|
||
|
| |
Formerly Mad, Bad or Sad? |
| |
|
||
|
||
|
| |
Formerly Mad, Bad or Sad? |
| |
|
||
Any Job You Like, Just Not With Children |
 |
|||
|
||||
Just Think Positively During the Kelly Issue, I was gratified to hear a number of television pundits and commentators state that there " ... are plenty of jobs for 'these people' ... just not with children." Here, I will present my experiences over the past three years in my attempts, initially, to get a reasonable job, and then, any job. | ||||
|
||||
Organisational Policies Restricting the Recruitment of Offenders Extract: Two-thirds (66 per cent) of employers responding to the postal survey had a formal or informal policy on recruiting people with criminal records. Many of these policies restrict the recruitment of offenders. One in 20 employers (5 per cent), for example, reported that they did not recruit offenders and a further 38 per cent restricted their recruitment to certain posts. Private sector employers were more likely to report that they did not recruit any offenders. One consultee reported that:
|
||||
• To protect the company from crime particularly theft, fraud and arson. The General Manager at a clothing manufacturer commented: ‘We have multiple exits to this warehouse, we can’t have people walking off with suits.’ • To safeguard female workers from those convicted of sexual and violent offences. The Assistant Manager of a large hotel reminded the team that: ‘we have a lot of young girls working here’. Similarly, a Human Resource Manager in a mail order retailer justified the bar by saying: ‘we have a 97 per cent female workforce and everyone works in close proximity with each other.’ • To protect children and vulnerable adults from those convicted of sexual and violent offences. A recruiter with an organisation supporting young families noted that: ‘Once volunteers enter family homes, management has no control over them.’ Similarly, a manager in a landscape gardening company reported that: ‘The nature of the work dictates who we can employ. We do a lot of work in schools and old folks’ homes.’ • To maintain good client relationships. The Managing Director of a recruitment agency said: ‘Remember our employees are responsible for interviewing clients on a one-to-one basis.’ In a different context, a Human Resource Manager representing a large retailer thought that: ‘Shoppers don’t expect to be confronted by people with past crimes.’ • To express their moral indignation about certain crimes. The manager of a community recycling project, for example, reported that: ‘I find these crimes [sexual offences] abhorrent.’ The media and public opinion play an important role in determining how some employers treat the issue. Recruiting and Employing Offenders, Del Roy Fletcher, Alan Taylor, Stephen Hughes and Jonathan Breeze, The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2001. | ||||
|
||||
Employment and Ex Offenders No 45 in the TUC welfare reform series Introduction This edition of the Welfare Reform series presents some of the highlights from the recent TUC report on Employment and Ex-offenders, which promotes fair employment policies for people with a criminal record, and looks at policy reforms that could help more ex-offenders to get jobs. There is a union case for helping ex offenders to get jobs: * A high proportion of unemployed people have a criminal record, which means that public policy must address the employment barriers they face if we want full employment. * Helping ex-offenders into jobs is one of the most effective ways of preventing them from re-offending. * Thousands of workers are ex-offenders, and many will be union members. Unions have a duty to promote fair treatment of all their members, including those with a criminal record. * Fair treatment is good for the businesses our members work for. Employers who discriminate against people whose record is irrelevant to the job they are doing or applying for will be less likely to recruit or retain the right person for the job, and find it more difficult to manage this aspect of personnel policy. Ex offenders and unemployment Ex-offenders are particularly likely to be unemployed, and those who are unemployed are particularly likely to be long-term unemployed. Unemployment figures for ex-offenders generally are hard to come by, but figures are available for those supervised by the probation service: * A 1997 Home Office survey of 3,300 ex-offenders on probation found that only one in five of the sample was employed or self employed, compared with three in five of the general population. [1] * A survey by Hampshire Probation Service found that 65% of their young offender clients had been unemployed for more than 6 months. [2] These problems are probably not limited to ex-offenders on probation, as we know that most prisoners are released without a job to go to: * A study of two employment schemes found that 50% of ex-offenders in Surrey and 60% in inner London were unemployed. [3] * The Chief Inspector of Prisons has said that "Current figures suggest that 90% of those leaving prison will be unemployed, at least initially." [4] Why this is important Ex-offenders are not a small group that can safely be ignored: 31% of men have a criminal record by the time they are 40. [5] There is evidence that, in the then Home Secretary's words, "crime breeds when individuals are left without a stake in