By AB2014 - 27 Apr 26 1:00 PM
+xMay be a little bit unfair to accuse an organisation like Unlock of not hiring SOs, given that they are one of the very few that give us a voice. At the same time though, I wonder how Unlock treats the issue of reputational risk? I am sure the media would be all over them, if they hired a high profile SO, like Huw Edwards for example. So would that risk be a potential barrier, even for an inclusive organisation?
That's a reasonable question, but I doubt Huw Edwards would ever feel the need to work again. Then there's the experience of governance thing, which would have excluded him anyway. It would have to be a former senior manager of a charity who had been convicted of an offence then finished their time on the SOR so that they're no longer disqualified by the Charity Commission (or the law). That would probably be a very narrow field, so there's every chance that nobody in the country actually fits into that category.
|
By punter99 - 28 Apr 26 10:48 AM
+x+xMay be a little bit unfair to accuse an organisation like Unlock of not hiring SOs, given that they are one of the very few that give us a voice. At the same time though, I wonder how Unlock treats the issue of reputational risk? I am sure the media would be all over them, if they hired a high profile SO, like Huw Edwards for example. So would that risk be a potential barrier, even for an inclusive organisation? That's a reasonable question, but I doubt Huw Edwards would ever feel the need to work again. Then there's the experience of governance thing, which would have excluded him anyway. It would have to be a former senior manager of a charity who had been convicted of an offence then finished their time on the SOR so that they're no longer disqualified by the Charity Commission (or the law). That would probably be a very narrow field, so there's every chance that nobody in the country actually fits into that category.
Obviously we are dealing with hypotheticals here. But I get the impression Huw Edwards thinks he can be rehabilitated, provided people are willing to listen to his side of the story. So he might want to rebuild his reputation with a bit of charity work, to demonstrate that he is a good person.
There is also the former deputy director of Oxfam, Penny Lawrence, who had to quit over the aid worker sex scandal. Not an SO, but still guilty by association. She would meet the job spec and would bring significant reputational risk.
A quick chatbot search reveals that at least 7 execs of large charities have been convicted of sexual offences in the last 20 years. Add in smaller charities as well and there are plenty of potential candidates.
|
By AB2014 - 28 Apr 26 11:15 AM
+x+x+xMay be a little bit unfair to accuse an organisation like Unlock of not hiring SOs, given that they are one of the very few that give us a voice. At the same time though, I wonder how Unlock treats the issue of reputational risk? I am sure the media would be all over them, if they hired a high profile SO, like Huw Edwards for example. So would that risk be a potential barrier, even for an inclusive organisation? That's a reasonable question, but I doubt Huw Edwards would ever feel the need to work again. Then there's the experience of governance thing, which would have excluded him anyway. It would have to be a former senior manager of a charity who had been convicted of an offence then finished their time on the SOR so that they're no longer disqualified by the Charity Commission (or the law). That would probably be a very narrow field, so there's every chance that nobody in the country actually fits into that category. Obviously we are dealing with hypotheticals here. But I get the impression Huw Edwards thinks he can be rehabilitated, provided people are willing to listen to his side of the story. So he might want to rebuild his reputation with a bit of charity work, to demonstrate that he is a good person. There is also the former deputy director of Oxfam, Penny Lawrence, who had to quit over the aid worker sex scandal. Not an SO, but still guilty by association. She would meet the job spec and would bring significant reputational risk. A quick chatbot search reveals that at least 7 execs of large charities have been convicted of sexual offences in the last 20 years. Add in smaller charities as well and there are plenty of potential candidates.
Fair point, but I come back to the fact that Huw Edwards doesn't have the governance experience. The other candidate might be seen to bring a certain level of risk, but as Unlock doesn't have any aid workers, I would hope people would see that any failings in her oversight of a different charity in a different sphere of operations shouldn't prevent her ever working again. In any event, I hope we would all be willing to accept that anyone with a criminal record should have a chance of rehabilitation, especially if their convictions are spent. I wouldn't rely on chatbot searches unless you then check each reference.
|
By punter99 - 29 Apr 26 10:34 AM
+x+x+x+xMay be a little bit unfair to accuse an organisation like Unlock of not hiring SOs, given that they are one of the very few that give us a voice. At the same time though, I wonder how Unlock treats the issue of reputational risk? I am sure the media would be all over them, if they hired a high profile SO, like Huw Edwards for example. So would that risk be a potential barrier, even for an inclusive organisation? That's a reasonable question, but I doubt Huw Edwards would ever feel the need to work again. Then there's the experience of governance thing, which would have excluded him anyway. It would have to be a former senior manager of a charity who had been convicted of an offence then finished their time on the SOR so that they're no longer disqualified by the Charity Commission (or the law). That would probably be a very narrow field, so there's every chance that nobody in the country actually fits into that category. Obviously we are dealing with hypotheticals here. But I get the impression Huw Edwards thinks he can be rehabilitated, provided people are willing to listen to his side of the story. So he might want to rebuild his reputation with a bit of charity work, to demonstrate that he is a good person. There is also the former deputy director of Oxfam, Penny Lawrence, who had to quit over the aid worker sex scandal. Not an SO, but still guilty by association. She would meet the job spec and would bring significant reputational risk. A quick chatbot search reveals that at least 7 execs of large charities have been convicted of sexual offences in the last 20 years. Add in smaller charities as well and there are plenty of potential candidates. Fair point, but I come back to the fact that Huw Edwards doesn't have the governance experience. The other candidate might be seen to bring a certain level of risk, but as Unlock doesn't have any aid workers, I would hope people would see that any failings in her oversight of a different charity in a different sphere of operations shouldn't prevent her ever working again. In any event, I hope we would all be willing to accept that anyone with a criminal record should have a chance of rehabilitation, especially if their convictions are spent. I wouldn't rely on chatbot searches unless you then check each reference.
Yes, if people were thinking sensibly they would give most offenders a second chance. But we are talking about reputational risk, which is about perception and emotion, rather than a calm assessment of the facts. When you add in the media hysteria as well, which is always heightened when SO are involved, it is a toxic cocktail.
The Haiti aid worker scandal supposedly lost Oxfam 7,000 donors (chatbot evidence so you can choose to ignore it if you want), so would Unlock really want to risk losing donors too?
They might take the view that since they are already working with ex offenders anyway, then they do not have much of a reputation to lose. Most of their donors will already have factored in the potential backlash for helping ex cons. But as we know there is an extra level of "concern" when SO are mentioned. The donors may be perfectly happy to help a former drug dealer, or an ex burglar, but would draw the line at helping a former SO.
|
By AB2014 - 30 Apr 26 10:03 AM
+x+x+x+x+xMay be a little bit unfair to accuse an organisation like Unlock of not hiring SOs, given that they are one of the very few that give us a voice. At the same time though, I wonder how Unlock treats the issue of reputational risk? I am sure the media would be all over them, if they hired a high profile SO, like Huw Edwards for example. So would that risk be a potential barrier, even for an inclusive organisation? That's a reasonable question, but I doubt Huw Edwards would ever feel the need to work again. Then there's the experience of governance thing, which would have excluded him anyway. It would have to be a former senior manager of a charity who had been convicted of an offence then finished their time on the SOR so that they're no longer disqualified by the Charity Commission (or the law). That would probably be a very narrow field, so there's every chance that nobody in the country actually fits into that category. Obviously we are dealing with hypotheticals here. But I get the impression Huw Edwards thinks he can be rehabilitated, provided people are willing to listen to his side of the story. So he might want to rebuild his reputation with a bit of charity work, to demonstrate that he is a good person. There is also the former deputy director of Oxfam, Penny Lawrence, who had to quit over the aid worker sex scandal. Not an SO, but still guilty by association. She would meet the job spec and would bring significant reputational risk. A quick chatbot search reveals that at least 7 execs of large charities have been convicted of sexual offences in the last 20 years. Add in smaller charities as well and there are plenty of potential candidates. Fair point, but I come back to the fact that Huw Edwards doesn't have the governance experience. The other candidate might be seen to bring a certain level of risk, but as Unlock doesn't have any aid workers, I would hope people would see that any failings in her oversight of a different charity in a different sphere of operations shouldn't prevent her ever working again. In any event, I hope we would all be willing to accept that anyone with a criminal record should have a chance of rehabilitation, especially if their convictions are spent. I wouldn't rely on chatbot searches unless you then check each reference. Yes, if people were thinking sensibly they would give most offenders a second chance. But we are talking about reputational risk, which is about perception and emotion, rather than a calm assessment of the facts. When you add in the media hysteria as well, which is always heightened when SO are involved, it is a toxic cocktail. The Haiti aid worker scandal supposedly lost Oxfam 7,000 donors (chatbot evidence so you can choose to ignore it if you want), so would Unlock really want to risk losing donors too? They might take the view that since they are already working with ex offenders anyway, then they do not have much of a reputation to lose. Most of their donors will already have factored in the potential backlash for helping ex cons. But as we know there is an extra level of "concern" when SO are mentioned. The donors may be perfectly happy to help a former drug dealer, or an ex burglar, but would draw the line at helping a former SO.
