Category Archives: Disclosure

Should companies get tax breaks if they Recruit With Conviction?

ban the box, Disclosure

Recruit With Conviction aims to smooth the path to suitable, safe and sustainable employment for people with convictions – anything which improves the limited number of available jobs is worth considering.

Our first principle is that all employers should recruit the right person, for the job regardless of unrelated criminal convictions. We know that experience of prison has an exponentially close correlation with long-term poverty, low pay and unemployment and this traps people into criminal lifestyles, however this is nuanced and complex.

The failure of employers to recruit people after prison creates a glut of talent and there are employers which already choose to cherry-pick the best talent from prison and they are amply rewarded with outstanding staff. These employers take a commercial perspective and recruit the people who would be most likely to get a job. The benefit to society of recruiting directly from prison is that the individual gets a job sooner than they would normally. They are forward looking, efficient and socially aware businesses and we need more of these companies.

However, financially rewarding companies for “recruiting with conviction” would only have a marginal effect in encouraging more employers. We just need more employers to understand the merits of employing people with convictions better – for their commercial contributions rather than for state aid. Such an incentive scheme suggests that there is something wrong with recruiting people from prison and undermines the positive message. It also rewards some companies for simply recruiting the best people.

Bad recruiters adopt bias attitudes against people with convictions and will reject the right person for the job if they have convictions. Also, many people with convictions deselect themselves from applications where they are asked to disclose. After a bad experience of disclosing convictions, many people convince themselves that their convictions make them unemployable. The truth is that people tend to disclose poorly unless they are supported to do so.

A conviction is like taking a turd to work and people tend to attempt to polish the turd rather than focus on the changes they have made to their lives. Everybody knows that you can’t polish a turd and nobody wants to disclose a criminal conviction. Where disclosure is effective and honest, employers are more likely to recruit with conviction.

As stated above, the problem is nuanced and complex and it requires an evidenced solution – there does not appear to be evidence that a tax-break would work. On a practical level, no good employer would be motivated to recruit someone they perceive to be the wrong candidate because they were given a tax-break to do so. It is the employer’s perception about people with convictions which is wrong, not the level of tax that they have to pay. Our experience of employer recruitment incentives suggests that the commercial sector will always recruit the person who they perceive to be the best and then seek any incentive as a bonus. The incentives do not drive better recruitment behaviour though but deploying ban the box and training recruiters does.

While some people leave prison with the skills that employers want, other people leaving prison don’t have these skills. There needs to be a space in the labour market for them too, so that they can build skills on the job and earn a living wage at the same time. Tax-breaks for employers will not help them.

A blanket approach to tax-breaks sounds simple but if there was a few million pounds to invest, a more logical approach would be to focus this investment in labour market initiatives where social enterprises employ people with convictions. Social enterprises can balance their employment within a context of social good rather than for commercial gain. The social investments in these companies can be creative to achieve maximum gains for people with convictions. They can employ people with convictions who need to build their skills, in real life working environments before they move on.

There are a number of Recruit With Conviction partners such as Freedom Unlimited which uses the “made with conviction” brand. Braveheart Industries, All Cleaned Up and Freedom Bakery. Government investments in these enterprises would be a much better use of money than tax breaks for the corporates. There may be circumstances where payments could be made to commercial companies if they are incurring costs for recruiting people from prison but this needs to be part of a wider solution.

Government spending is always about choice and with ever decreasing budgets Government choices must be wise. If Westminster adopts tax-breaks, Recruit With Conviction will request that the Scottish Government deploys a solution which matches evidence rather than headlines. Our long standing experience of economic development relating to people with convictions suggest that tax breaks would be a white elephant.

We need strong political leaders who promote the concepts of rehabilitation to build trust in the readiness of people for employment when they leave prison.

There are however some other good ideas contained within the wider report on the following link:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2015/support-for-ex-offenders-report-published-16-17/

 

Disproportionate criminal record scheme in England and Wales is unlawful

Blog Posts, Disclosure, Recruitment, , , , ,

22 January 2016

Today, the High Court ruled that excessive disclosure of minor historical criminal convictions in England and Wales is unlawful under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life.

The filtering system used by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in England and Wales only allows the filtering of one minor conviction for higher level disclosure checks (for jobs which are not protected under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act) after a number of years.

In Scotland new provisions to create protected convictions were implemented on 10 September 2015.  http://recruitwithconviction.org.uk/protected_convictions_in_scotland/ The Scottish system permits more than 1 minor conviction to be removed from higher level checks after a number of years as well as an appeals process. The failure of the DBS system to filter more than one conviction or allow an appeal, appears to be the basis of the legal challenge.

Why protect more than one conviction? Quite simply, there is no evidence that minor historic convictions link to current offending behaviour but there is significant evidence to show that minor historical convictions are linked with low pay and unemployment in the long term.

