Category Archives: Disclosure

Ched Evans

Should a person who has been convicted of rape, be allowed to work in a very high profile position where he is adulated by impressionable young people?

The publicity of the Evans conviction has highlighted some of the legal issues about sexual consent to a wider audience and hopefully this will result in some constructive debate and improved attitudes towards sexual violence. Any contribution to reduce sexual violence needs careful consideration.

Reducing crime fundamentally improves our quality of life and sustained employment is the single most important factor in reducing re-offending.

While employment empowers positive change the Ched Evans case has complicated cause and effect implications. If Ched Evans’ returns to professional football, would this represent acceptance or normalisation of sexual violence?

We don’t know for sure but vile threats towards Jessica Ennis-Hill after her intervention suggest that there is some merit to this argument but is Ched Evans responsible for the comments and attitudes of others? He has never publicly promoted sexual violence as a means of response to disagreement.

Evans’ return to football would have been smoother, if he had demonstrated reform and remorse but instead he has chosen to appeal his conviction. For the time being, he is a convicted rapist but his co-defendant is not. The behaviour of both men on that night was fundamentally wrong and we have a wider challenge to improve the attitude of some young men towards women more generally.
Taking responsibility is a critical component for safe and sustainable employment in the Apply With Conviction and Recruit With Conviction models. Failure to take responsibility can occur if an individual is in denial and genuinely fails to understand the consequences of their behaviour. This is intrinsically linked with self preservation. More rarely, it is the result of a miscarriage of justice but that is a matter for the courts – not intuitive beliefs based on one side of an argument.

If Evans wins his appeal then public knowledge of what really went on that night will not change much but he will be relabelled from a rapist to a victim in a miscarriage of justice. In reality those words are hollow but similarly other terms like “offender” or “murderer” mask many other truths.

Ched Evans is a footballer, he has a talent for football that is rare and is perhaps only found in 1 in every 100,000 people or more. But what does it say about our society if we seek moral guidance from somebody on the grounds of their wealth or ability to kick a ball rather than their compassion and decency?

He has been convicted of a serious crime and served his prison time. Banishing him from his profession and denying him the opportunity to compete for work is an understandable moral gut reaction. After all, rape is a disgusting behaviour. However, Evans is now one of the most vilified and marginalised people in our society. He is a national figure of hate but he is also a human being with many perfections and imperfections. So while our gut reaction is to repulse against vile behaviour, a sound analysis of the facts suggests that our society is better served by stopping the hatred and letting him work. If Ched Evans and others like him are allowed to fulfil their potential and develop compassion, rather than get angry, self destruct and harm other people, then the world will be a slightly better place.

Employment is widely used to support rehabilitative processes across a broad spectrum of problems which affect human beings. This includes criminality, addictions and mental health issues. With a little creativity and collaboration, rather than witch-hunts and tribal fighting then great outcomes can be achieved. A football club could work with Evans, his probation officers and others so that this young man can develop positively, perhaps donate a significant proportion of his large salary to charity and play the beautiful game.

Jobs for people with convictions? – A public policy result!

Changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in March 2014 for England & Wales have made a critical contribution to the latest fall in UK unemployment. We cannot quantify this without further robust research but here are a few interesting facts to consider:

  • 4.3 million people with convictions in England & Wales represented 28% of all people claiming Job Seekers Allowance in the UK according to the MOJ data joining report published in January 2014 (1)
  • The 1974 Act improvements in March 2014, have removed the requirement to disclose convictions for the purposes of most employment – for potentially about 1.8 million people according to research from UNLOCK. (2)
  • The unemployment drop is strangely paralleled with a drop in wages – a fact which defies Labour Market logic
  • The labour market recovery in the rest of the UK has caught up with the labour market recovery in Scotland – both now sit at 6.4 % but Scottish changes to the 1974 Act are still under review. (3)

While there are many more factors which impact labour markets such as sanctions and conditionality to benefits and wider economic growth, the drop in unemployment is a success and the 1974 Act changes will have contributed.

