As an ex-offender I have had the opportunity to help the community by paying back through volunteering for charity, retail outlets. These as we know are non-profit making organisations, however they seem to have a varied approach to the recruitment policy and risk assessment of ex-offenders (if they even bother!). What I think needs discussing is that for certain individuals volunteering in this field is, for some, the best way to re-integrate and overcome the usual post-release depression and anxiety. I would like to collate people's experiences and write a piece for theRecord. For an example I have an ex-offender acquaintance who had been volunteering for a charity retail outlet; risen to the dizzy heights of key holder/relief manager; completed 18 months of said same blemish free and then was black balled as the charity suddenly altered their recruitment & retention policy making the unblemished record worthless even with the support of their ex-offender manager (who wrote to the CEO!)and their explanation of the word 'rehabilitation'. It destroyed my acquaintance and their belief of the existence of an understanding society.

Hi
My Offence
I am an ex offender, my offence was basically that I paid for sex with a female who turned out to be under 18yrs of age. A fact I did not know. I only pleaded guilty because "I said yes".
I will not go further into the details except pre-sentence I was told 30 mths supervisory but got 4 yrs, so on the SOR for life or until I apply in a few years. 
I have had numerous psychological assessments that agree I have NO paedophile tendancies etc, found unsuitable for any type of sex offence course and always classed as low risk.
The Judge and CPS both stated there was no grooming or predatory actions and they knew she was "working the streets".
Searching for work
I will start by saying I have worked in the recruitment world for some years so understand their mindset.
When required, I have always declared my offence, regret and understand my lack of morals towards the female either to the recruiter or the employer. This has know made me secretly "blacklisted" by recruiters.
I have applied for over 2000 jobs and still unemployed, with the majority of rejects due to my being labeled as a "sex offender". Though now the time elapsed since my last role is also being a negative.
When I have not be required to disclose to the recruiter - because they haven't asked the correct question - I have managed to gain face to face interviews and actually been successful in receiving offers. I look back at these offers with a sense of pride - in that someone has recognised some worth in me - and amusement but sadness in their confusion, lack of acceptance or understanding in the different types of "sex offence" as they would do if my offence was one of violence or drugs. However it is mainly their lack of compassion towards or belief in rehabilitation especially when they have just spent time explaining how supportive the business is to its employers. 
 
Your example talks about "volunteering" and "charity" shops which is a topic I have discussed with my PPU. I explained to them that the ones I have considered applying to all require a declaration of the details of the offence to be documented in detail. Having created a new identity, moved and now living in a reasonably small place were gossip is common, how do I know my past will not be revealed due to no security processes being in place or regulated.  It is easy to talk about "data protection" but we have to be realistic about how a lot of these types of businesses are run. No offence meant.
To finish, my experience has also shown that even the PPU can be a major obstacle and will show discrimination under the heading of public safety.
For example, when I told my PPU I was going to apply for a weekend role where I would escort prospective house buyers around empty houses on behalf of a Estate Agents - who had not asked for a declaration. My PPU said they would tell the Estate Agents. Their reason being, I could go to a house where a "child" might be by themselves. Hence my lengthy beginning to this reply and my formatting the word "empty"  as I did.

I wish you luck in gaining the examples of others and look forward to reading your report. If I can be of assistance I would be happy to "find the time" to do so. lol

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

This little anecdote is actually typical of the pointless difficulties created for SOs. This is why openness and honesty don't always pay.

Hi
I agree with your thoughts but in reality as an EX-SO, we now have the burden of always presenting a "puritan behaviour" - a term of contempt assigned to by one's enemies - that is not required of other types of offenders. 
My belief in myself will never be diminished by those attempting to do so and that is why openness and honesty has and will always be a core part of my nature.



Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

The moniker 'SO' does breed the harshest and, largely, unjustified assumptions. There are very few opportunities for an explanation of events as the consenus of our supposed 'liberal' society is always to damn. Red tops are the best at that. To drag it back to the opportunity (scant availability for those tarred with the aforementioned brush) of volunteering with non-profit organisations then many will always take the option of legal discrimination over a valid risk assessment. From para 51 of the Supreme Court judgment:
"First, it is entirely appropriate that the final decision about the relevance of a conviction to an individual’s suitability for some occupations should be that of theemployer. Only the employer can judge whether the particular characteristics of the particular job make it inappropriate to employ the particular ex-offender. Very often,this will be a judgment that the employer makes in the course of discussion with the candidate in the light of what is disclosed. The employer will bear the responsibility for the consequences of its choice, and in sensitive appointments the responsibility may be a heavy one."
But the legal loophole still exists and the disproportionate application of that right by different charities is the basis of this thread.

But on the other hand, that ruling was about filtering. So, it relates specifically to standard and enhanced DBS checks. Obviously, if your conviction isn't spent, then for many offences it won't make any difference.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Hi

Very often,this will be a judgement that the employer makes in the course of discussion with the candidate in the light of what is disclosed.

The discrimination often starts BEFORE the employer interview:
 The Recruitment Agency. 
They will ask questions and if disclosure is required will block your CV from going to the employer by various means.

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

There is a load of stuff on Unlock about disclosure and DBS already. Put simply, a volunteering role is no different to a paid job, in terms of the rules. How those rules will be applied is another matter. Will always come down to the employer's attitude in the end. Volunteering is often seen by ex-offenders as an 'easier' way of getting back into work, than applying for a paid job. I think the perception is that voluntary organisations will be more willing to take on ex-offenders, because the roles are unpaid, and it therefore doesn't matter so much to them as it does to an employer who is paying somebody to work for them. Also, for ex-offenders who haven't worked for a long time, volunteering will be recommended by probation or the jobcentre as a way of getting back into that work routine. They also think that voluntary organisations will be 'less fussy' about the person having no recent work experience, than an employer who is recruiting for a paid job and on the whole I think they are right about that.

What irks me about the conversation regarding ex-offenders and work, is that it too often assumes they are all in the same position and are going to be treated exactly the same, regardless of their offence. We all know that this is simply not the case and that an employer, who will gladly give an ex-burglar a 'second chance', won't extend the same helping hand to an ex-SO. The level of prejudice towards, and therefore willingness to employ, SOs is entirely different to other groups of offenders. Don't get me wrong. I know ALL ex-offenders will be discriminated against, but SO face an extra level of discrimination, that isn't always acknowledged.

In my 'favourite' Red Top, the Sun, recently there was an article about SO being employed as care workers. The article stated that, despite the fact that these roles involved working with vulnerable adults, and despite the fact that an enhanced DBS check would be required, the employers were still willing to hire SOs, just because that sector is so desperate for people. They just can't find anbody else willing to do those jobs, so even though they knew all about the person's convictions and had the DBS results in front of them, they still hired them. It is always the employers decision, at the end of the day. So, no matter what the DBS check comes back with, if the employer is desperate enough they will still hire you. Gives hope to us all. Lol.





 

All of these employment decisions should involve a proper risk assessment, or a care home will have to answer to the CQC. Let's say that the prospective employee was convicted of downloading/possession of indecent images. If they're not on the Adults' Barred List, then they can be considered for work in adult care.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Hi
I suppose after circa 2000 applications and never applying for a role were I knew my offence would bar me or DBS check is mentioned; Note I held "top secret" security clearance and informed if the "business" would put the case forward should be given again.
I suppose I am bias in the belief of discrimination against offenders and especially SO. As mentioned in my other posts, I have had offers but they have been rescinded once declaration has been made. Though sympathy has been stressed when I have actually emphasised the actual details of the offence, it is often the businesses HR policies that are the issue.   
As I have also mentioned SO's are classed as the same way but violent offenders / drugs dealers are categorised to different levels to society and accepted more easily by them. This to me is not logical as these sort of offences can cause more damage both physically and emotionally than in my case and often involve vulnerable individuals. For example as anyone heard of a register recording where drug dealers who utilize / sell to children being in place?

I appreciate the "system" says religion and voluntary work is  seen as positive but again in my experience these roles application forms still expect you to detail your offence or disclose at interview. In a small town / village word soon gets around as data protection is not a concept understand or audited by some.

Will keep believing I will get a job.  

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.