society.... getting a job is the best thing that any ex-offender can do": [6] * A 1990 Home Office review of research found that ex-offenders were half as likely to re-offend if they found and kept a job. [7] * A 1995 analysis of 400 studies from around the world found that employment programmes for young offenders could be highly effective in reducing offending. [8] Why ex-offenders are particularly likely to be unemployed The employment barriers faced by ex offenders come under three headings: * Employers' attitudes, * Skills and qualifications, * Other problems. Many employers are cautious about employing ex-offenders: * A 1997 survey of 160 business leaders by MORI found that only 18% would actively consider taking on ex-offenders as trainees, and only 7% would consider having a policy of recruiting ex-offenders as permanent staff. [9] * A 1997 survey of 69 London employers found that, while 93% were willing to offer jobs to unemployed young people, 71% to young people with no qualifications and 47% to homeless young people, only 46% would offer jobs to young people with criminal records. Even when assured that a young person with a criminal record had the right abilities and qualities for the job, most would still not offer a job. [10] As a group, ex-offenders have very low levels of skills and qualifications. The 1997 Home Office survey referred to earlier found that 12% had gained O levels (or equivalent) compared with 19% of the general population. [11] A study of two employment schemes for ex-offenders found that many participants had left school before 16 - a quarter in one, and a third in the other. In one scheme just under half the participants had no qualifications at all, in the other a third. [12] Ex-offenders are also likely to have other problems that may make it more difficult for them to obtain and retain employment. An analysis of 10,070 Pre-Sentencing Reports by the West Yorkshire Probation Service in 1997/8 found: * 16% were recorded as having alcohol problems; * 30% other substance misuse; * 12.9% finance problems; * 6.9% accommodation problems; * 6.6% mental health problems; and * 3.2% domestic violence. * Altogether, under half (43.8%) had none of these problems. [13] The TUC believes that these barriers need to be addressed in two ways: * Encouraging employers to adopt fair employment policies, * Public programmes to address the other factors that make many ex offenders unattractive to employers. Fair employment policies The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has taken the lead in establishing just what is a fair employment policy. Their good practice guidelines [14] emphasise that employers should take ex-offenders' convictions into account (especially during recruitment) only when they are relevant - convictions should not be an automatic bar to recruitment or promotion. The evidence presented above shows that there are good social reasons why employers should follow these guidelines, and many good employers will be convinced by this 'social case'. Others will find the 'business case' for fair treatment even more persuasive: * By excluding a group of potential recruits whose offences are not relevant to the jobs they offer, businesses make it less likely that they will get the right people for those jobs. A 1991 Apex Trust survey of employers who had recruited ex-offenders, found that 67% of public sector and 82% of private sector organisations said that they were satisfactory employees. [15] * All that discrimination does is to undermine effective personnel management. Many job applicants have committed crimes but do not have a criminal record, [16] or have spent convictions. * Discrimination may not even succeed in excluding people with unspent convictions - many ex-offenders, because they worry that employers discriminate against people with a criminal record, fail to disclose their record when they apply for a job, and may even deny it if asked. * There are cases where a criminal record can be relevant to a job, which means that it is in employers' interests to encourage voluntary disclosure, so they can judge whether this is the case in this instance. Blanket discrimination simply makes it less likely that job applicants will volunteer this information. Ex-offenders will be more likely to disclose their records if they are sure they will have a fair chance of being appointed to jobs they are qualified for, and where their offence is not relevant. Union concerns Good practice in the employment of ex-offenders is a union issue. Like employers, unions have an interest in reducing unfair discrimination against ex-offenders: if 31% of men have a criminal record by the time they are 40, the chances are that thousands are union members. Just as businesses have to consider the interests of their customers and other staff, so unions have a duty to protect the interests of other members: we would not welcome policies which made them more likely to be the victims of crimes by co-workers. Obviously there is some tension between these objectives for unions, just as there is for businesses that want to avoid unfair discrimination without putting employees and customers at risk. It is an important tension to resolve, however, as many employers will argue that they will not employ ex-offenders because their prospective colleagues would object. It would be a shame if union opposition were to be an