The 1974 Act changes should now lay a pathway for other difficult political justice decisions which are sensible but counter the populist prattle of Mail, Express et. al. For example,

  • Delivering on promises to reduce short term prison disposals
  • Implementing radical reforms to the 1974 Act in Scotland more hastily and making further improvements to the act in England and Wales. See UNLOCK’s proposals (4)
  • Properly funding community justice
  • Making prison less harmful to vulnerable prisoners
  • Providing throughcare services which best support recovery from incarceration
  • Supporting services like Recruit with Conviction to help change recruitment cultures to open up job markets for people with convictions and engage community conversations about criminal justice which are better informed than frighten, flog and f*** the consequences.

Of course some of this is already being achieved but the successful results of changing the 1974 Act, gives a strong mandate for even more common sense!






Scottish colleague update

Dear colleague,

On 10th March 2014, the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will be revolutionised in England and Wales. Up to 1.5 million people every year will no longer have to disclose their convictions for most jobs.

These changes will not apply in Scotland and it is important that advisers are very clear about this. Incorrect advice can significantly obstruct job opportunities. For example, over-disclosure of convictions when there is no requirement or in this instance under-disclosure which can be as obstructive.

From research in England, we believe that around 45% of people claiming JSA have a criminal conviction (excluding driving endorsements) so this is a mainstream issue – but sometimes specialist support is required.

Recruit With Conviction Ltd is the not for profit organisation committed to promoting safe, effective and sustainable employment for people with convictions. Please note that we do not deliver direct services to individuals and if specialist support is required then you should make an appropriate referral to your local specialist service. e.g. Apex Scotland, Access to Industry or JCP Disclosure Service in the West of Scotland.

The Scottish Government is working to develop a unique solution for Scotland. We along with a number of additional partners are supporting this work but no changes are imminent.

For more information about the employment of people with convictions and training for advisers and employers, please see our website

We would be grateful if you could forward this information to colleagues.

Richard, Roger & Dughall.

Directors Recruit With Conviction Ltd

Reform The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in Scotland

The name of the 1974 Act as it stands is an oxymoron in that it neither supports “offenders” nor “rehabilitation”. The extreme length of time before convictions become spent mean that no fair minded person could reasonably describe somebody with a spent conviction as an “offender”.

The 1974 Act currently provides no incentive for rehabilitation because convictions become spent automatically, regardless of an individual’s effort to change their lifestyle more quickly.

By excluding prison sentences of over 30 months, the 1974 Act also fails to recognise the human capacity for reform.

The inflexible “rehabilitation periods” which would be better described as “disclosure periods” are defined only by the court disposal. While the refinements laid out in LASPO 2012 by Westminster are an improvement, they miss the opportunity to provide incentives for reform, rehabilitation and compliance.

LASPO 2012 should be implemented for retrospective offences in Scotland, however the disposal is a very blunt instrument for defining “disclosure periods”.

“Disclosure periods” should be defined the time of sentencing by using LASPO as a guide and adding conditions for completing orders, paying fines and engaging in rehabilitation activities. Additionally a large number of “one-off” summary offences which have no employment relevance should become immediately spent on the proviso that they are a “one-off”. They should also be filtered from any disclosure for positions covered by the 2013 Order.

Similarly for prison sentences where longer “disclosure periods” are defined, the requirement to disclose should be linked with behavioural compliance in prison and be subject to appeal.

The 1974 Act has not accounted for changes in labour demand, recruitment methods, sentence inflation and increased availability of information about criminal histories during the 40 years since inception. While significant improvements have been made to legislation to protect vulnerable groups, the impact of having a conviction labelled as “racially aggravated”, “indecent”, “sexual” or “fire-raising”, exponentially diminish employment opportunities when compared against other convictions with similar disposals or similar risks to an employer.

The decline of manufacturing sectors with unionised protection has changed workplace dynamics and the modern employment landscape dominated by the service sector, has made recruiters more precious about brand. This in turn increases “conviction stereotype anxiety” among recruiters who are typically not trained, empowered or authorised to “recruit with conviction”.

