When a vacancy proves difficult to fill, the usual response is to widen the search. Try another agency, increase the advertising budget or reconsider the salary.
It is worth examining the recruitment policy with the same urgency. A business could be paying to attract more applicants while keeping an unnecessary restriction that rules some of them out.
That was the question left by the fair chance hiring discussion at Connected Britain: how well do employers understand the consequences of their own selection criteria?
The Fair Chance Business Alliance projects that, by 2028, 10 million working-age people in the UK will have a criminal record – around one in four working-age adults. Neil Wood introduced that figure during the session. These are people with different histories, qualifications and ambitions, many already in employment. Treating them as a single category tells an employer very little about their suitability for a job.
As Neil Wood, Founding Director and COO of the Fair Chance Business Alliance, put it, “This is all about showing what a hidden and often overlooked talent pool can look like.”
An example beyond the session brings that into focus. Women accounted for 73% of prosecutions for TV licence evasion in England and Wales in the year ending June 2024, among cases where sex was recorded. This is an offence that can result in a criminal conviction.
Jonathan Ley, Founder of Make Time Counts, challenged the tendency to see people with criminal records as a separate group. Reflecting on how easily circumstances can shape someone’s future, he concluded: “So it’s not us and them – it’s just us.”
A woman convicted of TV licence evasion is probably not who most hiring managers picture when they hear “criminal record”. Yet those words cover circumstances far broader than having served a prison sentence.
If a recruitment process leaves little room to understand those circumstances, how confident can an employer be in the decisions being made?
For a leadership team investing in gender equality and social mobility, this is a reasonable question to ask of its recruitment policies. Applying the same rule to everyone does not necessarily mean the rule is well suited to every role.
Employers have legitimate responsibilities. Safeguarding, security and the requirements of particular jobs need careful consideration. Hiring managers also need clear guidance and support.
The distinction to examine is between a restriction with an identifiable reason connected to the work and one applied across unrelated roles because nobody has revisited it. An employer should be able to explain what each requirement protects, where it applies and why.
That scrutiny has a commercial purpose. If a suitable candidate is unnecessarily excluded, the vacancy may remain open longer. Another recruitment fee, delayed work and additional pressure on colleagues are possible consequences. They may never be connected back to the hiring policy.
For telecoms, technology and digital infrastructure businesses concerned about skills shortages, understanding that possibility should be part of workforce planning.
The session offered a useful example of how employers can begin.
Chris Blackburn, Director of Skills Growth at Vertage, offered a practical starting point: “Start small. Take a pilot group, work closely with a partner organisation, and learn together.”
He described an initiative that began with a small group four years ago and now takes ten people annually, pointing to the engagement and retention benefits he has seen through this approach.
A small, recurring intake gives an employer time to learn: which roles are a good fit, where managers need support and what helps new colleagues settle in. It also gives the next group a better start. That is a practical proposition for a business willing to try, even if it is not yet ready to commit to a larger programme.
The questions then become much more useful. How are recruits performing? What support do managers need? Are employees staying and progressing? Which parts of the process are working, and which need attention?
There is a human reason to follow those outcomes too. The panel’s discussion of self-worth and life after prison was a reminder that preparing someone for employment achieves little if employers will not consider them. A job can make it possible to plan ahead, support a family and build relationships beyond the circumstances of a conviction.
It also matters what happens once someone is employed. A fair opportunity should include the chance to develop, take on responsibility and build a career. Getting through the door is only the beginning.
Senior leaders do not need to resolve Jonaaspect of fair chance hiring before taking a first step. They can ask for a clear account of what happens in their own business, starting with a role they are struggling to fill.
Before spending more to find the right person, it is worth checking whether the process would let them through.
Key takeaways for senior leaders:
- Put one persistent vacancy on the leadership agenda. Ask HR to bring the relevant criminal-record restrictions, the reasons for them and a proposal for anything that could change.
- Examine the business consequences. Consider recruitment costs, delivery delays and pressure on colleagues alongside the reasons for each restriction.
- Learn from a supported intake. Work with an experienced partner, prepare managers and give a senior leader responsibility for the programme.
- Look beyond the hiring numbers. Review performance, retention, progression and employees’ experiences before deciding whether to expand.
These reflections draw on the panel with Neil Wood of the Fair Chance Business Alliance, Chris Blackburn of Vertage, Jonathan Ley of Make Time Count and Matthias Stausberg of Virgin. The session took place at Connected Britain, organised by Total Telecom, in the People, Skills & Recruitment Zone curated by ImpactMatch.
