Tag: Seeking work -

When will this go away?

I started working in the legal field when I turned 21, and although I was a single parent of three children, working full time, I worked extremely hard to do my exams and pass them. I helped hundreds of vulnerable people thought my personal life and professional life and did my fair share of pro bono work.

Unfortunately in 2008 I was arrested for a crime of fraud, and although I did not have any direct link to having done anything knowingly or intentionally, I was convicted on circumstantial evidence and the fact that I should have been more vigilent as a professional.

As a professional, if there is no direct evidence for convicting on evidence, the professional bodies get you on the basis of “bringing disrepute to the profession”.

My children were at court supporting me. Up to this point I was the breadwinner, mother , father and friend to my children and many many people who were vulnerable. I was hysterical as the judge summed up and although he felt that I had not benefited from this crime, he had no option but to sentence me to 5 years.

I lost my business, my children, my freedom, my self respect and everything I worked for. I took it on the chin. I got transferred to open prison and with great difficulty and patience I began doing voluntary work for a charity and continued until a month before my release from prison in late 2013.

I had to sign on for benefits, which I did and am on still!

I have applied for hundreds of jobs and been to uncountable interviews but each time I disclose my conviction people look at me as an offender, a convicted person, a untrustworthy person. My conviction was against lenders not an individual. The lenders concerned probably had insurance therefore they haven’t made a loss. The person who ran away with the money didn’t make the loss nor any member of the public. Only I have made a loss.

I continue to look for work, any sort of work. However not even the supermarkets want me.

The added problem is that due to the length of my sentence for a white collar crime, my conviction will never be spent. I can’t grasp the idea that my conviction and the sentence I received is worse than some one who has been convicted of a violent crime.

I am not saying what I did or failed to do is right, but I do feel that I have been left out in to the community, where there is no prospect of finding work, no one happy to take me on. Some places say I’m over qualified and the others say their policy is such that they cannot employ me due to my conviction. It’s a joke really, I want to work and no one wants a ex offender.

I would like to know when will this go away? I also want to know why is it that Judges do not think about the impact of the sentence they give. They are aware of the fact that if the sentence is above 4 years it will never be spent, so is it a way of ensuring the ex offenders can not rebuild there lives?

I want to work, I want to pay for my mortgage, but there is no help out here. I want to know why? The CJS is all for punishing, but not there to help convicted people get back into work, and someone needs to look at the impact of the length of sentences given.

By Harry (name changed to protect identity)

Why don’t the job centre and work programme know what they’re talking about?

I’ve just come back from my latest meeting with my work programme advisor. That experience, and others recently, have driven me to write about the failures that I think are contributing to the difficulties that people with convictions face.

Okay, so I’ve got convictions. The most recent, seven years ago, was fairly serious – I was sent to prison for a few months. But since then, I’ve tried my best to rebuild my life and provide for my family. I’ve had a few jobs since then, but for various reasons, they’ve not worked out.

So, I’ve been unemployed for a couple of years now. My first ‘frustration’ came from the Job Centre. As soon as they found out that I had a criminal record, their attitude towards me changed completely. To be fair, that’s how I found out about Unlock, but annoyingly, they didn’t really know what Unlock did – they said that Unlock could help me find a job. It seemed like they just wanted rid of me, so were clutching at straws to ‘pass me off’. I’m glad I found out about Unlock, as I’ve learnt so much about what I do and don’t have to disclose, and how to go about disclosing to employers, but it annoyed me that the Job Centre thought they could simply wash their hands of me like that. Even worse, when I went back armed with the knowledge I’d got from Unlock, they looked at me clueless. They clearly didn’t know much about the rules on disclosure. I’ve since learnt that the job centre office I went to had an ‘ex-offender lead’ – what a joke she was! She hadn’t had any training on disclosure – apparently, the job centre can’t afford it (so she said)!

Then, eventually, I moved onto the work programme. I’ve was full of hope and optimism. It quickly drained away. As soon as I told my advisor about my record, they pretty much told me I’d never find an employer than was willing to give me a chance, and that I may as well just do enough that’s needed to keep me receiving my benefits!

