Story Type: Views & Reviews

Avoiding certain jobs

David*

As someone with a record, I often feel completely isolated. Going public with my past carries a huge risk – as do enhanced criminal record disclosures. For example, I work in a respected ‘status’ role in higher education within a niche subject with a small circle of experts, employers and colleagues. The same people that would process an enhanced disclosure would be the same people that I work with. It is a thought that motivates my avoidance of certain jobs, even though I would otherwise not seek to conceal my past among friends and family. I have thus paid over and over for what were – in the field of crimes – petty actions.

I do think the current employment legislation for ex-offenders needs radical reform. It is set completely against the employee and places too much power (and power to abuse) into the hands of employers. The ‘official’ guidance for ex-offenders is that after a certain amount of time, spent convictions should not impede your life in a major way. This is so inaccurate I do not know where to begin.

Since my offences, I have served my country in the armed services – with two tours of active duty under my belt – gained a BA, MA and PhD and published in respected academic journals. I have also lectured and taught at one of the country’s leading universities. However, the current enhanced criminal records disclosure procedure leaves me terrified. I have avoided about 80 per cent of the employment opportunities that are open to me. I suffer frequent bouts of unemployment because my research field involves fixed-term contracts and I select jobs that do not involve an enhanced CRB.

This is becoming increasingly difficult because I believe employers are abusing the enhanced disclosure process and using it to vet employees. In short the whole system of dealing with ‘reformed offenders’ is out of tune with reality and the structure of society. It does not affect the ‘convicted’ elite of society or repeat offenders; it only serves to disable, impede and waste a massive cohort of British society who I trying to move on with honest lives.

I came to Unlock because I am tired of running away from my past and giving in to a system primed to knock me down. Unlock has been a critical first step in this process. It has provided me with clear, unambiguous guidance. As far as I am aware it is the only body/charity/website that offers the type of detail that is necessary for me to go forward. Knowledge is power – and personal empowerment.

‘In It’ by Jonathan Robinson: a Review

Review by Richard

This is one book that definitely needed to be written. In It is one man’s journey through the prison system and it gives a very clear view of what works and doesn’t work within that system. What works is the opportunity for prisoners to reflect on what brought them into prison. What doesn’t work is just about everything else except security – and even that was imperfect.

Robinson, a trained pilot and flying instructor who robbed his employer to impress his wife with money, struggles from day one with the uncoordinated and, at times, crazy bureaucracy that prevails throughout the system. The core message of the book is that prison simply does not work as a method for civilising the uncivilised and educating the uneducated. But there’s the rub: that is not what the majority of the British population at large want it to be. Most people simply expect the prison service to lock people up and punish them for their crimes, and that is exactly what it does. However, the very high re-offending rate that results from this approach is something that both policy makers and the author himself try to address.

Through his experience and his writing Robinson spends his entire sentence struggling to come to terms with the difference between what he thinks prison ought to be, “a thriving, self-sufficient, enthusiastic [place] whose occupants … put back in what they’ve been given,” a place run by “enthusiastic staff who give praise [and] good leadership” thus making it an “Efficient, happy ship,” and what it actually is: a place with “Prisoners prevailing in bed, the odious repulsive food littered around the battleground dining room set-dressed by huge slovenly quantities of unwashed plates making up the scenery.”

The book is structured as a day-by-day diary recorded in as-it-happened notes, and this is both a revealing insight into the everyday life of a prisoner but also the book’s biggest weakness. Although he says in the epilogue that a lot of material has been edited out the book still suffers from being at least fifty percent longer than it needs to be to make the point – just as many prison sentences are. What comes through well is the way in which minor snags and an unresponsive system give rise to unnecessary frustrations and routine basic injustices, such not having clothes that fit or food that is edible. All of his very valid observations could have been made without much of the irrelevant details that fill the book and it would have benefitted hugely form being better edited. Although, as Robinson points out, when you have no control or influence over your life, minor issue take on a huge significance and “These life shattering events are important in prison.”

