Applying to university with criminal convictions: a comparative study of admissions policies in the United States and United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

Higher education institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom increasingly require prospective students to disclose past criminal history on admissions applications. However, a social movement aimed at improving opportunities for people with criminal records may force higher education to reconsider this practice. This paper offers a descriptive comparative analysis of admissions policies for people with criminal records in the US and UK by exploring policy contexts, written policies and admissions data. For the first time, admissions data were collected from a sample of UK universities, finding that while thousands of applicants with criminal records apply to universities, only a small percentage are rejected solely on the basis of their convictions. In addition, variation in the tone and scope of policies appears to reflect the variation in national criminal records laws between the US and UK. These, and other findings, have implications for the continued use of these policies.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education
• criminal records
• comparative methods
• university admissions
• UK

Introduction

Over the past 20 years, a policy phenomenon has materialised in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Most higher education institutions now require applicants to disclose prior criminal history on undergraduate admissions applications, and university administrators review criminal records when making admissions decisions. Recently, however, a social change movement has gained traction in pressuring organisations to remove criminal history tick boxes from applications, known as the ban-the-box movement. Subsequently, governmental agencies and other organisations in both countries are pressing higher education institutions to reconsider their admissions practices (Coates, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, 2016; Weissman, Rosenthal, Warth, Wolf, & Messina-Yauchzy, 2010). Despite the growing tension between higher education and the ban-the-box movement, this policy issue has received little attention in the scholarly literature, leaving higher education practitioners and policy scholars without a foundation for considering alternatives to the policy problem. Through a comparison of policies and their contexts in the United States and United Kingdom, this paper offers new evidence for discussions on the use of criminal history in university admissions.

This comparative analysis is significant now for several reasons. First, research on this topic in the United Kingdom (UK) lags behind the United States (US). Where only a legal review on the topic exists in the published literature from the UK (Davies, 2000), there are several legal reviews, descriptive studies and empirical studies available from the US (for a review, see Custer, 2016). For the first time, this paper presents data on the application and rejection rates of people with criminal convictions from a sample of UK universities, thus contributing new evidence to the UK literature. Second, as noted, the ban-the-box movement has put pressure on higher education to change these admissions practices, but first, better evaluations of current practices are needed to understand how best to make policy changes. This paper offers a historical and descriptive analysis of policies, from which a plan for policy evaluation can be drawn. Study results point to several critical questions for future research. Third, findings from this study potentially foreshadow an emerging global trend in higher education. This analysis raises awareness of the policy issue outside of single-country studies, such that researchers of international higher education might examine where else in the world criminal history might play a factor in university admissions.

Comparative methods

Bleiklie (2014) outlined a typology of five methodologies for the international comparative study of higher education organisations: single country studies, juxtapositions, thematic comparisons, identifying causal regularities and grand theories. Thematic comparison is employed throughout this paper, both as a method for comparison and as a strategy for organising the paper. Of the five methodologies, thematic comparison is best suited for this study because it ‘relies on a common set of questions to examine a small number of cases for comparability and similarity’ (Bleiklie, 2014, p. 386). Comparative description of a policy phenomenon in two countries, rather than causal inference or theory building, is the intention here. First, thematic comparison involves the use of themes as subjects of comparison, which in this paper include: (A) national criminal records laws, (B) background of university admissions policies for applicants with criminal histories, (C) admissions policy language and (D) admissions data. Second, thematic comparison requires comparing the US to the UK across the themes using a common set of questions. In the spirit of a foundational, descriptive study, the common question for each theme is, simply: what are the similarities and differences between the US and UK? More specifically, two empirical research questions are posed:

1. How does the legal context, history and language of admissions policies compare between the countries?

2. How many people with criminal records apply to universities, and how many are rejected due to their criminal histories, from samples in each country?

The US and UK were chosen for comparison because their admissions policies share significant commonalities, and thus, they can be compared. Yet, the differences in historical, legal, social and educational contexts make for interesting comparison. To draw comparisons, research literature, laws, governmental reports, non-governmental organisation reports, news reports, university policy documents and admissions data were analysed. With these sources, the paper engages in a series of comparative analyses.

First, this paper draws together many extant sources to describe the policy context, including legal foundations (Theme A) and policy background (Theme B). Second, the content of university policy documents from the US and the UK was compared and analysed (Theme C). Admissions application forms and written policies were collected from institutional websites and public records requests, though the sample is not meant to be representative of all institutions in the US or UK. Through an iterative process of reading, rereading, and comparison, the policy documents were inductively coded for characteristics that broadly differed between the two countries. Theme C presents a discussion of the two policy characteristics that differed the most – scope and tone.

