New vetting rules for the employment of ex-prisoners by the Prison Service or charities working in prisons impose an automatic ban on many jobseekers due to the nature of their convictions.
The guidelines, published by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), say that no-one serving a life sentence can be employed. Nor can anyone with past convictions for sexual offences, organised crime, arson, misconduct in a public office, terrorism offences, significant deception, or stalking.
According to the guidelines, employing such individuals would pose an “unmanageable risk to the organisation and/or public safety”. But charity leaders criticised the approach and called for a rethink, with decisions based on a jobseeker’s risk rather than their offence type.
The ‘HMPPS Risk Assessed Access for Personnel with Lived Experience of the Criminal Justice System Policy Framework’, which takes effect on 1 April, states that employing ex-prisoners within HMPPS “enriches the organisation with unique perspectives” and “enhances the support and rehabilitation services provided”. For individuals who would fail the normal vetting process due to their criminal convictions are offered an alternative route, the ‘Lived Experience Appointment Pathway’ (LEAP), which is intended to help bring them into employment – so long as their convictions are not for one of the many excluded offence types, known as the ‘fixed’ category.
The guidelines cover both direct employment by HMPPS and employment by voluntary sector organisations in roles which would require the candidate to visit prisons regularly. They describe the process for risk assessments, and give guidance to prison governors as to how they can use their judgement to approve, or reject, applicants.
Richard Rowley, Deputy Chief Executive of the Working Chance charity which promotes employment for female ex-prisoners, told Inside Time: “We welcome the introduction of the new framework from HMPPS. Its publication represents a positive step toward greater transparency and signals a genuine intention to align recruitment policies with HMPPS stated commitment to diversity, inclusion, and the value of lived experience within the workforce.
“However, we remain concerned about the restrictive nature of the ‘fixed’ category. The framework states that offences placed in this category post an ‘unmanageable risk to the organisation and/or public safety’ resulting in automatic exclusion. This approach risks disproportionately affecting people with lived experience, including those whose offences may be historic, contextual, or clearly mitigated by rehabilitation. From a voluntary sector perspective, the implications are significant.”
He called for “greater clarity on the rationale behind these exclusions” and highlighted that his organisation sees many women who want to work for the very services who supported them on their prison journey.
A Prison Service spokesperson told Inside Time: “We vet our staff to ensure the security of our prisons. There are no exemptions for individuals in the excluded categories.” However, they added that they may still attend prisons as visitors if agreed locally.
Difficulties with the vetting procedures were raised at a recent held in London by Clinks, the umbrella group representing criminal justice charities. Sam Julius, Clinks’ Director of National Influencing and Networks, said: “The new framework is a step in the right direction. Securing staff access to prisons has been arguably the voluntary sector’s greatest challenge recently and this more flexible approach could go towards mitigating this.
“Under this approach certain people will benefit from a ‘fixed, flex’ approach which will allow for a ‘more nuanced approach enabling contextual review of certain offences.’ The fixed component relates to offences that will always be excluded from consideration for the LEAP scheme. It is important that the sector can engage officials on the evidence base behind these exclusions, as part of a wider engagement of these new processes focusing on risk and rehabilitation and not offence type.”
A spokesperson for the Independent Monitoring Boards, whose board members face vetting before appointment, told Inside Time: “We welcome applications from those with lived experience, but the vetting decisions are out of our hands. We would welcome any changes to guidelines that make the vetting process simpler and easier for those going through it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment