recruiting and employing offenders

Recruiting and employingoffenders

Del Roy Fletcher, Alan Taylor, Stephen Hughesand Jonathan Breeze

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme ofresearch and innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policymakers and practitioners. The facts presented and views expressed in this report are,however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.

© Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2001

All rights reserved

Published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by YPS

ISBN 1 84263 036 9

Work and Opportunity Series No. 27

Cover design by Adkins Design

Prepared and printed by:York Publishing Services Ltd64 Hallfield RoadLayerthorpeYork YO31 7ZQTel: 01904 430033; Fax: 01904 430868; Website: www.yps-publishing.co.uk

Contents

PageAcknowledgements v

1 Introduction 1Background 1Definitions 1The changing legislative environment 2The aims of the study 3The structure of the report 4

2 Offenders and the recruitment process 5Introduction 5Recruitment policy 6Attitudes towards criminal records 6Recruitment practice 7Influencing recruiter behaviour 8

3 Recruitment policy 10Introduction 10The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 10Equal opportunities policies 11Organisational policies restricting the recruitment of offenders 11The role of trade unions 13

4 Recruitment procedures and selection criteria 14Introduction 14Recruitment channels 14Selection techniques 15

5 The use of criminal records in selection 18Introduction 18Gathering information about convictions 18The extent to which offenders are identified 20The consequences for selection 20

6 Attitudes towards offenders 23Introduction 23Attitudes to different types of offence 23Relevant considerations when deciding whether to employ an offender 23Employer anxieties about recruiting offenders 25Employer beliefs 25Summary 29

7 The treatment of offenders in the workforce 30Introduction 30Response to the discovery of deliberately concealed unspent convictions 30Response to employees receiving convictions whilst in employment 31Experience of knowingly employing offenders 32

8 Employers and the Police Act 34Introduction 34Expected use in recruitment 34Implications for existing employees 36

9 Conclusions and recommendations 39Introduction 39The key determinants of employer behaviour 39The likely impact of basic disclosure certificates 40Implications of this research for policy makers 41Recommendations 44

Bibliography 48

Appendix 1: Labour market programmes for offenders – a review of international experience 53

Appendix 2: Glossary of abbreviations 59

The study team would like to thank Mark Hinman (JRF), Dominic Hurley (JRF), Rob Allen(NACRO), Godfrey Allen (Apex Trust), Jonathan Bailey (DfEE), Tony Burns (ES), Professor DavidDownes (London School of Economics) and Diana Worman (CIPD) for their help and guidance. Wewould also like to express our gratitude towards all those individuals interviewed in the course ofthe research for their co-operation and support.

Acknowledgements

v

1

Background

Policy makers are increasingly recognising theimportance of helping offenders back into work.Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, forexample, declared that ‘a job is the best help thatany ex-offender can get to avoid returning tocrime’ (quoted in NACRO, 1997) and made acommitment to double the number of prisonersgaining employment on release. The UKGovernment’s Social Exclusion Unit is makingrecommendations for reducing unemploymentamongst prisoners on release. Similarly, ex-offenders are allowed early access to the NewDeal. Moreover, the New Deal Task ForceWorking Group Report Meeting the Needs of

Disadvantaged Young People argues that the NewDeal will succeed only if it reaches the mostdisadvantaged and disaffected (Adebowale,1998). The report identifies offenders as onesuch ‘severely disadvantaged’ group facing‘multiple barriers’ to employment.

Offenders face a number of barriers thatundermine their ability to find work. Manyhave individual attributes such as low self-esteem, poor basic skills and inadequateeducational and vocational qualifications thatdamage their employment prospects. Drug andalcohol misuse may also mean that some findgaining and keeping a job more difficult. Theseattributes may be shared with other severelydisadvantaged groups. It is, however, theproblems caused by an offending backgroundthat are unique to offenders and constitute anextra dimension to the difficulties they face inthe labour market.

Offenders are substantially more likely to beunemployed than the population as a whole.Association of Chief Officers of Probation(ACOP) surveys, for example, show that around

60 per cent of the people under the supervisionof the Probation Services are unemployed. Theyare also much more likely to experience long-term unemployment. In 1993, for example,unemployed offenders were twice as likely tohave been unemployed for more than one yearthan the general population (NAPO, 1993). Thismay have profound social consequences as theavailable evidence suggests that there is a linkbetween offenders gaining stable employmentand their likelihood of re-offending.

A growing body of evidence suggests thatemployer discrimination is a key barriercontributing to the marginalisation of offendersin the labour market (see Chapter 2). Despitethis, most policy interventions focus onimproving their skills. Research undertaken byFletcher et al. (1998), for example, found thatalmost all (92 per cent) of local labour marketinitiatives for offenders in England and Waleswere ‘supply-side’ responses to the problem, forexample they provided help with vocationalguidance and jobsearch or improved basic skills.Yet, it is likely that many offenders leaving suchinitiatives will remain unemployed as theycontinue to be confronted by employerdiscrimination.

Definitions

There are no commonly accepted definitions ofthe terms ‘offender’ and ‘ex-offender’. Anoffender is often the term given to a person whohas been convicted of a criminal offence and hasnot completed their sentence; whereas an ex-offender is usually a person who has beenconvicted of a criminal offence and hascompleted their sentence. However, the presentresearch is concerned with all those whose

1 Introduction

2

Recruiting and employing offenders

contact with the criminal justice system acts as abarrier in the labour market. Consequently, theresearch team uses the term ‘offender’ to denoteanyone with a criminal record.

The changing legislative environment

The current legislative framework for therecruitment of offenders is provided by the 1974Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) whichintends to ‘strike a balance between givingreformed offenders the chance to reintegratethemselves into society and the need to protectsociety from those who might offend again’(Home Office, 1993, para. 97). The Act allowssome to consider certain offences as ‘spent’ aftera period of time. This ‘rehabilitation period’varies according to the nature of the sentencegiven and the age of the offender at the time ofconviction. The term spent means that offendersare not required to tell employers about theirconviction. There are a number of jobs whichare exempt from the Act and these are listed inthe ROA (Exceptions) Order 1975.

It is important to recognise that the Act doesnot enforce the disclosure of criminal records.There is no legal requirement, for example, forthe disclosure of unspent convictions if anemployer does not seek this information.However, those deliberately hiding an unspentconviction may be legally dismissed if this issubsequently discovered. It is also illegal for anemployer to discriminate against an offender onthe grounds of a spent conviction.

Those working with offenders have madethree main criticisms of the Act. First, manyoffenders are unaware of the provisions of thelegislation and do not know when their

convictions are spent or when and how todisclose them to employers. Second, manyrehabilitation periods are too long. A largemajority of adults, for example, find that theirconvictions take at least five years to becomespent. Finally, convictions leading to a prisonsentence of 30 months or more can neverbecome spent. This contrasts with practice inmost other European countries where allcriminal convictions can become spent after therelevant rehabilitation period (NIACRO, 1996).It is against this background that the UKGovernment has recently announced a reviewof the ROA.

The primary purpose of Part V of the PoliceAct (1997) is ‘to facilitate safer recruitmentdecisions’ (Criminal Records Bureau, 2001, p. 2).The new legislation retains the protection ofindividuals afforded by the ROA and introducesthree levels of disclosure depending on the typeof work sought (see below). A new body, theCriminal Records Bureau (CRB), will issue thedisclosures. It is proposed that individual jobapplicants apply to the Bureau for a disclosure,which is expected to cost about £10. This costwill be borne by the individual applicant. TheGovernment expects that the CRB will be fullyoperational by Autumn 2002.

1 Enhanced disclosures will become availablefor posts involving significant contactwith children or vulnerable adults. Allenhanced disclosures will involve anextra level of checking with local policeforce records in addition to checks withthe Police National Computer and thelists held by the Department of Healthand Department for Education andEmployment, where appropriate.

3

Introduction

2 Standard disclosures are primarily forpositions that involve regular contactwith children, or vulnerable adults. Theywill contain details of all convictions onrecord including ‘spent’ convictions anddetails of any cautions, reprimands orwarnings.

3 Basic disclosures are for all other types ofoccupation not covered by the higher-level disclosures. They will show allconvictions held at national level that arenot spent under the ROA. Any employercan ask a job applicant for a copy of theirbasic disclosure.

It was section 112 of the Act creating basicdisclosures that attracted most parliamentarycriticism, the introduction of which means thatwhen fully implemented the Act will permitmuch broader, less restricted access to thecriminal records of individuals. Although thelegislation does not enforce the disclosure ofcriminal records, the pressure on job applicantsto produce a basic disclosure may beconsiderable. Consequently, many fear that thiswill facilitate unrestricted vetting anddiscrimination. Tony Benn voiced theseconcerns when he said: ‘We will create a newunderclass of unemployable people withconvictions’ (quoted in Uglow and Telford,1997, p. 93).

The aims of the study

It is in this context that the Joseph RowntreeFoundation commissioned the present research,the specific aims of which are to:

• identify how employers respond to jobapplications from offenders

• highlight the potential impact of thePolice Act on recruitment practice

• recommend how the reluctance ofemployers to recruit offenders can beaddressed

• contribute to the development andpromotion of fair and responsiblerecruitment practice for the employmentof offenders.

The study was carried out over a 22-monthperiod, from August 1999 to May 2001, andconsisted of four distinct, but interrelatedstages.

1 Literature review: at the outset, a literaturereview helped the study team to explorewhat is currently known about therecruitment policies and practices ofemployers regarding offenders; whatgovernments have done to encourageemployers to recruit offenders; and thestrengths and weaknesses of the differentapproaches adopted.

2 Examination of recruitment practice: the coreof the research is an in-depth examinationof recruitment practice within 26companies, of varying size, known toprovide work in occupations traditionallysought by offenders, e.g. retail, hotel andleisure, and transport and distribution.The examination covered theemployment policies of each company,their recruitment practice, use of differentrecruitment channels and selection

4


procedures, and the attitudes of tradeunions towards the recruitment ofoffenders. Examinations involveddocumentary analysis of recruitmentpolicies and face-to-face interviews withpersonnel officers, local managers andtrade union representatives.

3 Focus groups: two focus groups were heldwhich provided an opportunity toconsider employer responses towardsrecruiting offenders in more detail as wellas devising effective ways of developing amore responsible approach.

4 Postal survey: the results emerging fromthe research were tested by undertaking apostal survey of 400 employers, whichexplored the use of criminal records inrecruitment; the implications of the PoliceAct; and key lessons for policy makers.

The structure of the report

The remainder of this report is structured asfollows. Chapter 2 outlines the findingsemerging from previous research and theresponse of policy makers in other countries.Chapter 3 examines the relevant policyframework within which recruiter behaviourtowards offenders takes place. Chapter 4examines the recruitment and selectionprocedures used by employers. Chapter 5discusses the use of criminal records in therecruitment process. Chapter 6 exploresrecruiter attitudes towards offenders. Chapter 7examines how employers treat offenders in theworkforce. Chapter 8 investigates howemployers are likely to make use of the PoliceAct. Finally, Chapter 9 presents the conclusionsand recommendations emerging from theresearch.

5

Introduction

This chapter considers the findings of previousresearch that has explored how employersrespond to job applications from offenders. Itgoes on to outline what policy makers in othercountries have done to encourage employers torecruit offenders, and the strengths andweaknesses of the different approaches thathave been adopted.

Table 1 presents some of the key features ofthe main surveys reviewed by the study team.

At the outset, it is important to appreciate thatmuch of this research has been characterised bythree key weaknesses:

• Many studies have not explored thebehaviour of employers in actualrecruitment exercises. Much of the data,for example, gives employers’ responsesto hypothetical questions. Such studieshave, therefore, been unable to exploreany possible tensions between corporatepolicy and local practice.

2 Offenders and the recruitment process

Table 1 Key UK and US surveys

Authors Year Method Geographical focus Achieved sample

Apex Trust 1991 Postal survey England and Wales 600(25% response rate)

Donlan and Withers 1991 Postal survey Somerset 170(35% response rate)

South Glamorgan 1991 Telephone South Glamorgan 44Probation Service interviews (20% response rate)

Apex Scotland 1992 Postal survey Scotland 50and interviews

Albright and Denq 1996 Postal survey Houston and Dallas 83(28% response rate)

Holzer 1996 Postal survey 5 American cities NA

Helfgott 1997 Telephone Seattle 156interviews (31% response rate)

Newsum-Brown 1996 Postal survey Rotherham 155

Buffery 1998 Postal survey Peterborough and 147and interviews Fenland (64% response rate)

Conalty and Cox 1999 Postal survey Hackney and 81Lambeth (33% response rate)

McManus 1999 Postal survey London and Leeds 200 schools(60% response rate)

Smith 1999 Interviews England and Wales 64 Social ServiceDepartments

6


• Much of the data has been generatedfrom a narrow range of research methods.Quantitative research methods, especiallypostal surveys, have been favoured.

• Most surveys have encountered problemswith small and unrepresentative samples.Despite this, researchers have oftentreated the data as if it were arepresentative sample.

Recruitment policy

The way in which employers deal with groupslike offenders will be partly determined bylegislative requirements and company policy.Equal opportunity policies, for example, may bedesigned to counter discrimination againstoffenders. A few studies have sought to identifythe existence of such policies and investigate thelevel of recruiter awareness of the relevantlegislation.

The ROA is the main piece of legislationgoverning the recruitment of offenders in theUK. As previously noted, the Act allows someoffenders to ‘wipe the slate clean’ and put theirpast behind them. Research exploring theawareness of employers to this important pieceof legislation has been inconclusive. Almost 70per cent of employers surveyed by Conalty andCox (1999), for example, reported that they wereaware of the provisions of the Act. In contrast,40 per cent of private sector respondents toanother study had never heard of it (Apex Trust,1991). Similarly, Buffery (1998) found thatalmost half of those surveyed were not familiarwith its key provisions.

The available evidence is that few employersinclude offenders in their equal opportunitypolicies. The Apex Trust (1991) study found that

only 4.4 per cent of private sector and 2.6 percent of public sector employers had equalopportunities policies that included offenders.More recent studies undertaken by Buffery(1998) and Conalty and Cox (1999) found thatthe proportion was between 10 and 13 per cent.In contrast, a study undertaken by ApexScotland (1992) found that 30 per cent ofemployers with a equal opportunities policystated that it included offenders. However, inmany such cases, their inclusion was implicitlyrather than explicitly stated.

Attitudes towards criminal records

Previous research has identified a generalreluctance to recruit offenders. A Scottish study,for example, found that the attitude of mostemployers to recruiting offenders was ‘why takethe risk?’ (Apex Scotland, 1992). A major surveyof employers in five large US cities found that65 per cent would not knowingly recruitoffenders to unskilled jobs, regardless of theoffence (Holzer, 1996). In a much-citedAmerican study, Schwartz and Skolnick (1962)circulated job applications for an unskilled post(dishwasher) that varied in that some of themcontained information on an assault charge. Thestudy found that the applications of convictedindividuals faced a statistically significant lowerprobability of generating a positive response.However, a Canadian study conducted by Davis(1980) found that 92 per cent of employers were‘willing to consider’ recruiting an offender.

A number of studies make particularreference to the type of offence as a keyconsideration. A survey of 600 employers foundthat sexual offences were viewed as mostserious, followed by offences against property,

7

Offenders and the recruitment process

violence, fraud, forgery and robbery (ApexTrust, 1991). More recent research supportsthese findings. Conalty and Cox (1999), forexample, found that employers were leastwilling to recruit those with convictions forviolent and sexual offences. Buffery (1998)identifies sexual and violent offences, drug-related crimes and crimes against property asbeing viewed particularly seriously. In theAmerican context, Albright and Denq (1996)found that between 76 and 88 per cent ofrespondents were unwilling to recruit thoseconvicted of murder, robbery, arson and sexualoffences. Similarly, 83 per cent of respondents toHelfgott’s 1997 survey reported that violentcrimes and property crimes such as theft andembezzlement would cause them toimmediately reject an applicant.

Research has also identified offences whichemployers view as less serious. Donlan andWithers (1991) and Conalty and Cox (1999) bothfound that driving offences and those involvingalcohol fell into this category. Buffery (1998) alsofound some evidence that most employers didnot rate motoring offences as a crime. It wasonly a relevant consideration for posts requiringa clean driving licence.

