UCAS no longer asks all applicants to declare unspent criminal convictions and universities have developed their own policies. For regulated courses – for example medicine, education or social work – applicants are still asked to declare criminal records on the UCAS application. Following this change, Unlock wanted to work with universities to encourage a fair approach to students with criminal records

Unlocking students with criminal records

In October 2019 Unlock completed the first part of our work to improve access to higher education for students with criminal records. Three themes emerged from that work:

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. 

Fair chance 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

Signatories

To sign up to the pledge, please contact ellie.grudgings@unlock.org.uk

We’ve created a database of all university policies on criminal records. Search by university or look for all universities that don’t ask about unspent convictions.×

Our outdated criminal records regime is holding hundreds of thousands of people back from participating fully in society. Even a minor criminal history can produce lifelong barriers to employment, volunteering, housing and even travelling abroad, many years after people have moved on from their past. The system needs to change.

The #FairChecks movement is calling for the government to launch a major review of the legislation on the disclosure of criminal records to reduce the length of time a record is revealed. We are looking for reform in the following areas:

1. Reducing the length of time a person’s conviction is revealed on basic checks.
2. Making a more proportionate and flexible system to what is revealed on standard and enhanced checks that protects the public without unduly harming people’s opportunity to get on in life.
3. A distinct approach to records acquired in childhood and a more nuanced approach to those acquired in early adulthood.
4. The introduction of review mechanisms so that no one has to face a lifetime being held back by their past without the prospect of review at some point.

We want a disclosure system that is fair and gives people a genuine chance of moving on and contributing fully to society.

We are calling for the government to reform the disclosure of criminal records – so minor and very old crimes do not appear on on standard and enhanced criminal records checks and so that those who have turned their lives around are not forced to reveal their convictions long after they have served their sentence.

We are calling on the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to launch to a major review of the legislation on the disclosure of criminal records. Given the importance of understanding the experiences of those with criminal records (and other points of view) we believe the review should be an open policy making process as recommended by the Cabinet Office. This means engaging with a broad range of experts and people with experience (more information about open policy making is on the government’s website).

How can you help create the change?

Use the #FairChecks site to get the support of your local MP.
Because it is the government that has to make changes to the law, we need the support of MPs. You can help by getting the support of your local MP. The first step is to use the #FairChecks website to send them a letter letting them know that a fair criminal records system is important to you.

This is just the start of the journey towards a fairer criminal records system.
We’re creating a movement so that we can go further together. Tick the box when you submit your letter to stay updated by email about the #FairChecks movement and how you can support the next stage.

Encourage your friends and family to support it.
You can also share your submission with friends and family and encourage them to write to their own MPs.

Share it on social media.
Please tweet a link to the site using the hashtag #FairChecks, share it on Facebook and LinkedIn and highlight it with your networks, directing people to the website www.fairchecks.org.uk.

Support it as an organisation.
Alongside encouraging individuals to use #FairChecks to write to their MP, we are keen for organisations to be part of this too. We want to encourage organisations to show their public support for #FairChecks through Twitter, other social media and blogs, and please do get in touch with us if your organisation is interested in showing its support in other ways.

Government response

Hundreds of people have already written to their MPs through the #FairChecks site. The government has sent its initial response to many MP’s that have written to the government on behalf of their constituents. As you can read below, we believe the government’s response doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.

Thank you for your letter of 27 January to the Home Secretary on behalf of a number of your constituents regarding the criminal records disclosure regime and your constituent’s call for a broad review of the disclosure of criminal records. I am replying as the Minister for Safeguarding with responsibility for the Government’s policy on criminal records disclosure. As disclosure is a devolved matter, my response addresses the regime as it applies in England and Wales.

The Government takes the safeguarding of children and vulnerable groups very seriously. The disclosure regime protects children and vulnerable adults through the disclosure of relevant criminal records by helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions in roles working with those groups. The Supreme Court has considered aspects of the disclosure regime with regards to spent convictions.

Once a conviction or caution is considered to be spent, it is usually not necessary for an individual to declare it to prospective employers when applying for a job, and it would not be disclosed on a basic criminal record certificate. However, where an individual is seeking to work in roles that require a high level of public trust or involve special risks and sensitivities, such as working closely with children or vulnerable adults, an employer may request that they obtain either a standard or enhanced criminal record certificate from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). These certificates include details of spent and unspent cautions and convictions recorded on the Police National Computer, subject to statutory disclosure rules. The roles and activities that are eligible for standard and enhanced criminal record checks are set out in legislation.

The Supreme Court considered aspects of the disclosure regime relating to the disclosure of spent convictions, including several of the circumstances set out in your letter. Its judgement in the case of P and others broadly upheld the existing framework but found two aspects of the disclosure regime to be incompatible with the right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These were the requirements for disclosure: 1) of reprimands and warnings issued to people below the age of 18; and 2) where an individual has more than on spent conviction, irrespective of offence type or time passed – known as the ‘multiple conviction rule’.

It is important to note there are other disclosure rules that are not affected by the Supreme Court judgement. These other rules ensure, for example, that a conviction relating to a specified serious offence (typically a violent or sexual offence) will be disclosed and that a conviction which has resulted in a custodial sentence will be disclosed. Details of the disclosure rules, and those offences which will always be disclosed, are available from DBS at: https://www.government/collections/dbsfiltering-guidance.

The Government is considering the details of this judgement carefully and the action necessary to address the judgement while ensuring employers continue to be supported in taking informed decisions to protect children and vulnerable adults. Any changes in the legislation would be subject to the usual cross-Government agreement and Parliamentary processes.

Whilst safeguarding vulnerable groups remain paramount, this Government also believes firmly in giving ex-offenders who have paid their debt to society the chance to prove they can work hard and become responsible members of our communities. We recognise the crucial role employment can play in the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, helping them desist from offending and live crime-free lives, and are committed to improving access to employment for those ex-offenders who have turned their lives around.

Employers should recruit fairly and not discriminate against applicants on the basis of disclosures on criminal record certificates. Employers should consider any criminal record alongside the applicant’s skills, qualifications and abilities, as well as other materials which reflect the applicant’s conduct such as references. Employers should also discuss the content of certificates with applicants, considering factors such as the person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago the offence took place, and the relevance of the offence to the application or post in question.

The Government has led by example in this area. In 2016, we introduced Ban the Box across the Civil Service and we are currently rolling out the successful Going Forward into Employment (GFIE) pilot, which matches prison leavers with Civil Service roles on release, nationwide.

I hope this explains the Government’s current position on the disclosure regime.

Summary

In 2014, Unlock came to the end of a landmark 9-year project in developing access to basic bank accounts for people in prison before release. We were pleased to publish a report (see below) which reflected on the progress that we have made, and that set out a number of recommendations to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), prisons and the banking industry, so that the progress is sustained and developed even further.

Back in 2005, we first identified the issue of people coming out of prison who had managed to secure employment, but were losing these opportunities because they didn’t have a bank account to get paid their wages into. The personal testimony below demonstrates the importance of this. It seemed like a simple problem to resolve, to open an account before release, but there were a number of complex underlying issues that stood in the way, not least the lack of engagement from many banks, and the lack of awareness of the issue across prisons.

During the 9 years that followed, we worked at various levels; piloting a process in a small number of prisons; rolling this out into further prisons; working with the banking industry to develop a fair and sustainable process; working with specific banks to develop their operating processes; and providing training/support to prisons. The work took much longer than we had expected. What began as a small charitably-funded pilot project ultimately ended up in a national campaign involving significant political and media attention.

And we are immensely proud of the progress we made. In 2013-14 alone, 5,936 basic bank accounts were opened for people in prison, ready for them to use once they were released. In total, we have helped to set up 74 prison/banking programmes, and overall 114 prisons have links with a high-street bank. Ultimately, all prisons that want and need a basic bank account opening programme had one in place at the end of the project, which was the principal aim of the work.

This work shows the value of being responsive to the issues that people are facing. Unlock’s independence, and “ear to the ground, voice at the top” approach enabled us to achieve systemic change to a long-standing problem.

In 2014, we handed over day-to-day responsibility to NOMS for sustaining the work that we have pioneered.

Full report

Unlocking Banking – Impact Report – Summary (2014)

Unlocking Banking – Impact Report (2014)

The importance of this work – A personal testimony

“I was in an open prison a couple of years ago. Having gone into prison with the loss of everything, I had no bank account, no ID, no anything. I was approached by staff one day and told about this wonderful scheme which would allow me to get started again. Very simply, the bank was Barclays and they had the most amazing very straightforward system for getting a bank account open. I would highly praise them, and Unlock for organising it, and for the way that is done. The account is opened, you have the bank card and details a couple of weeks later, and they are kept in your private property until you are released from prison. So you are actually ready to go the day you get out.

