By Alexandra Kimmons   

One in six people in England and Wales have a criminal record. But 27% of UK employers wouldn’t hire someone with a conviction. Employment is a key factor in preventing future offending. However, people with criminal records are often trapped in the past, unable to find stable work and contribute their talents to society because of their record. Other countries, like the US, have begun taking steps to solve the issue. How do we compare? Researchers examined five scenarios in which someone with a previous conviction is seeking employment and compared what would appear on their criminal record in England and Wales and five US states: California, Connecticut, Utah, New Jersey, and Oklahoma.1 Key Findings • In three out of five scenarios, the England and Wales system is more punitive than any of the five US states. • In two scenarios, the England and Wales system is similarly punitive to certain states and more punitive to others. • In all five states, convictions can often be expunged (deleted), meaning that a background check will not reveal them. • In some states, employers cannot access information on childhood convictions and many offences are expunged automatically after a set period. For example, Rich was convicted of drug possession 12 years ago. In all five US states explored, he can delete the conviction from his record after a maximum of 10 years and move on with his life. In England and Wales, Rich’s conviction will show for the rest of his life on the detailed checks required for many roles. He will constantly face the fear, and very real prospect, that employers will discriminate against him based on his record. Conclusion Researchers at Reed Smith concluded: “It is clear that criminal record disclosure requirements in England and Wales are much more punitive than the five U.S. states we have researched. In Oklahoma, Utah and New Jersey, convictions can often be expunged or pardoned, meaning that a background check will not reveal them. In other states, such as California and Connecticut, employers cannot access information on childhood convictions and many offences are sealed automatically so that employers cannot see them. This allows individuals with past convictions a degree of comfort in knowing that future career prospects will not be hindered by the past. Neither position is replicated in England and Wales.” Recommendations FairChecks is calling for a full review of the criminal records disclosure system in England and Wales. In the short-term, FairChecks has three stepping-stone policy recommendations which would free thousands of people from the enduring impact of a criminal record: 1. Wipe the slate clean for childhood offences 2. Remove cautions from criminal record checks 3. Stop revealing short prison sentences forever  

2024. 15p.

By Transform Justice

Hate crime is a growing problem in England and Wales, highlighted by the Home Office’s Annual Statistical Bulletin which reported 155,841 hate crimes recorded by police in the year ending March 2022, this is a 26% increase compared to 2020-21.1 This reflects a year-on-year rise since 2013 and demonstrates the need to use new interventions to drive real behaviour change in offenders. However, it should be noted that an increase in public awareness of hate crime alongside improved police recording means that it can be difficult to definitively determine the cause of the increase, but rather a number of factors leading to this. Out of Court Disposals2 (OOCDs) are a method of resolution for an offence, designed to reduce re-offending by enabling restorative justice and giving offenders an opportunity to take responsibility for their behaviour through education, before they find themselves in the formal Criminal Justice System (CJS). They also offer victims a chance to see some resolution to their case even if they do not wish for it to be dealt with in a formal setting. There are a number of different forms an OOCD can take, however all may only be considered in situations where the offender is known and admits guilt of their offence. They are typically used in cases where the offending is deemed to be lower-level. In 2022, the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) published its Out of Court Disposals (Resolutions) National Strategy.3 This strategy highlighted that the CJS cannot address vulnerability solely through prosecution. Instead, a sophisticated, whole-system approach is needed to give policing the capacity to make professional decisions and access a range of services in partnership such as early intervention pathways, OOCDs and where necessary, prosecution. Over the past nine years, there has been a growing evidence base that, for acquisitive and violent crime, early intervention (such as Turning Point4, CARA5 and Checkpoint6) as part of a conditional caution can reduce reoffending. However, the evidence is minimal with regards to hate crime interventions as its application is limited through the OOCD framework. In 2014, three police forces (West Yorkshire, Staffordshire and Leicestershire) were given dispensation to use OOCDs for hate crime during a tri-force pilot of a simplified two-tier framework, designed to be easier for practitioners to implement and the public to understand.7 However, there was no specific rehabilitative intervention commissioned and the total number of offenders given OOCDs were low in all three forces, particularly for hate crime which only represented 1% of the total offences. This meant that it was not possible to draw statistically robust conclusions around reoffending rates. Existing interventions for hate crime tend to be targeted at more serious offenders, carried out post-conviction on a one to one basis and last for several months. Since the start of the 2014 pilot, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has adjusted its guidance to allow for the use of OOCDs in relation to hate crime and domestic abuse8, however statutory guidance states that issuing a conditional caution is “unlikely to be appropriate where the offence forms part of a pattern of offending”.9 A tri-force OOCD hate crime pilot with Avon and Somerset Police (A&S Police), West Midlands Police (WMP), and Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary (HIOWC) was established in June 2021. All three police forces were given dispensation from the DPP to use conditional cautions for hate crime providing prescribed pre conditions (see Appendix 1) were met. RISE Mutual CIC10, a social enterprise which specialises in offender rehabilitative interventions, were commissioned via a procurement process to deliver a four session group intervention programme formerly known as Rise Against Hate, (from April 2023 this is now known as Perspective), for those who met the DPP OOCD hate crime criteria. It was envisaged that a high proportion of suitable offences for the proposed pilot would be of a public order nature, or involve minor assaults accompanied by the use of racist language towards figures of authority (police officers, door staff, store detectives) or individuals providing a service (ambulance crew, taxi drivers). These were deemed to be the most likely cases, where the victim often does not see the offence as serious enough to take the time to attend court, but at the same time, a meaningful sanction is desirable to protect victims who are providing a community service. Aims and objectives Aim: to develop and deliver a rehabilitative early intervention course specific to hate crime, commissioned by the three named forces (A&S Police, HIOWC and WMP) and offered at no cost to the offender. Objectives:  To increase the evidence base in the use of disposals in cases of hate crime  To increase victim satisfaction in hate crime outcomes  To reduce reoffending rates of hate crime  To better understand the demand profile for hate crime intervention and the processes surrounding this

London: Transform Justice, 2023.

By Patrick Williams

The key to overcoming institutionalised racism in work with black, Asian and minority ethnic people in contact with the criminal justice system

Why read this evidence review?

This evidence review provides an in-depth look at growing rates of racial disparity in our criminal justice system and highlights key principles for effective interventions with people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds in contact with the system.

Patrick Williams, Senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, reviews the current evidence-base - to which he is an important contributor - and covers a number of key issues:

• Racial disparity within the criminal justice system

• The multidimensionality of social inequalities experienced by minority groups

• The lack of a clear strategy and officially approved programs to tackle racial disparity in the criminal justice system

• The criminal justice system’s preoccupation with risk as opposed to need

• Principles to govern minority ethnic interventions

• The importance of acknowledging racialisation and racism(s)

• Community empowerment models

• The argument for paying participants to engage

• The importance of the voluntary sector.

An online evidence base for the voluntary sector working in the criminal justice system

This article forms part of a series from Clinks, created to develop a far-reaching and accessible evidence base covering the most common types of activity undertaken within the criminal justice system. There are two main aims of this online series:

1. To increase the extent to which the voluntary sector bases its services on the available evidence base

2. To encourage commissioners to award contracts to organisations delivering an evidence-based approach.

London: Clinks, 2023. 11p.