The influence of offender behaviour on therecruitment process has been explored in a fewstudies. Buffery (1998), for example, found thatmost employers rated openness and genuinemotivation to change past behaviour as beingvery important factors. Donlan and Withers(1991) found that explaining the circumstancesof an offence at interview would improve anoffender’s chances of obtaining work. Similarly,American research undertaken by Albright andDenq (1996) indicated that the more informationthat employers received about an applicant, for

example the type of offence and its relation tothe job, the more likely they would considerrecruiting them.

Recruitment practice

Most employers seek criminal recordinformation from job applicants. The Apex Trust(1991) study found that 83 per cent of privatesector employers sought criminal recordinformation from job applicants, but did notidentify whether this was for some or allvacancies. A recent survey of London employersput the figure at 63 per cent (Conalty and Cox,1999). Similarly, research undertaken byHelfgott (1997) in Seattle found that 62 per centof employers surveyed inquired about criminalrecords, 95 per cent at the application formstage. In the latter, employers stressed theimportance of company policy and theprotection of employees and clients. In contrast,a Scottish study found that just 19 per cent ofemployers routinely sought criminal recordinformation but a further 62 per cent would askif they wanted to probe for reasons behind anygaps in employment histories (Apex Scotland,1992).

Much of the available evidence suggests thatrelatively few employers knowingly recruitoffenders, although much depends on the timeperiod chosen. They are much less likely to havedone so in the short term. A Scottish survey, forexample, found that just 4 per cent hadknowingly recruited someone with a criminalrecord in the previous 12 months (Apex,Scotland, 1992). Similarly, 12 per cent of privatesector employers and 17 per cent of publicsector employers in England and Wales haddone so over a 12-month period (Apex Trust,

8


1991). In contrast, Buffery (1998) found that 53per cent of employers surveyed reported thatthey had never knowingly employed someonewith a criminal record. However, just 23 percent of Seattle’s employers had done so(Helfgott, 1997).

The importance of recruiter behaviour hasbeen highlighted in some studies. This researchhas suggested that personnel who areunfamiliar with the legislative environment,company policy or offender-specific guidance ortraining undertake much recruitment activity.Smith (1999), for example, found that SeniorNominated Officers made few decisions toappoint social workers seeking posts involvingsubstantial, unsupervised access to children, asrequired by Home Office guidance.Furthermore, many decision makerscommented on how much decisions relied ontheir own personal opinions and were madewith reference to the name of the offence. In asimilar vein, Buffery (1998) found that anxietyon the part of the recruiter that offenders couldnot be trusted was a significant factorhampering their recruitment. Another studyfound that no private sector and few publicsector employers ensured that staff involved inrecruitment had access to information about theROA (Apex Trust, 1991).

Influencing recruiter behaviour

Labour market programmes for offenders canbe either specially designed, targeted andfunded or established within general strategiesfor disadvantaged groups. Internationalexperience is that targeted programmes foroffenders are rare. This reflects two key factors.

First, policy makers have concluded thatcreating special programmes riskscompounding the stigma that they face in thelabour market. Second, offenders are aconstituency with weak political influence andspecial treatment has not been sociallyacceptable or politically feasible.

Policy makers have sought to influencerecruiter behaviour towards offenders in avariety of ways. Appendix 1 outlines some ofthe key strengths and weaknesses of thedifferent approaches that have been adopted inthe US, Germany, Holland, Spain and Australia.These programmes should not be seen asmutually exclusive. Strategies to help offendersback into work need to be broad based andmulti-faceted. However, internationalexperience strongly suggests the following:

• Policy makers need to guard against theinadvertent stigmatisation of offenders.

• Employers are critically important to thesuccess of any initiative.

• Many are reluctant to provide placementsor change recruitment practice. This oftenreflects concerns about the job-readinessand trustworthiness of offenders, and theimperative to recruit the ‘right person’ forthe job.

• There is some evidence that employersare wary of recruiting offenders becauseof the extra supervision and supportrequired.

• Furthermore, many need to be assuredthat recruiting offenders will not lead tofurther costs resulting from high turnoverand high-risk behaviour.

9

Offenders and the recruitment process

• Both employers and offenders may needsome form of post-placement support tohelp improve the sustainability ofemployment outcomes.

All of these factors underline the importanceof policy makers reaching out to employers inways that make business sense. Employers wantrecruits who are able to contribute to the keybusiness goals of productivity and profitability.They are less keen to participate in programmes

that expect them to substitute their businessgoals for social ones. The use of labour marketintermediaries serving both employers anddisadvantaged jobseekers has been an integralpart of such a ‘demand-led’ strategy in America.This has been facilitated by the increasinglytight national labour market which has forcedemployers to make use of different sources oflabour, for example offenders, people withdisabilities and older Americans.

10

Introduction

This chapter examines the policy frameworkwithin which recruiter behaviour towardsoffenders takes place. It is informed by the in-depth qualitative work with employers and thepostal survey. The present study has identifiedthe importance of four key facets of this policyframework which are discussed in turn:

• the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

• equal opportunities policies

• organisational policies restricting therecruitment of offenders

• the role of trade unions.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

The ROA is the main piece of legislationgoverning the recruitment of offenders in theUK. Almost all recruiters (94 per cent)responding to the postal survey had heardabout the Act. However, less than half (47 percent) felt that they fully understood its mainprovisions in relation to their recruitmentpractices (see Table 2). Awareness of the Act was

higher among public sector respondents (58 percent fully understood its provisions comparedto 30 per cent and 23 per cent in the private andvoluntary sectors respectively). A typicalresponse was:

I thought I was really well informed until theNACRO information showed me just howcomplex it is.(Human Resource Manager, wholesaler)

Furthermore, many recruiters encounterparticular problems establishing when thecriminal record of persons with severalconvictions becomes spent. They werepresented with the following ‘pen portrait’:

John is 24 and has three convictions. The first, afine, was received on 1 January 1997. Thesecond was a probation order received on 1January 1999 and the third was a suspended one-year prison sentence which he received on 1January 2000.

This exercise revealed that just 12 per centfelt very confident about working out when hiscriminal record would become spent.

3 Recruitment policy

Table 2 Recruiter understanding of the ROA

The extent to which recruiters feel that they understandthe provisions of the Act Frequency %

Fully 46 47Partly 43 44Not very well 8 8Not at all 1 1Total 98 100

Source: CRESR postal survey.

11

Recruitment policy

Equal opportunities policies

The need to formalise recruitment and todevelop defensible procedures has intensified inrecent years. The impetus for formalisation hascome from a variety of sources includinglegislation, economic pressures requiring thatorganisations acquire the right people, theChartered Institute of Personnel andDevelopment’s Professional Code of Practice,the Commission for Racial Equality and theEqual Opportunities Commission.

Most employers have a formal written equalopportunity policy but few specifically mentionoffenders (see Table 3). Many feel that offendersshould not be covered by such policies:

It is definitely not an equal opportunities issue. Itis a societal issue.(Human Resource Manager, train-operatingcompany)

This position was often justified by making adistinction between ‘deserving’ and‘undeserving’ groups. Offenders were felt to beundeserving because offending was deemed tobe a choice rather than an innate characteristic.Some felt that policy was irrelevant becausethey did not discriminate against any applicant.Others left the selection of applicants to the

discretion of recruiters. A few felt that the issuewas unimportant.

Organisational policies restricting the

recruitment of offenders

Two-thirds (66 per cent) of employersresponding to the postal survey had a formal orinformal policy on recruiting people withcriminal records. Many of these policies restrictthe recruitment of offenders. One in 20employers (5 per cent), for example, reportedthat they did not recruit offenders and a further38 per cent restricted their recruitment to certainposts. Private sector employers were more likelyto report that they did not recruit any offenders.One consultee reported that:

My Managing Director would not touch offenderswith a bargepole.(General Manager, bed manufacturer)

Furthermore, 91 per cent of recruiters wereable to cite offences that would automaticallybar or be a significant barrier to an individual’semployment within their organisation. Table 4shows that sexual and violent offences andfraud were most commonly identified. The in-depth qualitative work with employers revealedfive key justifications for their use:

Table 3 Equal opportunities policies and offenders

Frequency %

Equal opportunities policy but does not mention offenders 21 81No policy 2 8Equal opportunities policy mentions offenders 3 11Total 26 100

Source: CRESR in-depth examinations.

12


• To protect the company from crime

particularly theft, fraud and arson. TheGeneral Manager at a clothingmanufacturer commented: ‘We havemultiple exits to this warehouse, we can’thave people walking off with suits.’

• To safeguard female workers from thoseconvicted of sexual and violent offences.The Assistant Manager of a large hotelreminded the team that: ‘we have a lot ofyoung girls working here’. Similarly, aHuman Resource Manager in a mail orderretailer justified the bar by saying: ‘wehave a 97 per cent female workforce andeveryone works in close proximity witheach other.’

• To protect children and vulnerable adults

from those convicted of sexual andviolent offences. A recruiter with anorganisation supporting young familiesnoted that: ‘Once volunteers enter familyhomes, management has no control over

them.’ Similarly, a manager in a landscapegardening company reported that: ‘Thenature of the work dictates who we canemploy. We do a lot of work in schoolsand old folks’ homes.’

• To maintain good client relationships. TheManaging Director of a recruitmentagency said: ‘Remember our employeesare responsible for interviewing clients ona one-to-one basis.’ In a different context,a Human Resource Manager representinga large retailer thought that: ‘Shoppersdon’t expect to be confronted by peoplewith past crimes.’

• To express their moral indignation aboutcertain crimes. The manager of acommunity recycling project, for example,reported that: ‘I find these crimes [sexualoffences] abhorrent.’

The media and public opinion play animportant role in determining how someemployers treat the issue. The train driver

Table 4 Automatic bars to employment

Offence Frequency %

Sexual offences 83 92Fraud 52 58Violence, e.g. actual bodily harm (ABH), grievous bodily harm (GBH) 52 58Theft 48 53Offences involving drugs 40 44Arson 38 42Robbery 35 39Burglary 34 38Driving offences 20 22

n = 90.


13

Recruitment policy

involved in the Ladbroke Grove accident, forinstance, was subsequently found to have hadan undisclosed conviction for actual bodilyharm (ABH). The adverse publicity generatedby this discovery has led many train-operatingcompanies to introduce more restrictive policies.As a result, one company now requires that allsuccessful jobseekers produce a police certificatethat includes data on both spent and unspentconvictions. Another has consideredintroducing retrospective checks on existingstaff because:

The company would be pilloried if such a thinghappened – it would be deeply, deeply damaging.(Human Resource Manager, train-operatingcompany)

Some employers take out fidelity guaranteeinsurance to safeguard themselves against theftor loss due to the actions of employees.However, it appears to be a relativelyunimportant influence on policy and practice.Nearly a third of employers taking part in thein-depth qualitative work had posts covered byfidelity guarantee insurance. Yet, just onethought that the insurance barred theemployment of offenders to some posts. Inaddition, only one believed that they had madea claim against the insurance.

The role of trade unions

Trade unions have a potentially important roleto play in the development of organisationalpolicies towards groups like offenders. Thepresent study sought to examine the role oftrade unions in this respect. Interviews wereconducted with trade union representativesactive in the employers taking part in the in-

depth examinations of recruitment practice.However, many of those taking part were notunionised and other employers discouraged thestudy team from interviewing trade unionrepresentatives. Nevertheless, this element ofthe research has highlighted three importantissues.

First, most employers do not involve tradeunions in the development of their policiesaffecting offenders. Only one of the threeemployers with equal opportunities policiesspecifically mentioning offenders, for example,appears to have consulted a trade union. Thetrade union was not involved in its drafting butwas merely asked to comment.

Second, the recruitment and treatment ofoffenders in work are insignificant issues fortrade unions. None of the union representativesinterviewed was aware of any relevant union orcompany policy/position. This is because manytrade unions have not hitherto considered it apriority. It can also be an unpopular issue withmany trade unionists. In particular, protectingthe rights of offenders can be misrepresented asrewarding them for their offending behaviour.Furthermore, the issue is largely hidden becausemany offenders fail to disclose their criminalrecords (see Chapter 5).

Finally, some trade unionists are hostile tothe introduction of responsible policies for therecruitment of offenders. A trade unionrepresentative noted that: ‘such a policy wouldbe viewed dimly by the girls on the shop floor’,especially if it included those convicted of sexoffences. They went on to say that:

They wouldn’t like it. They’d say, ‘I’m not workingnext to so and so, he was sent down for this andthat.’(Union representative in a clothing manufacturer)

14

Introduction

This chapter examines the recruitment andselection procedures used by employers. It isbased on the findings of an in-depthexamination of recruitment practice within 26companies. The focus was on actual recruitmentexercises that had taken place over the previousyear. Consequently, the evidence presented isnot hypothetical but relates to specificvacancies. The exercises studied generatedapproximately 22,500 applicants and led to theappointment of 3,591 people.

The types of posts recruiters were trying tofill were selected to ensure that they would beattractive to offenders. In particular, they werepredominantly low paid; required fewqualifications (96 per cent required noqualifications); and were mainly in the craft andrelated (28 per cent) and personal and protective(25 per cent) occupations. Furthermore, overhalf were described as being ‘difficult to fill’.

Offenders may face barriers at two keystages in the recruitment process:

• attracting candidates (recruitmentchannels)

• selecting candidates (selectiontechniques).

Recruitment channels

Recruitment channels are used to attractsuitable candidates. Formal channels includeJobcentres, the Careers Service, private agenciesand open advertising, for example local andnational newspapers and trade/specialist press.

Informal channels include personalrecommendations, noticeboards and waitinglists. The latter tend to be both cheaper andfaster than formal channels but are available to asmaller number of candidates. The recruitmentchannels used by employers will affect the typeof people who apply for particular jobs.

Table 5 shows that most employers use a mixof formal and informal recruitment channels.The most commonly used are open advertising(69 per cent used this channel), Jobcentres (65per cent), word of mouth (62 per cent) andnoticeboards (50 per cent). The present researchsuggests that the way in which recruitmentchannels are used may disadvantage offendersin three main ways.

1 Informal channels are more likely to beused to fill low-paid and low-skilledvacancies. However, they may prove to beclosed to offenders because they dependon personal recommendations andmaking contacts with those inemployment. This problem may be evenmore acute for those leaving prison.

2 Some Jobcentres may occasionally screenoffenders out of the recruitment process,although this contradicts officialEmployment Service (ES) policy andguidelines. A major transport employer inthe South East of England, for example,routinely requires the ES to screenoffenders with unspent convictions.Similarly, a major food processor in theNorth reported that the ES is aware of thecompany’s needs and thus screens out‘unsuitable candidates’.

4 Recruitment procedures and selection

criteria

15

Recruitment procedures and selection criteria

3 Interviews with private recruitmentagencies suggested that many routinelyscreen offenders for their clients. Banksand building societies and those dealingwith high-value goods/services are muchmore likely to request this service.However, screening is sometimes donewithout the employer’s knowledge toprotect the agency’s relationship with aclient.

Selection techniques

Once an appropriate number of candidates havebeen attracted, it is necessary to make aselection. A wide variety of techniques areavailable. Table 6 shows a reliance on theapplication form (92 per cent used thistechnique), the interview (100 per cent) andreferences (73 per cent) as the primary selectiontechniques. However, interviews are often basedon intuition and subjective judgement, and maybe susceptible to abuse. Those conducting

interviews are often line managers rather thanpersonnel professionals and are much less likelyto have received offender-specific guidance ortraining.

Recruiters were asked to rate the individualattributes that were most important in theparticular recruitment exercise studied. Thescale ranged from 0 (‘not at all important’) to 5(‘vital’). Table 7 shows that the followingselection criteria were the most highly rated:reliability/honesty (mean score of 4.5),motivation (4.2), employer references (3.6),previous experience in a similar job (3.6), stablejob record (3.5), health and fitness (3.4) and basicskills (3.3). This pattern has both positive andnegative implications for offenders.

Many offenders have poor educationalqualifications and low levels of literacy. In 1985/86, a House of Commons Select Committeereported that, of 29,225 prisoners assessed forliteracy, 6.2 per cent had a reading age of eightyears or less. Similarly, a survey of 190 ex-offenders found that only a half had any

Table 5 The use of recruitment channels

Recruitment channel Number %

Open advertising (newspapers, journals) 18 69Jobcentres 17 65Word of mouth (personal recommendation) 16 62Noticeboards 13 50Private agencies 5 19Waiting lists 5 19Internet 4 15Careers Service 4 15Commercial radio 2 8

n = 26.


