Ban The Box: Should your history also be your future?

When attempting to secure employment with a previous conviction, many applicants are discouraged due to the need to declare a criminal past at the first stage of an application. The Ban the Box campaign aims to remove and re-position the need for those with previous convictions from having to disclose their history at the first stage of job application. 75% of employers surveyed by Working Links stated that they would discriminate against a candidate if they disclosed a criminal conviction with 16% of employers stating that they would reject the candidate outright. Is the concept of being forced to declare your past the very thing that has prevented people from moving on with their lives? While screening an applicant’s history for any criminal convictions is a standard part of the application process for the majority of organisations in the UK, we look at whether it is necessary and justified for organisations to require this kind of sensitive and potentially irrelevant information.  As such, are organisations losing a valuable section of candidates who are willing and ready to work, but very often discouraged to do so?

Around 10 million people in the UK have a criminal record of some kind. Yet at the earliest stage in the recruitment process it is required to notify potential new employers (43% of public institutions and 87% of private institutions) about disciplinary/criminal records. This early stage notification of errors and mistakes an applicant has made in the past can potentially prevent an person from even applying for an opportunity due to embarrassment, shame and feelings of guilt. This situation can then create a domino effect that filters through all levels of society. Failure in short-term prisoners securing employment results in 60% of them re-offending within a year of release, costing our society £11 billion a year in benefit claims, housing costs, prisoner costs and healthcare costs. Research has also shown that securing employment can help to reduce repeat offending by up to 50%.

Do we really need to be made aware of previous convictions?

There is a knee-jerk reaction to think that all ex-offenders have been to prison due to potentially violent criminal circumstances, but in reality 68% of all sentences handed down by courts are fines, with 76% of convictions being for “summary offences”, which means these situations were less serious and dealt with by the Magistrates court. In reality in the UK, only 7.9% of offenders are given custodial sentences.

Due to the general low levels of non-serious criminal offences, when enacted the Ban the Box campaign has shown that the concept can have great success, as can be seen when put into effect in certain areas of the USA. The city of Minneapolis which has banned the declaration of criminal history on job applications saw 57.4% of applicants with convictions in the last seven years gaining employment opportunities (2007-08); this compared to just 5.7% being hired in year previously.

The rights of the employer

Employers however have a duty to ensure the safety of their staff and customers who could potentially come into contact and work along-side a candidate with a criminal past, as well as considerations regarding the security and welfare of their business. Employers are entitled to ask about an applicant’s criminal history, however, depending on the role of the individual will determine the level of criminal check they are legally entitled to access.  This means that in some instances on unspent criminal history will be disclosed in line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.  With background checks undertaken at the necessary stage as the rights of the employers to know who they are hiring is equally as important as the rights as the employee.

Does the “Previous Conviction” box actually tell the full story?

A tick box however does not provide the necessary information to consider whether the previous conviction is relevant to the role for which they are applying for and with only 2% of convictions being for prolific offenders (with 15+ offences), a previous criminal record is not always a clear indicator of a future risk of illegal activity such as fraud or forgery.

While Ban the Box can be seen as having a venerable goal of giving people a second chance and not penalising them for what could be just one mistake, it can be argued that the concept of Ban the Box is making people still go through the same applicant process, but just slightly moves the goalposts. Applicants will ultimately still have a background check conducted, but under the Ban the Box initiative, it will be at the end of the application process instead of the beginning.

Does ‘Ban the Box’ work?

So the question has to be asked, does Ban the Box actually change anything? Yes, it may give applicants with criminal records a chance to move further along the application process, but ultimately if there are any potential discriminatory practices in effect within an organisation’s recruitment process, these practices will still apply, but just at a later stage.

One issue often overlooked is the potential negative psychological effects late stage rejection could have on an applicant. Instead of applying for a job and getting a swift “thanks, but no thanks”, applicants can instead have their hopes built up with positive feedback, interviews and conditional job offers, only to have it all taken away when a conviction for benefit fraud flags up in their background check. The emotional damage this can potentially have on an applicant could ironically make recommitting a criminal act more likely as the applicant may see no other option or opportunity.

The future for those looking for employment with a previous conviction

Ban the Box presents as a campaign that neither pushes for a total abolishment of non-relevant criminal history declaration or seeks to work with employers to “look beyond the box”, but instead aims to only slightly change the status quo of having applicants declare their history at the first point of application. However, having the opportunity to explain your history in your own words in the right context can make a big difference in job opportunities. This approach is seen as one of the main benefits of the Ban the Box as it puts a human face to a job applicant, but ultimately it still can’t prevent the prejudice or concerns employers have about employing someone with a criminal conviction.

When considering a Ban the Box concept, it might be more beneficial to exclude summary offences, fines etc. (unless working in sensitive jobs) and instead only require admission of criminal activity should it be for a custodial sentence or if the applicant is a repeat offender. This would ensure that those who have made minor and one off offences are not penalised in the long term, while those who may potentially pose a risk and have shown repeat criminal activity could be identified through a criminal background check and a decision made accordingly by the employer.