But to me the biggest things are the personal things. Self-esteem is a big thing and the bank account helped a great deal with that. Can you imagine what it is like not to have a bank account? Just for a moment. Not so much the practicalities but what it says about you. Why haven’t you got one? People give you funny looks, or you suspect they do. Getting a bank account in prison made me feel a great deal better about myself; that I belonged, and that reintegration was possible. Prison, for all the wrongs you have done to get you there, is a very lonely place, and that’s one of the problems when it comes to reintegrating when you get out. Anything that can be done to improve things there will help people.

Confidentiality is another thing: the way the accounts are set up. When you go to your branch when you get out, the staff don’t know you are an ex-offender. There is nothing on the system to say: this man is a former criminal; this account was set up in prison. That’s a fantastic feeling: to walk in to a branch as a normal citizen. One of the things that really hit me when I came out of prison, when I got onto the Jubilee line to head home, I was absolutely paranoid, that I had ‘prisoner’ stamped across my forehead. I kept looking round the carriage thinking ’they know’. And I’m not normally a paranoid person. A lot of people go through that. But when you walk into a bank branch and know they will treat you as a normal customer, and that rubber stamp on your forehead is no longer there, that is a fantastic feeling.

There are too many things, emotionally, that drag people back into prison. I know it sounds strange but I think bank accounts and having them set up for you, can help reduce re-offending. It’s one thing out of the way. You’ve got your benefits when you come out, you get paid when you find employment, it’s just one less box you have to tick. I think it’s a fantastic scheme and long may it continue, and be rolled out across the estate.”

Person with convictions, released from prison

Impact Report (2014) – Summary

Developing effective, efficient & secure access to banking for people in prison before release

Introduction

This report has been written at the end of a landmark 9-year project for Unlock. It is designed to summarise and reflect on the progress that has been made to date, as well as outline some of the key priority areas moving forward. The main focus of the report is on the latter part of the project, which was the national campaign which ran from 2010 to 2014.

Summary of recent progress

In the final year of the project (2013-14);

1. 5936 basic bank accounts were opened for people in prison ready for them to use once they were released
2. RBS began a 6 month pilot in 9 prisons, expanding into a further 6 prisons by the end of the year
3. HSBC expanded from a pilot to cover 15 prisons in total
4. Santander completed a review of their pilot, and continued to operate in the original 5 pilot prisons

Overall summary

During the course of the 9-year project;

1. Unlock has helped to set up 74 prison/banking programmes
2. 114 prisons now have links with a high-street bank
3. The ‘big 5’ current account providers (Barclays, Halifax (part of Lloyds Banking Group), HSBC, Santander and RBS) are all actively involved, as well as a significant contribution from Co-operative.
4. By the end of 2013, all prisons that wanted and needed a basic bank account opening programme had one

Summay of recommendations

This section provides a summary of the recommendations that are made in this report. They are discussed in more detail at the end of the report, alongside an explanation of the reasons behind the recommendations.

1. Single point of contact for prisons and banks

1. NOMS should ensure that there is a single point of contact for prisons to contact if they’re looking for advice or support in their prison.
2. NOMS should ensure that there is a single point of contact for banks to contact if they’re looking for advice or support about their work in prison.
3. To perform these roles appropriately, we recommend that NOMS dedicates 0.5 FTE staff to overseeing this work at a national level. This is considerably less than the amount of resources Unlock has dedicated to this over the years, and reflects the stage at which this work is now at. A concern we have is that it is unclear at this point whether this level of resource will be achieved.

2. ‘Zero-account’ prisons / ‘Low-volume’ prisons / Meeting needs

1. Work needs to be done by NOMS to understand why those prisons have not opened any accounts (particularly those that are soon-to-be ‘resettlement prisons’) and what works need to be done to improve this, as it would suggest that people are being released from those prisons with the need.
2. NOMS should establish a standard framework which allows prisons to assess ‘need’ amongst people in prison, and put in place a system that allows for this to be collected centrally so that ‘need’ can be matched with the number of accounts actually opened

3. Regular reviews

NOMS should ensure that regular reviews be carried out assessing levels of account opening across the prison estate and across the banks. This review process should capture which banks are covering which prisons, the processes in place, the contacts at each bank, the contacts at each prison, the number of accounts opened, and any issues that are outstanding.

4. Resources in prisons

NOMS should ensure that prisons are sufficiently resourced, and appropriately targeted, to ensure that they’re able to help anybody who wants and needs a basic bank account before they are released by supporting them to apply for a bank account with the nominated bank in their prison. Priority should be placed on those prisons designated as ‘resettlement prisons’, although recognising that any prison that releases individuals directly into the community will need to have access to a system like this.