16


qualifications or exam passes (NACRO, 1997). Ona positive note, most of the surveyed employersattach a low importance to criteria such as

educational qualifications (mean score 1) andvocational qualifications (1.6). However, basicskills are rated quite highly (mean score of 3.3).

Table 7 Relative importance of individual attributes in selecting candidates

Mean score

Reliability/honesty 4.5Motivation 4.2References 3.6Previous experience in a similar job 3.6Stable job record 3.5Health/fitness 3.4Basic skills 3.3Immediate/quick start 2.5Technical competence 2.0Vocational qualifications 1.6Age 1.4Educational qualifications 1.0

n = 26.


Table 6 The use of selection techniques

Selection technique Number %

Formal face-to-face interview 26 100Application form 24 92References 19 73Formal shortlisting 12 46Trial period 12 46Skill tests 8 31Telephone screening 5 19Personality/intelligence tests 3 12Security checks 3 12Employment agency screening 2 8Assessment centre 2 8

n = 26.


17

Recruitment procedures and selection criteria

On the negative side, traits such as honesty,reliability and motivation are examples ofbehavioural ‘acceptability’ criteria that rely onpersonal judgement. This suggests that therecruitment process may be open to bias anddiscriminatory judgements. This is importantbecause our research strongly suggests that,where employers know about the criminalrecord of an applicant, they often interpret thisas an indicator of a lack of reliability. Thisproblem is more acute for those with more thanone conviction even when they are not jobrelevant.

Many offenders do not have a stable jobrecord. Yet, this selection criterion is also rated

quite highly (mean score of 3.5). Ex-prisonersmay face particular problems in this respectbecause many recruiters are concerned that theyhave lost the habits of work during theirincarceration. Furthermore, some indicated thatthey would need some evidence that ex-prisoners had been rehabilitated:

Once a perpetrator always a perpetrator. Arecruiter would want to know if a prisoner hadundergone a rehabilitation programme. Althoughthis would not mean they had changed.(Human Resource Manager, financial servicescompany)

18

Introduction

This chapter discusses the use of criminalrecords in the recruitment process. It primarilydraws on data collected from the in-depthqualitative work with employers, which hasbeen supplemented by the postal survey. Thisaspect of the research has focused onidentifying:

• how recruiters gather information aboutconvictions

• the extent to which offenders areidentified in the recruitment process

• the consequences for selection.

Gathering information about convictions

Table 8 shows that 57 per cent of employersbelieve it is vital that they identify those withcriminal records. Public sector employers attachgreater importance to the issue (70 per centdescribed it as vital). Most (85 per cent) ask jobapplicants if they have a criminal record andthree-quarters (72 per cent) of these seekinformation from all rather than some of thecandidates. The differences between public and

private employers are again evident (98 per centof public sector employers ask job applicants ifthey have a criminal record compared to just 63per cent of those in the private sector).

However, the stage in the recruitmentprocess when criminal record information issought and the ways in which it is gatheredvary widely. Recruiters may identify offendersin the recruitment process in a number of ways:

• by requesting details of criminal recordson the application form

• by asking applicants at interview

• by applicants volunteering informationunasked

• through the activities of ‘third parties’

• by checking.

Table 9 shows that most employers (71 percent) reported using application forms to askabout criminal record information. Privatesector employers are more likely to useapplication forms and less likely to seek thisinformation at the job-offer stage than theircounterparts in the public sector.

5 The use of criminal records in selection

Table 8 Importance attached to identifying criminal records

All (%) Private (%) Public (%) Voluntary (%)n = 99 n = 26 n = 56 n = 14

It is vital 57 27 70 64It is important 34 58 27 15It is unimportant 7 15 2 14It is irrelevant 2 0 1 7Total 100 100 100 100


19

The use of criminal records in selection

Many gain criminal record information froma variety of other sources. Some applicantsdisclose this information unasked. Third parties,such as the Probation Service and EmploymentService (ES), will sometimes make an employeraware of an applicant’s criminal record. Anindividual’s criminal record is sometimescommon knowledge:

We employ from the local area, so everyoneknows everyone else’s business anyway.(Manager, charity)

This might have been anticipated in ruralareas. However, several employers based in

large cities reported that offenders wereidentified in this way.

Over two-thirds (71 per cent) reported thatthey checked whether applicants had criminalrecords. Again, just 19 per cent of private sectoremployers checked compared to 90 per cent inthe public sector. Checks can be made againstpolice records for posts that involve substantialaccess to young people or national security.They can also be made by using government listsor references, or by contacting former employers.The most frequently used are police checks andreferences, which are used by 89 and 29 per centof recruiters respectively (see Table 10). However,

Table 9 Stage at which employers ask for criminal record information

All (%) Private (%) Public (%) Voluntary (%)Stage n = 97 n = 22 n = 61 n = 12

Application form 71 77 67 75Interview 16 9 18 8Job offer 40 27 48 33

Note: Totals do not add to 100 per cent because respondents ticked more than one stage.


Table 10 The use of criminal record checks

All (%) Private (%) Public (%) Voluntary (%)Type of check n = 75 n = 5 n = 56 n = 14

Check with police 89 80 89 100Ask former employer 13 60 9 17Check references 29 80 27 17Government lists 1 0 2 0

Note: Totals do not add up to 100 per cent because respondents used more than one type ofcheck.


20


referees and previous employers may be unawareof an individual’s criminal record. Furthermore,it may be difficult to gain an objective referencewhere an offence was committed against aprevious employer. Employers often expressedsome frustration with the time taken to receivepolice checks, although they are more reliable.

It is important to create an environment thatwill encourage an honest and open exchange ofinformation about convictions betweenoffenders and employers. However, the presentresearch has shown that in six key respects theway in which many employers currently gatherinformation about criminal records militatesagainst this prerequisite.

1 Many employers do not have anemployment policy for offenders that isincorporated into their equal opportunitypolicy. Consequently, they are unable toconfirm their willingness to considerrecruiting offenders on their merit.

2 Offenders should be assessed on theirability to do the job and on the relevanceof their convictions. Convictions that arenot relevant should not be taken intoaccount. However, 61 per cent ofemployers (70 per cent of private sectorrespondents) reported that they soughtinformation about all convictionsregardless of their relevance. The need to‘start with a full picture’ was oftenjustified by pointing out that successfulapplicants could move to more sensitiveposts within an organisation. However, itis also apparent that many encountersome difficulties determining relevance.

3 Many routinely ask for criminal recordinformation even when the post involvesno risk.

4 Some employers currently fail to statethat spent convictions need not bedisclosed for posts unless exempt underthe ROA.

5 Few employers send out informationabout the ROA with the application form.

6 When spent convictions are highlighted,they are sometimes taken into account.

The extent to which offenders are

identified

A criminal record can be a barrier to recruitmentonly if the recruiter establishes its existence. Thepresent research strongly suggests that manyoffenders do not currently disclose theircriminal records. A third of men by the age of 30have criminal convictions, excluding motoringoffences (Home Office, 1995); although it mustbe remembered that this figure is substantiallylower for women. Yet, less than 1 per cent ofapplicants (less than 60 out of nearly 22,500)disclosed criminal record information. Thissuggests that offenders are enteringemployment without the knowledge ofrecruiters.

Many recruiters, especially those relying onthe use of application forms to identify thosewith a criminal record, suspected that a largenumber of applicants failed to disclose. Mostacknowledged the possibility that they hadunknowingly recruited offenders. It can be verydifficult to disclose a record in a way that is

21

The use of criminal records in selection

acceptable to an employer. Offenders may facemore rejections and so many fail to disclose.Consequently, a major retailer reported that, of2,000 applicants for the post of departmentalmanager, no one had disclosed a criminalrecord. Similarly, a Human Resource Managerin a major food-processing company reportedthat, in 28 years, no one seeking managerialpositions in the company had done so.

The consequences for selection

In 13 of the exercises studied, job applicantsdeclared criminal records. Those working withoffenders encourage them to provide employerswith brief information about their convictions ina letter before giving more details at theinterview stage. However, many employersreported that applicants avoid declaringcriminal records prior to interview. Onapplication forms, the question is often leftblank. This may reflect a perceived lack ofopportunity to explain the record or to providesupporting evidence. This omission is usuallyfollowed up at interview. In eight of therecruitment exercises where applicants declaredcriminal records they did so at interview:

They leave the question blank. After a bit of eye-to-eye contact, it hesitantly comes out in theinterview, ‘Yes, I was a naughty boy’.(General Manager, security company)

The way that criminal record informationenters the recruitment process may determineits effect. This point is underlined by thefollowing figures. Approximately one in 20respondents to the postal survey (5 per cent) feltthat the disclosure of criminal recordinformation at the application form stage orinterview definitely reduced an individual’schances of being recruited. However, this figurerose to 34 per cent when a third party disclosedthe information.

Personnel who are unfamiliar with thelegislative environment, company policy oroffender-specific guidance and trainingundertake much recruitment activity. Table 11shows that just over half of the recruitmentexercises studied involved just line managers inthe interview. A further third included acombination of line manager and personnelprofessionals. However, line managers are muchless likely to have received offender-specificguidance and training: ‘There are a lot of people

Table 11: Staff carrying out interviews

Number %

Line/departmental manager 14 54Both line manager and personnel representative 8 31MD/proprietor/chief executive 2 8Personnel/HR representative 2 8Total 26 100

Note: Figures may not add up to 100% because of rounding.


22


that get involved in recruitment who aren’ttrained’ (Human Resource Manager, trainservice company). This point was underlined bythe postal survey, which found that none of theprivate sector respondents reported that theyprovided offender-specific training of recruiters.

In four of the exercises where applicants haddeclared criminal records, disclosure wasreported not to have adversely affectedrecruitment:

If someone tells us why they have a criminalrecord, I view this as a good sign. I suspect wealready employ a lot of people with undeclaredrecords so we view openness positively.(Human Resource Manager, food-processingcompany)

Some offenders were rejected solely on thebasis of their criminal record: ‘inevitably havinga conviction affects recruitment’ (HumanResource Manager, motor manufacturingcompany). However, it is more common to cite acombination of both criminal records and otherconsiderations, for example a lack of relevantskills or poor employment history.

23

Introduction

Personal attitudes and beliefs influence theselection process. They are particularlyimportant because previous chapters haveshown that few employers have an employmentpolicy for offenders that is incorporated intotheir equal opportunity policy and many ofthose conducting interviews have not receivedoffender-specific guidance or training. Thischapter probes the attitudes of recruiterstowards offenders in actual recruitmentexercises and focuses on:

• attitudes to different types of offence

• relevant considerations when deciding toemploy an offender

• anxieties

• beliefs.

Attitudes to different types of offence

Throughout this chapter the team havecompared the attitudes of all recruiters takingpart in the in-depth examinations of recruitmentpractice with those:

• recruiting to posts involving daily contactwith the general public

• reporting difficulties in recruiting to theposts discussed

• employing fewer than 250 employees.

Recruiters were asked to indicate theirlikelihood of recruiting someone who hadcommitted particular types of crime. The scaleranges from 0 (‘not at all likely’) to 5 (‘verylikely’). Table 12 displays mean scores and

suggests that many recruiters base their decisionon the name of the offence and that individualmoral codes are particularly important. Thosecommitting offences such as rape and other sexoffences, for example, are most unlikely to berecruited. This reflects the recruiters’ angerabout these sorts of crime rather than concernsabout the risks of re-offending.

Those recruiting to posts involving dailycontact with the general public, for examplecashiers in retail stores, rail customer serviceassistants, etc., are much less likely to employthose convicted of the following offences:shoplifting, other theft, robbery, burglary andhandling stolen goods. Those experiencingrecruitment difficulties are more likely to recruitthose convicted of most offences with theexception of rape, other sex offences, burglary(non-dwelling) and assault. Similarly, smallemployers are more likely to recruit thoseconvicted of most offences with the exception ofdriving whilst unfit and driving whilstdisqualified.

Relevant considerations when deciding to

employ an offender

Recruiters were asked to rate the significance ofa number of different factors when decidingwhether or not to employ an offender. Theirresponse was recorded on a 0 to 5 scale (0 being‘insignificant’) and 5 being (‘very significant’).Table 13 presents mean scores and shows thatthe type of offence was the most significantfactor.

Those recruiting to posts involving dailycontact with the general public attach a slightlyhigher significance to the type of offence whendeciding whether or not to employ an offender.

6 Attitudes towards offenders

24


Table 12 Likelihood of employing offenders by offence

Daily public Recruitment EmployOffence All contact difficulties <250

Sex offences 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9Rape 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.9Possession of drugs with intent to supply 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5Robbery 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.7Burglary (dwelling) 1.7 1.3 2.1 2.1Assault 1.7 2.2 1.4 2.1Manslaughter 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.9Burglary (non-dwelling) 1.8 1.3 1.7 2.0Possession of drugs 2.0 1.4 2.3 2.3Handling stolen goods 2.1 1.7 2.6 2.8Theft 2.2 1.4 2.5 3.0Shoplifting 2.4 1.2 2.6 3.0Taking a motor vehicle without owner’s

consent 2.4 2.0 3.3 2.9Fraud/forgery 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0Reckless/dangerous driving 2.9 2.5 3.2 3.0Driving whilst unfit/with excess alcohol 3.1 2.6 3.6 2.8Driving whilst disqualified 3.1 2.9 3.7 2.7

n = 25.


Table 13 Relevant considerations when deciding to employ an offender

Daily public Recruitment EmployConsideration All contact difficulties <250

Type of offence 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.4Time elapsed since last conviction 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.4Applicant’s openness about their offences 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.3Age at which offences occurred 4.2 3.8 4.2 4.6Applicant’s motivation to change past

behaviour 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4Number of convictions 4.1 3.6 4.4 4.2

n = 25.


25

Attitudes towards offenders

Table 14 Employer anxieties about recruiting offenders

Daily public Recruitment EmployAnxiety All contact difficulties <250

They will offend against the company oremployee 4.1 4.5 4.6 3.8

They will be dishonest and untrustworthy 3.0 3.7 3.3 2.8They will offend interrupting their

employment 2.8 3.1 3.7 2.7They will bring bad publicity 2.5 2.8 3.2 2.0They will have a bad influence on other

employees 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.4They will be difficult to manage 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6They will have a poor attitude towards

their work 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.7

n = 25.


They attach less significance to factors such asthe age at which offence(s) occurred, thenumber of convictions and the time elapsedsince last conviction. All of this suggests thatthey are less tolerant and less willing torecognise that most offences are old, one-off andoccur during a brief phase in an offender’s life.

Employer anxieties about recruiting

offenders

Over half (56 per cent) of respondents to thepostal survey reported having anxieties aboutrecruiting offenders. This figure rose to 81 percent for private sector employers. Recruiterswere asked to rate their anxieties aboutrecruiting an offender. Their response wasrecorded on a 0 to 5 scale (0 being ‘insignificant’and 5 being ‘very significant’). Table 14 displaysmean scores and shows that the most significant

anxiety was that offenders would offend againstthe company or another employee. Employersresponding to the postal survey reiterated this.They were least concerned that offenders willhave a poor attitude towards their work.

Employers recruiting to posts involvingdaily contact with the general public are moreanxious about re-offending and dishonesty.Those experiencing recruitment difficulties aremore anxious about bad publicity andinterruptions to employment. Small employersgenerally appear to have fewer anxieties aboutrecruiting offenders.

Employer beliefs

Employers were asked how far they agreed ordisagreed with eight statements about offendersand their suitability as recruits. A standard five-point scale was used to measure their response

26


(ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘stronglydisagree’). Tables 15 to 22 illustrate the results ofthis exercise. The key points to emerge are asfollows:

• Just one in six believes that they receiveenough job applicants so they candisregard offenders (Table 15). Thosereporting recruitment difficulties andsmall employers are even less likely totake this view.

• Two-thirds believe that anyone can be anoffender (Table 16).

• Nearly one in ten believes that offendersare unreliable and untrustworthy (Table17). None of the small employers or thosereporting recruitment difficulties thoughtthat this was the case.