This paints quite a bad picture, I know. I guess what I’m keen to be clear about is that I’m somebody who wants to work. I don’t want to be claiming benefits. I’m willing to take anything. I don’t think I fit the mould of being ‘work-shy’ and picky about the work I do – I just want people to look beyond my criminal record.

The Job Centre and Work Programme should be there to help me do that – words fail me when trying to describe how much I feel let down by the people who are there to help me. Organisations like Unlock do a fantastic job, but it’s not the job of a small charity to find work for the 10 million people in the UK who have a criminal record. The Job Centre and Work Programme need to step up to the plate! I’ve suggested to both my job centre work coach and my work programme advisor that they go on the Unlock training on disclosure – I’ll wait and see if they know what they’re talking about the next time I see them!

By Andy* (name & details changed to protect identity)

I am not my conviction – I am a good man

Over the last 15 months I have faced up to some harsh realities. Through my crimes I failed as a father, husband, son, brother and friend. I hurt the one’s I love and I will have to live with that forever. I have been honest with myself, admitting what I did was wrong and with help, I am understanding why I went wrong. But everything that has happened to me, is my fault.

Mid last year, I was released from prison, and that was the first new day of my new life.

I will not forget what I did and the hurt I caused to the people I love. With the support I have and my faith I am looking forward to rebuild my life, I know it will be a path with obstacles in the way, but forward I will go, never to offend again. I have a second chance and I will not falter.

However, I owe society nothing. For 23 years of my working life I helped to protect the people of my county. What I did was wrong, but when I was not committing my crimes, I was a good man. I like many other in life made a big mistake, but how long does society punish us for it?

Why when my crime did not involve driving, does my car insurance go up from £200 – £600 pounds a year. Insurance companies may say, what I did shows a lack of judgement and error, which could come out in bad driving. Rubbish, for the 3 years I was committing my crimes, I did not have one accident. It did not effect my driving. Insurance companies discriminate against people with convictions. What they are saying is, “all people with convictions that are not spent are bad drivers, therefore have to pay more”. That is ridiculous and discriminatory.

I was guilty of my crimes, I admitted that guilt at court and was sentenced to prison as punishment for that crime. I have now paid my dues to society, now it has to let me get on.

Now you should say why should society let me get on?

Because society thinks it is forgiving and will give second chances. I am sure most of society if they make a mistake, hope they are judged on their life as a whole, not the small period they offended. Therefore Society has to practise what it preaches.

Therefore employers should not refuse you a job just because you have a conviction. As Unlock say, there is a vast pool of experience out there, that is disregarded, because people see a conviction and not the person.

I am not my conviction, I am a good man.

Also the only difference between me and other men is I made a mistake. One day it could be them making the mistake and asking for a second chance. Best society is made aware now that the majority of society is unforgiving and there are no second chances. Perhaps that would help to reduce crime if Society knew the truth.

That’s why in my new life I will assist and help charities like Unlock and other organisations to spread the word. That a convicted person is not a bad person, they are someone who made a mistake. Tomorrow a friend or family member or you could make a mistake. How would you feel if you were judged on you conviction, and not as the person you are?

Let them who have not sinned, throw the first stone. If you pick that stone up and throw it. Remember, it could come back to you!

By Brian (name changed to protect identity)

Banning the Box and the Demands for Disclosure – Part 1

It’s a sobering thought when you’re sat there, faced with three strangers you’ve never met: the panel at your job interview has more information about your criminal record than a jury would if you were on trial. And, in a capitalist economy where we all have to earn a living, employers are every bit as powerful an influence on your life as judges.

In a criminal trial, the jury is not allowed to know if you have a previous conviction. This is to make sure they aren’t prejudiced against you so that you get a fair trial. Research with mock juries has shown that jurors are likely to believe a defendant guilty if they know the defendant has been convicted a similar crime in the past. So it’s probable that interview panels are more likely to believe people with convictions might commit a crime while they’re employing them if they know about previous convictions. But, with one in five unemployed people having a criminal record, how are they supposed to get a fair interview if they’ve already had to disclose their convictions to the potential employer on their application form?

Some employers make sure that interview panels aren’t shown your disclosure so that they aren’t prejudiced. Many do not. And many small firms don’t have an HR dept., it’s just the boss, your application form, you and your record. So it’s impossible to remove prejudice. And that’s exactly why ‘Ban the Box’ action is crucial.