Third, admissions data from UK universities were analysed (Theme D), which were obtained from public records requests sent to 30 universities under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. Universities supplied the number of undergraduate applicants who indicated having relevant felony convictions on the admissions application and the number of those applicants who were denied admission specifically due to their criminal history. To reduce the burden on university records managers, data from just two academic years were requested, 2014–2015 and 2015–2016. Two assumptions were made in selecting a manageable sample. First, people in prison are known to have lower levels of educational attainment (i.e., grade level) and ability (i.e., reading, math) than the general population (Coates, 2016; Rampey et al., 2016). Thus, the likelihood that people with criminal records would be eligible for admission at the most selective universities seemed reasonably low. Second, larger universities are logically more likely to have larger populations of applicants with criminal records. Thus, the sample includes the 30 largest UK universities by overall student population (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2017), excluding the 32 most selective and prestigious universities according to the Russell Group (2016) and the Sutton Trust (Trust, 2011; see supplemental data). Expecting that not all universities would deliver the requested data, the sample size of 30, though ultimately arbitrary, was meant to ensure that around 20 universities would respond (20 being the number of institutions in the US dataset used for comparison). Overall, this sampling method was intended to be an expedient and convenient approach to identifying a reasonable number of universities for an introductory, descriptive study. Though not representative of all UK universities, the sample proved to offer new insights into this policy phenomenon all the same, as shown below. However, the sampling method is also a limitation, and future research should collect data from all universities or construct a better theoretically-grounded sample. Finally, the UK data were compared to an existing, similarly constructed dataset from a sample of 20 institutions in the US (Theme D; Rosenthal, NaPier, Warth, & Weissman, 2015).

Taken together, these comparative methods offer readers an analysis of policy context (Themes A and B), policy content (Theme C) and policy outputs (Theme D) in the US and UK. The thick description of each theme provides foundational knowledge needed to raise awareness about this social, educational and policy phenomenon, from which testable propositions can be developed for future research (Bleiklie, 2014).

Theme A: criminal records laws

The admissions policy for applicants with prior convictions hinges on the existence of a criminal record. What constitutes a criminal record, and how those records can be used, differs widely between the US and UK. Thus, national legal contexts have important implications for the use of criminal records in the university admissions process.

In the US, criminal records are largely understood to be permanent. Expunging records is difficult, and some agencies can still compel the disclosure of expunged records (Jacobs, 2006). Thus, a US citizen with a criminal conviction is typically required to disclose it for perpetuity. In addition, criminal records are public. Each of the 50 states and other territories have widely varying laws and agencies governing criminal history information, but overall, the general philosophy remains that the public should be able to access court records (Jacobs, 2006; Love, Roberts, & Klingele, 2013). Further, some laws mandate the disclosure of criminal history information, as in the case of public sex offender notifications and registries (Jacobs, 2006). The public, permanent nature of criminal records in the US results in significant collateral consequences. Employers and landlords have wide discretion to conduct background checks on applicants and to deny employment or housing to people with criminal histories, though the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 offers some protections by establishing standards for the preparers and users of criminal background reports (Love et al., 2013). For higher education, this means few federal laws restrict universities’ use of criminal history information in the admissions process.

People with criminal records in the UK are afforded more protections under the law. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974 established a rehabilitation period whereby offenders, so long as they do not reoffend, are considered rehabilitated (Dworkin, 1975). After the rehabilitation period, a person’s conviction is considered ‘spent’ and is exempt from disclosure and even from some judicial proceedings (Dworkin, 1975). As of 2014, the rehabilitation periods were greatly reduced such that convictions with incarceration sentences of 0–6 months have a 2-year rehabilitation period; sentences of 6–30 months have a 4-year period; and sentences of 30 months–4 years have a 7-year period (Ministry of Justice, 2014). Sentences over 4 years are never spent (unspent) and thus are always subject to disclosure (Ministry of Justice, 2014). In addition, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act protects people from the intentional and harmful publication or disclosure of a spent conviction and prohibits employers from discriminating against an applicant with a spent conviction (Dworkin, 1975; Ministry of Justice, 2014).

The criminal record itself is also subject to strict privacy laws. The Data Protection Act of 1998 safeguards personal information, and criminal records are considered sensitive (Davies, 2000; Unlock, 2017). People who collect and process criminal history information must abide by the Data Protection Act to avoid violating a person’s privacy. Handlers are only permitted to collect criminal records when necessary, are limited in what they can collect and how long they can retain it, must inform the individual how that information is used and stored and can be held legally responsible for the improper disclosure of information (Davies, 2000; Unlock, 2017).

The stark contrast in criminal records laws between the US and UK has important implications for how universities collect, review and store the criminal records of prospective students. In the US, universities have legal authority to inquire about the complete criminal histories of all prospective students and have wide discretion to use that information when making admissions decisions. In the UK, universities are only permitted to collect certain types of criminal history information from certain prospective students and are more restricted in how they use such information. As shown next in Themes B and C, broad differences in the written policies and practices of universities in the US and UK appear to be reflective of the differences in their respective national criminal records laws.

