Back in 2018, UCAS stopped requiring applicants to disclose “unspent” criminal records on their university application for non-regulated degrees (degrees that do not require an enhanced criminal record check).
Five years on, little is known about how individual higher education providers responded to this change. For instance, have universities stopped requiring applicants to disclose for non-regulated degrees? Or do individual universities ask applicants about their criminal record later in the admissions process, once a UCAS application has been received?
These are some of the questions I set about answering as I started my PhD research at the University of Nottingham, focusing on access to university for people with a criminal record. Back in 2021, I began my research by analysing university admissions policies to explore how 143 of the UK’s universities approached the admissions process for applicants with a criminal record. I have published my findings from this analysis in a recent paper, which aims to set out the complex landscape of university admissions for people with a criminal record.
Disclosing criminal records
My analysis has found that 103 UK universities continue to require applicants to disclose either all unspent criminal records, or unspent criminal records for certain offences, before they can enrol on a non-regulated degree course.
Universities tend to justify the decision to ask about criminal records on the basis that this practice will help them to minimise the risk of harm to other staff and students and increase safety on campus. It is recognised that universities have safeguarding responsibilities to all staff and students. Yet much more careful consideration should be given to how useful questions about applicants’ criminal records are in upholding these responsibilities. Particularly given there is no evidence that criminal record checks increase safety.
Some 19 universities no longer require applicants to disclose an unspent criminal record to enrol on a non-regulated degree. This challenges the rationale used by other institutions, that compulsory criminal record disclosures are an essential practice to keep people safe in higher education.
Impact on inclusion
Concerningly, my research found that only 13 institutions cited student support as one of the reasons why they asked applicants to disclose their criminal record.
Some policies referred to people with criminal records as “ex-offenders”, a phrase research suggests reinforces the stigma of a criminal record. Other policies explained how they would “risk assess” people with a criminal record to assess their suitability to become a university student. However, there is often a lack of detail and transparency within university criminal record policies about what these risk assessments involve and there remains questions about whether university admissions departments should be attempting to assess an applicant’s risk at all, given these assessments are not made about applicants without a criminal record.
Requiring people with a criminal record to disclose during the admissions process and subjecting them to additional assessments could deter them from accessing higher education. This is problematic given that over 11 million people in England and Wales have a criminal record and people with a criminal record are more likely to be part of groups already underrepresented in higher education. For instance, evidence suggests that people from BAME communities, people with care experience and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds are disproportionately criminalised.
An ongoing issue
Access to university for people with a criminal record is a timely issue and policy changes have been announced since my article was published, with Universities Scotland announcing plans requiring all Scottish universities to ask applicants to disclose data about their relevant criminal records, and charges, before they can enrol on a degree course.
Simultaneously, there have been calls for providers and the Office for Students to explore the barriers people with a criminal record may encounter when applying to, and studying at, university to facilitate equality of opportunity.
As part of my research, I have also interviewed university admissions staff and people with a criminal record to illuminate the complexities that exist when people with a criminal record navigate the university admissions process. As I work through this data and begin to publish these findings I hope to contribute to the conversations about university access and participation for people with a criminal record.
Disclosing convictions IS a safety check, whilst many are for minor offences as ‘young offenders’ some are potential warning signs that must not be ignored.
I take issue with “For instance, evidence suggests that people from BAME communities, people with care experience and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds are disproportionately criminalised.” the Law applies to all, at least in theory equally, no matter what their socioeconomic or other intersectional status. The students adversely affected by the previously convicted BAME drug dealer at one South West of England University who was handing out ‘hooking’ freebies that ended up addicted weren’t even protected once the University became aware of his dealing, such is the level of excusing dangerous behaviours in some Universities. He was only finally excluded following local medics involving the Police after several rounds of severe overdoses due to his supplied ‘products’, the University only acting after his second arrest in Halls for ‘possession with intent to supply’.
Regarding
“However, there is often a lack of detail and transparency within university criminal record policies about what these risk assessments involve and there remains questions about whether university admissions departments should be attempting to assess an applicant’s risk at all, given these assessments are not made about applicants without a criminal record.”
Admissions departments are not making these risk assessments, they are undertaken by a committee often comprising of academics, student support and other relevant staff at an institution. Your point may remain the same about should this be done but please be clear this is not a decision being taken by admissions or in isolation within the institution as a whole.
Universities are taking a chance on students and a conviction that is unspent is relevant information when deciding whether or not to prefer one candidate over another. That said, there are good and bad processes. It might be reasonable to have a conversation with an applicant to help gauge the information relating to the conviction, depending on the nature of the offence. With reference to the article, while the reasons might not always be clear for most of the time the reasons for disclosure are in fact clear.