The practice of employers seeking a disclosure is very common, according to one survey carried out for British Industry in the Community (BITC) it’s a staggering 73%. In response, one year ago, BITC supported by Nacro, Unlock and others, launched the UK’s own Ban the Box campaign, #bantheboxuk.

The idea is to work with employers to get them to remove the criminal convictions question (‘the box’) from application forms and only ask about convictions at a later stage in the process – this varies depending on the employer, but many instead ask at interview.

So, imagine being in an interview in your forties and being quizzed about the worst and most stupid thing you did in your teens. Does that seem like a reasonable interview question to you? No? Well, that’s exactly the kind of situation people with convictions face every day.

Emotionally, it can be a truly gruelling process. Even the most well-meaning of employers, like charities who work with the disadvantaged, walk you back through the worst time in your life, get you to talk about what was going on for you at the time, assess your level of regret and remorse then thank you very much for your honesty and show you the door. If they don’t give you the job, there was absolutely no need for them to put you through that or for them to have that information. It’s an invasion of privacy of the highest order, and many people who’ve been through it never again seek work from employers who behave that way.

If employers ask about records on application, it means everyone who applies needs to make a disclosure, even though only one person – the successful candidate – ever really needs to. All the other applicants and interviewees are just members of the public with no legal obligation to disclose or undergo a DBS check. Their offending isn’t relevant to the employer because they are not employed, and are not going to be. So they should be able to exit the recruitment process with their privacy and dignity intact, shouldn’t they?

This is Part 1. More to follow….

You can read more about Ban the Box at http://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/ban-box

Problems with employment for serving inmates

I am an inmate at an open prison. I have been at the establishment for around 6 months now, already having served a sizable amount of time, and I am in the process of rebuilding my life. I am fortunate enough to have good family support and a stable background with which to go back to upon my eventual release – a lot of my peers are not so fortunate. I am already going home to visit my family at weekends, and I also have a very worthwhile voluntary part time job. In the very near future I will be able to go home for ‘overnight resettlement leaves’.

And that leaves me only one final hurdle; finding paid employment whilst still serving my sentence…

Part of the work I do within the jail (when I’m not out) is helping my peers to find paid employment themselves; I work as a mentor. We have various means by which potential opportunities can be generated, indeed many inmates source their own leads for work, or at least they try. I am lucky enough to work with some very professional people from outside organisations. Serco, SOVA, the National Careers Service, and the staff within the jail. A large percentage of the inmates in the jail are long term or ‘life’ (indeterminate) sentence prisoners, with some very serious offences and – in some cases – criminal histories. There has been a lot of focus from both media and government recently on the open jail estate following several high profile absconds and incidents.

But the problems we are experiencing are not necessarily what you would expect (i.e issues to do with disclosure, criminal record checks, unspent convictions). Neither are the problems often other obvious issues such as an inmate’s poor work history, and/or lack of qualifications and references.

On the contrary, we have several local companies extremely keen to take inmates on. After all, they would be getting (in theory at least) staff who are keen to get on with lives in the real world, desperate not to screw anything up, physically fit, willing and able. Grateful for what they can get, probably more reliable than the average applicant for a similar job, due to the potentially disastrous consequences of being anything other than a reliable and trustworthy worker. People who have been through a lot to get to where they now are. People who may have had extremely recently all relevant training taken care of as part of their sentence plan. People who will often be employable at minimum wage for starters, who won’t have demands for annual leave. In many ways, inmates can be highly employable people.

Getting interviews and job offers has not been the problem. The stumbling blocks we are increasingly encountering are with company insurance, and problems getting clearance from the Police Liaison Officer (P.L.O).

On the subject of insurance, I have very little knowledge aside from observations made: Insurers are wanting more and more disclosure information, and subsequent big delays are sometimes scaring employers off.

But the biggest problems are coming more and more often from the Police Liaison Officer. The P.L.O’s job is to clear any prospective companies as suitable and safe for a serving inmate to work for, although it should be pointed out that the Prison Governor has the final say and can in theory overturn a negative decision made by the P.L.O. A Governor will rarely overturn a P.L.O decision, which is understandable given that if something went wrong it would be down to one person making a decision against other ‘intelligence’, and therefore becoming a focal point for any blame.

