How can we make HE more accessible for those with criminal convictions?

Despite an increasing focus on widening access and participation of those from “non-traditional” and under-represented groups, those with live or spent criminal convictions are often excluded from conversations. This population frequently experiences marginalisation, stigma, educational disadvantage and financial hardship.

People who have gone through the criminal justice system often come from disadvantaged backgrounds and face exclusion from education, making it crucial to provide them with opportunities to improve their circumstances. However, institutions often view them as “risky”, fearing reputational harm if they reoffend – despite no evidence suggesting that they are more likely to do so. Denying educational opportunities to individuals with criminal convictions further marginalises them. Ensuring equitable admissions policies can promote institutional values related to citizenship and community engagement.

Thanks to the “Ban the Box” movement, which led to a reduction of courses requiring prospective students to declare their convictions, university recruitment practices for this group have altered. We evaluated these changes to recommend improvements in practice, conducting semi-structured interviews with nine internal and 12 external participants involved in the widening participation agenda for individuals with criminal convictions.

Our research found that even after “Ban the Box”, applicants to non-regulated programmes might still face questions about criminal convictions at the offer stage, meaning that this intervention merely delays the issue of disclosure. This raises concerns about exclusion and who determines suitability for university study. 

• Resources on equity, diversity and inclusion in higher education
• How can HE institutions become fairer and more inclusive?
• Tackling bias and microaggressions in higher education

Ucas suggests considering the course context before requiring criminal conviction information. Some disclosures may be necessary, for example, for accommodation or IT access, but not at the admissions stage. Criminal records data is a distinct category, and the collection of this data should be proportionate, necessary and have a lawful basis that is stated in relevant policy.

Disclosure of convictions should be voluntary and viewed as a necessary route to enabling access to higher education. This approach does not downplay the seriousness of certain offences or compromise student safety but advocates for fair treatment for all potential students. It is important that the purposes and responses to disclosures are clear, as uncertainty about how universities may respond can deter potential applicants. Having a designated contact on hand to answer questions is valuable. 

Our findings revealed a differentiation between perceptions of those “deserving” (those without a criminal conviction) and “undeserving” (those with criminal convictions) of university access. This underscores the need for a whole-university approach (including appropriate use of risk-related language in policy and practice) to reduce stigma. This can include the use of clear external messaging about support for under-represented groups and appropriate staff training to handle disclosures.

In 2019, Unlock introduced a “fair chance pledge” for students with criminal records, adopted by 18 universities. This initiative promotes accessible, fair and positive engagement with applicants, offering them the opportunity to discuss their circumstances in person with trained staff. The pledge and associated toolkit recommend the following:

• Applicants should be asked about criminal records only when necessary and should have the opportunity for an in-person discussion before a decision is made
• University policies should be clearly accessible via an institution’s external-facing website and include information on when and why data may be collected
• Universities should specify what criminal convictions data is necessary to collect and why. For example, licence or bail conditions might be necessary to disclose if they might impact attendance or access to accommodation
• Offer in-person or video meetings to help reduce assumptions and biases
• Use a consistent approach to train staff and appoint an internal contact responsible for data handling and compliance with relevant policies and legislation
• Provide an anonymous contact point for students to address questions or concerns.

We hope this guidance can encourage universities to establish clearer policies around the disclosure of criminal convictions, create a more inclusive recruitment experience and ensure that prospective students are aware of why it is necessary to collate this data.

Jayne Price is the deputy head of social and political science, and Paul Taylor is head of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Chester.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Maynooth University’s “Unlock Potential” is a research policy project intended to increase access to higher education for those with criminal convictions. Its website has a clear policy and student stories that are presented in video format. This is a good example of best practice for other institutions to adopt.

Liverpool John Moores University’s Learning Together initiative is a criminal justice course for academics, practitioners, service users and students encouraging co-learning through shared understanding. The linked journal article provides practical advice for organising such a course and outlines its numerous benefits.