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

Category: Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Brabner, Director of The UPP Foundation said:

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

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

Christopher Stacey, Co-director at Unlock said:

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

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

Notes

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

The Fair Chance for Students with Convictions pledge

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

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

Blog – Government publishes summary of responses to call for evidence on the employment of people with convictions

Last week, more than a year since the consultation closed, the Cabinet Office published a summary of responses to their Call for Evidence (CfE) on employing people with convictions. But what does this summary of responses mean for the future? This blog looks at some of the promising signs, some areas for improvement, and questions the lack of any recommendations from government.

The report draws together responses from 76 organisations – a small sample for a national consultation, but that in itself tells us how much work there is to do. The report indicates that the public sector could do more to increase employment of people with convictions but highlights some pockets of good practice in the voluntary sector.

Firstly, the evidence is promising

The responses are promising – 76 organisations from the voluntary (46%), private (32%), and public (14%) sectors responded to the Call for Evidence. Overall, 73% of the organisations that responded said they hire people with a criminal conviction, either directly or through intermediary companies, suppliers or contractors. Over half (56%) of them ask about convictions in a later stage of the recruitment process (i.e. during interview, at the offer stage, etc.) – with 33% asking at the job offer stage. Public sector respondents were particularly poor at this – 71% ask at the initial stage. The chart below shows that the voluntary sector tends to ask the question about convictions at a later stage compared to the private and public sectors – although there is clearly much more work to do with all sectors.

Of those that ask about convictions, when in the recruitment process do they ask?

In summarising the response, the report states: “The Call for Evidence has provided very useful insights for the Civil Service and organisations in general on how to engage in activities that support people with a conviction in finding employment. Furthermore, the Call for Evidence has helped to identify barriers and challenges, both within and outside organisations, when employing people with convictions, and highlights the need for a communication strategy on the benefits of this practice.”

The key messages from the analysis are at the end of this blog, and the report concludes by saying the results “highlight how having specific recruitment practices and employability initiatives that reduce the barriers to employment for people with criminal records could have positive impact on the individuals involved, the organisations they are part of, and wider society as a whole in the long term.”

However, 76 responses is a very low number of employers and the proportion of private and public sectors is much lower than it should be. Most respondents were already actively engaged in recruiting from this population. It feels like this call for evidence was a missed opportunity to engage with a much wider range of employers across all sectors. How might the lessons from this call for evidence be used to engage with employers in the future?

There are positives in the analysis

  • Language – our response to the call for evidence explained why we use person-first language – people with convictions, not ex-offenders. We’re not taking credit for this, but the response refers to people with convictions, using the term ex-offenders only when referring to the questions asked and the initial title of the call for evidence. This alone is a really big step forward, and we hope it reflects an active decision by the Cabinet Office to use person-first language – and that it will be adopted by colleagues across Whitehall.
  • Highlights the variety of excellent work being done – predominantly by the third sector – in supporting people with convictions into, and during, employment.
  • Underlines the value to employers of recruiting people with convictions. In our experience, hearing from employers who already do this cuts through and shows other employers what can be achieved. For example, one respondent said “These staff tend to work extremely well, are productive and eager to learn. They are committed, have a good understanding and knowledge of themselves making for a supportive team member”

There are some areas for improvement

  • The majority of respondents ask at application stage. Even if the employer takes a proactive approach to people with convictions, there’s rarely a need to ask all applicants at this stage and the Cabinet Office should take this as an action to look at wider promotion of Ban the Box, including considering placing it on a statutory footing
  • The issue of enhanced checks and security vetting. This paragraph in the analysis raises some concerns – “In relation to the security clearance level needed for the role, out of the 76 organisations, only 64% responded. Of these, the large majority need to conduct a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, or an enhanced DBS. A few others indicated they required a full security clearance, vetting checks, or Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.” Respondents might have used DBS check/enhanced DBS check interchangeably but it’s worth thinking about the implications of this. It could be a function of the large number of voluntary organisations who proactively recruit from this population – lived experience/peer roles etc. It’s interesting that a significant majority of employers require enhanced checks, security clearance and vetting – if employers in sensitive fields can recruit people with convictions, surely mainstream employers can do more too? It’s a shame this wasn’t analysed further. It could also be a misunderstanding of the ‘need’ to conduct a basic check. And I’d be interested to see how many say they need ‘CRB checks’ – it makes you wonder how out of date their processes are (the CRB was replaced by the DBS over 6 years ago!)