Recently we have had several opportunities for voluntary work, paid work, and training placements turned down by the P.L.O. It seems to me that there have been more rejections than we previously had, and it does make you wonder if some sort of ‘shift in climate’ or pressure from above, such as at government level, have been the motivating factor. Within the last few weeks we have had a handful of P.L.O refusals on the grounds that the prospective companies had not been trading for long enough… upon closer inspection, one of these companies had been trading for over 4 years, plenty of time you would think – especially given how many businesses and companies have gone to the wall during the last 6-7 years. Subsequently you will obviously have many new start-up businesses. Not that 4 years is even within this remit; it’s clearly an established entity already.

If there have indeed been any unknown changes as a result of new government directives or criteria’s, one thing that you can be certain of is that the shift – if there has been one – will have been implemented extremely poorly. Half-baked directives given with no clear statement of intention, no back up training or clear instruction, no structure in place. Every single recent change to regime in open estate jails – and there have been several, I can assure you – have been exactly that.

A colleague of mine who suffered an inexplicable refusal by the P.L.O (and saw all his hard work and diligence come to nothing on little more than a whim) requested an appointment with the P.L.O, which, surprisingly he got.

The outcome of that meeting is almost too embarrassing to write about. The officer gave completely irrelevant comment about individual cases he had dealt with where an offender had been caught in unlawful circumstances, and even started talking about individual inmates still within our jail that he had dealt with – by name! He regaled an instance where he had reconsidered a decision, given the green light, and there had subsequently been a ‘mishap’. As a result he would “never change his mind again”. All this falls under ‘blanket punishment’ – one person’s misdemeanour being used against everyone else. The government have clear directives about such treatment not taking place. Talking about individual cases by name is downright incompetent, reckless and irresponsible, and the man had clearly no real guidelines or notion of what he was doing, let alone any concern about even taking it seriously.

Even when the clearance is eventually given, the fact remains that companies tend to advertise for jobs when they need staff. They cannot afford to wait for 2 months with no idea as to whether or not they will even ever get to employ someone they have offered a job. Why would they have advertised in the first place?

The current government have the party line that they are very pro offender resettlement. They have over the last 12 months nominated several closed conditions jails as becoming resettlement focused establishments. But it’s only a throwaway comment.

Many long term or ‘lifer’ inmates have virtual certainty that they will not gain parole without having found paid work. They will remain in open conditions costing the tax payer around £45k a year, clogging up a system already on its knees with population rise, and we are supposed to find paid work in this climate of seemingly increasing limitation.

And then they wonder why so many lifers are suddenly running away when they are out on temporary release…

I think there could be a link.

by Anonymous

A DBS check scares me

In the 1980’s, at the age of 16, I was convicted of ABH and given a 12 month conditional discharge. After this happened my solicitor told me that, when I turn 18, the conviction will become cleared. At that time, the offence didn’t play on my mind and, until the early 2000s, I was getting on with my life. I became a parent, went to college and then onto university.

Then, in 2003, I got a job as a Teaching Assistant in a secondary school, and this was when I had to do a CRB check. When asked on the form if I had any criminal records, I answered no because I thought that the conviction was spent.

When my CRB came back, the head teacher asked me about it. I tried to explain the situation, saying what I could remember about the circumstances around the offence, and telling her that I had been told it would be cleared. She was saying that there would have to be a meeting to discuss the matter, and I guess really to see if I would be keeping my job. I was in shock because of whole thing, and I decided to leave because I thought that I was going to lose my job, and also because I felt (and still feel) ashamed.

It is really good that there have been some changes to the ROA, and now how minor offences can be filtered, but I ask myself, what about the people who committed an offence when they were teenagers? Because of the nature of the offence, it will never be cleared or wiped, or filtered. That just doesn’t seem right.