This is particularly true for women with convictions, where their median income is less than half the median income of a 24 year old, eight years after their conviction. This is excessive in comparison to the gender pay gap.

When convictions combine with protected characteristics then recruiters and selectors often have to overcome their unconscious bias  about “someone who does not look like me or sound like me”. Throwing historical convictions into the mix, allows selectors to reinforce or justify stereotyping and it has a multiplying effect of disadvantage.

The more often that a person receives or perceives discrimination, the more likely they are to mistrust disclosure processes and deselect themselves from opportunities in the future.

People with convictions become anxious about disclosing to anyone and surely after a number of years they have a right to privacy about their past.

In practical terms, nothing has changed in England and Wales yet and the Government can still appeal against the ruling.

See also

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/disproportionate-criminal-records-disclosure-scheme-declared

 

Protected Convictions Scotland Consultation

Disclosure, Uncategorized,

Recruit WIth Conviction responds to the Consultation on the Police Act 1997 and the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 remedial order 2015

QUESTION 1

Do you have any views/observations on this Order?

Comment

This amendment will give confidence to potentially hundreds of thousands of people to take up volunteering with vulnerable groups or apply for work as a taxi driver, traffic warden, care worker or a host of other professions, however new practical problems have arisen.

New Practical Problems

People with convictions will not know if convictions are protected and recruiters tend to view any non-disclosure as a breach of trust, so a new catch22 situation has arisen.

After such long periods of time, it is unlikely that anyone will remember enough details about convictions to be confident whether or not it will be protected. Working this out is quite complex and citizens will be concerned about getting it wrong.

Protected convictions are now within the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This creates problems for employers who can now unwittingly discriminate against an applicant who discloses a protected conviction. While guidance from Disclosure Scotland will ease some of these problems a number of solutions are still required.

Conviction Disclosure Anxiety

Conviction disclosure anxiety (CDA) is a natural response when someone is asked about their criminal convictions. Negative previous experiences of disclosure, toxic sounding conviction labels and high aspirations tend to heighten the problem. The resulting avoidance behaviour is not exclusive to serious offending histories.  In fact CDA is surprisingly common across most of the 1 in 3 men and 1 in 10 women who have a conviction marked on the Scottish Criminal History System.

Specialist services exist which support people to overcome CDA and teach applicants how to disclose appropriately. However resources for these services are increasingly tight and they tend to be directed towards a very small number of individuals with serious of persistent offending histories rather that the majority of people with convictions.

Appeal Process

An appeal process now exists, where spent convictions which are eligible for protection but have not yet passed the time period for protection.  A letter will be sent to the applicant before disclosing to their employer. It will offer them an option to either appeal to a sheriff or allow Disclosure Scotland to send the certificate on to the employer. The sheriff will then decide if the conviction is relevant to the job and can remove the conviction from the certificate. It is right that this should continue, however this process should ideally be picked up before a recruitment process begins to avoid delays for recruiters and applicants and a more general mechanism to remove unprotected convictions may be more practical. The SSSC has designed an effective process for fitness to practice and this may be a more practical mechanism and this is combined with more knowledge of regulated work compared to a sheriff.

 Required Solutions

A properly resourced dissemination framework

There is an extreme deficit in knowledge about disclosure on the part of career advisors, jobcentre plus staff, employability workers and other professionals who may support applicants.

Providing guidance on the existing Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 algorithms and practical advocacy for disclosure and overcoming Conviction Disclosure Anxiety, is largely regarded as “someone else’s responsibility” – probably someone in the criminal justice system.  This mindset needs changed and the knowledge needs to be shared so that what, why, when and how to disclose convictions becomes a core skill-set of all professionals who provide employability support.

Recruit With Conviction disseminate information to employers and relevant advisers, however our work is limited by funding only from our commercial activities and re-investments. This barely scratches the surface of the problem and a funded mechanism to cascade this information should be a priority.

Employers who use higher level conviction disclosure information also need to be aware of the regulation and how they need to reframe the way they ask for conviction disclosure and reconsider the way that they handle disclosure of protected convictions so that they comply with data protection requirements.

Free on-demand access to criminal history information

Currently a citizen can only confirm the details of their criminal history by applying for a Subject Access Request to Police Scotland. This costs £10, requires copies of identification to be sent and has a turnaround period of up to 40 days. This significantly interferes with job search and still requires specialist intervention to figure out spent/unspent/protected markers.

Having spoken to police officers, Recruit With Conviction understands that this process could be easily administered at any open police station.

If Disclosure Scotland algorithms were also applied to the Police system, then each conviction could also be marked as unspent, spent-unprotected or spent-protected on a print out for the citizen.