No clear recommendations from government

Although publishing a summary of responses and carrying out some analysis of them is helpful, a “summary of responses” is very different to a “government response”. There are no concrete recommendations or actions that the government is taking in response to this consultation – and it’s unclear why not. In the “conclusions and next steps” section, the report states “The value of this Call for Evidence does not merely derive from the immediate actions taken as a result of it, but from inspiring further Civil Service and Government reforms in this field. The Civil Service looks forward to working with its stakeholders to be more inclusive, and promoting a culture that supports people with convictions on their path to employment.”

Yet the report makes no mention of these “immediate actions”. And what are the “further Civil Service and Government reforms”? Given the time it’s taken the publish this summary, and the lack of any further clear commitments, one wonders whether this reflects a deprioritisation of this work for the Cabinet Office?

There has been some progress since we made our own submission back in August last year, and below as an addition to this blog we’ve set out how things have progressed against the areas that we called for government action on. Given the importance of this work, the Cabinet Office had a real opportunity to set the scene by producing a detailed response to this call for evidence and making a number of commitments. Given what ended up being published, we’ll be raising this with both the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice, who jointly published the initial consultation, to understand what their future plans are.

Promising signs from the civil service pilot

One thing that the summary of responses does highlight is the progress that has been made on the Civil Service pilot scheme, ‘Going Forward into Employment’ (GFiE), where people in prison and near to release have been matched to fixed-term office-based and field-based jobs in participating government departments, via a two-year recruitment exception route. We know that there has been an evaluation done of this pilot, and it seems that this Call for Evidence was initiated (at least in part) to support that project. It’s positive that the pilot is now continuing as a mainstream programme which looks at a range of other groups as well, including veterans, and I hope that the programme will be able to offer more opportunities to those people with convictions who are serving sentences in the community, as well as those near to release from prison who were the focus of the initial pilot. We hope that the evaluation of the pilot is published so that there is a better understanding of how it works and what lessons have been learnt.

Written by Christopher Stacey, Co-director at Unlock

Progress since we made our submission

Written by Rachel Tynan, Policy and practice lead at Unlock

Unlock’s submission to the consultation last year emphasised the need for fair recruitment practices, the range of issues to consider when developing employability initiatives, and evidence on what works and what needs to change so that law abiding people with convictions can secure employment. We called on the government to: 

  1. Develop a cross-government strategy on employment of people with convictions 
  2. Pilot financial incentives for employers who pro-actively recruit people with convictions 
  3. Put Ban the Box on a legislative footing 
  4. Fix the broken DBS filtering system 
  5. Develop a legal framework to ensure individuals’ right to be forgotten where convictions are spent  
  6. Support the Private Members’ Bill on amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974  

Looking at the areas we called on the government to look at, below we’ve set out how things have progressed since:

Cross government strategy

Since the CfE the government has launched the New Futures Network and a new ROTL framework. The Ministry of Justice and Department for Work and Pensions have launched a three year programme, working in partnership. By committing resources to the recruitment of people with convictions the government has signalled its intent – but as the report shows, there is a lot of work to do.

Ban the Box

Our submission stressed how putting Ban the Box on a legislative footing – or even finding ways to incentivise business to sign up –  would signal government’s commitment to ensuring people with convictions have a fair chance of employment. Disappointingly, only around 30% of organisations responding to the CfE knew about Ban the Box suggesting much more needs to be to increase awareness and encourage take-up. There are 140 employers now signed up to Ban the Box but clearly a long way to go. Based on this evidence, we think the government should be more strident in its approach to employers.

Filtering

Since the CfE the Supreme Court ruled that the current filtering rules are unlawful and must be changed in two key respects – the multiple conviction rule was found to be disproportionate, and reprimands and warnings (followed by youth cautions) should not be disclosed. We have written to the government calling on them to implement changes in line with the ruling, but also to commit to carrying out a fundamental review of the wider regime. The government is yet to formally respond to the Supreme Court ruling.

Reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Looking at the range of recruitment practices reported to the CfE, most employers still ask about criminal records at application stage – echoing Unlock’s research last year which found that three-quarters of national employers do just that.

We know that this is hugely off putting to people with criminal records –  over half of people with a criminal record say they would not apply for a job where they needed to disclose their criminal record. 75% of employers discriminate against an applicant with a conviction.

Not only is asking at application stage off-putting, it’s also unnecessary – and very likely a breach of the GDPR. In the absence of clear guidance or enforcement action from the Information Commissioner’s Office, employers are unlikely to change these practices, and again we call on government to take legislative steps to ensure Ban the Box becomes the norm.

This also highlights the discrimination people with convictions face. Most convictions will eventually become spent, but people can find themselves out of work, or only able to secure temporary or unskilled work in the meantime. The economic impact hits the individual, their family and wider society – can we afford that? That’s why we have and continue to call on government to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. In July the Ministry of Justice announced plans to reform the criminal records regime to improve employment prospects and we look forward to working with the new Secretary of State on this.

Key messages from the analysis

The summary of responses includes a set of “key messages from the analysis”. These were:

a. There are some indications (from the respondents to this Call for Evidence) that variations exist across the different sectors in relation to employing people with criminal records and at which stage of the recruitment this information is taken into account. Asking about criminal records should not constitute a barrier or a filtering criteria for offering employment;

b. Organisations that employ people with convictions across different roles – and responsibilities – reported having positive experiences, and affirmed that this part of the workforce constitutes an important asset thanks to their skills, commitment and experiences;

c. Attitudinal barriers across stakeholders, including customers, colleagues, and even people with criminal records themselves, are reported to be the main challenges to offering employment to someone with a conviction; consequentially cultural change is likely needed;

d. It is important to have activities that support and prepare people with convictions to be in the job market; examples are CV surgeries, mock interviews, mentoring schemes;

e. There is the need to produce and collect more robust evidence – in addition to case studies – that prove the positive impact of hiring people with convictions.

Office for Students publish effective practice guidance on students with convictions

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

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

Find out more here.

‘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.

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.”

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.

University admissions: what’s changed?

Following the decision by UCAS to remove the question about criminal convictions for all applicants, universities had to consider if, when and how to collect this information. UCAS still ask applicants to regulated programmes – for example medicine or teaching – to declare criminal records. Having worked with UCAS and universities for some time, we felt this was an important opportunity to support universities to develop fair admissions policies for applicants with previous criminal records. This blog details the work we have been doing in the last year or so, what we have learned so far and our plans for future work in this area, and has been written to coincide with the recent UCAS Admissions conference, at which our co-director Christopher Stacey appeared.

In September 2018 Unlock began work with three universities – Southampton, Cardiff and Goldsmiths – on a year-long project to develop best practice admissions policies for applicants with criminal records. The three universities were selected to reflect different size, location and student body, and because they had an interest in the subject – Southampton and Cardiff were involved in the UCAS working group from an early stage, and Goldsmiths have hosted the award-winning Open Book for over a decade.

Unlock’s approach to universities has always been to recognise that different functions have different needs: this means recognising the various parts (admissions, accommodation, Tier 4 visas, careers) require different information and different management. When UCAS collected criminal records information from all applicants, universities had access to this at the outset and could share it across departments. The removal of this question – and the constraints of the GDPR – mean that universities must carefully develop new ways of collecting and sharing necessary information. The first task is to identify whether criminal records information is really necessary. The project was designed to focus on admissions, whilst recognising that this is only the first stage of the student journey.

Supported by the UPP foundation, the project has three objectives: fair admissions policies in place at each university; a toolkit for other universities to use to develop fair admissions policies; a fair admissions pledge for universities to sign up to. To date, each of the partner universities have published their new policies and – well, two out of three isn’t bad.