obstacle to the introduction of positive policies. The best way in which businesses can minimise staff opposition to positive employment policies is to work with unions in developing and implementing them. Unions can ensure that co-workers' concerns are raised and addressed, and help win a positive commitment to making a success of the policy. Just as there is a business case for positive employment policies for ex-offenders, so there is a union case. Just as businesses will be able to manage their staff more effectively if they do not discriminate against ex-offenders whose offences are not relevant to a job, so union members should be more secure where such a policy is followed. Non-disclosure will be minimised, and the employer will be better able to manage recruitment in a way that promotes the security of employees and customers. References [1] Offenders on Probation , Mair G & May C, Home Office, 1997, p. 8. [2] New Deal - From Policy to Practice , Employment Service, 1999, p. 46. [3] Probation Employment Schemes in Inner London and Surrey , Sarno et al, Home Office Research Findings 89, 1999, p. 1. [4] The State of Our Prisons , HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, 1997- 98, p. 8. [5] Criminal Careers Bulletin , Home Office, 2000. The term "criminal record" does not include minor motoring offences, though it does include more serious offences, such as drunk driving. The proportion of women will be much lower, as there are nineteen times as many men in prison as women. [6] Commons Hansard, 30 July 1997, col 343. [7] After-care Services for Released Prisoners , K Haines, Home Office, 1990, quoted in Going Straight to Work, NACRO, p 2. [8] What Works in Reducing Offending , J McGuire (ed), 1995, quoted in NACRO, op cit, p 2. [9] NACRO, op cit, p. 3. [10] Mark Spilsbury Public Attitude Surveys, 1997, quoted NACRO, op cit, p 3. [11] Mair and May, p. 8. [12] Sarno et al, p. 2. [13] Probation Service analysis, September 1998. [14] Employing Offenders: Advice to Employers , pp. 4 - 6. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has also produced a useful (and more detailed) guide, Employing People with Conviction. [15] The Hidden Workforce , Apex Trust, 1991, quoted in Going Straight to Work, NACRO, 1999, p 6. [16] Only 3% - 4% of crimes against individuals and their property result in a conviction or caution (NACRO data.) Briefing document (1,700 words) issued 18 Mar 2002 | ||||
|
||||
Ex-Offenders Face Recruitment Prejudice According to research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), a third of British employers will not hire ex-offenders or those with a history of drug abuse or long-term sickness. The Institute reports that more than 60 per cent deliberately exclude those termed "core jobless" from their recruitment process. Of the 750 employers surveyed, 36 per cent thought such applicants would prove to be unreliable. Although Government initiatives such as `Pathways to Work' were deemed to be useful, the CIPD found that 55 per cent of employers said nothing would convince them to recruit the core jobless; just 10 per cent considered appropriate public policy measures might help. CIPD statistics showed that of employers with experience of employing ex-offenders, for example, 87 per cent thought they were at least as productive as other workers and 75 per cent at least as reliable. Nacro said it had received calls from a number of ex-offenders who had been discriminated against. The majority had been affected by the new criminal record checks introduced in March 2002 when the Criminal Records Bureau was set up. Although the checks were designed to safeguard jobs that involve working with children or vulnerable adults, Nacro claimed some employers were running checks for positions which fell outside these categories. Justice of the Peace, 3rd September 2005. | ||||
|
||||
Job applicants subjected to 'illegal' record checks The Times May 23, 2006 By Sean O’Neill THOUSANDS of people have been subjected to illegal background checks when they applied for jobs that did not require vetting, according to a report on the Criminal Records Bureau. As demand for checks from the bureau grows, there are increasing concerns that employers are misusing the system. Job applicants have been subjected to scrutiny when they applied to be refuse workers, dog wardens, car park attendants and train drivers. On one occasion checks were sought on people applying to take part in a television game show. Disclosure of information should occur only when people are applying for jobs that involve working with children and vulnerable adults or certain financial and security- related occupations. There are now 14,750 organisations that have the right to ask the bureau to check out a prospective employee. The bureau, which has admitted incorrectly labelling almost 3,000 people as criminals because of vetting errors, admitted yesterday that it was concerned about “unmanageable demand”. The drive for checks was fuelled by the controversy over the Soham murders, carried out by the school caretaker Ian Huntley, and employers’ concerns about litigation if they employed an offender. But many checks are being sought in direct contravention of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974), which is designed to prevent discrimination against people with minor criminal records from many years ago. Nacro, the crime reduction charity, said that three quarters of the 20,000 calls to its helpline were about problems with criminal record checks. In its report on the disclosure system, Nacro said: “Some employers routinely misuse their access to the service by running checks on posts that are not excepted from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and are thus not eligible for checking. “This confirms the helpline’s experience — that many checks are illegal and people are being refused employment or suspended and dismissed as a result of them.” Nacro said that 89 per cent of the checks requested of the bureau in 2004 were at the enhanced level, which discloses police intelligence as well as details of spent and unspent convictions. Paul Cavadino, the chief executive of Nacro, said: “There are certain jobs for which enhanced and standard checks are necessary to protect vulnerable adults and children. But there are many other jobs where it is not legal for employers and the CRB to carry out checks.” The bureau has acknowledged Nacro’s criticism and warned organisations that apply for checks that they could be de-registered if they apply for illegal checks. Vince Gaskell, chief executive of the CRB, also said he “deeply regretted” the distress caused to people wrongly labelled as criminals because of errors by the bureau and hinted that Emma Budd, 19, from Maesteg, South Wales, might be considered for compensation after she was rejection for two jobs teaching disabled people because she was wrongly said by the bureau to have two convictions for theft. Mr Gaskell told GMTV: “We do apologise to these people — that usually comes when we have actually sorted out the situation that is presented to us. If we have not done that in Emma’s case, then let me take this opportunity to do so now and apologise directly to her.” Mr Gaskell said that the bureau’s code of practice made clear to employers that they should not take “precipitous action” until a dispute is resolved. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8159-2192329,00.html Nacro Calls For Action to End Misuse of CRB Checks 23 January 2006 08:00 Ex-offender charity Nacro has called for the introduction of a new licensing authority to stamp out discrimination resulting from criminal record checks. A report released today calls on the government to take urgent steps to reform the way people with criminal records are treated in the labour market, by introducing an independent licensing authority which would hold ultimate responsibility for clearing people for employment. The report – Getting Disclosures Right: A review of the use and misuse of criminal record disclosures – highlights how, under the current system, people who are not a risk to children or vulnerable adults are being refused employment, suspended and dismissed on the basis of wholly irrelevant cautions or convictions. It uncovers widespread discrimination against people who have a criminal record – even where the nature of their offence means that they would pose no risk – across the public, voluntary and private sector. Paul Cavadino, chief executive of Nacro, said: "It is vital to have an effective system to protect children and vulnerable adults from those who are a risk to them. However, far too many people with past cautions or convictions for minor non-sexual offences are being unfairly refused jobs. "A job applicant who was convicted of shoplifting as a teenager but has since matured could prove an excellent care worker. It is absurd to bar them from such work, treating them on a par with a sex offender." Last year nearly 15,000 of the 20,000 calls to Nacro's helpline were enquiries about criminal record disclosures. "Too many employers are making discriminatory, unreasonable and in some cases illegal decisions based on completely irrelevant convictions", he said. Key recommendations of the report include: *Introduction of an independent licensing authority which would hold ultimate responsibility for clearing people with criminal records for employment *Strengthening the powers of the Criminal Records Bureau to take action against employers who breach the Disclosure Code of Practice by running checks on posts that are not eligible for checking *Reform of the law on unfair dismissal. Under current legislation if you are employed for less than a year and are dismissed from your job you cannot usually claim unfair dismissal. Nacro wants to see an amendment to enable people with spent convictions to claim unfair dismissal. Author: Mike Berry Monday, January 23 2006 changing lives reducing crime Nacro Calls for the Introduction of a New Licensing Authority to Stamp out Discrimination Under Criminal Record Checks A Nacro report released this week is calling for the government to urgently reform the way people with criminal records are treated in the labour market, by introducing an independent licensing authority which would hold ultimate responsibility for clearing people for employment. The report - Getting Disclosures Right: A review of the use and misuse of criminal record disclosures - highlights how, under the current Disclosure system, people who are no risk to children or vulnerable adults are being refused employment, suspended and dismissed on the basis of wholly irrelevant cautions or convictions. It uncovers widespread discrimination against people who have a criminal record - even where the nature