• Most cannot decide whether offenderswant to put their past behind them andput their talents to constructive use (Table18). Small employers and those reportingrecruitment difficulties are more likely to

believe that offenders want to put theirpast behind them.

• A third feel that recruiting offenders ismore risky than recruiting non-offenders(Table 19). Small employers are morelikely to play down the risks of recruitingoffenders.

• Half cannot decide whether offendersoffer the skills needed by employers(Table 20).

• One in 20 feels that offenders lack theskills, attitudes and disciplines which areneeded at work (Table 21). Elsewhere inthe research, however, employers havecontinually cited poor basic skills as a keylabour market barrier.

• Four out of ten believe that offenders aremore highly motivated than non-offenders (Table 22). Small employers areeven more likely to believe that this is thecase.

Table 15 ‘We get enough applicants so we don’t need to consider offenders’

Daily public Recruitment EmployAll contact difficulties <250(%) (%) (%) (%)

Strongly agree 4 0 0 0Agree 12 0 0 22Neither agree nor disagree 12 22 0 0Disagree 44 33 66 33Strongly disagree 28 44 33 44

n = 25.


27


Table 16 ‘Anybody can be an offender; it doesn’t tell you anything about them’



n = 25.


Table 17 ‘Offenders are unreliable and untrustworthy’



n = 25.


Table 18 ‘Offenders want to put their past behind them and put their talents to constructive use’



n = 25.


28


Table 19 ‘Recruiting offenders is more risky than recruiting non-offenders’



n = 25.


Table 20 ‘Offenders offer the skills which employers like us need’



n = 25.


Table 21 ‘Offenders lack the skills, attitudes and disciplines which are needed at work’



n = 25.


29


Summary

Employer attitudes comprise varyingproportions of fear, sympathy, ignorance,arrogance, caution and self-interest. They stemfrom a mixture of prejudice, experience andfolklore, and often reflect individual moralcodes but are also extremely complex and oftencontradictory. There is some evidence to suggestthat those recruiting to posts involving dailycontact with the general public are less likely torecruit offenders, and small employers and

Table 22 ‘Offenders are more highly motivated than non-offenders’



n = 25.


those experiencing recruitment difficulties aremore likely to do so. Employers are mostconcerned about re-offending, yet they areunwilling to recruit some of those least likely tore-offend. Although they feel that anyone can bean offender, many employers cannot decidewhether offenders want to put their pastsbehind them. Furthermore, most are unsurewhether offenders offer the skills needed byemployers but thought that they were morehighly motivated than non-offenders.

30

Introduction

Recruitment has been the main focus of thepreceding chapters. However, criminalconvictions can also affect those in work.Employers may, for example, dismiss those whodeliberately conceal unspent convictions.Employees may also be dismissed if theycommit an offence whilst in employment andconvictions may also adversely affect anindividual’s promotion prospects. This chapterfocuses on how employers respond to:

• the discovery of deliberately concealedunspent convictions

• employees receiving convictions whilst inemployment

• their experience of knowingly recruitingoffenders.

The evidence is drawn from the in-depthqualitative work with employers. The approachtaken was to ask employers whether they knew

of any such cases and, if so, to describe theirresponse. The data provided is indicative ofemployer responses; it does not estimate theextent to which these events occur.

Response to the discovery of deliberately

concealed unspent convictions

Almost half had subsequently found out that anappointment had deliberately concealed anunspent conviction. The offences included theft(five cases), shoplifting, deception, drivingoffences, assault, burglary, fraud and criminaldamage. Table 23 shows that this informationcame to light in a variety of ways including thefollowing:

• In five cases, fellow employees informedmanagement. Some appear to be usingthis information to ‘settle old scores’.

• On another occasion, an employee wasfound to be wearing an electronic securitytag.

7 The treatment of offenders in the

workforce

Table 23 How deliberately concealed unspent convictions are discovered

Frequency %

Other employees 5 42Offender disclosed at a later date 1 8Individual was wearing an electronic tag 1 8Police 1 8Employment Service contact 1 8Don’t know 3 25Total 12 100

Note: Figures may not add up to 100% because of rounding.


31

The treatment of offenders in the workforce

• Another employee was arrested at hisplace of work on suspicion of committingburglary. His previous convictions thencame to light.

The way that employers responded indicatesthe seriousness of such a discovery. Table 24shows that in nearly half of cases the employeewas dismissed. This was because the failure todisclose an unspent conviction was regarded asa serious breach of trust. Employers were,however, less likely to take this course of actionwhen they ascertained the reasons behind non-disclosure, assessed the relevance of convictionsto the work undertaken and took anindividual’s good employment record intoaccount. Hence: ‘It was irrelevant – he’d provedhimself to be a good employee’ (Managing

Director, recruitment agency) and ‘There was noindication that anything was wrong at work’(Human Resource Manager, food-processingcompany).

Response to employees receiving

convictions whilst in employment

Approximately two-thirds knew of someonecommitting an offence whilst in work. Theoffences included GBH, ABH (three cases),manslaughter, driving offences (three cases),theft and the possession of drugs. Only one ofthe cases cited was for offences against thecompany.

Those who offend in employment are treatedmore leniently (see Table 25). The most commonresponse was to take no action. As before, this

Table 24 Action taken where an employee was found to have deliberately concealed an unspent

conviction

Frequency %

No action 6 50Dismissed 5 42Individual challenged then left 1 8Total 12 100


Table 25 Action taken when an employee is convicted of an offence

Frequency %

No action 11 61Employee left because they were jailed 3 17Dismissed 4 22Total 18 100


32


was particularly the case if an employeeperformed well in their job: ‘The conviction didnot affect his work’ (Human Resource Manager,food-processing company). Sometimes,employees were thought to have been harshlytreated by the criminal justice process:

There was a strong case for mitigatingcircumstances. He’d proved it to me, if not thecourt.(General Manager, security company)

Four cases resulted in dismissal. Theseincluded two drug-related cases including anindividual under the influence of drugs at work:

He was off his head, on second thoughts weshould have turned him over to the police.(General Manager, clothing manufacturer)

Another case involved an individual caughtstealing from the company:

You can never tell who you’ve got working foryou. I dismissed one bloke. He’d been stealingstuff off us for donkey’s years. Most peoplelooked up to him as being a good lad and a goodworker.(General Manager, bed manufacturer)

The final case was of an employee receivinga conviction for manslaughter.

Employer responses appear to be basedupon a number of considerations including thenature of the crime, the extent to which theoffence is job-related, whether the individualcan continue working and the potential foradverse publicity. A Human Resource Managerin a major transport and distribution company,for example, noted that:

Much as we may disapprove, what we do aboutit will mainly depend on the impact of the timeout due to the offence.

Furthermore, in two of the three casesresulting in custodial sentences, the individualwas re-employed on their release. This course ofaction was taken because the individual wasregarded as a good worker or: ‘He wasincredibly unlucky to get sent down, and hewas totally up-front with us’ (Human ResourceManager, train operator). Both cases involvedyoung men convicted of violent offencesunconnected with the workplace.

Experience of knowingly employing

offenders

Thirty-nine per cent of the employersresponding to the postal survey reported thatthey had knowingly recruited an offender in thelast 12 months, although only 23 per cent ofprivate sector respondents had done so. Table 26shows that a quarter of employers reportednegative or mixed experiences of employingoffenders: ‘Some are a problem; others just wanta second chance and are hard working andconscientious’ (Managing Director, recruitmentagency). Similarly, a Human Resource Managerin a food-processing company distinguishedbetween individuals with one-off convictionswho often made good workers and those forwhom ‘criminality has become a way of life’. Inthe latter case, drug and alcohol addictions werefelt to be particular problems and manyemployers reported that these individualsfound it impossible to settle into the routine ofwork.

33

The treatment of offenders in the workforce

Table 26 Experience of knowingly employing offenders

Frequency %

Don’t know 12 46Positive 7 27Mixed 5 19Negative 2 8Total 26 100


Table 27 Employer views on the general suitability of offenders

Frequency %

Don’t know 14 54Would recommend offenders to other employers 9 35Would not recommend offenders to other employers 3 11Total 26 100


Table 27 shows that a third wouldrecommend offenders to other employers. TheGeneral Manager of a security companydescribed them as ‘quality people’. A HousingManager in a local authority said: ‘They are nota problem where their conviction is known; they

have something to prove.’ Sometimes therecommendation was a qualified one:

I would only recommend the ones I’ve hadpersonal knowledge of. I wouldn’t necessarilyrecommend the practice.(General Manager, bed manufacturer)

34

Table 28 Expected use of the basic disclosure certificate in recruitment

All Private Public Voluntary(%) (%) (%) (%)

n = 106 n = 27 n = 62 n = 14

Very likely 41 33 40 50Quite likely 31 44 28 22Not very likely 17 15 19 14Not at all likely 3 0 3 7Don’t know 8 8 10 7Total 100 100 100 100


Introduction

The implementation of the Police Act willenable employers to acquire reliable informationabout the criminal records of both job applicantsand employees. This chapter examines howemployers are likely to make use of the newlegislation and focuses on basic disclosurecertificates, which permit much broader, lessrestricted access to criminal record information.It draws upon evidence gained from the in-depth examinations of recruitment practice, twofocus groups and the postal survey ofemployers. The focus is on the:

• expected use of basic disclosures inrecruitment

• implications for existing employees.

Expected use in recruitment

At the outset, it is important to recognise thelimitations of such an exercise. One in fiveemployers (19 per cent) had not heard about thePolice Act prior to our contact. Many were

unsure about its main provisions and unawareof its potential implications: ‘I know there issomething out there, but it is not in our line ofsight yet’ (Manager, brewery). Consequently, allemployers were sent an A4 fact sheet describingthe key points of the legislation in order tofacilitate an informed discussion. In addition,the way that employers make use of thelegislation may change over time as theybecome more familiar with the pros and cons ofrequesting basic disclosure certificates.

Awareness of the legislation varied from just48 per cent of private sector respondents to thepostal survey to 97 per cent of those in thepublic sector. Nevertheless, 41 per cent ofemployers reported that it was very likely thatthey would require applicants to provide basicdisclosure certificates and a further 31 per centthought that it was quite likely that they woulddo so (Table 28). A greater proportion ofvoluntary sector employers were very likely touse the basic disclosure certificate.

Two-thirds (68 per cent) thought they werelikely to request basic disclosure certificatesselectively from applicants to certain posts (this

8 Employers and the Police Act

35

Employers and the Police Act

varied from 33 per cent of voluntary sectorrespondents to 83 per cent in the public sector).Those seeking to use this information selectivelyoften cited the following types of post: thoseinvolving access to children, the elderly andvulnerable adults; those with financial or auditremits; cashiers and security personnel.

Table 29 identifies the stage at whichemployers would seek basic disclosurecertificates. A striking feature is that just one infour (25 per cent) of private sector respondentsintended seeking this information at the job-offer stage compared to over 60 per cent ofemployers in the public and voluntary sectors.

The in-depth examinations of recruitmentpractice suggest that the new legislation willincrease employers’ awareness of criminalrecords as an issue, leading to more seeking thisinformation. Almost two-thirds thought the Actwould increase their likelihood of doing so.Several thought that requesting basicdisclosures would become standard practicebecause it would provide independent andreliable information on unspent convictions:

If it can give extra confidence that detailsprovided are true and accurate, it would allow usto make better judgements. At present, we arefar too reliant on applicants being honest.(Human Resource Manager, mail-order company)

Furthermore, the pressure on applicants toproduce certificates may be considerable:

It’s like asking for a reference; if they say no to usasking them to produce a certificate, we’d wantto know why.(Human Resource Manager, train operator)

The remainder believed that the Act wouldhave little or no effect. Many employers alreadyask all job applicants for criminal recordinformation. Some reported that:

If we had any suspicions beyond these, wewouldn’t pursue them with a certificate, we justwouldn’t employ them.(Human Resource Manager, motor manufacturer)

Others felt that the legislation would forcejobseekers to become more honest:

Table 29 The stage employers would ask to see a basic disclosure certificate


Stage n = 89 n = 24 n = 51 n = 11

Application form 19 33 12 18Interview 29 42 25 18Job offer 52 25 63 64Total 100 100 100 100


36


If the individual has half a brain, he or she realisesI can check up. If I felt I had to ask for thecertificate, I’d already be having second thoughtsabout employing them.(Personnel Manager, food-processing company)

A few were principled objectors to the Act:

I am appalled by this Police Act. It seems tonegate the previous Act and is synonymous witha growing paranoia about crime.(Development worker, charity)

Furthermore, some employers felt thatrequesting certificates from all applicants isneither desirable nor practical. Some thought itunimportant: ‘Criminal records have never beenan issue up to now’ (Manager, transport haulagecompany). Others undertaking largerecruitment exercises pointed out that thiswould slow down the process too much. Once aneed for new employees has been identified,many employers are keen to recruit as quicklyas possible. A few voiced concerns aboutpossible inaccuracies in disclosure information,which it is believed could lead to recruitmentdecisions being challenged in the courts.According to this standpoint, the legislationwould represent ‘just another stick to beatemployers with’ (Human Resource Manager,rail company). It is also not yet clear how longthe information contained within basicdisclosure certificates will remain valid.Although not specifically mentioned byemployers, some feel that the implementation ofthe Police Act will inevitably lead to problemsof counterfeiting certificates.

Approximately a quarter believed that, ifemployers had to pay for the certificate, this

would reduce their likelihood of asking forcriminal record information. This was especiallythe case for voluntary sector employers andthose undertaking large-scale recruitmentexercises. Others would minimise costs byeither focusing on a limited number of sensitiveposts or restricting requests to those candidatesreceiving a job offer. However, most felt that:

Paying to view the certificates of successfulapplicants would be small beans compared to thecosts involved in a recruitment drive.(Human Resource Manager, mail-order company)

Similarly, it would be: ‘a small price to payfor peace of mind’ (General Manager, bedmanufacturer). Several companies wouldconsider reimbursing successful applicants.

Implications for existing employees

Less than one in seven (13 per cent) thought thatit was either very likely or quite likely that theywould use the Police Act to check the criminalrecords of all existing employees (Table 30). Agreater proportion of voluntary sectoremployers were likely to use basic disclosureinformation in this way (31 per cent comparedwith 7 and 11 per cent in the private sector andpublic sectors respectively).

Tables 31 and 32 show that employers aremore likely to use basic disclosures to checkindividuals in some jobs (59 per cent thoughtthat this was very or quite likely) and somepeople (28 per cent reported that it was very orquite likely). Public sector employers are morelikely to check individuals in some jobs (74 percent thought it was likely compared to 38 percent in the private sector).

37

Employers and the Police Act

Table 30 Expected use of the basic disclosures for all existing employees


n = 105 n = 27 n = 62 n = 13



Table 31 Expected use of the basic disclosures to check individuals in some jobs

All Private Public Voluntary(%) (%) (%) (%)n = 85 n = 24 n = 51 n = 8

Very likely 32 4 49 12Quite likely 27 34 25 12Not very likely 23 29 20 38Not at all likely 18 33 6 38Total 100 100 100 100


Table 32 Expected use of the basic disclosures to check some people




38


Those intending to check existing employeeshave cited several justifications. Foremostamong these have been the following:

• The special requirements of particularsectors: ‘This industry has uniquerequirements’ (General Manager of asecurity company).

• Fairness and consistency: ‘If you areasking everyone else it is only fair to askus’ (volunteer recruiter, voluntaryorganisation).

• The requirements of suppliers orcustomers: ‘If they asked us to check wewould. For example, one of thecompanies we work with breathalysetheir staff and asked us to do it’ (Trainingand Recruitment Officer, distributioncompany).

They identified three particular benefits ofchecking existing employees. First, it could alertthem to potential problems: ‘This knowledge

would enable us to be vigilant if we knewsomeone had a criminal record’ (GeneralManager, bed manufacturer). Second, it could beused to corroborate suspicions about particularemployees: ‘If someone had been working here,say, about 18 months and we suspected them ofpetty theft, then we might want to look at thatindividual’s disclosure certificate’ (HumanResource Manager, food-processing company).Finally, it could be used to screen those insensitive posts. A major retailer, for example,noted that it might be used to check those staffwho visit clients at home.