Although repeatedly remorseful about his crime, Robinson still comes across as expecting the National Offender Management Service to be a super-efficient customer service department whose purpose is to improve his opportunities and those of his fellow inmates. This it clearly is not. But, as he points out, there seems to be no justification for the appalling waste of energy, both human and material, that results from prisoners not working during their time inside and the huge amount of money being wasted on unnecessary heating bills and dozens of other inefficiencies.

Despite the strange use of punctuation and speech marks throughout the book, and the lack of thorough editing, Robinson writes well. His metaphor of prison as a film set and each event as a scene played out by characters who he often names after film stars gives a vivid sense of the personalities involved and brings great humour to a tragic set of circumstances. Highly recommended reading for anyone involved in criminal justice policy.

In It is available to purchase as an eBook from Amazon.

Unnecessary checks are a crime – and should be reported to the police

To paraphrase Ken Livingstone, if legislation changed anything it would become illegal.

The aptness of that phrase should surprise no one observing the mad world of vetting checks. As the Manifesto Club’s recent report shows, little has changed despite the Protection of Freedoms Act. Unnecessary criminal record checks still continue. And although the club’s report focuses on school parent volunteers, a similar pattern exists elsewhere.

The Scouts, who have conducted over 10 million taxpayer pounds worth of ‘free’ checks, seem oblivious to the legislative change. Their ‘updated’ vetting rules list so many types of people requiring checks that many Scout Groups probably still think it easier to vet every parent. And student tutoring schemes also show few signs of reducing checks.

The GOLDEN rule of these schemes, which place university students in schools for 3-4 hours a week, is that students are ALWAYS supervised. But while Bath University is reviewing its policy, others continue taking a hard line. At the LSE, Reading and other universities checks on students continue unabated.

At London’s Imperial College, student tutoring manager Dr Annalisa Alexander told me “I would never send a student to a school without an enhanced clearance certificate and the schools we work with require it”, adding “I would not like any of my students to be left on their own with a class”. Clearly the universities cannot object to their students being checked – at their expense – as doing so would endanger these valuable schemes.

One often overlooked problem with illegal checks is the devastation they can sometimes cause. In my youth work, I encountered examples of parents – sometimes on their second marriage – finding themselves being automatically banned from working, even with their own children, after an unnecessary vetting check revealed a long forgotten conviction.

The independent charity UNLOCK, which seeks equality for people with previous convictions, know more than most that many unlawful checks take place every year. For their clients, having to undergo an unnecessary check often destroys any attempt at rehabilitation, as many employers automatically reject anyone with convictions, no matter how old they are.

UNLOCK recommend complaining about unnecessary checking requests to The Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The MOJ ‘owns’ the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) and The Exceptions List of this act provides the basis for whether or not a role requires a check. But as UNLOCK’s Christopher Stacey points out, “The Ministry of Justice are poor in their attempts to police the ROA Exceptions”

Stella Francoise of the MOJ’s Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit told me they have no enforcement function. She said that complaints about illegal checks should be directed to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS recently introduced a procedure to allow the person being checked to request a delay while the DBS asks the checking body to confirm their request is legitimate. But the MOJ gave no indication about what punishment would be administered to those found breaking the law. And as Christopher Stacey notes, the number of prosecutions for illegal checks “Stands at none”.

With the DBS and MOJ both apparently trying to avoid enforcing the law, one wonders if a more direct approach would work. Requesting an illegal criminal records check is a CRIME under The Police Act 1997. It carries fine of up to £5000 and/or a maximum 6 month prison sentence. And crimes should, I argue, be reported to the police.

It is an untested route, but one wonders what action the police would take over an illegal check. It would also be fascinating to watch the reaction of the Scout Group leader or the zealous head when having to explain their intentions to Knacker of the Yard! I currently have no reason to do such a thing, but if anyone else does – and wants to try it – then please share the result.

Shaun Joynson is a former teacher and Scout Leader who supports the Manifesto Club’s Campaign Against Vetting.

This article was originally published on the Manifesto Club website, and thank you to Shaun for his permission to republish the article here.