I can only refer you back to what I said before. Anyone currently on the SOR would need a waiver from the Charities Commission for this job, which takes a long time. That is an operational problem, but Unlock might want to continue with temporary cover while that is arranged. If the waiver is eventually granted. The job is a senior management role, so the applicants really need expertise and plenty of experience, and any SO who fits that profile might well decide they don't want to be outed in the media for getting a job, although I doubt Unlock would be using anyone's criminal record for publicity purposes.
I'm not sure Unlock would ever say or think that they don't have much of a reputation to lose. If by ex-cons you mean ex-prisoners, the majority of people who are convicted don't go to prison, but assuming you mean people with a criminal record, that covers a lot of people, and there are plenty of employers who employ prisoners on day release with no sign of any backlash. That brings us back to SOs again.
Oxfam's loss of donors was probably significant and could easily have been in the thousands. The deputy chief executive resigned over a massive cover-up of wrongdoing by others, but I doubt there is anyone working at Unlock who is or even could be in a situation to exploit their position to behave like that, so it looks like no senior manager at Unlock could pose that sort of risk.
|
By punter99 - 30 Apr 26 11:00 AM
+x+x+x+x+x+xMay be a little bit unfair to accuse an organisation like Unlock of not hiring SOs, given that they are one of the very few that give us a voice. At the same time though, I wonder how Unlock treats the issue of reputational risk? I am sure the media would be all over them, if they hired a high profile SO, like Huw Edwards for example. So would that risk be a potential barrier, even for an inclusive organisation? That's a reasonable question, but I doubt Huw Edwards would ever feel the need to work again. Then there's the experience of governance thing, which would have excluded him anyway. It would have to be a former senior manager of a charity who had been convicted of an offence then finished their time on the SOR so that they're no longer disqualified by the Charity Commission (or the law). That would probably be a very narrow field, so there's every chance that nobody in the country actually fits into that category. Obviously we are dealing with hypotheticals here. But I get the impression Huw Edwards thinks he can be rehabilitated, provided people are willing to listen to his side of the story. So he might want to rebuild his reputation with a bit of charity work, to demonstrate that he is a good person. There is also the former deputy director of Oxfam, Penny Lawrence, who had to quit over the aid worker sex scandal. Not an SO, but still guilty by association. She would meet the job spec and would bring significant reputational risk. A quick chatbot search reveals that at least 7 execs of large charities have been convicted of sexual offences in the last 20 years. Add in smaller charities as well and there are plenty of potential candidates. Fair point, but I come back to the fact that Huw Edwards doesn't have the governance experience. The other candidate might be seen to bring a certain level of risk, but as Unlock doesn't have any aid workers, I would hope people would see that any failings in her oversight of a different charity in a different sphere of operations shouldn't prevent her ever working again. In any event, I hope we would all be willing to accept that anyone with a criminal record should have a chance of rehabilitation, especially if their convictions are spent. I wouldn't rely on chatbot searches unless you then check each reference. Yes, if people were thinking sensibly they would give most offenders a second chance. But we are talking about reputational risk, which is about perception and emotion, rather than a calm assessment of the facts. When you add in the media hysteria as well, which is always heightened when SO are involved, it is a toxic cocktail. The Haiti aid worker scandal supposedly lost Oxfam 7,000 donors (chatbot evidence so you can choose to ignore it if you want), so would Unlock really want to risk losing donors too? They might take the view that since they are already working with ex offenders anyway, then they do not have much of a reputation to lose. Most of their donors will already have factored in the potential backlash for helping ex cons. But as we know there is an extra level of "concern" when SO are mentioned. The donors may be perfectly happy to help a former drug dealer, or an ex burglar, but would draw the line at helping a former SO. I can only refer you back to what I said before. Anyone currently on the SOR would need a waiver from the Charities Commission for this job, which takes a long time. That is an operational problem, but Unlock might want to continue with temporary cover while that is arranged. If the waiver is eventually granted. The job is a senior management role, so the applicants really need expertise and plenty of experience, and any SO who fits that profile might well decide they don't want to be outed in the media for getting a job, although I doubt Unlock would be using anyone's criminal record for publicity purposes. I'm not sure Unlock would ever say or think that they don't have much of a reputation to lose. If by ex-cons you mean ex-prisoners, the majority of people who are convicted don't go to prison, but assuming you mean people with a criminal record, that covers a lot of people, and there are plenty of employers who employ prisoners on day release with no sign of any backlash. That brings us back to SOs again. Oxfam's loss of donors was probably significant and could easily have been in the thousands. The deputy chief executive resigned over a massive cover-up of wrongdoing by others, but I doubt there is anyone working at Unlock who is or even could be in a situation to exploit their position to behave like that, so it looks like no senior manager at Unlock could pose that sort of risk.