However, most employers believe that theuse of the legislation to check existingemployees is unnecessary, impractical andpossibly unethical. In particular, they cited theimpracticalities of checking large workforcesand potential hostility from trade unions. Theyalso expressed the view that existing employeeshad proved themselves: ‘If they are doing agood job, what’s the point’ (Managing Director,recruitment company).

39

Introduction

This final chapter highlights some of theconclusions emerging from the research in termsof the key determinants of employer behaviourtowards offenders; the likely impact of theintroduction of basic disclosure certificates; andthe implications for policy makers. It goes on topresent a series of key recommendations.

The key determinants of employer

behaviour

Employer behaviour towards offenders in therecruitment process is diverse, complex andoften contradictory. Despite this, it is possible todiscern five key determinants:

• legislation• corporate culture• key individuals• prevailing stereotypes and prejudice• the labour market.

First, employers taking part in the researchrecognised the need to meet the requirements oflegislation. Yet, many of those undertakingrecruitment exercises were not fully aware ofthe implications of the ROA, which has been onthe statute for over 25 years. This problemmight have been anticipated in smallemployers. However, the low importanceattached to the issue, the decentralised nature ofmuch recruitment activity and difficultiesmaintaining effective communication meantthat it also characterised many recruitmentexercises undertaken by large national ormultinational employers. This suggests thatgood practice guides or voluntary codes ofpractice may be relatively ineffective ways of

addressing the issues raised by the introductionof basic disclosure certificates.

Second, the research has identified theimportance of corporate culture in determiningemployer responses to the issues raised by therecruitment of offenders. Significant differencesin culture were identified between private sectoremployers. Most companies are primarilyconcerned with their bottom-line performance.They want recruits able to contribute to the keybusiness goals of productivity and profitability.Many have particular concerns about thehonesty and job-readiness of offenders. Incontrast, a few believe that commercial successand social responsibility are inextricably linked.A large food manufacturer, for example, hasdeveloped a policy for employing offendersbecause it recognised that this would allow it torecruit from the largest possible pool of labourand so improve its bottom-line results.

Cultural differences were most pronouncedbetween the private and public sectors. Thelatter, for example, attached greater importanceto establishing the criminal records of jobapplicants. This may partly reflect the nature ofits work, which allows access to vulnerablegroups. However, the available evidencesuggests that, although the public sector wasmore likely to make use of the Police Act torequest basic disclosures, it may use thisinformation in a more responsible way. It was,for example, much more likely to request thisdata at the job-offer stage and to have recruitedan offender in the last 12 months.

Third, the judgement and attitudes of keyindividuals continue to play an important rolein selection despite the formalisation of therecruitment process. Personal experiences can

9 Conclusions and recommendations

40


be important in this respect. A Human ResourceDirector in a major retailer, for example, recalledthat early in her career she had recruitedsomeone who had lied about her criminalrecord. The employee then proceeded to stealgoods worth at least £2,500 over a six-monthperiod. This chastening experience had not beenforgotten and was clearly affecting the HumanResource Director’s behaviour towardsoffenders nearly 20 years later. In contrast, a fewindividuals behave in charitable orphilanthropic ways towards offenders. AGeneral Manager at a bed manufacturer, forexample, was prepared to recruit offenders indefiance of his Managing Director because: ‘Asa Christian, I give people a chance.’

Fourth, many recruiters have stereotypicalattitudes about offenders which serve as asource of prejudice and as a barrier to theireffective recruitment. Offenders are oftendeemed to be unreliable, untrustworthy and aserious threat to employees, customers andclients. However, these attitudes are notconfined to employers; they are a widespreadand enduring feature of modern Britain. Morerecently, they have been strengthened by theincreasingly punitive response of successivegovernments to those committing criminal actsand the sensationalist reporting of crime by themedia.

Finally, many employers are experiencingproblems recruiting to low-paid, low-skilledposts, particularly in the buoyant labourmarkets of London and the South East ofEngland. Labour shortages are forcing them tolook at labour pools that they might not havepreviously considered, for example olderworkers, people with disabilities and offenders.

We have encountered many companies that arenow taking such an approach. Two majoremployers, for example, have recently begun towork with a voluntary organisation in Londonto attract job applicants from disadvantagedgroups such as offenders and the homeless. Anadditional benefit of this approach is that thecriminal records of job applicants are knownand consequently employers are able to assessand manage the risks. However, the companiesare extremely sensitive to the adverse publicitythat this might generate and consequently arenot publicising this initiative.

The likely impact of basic disclosure

certificates

The Police Act permits broader, less restrictedaccess to the criminal records of individuals.The way that employers make use of thisinformation will vary enormously and willdepend on a wide range of factors includingtheir awareness of the legislation; corporateculture; the type of labour sought; therecruitment procedures and selection criteriaemployed; the extent to which recruiters areappropriately trained and supported; and thesort of labour markets that they are active in.Many will make inappropriate use of thisinformation; 46 per cent reported that theyneeded some help with assessing andmanaging the risks of recruiting offenders.Moreover, the present research stronglysuggests that the introduction of basicdisclosures will heighten discriminationagainst offenders in the labour market. Thisconclusion is based on several interrelatedfindings:

41

Conclusions and recommendations

• At present, many offenders are ‘hidden’in the labour market because they arechoosing not to disclose their criminalrecords. In some circumstances, thissituation suits both parties because someemployers would rather not confront theissue.

• Many employers will make extensive useof the Police Act to request basicdisclosure certificates from job applicants.Consequently, offenders will becomemuch more visible in the recruitmentprocess.

• Most employers, particularly those in theprivate sector, lack the appropriate policyframeworks for dealing with the issuesraised by the recruitment of offenders in apositive and responsible way. Equalopportunities policies, for example, arenot seen as being directly relevant andfew have policies that specificallymention offenders.

• Employers are not subject to anysignificant social pressure to developappropriate policies. In particular, therecruitment and treatment of offendersappears to be an insignificant issue fortrade unions.

• Many recruitment exercises arestaffed by line managers who oftenhave not received appropriateinformation or training to deal withthe issue.

Implications of this research for policy

makers

The task for policy makers is to ensure that theimplementation of the Police Act facilitates saferrecruitment decisions whilst ensuring thatcriminal record checks take into account therights of the individual and that discriminatorybehaviour is minimised. Section 122 of thePolice Act places an obligation on the Secretaryof State to publish a code of practice foremployers seeking criminal record information.The White Paper suggested that employersadhere to a number of guiding principles. Table33 shows the proportion reporting that it wasvery likely that they would do so. A key featureis the reluctance of private sector employers tofollow such principles. Only about one in seven,for instance, are very likely to ensure that thepossession of a conviction will not automaticallydebar a person from employment.

It is currently envisaged that the code ofpractice will relate to just those employersintending to request standard and enhanceddisclosures. However, 76 per cent ofrespondents to the postal survey thought thatthis should be extended to include thoserequesting basic disclosure certificates.Furthermore, 62 per cent believed that the codeof practice should be made mandatory foremployers intending to request basic disclosurecertificates; although just 44 per cent of privatesector organisations felt that this wasappropriate.

Effective policy must be capable ofaddressing the genuine concerns that many

42


Table 33 The efficacy of codes of practice


Principle n = 104 n = 27 n = 62 n = 14

We will have a written policy on the employment ofoffenders and a written strategy for implementingthat policy 54 33 65 58

We will inform job applicants at the application formstage that a criminal record check will be made andthey will be supplied with a copy of the organisation’spolicy on the employment of offenders 56 33 68 58

We will undertake criminal record checks only after aconditional offer of employment has been made 58 27 69 69

We will ensure that the possession of a conviction willnot automatically debar a person from employment 55 15 71 69

We will ensure that all staff involved in recruitmentare appropriately trained in areas relating to theemployment of offenders including the Police Actand the 1974 ROA 58 48 63 54


employers have about recruiting offenders. Thepresent research has considered a range ofpossible policy responses. Table 34 shows theproportion of employers indicating that variousinitiatives would help overcome their anxietiesabout recruiting offenders.

The most popular initiatives – action toimprove basic skills and intermediate labourmarket (ILM) programmes – both reflectconcerns over the job readiness of offenders.Recent research has raised general anxietiesover basic skill levels. A recent OECD survey,for example, ranked the UK in the lower half ofthe 20 nations being examined. The Skills TaskForce has found that nearly one in five adultshas lower levels of literacy than an average 11year old. These problems are even more acute

for offenders. Employers taking part in thisresearch have continually cited poor basic skillsas a key labour market barrier, even inrecruitment exercises for low-skilled and low-paid posts (see Chapter 4). However, theinternational review has suggested that it maybe difficult to convince those with poor basicskills that it matters. In particular, many do notperceive it as a problem because they haveneeded to do little reading or writing inprevious jobs. This may be exacerbated becausemany offenders have ‘flat’ aspirations in thatthey aim to return to the labour market at asimilar occupational level to when they left it.

Similarly, the use of ILMs reflects concernsover the marginal position of most offenders inthe mainstream labour market. There has been a

43


rapid growth in the use of ILM programmesthroughout the UK and the government’sEmployment Zone pilots all have anintermediate labour market component, referredto as ‘neighbourhood match’. They are also afeature of the American policy environment (seeAppendix 1). The objective is to provide aparallel (intermediate) labour market whereseverely disadvantaged groups can gain thenecessary motivation, skills and workexperience. Properly managed, they can delivermore sustainable employment outcomes thanother programmes (Marshall and Macfarlane,2000).

Over half of the employers responding to thepostal survey indicated that work trials mayhelp to overcome their anxieties aboutrecruiting offenders. International experiencesuggests that they may allow ‘job-ready’offenders to demonstrate their value to anemployer and be an effective way of breakingdown the suspicions of both parties. The present

research suggests that employers are muchmore tolerant towards offenders once they haveproved themselves to be valued employees.Previous experience, however, suggestssubstitution may be high. Substitution is whereemployers substitute new recruits for existingworkers who lose their jobs or substitute newrecruits for those who otherwise would havebeen recruited. Furthermore, both employersand offenders are likely to need some form ofpost-placement support (see Appendix 1).

A key finding of the present research is thatmany of those undertaking recruitmentexercises have not undergone offender-specifictraining. There are two main aspects to thisproblem. First, none of the private sectorrespondents to the postal survey and only onein seven public sector employers reported thatthey provided such training. Second, many ofthose carrying out job interviews are linemanagers rather than personnel professionals.All of this suggests that the provision of

Table 34 Addressing the concerns of employers – possible initiatives


Action to improve basic skills 66 56 76 27Intermediate labour market programmes 57 64 56 46Work trials 56 60 56 36Specialist training for recruiters 47 36 54 46Labour market intermediaries 46 44 46 46Low-cost specialist insurance 34 44 33 18Employment subsidies 33 40 30 27Government-backed publicity campaign 32 32 35 27Business register 16 16 15 27


44


specialist training for recruiters could make asignificant contribution to the development offair and responsible recruitment practice for theemployment of offenders.

The experience of the Apex ScotlandEmployers’ Recruitment Training (ASERT)project is instructive in this respect. Thisinnovative European-funded project has soughtto work collaboratively with employers todevelop effective recruitment strategy andpractice in the employment of offenders.Training has been a key component of thiswork. The project has found that even thelargest employers with sophisticated humanresource processes are often unable to deal withthe issues raised by the recruitment of offenders.Consequently, it has been very difficult to getmany to prioritise offender-specific training. Yet,many of those becoming involved haveidentified a number of benefits includingreduced risk and increased choice in the labourmarket. However, the project has not been ableto reach small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs). Most of those participating have beenlarge national and multinational ‘blue chip’companies and public sector organisations.

The use of labour market intermediariesserving both employers and disadvantagedjobseekers has been an integral part of welfareto work in America. An intermediary is anentity which acts as a broker between theemployer and public sector to train, place andhelp retain and advance those moving fromwelfare to work. The main appeal ofintermediaries to business is that they operateas an efficient link between employers and thepublic sector, relieving much of theadministrative burden. American intermediariesoften screen, train and place welfare recipients

into jobs and then undertake follow-up work toensure that they succeed in their new positions.In the UK, however, few public, community oreducation institutions have the skills orexperience to provide an effective service tolocal employers. Similarly, those with a focus onmeeting the needs of business often have littlecredibility with offenders. Consequently, thedevelopment of intermediaries in the UK willrequire significant organisational developmentand capacity building. In addition,intermediaries are most effective in buoyantlabour markets but many parts of the UK arestill characterised by insufficient labourdemand.

The provision of low-cost specialistinsurance for offenders has been a key feature ofthe American policy environment for nearly 40years. The Federal Bonding Programmeprovides an incentive for the recruitment ofindividuals who are an insurance ‘risk’ byreimbursing employers for financial loss whenworkers commit dishonest acts. However, thistype of policy may be culturally specific, arisingout of the litigious business culture of the US. Atpresent, it appears to have limited relevance tothe UK.

Recommendations

The present research identifies a series of keyrecommendations for policy makers, which fallinto three main areas:

1 preparing offenders for the labour market

2 encouraging employers to adopt policiesfor the recruitment of offenders

3 stimulating a positive climate for therecruitment of offenders.

45


Preparing offenders for the labour market

• The New Deal must become morefocused on helping severelydisadvantaged groups facing multiplebarriers to employment, for exampleoffenders, the homeless and those withdrug problems.

• The UK Government has recentlyannounced that it will invest £15 millionin new outreach for ethnic minorities overthe next three years, through communityand voluntary bodies (HM Treasury,2001a). A similar initiative should beconsidered to help offenders currentlyexcluded from the New Deal.

• The Department for Work and Pensions(formerly the DfEE) should recognise thatoffenders are a group with specific needsin the labour market and developappropriate initiatives to help themsecure employment.

• During Autumn 2001, the ES and BenefitsAgency are to be merged. The resultingAgency is to be called ‘Jobcentre Plus’and aims to provide a single integratedservice to all benefit claimants of workingage and to employers. The new agencywill have a focus on parity targets acrossall areas of performance to help close thegap between unemployment rates forpeople from ethnic minorities and thosewho are white. The increased visibility ofoffenders in the labour market resultingfrom the Police Act and the problems thatthis is likely to generate strongly suggestthat the new agency should be givenparity targets for offenders.

• All Jobcentre Plus front-line staff shouldbe able to provide appropriate advice andinformation to offenders. Specialist staffshould be made available to assist thosewhose convictions make themparticularly hard to employ.

• The Government should fund outreachwork by Jobcentre Plus in prisons andprobation centres to advise offendersabout disclosure and appropriateemployment and training opportunities.

• More should be done to preserve anoffender’s job on imprisonment. Allprisons should undertake employmentprotection work with remand and short-term prisoners, by contacting theiremployers and encouraging them to keeptheir jobs open.

• The UK Government should fund alabour market pilot programme to testvarious approaches to getting offendersinto work. This research has identified thepotential usefulness of ILMs, work trials,offender-specific training for recruitersand specialist labour marketintermediaries.

• Labour market intermediaries may beparticularly useful in those areascharacterised by buoyant labour markets.The task for Government is to reinforcethe message that intermediaries have animportant role to play in the nextgeneration of active labour marketpolicies. They then need to create anenvironment that stimulates and supportsthe growth of intermediaries; much of thework of which is concerned with building

46


and maintaining relationships withemployers and disadvantaged groups.Policy makers will, therefore, need toformulate payment systems that are morecompatible with these forms of activity.

• The barriers faced by offenders indepressed labour markets arecompounded by low business creationrates and a lack of employmentopportunities. There is a particular needto stimulate employment-intensivegrowth in occupational and skillcategories accessible to offenders. The‘Enterprising communities: a taxincentive for community development’consultation document produced by thegovernment on 1 March 2001 sets outproposals for a new communitydevelopment tax break, aimed at creating£1 billion of private investment indisadvantaged communities. This is awelcome first step in addressing the lackof employment opportunities in deprivedneighbourhoods.

• Offenders should be encouraged toacquire the necessary skills and buildupon them through lifelong learning. Thismay enable those in low-paid, low-skilledjobs to move into secure and rewardingemployment. This may generate widersocial benefits because previous researchhas shown that stable employment is thesingle most important factor in reducingre-offending.

Encouraging employers to adopt policies for

the recruitment of offenders

• Employers should be given access todisclosures only if they have appropriaterecruitment policies and procedures forthe recruitment of offenders.