It’s a long time a-comin’

IanC

Like an addict seeking their fix, the highs (and lows) of debating LASPO continue. Will it, won’t it? When? “I heard that . . .” and “I read on a website . . .” There follows a brief recap for those enraptured with government promises and especially for those who truly believe in the promised land.

Recently, the Dholakia inquiry gave the ROA a good airing. Many proposals were put forward – this was to be THE rehabilitation revolution. Good things were proposed, Kenneth Clarke was all for it and even Lord McNally for the government agreed and said in the Lords; “ . . . so that when we bring forward proposals they will very much reflect the content and the spirit of the legislation that he, [Dholakia], has put before the House today”.

Meanwhile, waiting with bated breath stood the believers. Unknown to all, in the background Clarke was removed and we got LASPO instead. A rather, or extremely diluted, version of what had been suggested and agreed, focusing on cost cutting and a reduction in legal aid as the main points. Never mind, some previous offences could now be legally hidden, (the operative word being hidden); nothing had been stepped down or deleted but . . . better than nothing, for some.

The one point that nobody addressed is the ease with which companies, employers and privately set up companies for this very purpose could still access people’s previous convictions. Employers still requiring SARs or even illegally demanding CRB, (DBS) checks. Roll on spring 2013 thought the believers . . . and nothing happened.

Meanwhile, it was decided, (after the government had been dragged to the European court, kicking and screaming), that those with only one previous conviction might be allowed to have it deleted after many years, but again . . . well, some time in the future, maybe? A little like the prisoner voting issue where Cameron said it made him “physically ill” and echoed the majority views of Parliament that the government would do the minimum to comply with the ECHR?

Feverishly, our believers waded through countless websites, wrote to their MPs and debated on the forum . . . anything for a glimmer of hope. Posts were also made suggesting that because a company website said they don’t discriminate, then that meant one could find employment there; forgetting that companies are not allowed to discriminate by law and so they would say that, wouldn’t they? Hope and belief turned to, well, stupidity? The buzz words, ‘equality’, and ‘non- discrimination’ had, I envisage, a hollow ring to those who tried to gain employment from information supplied on these company websites and again, the lows and despair followed. The naivety and backlash I received when stating this on a previous occasion shocked me.

‘We must obey’ shout the herd, ‘You must declare’ argue the unemployed, ‘it says so on a website’ say the believers . . . After all your dealings with the State and the CJS, do you still really believe that the government are acting in your best interests? Are you still awaiting help and hoping for change because you read it somewhere, or some politician said something that you interpret as hope?

The change will come; it will come slowly and it will be opposed at every stage not only by the government, but also by the public. Fifty years ago the UK still had the death penalty and rehabilitation itself is still a new concept in historical terms. The way forward is to ditch the sheep mentality, learn to think for yourselves, not rely on others . . . or continue to believe and face the highs and lows of a self-inflicted idealism.

Damaged and beyond repair

IanC

A long time ago, when governments were still trying to work out ways to control mass populations, along came communism. This took the view that only the elite could control the masses.

By the twenties and thirties, whole sections of the top UK Universities were filled with the elite obviously who took to this ideology, but after the war when people realized what communism really meant and living standards improved, the ideology died down although it didn’t entirely disappear.

By the sixties it re-emerged and an experiment began. The experiment took the view that if the state knew better than parents then all the faults of society lay with the people. Take children into care for the slightest of reasons and in one generation you would have a perfect society. Approved schools, although not a new concept were now run by social workers and the socially engineered disaster began. In 1946 the Official Handbook for Approved Schools stated that its primary aim was, ‘Making citizens’.

By 1961 in the Manager’s HMSO Handbook, that had changed to ‘Social re-education’. Hundreds of thousands passed through this system; the results were staggering and a huge percentage went on to Borstals for punishment and from there to YP (Young Prisoner wings), within adult prisons. In one generation socialism, (the State as the provider and dominant ideology), produced more criminals than any other in history. The result was that one in three people over the age of fifty now has a criminal record.

