicted of ABH and given a 2-year conditional discharge – because of the categorisation of this type of offence, under the current filtering rules it’ll never come off his standard or enhanced DBS check.

That’s one of the reasons why Unlock intervened in this case. We felt that it was important to try and help the court to understand the breadth and scale of the issue. Our recent report on youth criminal records is a good example of this, showing how the current system doesn’t just impact on a small number of people (in the last 5 years, nearly 1 million youth criminal records disclosed on standard/enhanced checks were over 30 years old), and it was good to see that information provided by us came up a number of times during the 3-day hearing.

A key argument of the government is that it’s down to employers to decide the relevance. They tried to argue that guidance available to employers (such as Nacro’s guidance) was sufficient in ensuring employers treat people fairly. However, as was made clear in court, there is nothing that requires employers to follow guidance of this type, it is not statutory, and indeed much of the evidence before the court shows that employers regularly refuse people with criminal records.

As the recent National Audit Office report into the DBS shows, there are no checks on what employers do with the information provided by the DBS. The DBS itself does not provide detailed guidance or support to employers in ensuring that they carefully assess the relevance of information they receive. In short, the government relies on employers, and employers often don’t do it. Indeed, very often our experience is that the very fact that there is information on a DBS is taken by an employer as meaning it’s relevant – otherwise, why would the DBS have disclosed it?

It was also strange to see the government seemingly argue that people with criminal records do not have many problems in finding employment. Indeed, the government used an answer that I gave to the Justice Committee (“I would be the first to say that many people with convictions do secure jobs that involve enhanced checks, having disclosed them”) to suggest that there isn’t really a problem. This is a rather mischievous use of that sentence, which was part of a longer answer to a question about the problems people face in employment, where I went on to highlight how “there is a huge problem with the way that many employers think that somebody must have a clean DBS certificate, with nothing on it…the current system often tells employers a lot of information that is irrelevant, but as they are being told it they believe it is relevant because the Government would not be giving them that information unless it was.”

The government’s approach also seems to suggest that the overwhelming majority of employers take an inclusive approach towards criminal records, yet this ignores the government’s own statistics, quoted in their own education and employment strategy, published only last month;

“A YouGov study revealed that 50% of employers would not even consider employing an ex-offender.”

This is a figure we cited in our submission the court, so it was interesting to hear the government seek to challenge this figure – when they themselves have used it in their own employment strategy. Indeed, in recognising the problem that people face as a result of their criminal records, on the Gov.uk web page that links to the strategy, the introduction starts with:

“People with a criminal conviction face several barriers on release from prison, with access to employment and education being at the forefront. Not only are many ex-offenders often unprepared for employment on release in terms of their skills and training, but there remains a stigma among some employers about hiring people with a criminal conviction.”

The government was at pains to point out in court that the regime is one of disclosure, not barring. By that, they’re trying to make the point that the current disclosure system doesn’t stop people from applying, and it’s then up to employers to make a decision. However, the government seemed to accept that because of the cautious approach they’ve taken towards the filtering rules, there’s a lot of cautions/convictions disclosed which are not relevant to most jobs that involve standard/enhanced checks, because it could be relevant for some. Lord Carnath rightly highlighted how this cautious approach results in the balance being erred towards disclosure, where there’s a lot of weight on what employers should do, rather than what the government should do.

There was much discussion about what changes might be needed to the current system. That’s something that we’ll be doing a lot of work on over the coming months, and particularly once the Supreme Court has given its judgment. There are two extremes – a completely automatic, rules-based system, and individual case-by-case judgements. Unlock’s view has always been that the answer lies in the middle – i.e. there needs to be some kind of automatic filtering process that remains – with some changes to the current rules so that more situations are filtered automatically – alongside a discretionary filtering process with a review mechanism.

Ultimately, the Ministry of Justice and Home Office need to fundamentally re-look at their position. I hope that, regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court, the government revisits its approach to this issue and that it accepts that there’s problems with the current system. What worries me most in all of this is that the government doesn’t seem to think there’s any need for change. Perhaps that’s just the position they feel they have to take because of the legal cases. Only time will tell.

Many people are rightly keen to know when the Supreme Court will deliver its judgment. There is no date for when the judgment will be handed down, although it is not likely to be until late 2018, at the earliest.

