Category: Employment

One year into the Ban the Box campaign; pioneering employers change their practice, but more must follow their lead

Business in the Community’s Ban the Box campaign, which Unlock actively supports, has reached its one year anniversary. It was launched in October 2013 in response to widespread and costly discrimination against people with convictions who are seeking work.

So far 24 employers, with a combined UK workforce of over 200,000, have committed to support the campaign. They assess jobseekers on their skills and abilities first, taking criminal convictions into account later in the recruitment process. This gives candidates equal opportunity to get to interview based on their competency for a role rather than excluding them because of an unrelated conviction. And employers benefit from a wider pool of diverse talent and contribute towards reducing the estimated £11 billion annual cost of re-offending.

But when 1 in 5 unemployed jobseekers has a criminal conviction, much more must be done to ensure that a tick box approach is not blocking them from work. Ban the Box isn’t about positive discrimination, or removing disclosure altogether. It is the first step that all responsible employers can take to level the playing field for people with convictions whilst still protecting themselves from risk.

“In the last year, we’ve seen real benefits to individuals who are simply trying to do the right thing by getting a job and becoming taxpayers. The employers who have signed up give people with convictions the confidence to apply” said Christopher Stacey, Co-Director of Unlock. “People with convictions simply want a fair chance to provide they’re the best person for the job, and that’s what Ban the Box is all about. And the end result is that employers have the best possible opportunity to recruit the best people. But people with convictions continue to face widespread blanket attitudes by many employers. That’s why, in the year ahead, we’ll be doing to more to encourage employers to support this campaign. We’ll also be doing more to work alongside employers to help them to develop and implement positive recruitment practices.”

“Business has a huge opportunity and responsibility to make the workplace more accessible to ex-offenders that simply want to contribute their skills to society” said Catherine Sermon, Employment Director, Business in the Community. “24 pioneering firms have banned the box and ask about convictions later in the recruitment process – sending the message that they value applicants’ skills and potential over past mistakes. If just 5% of UK private sector employers followed their lead, over a million roles would be more accessible to ex-offenders. Now is the time to dramatically improve the life chances for the huge numbers of people with convictions and make fair consideration of criminal convictions the norm.”

You can find out more information about Unlock’s support for employers here.

Visit www.bitc.org.uk/banthebox for more information about Ban the Box. Follow the campaign at #BantheBoxUK

Have you got a job in a ‘regulated’ role, industry or sector? We’re looking for your examples!

A common message we get from people with convictions is that they think it’s impossible to find (and keep) work in ‘regulated’ roles, industries and sectors.

Likewise, in our work with employers, there are lots of myths from employers, thinking that they can’t employ somebody with a conviction, because their industry or sector is ‘regulated’ in some way.

Technically speaking, there is rarely a rule that prevents people from being employed in a particular role; it’s usually up to the discretion of the employer or regulator, depending on the sector of work.

What are we looking for?

We want to highlight what other people have done, so that this will give confidence to both people with convictions, and employers in particular sectors.

So we’re putting a call-out for examples of individuals who have been employed in some of the common ‘regulated’ industries and sectors. We want to show people that it is possible. We also want to show other employers how they could go about things better by learning from others.

What types of work are we looking at?

We’re looking for people to get in touch with us who have convictions and who have been employed in sectors where it is more common for ‘DBS checks’ to be done. This includes:

Financial services (e.g. FCA-approved roles, banking industry, insurance sector)
Security industry (e.g. working as a doorman)
Legal profession (e.g. solicitors, barristers, paralegals)
Criminal justice system (e.g. probation officer, working in prisons, courts, police)
Health and social care (e.g. NHS, social worker)
Education (e.g. teacher, lecturer)

We’re keen to hear about other examples from other sectors too – the list is potentially endless!

Find out more about what we’re looking for, and how to help, here.

Unlock on BBC Radio West Midlands talking about second chances and employers

Last night we contributed to a discussion on BBC Radio West Midlands, which looked at the case of Natalie Atkinson, and looked at the role of employers in giving people with convictions a second chance.

You can listen to the programme below:

Employers’ access to ‘subject access’ records will become a criminal offence from December 2014

We’ve learnt today that the Ministry of Justice are planning to bring section 56 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 into force on the 1^st December 2014.

There’s more information about this in an update on our Information Hub.

Supreme Court rules that minor cautions and convictions shouldn’t be disclosed on criminal record checks, and the filtering process remains

The Supreme Court has today ruled on a landmark case, referred to as T. The full judgement can be downloaded here: [2014] UKSC 35.The two individuals involved in the case had originally appealed against the decision to disclose details of their criminal records in job applications. The individuals had been issued warnings and cautions several years ago, and while one of them had been a child. They argued that the disclosure of these warnings and cautions on their enhanced criminal record certificates, which preventing them from getting certain employment, violated their ECHR, Article 8 rights for respect for private life.The Court of Appeal had previously held that the criminal record check process as part of the Police Act 1997 was incompatible with Article 8. This led to theGovernment introducing a filtering process in May 2013. Despite this, the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court today unanimously dismissed the appeals against the declaration of incompatibility in relation to the 1997 Act. Although the court did allow the appeal against the declaration by the Court of Appeal that the 1975 Exceptions Order was ultra vires, this is unlikely to have any practical impact, as it’s the first aspect of the appeal, which was dismissed, which has more practical relevance.

The Court said the disclosures in the two cases “were not necessary in a democratic society” and “were not based on any rational assessment of risk”.

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director at Unlock, today said “We welcome today’s decision. The way that criminal record checks have worked in the past were disproportionate and not based on any rational assessment of risk. We were pleased that the Government tried to resolve this by introducing a filtering system in May 2013, and we’re glad that this system will remain in force following this judgement.”