of their offence means that they would pose no risk - across the public, voluntary and private sector. Paul Cavadino, Chief Executive of Nacro, the crime reduction charity, said: "It is vital to have an effective system to protect children and vulnerable adults from those who are a risk to them. However, far too many people with past cautions or convictions for minor non-sexual offences are being unfairly refused jobs. "A job applicant who was convicted of shoplifting as a teenager but has since matured could prove an excellent care worker. It is absurd to bar them from such work, treating them on a par with a sex offender. "It is obviously right to reject job applicants whose records show that they pose a genuine risk. It is just as obviously wrong to reject applicants whose past offences would not make them a threat in the job they are applying for. Yet too many employers are making discriminatory, unreasonable and in some cases illegal decisions based on completely irrelevant convictions. Last year nearly 15,000 of the 20,000 calls to Nacro's helpline were enquiries about criminal record disclosures." Key recommendations of the report include: • Introduction of an independent licensing authority which will hold ultimate responsibility for clearing people with criminal records for employment - We need a system whereby ex-offenders and others affected by Disclosures can seek clearance from a licensing body to work with children and vulnerable adults. While decisions to appoint in individual cases would remain with employers, such a scheme would give employers the confidence to take on people with non-relevant past criminal records who had been approved by an independent, accountable authority. • Strengthen the powers of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to take action against those employers who breach the Disclosure Code of Practice by running checks on posts that are not eligible for checking - Nacro's helpline team regularly come across people who have been refused employment or suspended and dismissed as a result of illegal checks. (4) In particular Nacro is calling for: - the CRB to have adequate resources to enforce the new regulations on Disclosures coming out on 1 April 2005. (5) - ensure the Code is enforced by devoting resources to inspecting all registered bodies on a regular basis to ensure compliance. Without this the discrimination and social exclusion that has been a feature of Disclosures throughout their existence so far will continue. • A call to reform the law on unfair dismissal - under current law if you are employed for less than a year and are dismissed from your job you cannot usually claim unfair dismissal. Nacro wants to see an amendment to the one-year rule to enable people with spent convictions to claim unfair dismissal when dismissed unfairly from posts. This would bring unfair discrimination against ex-offenders in line with the law on other forms of unfair discrimination - such as sex and race - and increase the chances of getting this excluded group back to work. This would benefit all ex-offenders unfairly dismissed in these circumstances, including those who had a disclosure run illegally on posts not exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. "ENDS" Notes to editors 1. Disclosure checks were introduced in 2002 to enable employers and others working with vulnerable people and in certain other sensitive areas to find out whether job applicants, employees and volunteers have criminal records or whether the police have other relevant information on them. 2. Over 3 in 10 males and 1 in 10 females in the UK have a criminal record. 3. A model licensing system already exists in the private security industry. The Security Industry Authority (SIA) provides licences enabling ex-offenders with non-relevant convictions, and others, to work in the industry. The licensing system works, as private security companies are willing to take on those ex-offenders given a licence. It also has the advantage of being a transparent system: the Authority publishes clear guidance on whom it will and will not grant licences to. There is also an appeals procedure through the magistrates’ courts for those people wishing to challenge the Authority’s decision. 4. Standard and Enhanced Disclosure checks should only be carried out on positions exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Broadly, these positions include: .those whose duties involve work with children and vulnerable adults .certain professions such as health, accountancy, and the law .senior managers, controllers, directors, etc in financial services .appointments where national security might be at risk 5. For the results of the consultation on the draft regulations, see www.disclosure.gov.uk/PDF/Final_report_formatted11.pdf 6. To order a copy of Getting Disclosures Right: a review of the use and misuse of criminal record disclosures, priced £7.50 +p&p, please contact Nacro publications on 020 7840 6427. 7. Getting Disclosures Right: A review of the use and misuse of criminal record disclosures will be launched at Nacro's conference, Getting disclosures right: Employing ex-offenders safely and fairly, on Wednesday 25 January 2006 at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London. http://www.nacro.org.uk/templates/news/newsItem.cfm/2006012300.htm | ||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Truth