Given the correlation of poverty and minor criminal convictions, we also believe that the £10 charge is somewhat excessive for a citizen to find out critical information which affects their opportunity to compete for employment.

 

A Disclosure Helpline

While Disclosure Scotland provides excellent technical advice through its helpline, there are a range of nuances for both employers and applicants that could be smoothed through practical support and a knowledgebase of good practice relating to intersecting problems.

Funding for Apex Scotland’s Disclosure Helpline was ceased some time ago and a void exists in the availability of such support. The MOJ support similar services for citizens in England and Wales and they are provided by NACRO and Unlock.

We recommend the resumption of a Scottish disclosure helpline with a remit to support citizens and employers. Apex Scotland and Recruit With Conviction would be happy to collaborate in providing such a service.

In most cases, a web-portal of information would be largely ineffective because the emotional needs relating to conviction disclosure anxiety are interwoven with complexities around simply what needs disclosed and when. Often individuals who seek support have not discussed their criminal conviction with anybody for years and may have never shared the information with their close family.

 

 

QUESTION 2

In relation to the Equality Impact Assessment, please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative; you feel the amendments to legislation in this consultation document may have on any particular groups of people?

Comment

If communicated effectively, the right to withhold disclosure of protected convictions will have significantly positive impacts on people with convictions.

One third of men and one tenth of women in Scotland are labelled with a conviction marker and evidence from the MOJ/ DWP/ HMRC data joining project shows that even minor convictions have a long term negative impact on low pay and unemployment. Eight years after any conviction the median wage of people with convictions is around two thirds of the median wage of 24 year olds and conviction labels correlate with deeper deprivation for most minority ethnic groups and while women are significantly less likely to have criminal convictions, the median income of these women is around half the median income of 24 year olds in the UK. Beyond this, the data joining project provides data which suggests that around half of all unemployed people have at least one conviction.

Ongoing action research with a range of stakeholders by Recruit With Conviction consistently finds Conviction Disclosure Anxiety as a principle reason for people to deselect themselves from opportunities which ask for disclosure of convictions on applications. This is particularly true for many parents considering volunteering in school and other groups where their children participate.

Furthermore conscious and unconscious bias (relating to convictions) from selectors is inevitable and despite procedures to mitigate bias, training selectors is required and this self awareness transcends benefits to many other areas of equality.

Unconscious bias also has a multiplying effect where negative stereotypes intersect, for example a criminal record for somebody from a minority ethnic background or a female can be treated more harshly and in most cases a conviction legally be used to deselect that person.

Therefore the removal of clearly irrelevant convictions and communication of these rights will have a significant benefit on many groups.

 

QUESTION 3

 

In relation to the Equality Impact Assessment, please tell us what potential there may be within these amendments to legislation to advance equality of opportunity between different groups and to foster good relations between different groups?

 

Comment

With effective communication the amendments will improve equality of opportunity in regulated work. As described above, they can be particularly helpful for women and people from minority ethnic backgrounds.

However, there is an extreme deficit in knowledge on the part of career advisors, jobcentre plus staff, employability workers and other professionals who may support applicants. This problem and solution is described in more detail in the answer to question 1.

In terms of fostering good relations, the increasing criminalisation of “hate crime” is creating an increasing number of people who have particularly toxic conviction labels for low level offences such as breech of the peace.

This leaves many perpetrators of hate crime with a sense of injustice and inequality rather than the desired effect for improving community relations. Interventions using restorative justice methods as a diversion from prosecution are more likely to contribute towards community cohesion in most cases.

The toxicity of such convictions when disclosed, excludes opportunities, damages community relations and heightens perceptions of injustice. Consideration should be given to ways in which community cohesion can include people with such convictions.

 

 

 

Protected convictions – mitigating new problems

ban the box, Disclosure, Recruitment

Recommendations for discussion from Recruit With Conviction to mitigate new problems relating to the speedy implementation of protected convictions in Scotland.

Background

On 10 September the Scottish Government implemented an amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which means that some minor, historic convictions are now removed from higher level criminal record checks.

This amendment will give confidence to potentially hundreds of thousands of people to take up volunteering with vulnerable groups or apply for work as a taxi driver, care worker or a host of other professions, however new practical problems have arisen.

New Practical Problems

People with convictions will not know if convictions are protected and recruiters tend to view any non-disclosure as a breach of trust, so a new catch22 situation has arisen.

After such long periods of time, it is unlikely that a citizen will remember enough details about convictions to be confident whether or not it will be protected. Working this out is quite complex and citizens will be concerned about getting it wrong.

Protected convictions are now within the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This creates problems for employers who can now discriminate against an applicant who discloses a protected conviction. While guidance from Disclosure Scotland will ease some of these problems a number of solutions are required to mitigate the problem.