In the meantime, please support our campaign to wipe DBS checks clean of old/minor criminal records. Donate now here: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/clean-slate/. Any money we raise will go directly towards our campaign work to make sure the government takes action when the judgment is delivered. This will take our time and resources over the coming months – crucial if we are to make most of the opportunity and get the best possible outcome for people with old and minor criminal records. We really need your support to do this!

 

More information

To keep a track of developments:

 

  1. Sign up to our mailing list (and choose to receive “Unlock news”)
  2. Follow #dbsfiltering on Twitter
  3. Keep an eye on the DBS filtering policy page on our website.

Blog – The answer to Oxfam’s safeguarding problems is not enhanced DBS checks

The latest blog by Christopher Stacey (published on the Huffington Post) questions the use of enhanced DBS checks as the answer to Oxfam’s safeguarding problems.

Read it here.

Looking back at 2017 – A month-by-month review of our work and criminal record developments

With the Christmas break almost upon us and 2017 coming to an end, it’s a good time to reflect on the last 12 months work of the charity and the developments relating to criminal records.

Once again it’s been an incredibly busy year for Unlock, with lots of positive news and progress to report. We’ve continued to expand the information, advice and support we provide to help people overcome the stigma of their convictions:

  • We have yet again seen a year-on-year increase in the numbers of people accessing our helpline and websites. Building on last years’ unprecedented rise, our helpline will have dealt with over 7,500 enquiries in 2017, over 10% increase on last year.
  • The number of visitors to our information site has also continued to grow, with over 1.2 million people accessing the site this year, showing that last year was not a one-off when we hit over a million for the first time ever.
  • Our disclosure calculator will have helped over 50,000 people work out when their convictions become spent.

We’ve also strengthened our advocacy role by challenging discriminatory practices, supporting employers and influencing government policy. Recommendations by the Justice Committee and David Lammy on criminal records shows that the weight of support for reform is building.

That said, there continues to be new and extended policies and practices that treat people with convictions unfairly and effectively punish people long after they’ve served their sentence. In particular, the new year will see us dealing with the changes to charity rules that will impact on who can become a trustee or senior manager of a charity.

There’s then the small matter of a Supreme Court hearing in the summer of 2018, where the government is trying to appeal against a ruling that the current disclosure of old and minor criminal records is disproportionate and in need of reform.

This all means that, now more than ever, it’s vital that we continue to work hard to provide support and a voice for people with convictions, so we look forward to yet another strong year in 2018 and please help us to continue our work.

In the meantime, on behalf of all the staff and the board of trustees, I would like to wish the people we help, our volunteers, supporters and funders a very merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year.

Here’s a quick round-up of some of the key moments during the year:

In January, there was a second reading in the House of Lords of a Bill to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We also published a new ’10 things about criminal records’ guide for employability professionals.

In February, the Law Commission published a review of the DBS criminal record filtering system, which concluded that “the present system raises significant concerns in relation to ECHR non-compliance”  and that this “is an area of law in dire need of thorough and expert analysis. A mere technical fix is not sufficient to tackle such interwoven and large scale problems.”

Also in February, the DWP published an open recruitment employer guide. With a particular section on people with criminal records, it includes 7 top tips for employers that have been drawn from our principles of fair chance recruitment and lists six useful organisations, including Unlock.

In March, we gave evidence to the Justice Committee as part of their inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records.

In April, we started gathering examples of employers that have wrongly checked official criminal records.

In May, there was a landmark Court of Appeal ruling that rejected the Government’s appeal to a decision of the High Court in January 2016, which ruled that the criminal records disclosure scheme was disproportionate and unlawful.

Ahead of the general election in June, we published our top 4 priorities for the next government, including piloting tax incentives to encourage employers to recruit people with convictions and fundamentally reviewing the criminal record disclosure system.

In June, a Criminal Records Bill received its first reading in the House of Lords. Introduced by our president, Lord Ramsbotham, the Bill, which would shorten the rehabilitation periods that apply under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), proposes a number of changes. One of the most significant elements is that sentences of over 4 years in prison would become spent 4 years after the end of the full sentence.

In July, we spoke in Parliament at the launch of new research about the impact of criminal records on women trying to exit prostitution.

In August, we developed new information dedicated to the launch of basic DBS checks which started the following month.