• The Government should take the lead onimplementing recruitment policies foroffenders. All Government departmentsand agencies should be required to havesuch policies. Organisations eitherseeking to enter into a contractualrelationship with Government orreceiving public funding should also berequired to adopt appropriate policies.

• A ‘kite-mark’ should be introduced andawarded to employers operating fair andresponsible recruitment practices for theemployment of disadvantaged groups,including offenders. In the case of thelatter, employers should have writtenpolicies and procedures, and provideoffender-specific training of recruiters.

• Jobcentre Plus staff should, whereappropriate, encourage employers toconsider the recruitment of offenders.

• The Government must fund a helpline foremployers offering advice andinformation on matters relating to therecruitment and employment ofoffenders, including the development ofappropriate policies and the ROA.

47


• The review of the ROA should focus onsimplifying the present system andstriking a better balance betweenreintegrating offenders and protectingsociety from those who might offendagain. Particular attention should begiven to reducing rehabilitation periodsand ensuring that all sentences exceeding30 months can become spent.

• The introduction of basic disclosuresshould be accompanied by a majorcampaign to help inform offenders oftheir rights and obligations.

Stimulating a positive climate for the

recruitment of offenders

• The Government has a significant role toplay in creating a climate in which therecruitment and rehabilitation ofoffenders are recognised as importantactivities that should be encouraged. Itshould do much more to inform thepublic that rehabilitation can work andthat employers, as well as others, have animportant contribution to make. This is along-term process that will require majorinvestment in education and publicawareness-raising activities.

48

Adebowale, V. (1998) Meeting the Needs of

Disadvantaged Young People. A Report by theNew Deal Task Force Working Group. London:New Deal Task Force

Albright, S. and Denq, F. (1996) ‘Employerattitudes toward hiring ex-offenders’, The Prison

Journal, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 118–37

Apex Scotland (1992) Risks & Rewards. Re-

integrating Ex-offenders through Employment.Edinburgh: Apex Scotland

Apex Scotland (1999) Apex Scotland’s Employers’

Recruitment Training. A Catalyst for Change.Edinburgh: Apex Scotland

Apex Trust (1989) On the Right Tracks. A Report

on the Recruitment and Selection of Trackmen for

British Rail (Southern) Region. London: Apex Trust

Apex Trust (1990) Releasing the Potential. A Guide

to Good Practice for the Employment of People with

Criminal Records. London: Apex Trust

Apex Trust (1991) The Hidden Workforce:

Employing Ex-offenders, Recruitment Policy and

Practice. London: Apex Trust

Apex Trust (1994) Straight for Work. Advice on

how to Give Information about Criminal Records to

Employers. London: Apex Trust

Apex Trust (1996) National Audit of Offender

Employment Policies and Practice. London: ApexTrust

Atkinson, D., Fenster, C.A. and Blumberg, A.(1976) ‘Employer attitudes towards work-release programs and the hiring of offenders’,Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Vol. 3, No. 4,pp. 335–42

Atkinson, J., Giles, L. and Meager, N. (1996)Employers, Recruitment and the Unemployed.Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies

Blake Stevenson Ltd (2000) Apex Scotland

Employers’ Recruitment Training (ASERT) Project

Evaluation. Final Report. Edinburgh: BlakeStevenson Ltd

Borland, J. and Hunter, B. (2000) ‘Does crimeaffect employment status?’, Economica, Vol. 67,pp. 123–44

Box-Grainger, J. (1983) ‘Employers’ attitudes toex-offenders’, Personnel Management, November,pp. 31–5

Buffery, C. (1998) Promoting Employment

Opportunities for Ex-offenders. Peterborough:Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce,Training and Enterprise and CambridgeshireProbation Service

Burns, G. (1998) ‘A perspective on policy andpractice in the re-integration of offenders’,European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research,Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 171–83

Bushway, S. (1998) ‘The impact of an arrest onthe job stability of young white American men’,Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol.35, No. 4, pp. 454–79

Centre for Local Economic Strategies (2000)‘Welfare to Work in America: a smart solutionfor business’, Local Work Briefing, No. 21, May,pp. 1–4

Chartered Institute of Personnel andDevelopment (2001) Employing People with

Conviction. London: CIPD

Bibliography

49

Bibliography

Conalty, J. (1998) New Deal: A Good Deal for

Offenders. London: Inner London ProbationService

Conalty, J. and Cox, L. (1999) Who’d Give Me a

Job? A Study of Employers’ Attitudes to Offenders.London: Inner London Probation Service

Criminal Records Bureau (2001) Disclosure. The

New Service to Help Employers and Voluntary

Organisations Make Safer Recruitment Decisions.London: Criminal Records Bureau

Dattner, F. (1988) ‘2nd Chance Business Register:policy and practice’, unpublished report,Victoria, Australia

Davis, R. (1980) ‘Employer stigmatization of ex-offenders and the pardon under the CriminalRecords Act’, Canadian Journal of Criminology,Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 343–53

Donlan, M. and Withers, A. (1991) Labour Market

Survey: Attitudes of Employers to Offenders in

Somerset. Bristol: Bristol Polytechnic

Downes, D. (1993) Employment Opportunities for

Offenders. London: Home Office

Drakeford, M. and Vanstone, M. (1996) Beyond

Offending Behaviour. London: Arena

Earnshaw, J. (1989) ‘Criminal convictions: a barto equality of employment’, Employee Relations,Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 23–6

EMPLOYMENT Support Unit (2000) Working

with Ex-offenders: Lessons from INTEGRA.Birmingham: EMPLOYMENT Support Unit

European Offender Employment Group (1995)What Works? Models of Good Practice in Europe.London: European Offender EmploymentGroup

European Offender Employment Group (1996)Reintegrating Offenders through Employment.

Conference report, Barcelona, 26–28 April

European Offender Employment Group (1997)Employers and the Recruitment of Offenders.Conference report, Rome, 7–8 March

European Social Fund (1999) Developing Good

Practice in the Employment of Ex-offenders.Conference report, York Racecourse, 15 June

Finn, M. and Willoughby, K. (1996)‘Employment outcomes of ex-offender JobTraining Partnership Act (JTPA) trainees’,Evaluation Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 67–83

Fletcher, D.R. (1999) ‘Ex-offenders and thelabour market: a review of the discourse ofsocial exclusion and consequences for crime andthe New Deal’, Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy, Vol. 17, pp. 431–44

Fletcher, D.R., Woodhill, D. and Herrington, A.(1998) Building Bridges into Employment and

Training for Ex-offenders. York: York PublishingServices for Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Gill, M. (1997) ‘Employing ex-offenders: a riskor an opportunity?’, The Howard Journal, Vol. 36,No. 4, pp. 337–51

Grier, A. and Thomas, T. (2000) ‘Unsuitable towork with young people. The pre-employmentscreening of youth workers’, Youth & Policy, No.70, pp. 1–10

Hammend, R. (1998) ‘No con do. A criminal pastmay prevent the transition from welfare towork’, Pittsburgh City Paper, 5–12 August, p. 8

Harper, M. and Rieple, A. (1992) Ex-offenders and

Enterprise. London: Cranfield School ofManagement

50


Helfgott, J. (1997) ‘Ex-offender needs versuscommunity opportunity in Seattle, Washington’,Federal Probation, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 12–24

HM Treasury (2001a) Towards Full Employment in

a Modern Society. London: HM Treasury

HM Treasury (2001b) Enterprising Communities:

A Tax Incentive for Community Development.

London: HM Treasury

Holzer, H. (1996) What Employers Want: Job

Prospects for Less Educated Workers. New York:Russell Sage Foundation

Homant, R. and Kennedy, D. (1982) ‘Attitudestoward ex-offenders: a comparison of socialstigmas’, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 10,pp. 383–92

Home Office (1993) Disclosure of Criminal Records

for Employment Vetting Purposes, Cm. 2319.London: HMSO

Home Office (1995) Criminal Careers of Those

Born between 1953 and 1973. London: HomeOffice Statistical Bulletin, Issue 14/95

Hulsey, L. (1990) ‘Attitudes of employers withrespect to hiring released prisoners’,unpublished dissertation, Mankato StateUniversity

Institute of Personnel and Development (1997)‘Forgive us our trespasses’, Personnel

Management, 3 April

Institute of Personnel and Development (1999)Employing People with Criminal Records. London:IPD

Jacobs, J.B., McGahey, R. and Minion, R. (1984)‘Ex-offender employment, recidivism, CETA,TJTC and future initiatives’, Crime &

Delinquency, Vol. 30, pp. 486–506

Jensen, W. and Giegold, W. (1976) ‘Finding jobsfor ex-offenders: a comparison of socialstigmas’, American Business Law Journal, Vol. 14,pp. 195–225

Kling, J. (1998) The Effect of Prison Length on the

Subsequent Employment and Earnings of Criminal

Defendants. Cambridge, MA: Department ofEconomics, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology

Laabs, J. (1997) ‘Employing society’s outcasts’,Personnel Journal, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 106–13

Labour Research (2001) Skills Shortages Bite.London: Labour Research

Louks, N., Olwen, L. and Sullivan, T. (1998) ‘Theemployment of people with criminal records inthe European Union’, European Journal on

Criminal Policy and Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp195–210

McCall, A. (1998) ‘Meeting the offender re-integration challenge’, European Journal on

Criminal Policy and Research, Vol. 6, No. 2,pp. 185–94

McManus, M. (1999) ‘The attitudes of headteachers towards job applicants with criminalconvictions’, Employment Times, June, pp. 4–8

Marshall, B. and Macfarlane, R. (2000) The

Intermediate Labour Market: A Tool for Tackling

Long-term Unemployment. York: York PublishingServices for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

51

Bibliography

Maxwell, P. and Mallon. D. (1997)‘Discrimination against ex-offenders’, Howard

Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 352–66

Miller, N. (1979) ‘Employer barriers to theemployment of persons with records of arrest orconviction: a review and analysis’, ASPER

Report No. PUR-79 3204 A. Washington, DC: USDepartment of Labor

Ministry of Labour, Finland (1999) Crossing the

Job Threshold. Conference report, Helsinki, 25–7November

NACRO (1987) Facing the Problem: A Report on

Alternatives to Unemployment for Offenders.London: NACRO

NACRO (1997) Offenders and Employment:

Offenders Talking about Their Search for Work.London: NACRO

NACRO (1999) Going Straight to Work. London:NACRO

NACRO (1999) Employing Offenders: Advice to

Employers. London: NACRO

NAPO (1993) Probation Caseload: Income and

Employment. A Study of the Financial

Circumstances of 1,331 Offenders on Probation

Supervision. London: HMSO

National Prison Survey (1991) Main Findings.London: Home Office Research Study 128

Newsum-Brown, T. (1996) Employer Survey of

1996 into the Recruitment and Selection Procedures

of Rotherham Based Employers Relating to the

Employment of Offenders. Rotherham: SouthYorkshire Probation Service, Rotherham TECand the Society of Voluntary Associates

NIACRO (1996) Regulating the Yellow Ticket: The

Laws, Policies and Practices which Affect the

Employment of People with Criminal Records in the

European Union. Belfast: NIACRO

NIACRO (1997) Coping with Convictions. An

Employers’ Guide to Good Practice in the

Employment of People with Criminal Records in

Northern Ireland. Belfast: NIACRO

Niehoff, B. and Paul, R. (2000) ‘Causes ofemployee theft and strategies that HR managerscan use to prevent it’, Human Resources

Management, Vol. 39

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation andCorrection (1998) 1998 Employer Survey. OhioDepartment of Rehabilitation and Correction

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation andCorrection (1999) Employer Community Resource

Guide: Directory of Services. Ohio Department ofRehabilitation and Correction

Pataki, G. and Sweeney, J. (1998) The Prime

Objective: A Guide in Preparing the Job Seeking Ex-

offender. New York: The New York StateDepartment of Labor

Radison, W. (1982) The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit in

New York City. New York: City Department ofEmployment

Rieple, A., Harper, M. and Bailey, A. (1998)‘Offenders and entrepreneurship’, European

Journal on Criminal Policy, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 235–56

Roberts, K., Barton, A., Buchanan, J. andGoldson, B. (1997) Evaluation of a Home Office

Initiative to Help Offenders into Employment.

London: Home Office

52


Rossman, S., Sridharan, S. and Buck, J. (1998)‘The impact of the Opportunity to Succeedprogram on employment success’, National

Institute of Justice Journal, June, pp. 14–20

Rovner-Pieczenik, R. (1973) A Review of

Manpower Research and Development in the

Correctional Field (1963–1973). Washington, DC:US Department of Labor

Schwartz, R. and Skolnick, J. (1962) ‘Two studiesof legal stigma’, Social Problems, Vol. 10, pp. 133–42

Smith, J. (1999) ‘Prior criminality andemployment of social workers with substantialaccess to children: a decision board analysis’,British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 29, pp. 69–95

Snelgrove, B. and Conalty, J. (1999) New York

Offenders Strive for a Better Future. Can Britain

Follow Suit? London: Inner London ProbationService

Soothill, K., Francis, B. and Ackerley, E. (1997)‘The value of finding employment for whitecollar ex-offenders’, British Journal of

Criminology, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 582–92

South Glamorgan Probation Service (1991)Maximising Employment Opportunities for

Offenders in South Glamorgan. Cardiff: SouthGlamorgan Probation Service

Spence, I. (1997) ‘Offenders into employment’,Prison Service Journal, No. 114, pp. 25–7

Spilsbury, M. (1997) Excluded Youths: Employer

Survey. London: Public Attitude Surveys

Texas Workforce Commission (1998) Project RIO.Dallas: Texas Workforce Commission

Trade Union Congress (1999) Ex-offenders and

Unemployment. London: TUC

Uglow, S. and Telford, V. (1997) The Police Act

1997. London: Jordans

US Department of Labor (1999) Federal Bonding

Program. Unique Job Placement Tool. Washington,DC: US Department of Labor

Wirth, W. (1998a) Including Prisoners and Ex-

offenders in Employment and Society. Proceedingsof the INTEGRA Conference, Dublin, November

Wirth, W. (1998b) Model Project: Integration of

Training and Employment for Ex-Prisoners.Dusseldorf: Ministry of the Interior and Justiceof North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

53

Appendix 1

Labour market programmes for offenders – a review of

international experience

1Tr

ain

ing

Man

pow

er D

evel

opm

ent T

rain

ing

Act

(196

2) p

rovi

ded

dis

adva

ntag

ed g

roup

ssu

ch a

s ex

-off

end

ers

wit

h th

e sk

ills

toco

mpe

te in

the

US

labo

ur m

arke

t. B

y19

68, 2

51 M

DTA

-spo

nsor

ed p

roje

cts

wer

e pr

ovid

ing

job

trai

ning

and

voca

tion

al c

ouns

ellin

g to

off

end

ers

and

ex-o

ffen

der

s.

A r

oust

abou

t is

the

term

giv

en to

age

nera

l off

shor

e as

sist

ant i

n th

e D

utch

oil i

ndus

try.

The

Juni

or R

oust

abou

tpr

ogra

mm

e w

as s

et u

p in

199

1 an

d w

as a

colla

bora

tion

bet

wee

n th

e A

mst

erd

amre

man

d c

entr

e an

d a

pri

vate

sec

tor

off-

shor

e co

mpa

ny. O

ffen

der

s be

ginn

ing

the

last

six

wee

ks o

f the

ir s

ente

nce

wer

eel

igib

le fo

r a

six-

wee

k tr

aini

ngpr

ogra

mm

e le

adin

g to

an

offi

cial

qual

ific

atio

n. T

hose

pas

sing

the

fina

lex

amin

atio

n re

ceiv

ed a

job

guar

ante

e,w

hich

was

par

ticu

larl

y at

trac

tive

beca

use

of th

e re

lati

vely

hig

h pa

yav

aila

ble

as a

rou

stab

out.

The

prog

ram

me

help

ed o

ver

30 o

ffen

der

sin

to w

ork.

Off

end

ers

lack

the

skill

sto

gai

n em

ploy

men

t.•

Poor

bas

ic s

kills

and

ala

ck o

f qua

lific

atio

nsar

e pa

rtic

ular

prob

lem

s fo

r m

any

offe

nder

s.