Although Recruit With Conviction promotes honest disclosure processes, the availability of information legislated in the Police Act 1997 and PVG compounds the problem on a practical level. In particular Disclosure Scotland certificates give no contextual information and employers are left to decipher offences and disposals to corroborate a personal letter of disclosure from the individual. This is a burden for employers. Availability of information on the internet has also impacted negatively.

People with convictions have traditionally down-traded their skills and undertaken voluntary work in order to secure employment but current high unemployment has increased competition for such work. The requirement to disclose convictions creates an inequality of opportunity for local people seeking local jobs when competing with economic migrants for whom criminal record histories are less readily available. In contrast, the opportunity for Scots with convictions to escape their past by relocating to London or elsewhere in the UK has been hindered by the Police Act 1997 and the Internet.

Only a small minority of those labelled as “offenders” by the 1974 Act have served a custodial sentence, however parallel statistics from England and Wales (through a MoJ and DWP data linkage project in 2011) show that while 13% of prisoners were in P45 employment in the month before prison, only 5% were in P45 employment in the month after prison. Other evidence shows that most former prisoners, who find work, return to their previous employers. Those who are successful in finding employment, achieve this through their own networks of friends and family, rather than applying for them on the open job market.

The difficulty of finding work in the regular economy underpins labour supply in the illegal labour market which propagates organised crime and abuse by unscrupulous employers such as paying under minimum wage, non-compliance with other employment rights as well as the obvious tax evasion it supports.

Given that approximately 11,000 people were liberated by SPS last year, and that the DWP’s flagship universal work programme has sustained only 80 former prisoners into employment in Scotland (Work programme cumulative job outcomes in Scotland to September 2013), it is a minor miracle that a third of prisoners manage to avoid returning to custody in the 2 years after release, rather than a surprise that 2 thirds of them will return to prison.

The well documented “licence to lie” which the 1974 Act authorises, is absurd. It fails to recognise a job applicant wishing to be truthful and an employer seeking honesty. So the protection should include the way in which a question can be reasonably asked. For example “Do you have any unspent criminal convictions?” can be answered more in good faith while “Do you have a criminal record?” creates a potential obstacle the relationship between prospective employee and employer. Many people who have committed crime in their past, move forward by building trust with absolute integrity and truth. If the question is asked in the wrong way, then they can feel pressured to over disclose.

Over disclosure also occurs when information is not available to the individual or employer.

For the new Act to support access to employment opportunities for people with convictions, it needs to be considered and properly integrated into wider employment legislation and good recruitment practice. Recruit With Conviction is partnering a number of UK organisations to implement “Ban the Box” as policy among private sector employers as a code of practice.

“Ban the box” has been legislated for public sector employers in the USA using slightly different variants in different states. By delaying conviction disclosure to later in the recruitment process more people with convictions will get interview practice, more will get the opportunity to explain their convictions in person and ultimately more will get jobs and keep them. “Ban the Box” also removes the poor practice of pre-selection screening where individuals can be deselected automatically on the grounds of unspent convictions, regardless of their irrelevance to the post and before they can outline their employment attributes.

In Scotland, some public sector employers are currently the trailblazers in good practice with some notable exceptions and in many cases policy and practice are poles apart.

The privilege of exemption from the 1974 Act and outlined in the 2013 Order needs further exploration. It is clear that for the vast majority of people with summary convictions, that these offences are no proxy for future risk and disclosure of such convictions is an unnecessary burden and embarrassment for too many individuals.

It is particularly disappointing that employers in justice agencies such as the Scottish Police Service, Scottish Prison Service and Scottish Court Service appear to have a tendency to almost apply blanket bans (if anecdotal information is accurate). This would be an abuse of their privilege to be exempt from the 1974 Act – although not illegal. Justice agencies should be leaders of good practice because they understand risk, would benefit from the resulting improvement in diversity and could become credible ambassadors for the recruit with conviction concept among other employers.

Failure to “recruit with conviction” is a failure to recruit effectively. Like any cohort of people who are marginalised by a label, “people with convictions” are more likely to need additional support in getting employment but also as a cohort they are more likely to include untapped potential as an opportunity for the employer. For the sake of efficiency and diversity in the public sector, the “recruit with conviction” process should be legislated and encouraged throughout the public sector supply chain as a mandatory community benefit clause element.

Other obstructions to “recruiting with conviction” come from sloppy interpretation of guidance from the Financial Services Authority which invokes regulatory recruitment rules on the Finance Sector, CPNI regulations for recruitment in airports, utilities etc. and HMG Baseline Personnel Security Standards which enforce formal vetting processes for reserved civil service appointments and subcontractors in Scotland. Often these vetting processes are not backed up with credible HR strategies and individuals have been denied employment on the grounds on minor and irrelevant summary convictions. Guidance from FSA, CPNI and HMG Baseline Personnel Security Standards do not enforce blanket bans on people with unspent convictions; however there is a tendency for them to be interpreted very conservatively.

By contrast, the guidance for PVG is relatively clear although time periods for clearance and appeal can be excessive for some individuals. In caring and healthcare settings in Scotland, there has been an improvement in realistic assessment on the relevance of criminal records.

Significant reform is required and legislation is only one of the tools to achieve this. While the Recruit With Conviction campaign has been effective in promoting good recruitment and employability practice, the organisation is a social enterprise which is funded through the sale of workshops and has limited resources.

Employability services are also part of this required reform as standards are inconsistent. Too commonly minimum standards of guidance for criminal record relevance are not met and too often individuals start a course of training or study for work which is incompatible with their criminal record or their willingness to disclose it when spent. Advice to over-disclose spent convictions and advice to disclose non-conviction information occurs needlessly. This is partly due to the complexity of the legislation as well as training needs.

Beyond this, specialist employability services for people with more complex offending histories have become marginalised by commissioning which is reliant on bean counting outcomes rather than promoting assets based approaches to quality support. While the right job for the right person at the right employer at the right time is life changing – the wrong job is a bad outcome.

Rehabilitation Reports – What employers want

Employers often say that their main obstacle to Recruiting With Conviction is unknown risk. Employers don’t feel comfortable assessing risk that ex-offenders pose and why should they?

One clear response from a justice professional on this subject, came from Damian Evans, the Governor at HMP Highpoint in Suffolk at a conference organised by Business in the Community in February 2012.

He said that prison staff are the experts in risk assessment and that employers should contact the prison for advice. (or words to that effect)

Recruit With Conviction guide employers to engage with Justice Professionals if they have risk concerns after a disclosure. Employer anxieties are typically disproportionate to the real risk.

Rehabilitation reports would have to be very simple, so the report would contain one of a number of single simple statements written in wording that employers can understand. For example “This person has addressed the root causes of their offending”.

Each rehabilitation report would include a date validity statement to guide employers.

Is it practical? Hold your breath and wait for derision from justice colleagues – but it is what employers want and it may form part of a solution which includes Ban the Box and an application process to remove convictions from the record early when an individual can evidence their progress.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Scotland – The first debate

On 1st October 2013, the Scottish Parliament debated modernising and reforming the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It was the first opportunity in almost 40 years for a meaningful political discussion in Scotland on legislation which could make meaningful changes to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people by giving them an opportunity to compete for jobs.

Recruit With Conviction congratulates the whole parliament for a very
constructive debate on an important issue. There is a tremendous opportunity now to pull together a solution which could make a significant impact on reducing re-offending and welfare to work, as well as improving general recruitment practice to get the right people into the right jobs, regardless of unrelated criminal records.

The televised debate (linked below) provides a useful context.

The Scottish Parliamentary debate on the 1974 Act

Is it time to Ban the Box?

The Directors of Recruit With Conviction are inspired by many people with convictions who have a great aptitude and attitude for work. They have battled shame and stigma because of their history which is commonly mixed with deprivation and desperation. So often, their desires are simple; to “be normal” or to lay more constructive social footprints by working, paying tax and contributing to wider society.

Each person is unique with different family situations, motivations and emotions; however a criminal record is the most stigmatising stereotype. Their talent and abilities make them the right person for so many advertised jobs – yet employers often struggle to deal with disclosure of criminal convictions in a professional manner. Continued unemployment or underemployment is an unjust consequence lasting years beyond the sentence of the court and for many people it’s an immovable object on their path from prison. However, continuing criminal careers is an avenue which is always available. Starting work and stopping crime is not an easy option.

Promoting safe and effective recruitment of people with convictions is the primary goal of Recruit With Conviction and our model of dealing with disclosure supports employers to match the right person for the right job regardless of unrelated criminal convictions. Human Resource specialists tell us that when recruiters are trained to understand their bias towards the criminal record stereotype, then they also become much more aware of their wider bias on the grounds of gender, race or disability and become better recruiters all round.

Good recruitment processes present an opportunity to compete for jobs by removing some barriers before interview. The criminal record tick box on a job application form has absolutely no value without context.

Employers should implement the following:

  1. Consider conviction relevance separately from the applicant’s qualities for the job.
  2. Delay asking for disclosure of convictions until the interview invitation or firewall the disclosure information until then.
  3. Ask for disclosure in a format which helps them understand the relevance and context of the crime and the potential changes the candidates have made.

If more people with convictions are invited to interview, then more of them will be able to put convictions into context and present any positive changes that they have made to their lives.

The process does allow employers to deselect the candidate before interview if the criminal record is very relevant, so that interviews are not meaningless or tokenistic. However the interview is an opportunity for recruiters to look beyond the label and see a human being with talent, energy and also frailties.

Recruit With Conviction diversity training is available for all recruiters and Apply With Conviction training is available for all employability workers.

RecruitWithConviction diversity resource – Using the right terminology

I think you have to judge everything based on your personal taste. And if that means being critical, so be it. I hate political correctness. I absolutely loathe it.
Simon Cowell

Whatever your opinion on political correctness (or Simon Cowell), if you’re like me then you’ll find yourself struggling to find the right term to describe a group of people to maintain your professionalism or convey compassionate intentions effectively.

In my experience there is no group of people more concerned about political correctness than the Human Resources professionals who I work with (gee I hope it’s still OK to refer to HR Pros) and I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked for the politically correct term for ex-offenders or former prisoners.

This article by Ian Glennie is the best use of words that I’ve found to describe that group of people who at some point in the past have been convicted of criminal offences.

The Language of Justice #2: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Service User … Prisoner, Probationer, Beggar Man, Thief.  Follow the link below

Blog: Language of Justice #2.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Usual Suspects

It takes a very good recruiter to really overcome stereotypes and  the picture of ex-offenders which is in the mind of inexperienced recruiters is overtly negative. Most people don’t think of Princess Anne or Stephen Fry.

Here is a more accurate picture that is painted by Zoe from the Greater Manchester Probation Team on Russell Webster’s Blog.

It’s a useful background resource for HR professionals to use in their Diversity Training.

via Russell Webster – The Usual Suspects.

The Right Step Conference: Breaking Down Barriers to Employment

The Right Step Programme has been doing some outstanding work with employers to promote. Here are the details of their conference and a practical tool kit for any employer.

The event was held at the Radisson Blu Hotel, Stansted Airport , Essex. and 140 private, public and third sector oragnisations registered to attend.  At the conference a Toolkit, developed by and for employers, was launched to join the Code of Practice which was published last year.  Also launched were the first twelve of a series of case studies which have been recorded over the course of the project as examples of good practice.

Well done!

Here’s the link for much more detail

The Right Step Conference: Breaking Down Barriers to Employment 

Also excellent video from Chapelfield Shopping Centre Norwich


Enhanced by Zemanta