“However, the filtering system doesn’t go far enough. We know from our Helpline that many people with minor cautions and convictions continue to be excluded from the filtering system that the Government set up, simply because they were charged with more than one offence. As a result, in the first 3 months that the filtering system operated, only 15% of people with convictions had a conviction filtered from their record. This means that 85% will continue to have convictions disclosed on standard and enhanced checks for the rest of their lives.”

“We believe that the filtering process must go further. We will be looking at this judgement carefully to look at what can be done to widen the scope of the filtering process to better enable people with convictions to move on positively with their lives once they’ve become law-abiding citizens.”

For a useful legal summary of this case, click here to visit the UKSC Blog.

For more information on the current filtering process that applies to standard and enhanced criminal record checks, click here.

– END –

Notes to editors

1. Press/media

2. Unlock is an independent award-winning charity, providing trusted information, advice and supportfor people with criminal convictions. Our staff and volunteers combine professional training with personal experience to help others overcome the long-term problems that having a conviction can bring. Our knowledge and insight helps us to work with government, employers and others, to change policies and practices to create a fairer and more inclusive society so that people with convictions can move on in their lives.
3. Our website is unlock.devchd.com.

Dealing with criminal convictions – embedding a positive process of disclosure

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director, Unlock comments on the issues discussed in a recent Ban the Box webinar.

Quite rightly, the Ban the Box campaign is focused on a specific issue, that being the tick-box that appears on many job application forms, frightening the life out of somebody who has a criminal record.

Many people with convictions see “the box” and immediately de-select themselves out of the job opportunity, usually because their experiences to date have been ones of rejection whenever they’ve ticked that dreaded box. The obvious result to employers is that you’re missing out on a huge pool of talent, which is why this issue is so important.

But ‘banning the box’ is only one part of the puzzle. What this simple concept allows organisations to do is have a much considered recruitment process that firstly focuses on finding the best person for the job, while also recognising that, as an organisation, you might still need to look at criminal convictions once you have a preferred candidate.

This is something that I know from experience. Having worked with employers for many years, I know that some employers can see the benefit of this issue in principle, but when you begin to try and ‘implement’ this, it’s then that it can feel like it’s getting more complicated. What do we do if somebody discloses a conviction? Are we allowed to employ them? Who do we have to tell?

These are all genuine questions that you have to think about, and often this means looking in the round as to what your policy and process are. If you don’t have either of these, you’ll need to seriously consider getting them.

It’s all about building on the principle of ‘banning the box’ and establishing something that works for your organisation. Ultimately, there’s no one-size-fits-all model. As we heard from Interserve in the a recent Ban the Box webinar, they have developed a policy and process that’s unique to them. We have developed a policy at Unlock which we think sends the kind of message that we want to applicants to hear.

However, no matter how good your policy, if this isn’t embedded within your organisation, it probably won’t work. Policies are only as good as the people that use them. Senior managers, HR colleagues and recruiting managers in particular need to feel equipped to make positive decisions about employing somebody with a conviction. That’s one reason why we provide support to employers, because lots of recruiters have myths about criminal records. They don’t understand what they can and can’t ask for, and don’t understand how to deal on an individual case-by-case basis with people with have convictions.

Ultimately, ‘banning the box’ could easily be meaningless to an organisation, even if they’ve signed up to it. It’s perfectly possible (and a genuine risk for the campaign) for the ‘banning of the box’ to end up simply delaying the rejection of applicants with convictions. In many organisations, this requires a cultural shift away from seeing convictions as a ‘negative’ part of the process, and rather looking at how you can deal with them in a positive, informed way. ‘Banning the box’ is a simple but effective first step on a journey which enables employers to see beyond the label of ‘criminal record’ and see the person for the fantastic employee that they could potentially become.

This blog was originally published on the 10th June 2014 at www.bitc.org.uk . The direct link [accessed 13th June 2014] is http://www.bitc.org.uk/blog/post/dealing-criminal-convictions-embedding-positive-process-disclosure

Second chances and ‘invisible punishment’

We’re featured in an article that has been published on thejusticegap.com website on second chances and ‘invisible punishment’.

People with convictions as trustees – Consultation response by Unlock

Following our recent news about the proposed changes by the Charity Commission, we’ve now submitted our response

As a charity that exists to support the efforts of people with convictions in moving on positively with their lives, and as an organisation which itself has sought to recruit trustees who themselves have convictions, we are concerned about the potential impact of these proposals, as well as being concerned about how the current system operates.

There is a common theme that runs throughout our response – our aim is to ensure that the processes of the Charity Commission work in a way which allows charities the freedom to recruit people as trustees who have unspent convictions, where the charity believes that the individual can fulfil their obligations as a trustee and the charity can show it has taken reasonable steps to protect the interests of the charity.

In addition to drawing on our own experience as an organisation, and the individuals that we’ve worked with, we sought to raise awareness of this consultation amongst organisations that we know keen to have people with convictions involved at a management level within their organisations. In particular, we have worked with Clinks, which is a charity that supports voluntary organisations that work with offenders and their families.

As well as encouraging responses from other organisations, we have included in our response anonymous extracts from the responses that we received, in order to raise awareness of the concerns of other organisations.

Download our response here.

‘Sarah’s Law’ sees 700 people identified

The BBC ran a story about figures they’d obtained about how the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (known as ‘Sarah’s Law) has worked during the pilot.

We contributed to this news piece. You can read the article here.

Webinar for Employers – The Legal Stuff

Today we delivered a webinar in partnership with Business in the Community, titled ‘Ban the Ban – the legal stuff’ where we briefly covered the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Read more about the webinar and download a copy of the slides.