•T

he la

bour

mar

ket i

sw

itne

ssin

g a

cont

inui

ng d

eclin

e of

unsk

illed

, man

ual j

obs

and

the

grow

th o

f new

sect

ors

of th

e ec

onom

yw

hich

req

uire

goo

dco

mm

unic

atio

n sk

ills.

•Im

prov

ing

skill

s m

ayen

sure

that

off

end

ers

are

not c

onsi

gned

toth

e se

cond

ary

labo

urm

arke

t. In

div

idua

ls in

this

mar

ket t

end

tosu

ffer

from

rec

urre

ntsp

ells

of

unem

ploy

men

t and

thei

r w

ork

hist

orie

s ar

ech

arac

teri

sed

by

ase

ries

of h

oriz

onta

lm

oves

from

one

type

of u

nski

lled

job

toan

othe

r ra

ther

than

agr

adua

l inc

reas

e in

skill

s, r

espo

nsib

ility

and

rew

ard

s.

•Tr

aini

ng m

ay n

ot e

nsur

e th

at o

ffen

der

sha

ve a

gre

ater

cha

nce

of b

eing

rec

ruit

edor

, if r

ecru

ited

, rem

aini

ng in

wor

k. In

the

cont

ext o

f the

MD

TA, t

he U

SD

epar

tmen

t of L

abor

’s E

xper

imen

tal

Man

pow

er L

abor

ator

y fo

r C

orre

ctio

nsid

enti

fied

num

erou

s ba

rrie

rs fa

ced

by

offe

nder

s in

clud

ing

the

unw

illin

gnes

s of

empl

oyer

s ‘to

forg

ive

the

crim

inal

act

or

to s

ee b

eyon

d th

e cr

imin

al la

bel’

(Rov

ner-

Piec

zeni

k, 1

973,

p. 1

1).

•M

any

peop

le w

ith

poor

bas

ic s

kills

do

not p

erce

ive

it a

s a

labo

ur m

arke

t bar

rier

beca

use

they

hav

e ne

eded

to d

o lit

tle

read

ing

or w

riti

ng in

pre

viou

s jo

bs.

•M

any

offe

nder

s ha

ve ‘f

lat’

aspi

rati

ons

inth

at th

ey a

im to

ret

urn

to th

e la

bour

mar

ket a

t a s

imila

r oc

cupa

tion

al le

vel t

ow

hen

they

left

it.

Pro

gram

me

Rat

ion

ale

Str

engt

hs

Wea

kn

esse

s

54


MA

BiS

: Mod

el P

roje

ct –

Inte

grat

ion

ofTr

aini

ng a

nd E

mpl

oym

ent f

or E

x-pr

ison

ers

is fu

nded

by

INT

EG

RA

and

run

by

the

Min

istr

y of

the

Inte

rior

and

Just

ice

ofN

orth

Rhi

ne-W

estp

halia

in c

o-op

erat

ion

wit

h th

e G

erm

an M

inis

try

of L

abou

r,So

cial

Aff

airs

and

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent,

Cul

tura

l Aff

airs

and

Spo

rts.

The

prog

ram

me

targ

ets

1,30

0 yo

ung

pris

oner

s in

five

pri

sons

, and

aim

s to

prov

ide

a lin

k be

twee

n vo

cati

onal

trai

ning

in p

riso

ns a

nd p

ost-

sent

ence

empl

oym

ent.

Plac

ing

ex-p

riso

ners

into

real

jobs

is th

e co

re o

bjec

tive

of M

AB

iS.

Prev

ious

Ger

man

eva

luat

ions

hav

esh

own

that

, whi

le v

ocat

iona

l tra

inin

g is

nece

ssar

y to

impr

ove

mos

t pri

sone

rs’

poor

voc

atio

nal q

ualif

icat

ions

, it i

s no

tsu

ffic

ient

to r

educ

e re

cid

ivis

m r

ates

,un

less

it le

ads

to p

ost-

sent

ence

empl

oym

ent.

Pei

rs is

a E

urop

ean-

fund

ed p

roje

ct in

the

Can

ary

Isla

nds,

whi

ch ta

rget

s pr

ison

ers

in T

ener

ife

Pris

on. I

nmat

es u

nder

goge

nera

l ed

ucat

ion,

voc

atio

nal t

rain

ing

and

job

plac

emen

t. K

ey p

artn

ers

incl

ude

the

pris

on a

utho

riti

es, t

he R

egio

nal

Gov

ernm

ent,

trad

e un

ions

, loc

alau

thor

itie

s, th

e U

nive

rsit

y of

La

Lag

una

and

em

ploy

ers.

Em

ploy

ers

harb

our

dou

bts

abou

t the

val

ueof

rec

ruit

ing

offe

nder

s.Jo

b pl

acem

ents

are

an

oppo

rtun

ity

to d

ispe

lsu

ch d

oubt

s by

giv

ing

empl

oyer

s th

e ch

ance

to a

sses

s th

e va

lue

ofem

ploy

ing

such

peo

ple.

•O

ffen

der

s m

ay v

alue

the

oppo

rtun

ity

ofga

inin

g ‘f

irst

-han

d’

expe

rien

ce a

ndd

emon

stra

ting

thei

rva

lue

to a

n em

ploy

er.

•Pl

acem

ents

may

lead

to ‘r

eal’

jobs

in th

elo

nger

term

.

•Pr

ogra

mm

es c

an fo

cus

on s

ecto

rs w

here

empl

oyer

s ar

e lik

ely

toex

peri

ence

rec

ruit

men

td

iffi

cult

ies.

2Jo

b p

lace

men

t

•O

ffen

der

s m

ust b

e ‘jo

b-re

ady’

oth

erw

ise

ther

e is

a d

ange

r th

at r

elat

ions

hips

wit

hem

ploy

ers

will

be

und

erm

ined

.

•Su

bsti

tuti

on m

ay b

e hi

gh. S

ubst

itut

ion

isw

here

em

ploy

ers

subs

titu

te n

ew r

ecru

its

for

exis

ting

wor

kers

who

lose

thei

r jo

bsor

sub

stit

ute

new

rec

ruit

s fo

r th

ose

who

wou

ld o

ther

wis

e ha

ve b

een

recr

uite

d.

•T

he p

roce

ss o

f lia

isin

g w

ith

empl

oyer

san

d m

atch

ing

the

need

s of

bot

h of

fend

eran

d e

mpl

oyer

is r

esou

rce

inte

nsiv

e.

•B

oth

empl

oyer

s an

d o

ffen

der

s m

ay n

eed

som

e fo

rm o

f pos

t-pl

acem

ent s

uppo

rt.

Pro

gram

me

Rat

ion

ale

Str

engt

hs

Wea

kn

esse

s

55

Appendix 1

The

Tar

gete

d Jo

bs T

ax C

redi

t (19

78) (

TJT

C)

prov

ided

fina

ncia

l inc

enti

ves

for

the

recr

uitm

ent o

f the

chr

onic

ally

unem

ploy

ed, i

.e. t

hose

gro

ups

who

seun

empl

oym

ent p

robl

ems

wer

e no

tre

spon

sive

to m

acro

econ

omic

gro

wth

or

trai

ning

. It g

ave

US

empl

oyer

s a

fed

eral

tax

cred

it o

f 50

per

cent

of f

irst

-yea

rw

ages

and

25

per

cent

of s

econ

d-y

ear

wag

es, n

ot to

exc

eed

$6,

000

per

year

, to

recr

uit s

even

targ

et g

roup

s in

clud

ing

ex-

offe

nder

s.

The

Fed

eral

Wor

k O

ppor

tuni

ty T

ax C

redi

t(W

OT

C) p

rovi

des

a m

axim

um ta

x cr

edit

of $

2,40

0 pe

r ye

ar, p

er n

ew r

ecru

it fo

rel

igib

le e

mpl

oyee

s. T

here

are

eig

htel

igib

ility

cri

teri

a in

clud

ing

‘a c

onvi

cted

felo

ny o

ffen

der

who

is r

elea

sed

from

jail

wit

hin

a ye

ar a

nd c

omes

from

a lo

win

com

e fa

mily

’. E

mpl

oyer

aw

aren

ess

ofth

e W

OT

C is

app

aren

tly

low

.

The

rel

ucta

nce

ofem

ploy

ers

to r

ecru

itof

fend

ers

can

bere

duc

ed b

y m

akin

gth

eir

labo

ur le

ssex

pens

ive.

•Su

bsid

ies

may

enh

ance

the

effe

ctiv

e la

bour

supp

ly b

y ke

epin

gin

div

idua

ls in

con

tact

wit

h th

e w

orld

of

wor

k.

•Fo

r eq

uity

rea

sons

,su

bsid

ies

may

pro

vid

eof

fend

ers

wit

h jo

bsev

en if

this

hap

pens

at

the

expe

nse

of th

esh

ort-

term

unem

ploy

ed.

•In

expe

nsiv

e to

adm

inis

ter.

•R

esea

rch

sugg

ests

that

mos

t rec

ruit

men

td

ecis

ions

are

bar

ely

affe

cted

by

empl

oym

ent

subs

idie

s. In

the

US,

man

y em

ploy

ers

mad

ere

troa

ctiv

e ap

plic

atio

ns fo

r th

e T

JTC

, i.e

. aft

erre

crui

tmen

t too

k pl

ace.

Thi

s su

gges

ts th

atm

any

dis

adva

ntag

ed p

erso

ns w

ould

hav

ebe

en r

ecru

ited

wit

hout

the

TJT

C (R

adis

on,

1982

).

•T

he s

ubsi

dy

may

not

be

larg

e en

ough

toin

duc

e m

any

empl

oyer

s to

ove

rloo

k of

fend

erpr

oble

ms.

Thi

s d

iffic

ulty

is h

eigh

tene

dd

urin

g ti

mes

of h

igh

unem

ploy

men

t whe

nof

fend

ers

mus

t com

pete

wit

h m

any

othe

run

skill

ed w

orke

rs fo

r a

limit

ed n

umbe

r of

entr

y-le

vel j

obs.

It is

per

haps

sig

nifi

cant

that

offe

nder

s ac

coun

ted

for

just

4 p

er c

ent o

f all

TJT

C p

lace

men

ts b

etw

een

1979

and

198

2(J

acob

s et

al .,

198

4).

•H

igh

subs

idie

s m

ay m

ake

som

e of

fend

ers

econ

omic

ally

att

ract

ive

to s

ome

empl

oyer

s,un

less

oth

er d

isad

vant

aged

jobs

eeke

rs a

resi

mila

rly

subs

idis

ed. H

owev

er, a

sub

sid

y fo

rex

-off

end

ers

is p

olit

ical

ly in

conc

eiva

ble.

•T

hey

may

inad

vert

entl

y st

igm

atis

e of

fend

ers.

In th

e co

ntex

t of t

he T

JTC

, off

end

ers

wer

e no

tre

quir

ed to

rev

eal t

he b

asis

of t

heir

elig

ibili

tybu

t em

ploy

ers

wan

ted

to k

now

why

the

job

appl

ican

t was

elig

ible

for

a ta

x cr

edit

, thu

scr

eati

ng a

pre

ssur

e to

rev

eal t

he c

rim

inal

reco

rd. J

acob

s et

al .

(198

4, p

. 498

) con

clud

edth

at ‘I

roni

cally

, the

eff

ort t

o he

lp e

x-of

fend

ers

thro

ugh

des

igna

tion

for

a sp

ecia

l tax

cre

dit

may

hav

e hu

rt th

em b

y w

avin

g a

red

flag

infr

ont o

f em

ploy

ers.

’

3E

mp

loym

ent s

ub

sid

ies

Pro

gram

me

Rat

ion

ale

Str

engt

hs

Wea

kn

esse

s

56


Bon

din

g is

a fo

rm o

f bus

ines

s in

sura

nce

that

rei

mbu

rses

em

ploy

ers

for

fina

ncia

llo

ss w

hen

wor

kers

com

mit

dis

hone

stac

ts. C

omm

erci

al in

sure

rs o

ften

ref

use

to b

ond

hig

h-ri

sk g

roup

s su

ch a

sof

fend

ers.

The

Fed

eral

Bon

ding

Pro

gram

me

(FB

P) i

nsur

es e

mpl

oyer

s fo

ran

y ty

pe o

f ste

alin

g by

thef

t, fo

rger

y,la

rcen

y or

em

bezz

lem

ent.

The

bon

d is

give

n to

the

empl

oyer

free

of c

harg

e,an

d s

erve

s as

an

ince

ntiv

e to

rec

ruit

any

pers

on w

ho is

an

insu

ranc

e ‘r

isk’

, for

exam

ple

ex-o

ffen

der

, ex-

add

ict,

thos

ew

ith

a po

or c

red

it r

ecor

d, t

hose

dis

hono

urab

ly d

isch

arge

d fr

om th

em

ilita

ry a

nd p

erso

ns la

ckin

g a

wor

khi

stor

y.

Init

iate

d in

196

6, th

e FB

P w

as fe

der

ally

fund

ed b

y th

e U

S D

epar

tmen

t of L

abor

and

con

trol

led

by

the

Stat

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Serv

ices

. Mor

e re

cent

ly, t

he p

rogr

amm

eha

s be

en c

ut b

ack

as p

art o

f a p

roce

ssca

lled

dev

olut

ion,

in w

hich

sta

te a

ndlo

cal g

over

nmen

t are

exp

ecte

d to

pic

kup

res

pons

ibili

ties

form

erly

met

by

fed

eral

gov

ernm

ent.

Con

sequ

entl

y, lo

cal

empl

oym

ent a

nd tr

aini

ng o

rgan

isat

ions

have

bee

n al

low

ed to

pur

chas

e th

eir

own

bond

pac

kage

for

use

by th

eir

own

clie

nts.

Bon

ds

are

avai

labl

e in

pac

kage

sof

25

to 1

00 u

nits

. Eac

h un

it p

rovi

des

$5,0

00 c

over

age

for

six

mon

ths.

Em

ploy

ers

fear

that

job

appl

ican

ts w

ho a

re n

ot‘b

ond

able

’ will

be

untr

ustw

orth

yem

ploy

ees.

The

FB

Pca

n he

lp to

ove

rcom

eem

ploy

er a

nxie

ties

by

red

ucin

g th

e fi

nanc

ial

risk

s of

rec

ruit

ing

grou

ps li

ke o

ffen

der

s.

•R

esea

rch

publ

ishe

d b

yth

e U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

asin

dic

ates

that

the

FBP

may

cha

nge

empl

oyer

atti

tud

es to

war

ds

offe

nder

s. O

nly

12 p

erce

nt o

f the

em

ploy

ers

surv

eyed

wer

e w

illin

gto

rec

ruit

ex-

offe

nder

s.H

owev

er, 5

1 pe

r ce

ntsa

id th

at th

ey w

ould

recr

uit e

x-of

fend

ers

ifth

ey w

ere

bond

ed(A

lbri

ght a

nd D

enq,

1996

).

•O

ver

40,0

00 b

ond

sha

ve b

een

issu

ed o

ver

the

last

33

year

s by

the

FBP,

wit

h on

ly a

1.2

3pe

r ce

nt d

efau

lt r

ate.

4S

pec

iali

st in

sura

nce

for

off

end

ers

•T

his

polic

y m

ay b

e cu

ltur

ally

spe

cifi

c,ar

isin

g ou

t of t

he li

tigi

ous

busi

ness

cult

ure

of th

e U

S. T

he p

rese

nt r

esea

rch

show

s th

at in

sura

nce

is a

rel

ativ

ely

unim

port

ant f

acto

r in

the

recr

uitm

ent o

fof

fend

ers

in th

e U

K. E

mpl

oyer

s in

the

UK

oft

en r

egar

d s

uch

risk

s as

par

t and

parc

el o

f the

pro

blem

s in

run

ning

abu

sine

ss.

Pro

gram

me

Rat

ion

ale

Str

engt

hs

Wea

kn

esse

s

57

Appendix 1

The

Cen

tre

for

Em

ploy

men

tO

ppor

tuni

ties

(CE

O),

base

d in

New

York

, is

a no

n-pr

ofit

org

anis

atio

npr

ovid

ing

empl

oym

ent a

nd tr

aini

ng fo

rof

fend

ers.

The

CE

O im

plem

ents

the

Nei

ghbo

urho

od W

ork

Pro

ject

(NW

P),

whi

ch o

ffer

s sh

ort-

term

, min

imum

-w

aged

wor

k fo

r ne

wly

rel

ease

dof

fend

ers.