I was not saying that Unlock has no reputation to lose. I was pointing out that for some charities the risks of donating are already known, so they have some protection against reputational risk.
That appears to be supported by the case of St Giles Trust. This charity allowed an ex offender to work with children and it was criticised by the Charity commission. But the scandal did not result in a big loss of donations. Unlike Oxfam, the St Giles Trust works with ex offenders all the time, so their donors would understand there is a risk of reoffending. The moral panic, where donors try to distance themselves from a charity to avoid damage to their own reputation, does not seem to affect charities working with ex offenders, to the same extent.
|
By AB2014 - 30 Apr 26 11:44 AM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMay be a little bit unfair to accuse an organisation like Unlock of not hiring SOs, given that they are one of the very few that give us a voice. At the same time though, I wonder how Unlock treats the issue of reputational risk? I am sure the media would be all over them, if they hired a high profile SO, like Huw Edwards for example. So would that risk be a potential barrier, even for an inclusive organisation? That's a reasonable question, but I doubt Huw Edwards would ever feel the need to work again. Then there's the experience of governance thing, which would have excluded him anyway. It would have to be a former senior manager of a charity who had been convicted of an offence then finished their time on the SOR so that they're no longer disqualified by the Charity Commission (or the law). That would probably be a very narrow field, so there's every chance that nobody in the country actually fits into that category. Obviously we are dealing with hypotheticals here. But I get the impression Huw Edwards thinks he can be rehabilitated, provided people are willing to listen to his side of the story. So he might want to rebuild his reputation with a bit of charity work, to demonstrate that he is a good person. There is also the former deputy director of Oxfam, Penny Lawrence, who had to quit over the aid worker sex scandal. Not an SO, but still guilty by association. She would meet the job spec and would bring significant reputational risk. A quick chatbot search reveals that at least 7 execs of large charities have been convicted of sexual offences in the last 20 years. Add in smaller charities as well and there are plenty of potential candidates. Fair point, but I come back to the fact that Huw Edwards doesn't have the governance experience. The other candidate might be seen to bring a certain level of risk, but as Unlock doesn't have any aid workers, I would hope people would see that any failings in her oversight of a different charity in a different sphere of operations shouldn't prevent her ever working again. In any event, I hope we would all be willing to accept that anyone with a criminal record should have a chance of rehabilitation, especially if their convictions are spent. I wouldn't rely on chatbot searches unless you then check each reference. Yes, if people were thinking sensibly they would give most offenders a second chance. But we are talking about reputational risk, which is about perception and emotion, rather than a calm assessment of the facts. When you add in the media hysteria as well, which is always heightened when SO are involved, it is a toxic cocktail. The Haiti aid worker scandal supposedly lost Oxfam 7,000 donors (chatbot evidence so you can choose to ignore it if you want), so would Unlock really want to risk losing donors too? They might take the view that since they are already working with ex offenders anyway, then they do not have much of a reputation to lose. Most of their donors will already have factored in the potential backlash for helping ex cons. But as we know there is an extra level of "concern" when SO are mentioned. The donors may be perfectly happy to help a former drug dealer, or an ex burglar, but would draw the line at helping a former SO. I can only refer you back to what I said before. Anyone currently on the SOR would need a waiver from the Charities Commission for this job, which takes a long time. That is an operational problem, but Unlock might want to continue with temporary cover while that is arranged. If the waiver is eventually granted. The job is a senior management role, so the applicants really need expertise and plenty of experience, and any SO who fits that profile might well decide they don't want to be outed in the media for getting a job, although I doubt Unlock would be using anyone's criminal record for publicity purposes. I'm not sure Unlock would ever say or think that