In September, we responded to the report by David Lammy MP and his recommendations for reform to the criminal records disclosure regime. The Independent published our letter which supported his proposal of a sealing process. We also published new research which highlighted how insurance companies are breaking the law by taking into account old criminal records

In October, the Justice Committee published its report into the disclosure of youth criminal records, which we had lobbied them to carry out. The Independent published a letter from us arguing that forcing adults to admit to petty crime from their teen years is unfair and counter-productive.

In November, the Observer published an article titled ’Irrelevant’ criminal record checks harm ex-offenders’ job hopes. We were quoted as saying that “This can affect somebody who stole two chocolate bars when they were 14 and they’re now in their 50s. Having to relive one of the worst moments in their lives by explaining it to a stranger puts a lot of people off applying and unnecessarily anchors people to their past. The routine rejection by employers locks people out of the labour market and has a considerable financial cost to society through out-of-work benefits.”

In December, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies published a briefing, which Unlock supported, that found that three-quarters of a million criminal records that are more than a decade old are being revealed to employers on DBS checks each year.

Blog – Is ‘sealing’ criminal records the best way to help people turn their lives around?

The latest blog by Christopher Stacey looks at David Lammy’s recommendation to ‘seal’ criminal records and explains why it’s a good idea and how it could work.

Read it here.

Blog – ‘Through the gate’ services are failing to support people leaving prison into employment

‘Through the gate’ services are failing to support people into employment. That’s one of the conclusions in a report published last week by HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons into the ‘through the gate resettlement services’ that were introduced in 2015 and run by newly formed ‘Community Rehabilitation Companies’ (CRCs).

Right from the start of the government’s ‘transforming rehabilitation’ programme, there were a number of concerns about the problems that would arise. For me, there are three key things I took away from the report last week:

1. Too much focus on contracts

As the report found last week:

“There is much more CRCs should be doing to make a difference to the lives of those they are meant to be helping, but we found them focusing most of their efforts on meeting their contractual targets, to produce written resettlement plans. Responding to the needs of prisoners received much less attention, but meaningful expectations are not specified clearly in CRC contracts, and good, persistent work is not incentivised or rewarded sufficiently.”

This has been clear to me in the training I’ve delivered to practitioners working in (and for) CRCs. The training I deliver looks at criminal record and disclosure rules, and how best to deal with that in terms of employment. Generally, despite a real willingness to want to help their clients, the staff simply do not have the time or resources, and instead they’ve had to focus on the “must-do” parts of the contract.

The review of probation that the Ministry of Justice has been working on needs to respond to these issues. Things are clearly not working as they are.

2. Lack of support into employment

Of the 98 individuals looked at in the report, none were helped by ‘through the gate’ services to enter education, training or employment after release. This is a damning indictment:

“The impact of Through the Gate services on education, training and employment was minimal. No prisoners were helped by Through the Gate services to enter education, training or employment after release.”

 

“We did not see any cases where Through the Gate services had assisted a prisoner to get employment after release. We did not find CRCs promoting links to local colleges or education providers for the prisoners where this would have been appropriate. There were some examples, however, of handover to specialist ETE staff in the CRC in the community for them to make onward referrals.”

Sadly, none of this is surprising. I highlighted many of these issues last year to the Work and Pensions Committee’s as part of their “support for ex-offenders” inquiry. I’d urge the government to implement the recommendations of that inquiry. In particular, the government needs to state clearly who has ultimately responsibility for helping prison leavers into work. CRCs should be required to track the outcomes of the people they help, including whether they have helped them into work. This should be a key measure by which CRCs are deemed successful.

3. Not enough being done to help open bank accounts before release

This problem is well-known to Unlock. A basic bank account is a fundamental necessity in modern society, particularly when seeking employment. That was the case over 10 years ago when we first started to look at this.

I led a project for many years to persuade banks to open their doors to applications from people in prison who were near to their release. Once we’d managed that, we then worked with both prisons and banks to implement safe and effective systems. To cut a long story short, it was very successful – by the end of the project in 2014 we had set up 74 prison-bank partnerships, and overall 114 prisons had links with high-street banks. The job wasn’t finished completely – which is why we made a number of recommendations (particularly to NOMS, as it was then) to act upon.

Unfortunately, the end of this project was closely followed by the ‘transforming rehabilitation’ changes. Again, to cut a long story short, it seems that things have been going downhill ever since.