Conviction Disclosure Anxiety

Conviction disclosure anxiety (CDA) is a natural response when someone is asked about their criminal convictions. Negative previous experiences of disclosure tend to heighten the problem. The resulting avoidance behaviour is not exclusive to serious offending histories.  In fact CDA is surprisingly common across most of the 1 in 3 men and 1 in 10 women who have a conviction marked on the Scottish Criminal History System. Specialist services exist which support people to overcome CDA and teach applicants how to disclose appropriately. However resources for these services are increasingly tight.

Similarly recruiters also have a set of anxieties and knowledge gaps but the Recruit With Conviction training to employers can only currently be provided as a commercial activity of the organisation.

Appeal Process

An appeal process now exists, where spent convictions which are eligible for protection but have not yet passed the time period for protection.  A letter will be sent to the applicant before disclosing to their employer. It will offer them an option to either appeal to a sheriff or allow Disclosure Scotland to send the certificate on to the employer. The sheriff will then decide if the conviction is relevant to the job and can remove the conviction from the certificate. It is right that this should continue, however this process should ideally be picked up before a recruitment process begins to avoid delays for recruiters and applicants.

Required Solutions

  1. Ban the Box

Implement Ban the Box as a requirement relating to the terms and conditions for employers who use Higher Level Criminal Record checks. This process is promoted by Recruit With Conviction and Business in the Community as well as a range of other UK partners. It means that the earliest time an employer should ask for criminal record disclosure is during after short-listing for interviews, however in this scenario it would relate to questioning an applicant after the disclosure certificate has arrived. This way an applicant will know whether or not they have been rejected on the grounds of their criminal record alone.

  1. Free personal on demand access disclosure information

Currently a citizen can only confirm the details of their criminal history by applying for a Subject Access Request to Police Scotland. This costs £10, requires copies of identification to be sent and has a turnaround period of up to 40 days.

Having spoken to police officers, Recruit With Conviction understands that this process could be easily administered at any open police station.

If Disclosure Scotland algorithms were also applied to the Police system, then each conviction could also be marked as Spent and/or Protected on a print out for the citizen.

Given the correlation of poverty and minor criminal convictions, we also believe that the £10 charge is somewhat excessive  for a citizen to find out critical information which affects their opportunity to compete for employment.

  1. A Disclosure Helpline

While Disclosure Scotland provides excellent technical advice through its helpline, there are a range of nuances for both employers and applicants that could be smoothed through practical support and a knowledgebase of good practice relating to intersecting problems.

Funding for Apex Scotland’s Disclosure Helpline was ceased some time ago and a void exists in the availability of such support. The MOJ support similar services for citizens in England and Wales and they are provided by NACRO and Unlock.

We recommend the resumption of a Scottish disclosure helpline with a remit to support citizens and employers. Apex Scotland and Recruit With Conviction would be happy to collaborate in providing such a service.

For wider information about our views on protected convictions see the link below.

http://recruitwithconviction.org.uk/protected_convictions_in_scotland/

Note also Disclosure Scotland has opened a consultation. See the link below.

https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/disclosure-scotland/protection-of-vulnerable-groups

 

Protected convictions in Scotland

Disclosure, Recruitment

Recruit WIth Conviction welcomes the implementation of “protected convictions” in Scotland on 10 September 2015.

Important new employment protections are to be implemented for people with old, minor convictions in Scotland on 10 September 2015

The first changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 since the Scottish Government summer consultation will create a new class of “protected conviction”. This will protect the rights of many people when they apply for work (paid or voluntary) in posts which are exempt from the 1974 Act.

This change will be implemented through a fast track process to comply with European Convention of Human Rights but further changes to the 1974 Act are expected soon after.

What are Protected Convictions?

Protected convictions are minor historical convictions and they will not be disclosed on a range of Disclosure Scotland certificates, including PVG, Enhanced Disclosures and Standard Disclosures.

Similarly applicants should not be asked to disclose protected convictions during any recruitment process for paid or voluntary employment.

A conviction will only be “protected” if it is spent and categorised as “less serious” and it meets one of the 3 criteria below:

  1. The sentence imposed was admonition or absolute discharge, or the discharge of the referral of a child’s case to a children’s hearing,
  2. The person was under 18 years of age at the time the offence was committed and at least 7 years 6 months have passed since the date of that conviction,
  3. The person was over 18 years of age at the time the offence was committed and at least 15 years have passed since the date of that conviction.

Decisions to not protect convictions will be subject to an appeal process.

Implications for employment and policy

1 in 3 men and 1 in 10 women in Scotland have at least one conviction listed on the Scottish Criminal History System. These convictions are typically minor and historic but they can have a negative long-term impact on individuals. Even minor criminal records correlate with low pay, under-employment and unemployment.