Southampton and Cardiff were both represented at this April’s UCAS Admissions conference where they set out their approach in detail. In summary, neither are asking a mandatory question about criminal convictions for non-regulated courses. Instead, applicants are given the opportunity to disclose licence conditions or restrictions that could hamper success. This helps applicants feel confident that they will be treated fairly. Where students might find it difficult to complete the chosen programme because of restrictions, the university can advise on adjustments or alternatives.

Goldsmiths elected to follow their existing policy – asking all applicants to declare unspent convictions. This will happen at enrolment stage (in August) and applicants to non-DBS courses will be risk assessed before a final decision to admit (or not) is made. It’s not clear whether the applicant will be involved in this process. Unlock’s position is that asking all potential students about unspent convictions, potentially asking them to provide references from criminal justice practitioners or others, is unnecessary and unfair, and that concerns about safeguarding or capacity to complete the course could be managed by asking about restrictions. It is unclear whether students will be offered support or whether adjustments or alternatives will be offered. Furthermore, asking at such a late stage means that applicants may turn down other offers only to be rejected by Goldsmiths. Disappointingly, Open Book merits only a cursory mention in the published policy.

You can read more about each of these universities approaches on our project page.

What have we learned?

Three overarching ideas have emerged over the course of the project so far, and we encourage other universities who are considering if, when and how to ask about criminal records to bear these in mind.

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

‘The University is committed to widening participation, and ensuring that all students with the potential to succeed, regardless of their background, are encouraged to apply to study with us. This includes welcoming applications from individuals who have previously been convicted of a criminal offence.’ (Southampton)

Compared with:

‘To help reduce the risk of harm or injury to our students and staff caused by the criminal behaviour of other students, we must know about any relevant criminal convictions that an applicant may have. If you have a relevant criminal conviction you must let us know.’
(LSE)

Or

‘We welcome applications from people from all backgrounds with the potential and determination to succeed on our programmes of study. Cardiff University understands that, for applicants with a criminal conviction, accessing education can be an important part of moving on and gaining the skills, knowledge and qualifications necessary to tackle the challenges of employment. Having a criminal conviction is not an automatic bar to enrolling on a programme of study at the University.’ (Cardiff)

Compared with:

‘The University is committed to the fair treatment of all applicants and having a criminal record will not necessarily bar an applicant from gaining admission to the University.  However, the University recognises its duty to protect its students, staff and others within its community and reserves the right to exclude an individual from a course of study, or from the University, where their attendance would pose a threat to the safety or property of staff, students, visitors, those coming into contact with the applicant during their studies, or others involved in University business; or would be contrary to the law or the requirements of any relevant professional, statutory or regulatory body.’ (Roehampton)

If your university is committed to widening participation an including all under-represented groups, the language you use to address them is the starting point.

Since the project began we have become aware of a variety of approaches. UCAS have surveyed all universities and it appears that about 60% of universities who responded are asking about criminal records at some stage. Westminster were first to make the decision to only ask a voluntary question about restrictions post offer; Birkbeck, Essex, the Open University and Newcastle are doing the same. The Universities of Brighton and Sussex, Winchester and Kingston will not be asking at all from an admissions perspective but we hope they will look at how they can provide support to students who may need it. The aims of asking vary – from ensuring students are able to complete their course to providing advice and guidance on careers and pastoral support.

What next?

Our principles of fair admissions will form the basis of our toolkit for universities and the fair admissions pledge. The next phase of the project is to publish the toolkit for other universities later in the spring, and launch a pledge for fair admissions by the end of summer.

We’re also building a map of what other universities are doing – there are over 160 institutions offering higher education in the UK, and we want applicants with criminal records to know what they can expect.

Our longer term focus is on the retention and success of students with convictions – how universities can support them to achieve their potential, and to successfully transition into employment. This includes academic and pastoral support and links with employers. Education can be transformative, and universities have an opportunity to help transform the lives of individuals with convictions and their communities.

If you’d like to know more about our university work or to find out about the support, contact us.

Written by Rachel Tynan.

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.

Unlock response to Supreme Court judgment on criminal records disclosure regime

Unlock, the leading charity for people with convictions, has today responded to the judgment of the Supreme Court on the criminal records disclosure regime. The charity provided an intervention to the court to highlight the unjust consequences of the current regime and the alternative, fairer systems available.

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

“We welcome today’s judgment by the Supreme Court. Unlock intervened in this vital case to help the court understand the importance of the issues. We are pleased the court has ruled that two aspects of the criminal records disclosure scheme are disproportionate and in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; in particular, the blanket rules which require the automatic disclosure of all convictions where a person has more than one conviction, and the requirement that some childhood cautions be disclosed indefinitely. This is an important ruling which stands to affect many thousands of people with old and minor criminal records who have been unnecessarily anchored to their past.

 

“Today is a crucial step towards achieving a fair and proportionate filtering system that takes a more calibrated and targeted approach towards disclosing criminal records. Recent reviews by the Law Commission, Justice Select Committee, Charlie Taylor and David Lammy MP have all stressed the need to look at the wider criminal records disclosure regime. It is now time for the government to act. We strongly urge the government to take prompt and considered action on the filtering system, as well as committing to carrying out a fundamental review of the wider criminal records disclosure regime.”

In the last 5 years alone, over 1 million youth criminal records were disclosed on standard or enhanced criminal record checks that related to offences from more than 30 years’ ago. The current system has multiple, harsh consequences which can have damaging effects on individuals. It deters people from applying for employment, and causes high levels of stress, anxiety and feelings of shame and stigma for those who do apply. The current regime acts as an additional sentence that often runs for life. It desperately needs reforming.

While certain offences clearly should be disclosed to employers, it is plain common sense that a fair system should not unnecessarily blight the lives of people who are trying to get on in life by disclosing old, minor and irrelevant information which holds them back and stops them from reaching their potential.

Some of the shortcomings of the current filtering system have today been recognised by the Supreme Court. The court described the rule for disclosing multiple convictions and its impact on individuals as ‘capricious’ (para 63). The inclusion of youth warnings and reprimands in the disclosure regime is described as a ‘category error’ and an ‘error of principle’ (para 64).

A fair, proportionate and flexible filtering system should be developed which protects the public without unduly harming the ability of people to move forward positively with their lives. The Supreme Court accepted that a fair system can be based on rules and pre-defined categories. We believe it is possible to develop an acceptable system which operates principally with automatic rules, but these must be the right rules with the right outcomes. There are a number of practical steps that the government can take which we would support, including:

  1. Removing the ‘multiple convictions’ rule and so enabling more than one conviction to be filtered
  2. Reducing the list of offences not eligible for filtering
  3. Creating a distinct system for the disclosure of criminal records acquired in childhood, and taking a more nuanced approach to those acquired in early adulthood.

Crucially however, we believe that the system must have a discretionary filtering process with a review mechanism which could be accessed by people whose criminal records do not benefit from the automatic filtering rules. Although the Supreme Court did not consider this to be necessary for the regime to be in accordance with the law, we believe this is vital to allow some cases to be considered on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that the rules do not operate unfairly. We urge the government to take this opportunity to look at introducing such a scheme that incorporates lessons from other similar schemes, like that in Northern Ireland.

More broadly, there is an overwhelming case for a fundamental review of the criminal records disclosure regime. Reviews by the Law Commission, Justice Select Committee, Charlie Taylor and David Lammy MP have all concluded that there is a need to look at the wider regime. The criminal records disclosure system and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 are increasingly unfit for purpose and is open to abuse by employers and others. We encourage the government to take this opportunity to commit to carrying out a fundamental review to address these systemic issues.

Enver Solmon, CEO of Just for Kids Law, said:

“We are delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal in favour of our client and are proud to have secured a landmark judgement that will benefit thousands of children issued with cautions each year, a shocking disproportionate number of whom are from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.