The experiment failed and socialism/communism began to get a bad reputation elsewhere in the world. Time for a name change and Labour became Nu Labour, the Red Flag was replaced with a rose and socialism became progressivism; just like the problem Windscale became Sellafield and our trading partners turned into a European Federation. The old guard still remained; Blunkett, Prescott, Harman, Brown . . . laughed at in the sixties they were now in power and continue to wreak havoc with their policies. Multiculturalism, mass uncontrolled immigration, equality . . . if you dumb down and destroy society what you’ll get is a population that is forced to rely on the elite in power. Thank goodness that the government gives you JSA, housing allowance, ‘free’ health care and education? Aren’t you grateful that big business, (depending on your status as defined by the State) provides you with work?

Nothing in politics is an accident; like Approved schools, the recession didn’t just ‘happen’ it was allowed to happen. CCTV’s weren’t produced by a stroke of magic and the influx of ‘Manager’s’ to run our lives isn’t something that is needed but pre-planned. Blackboard becomes chalkboard, just as English becomes British . . . and it all appears so normal.

Just like we old Approved school and Borstal graduates, the experiment is now on you. It’s a process to regulate you, make you into perfectly controlled citizens and the unfortunate fact is, this time around it appears to be working.

Taken from Issue 16

Prison doesn’t work according to judge

David Honeywell

A judge recently caused outrage when while sentencing 26-year-old Richard Rochford for burglary, he said it was courageous to burgle someone’s home.

Judge Peter Bowers The Teesside Crown Court judge also said he thought prison did criminals “little good”. His remarks sparked criticism and Prime Minister David Cameron said burglars were “cowards” whose “hateful crime” violated victims. The case is local to me so I am aware of the problems we have here with drugs and burglaries. Often Judges comments are taken out of context but in this case, surely it has sent a message to other burglars that what they do is something to proud of? On the other hand, if we put aside our feelings of burglars to look at his comment that prison doesn’t work in more detail, does he have a valid point?

Politicians of whatever party have long been firm in the assertion that prison works – indeed the most simplistic slogan to the complex problem of crime and criminality is ‘lock em up’. From Michael Howard’s claim that ‘prison works’ to the Labour mantra ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ ever since the 1990s, both major parties have competed to be the party of law and order.

I can only draw from my own experiences as always. The harshest prison I was ever in was the army ‘glasshouse’. Its regime was unrelentless and its brutality brought me to tears. But it didn’t stop me going back a second time.

It hadn’t worked then because the one thing it didn’t address was the mental health issues I had and sadly, prisons are full of these cases. My stint in Durham prison in the 1980s didn’t stop me going back 10 years later either. But what did deter me from crime was the belief others had in me. As I have always said, education changed me but it wasn’t the books and study; although this was important for changing my thinking; it was the acceptance by a culture. The culture of academics did not judge and therefore I was allowed to climb the ladder without prejudice.

The prison didn’t change me or help me, I changed me, but without the support of others – this would not have been possible. Of course people need to be punished but also they need to be given the tools to change once they have paid their price to society. Without these tools, how can anyone expect them change?

Employers need to give them a chance and society needs to accept that people can and will change. Prison can never work as the only answer to crime. It is a belief that prisons are holiday camps which is felt by mainly those who have never been near a prison except what they have seen on films and through hearsay. They complain about all the privileges prisoners get.

Privileges have certainly increased since I was in prison in the 1980s and 1990s, but as was then, the more privileges, the more control staff had over inmates. When I was in prison in the 80s, we all had nothing so they couldn’t take anything from us except our dignity by making us use buckets instead of toilets and exploiting their ‘caged mentality’.

Things are much easier these days when it comes to basic human rights for inmates, but prison never has worked and probably never will.

Taken from Issue 16

Every house a home

Kazuri

Kazuri holistically addresses the housing needs of women, now we need you to engage…

Whitehall generated, generic housing policy fails vulnerable women already marginalised and disenfranchised by society. Existing mainstream policy encourages a culture of dependence because it looks at the client’s needs in isolation against a framework of benefit entitlements, rather than self actualisation or empowerment.