they don't have much of a reputation to lose. If by ex-cons you mean ex-prisoners, the majority of people who are convicted don't go to prison, but assuming you mean people with a criminal record, that covers a lot of people, and there are plenty of employers who employ prisoners on day release with no sign of any backlash. That brings us back to SOs again. Oxfam's loss of donors was probably significant and could easily have been in the thousands. The deputy chief executive resigned over a massive cover-up of wrongdoing by others, but I doubt there is anyone working at Unlock who is or even could be in a situation to exploit their position to behave like that, so it looks like no senior manager at Unlock could pose that sort of risk. I was not saying that Unlock has no reputation to lose. I was pointing out that for some charities the risks of donating are already known, so they have some protection against reputational risk. That appears to be supported by the case of St Giles Trust. This charity allowed an ex offender to work with children and it was criticised by the Charity commission. But the scandal did not result in a big loss of donations. Unlike Oxfam, the St Giles Trust works with ex offenders all the time, so their donors would understand there is a risk of reoffending. The moral panic, where donors try to distance themselves from a charity to avoid damage to their own reputation, does not seem to affect charities working with ex offenders, to the same extent.
What you said was, "They might take the view that since they are already working with ex offenders anyway, then they do not have much of a reputation to lose." I take your point about how reputation is viewed, as even the worst of the media can still tell the difference between people they see as "deserving" and those who are "undeserving", and even then the moral outrage card doesn't always work. Hopefully, some of that has become mainstream, but I'm thinking that mission creep would be slow or non-existent when it comes to SOs. Of course, if the Moral Outrage Brigade (MOB? Sounds appropriate) don't get wind of what they would see as scandal, it is a non-issue.
|
By Evan Davis - 30 Apr 26 12:03 PM
I think we're getting a bit off the topic of the post here.
Unlock is an inclusive, non-judgmental organisation. As we are a member of the Ban the Box campaign, we don't even ask for details of a criminal record at application stage - as is made clear within the recruitment pack, a criminal record question would only be asked after job offer stage. Therefore, any inference that any particular group of people with a criminal record would be treated differently is quite simply, and without mincing my words - a nonsense.
I'm also of the view that making such assumptions about an organisation (and by extension, their staff making decisions on recruitment) is not only quite rude and obtuse, but is essentially a middle-finger up to the people behind the scenes working hard on the minute details of every job application pack, to ensure that said organisations are as inclusive as possible and are not deterring any applicants. At Unlock we want to speak up about the value of 'lived experience' working in the VCSE sector - so to see posts such as some in this thread that might serve to discourage other potential applicants from applying is disappointing to say the least. If somebody thinks they will be discriminated against by Unlock, of all organisations, because of their conviction, then there is likely much more than just their conviction holding them back from employment.
|
By Deb S - 16 Apr 26 9:56 AM
Unlock is looking for a Head of Operations, Governance and Programmes Support to help keep the organisation running smoothly and support the work that makes real change happen.
This role sites right at the heart of Unlock. You'll work closely with the CEO, senior leaders and trustees, making sure our systems, policies and people practices actually work - and work well. From governance and HR to programme support and day-to-day operations, you'll help create the solid foundations that allow the rest of the team to focus on impact.
We're especially interested in someone who:- Leads with values, not just policies
- Gets the importance of trauma-informed and lived-experience-led working
- Can balance the big picture with day-to-day problem-solving
- Cares about people, culture and doing things the right way.
We're proud to be inclusive, and we actively welcome applications from people with lived experience of the criminal justice system, as well as candidates from under-represented backgrounds.
If this sounds like you - or someone you know - we'd love you to apply or spread the word.
Find out more and apply here.
|
|