People are commonly embarrassed and anxious about their actions during low points in their lives and avoid applying for work (paid or voluntary) if they are required to disclose historic convictions. Disclosure anxiety is natural but can be worsened by bad experiences and generally people need support to overcome this.

Beyond this, there are ongoing examples where people are disproportionately deselected by overzealous recruitment administrators on the grounds of very historic minor convictions. Similarly recruiters need support to overcome conviction risk anxiety.

In order to provide relevant guidance, all employability workers should have practical knowledge of the following:

  1. The difference between a protected and unprotected conviction and when it is relevant
  2. The difference between a spent and unspent conviction and when it is relevant
  3. How to disclose convictions effectively when it is required
  4. The wider complexities of conviction relevance
  5. How to work out if a conviction is spent or protected

Note: these elements are covered in Apply With Conviction Workshops and wider employability good practice can be woven into events.

In order to comply with legislation and select the right candidate without bias, all recruiters should have a practical knowledge of the following:

  1. Unconscious bias and the difficulty in assessing criminal record information objectively
  2. The difference between a protected and unprotected conviction and when it is relevant
  3. The difference between a spent and unspent conviction and when it is relevant
  4. When and how to ask for criminal record disclosure effectively
  5. How to work out if a conviction is spent or protected

Note: these elements are covered in Recruit With Conviction Workshops and wider recruitment good practice can be woven into workshops.

 Further information

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2015/9780111029329

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34187035

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13654987.Ministers_scramble_to_change_law_over_fears_criminal_record_checks_breach_human_rights/?ref=twtrec

 

Scottish Consultation on reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

ban the box, Blog Posts, Disclosure, , , ,

All of the proposed amendments can be implemented without delay. The original Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was designed as a catch all and passed through parliament in 1974 without an exemptions order for care workers, nurses or taxi drivers etc. etc. etc., so the existing disclosure periods are excessive.

Modern technology including forensic science as well as improved child protection arrangements have allowed the courts to prosecute serious offences more often and to link serial offences more to the same individuals. This has resulted in longer sentencing (due to evidence capture of more crimes) and more appropriate supervision of people with convictions. This would have been impossible in 1974.

With the continuing existence of exclusions and exemptions to the 1974 Act for a wide range of professions and the modern public protection mechanisms from more serious offenders, we broadly agree with all of the proposals to change disclosure periods which have been set out in the proposals.

To allow even shorter and more realistic disclosure periods for most people with convictions would require structural changes within the Act, but we believe that all the proposals are consistent with the requirements for safe and sustainable employment and are suitable as a stop-gap until more robust primary legislation is implemented, which could properly contribute to the rehabilitation of people with convictions.

Further measures to protect and inform employers were implemented in the Police Act (Scotland) 1997, the creation of Disclosure Scotland and the Protecting Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007. Combining the availability of this information and the advances in the internet, there has never been a time in history, when so much criminal record information has been available.

With these existing mechanisms as well as the provisions of MAPPA in the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, the safety nets in the Scottish criminal justice system are robust enough to completely remove criminal record disclosure for work which is not currently defined in the Exclusions and Exemptions Order (Scotland) 2013.

Therefore all convictions could realistically become immediately spent without presenting substantial risk however we concede that the required caveats may be too complex for secondary legislation. This could be unpicked more fully within new primary legislation.

The proposals will allow Scotland to catch up with reforms which were implemented in England and Wales in March 2014. Those reforms are already making a significant contribution to; the performance of welfare to work, tackling poverty, improving public health and promoting a fairer and more equal society in England and Wales.

While these impacts are positive, “rehabilitation” is still omitted from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, in that individuals who have not been reconvicted within their rehabilitation period could not reasonably still be described as ‘offenders’ and even if the proposals are implemented in full, the Act will still offer no protection for people with unspent convictions. This means that the proposals offer no immediate benefit or practical incentive to people when they leave prison.

Therefore we welcome an acknowledgement in this consultation paper that a broader consultation for new primary legislation is still required in Scotland as soon as possible.

