Monday Aug 1 Official vetting found wanting? Official vetting may not give employers the protection they expect 01/08/2005 09:48:00 The Criminal Records Bureau is failing to give many employers the information they need or the service they want, according to research issued today (date) by IRS Employment Review, published by LexisNexis Butterworths. At a time when UK bosses are more reliant than ever on trustworthy staff, one third of employers say that information from the Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) is not always accurate and one-fifth (21.2%) did not know. mplompl Moreover, a quarter of employers using the CRB are unsatisfied with its administration and level of service. The research is published in the new edition (828) of IRS Employment Review. Other key findings: ·The majority of employers surveyed (80.1%) have a written policy on recruiting and/or employing ex-offenders. Two-thirds (65.1%) of these have a standalone policy, while a quarter (24.5%) include details within a more general equal opportunities statement. For a small percentage (7.4%), details form part of their overall recruitment and selection policy. ·Most respondents – 93% – obtained disclosure information direct from the CRB in the organisation’s’ capacity as a “Registered Body”. (See notes to editors) ·Over a third of the respondents (37.7%) are registered with the CRB as an umbrella body, with twice as many (41.4%) in the public sector as in the private sector (20.5%), reflecting the wider community role that public sector organisations play. ·Almost nine in 10 (89.2%) are eligible to ask applicants exempted questions, usually for work involving contact with children or other vulnerable members of society - the most frequently cited at-risk” groups. ·Almost four in 10 (37.2%) employers surveyed apply for disclosure for between 50% and 74% of posts, while almost a further one-third (31.9%) follow this procedure for between 75% and 100% of roles. ·While two-thirds (67.7%) of employers apply for standard disclosures, 94.7% opt for enhanced disclosure checks. ·The results show that one in 10 employers (10.2%) find it “somewhat difficult” to decide whether a post requires a standard or enhanced disclosure, but that only 0.3% find that this is a “very difficult” task. Most organisations using the CRB, however, find that identifying the correct level of disclosure is either “very easy” (43%) or “somewhat easy” (29.4 ·Almost four in 10 (36.8%) respondents “agree” or “strongly agree” that the introduction of basic disclosures is likely to increase the risk of unfair discrimination against ex-offenders. A further one-third (34.4%) has no opinion on the issue, while 28.8% “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with the statement. ·Fewer than one in 10 respondents receive standard disclosure information within two weeks, while just over one-half obtain it within two to four weeks. One-fifth of employers surveyed receive the information within four to six weeks, while a minority has to wait up to eight weeks for the results. For a negligible number of employers, the delay is even longer. ·The efficiency with which the CRB processes enhanced disclosure applications is slightly closer to its stated aim, according to the employers we contacted. One-third of respondents indicated that the results of this higher-level check are received within the CRB’s target response time of four weeks. Four in 10 wait four to six weeks for completion, while one in six (16.5%) employers receive the results within six to eight weeks. A small proportion of our contacts (8%) says the process takes over eight weeks. ·Almost nine in 10 employers (87.6%) comply with the CRB’s aim to avoid discrimination and waste time and only request a disclosure after a conditional offer of employment has been made. Respondents are not automatically discounting an applicant on the basis of their past criminal history either: three-quarters (74.5%) of employers have hired a new recruit where their CRB disclosure was positive, while one-quarter (25.5%) have not. IRS Employment Review managing editor, Mark Crail said: “The overriding rationale for setting up the CRB’s disclosure service was to help organisations make safer recruitment decisions. The use of the CRB has a direct effect on the work of many employers. Despite reservations – which cannot and should not be ignored - about the quality of the disclosure service, most employers surveyed believe that these background checks for past criminal activity have helped their organisations to recruit more safely. Employers do not rely on a disclosure check ’snapshot’ and most have other safeguards in place to improve recruitment to positions of trust. These include obtaining references from current and past employers, asking applicants to provide documentary evidence of their identity and careful checking of any gaps in employment. "At a time when personal safety is possibly at its very highest, we may see more employers being even more scrupulous in their checks for staff.” www.irsemploymentreview.com Article courtesy of OnREC

news index