The

NW

P pr

ovid

es b

etw

een

30 a

nd 4

0 te

ams

com

pris

ing

offe

nder

sun

der

a fu

ll-ti

me

fiel

d s

uper

viso

r. T

hete

ams

und

erta

ke g

ener

al b

uild

ing

repa

irs

and

mai

nten

ance

, and

pai

ntin

gfo

r pu

blic

sec

tor

bod

ies.

The

NW

P fi

eld

sup

ervi

sors

col

labo

rate

wit

h tr

aini

ng s

peci

alis

ts to

ens

ure

that

part

icip

ants

are

acq

uiri

ng m

arke

tabl

esk

ills

and

that

thei

r pr

ogre

ss is

mon

itor

ed.

The

inte

grat

ion

ofof

fend

ers

into

the

labo

ur m

arke

t is

dep

end

ent o

nst

imul

atin

g jo

b gr

owth

and

hel

ping

them

att

ain

the

expe

rien

ce a

ndsk

ills

that

pro

spec

tive

empl

oyer

s w

ant.

•It

pro

vid

es a

per

iod

of

empl

oym

ent i

n it

s ow

nri

ght w

hich

hel

ps to

keep

off

end

ers

inco

ntac

t wit

h th

e ha

bits

of w

ork

and

clo

ser

toth

e la

bour

mar

ket.

•M

ay h

elp

brea

k th

ecu

ltur

e of

trai

ning

bein

g vi

ewed

as

apu

nish

men

t for

unem

ploy

men

t. In

part

icul

ar, t

hepa

ymen

t of w

ages

may

rais

e m

otiv

atio

n an

dpr

ovid

e th

e ri

ght

dis

cipl

inar

yfr

amew

ork

for

offe

nder

s.

•Pa

ymen

t on

a ‘f

ee-f

or-

serv

ice’

bas

isun

der

min

es th

ear

gum

ent t

hat t

heN

WP

rew

ard

s ex

-pr

ison

ers

at th

eex

pens

e of

oth

ergr

oups

.

•A

n ev

alua

tion

car

ried

out b

y th

e N

atio

nal

Inst

itut

e of

Just

ice

foun

d th

at p

arti

cipa

nts

had

sig

nifi

cant

ly lo

wer

re-o

ffen

din

g ra

tes

com

pare

d to

sim

ilar

grou

ps o

f ex-

offe

nder

s.

5D

irec

t job

cre

atio

n

•D

ispl

acem

ent,

whe

re th

e pr

ovis

ion

ofgo

ods

and

ser

vice

s d

ispl

aces

oth

erw

orke

rs in

the

priv

ate

and

pub

lic s

ecto

r,m

ay b

e a

part

icul

ar p

robl

em. I

t can

be

min

imis

ed b

y ch

oosi

ng a

reas

of a

ctiv

ity

that

are

com

mer

cial

ly u

natt

ract

ive

toex

isti

ng e

nter

pris

es.

•Tr

aini

ng is

cru

cial

so

that

par

tici

pant

sar

e no

t mer

ely

used

as

a so

urce

of c

heap

labo

ur.

Pro

gram

me

Rat

ion

ale

Str

engt

hs

Wea

kn

esse

s

58


Th

e 2n

d C

hanc

e B

usin

ess

Reg

iste

r w

ases

tabl

ish

ed in

198

8 by

Fab

ian

Dat

tner

,In

c. w

ith

fu

nd

s fr

om t

he

Au

stra

lian

Dep

artm

ent

of L

abou

r. T

he

Reg

iste

r is

a d

atab

ase

of c

omp

anie

s p

r ep

ared

to

offe

r em

plo

ymen

t w

ith

out

pre

jud

ice

to p

eop

le w

ith

cri

min

al r

ecor

ds.

In

par

ticu

lar,

it s

eeks

to

brin

g to

geth

erre

ferr

ing

orga

nis

atio

ns

and

pro

spec

tive

em

plo

yers

. Em

plo

yers

are

inte

rvie

wed

by

2nd

Ch

ance

an

dou

tlin

e th

eir

own

exc

lusi

ons

ofp

arti

cula

r ty

pes

of

offe

nce

dep

end

ing

on t

he

nat

ure

of

the

wor

k, t

he

wor

ken

viro

nm

ent

and

th

eir

own

rese

rvat

ion

s.

The

Reg

iste

r is

acc

esse

d b

y co

mm

unit

yor

gani

sati

ons

spec

ialis

ing

in th

ere

sett

lem

ent o

f off

end

ers.

The

age

ncie

sun

der

take

pri

or s

cree

ning

and

asse

ssm

ent o

f ind

ivid

uals

, and

are

then

linke

d v

ia 2

nd C

hanc

e to

an

empl

oyer

inth

e ap

prop

riat

e ar

ea. T

he a

genc

y w

orke

rco

ntac

ts th

e em

ploy

er to

find

out

if a

nyw

ork

is a

vaila

ble,

pro

vid

es d

etai

ls o

fcl

ient

ski

lls a

nd e

xper

ienc

e, a

ndar

rang

es a

pos

sibl

e in

terv

iew

. Off

end

ers

are

oblig

ed to

dis

clos

e th

e na

ture

of

thei

r cr

imin

al r

ecor

d. T

he R

egis

ter

doe

sno

t tak

e a

mor

al s

tanc

e as

to w

hich

offe

nder

s d

eser

ve to

be

recr

uite

d. T

hefi

nal d

ecis

ion

rest

s w

ith

the

empl

oyer

.

It is

ben

efic

ial t

o bo

thpa

rtie

s to

est

ablis

h an

hone

st r

elat

ions

hip

from

the

star

t. T

his

enab

les

the

empl

oyer

to m

ake

an a

sses

smen

tof

the

pers

on’s

abi

lity

to d

o a

job.

Off

end

ers

bene

fit b

ecau

se th

eykn

ow th

at th

ey w

illno

t be

dis

crim

inat

edag

ains

t.

•H

elps

to a

dd

ress

empl

oyer

dis

crim

inat

ion

whi

chis

a k

ey la

bour

mar

ket

barr

ier.

•T

he R

egis

ter

enco

urag

es a

n ho

nest

and

ope

n ex

chan

ge o

fin

form

atio

n ab

out

conv

icti

ons

betw

een

the

appl

ican

t and

empl

oyer

. In

cont

rast

,m

any

offe

nder

s in

the

UK

do

not p

rese

ntly

dis

clos

e cr

imin

alre

cord

info

rmat

ion

beca

use

they

fear

that

they

will

be

dis

crim

inat

ed a

gain

st.

Thi

s in

crea

ses

the

risk

sof

rec

ruit

ing

them

.

•Pr

ovid

es s

ome

offi

cial

reco

gnit

ion

ofem

ploy

ers

wit

h a

com

mit

men

t to

good

empl

oym

ent p

ract

ice.

•O

ffen

der

s fa

ce a

ran

ge o

f lab

our

mar

ket

barr

iers

typi

cal o

f man

y ot

her

seve

rely

dis

adva

ntag

ed g

roup

s –

poor

bas

icsk

ills,

low

sel

f-es

teem

, som

etim

esbe

havi

oura

l and

hea

lth

prob

lem

s. T

his

is c

ompo

und

ed b

y a

lack

of r

ecen

t wor

kex

peri

ence

for

thos

e le

avin

g pr

ison

and

empl

oyer

dis

crim

inat

ion.

How

ever

, thi

sty

pe o

f pro

visi

on is

of r

elev

ance

onl

y to

thos

e w

ho a

re r

elat

ivel

y ‘jo

b-re

ady’

.

•Sc

reen

ing

and

ass

essm

ent o

f peo

ple

refe

rred

to 2

nd C

hanc

e em

ploy

ers

isd

one

by th

e re

ferr

ing

wor

ker;

2nd

Cha

nce

is r

elia

nt o

n ex

tern

alor

gani

sati

ons

to e

nsur

e th

at th

ose

refe

rred

to e

mpl

oyer

s ar

e ‘jo

b-re

ady’

so

that

rel

atio

nshi

ps w

ith

empl

oyer

s ar

eno

t jeo

pard

ised

.

•It

is im

port

ant t

hat o

ffen

der

s re

ceiv

eso

me

form

of p

ost-

plac

emen

t sup

port

tohe

lp th

em d

evel

op th

e sk

ills

and

atti

tud

es w

hich

are

nee

ded

at w

ork

and

thus

ret

ain

empl

oym

ent.

Em

ploy

ers

too

may

nee

d p

ost-

plac

emen

t sup

port

beca

use

of th

e ex

tra

supe

rvis

ion

and

supp

ort r

equi

red

by

offe

nder

s.

6R

egis

ters

of ‘

offe

nder

-fri

endl

y’ e

mpl

oyer

s

Pro

gram

me

Rat

ion

ale

Str

engt

hs

Wea

kn

esse

s

59

ABH Actual bodily harm

ACOP Association of Chief Officers of Probation

Apex Trust A national voluntary organisation, which aims to promote employmentopportunities for offenders

Apex Scotland A voluntary organisation, which aims to promote employmentopportunities for offenders in Scotland

CEO Centre for Employment Opportunities

CRB Criminal Records Bureau

CRESR Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research

DfEE Department for Education and Employment

ES Employment Service

FBP Federal Bonding Programme

GBH Grievous bodily harm

HRM Human resource manager

ILM Intermediate labour market

MABIS Model Project – Integration of Training and Employment for Ex-prisoners

MDTA Manpower Development Training Act

NACRO National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

NIACRO Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

NAPO National Association of Probation Officers

NWP Neighbourhood Work Programme

ROA Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

SOVA Society of Voluntary Associates

TJTC Targeted Jobs Tax Credit

TEC Training and Enterprise Council

WOTC Work Opportunity Tax Credit

Appendix 2:

Glossary of abbreviations

Titles available in the Work and Opportunity series:

Making work pay: Lone mothers, employment and well-being

Alex Bryson, Reuben Ford and Michael White

This study tracks a sample of lone mothers over five years to find out what works in moving themoff benefit, and what really makes a difference in easing hardship.£11.95

Bridges from benefit to work: A review

Karen Gardiner

An innovative study of 42 welfare-to-work initiatives, assessing which give best value for money,how many people they help, and what the level of take-up is.£11.95

Combining work and welfare

Jane Millar, Steven Webb and Martin Kemp

An exploration of key questions surrounding in-work benefits, and the likely impact of the nationalminimum wage.£11.95

Lone mothers moving in and out of benefits

Michael Noble, George Smith and Sin Yi Cheung

This study analyses how and why lone mothers move between income support and in-work benefits,and considers current and future policy directions.£11.95

Pathways through unemployment: The effects of a flexible labour market

Michael White and John Forth

A study of the effects and long-term consequences of flexible forms of work – particularly the part-time, self-employed and temporary jobs often taken up by unemployed people.£11.95

Local responses to long-term unemployment

Mike Campbell with Ian Sanderson and Fiona Walton

A review of research to date on how to reconnect the long-term unemployed to the labour market.£12.95

Company recruitment policies: Implications for production workers

Stanley Siebert

This study explores whether increased regulation of the labour market has an impact on hiringstandards, screening out less qualified workers and so reducing their job opportunities.£12.95

Young men, the job market and gendered work

Trefor Lloyd

A study of whether young men are being adequately prepared for the contemporary workplace, andwhether their, or others’, gender assumptions are affecting their opportunities.£10.95

Back to work: Local action on unemployment

Ian Sanderson with Fiona Walton and Mike Campbell

This report complements Local responses to long-term unemployment (above), presenting detailed case-study research into what local action is effective in getting people into work.£13.95

Ending exclusion: Employment and training schemes for homeless young people

Geoffrey Randall and Susan Brown

An evaluation of the particular difficulties in finding work faced by this group, and an assessment ofthe impact of a range of projects designed to assist them.£13.95

Job insecurity and work intensification: Flexibility and the changing boundaries of work

Brendan J. Burchell, Diana Day, Maria Hudson, David Ladipo, Roy Mankelow, Jane P. Nolan, Hannah Reed,

Ines C. Wichert and Frank Wilkinson

An exploration into the effect of job insecurity on the social, physical and psychological well-being ofemployees.£13.95

Whose flexibility? The costs and benefits of ‘non-standard’ working arrangements and

contractual relations

Kate Purcell, Terence Hogarth and Claire Simm

Drawing on the experience of a range of industries and organisations, the report analyses theeconomic, operational and social effects of flexible employment practices.£13.95

Finding work in rural areas: Barriers and bridges

Sarah Monk, Jessica Dunn, Maureen Fitzgerald and Ian Hodge

A timely analysis of disadvantage in rural areas, and the role employment plays in this. The reportfocuses on the particular problems people in rural areas face and what strategies work in attemptingto find work.£12.95

Work and young men

Bruce Stafford, Claire Heaver, Karl Ashworth, Charlotte Bates, Robert Walker, Steve McKay and

Heather Trickey

A study which analyses whether certain young men are underachieving, and what the long-termconsequences of this are. The authors also review the social, personal and economic factors that affecthow young men are integrated into the labour market.£13.95

Making the grade: Education, the labour market and young people

Peter Dolton, Gerry Makepeace, Sandra Hutton and Rick Audas

The decisions young people make when they first become eligible to leave school are crucial to theirlong-term prospects. This wide-ranging study investigates what influences a child’s performanceand choices during this important time.£14.95

Young Caribbean men and the labour market: A comparison with other ethnic groups

Richard Berthoud

An exploration of the challenges faced by a group of young people with an exceptionally high risk ofunemployment. The study relates young Caribbean men’s experiences in the labour market to otherethnic groups, whose employment prospects vary substantially.£14.95

Young people in rural Scotland: Pathways to social inclusion and exclusion

Stephen Pavis, Stephen Platt and Gill Hubbard

This report provides substantial first-hand evidence of what life is like for rural young people today.It explores the impact of education on their work opportunities, and how rural wages, availableaccommodation and isolation affect their lifestyle and their transitions to adulthood.£12.95

Youth unemployment in rural areas

Fred Cartmel and Andy Furlong

A review of the distinctive features of rural youth unemployment, including seasonal work,transport issues and the importance of local networks in obtaining work.£12.95

Successful futures? Community views on adult education and training

Helen Bowman, Tom Burden and John Konrad

This study focuses on the perceptions and experiences of people who have taken part in the newGovernment schemes designed to enable them to find work and increase their skills.£12.95

The intermediate labour market: A tool for tackling long-term unemployment

Bob Marshall and Richard Macfarlane

An examination of ILM programmes, designed to move people back into work. It looks at theirstructure, and what factors lie behind achieving successful implementation and results.£13.95

Enduring economic exclusion: Disabled people, income and work

Tania Burchardt

This report offers details analysis of the position of disabled people in the labour market and in theincome distribution, and how the situation has changed since the 1980s.£14.95

Everything under a fiver: Recruitment and retention in lower paying labour markets

Donna Brown, Richard Dickens, Paul Gregg, Stephen Machin and Alan Manning

A study of firms offering ‘entry-level’ jobs, whose wages are in the bottom fifth of the nationalearnings distribution. The report not only throws light on how these firms and their workers behave,but also explores how their behaviour relates to economic theory.£13.95

Who calls the tune at work? The impact of trade unions on jobs and pay

Neil Millward, John Forth and Alex Bryson

This report examines the effect of trade unions upon workplaces and their employees. It contains up-to-date information on the effect of unions on employment growth, workplace closures, bargainingscope and pay levels.£12.95

Training and support for lone parents: An evaluation of a targeted study programme

Karen John, Sarah Payne and Hilary Land

This report evaluates a programme set up to assess the training and support needs of unemployedlone parents, in the context of other local and national services. It highlights good practice for futuresimilar schemes.£12.95

Further reports from this series will be published throughout 2001.

Young men on the margins of work: An overview report

Pamela Meadows

An overview of a series of JRF-funded research projects, which looked at young men’s experience inthe labour market during the 1990s, against a background of social and technological change. Theauthor draws out the key findings and conclusions from this large body of research.£10.95

What works locally?

Mike Campbell and Pamela Meadows

This overview study examines current evidence on what can be done at the local level to getpeople into work. It reviews research on local employment and training initiatives, and considersimplications for future policy development.£10.95

recruiting and employing offenders

Documents