People tell me that I have nothing to worry about, and employers will not even ‘bat an eyelid’ because it happened almost 30 years ago. I was in my teens, and it’s my one and only offence. The thing is, this one offence feels like 30 offences, and 10 years on from when it all came out, I am still trying to come to terms with it. I am angry and I feel ashamed. I look at the jobs which I know I have the skills for, but seeing the words ‘a DBS check will be required’ scares me. Why? Because it means that I will have to explain something that happened decades ago, and I think ‘why?’

On the few occasions that I have disclosed for work purposes, the response has been negative. I know some people can quickly get over things, and get on with things, but I am finding the criminal record and DBS checks difficult to deal with. I just want to apply for a job without this hanging over my head.

Yes, I can say to myself that ‘it happened 30 years ago’, but because it’s an offence that for certain jobs like teaching (an area of work that interests me) it won’t ever be spent. Those 30 years, are like 30months ago. So, I will always be seen as a ‘risk,’ and this doesn’t help my confidence one bit.

I want to thank you Unlock for the work you do, for wanting the government to make further changes, and for giving us a voice.

by Nicola

Soul Destroying Fear

by Vicki

I recently applied for a job as a senior mentor post, a post I already hold, and have held for 7 years, in a primary school. Despite passing the assessment and seemingly giving all the right answers in the interview, I was turned down for the job, despite showing them character references from my last two employers, two prominent head teachers.

I declared on my application that I had a criminal record, enclosing details in a sealed envelope as they requested. The problem is, I have two offences as part of one conviction dating back to the late 2000’s: two counts of ‘failing to notify of a change of circumstances required by regulations under the act on 14th April 2003 Social Security Administration Act 1992’.

My guess is that they took one look at this and thought they’d show willing by shortlisting me and calling me for an interview, but in my heart of hearts, I knew that I wouldn’t get the job. There were extenuating circumstances to my actions (I suffered a double bereavement in the space of a 5 day period, plus caring for a father who suffers from Parkinson’s) and my solicitor said that I was probably suffering the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder. Prior to this conviction, I had never broken the law in any way shape or form, and, obviously, have not done so since. I was sentenced to two suspended sentences (to run concurrently), and 100 community service, which I completed over 13 weeks (one Saturday a week) receiving glowing comments on my paperwork each week from the team leader, for my work ethic.

I am too embarrassed and scared to apply for jobs, especially as I work with children and so am subject to an enhanced disclosure. I applied for a job last year, and though they eventually offered me employment, it felt like I was given the third degree, having already declared the conviction, I then had to sit in a room before I could sign my contract, to explain my actions. If the ground could have opened up and swallowed me whole, I would have happily jumped in. In the end, I turned the job down because they made me feel as if they were doing me a favour, and I didn’t want them to have me over a barrel.

It really is very hard. I don’t want the conviction to define who I am as a person: a single parent, a sister, aunt and a carer for my disabled parents, but employees don’t see that, they just see ‘criminal’. Thankfully, I have the support of my family, and my son. Telling him what I had done was the hardest thing I’d had to do, since telling him that his father had died. My son is the one that gives me the confidence to apply for jobs, reminding me that I am actually very good at what I do.

I’m resigned to the fact now, though, in my 40’s, I will be one of those people that just stays in their job until such time that they can retire, because the thought of having to bare my soul each time I apply for a job, well, it’s soul destroying.

Disclosing to employers, dealing with rejection and being persistent

I’m currently on my way to London to give a training session on ‘disclosing criminal convictions to employers’. “Been there, done that” I think. It’s been almost three years to the day since I walked out of those prison gates – no job, middle-aged and back to living with my parents.

Wow – so much has changed. I’ve got a job I love, working with people with convictions, giving them advice on what and how to disclose their convictions. I’m renting my own house now and going on a holiday abroad next month for the first time in 8 years.

Sounds like I’ve had it easy. But I’ve been through the same as many of you reading this.

I left prison full of hope for the future. My personal officer told me that I’d been punished for my crime, and that I could now leave all that behind me and concentrate on the future. “You’ve still got the same skills you came into prison with and lot’s more besides” she said. She’s right. I’ve almost got a degree, courtesy of the Open University, and I’ve learnt 101 ways to use tinfoil courtesy of my cell mates (not sure that’s going to come in quite as handy!)

I had my first job interview 2 weeks after coming home. It went well. Small company, new offices and I immediately built up a good rapport with the interviewer. This job’s mine I thought. “Any other questions” the interviewer asked. I disclosed my conviction. He looked stunned and said “Why did you have to tell me that? You were without doubt the best person for the job but now I know about your conviction, you are too much of a risk”. I tried to explain that I didn’t see myself as a risk – “I see my probation officer every week, I don’t want to re-offend, I can’t afford to do anything wrong. I’ve learnt my lesson, paid the price ……..blah, blah, blah”. He was very kind but no job. He should be proud – it was the best rejection ever.

I lost count of the number of jobs I applied for – hundreds. Most didn’t answer at all, some told me I didn’t have enough experience and a few invited me for interviews. After that 1^st experience I didn’t disclose my criminal conviction at interview anymore, I and managed to secure 3 jobs. As soon as I got a job offer, I told them that I had a conviction – it was a specific condition of my licence that I had to disclose to employers. Of course, at that stage, the offer would be revoked.

I truly believed I was a positive person but boy, those rejections started to really knock my confidence. It was hard living back at home again but with no job I couldn’t afford to move out. As my self-confidence hit an all-time low, I applied to do some voluntary work with ex-offenders. After a great interview, great news – they wanted me. They thought I had lots to offer, I could be a real asset. They even said they may be able to offer me paid work at some time in the future.

I volunteered just one day a week but in that time, I began to get my self-belief back. I felt valued, I had a purpose in life again and it gave me the confidence to I throw myself once again in applying for paid work. Several months after release, I got a part-time paid job – working in retail. Never done it before but I was upbeat and decided that this would now be my future. I’d work hard, get promoted and that’s exactly what happened. I started to be offered more hours until part time became full time, I was then asked to go for promotion and got offered a supervisors role with the promise of a managers assessment after 6 months. I gained more knowledge, got more confident and then saw an advert for my current job.

I’ve never wanted to be defined by my time in prison but, it has had a massive impact on the person I am today. I always wanted to use this experience in a positive way and when I saw my current job being advertised I felt that potentially it could be my ‘dream job’.

Disclosing convictions is never easy, however many times you do it but the interviewers tried to put me at ease and I was as honest and upfront as I could be. After a long 2 week wait, the news I had been waiting for – success.

I’ve had good days and bad days in my search for employment. There is a lot of negativity about getting a job with a conviction but at the end of the day it only takes one person to give you a second chance and those people are out there. You certainly have to work harder to sell yourself and you will definitely hit some brick walls along the way. You might not be able to work in the field you did prior to conviction – look “outside the box”. This might be just the time to go into a new career, train in something new, set up your own business – the possibilities are endless.

Applying with conviction

by Richard, editor, unlock.devchd.com/community

I’m writing in response to Nicola Inge’s article Beyond conviction (DDN, June, page 8). The ‘Ban the Box’ campaign is an excellent idea and fully supported by online magazine theRecord and our partners at Unlock. The principle behind the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was to break the cycle of offending and re-offending by enabling people with convictions to gain employment, and led to the concept of a spent conviction.

Sadly, with the inception of the CRB, now DBS, this principle suffered a massive setback, and asking about previous convictions at the application stage became commonplace, particularly in health, social care and education – the very services that espouse a progressive approach to rehabilitation. This, in turn, led to people with convictions not even applying for jobs that require a disclosure at the application stage.

The US approach based on the equal opps agenda and its accompanying legislation is well worth emulating in the UK, for all the reasons set out in the article. And, following Gandhi’s famous dictum, it would serve people with convictions, the recovery industry and the wider society well if drug and alcohol treatment services were to ‘be the change they want to see in the world.’
If recovery services were truly committed to equal opps, they would never expect candidates to discuss their offences at interview because this never gives people with convictions the opportunity to present themselves as equal to those without convictions. This differentially discriminates against those from minorities, as mentioned above, and male applicants – often under-represented among the recovery workforce – because they are seven times more likely to have a conviction than females.