The new consultation should seek to develop proposals for the following:
• Primary legislation with a title which is fit for purpose, such as the Opportunity to Compete Bill. The title of the 1974 Act conveys negative messages where citizens returning from prison are called “offenders” and it implies that they are not rehabilitated until considerable time periods have elapsed after their conviction. If disclosure is required then these rehabilitation periods would be better described as disclosure periods.
• A process of removing disclosure periods completely or reducing disclosure periods for more serious offences which is based on engagement in services, evidence of changed behaviour, risk benefits and the development of personal resilience. Within this there should be a presumption that nobody who is released from prison should face a lifetime of “disclosure” (or what is commonly described as a “second sentence”) without a process of appeal.
• A review of the exclusions and exceptions to the 1974 act where there is currently no protection for people from discrimination and stigma over very minor and very old convictions.
• The potential of a well designed quota based system where some employers would be required to employ people with unspent convictions. While quota systems are controversial and potentially beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament, this avenue should at least be open for discussion.
• A requirement for all recruiters (in receipt of disclosure information) to be properly trained to make proportionate decisions and for those recruiters to be empowered and authorised to select a person with a conviction or convictions if they are the right person for the job.
• A right for employers to be supported in risk assessment.
• Measures to consider mitigation of the “Google effect” where failure to ask about criminal history is not the same as avoiding discrimination as well as the complications in managing the confidentiality of spent convictions.
• Addressing the knowledge gap among many key workers about effective pathways to employment for people with convictions.
• Ensuring that all citizens have free, available and accessible information about what and when they need to disclose about their convictions for the purpose of employment. This should include the ability to undertake a check for the purposes of PVG prior to applying for a vocational course for “regulated work”.
• Implementation of Ban the Box processes where any disclosure requirements for the purposes of employment are delayed until after an individual has been selected for interview.
• A statutory right for people with convictions to access specialist support for enhancing skills and finding work which is tailored to their hopes and plans.
• A common sense approach to disclosure of convictions for breaches whereby the current proposals still create disclosure time spans which are excessive.
• Inconsistencies in the information available to employers based on which part of the world that an individual committed their crime. There is no evidence of any risk to employers created by the shortage of criminal history information on foreign nationals.

  • Additionally new legislation should seek to specifically find solutions for criminal records intersecting other employment barriers because the stigma of criminal convictions can be worsened for women, people from minority ethnic backgrounds and when the conviction intersects mental health problems. Similarly, conviction labels which include terms such as “racially aggravated” or “domestic” or relate to sex-offending, significantly impede opportunities to compete, even if they are minor offences and sentenced lightly.

This list is by no means exhaustive but highlights some of the limitations to the structure of the 1974 Act to support rehabilitation.

New legislation which supports people with convictions to find and keep meaningful employment, would undoubtedly make critical contributions to Scottish Government policy objectives for health inequalities, diversity, inclusion, poverty, economic development and welfare to work, as well as reducing re-offending.

Findings from Recruit With Conviction action research workshops show that disclosure of even minor criminal conviction can escalate anxiety in the mind of recruiters and this often leads to unfair and unreasonable de-selection. Similarly people with minor convictions often adopt avoidance behaviours when confronted with questions about criminal record disclosure and seek employment in situations where they are not asked, therefore diminishing their own opportunities for suitable employment.

Criminal convictions are most likely to statistically impact male unemployment and by comparing male unemployment trends between Scotland and rUK since the implementation of changes to the Act in rUK, we hope to illustrate potential impacts of reforming the Act.

This graph which was created using data from ONS. It shows a clear trend of Scotland performing ahead of the UK for male unemployment until March 2014 and then lagging behind after Westminster reduced disclosure requirements in England and Wales. This is interesting because it is consistent with Recruit With Conviction findings. Men are 3 times more likely to have a criminal conviction than women and convictions correlate much more closely with unemployed people.

graph
graph

Reports (1) on 31 May 2015 show that Scotland has the lowest female unemployment rate in Europe.

Using big social data like this creates risks for bad social science because causality is rarely able to be defined in correlations. So while this graph neatly illustrates a point, the qualitative evidence and the logic is more compelling and we accept that there are always many competing factors and the policies of targeting resources for female employment in Scotland is another likely contributing factor to the performance of men and women in the Scottish labour market.

It should be noted that while females with criminal convictions are less statistically significant, criminal conviction disclosure for woman is even more stigmatising and previous convictions have greater impact in the labour market for women individually.

(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-32950469

Recruit With Conviction promotes safe and sustainable employment for people with criminal convictions by working with employers and employability specialists in workshops and ambassador networks. Each workshop aims to both disseminate information as well as inform the knowledgebase about effective practice.

While workshop participants start off with varying degrees of understanding, we strive to respect feelings of participants but challenge misconceived perceptions and promote equality, diversity and inclusion by threading through understanding of unconscious bias about other barriers to employment which are faced by our most vulnerable friends and neighbours.

Please take the time and make your response to the consultation which is available on the link http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/05/5592

Welfare to Work and Reforming ROA1974 in Scotland

Blog Posts, Disclosure, Recruitment, , ,

In March 2014 the UK Government implemented new employment rights to people with criminal convictions by reducing the length of time until most convictions are deemed spent. These changes covered England and Wales only. The consultation to change this legislation was launched in Scotland on 20th May 2015.