 

“Our client should never have been given a criminal record that stays with him for life. The judgement makes clear that the disclosure of reprimands and cautions, the legal equivalent of a slap on the wrist, is disproportionate and damaging to the future rehabilitation of children preventing them from moving on from their past. A parliamentary inquiry reached the same conclusion nearly two years ago when it stated that children were being unfairly denied a second chance. There is now an overwhelming view shared by the higher courts and MPs that the government should act immediately to ensure no child who is given a caution ends up with a criminal record that stigmatises them for life. The government should also now conduct a wide-ranging review of the entire criminal records disclosure regime for children and and young people.”

Corey Stoughton, Advocacy Director of Liberty, said: 

“P made a mistake a long time ago and has been unfairly punished ever since. Using overly broad bureaucratic rules that deny people meaningful careers by forcing them to to carry a scarlet letter for life is both cruel and pointless”

 

“Today’s court decision holds the promise of a fresh start for thousands of people who deserve a second chance. The Government must finally reform this arbitrary scheme”

 

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 with 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. More information about our policy work on the DBS filtering system is available here.
  6. Unlock’s report, A life sentence for young people, was published in May 2018 and can be downloaded at https://unlock.org.uk//youth-criminal-records-report/
  7. Unlock has published a briefing on the DBS filtering process – available to download at https://unlock.org.uk//wp-content/uploads/misc/DBS-filtering-Briefing-May-2018.pdf
  8. Unlock was represented in these appeals by Salima Budhani and Theodora Middleton, Bindmans LLP, and barristers Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jesse Nicholls, Doughty Street Chambers.
  9. Unlock’s intervention in the Supreme Court can be downloaded at https://unlock.org.uk//wp-content/uploads/misc/1-Gallagher-2-P-G-W-Unlock-Case.pdf
  10. The judgment was handed down on Wednesday 30th January 2019. Press summary here.
  11. Press and media coverage of the judgment can be found here.
  12. Warnings and reprimands are now known as youth cautions.

 

About the cases before the Supreme Court

These appeals consist of 4 cases: P, G, W (appeals from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales) and Gallagher (an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland). Unlock intervened in the case.

In all four cases, the Government appealed, having lost in the Court of Appeal. There are summaries of the cases on Unlock’s website – https://unlock.org.uk//policy-issues/specific-policy-issues/filtering/cases-challenging-dbs-filtering-system/

 

The current filtering system

The Police Act 1997 created the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS – formerly the Criminal Records Bureau), which provides details of a job applicant’s previous convictions to prospective employers. For certain types of work, particularly work with children or vulnerable adults, the standard or enhanced certificates issued by the DBS used to list all the job applicant’s previous convictions.

However, in 2013, the Government amended this scheme following a Court of Appeal ruling (T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester) to introduce a “filtering” process. Single convictions for non-violent, non-sexual offences that did not lead to a custodial sentence (including a suspended one) will be “filtered” (i.e. not disclosed) after 11 years (five-and-a-half years if the person was under 18 at the time of the offence).

The filtering process does not apply if a person has more than one conviction – regardless of the minor nature of the offences or the person’s circumstances at the time.

 