There are only three reasons employers ask about convictions on application forms: because they think they ought to, because they intend to use that information to discriminate or because they are just plain nosy. The simple fact is that an employer only needs to know about the criminal record of people they will employ, i.e. the person who emerges as the leading candidate, after the interview stage is complete. There is no need for any employer to elicit or, more seriously, retain information about a person’s criminal record if they are not going to employ them. It is only the successful candidate who ever needs to be asked. The other candidates should be able to exit the recruitment process with their privacy intact. Sadly, this is not the case with any of the treatment service recruitment processes that theRecord is aware of.

Often, employers are also labouring under the illusion that screening for convictions at the application stage is a form of risk assessment. It is not. The absence of a conviction tells you nothing about a person’s honesty or safe conduct, it only tells you that they have never been caught and convicted.

A person with a history of, say, violence or fraud, but who was never caught, can sail through the process untested, while the poor sod convicted of possessing a few grams of weed or stealing a car 20 years ago gets grilled by complete strangers in a powerful position in a non-therapeutic setting. Any therapist will tell you that this can be devastating, even relapse-inducing. Both Unlock and theRecord regularly receive mail and calls from people who’ve been treated in this way only to be told that a stronger candidate got the job, so there was never any need to put them through that part of the interview because their record was never actually relevant to the employer. And even when they are successful, they are often then faced with working alongside people to whom they have disclosed their convictions – the people who interviewed them. It might be better if such disclosures are only ever made to HR and passed to senior management, not colleagues, because you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

So, if recovery employers want to offer an equal opportunity and run a safe and legal service, there are just three things they need to do. Firstly, ask only the prime candidate about previous convictions. Secondly, follow that up with the appropriate level of DBS check and, thirdly, risk assess that candidate regardless of whether they have a conviction or not. There are several psychometric tests that can be used for this in consultation with a suitably qualified psychologist. If their favourite candidate proves risky, then move on to the next. It would also be very helpful if employers would state at the application stage which level of DBS check is required for that specific post. This would give the candidate an informed choice whether to proceed with an application or not.

This article was originally published in the July 2014 edition of Drink and Drug News.

A glass ceiling? Good enough for a job, but not for a promotion

by Mary

In November 2009 I was dismissed from the post of a Council Principal Librarian. Although I had had an unblemished professional record since 1975, I became the victim of bullying and harassment by a jealous colleague who was acting up in the role of head of service. I was accused of having books at home that I hadn’t issued – books which I was using for work purposes to prepare for family learning outreach service. The Council took out a private prosecution against me and, on the advice of my solicitor, I fought this unfair prosecution and insisted on fighting it through to Crown Court. But I was convicted of Fraud and Theft in January 2010. I was dismissed from my post two months before this verdict.

I spent 3 years trying to gain employment, but had several offers retracted when the Council sent in a bad, damning reference. I made prospective employers fully aware of my background and the circumstances of my conviction. In the light of my explanation and excellent references from previous employers, and an account of my court case, I was offered my current job as a Librarian by a local Trust in July 2012. I have been praised for my performance in my job and have received straight ‘A’s in my assessments.

About 6 weeks after I started, I received a telephone call from a reporter who told me that they had received an anonymous letter about my conviction. This can only have come from someone at my previous employers, the Council. I know this because the letter contained information that only the Council’s HR Dept. knew. The newspaper published an article, which was an exact reprint of what had appeared in the local press at the time of my conviction and about which I had made my current employer fully aware.

I was mortified by this article but, at the time, my employing Trust were supportive. My boss briefed our Press Office about the issue and gave out a statement saying that they are an equal opportunities employer and had considered all of the facts when they appointed me. They also offered me counselling. The only feedback the paper received about the article was very positive for the council, saying that it was to their credit that they had given me a chance. They could easily have fired me, but they didn’t.

Then, in June 2013, because things seemed to be going so well, I applied for promotion. But my application was rejected outright, without the chance of an interview, purely because my conviction was unspent. I was told by the Chief Executive that my application was by far the best they had received, but I was also told that I would be an embarrassment to the Trust and that I couldn’t be trusted.

I’m an honest and hardworking person, and I have proved it. My conviction, for taking books home to work on, was purely driven by malice. The Police weren’t interested. It was a personal vendetta continued with anonymous letters to the press. As a result, I have a permanent record for dishonesty and have hit a ‘glass ceiling’ where I cannot progress in my career as a result of an unspent conviction.