Findings from Recruit With Conviction action research workshops show that disclosure of even minor criminal conviction can escalate anxiety in the mind of recruiters and this often leads to unfair and unreasonable de-selection. Similarly people with minor convictions often adopt avoidance behaviours when confronted with questions about criminal record disclosure and seek employment in situations where they are not asked, therefore diminishing their own opportunities for suitable employment.

By comparing unemployment trends between Scotland and the UK we hope to illustrate this point.

graph
graph

This graph which was created using data from ONS. It shows a clear trend of Scotland performing ahead of the UK for male unemployment until March 2014 and then lagging behind after Westminster reduced disclosure requirements in England and Wales. This is interesting because it is consistent with Recruit With Conviction findings. Men are 3 times more likely to have a criminal conviction than women and convictions correlate much more closely with unemployed people.
Reports (1) on 31 May 2015 show that Scotland has the lowest female unemployment rate in Europe.

Using big social data like this creates risks for bad social science because causality is rarely able to be defined in correlations. So while this graph neatly illustrates a point the qualitative evidence and the logic is more compelling. There are always many competing factors and the policies of targeting resources for female employment in Scotland is another likely contributing factor to the performance of men and women in the Scottish labour market.

It should be noted that while females with criminal convictions are less statistically significant, criminal conviction disclosure for woman is even more stigmatising and previous convictions have greater impact in the labour market for women individually.

(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-32950469

Reforming ROA 1974 – An Opportunity to Compete

Disclosure, Recruitment, , , ,

Further delays to reforming the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in Scotland would restrict the effectiveness of government policies on welfare to work, diversity, health and reducing re-offending .

The news on 20 May 2015 that the Scottish Government are consulting on proposals to change this is very welcome. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32800432

Recruit With Conviction employer workshops consistently uncover bias when convictions are disclosed to recruiters. The employer workshops also show that recruiters need both empowerment and authorisation to select applicants who disclose their criminal convictions.

However, employers should be at the heart of designing safe and sustainable employment solutions, so we warmly welcome this approach by the Scottish Government to listen to the voices of the business community.

Beyond this, minor criminal convictions commonly correlate with long term unemployment and poverty – clearing minor convictions faster is a pragmatic solution to help more people find work and stay in work.

Changes to the 1974 Act were implemented in England and Wales on 10th March 2014. They generally shorten the length of time that convictions can be considered for the purpose of recruitment for most jobs.

The changes helped Tracy from Wigan. She was arrested for holding a small quantity of drugs at a music festival and fined £300 in court in April 2013 when she was a student.

Under the changes to the legislation in England and Wales, fines normally become spent after 1 year which was great for Tracy. She graduated in June 2014 and so she had full protection from discrimination on the grounds of her conviction when she applied for work.

However if Tracy had applied for a job in Scotland, then she would need to disclose this conviction for 4 more years under the terms of the 1974 Act.

1 in 3 men and 1 in 10 women of working have a criminal conviction and even minor historic convictions correlate with unemployment, underemployment and low pay as applicants gravitate to less formal employment where conviction information is not requested by employers.

Therefore reforming the 1974 Act will support the wider welfare to work strategy.

There is also a correlation with minor offences and poverty so the criminal conviction issue is a more common barrier to finding work for people in the poorest communities. To compound the problem, areas of high unemployment and deprivation make the dynamics of local labour market favour employers rather than applicants. Our experience of working with employers in different areas has demonstrated examples where more employers in Aberdeen are better prepared to accept people with complex convictions. In sharp contrast there are employers in North Ayrshire who use criminal record disclosures as an automatic de-selection tool because they receive too many applications.  Dr Colin Lindsay at Strathclyde University has also undertaken research which shows that employers deploy more diverse recruitment practices in areas of low unemployment.

The problem of de-selection also relates to spent convictions because filtering of minor convictions  do not apply for people with Scottish Convictions. This is a concern for anybody applying for a job which is exempt from the provisions of the 1974 Act. Care work is a common career aspiration and the failure of Scottish disclosure systems to filter out some of the irrelevant convictions causes another specific barrier.

While Tracy from Wigan was never a chaotic drug user, Brad from Liverpool has a history of chaotic drug use and was convicted a number of times for various minor offences. All of his convictions relate to periods of time when his drug use was at its worst.

Recruit With Conviction delivered training to a number of Drugs workers in Merseyside and set out opportunities where changes in the 1974 Act could be used as an incentive in recovery where many individuals have a long history of minor convictions and no prison sentences. With a short rehabilitation period, people in recovery can look forward to an achievable time frame when their record is (sort of) wiped clean. This is very powerful emotionally for people in recovery who harbour a deep sense of guilt about their past and it can be used positively. Of course any recovery plan needs to be personalised to an individual but there are clear opportunities for support workers to help bind things together positively.

Even when Brad had a relapse in August 2014, his support worker was able to establish that he’d not stolen anything and he’d not been arrested so his rehabilitation from the criminal system was still intact. Therefore he was able to refocus on drug recovery without having to start all over again and he has also found employment.