It is a gradual and stressful transition from an existing traumatic place, be it prison or an abusive relationship to another round of refuges, hostels and unsafe, unsustainable accommodation culminating in the client finally being housed in a residence a client can call home.

Kazuri’s approach is radically different and you can be part of the process of recovery through community action. We need socially engaged supporters to help us maintain the provision of sustainable housing for every woman.

Our Housing First model is deployed by assigning each woman with a dedicated advocate, who works to empower the woman (and her family) to reach her potential and achieve realistic goals. Empowerment breaks the culture of benefits, violence, trauma and crime. Our clients live productive lives as stakeholders in society and they volunteer in local charities or social enterprises, to rebuild fragmented broken bonds.

You can be part of that success story. Each woman can also avail herself of the services of a mentor, a woman who has achieved some level of success in her community, as she wishes.

It can be a long journey and the advocate, the mentor and the Kazuri community will be there every step of the way that takes investment from all involved.

So how do we help you do this and how can you help?

Kazuri builds on the existing success working with women ex-offenders, those on Local Authorities housing lists and women facing homelessness through domestic violence. We need supporters to invest time, love, resilience, energy and money! Investment goes beyond the financial, time, awareness and support are just as valuable. This is aligned with the holistic approach we adopt at Kazuri. Look at the whole picture and you will see a place in that vision for yourself.

Our current crowd funding campaign on Buzzbnk lists multiple ways to get involved and raise awareness of an innovative way to reach the most vulnerable who are hardest to reach. Click here [https://www.buzzbnk.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?projectId=77%20]

Look out for our next crowd funding venture, Devi Ghar (Goddesses’ Home), a fully serviced women’s resilience centre offering everything from holistic body treatments, trauma counselling and a women only hotel.

We’re also currently offering internships involving tenancy sustainment, mentoring and coaching, training and property management. Click here – (Direct Word Document download) [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5035088/kazuri%20social%20house%20INTERN%20Final%20draft.doc]

Call Kazuri on 020 7 377 5791 or email info@kazuri.org.uk

Taken from Issue 16

Clean Break

Lisa Jones

I was born in Somerset to a fairly normal family, youngest out of five. It was a nice upbringing and materially we were okay. Initially I went to state school. But I started getting into trouble at 11 and 12 years old, smoking cannabis and drinking.

Then Dad sent me to an independent school. I was getting bullied there and then I started to have big problems with my Dad as I wanted to change schools. Also I didn’t really feel supported by my Mum. Things went bad from there.

I had a very low sense of self worth and started seeking it outside the family home. I started getting into relationships with men who were involved in substances – I was really drawn to that. Looking back I can see the direction I was going. I was thrown out of home at 14 and moved in with a career criminal involved in drugs. Then I started to get involved. Already by 16, I was using drugs every weekend although I did get my GCSEs.

I was enjoying myself and working in pubs – I was quite outgoing and confident. Then I met my son’s Dad and he was an addict although I didn’t realise it at the time. By the time I was pregnant it was too late. I got caught selling drugs at a festival and got a custodial sentence. My son was 8 months old at the time. So initially I went to prison for young offenders as I was 20 at the time. I got 18 months. I served 9 months. I feel it wasn’t fair – it was my first offence and I had an 8 month old baby.

I didn’t feel supported in prison and felt even more lost. All it had done was take me out of society and there was no guidance of how to get back in. My first thought was to get wasted as I didn’t know how to cope. My son and I ended up in a mother and baby unit and that helped.

I heard about Clean Break in prison, although I was into drugs for a while afterwards, but I finally got in touch. At the time I was in Dorset. My son was living with my parents. I really felt I needed to start a fresh and wanted to move to London and wanted to focus on working with Clean Break.

In November 2009 I finally got in touch with them. I love them so much. I was so broken at the time. I feel they gave me my life back and now I’ve managed to stay clean for a year. My daughter stays with me. Now I see my son more regularly. I went from no confidence to speaking at the Houses of Parliament advocating Clean Break’s work. I have performed on stage.