5. Share of prisons by the banks

NOMS and the BBA should work with those banks having a disproportionately large number of prisons than is sustainable for them (e.g. Co-operative), and work with them and the other major current account providers to re-allocate those prisons to banks that, given their size, should take on further prisons (e.g. Santander, RBS; and those yet to be formally involved – i.e. Yorkshire Bank and Nationwide Building Society). This should be done in an open and transparent way, acknowledging that this is not a ‘competitive’ area, but rather an issue that the banking industry has collectively committed to support.

6. Local arrangements breaking down

Where a local arrangement breaks-down, NOMS should provide support to the prison to make contact with that specific bank nationally, to include the prison within their national framework.

7. Bank processes – Simplification and standardisation

NOMS and the BBA should consider convening the banks to look at what levels of simplification and standardisation could be achieved across the banks.

8. High return-rates

Prisons should ensure that they are ‘checking’ applications before they are submitted to the bank, to ensure that they are completed properly and that the appropriate paperwork is enclosed.

9. Pre-release banking in addition to savings provision

All prisons that release people directly into the community should have a system in place which enables people to open a basic bank account before they are released. Alongside this, prisons that have people with a long time left until release should have a system in place which enables people to set up a suitable savings product.

10. Broader ‘managing money in prison’ issues

NOMS should continue to improve the policies and procedures that are in place that govern the way that people in prison can manage an external bank account, to ensure that there is greater flexibility and ultimately the ability for individuals to prepare effectively for their release.

Future contact

Moving forward, support to both prisons and banks will be provided by NOMS (now known as HMPPS). The lead is Rachael Reynolds. Email rachael.reynolds1@justice.gov.uk.

There is also a functional mailbox for banking-related contact: offenderbanking@noms.gsi.gov.uk

Further policy work on this issue will be taken forward as part of our policy work on bank accounts.

Useful resources

Unlocking Banking – Impact Report – Summary (2014)

Unlocking Banking – Impact Report (2014)

Unlocking Banking Guidance – Guidance for prisons on running effective, efficient and secure access to banking services (December 2010)

Time is Money (2010)

Making Bank Accounts Accessible to Offenders – Post Project Review Report (with NOMS, June 2007)

Banking on a Fresh Start (Liverpool John Moores University, August 2008)

Still Banking on a Fresh Start (Liverpool John Moores University, November 2009)

Unlocking Credit Unions (2013)

What is ban the box?

Far too often we hear from people who are unable to get past the application part of a recruitment process simply because they have to tick ‘yes’ to the question about convictions.

Ban the Box is a campaign to increase opportunities for people with convictions to compete for jobs. It is one part of our work to encourage fair chance recruitment practices by employers in the UK. The campaign was launched in the UK in 2013, co-founded by Business in the Community, Unlock and others.

What’s your experience of ban the box?

As part of our policy and campaign work we’re gathering evidence on how ban the box works in practice.

• Did it encourage you to apply for a job you might not have otherwise?
• Did you feel you were treated fairly?
• Or maybe the employer claimed to support ban the box but had a blanket ban on unspent convictions?
• Maybe it made no difference at all.

Whatever your experience, we want to hear about it.

What we need from you

If you have experience of applying to a ‘ban the box’ employer, contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: ban the box’. Please include:

• Your name
• Contact details (email and telephone) and how you’d like us to contact you
• Details of your experience (please include the name of the employer and of any staff you spoke to, include emails/screenshots etc if possible)
• What you think should change
• Whether you would be willing to take part in media coverage on this issue (this is for our reference, we won’t share your details with others).

Any information you provide will be kept in line with our privacy policy. Any personal information provided to us will not be shared externally without your consent. Find out more about how we handle your data.

Which employers have banned the box?

More than 130 employers have now banned the box – see the full list here.

What’s our approach to recruitment?

Find out more about Unlock’s approach to recruitment here.

Why should employers ban the box?

For employers, the goal has to be to try and find the best person for the job, and with over 12.5 million people in the UK with a criminal record, banning the box about convictions is one simple step towards this goal. By banning the box, employers are able to consider candidates on merit first. Banning the box means employers can consider candidates on merit first. Applicants are not put off applying and employers get to recruit from the widest pool of talent.

If you’re an employer looking for more information please see our Recruit website for employers.