Even minor convictions can be a root cause of anxiety and self doubt present a number of barriers to recovery from addictions and mental health problems.

By enabling opportunities for people to compete for employment, people with convictions are more likely to find the right job.

The right job for the right person is a very effective intervention. It can stop the escalation of minor crime turning into more serious crime and it can also provide a valuable second chance for people with more serious convictions who are liberated from prison.

While core improvements need to be made in employer engagement and in employability support, legislative changes have the potential to make a critical contribution.

Note: In 2013 Recruit With Conviction facilitated a number of stakeholder discussion events on reforming the 1974 Act on behalf of the Scottish Government.

Enforced Subject Access – Practicalities

Disclosure, Recruitment,

Recruit With Conviction warmly welcomes the commencement of the Data Protection Act Section 56, which criminalises the practice of enforced subject access relating to criminal records for the purpose of employment or the provision of services from 10 March 2015.

This is quite distinct from using disclosure certificates appropriately.

In our broad experience of working with employers and employability advisers, we have seen a remarkable decrease in any evidence relating to enforced subject access for the purposes of employment.

While it is ironic that an employer can now pick up a criminal conviction for forcing a job applicant to inappropriately disclose theirs, employers which adopt Recruit With Conviction approaches will have no problems.

We have been discussing this with the Information Commissioner’s Office and there is a broader and more complicated impact for employability advisers. The criminal record subject access information is a valuable tool in the Apply With Conviction approach but advisers will be committing a criminal offence if they ask for it in an inappropriate manner.

Within all Apply With Conviction workshops we highlight the confidentiality of criminal conviction information and the respect with which it should be handled as well as the right use of language to talk about criminal record subject access with service users.

Quite clearly criminal record information is very sensitive. It belongs to the service user and it is their choice to share subject access with anyone. It should always be clear that this is not a condition of participating in a service and is in no way linked to their benefit entitlement.

Extract from Information Commissioner’s Guidance (1)
An individual who requires someone to make a subject access request is committing a criminal offence. This is an offence which can be heard either by a magistrates court or a crown court, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland it will be heard in a sheriff court.

Committing such an offence in England and Wales can carry an unlimited fine, while in Scotland the fine
can be unlimited if heard under solemn procedure or £10,000.

In Northern Ireland, the maximum fine if convicted under a summary offence is £5000, or if convicted on indictment the maximum fine is unlimited (unless expressly limited by statute).

(1) https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1042608/enforced-subject-access-s56.pdf

Widening Access to Education

Blog Posts, Disclosure, News & Views, Uncategorized

The Scottish Government is preparing to set up a commission on widening access to Higher Education which will commence in March 2015. This follows commitments set out by Nicola Sturgeon in “One Scotland – Programme for Government” (1)

Talented children are born into deprivation or privilege without discrimination but adversity and opportunity for children are grossly uneven. The correlation between criminal histories and deprivation is therefore unsurprising.

There is a clear research gap regarding the extent to which criminal records are a barrier to Further or Higher Education and the commission on widening access should investigate this important factor as part of its remit. Full-time study is also an opportunity to create the conditions to stop offending and to put the cushion of time between convictions and applying for work.

1 in 10 women and 1 in 3 men in Scotland have a criminal record so this is not a marginal issue and our poorest neighbourhoods have a much greater density of people with convictions than the Scottish averages presented above.

While barriers to wider access are broader and more complex than one issue, quite simply any inclusion strategy is incomplete unless it considers the impact of previous convictions.

There are 2 distinct avenues which the commission should explore regarding barriers for people with convictions.

  1. The extent to which people with convictions are excluded by further or higher education institutions. (Criminal convictions with certain labels such as, fire-raising, hate crimes and sexual offences are particularly difficult to consider objectively and anecdotal evidence of very good practice and very poor practice in admissions has been presented)
  2. The extent to which people with convictions, deselect themselves from Further or Higher Education because they anticipate discrimination over their conviction or they deselect themselves due to anxiety about discussing their past. (Self de-selection is common when recruiters  request criminal history disclosure for employment)

While the commission has an opportunity to develop a strategic response, Recruit With Conviction seeks a more practical role through the development of academic circles of influence  in Scotland, comprising people who are interested in either of the following areas:

  • Improving the access to study for people with convictions.
  • Improving opportunities for employment or work placements for people with convictions in education institutions and their supply chains – Ultimately improved diversity in recruitment can support wider cultural changes in admissions.

If this appeals to you and you work in Further or Higher Education, then please sign up to the circle of influence on the following link

http://recruitwithconviction.org.uk/universal-universities/

 

(1) One Scotland – Programme for Government  http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/11/6336/5