Today, I’m starting an art foundation course at an adult college. Clean Break were the bridge that I needed to get from the lifestyle I was living back into the real world. That’s what Clean Break did for me. It was a safe, honest and open environment with similar people to me.
Other women can learn that change is possible. At my lowest, I was a heroin addict sleeping rough on the streets. Any outsider would think that I wouldn’t get out of that. But I believe if a person puts enough effort into change they can do anything.

For more information on Clean Break visit www.cleanbreak.org.uk

Taken from Issue 17

More than just getting a job

Sarah Viney

There is a never ending emphasis on the benefits of gaining employment especially when it comes to crime reduction. Increasing employability has become a mutual goal for those involved with sentence planning from the very beginning with questions surrounding previous employment in a ‘pre-sentence’ report, throughout the incarceration period when interventions include ‘preparation for employment’ and ‘focus on resettlement,’ right up to when the reduction in risk factors are calculated by attempting to quantify how much you are likely to enter a job upon release.

The benefits of employment are huge to a lot of people of course – benefits include building new friendships and learning new skills that increase ‘self-worth’ and ‘confidence’. They include an increase in income that can help with debt, and benefits. They include filling the ‘empty’ space within time – the time alone thinking, blaming, searching for something, trying to figure it all out. However employment can also deprive people of reaching the goals that matter most in life. It is increasingly difficult for the majority in today’s society, with increasing demands on organisations, for employees (especially women with children) to achieve a healthy work-life balance. Relationships break down and children suffer.

I was driving on the motorway today and ‘trying to figure it all out’ – I imagined the motorway stretching towards the sea and all the cars were travelling forwards just like our lives ageing. Everyone travels in the same direction although each has a different destination. In life we are all travelling the same way but journeys take various routes and some are longer than others. Feel the frustrations of traffic, queuing for miles, what if this is like employment? Moving happily for so long when it begins to rain heavily, one of the exits closes due to flooding, increasing numbers travelling towards the next, one gets distracted with the back wipers, a pile up, stand still.

No matter how much you planned your journey that morning ‘you are stuck.’

I have always been a big believer in a ‘can do attitude.’ I have achieved so much through this attitude myself including published work in a self-help booklet for women that won an NHS Innovation Award and I am now approaching my final year at one of the most prestigious Universities in England. After flying up that motorway I am moving, getting closer to where I want to be, however after applying for a graduate training scheme and coming to a ‘stand still’ this morning even I am questioning whether I ‘can do.’ How can we ever progress if others do not ‘support’ that opportunity? We can be in control, we can change our behaviour and we can learn skills like better coping strategies. We can become emotionally aware and focus on our future, plan as good if not better than any other, and ‘believe’ in ourselves. However we need society to create equilibrium by also building on awareness, by becoming fair and honest in their policies, by supporting and encouraging goals, and by becoming a driver of ‘self-belief.’ There are still so many ‘gaps’ in opportunities of inclusion.

How can a company say on their website how much:
‘we are proud to be a diverse business. Without an inclusive policy, we would miss out on significant talent within the community. In the UK we have the most socially diverse customer base of any retailer and we want our workforce to reflect the communities we serve.’

Then refuse someone the opportunity to apply for a graduate training scheme on the basis of them having an unspent criminal conviction. If they were to reflect on their ‘emotional’ awareness they would be answering questions such as ‘Why are we including this policy?’ And looking within at ‘Who will benefit from this policy?’ I feel that some companies are more than willing to employ ex-offenders in low level employment, paying minimum wage, in order to achieve ‘corporate responsibility’ status within [their] communities (which in itself is debatable).

An issue I am increasingly passionate about is how some of these low level entry positions can add to the many factors related to persistent offending OR first time offending; low self-esteem, financial difficulty. And in particular these types of ‘employment opportunities,’ if they deserve to be called this, are well known in several research studies to have an impact on mental health and emotional well-being, not just on offenders but on society at large. Bring on David Cameron’s Happiness Survey?!! I would personally like to see the ‘Big Society’ doing more towards ensuring equal opportunity where it doesn’t just settle for allowing ex-offenders and other groups the ‘opportunity’ to clean toilets for a living.