Support for reform

  1. The Law Commission, in its review of criminal records disclosure and non-filterable offences (published January 2017), said: “Given the vast array and magnitude of the problems identified by our provisional assessment of the disclosure system as a whole, there is a compelling case to be made in favour of a wider review. Our conclusion is that the present system raises significant concerns in relation to ECHR non-compliance and, what may be considered to be, the overly harsh outcomes stemming from a failure to incorporate either proportionality or relevance into disclosure decisions. An impenetrable legislative framework and questions of legal certainty further compound the situation. 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.” See https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/criminal-records-disclosure/
  2. The House of Commons Justice Select Committee, in its report into the disclosure of youth criminal records (published October 2017), concluded that the aim of the youth justice system was being “undermined” by the system for disclosure of youth criminal records “which instead works to prevent children from moving on from their past and creates a barrier to rehabilitation.” See https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/416/41607.htm
  3. In his review of the youth justice system (published December 2016), Charlie Taylor, who is now Chair of the Youth Justice Board, said “It remains the case that a criminal record acquired in childhood can have far-reaching effects that go well beyond the original sentence or disposal. Certain sentences will never become spent, and certain convictions or cautions will always be disclosed when an individual seeks employment in a particular field. A key principle underpinning my approach to the review is that children who break the law should be dealt with differently from adults. In my view the current system for criminal records lacks a distinct and considered approach to childhood offending.” See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-youth-justice-system
  4. David Lammy MP, in his review into the treatment of, and outcomes for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system (published September 2017), said: “It must be recognised that a job is the foundation for a law-abiding life for ex-offenders, but that our criminal records regime is making work harder to find for those who need it the most. The system is there to protect the public, but is having the opposite effect if it sees ex-offenders languishing without jobs and drawn back into criminality. A more flexible system is required, which is capable of recognising when people have changed and no longer pose a significant risk to others.” See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lammy-review-final-report

 

Case studies

Anita (not her real name). When she was 11, she was playing with a lighter in the girls’ bathroom at school and set a toilet roll alight causing around £100 of damage. She was arrested for Arson and told that the reprimand she was given would come off her record when she turned 19. Then after months of being bullied in secondary school, she was involved in a fight. She and the other pupil were both arrested for Actual Bodily Harm. She was encouraged by the police to accept a reprimand rather than challenge it in court and was told it would come off her record in five years. Now nearly in her thirties, she’s a qualified English teacher. However, not only was her record not removed like she was told it would be, but her two reprimands come up on enhanced DBS checks and will do under the current DBS rules for the rest of her life. The hopelessness of trying to find work has led her to working abroad and to bouts of depression and anxiety.

Michael (not his real name). When he was 17, Michael was convicted of theft of a coat from a market stall. He was fined £30. Ten months later, 23 days after turning 18, he was convicted of stealing a motor cycle and driving without insurance. He was fined £50 and sentenced to 24 hours at an attendance centre. That was 36 years ago; he’s come a long way since then. He’s now in his fifties. However, Michael’s long-forgotten past has come back to haunt him and he’s concerned about his work as a finance director. He could lose his job and a career that he’s worked hard for.

Under the current filtering system, Anita and Michael’s criminal record will be disclosed on a standard or enhanced DBS check for the rest of their lives. That’s what we’re trying to change.

More case studies can be found in our youth criminal records report and in our briefing on the DBS filtering regime.

Supreme Court to issue judgment on landmark criminal records disclosure regime case on Wednesday 30th January

On Wednesday 30th January at 9.45am, the Supreme Court will hand down its judgement in the case of R (on the application of P, G and W) and R (on the application of P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others.

The criminal records disclosure scheme has twice been ruled unlawful – but instead of putting in place the urgent reform that’s so desperately needed, the Government chose to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

The case was heard in the Supreme Court in June 2018. For the first time in Unlock’s history, we intervened in the case because we wanted to help the Supreme Court understand the importance of the issue, the failings of the current system, and how it could be changed for the better. We believe the current filtering system that applies to standard and enhanced criminal record checks doesn’t go far enough; it is blunt, restrictive and disproportionate.

We hope that the Supreme Court will reject the Government’s appeal. We stand ready to work with the Government to reform and implement a system that takes a more calibrated and targeted approach towards disclosing criminal records.

Our response to the judgment will be on our website – at unlock.devchd.com/filtering – once the judgment is published on Wednesday. We’ll also be tweeting using the hashtag #dbsfiltering.

In the meantime, you can read a blog about the Supreme Court hearing from our co-director, Christopher Stacey, which gives an interesting overview and some reflections on when the case was heard in June 2018.

And whatever the outcome on Wednesday, we will be calling on the government to fundamentally re-look at their position on the criminal record disclosure regime.

Please help us with this work by supporting our campaign to wipe DBS checks clean of old/minor criminal records.The money we raise will go towards our campaign work to make sure the government takes action. 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!
Donate through Give as you Live Donate

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