In the executive summary of the report, it states:

“All except one of the prisons we visited were able to set bank accounts up for prisoners, but even where this service was available, some prisoners were still released without bank accounts. Other work on finance, benefits and debt was not being delivered to any great extent.”

In the main body of the report, it states:

“Some prisoners do not have their own bank accounts, and this can cause lengthy delays in claiming benefits. We expected that all the prisons we visited would be able to arrange bank accounts where needed. We saw some cases where this was recognised and assistance was given, but in others this need was recognised too late or overlooked completely.”

This has all the hallmarks of operational issues in the prisons. That wouldn’t be a surprise, give many of the changes in the last few years. Although it’s part of the contract of CRCs to help people open a bank account before release, what last week’s report clearly highlighted is how, generally, the ‘through the gate’ element to their work is not working well enough.

That’s why today I’ve written to the Prisons and Probation Minister, Sam Gyimah, to raise my concerns. I’ve recommended that he launch an immediate review into the provision of opening basic bank accounts for people in prison before they’re released. It’s clear that, operationally, the arrangements in prisons to open basic bank are not working as well as they should be. Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service need to get a grip of this, understand what the problems are, and find solutions to them.

Christopher Stacey

More information

  1. The report published last week is available to download.
  2. We’re working on improving the support to people with convictions into employment
  3. We continue to encourage the implementation of the recommendations we made around opening basic bank accounts for people before release from when we finished our project in 2014.

Looking back at some key moments in 2016

With the Christmas break almost here and 2016 coming to an end, I wanted to write a short blog to reflect month-by-month on our work over the last 12 months.

Overall, it’s yet again been an incredibly busy year for Unlock with lots of positive news and progress to report. We’ve had an addition to the staff team. We’ve also continued to expand the information, advice and support we provide to help people overcome the stigma of their convictions:

  • We have continued to see an increase in the numbers of people accessing our helpline and websites. Building on last years’ unprecedented rise, our helpline will have dealt with over 6,000 enquiries, a 10% increase on last year.
  • The number of visitors to our information site has also continued to grow, with over one million visits (yes, MILLION!) accessing the site in 2016.
  • Our disclosure calculator will have helped over 50,000 people work out when their convictions become spent.

We’ve also strengthened our advocacy role by challenging discriminatory practices, encouraging employers and influencing government policy. We’re delighted that this range of work has been recognised through a number of awards, including the coveted Longford Prize in November.

That said, there continues to be new and extended policies and practices that treat people with convictions unfairly and effectively punish people long after they’ve served their sentence. That makes our work more important now than it ever has been, so we look forward to yet another strong year in 2017.

In the meantime, on behalf of all the staff and the board of trustees, I would like to wish the people we help, our volunteers, supporters and funders a very merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year.

Here’s a quick round-up of some of the key moments for Unlock during the year:

In January, the High Court ruled the criminal record disclosure scheme unlawful in a case that Unlock supported

In February, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, committed the civil service to banning the box about criminal records from their application forms

In March, our co-director, Christopher Stacey, won the High Sheriff award. We also published the first ever independent evaluation of our helpline

In April, we supported the launch of research and a campaign to reform the disclosure of childhood criminal records. Our criminal record disclosure training was also endorsed by the Probation Institute.

In May, we submitted a response to Charlie Taylor’s review of youth justice and submitted evidence to the Work and Pensions Inquiry into “support for ex-offenders”

In June, we collected case studies of people affected by childcare disqualification by association regulations, and then worked on our response to the government consultation where we called for the regulations to be scrapped

In July, we published a number of case studies of bad practices by employers that we’d successfully challenged

In August, we launched an updated version of our online forum for people with convictions

In September, we launched a new website to help employers to recruit people with criminal records

In October, after joint efforts by Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ), the Justice Committee announced an inquiry into youth criminal records

November was a big month for awards. We won the coveted Longford Prize, our helpline won two national awards, and our co-director was highly commended in the Social CEOs awards.

Also in November, we announced our new Chair of Trustees and we successfully lobbied for a delay to implementation of the Charities Act

In December, we welcomed Nick Hardwick as a Patron and Charlie Taylor’s review into youth justice was published, with recommendations made on childhood criminal records. Our evidence to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into youth criminal records was published and we took a small group of people with convictions to a private session with the Committee so they could hear first-hand experiences of the obstacles people have faced.

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