Ignorance of those left behind can impact upon those ‘high flyers.’ Mental Health of employees costs businesses an estimated £26 billion a year in absenteeism and reduced productivity.

If companies were honest with themselves about why they choose to have inclusion policies, just like if an individual were honest with themselves about what they have responsibility for, then the answers can be reflected upon, thought about and built upon. Risks may have to be taken, anxieties may have to be felt and channelled positively, but the rewards can be massive, and ‘can’ be achieved instead of arriving at a ‘stand still.’

Investments present an element of risk. Investing in an individual feels a lot more rewarding than investing on the stock exchange as it is investing in a life, a ‘being,’ a ‘community,’ that can have so many rewards and create a ripple effect. You get out what you put in! Speculate to accumulate. Just think about what you can put into an employer-employee relationship. Trust, empathy, support, encouragement, belief. And risks can be pooled. There are opportunities of government support for companies with the ‘development’ of employees so in all honesty the risks don’t have to be that great. The hard work would be about adapting the organisation to fit in with the current Government Work Programme.

This is exactly what I had in mind for the position that I wanted to apply for. I would have taken my own initiatives, worked in my own time on something I am passionate about, and developed policies and procedures that would adapt that company to support from the government in exchange for developing their workforce thus providing job ‘satisfaction’ and increasing productivity. Creating an environment that deeply embeds the values surrounding ‘more than just a job.’ They have missed out on my ‘talent.’ Oops I think they need to reflect upon the wording of their inclusion policy.

An interviewee answering a question relating to the ‘social evils’ of society suggested:
‘We are in danger of losing sight of what is important in life, like kindness, playfulness, generosity and friendship. The immaterial things that can’t be bought and sold. We can quantify money better than we can quantify happiness and contentment. So we chase it, rather like a rainbow, deceiving ourselves that it will deliver that elusive happiness and contentment.’ (JRF) [http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/social-evils-consultation-report.pdf]

Therefore, ‘Employer Engagement’ ought to practice what it preaches – A ‘relationship,’ NOT, just a formal contract between employer and employee! To be ‘engaged’ means more than just a formal contract it can encompass support and encouragement both ways. For instance the employer supports and encourages development within the individual and the individual supports and encourages development within the company. An honest reflection of ‘work-life’ balance and support based practices. This way there are no losers. There needs to be a balance. Just as within an ‘engagement’ to be married if one member takes more than what the other is able to give then the relationship will break down and suffer ‘emotional’ repercussions that can impact negatively elsewhere on the individual and/or on the organisation.

A productive and happy workforce is not all about what’s on the outside – the qualifications and experience (or should this be appearance?), although these compliment it. It’s about developing foundations that can be built upon. What is on the inside should be made a priority. This entails supporting a comprehensive (holistic) work-life balance to enable growth both within and without.

I would like to see the term ‘employer engagement’ as related to more than just a ‘contract’ – ‘more than just getting a job.’ I want to see employers feed enthusiasm and self-belief.

Taken from Issue 17

Women in Prison Conference

Kelly

I was asked by Jo-Anne the manager of the Oasis project if on Tuesday 13th September 2011, I would like to attend a conference in London with her in reference to do with women in prison. Questions had been sent to women in prison, to be read out by members of the audience. I had been asked if I would read one.

Firstly I was so grateful to even be asked to go such an important event, I was thrilled and excited, then the nerves kicked in because I didn’t know what to expect. I knew there was going to be a panel there but I didn’t know exact numbers that were going to turn up. I have got a big mouth at the best of times and sometimes I never shut up, most of it waffle mind you but to speak out in front of so many people made me quite anxious and excited but all in a good way. I just looked forward to the day of the conference, still wondering what would be said, the sorts of things people could ask, say and even if I would have the courage to say anything, ask anything or even give a important response that I felt strongly about.

At the conference I was really surprised by the turn out, the people that attended obviously cared about what was going on in our criminal justice system and the fact that there were women in jail and maybe most them shouldn’t be. The lady that had organised the conference came over and gave me a little slip of paper with a question on it that she would like me to read out for one of the prisoners. The event was being recorded. My initial thought was I can’t do this if the whole nation is going to see it, what if I stutter or make a mistake or even forget what I was going to say, I started to panic just slightly so I studied the question that needed to be read out; at least if I remembered it I couldn’t go wrong.

The question was to Eoin McLennon Murray, head of the Prison Governors Association, who was on the panel, it read:
“Why does probation constantly over populate our prisons for breaching? If circumstances were taken into consideration sometimes the reasons should be valid and recognised. After all it costs over £53,000 to the tax player to put/keep someone in prison for a year.”

His reply was, that was a very good question that he strongly agreed with and said probation holds too much power when it comes to breaching. Some of the reasons that land women in jail should be explored a little deeper.

After listening to the other panellists’ and hearing one of the girls speak out about her life experience and working with the Oasis project, I suddenly had this burst of confidence. I put my hand straight back up and started reeling off my life story about my experience of being a heroin addict on and off for 12 years and the lack of support which I really needed at the time. The kids had been placed with my mum because I made one stupid mistake. The crimes I committed including, one which meant that I was up before different judges four times in nine months for shoplifting. Three of them had given me fines as punishments and on the other one they had given me an electronic tag for three months. Why they did that no-one knows not even my solicitor at the time, because my crimes were committed in the day, the tag curfew was for the evening so that made no sense whatsoever. No mental help or any help for my drug addiction was offered. The only thing the tag did was add fuel to fire and made me worse. Not once through my criminal proceedings did anyone mention a DRR (Drug Rehabilitation Requirement), it was a friend that told me about them. When I got arrested again and got put before the judge, I myself asked for DRR bearing in mind I hardly knew what one consisted of.

The point I wanted to get across in the conference was that these issues need to be talked about more in court, it won’t solve the problem but it will stop women with first time offences going to jail. Like one of the points discussed in the conference, there is a man on the street with nine GBH/Assaults on his criminal record and he still hasn’t been to jail.

The Judge’s reply, at the time was women shouldn’t be seen to commit this sort of offence, that’s why she went to jail, to teach her a lesson; where’s the justice in that?

There was another story that was talked about by one of the panellists and that was of a young lady that went to prison, her mum went in every week to visit her but the young woman was having a really bad time in prison and in the end she ended up committing suicide. A high number of female inmates self harm whist in jail. The mum visited her daughter’s grave everyday and in the end the mum ended up committing suicide as well, on her daughter’s grave. I think a lot of these situations can be prevented if the government put a little more time and money into the reasons why women are in jail and, if there is any way jail can be a very last resort.

There was another point I wanted to make at the conference but I got brain freeze and I forgot. On the street they say that if I went into rehab I would lose my flat. I think that’s unfair because for some of us that’s all we have left and to lose that would just be a massive knock down, because we could go into rehab and come back out to our own apartments instead of being placed in a hostel where its full of addicts and we’re likely to relapse.

Overall I’m glad I went to this conference, I learnt a great deal. I would support this, day in, day out. I’m a mum of two wonderful, intelligent children, I have had a drug problem ever since I understood what happened to me when I was 8 years old. I have made some mistakes and some very bad choices, but right now I’m trying my hardest to kick my addiction. This is the hardest thing I’ve ever done. I hope whatever situation I got in, a judge wouldn’t just throw me in jail, I would hope they would try everything going first. I do know one day I will kick this addiction and it will be for good so I will be good enough to get my kids back because when I’m good with my kids, I’m good.

Taken from Issue 17

Story Type: Views & Reviews

Avoiding certain jobs

‘In It’ by Jonathan Robinson: a Review

Unnecessary checks are a crime – and should be reported to the police

It’s a long time a-comin’

Damaged and beyond repair

Prison doesn’t work according to judge

Every house a home

Clean Break

More than just getting a job

Women in Prison Conference

We want to make sure that our website is as helpful as possible.

Thank you for your feedback.

12.5 million people have criminal records in the UK. We need your help to help them.