Theme B: admissions policy background

The implementation of admissions policies for applicants with prior felony convictions is a recent innovation. This section explores the logic, history and current issues of these policies.

Policy logic

Several authors have analysed the legality of admissions policies for people with criminal records (Davies, 2000; Dickerson, 2008; Langhauser, 2001), and others have sufficiently outlined the basic administrative procedures that are now common in both countries (Custer, 2016; Supporting Professionalism in Admissions, 2014). In short, a prospective student answers a question about past criminal history on the admissions application, after which he/she must provide additional information (e.g., court records, personal statements). A panel reviews the application, starting from the assumption that past misconduct predicts future misconduct. An applicant whose history indicates a safety risk to the university is denied admission or placed under restrictive conditions. Following this logic, universities expect there to be fewer crimes committed on campus. However, two studies of US universities suggest otherwise; the criminal history questions may not accurately predict those who commit campus crimes (Runyan, Pierce, Shankar, & Bangdiwala, 2013), and there may be no significant differences in campus crime rates between institutions that do and do not review criminal history (Olszewska, 2007). Another possible flaw in this policy logic is the assumption that applicants will always answer the criminal history questions honestly. It is common for universities to warn that misrepresenting one’s criminal history will result in the revocation of admission (US courts have upheld revocations in such cases; Dickerson, 2008), and some US universities conduct background checks on students ‘when the admissions file reveals inconsistencies or other matters of concern’ (Dickerson, 2008, p. 438), which may catch students who lied about their criminal history. Because of the cost and administrative burden, most universities do not conduct background checks on all applicants (Dickerson, 2008), so it is not clear if or how universities verify the responses from applicants who do not report having criminal convictions.

History

There is little written about the origins of the criminal history question on university applications. In both countries, scholars began discussing the policies around 2000, after which the policies became ubiquitous. Research has lagged especially in the UK, where there have been no published papers on the topic since 2000 (Davies, 2000). In the US, the past 10 years has seen increased scholarly interest in describing, analysing, tracking and evaluating the policies, such that a recent literature review captured much of the available research (see Custer, 2016). In this section, reports on these policies are examined to illuminate from when and where they came and how they stand now.

In perhaps the only scholarly paper on this topic in the UK, Davies (2000) presented an early legal analysis. He reported that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Services (a private company that administers a standardised admissions application to all students in the UK) added the criminal history question to its application in 1998 due to campus crimes committed by people with criminal history in years prior. Davies (2000) critiqued the assumption that universities assume a legal duty to protect students from future crimes of ex-offenders and pointed to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in reminding universities that applicants must only disclose unspent convictions. He also explored how the Human Rights Act may protect university applicants from discrimination based on criminal history and cautioned universities to protect the privacy of criminal history information collected via admissions (Davies, 2000).

The next major development came over a decade later. In 2014, a UK higher education professional organisation–Supporting Professionalism in Admissions–issued a comprehensive ‘statement for good practice’ complete with legal analysis, model policy language, sample forms, step-by-step procedures for processing applications and guidance for forming review panels (Supporting Professionalism in Admissions, 2014). The statement’s influence is obvious in many UK universities’ policies, as highlighted in the following sections.

The US literature follows a similar pattern, beginning with legal analysis. A parallel US paper to Davies (2000) addressed many of the same concerns, including if universities have a legal duty to review criminal history (Langhauser, 2001). Langhauser (2001), however, it did not speculate as to why these policies became of interest to US universities. Next, Dickerson (2008) offered an expanded, more nuanced legal analysis and reported that most US institutions, by that time, had already implemented the policies. According to Dickerson (2008), the Common Application (a private company contracted by many US institutions to administer a standardised admissions application) added criminal history questions for the 2006–2007 academic year – nearly a decade after the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service did in the UK. The exact reason for this change remains unexplored, but Dickerson (2008) provided examples of colleges that implemented these policies as early as 1993 and highlighted high-profile campus crimes that may have spawned the implementation of these admissions policies.

Current issues

Presently, it is estimated that most US institutions (perhaps except for most public, 2-year community colleges) now require the disclosure of criminal history (Weissman et al., 2010). Although no systematic review has been conducted of UK universities, most appear to have implemented these policies, based on the findings of this study. In both countries, however, challenges to current practices were recently presented that offer compelling counterarguments to the use of criminal history in university admissions.

Ban-the-box is a social movement aimed at improving opportunities for people with criminal histories, and the movement has spread to higher education. Numerous organisations advocate for institutions to remove or change admission application questions related to criminal history, and they provide resources to formerly incarcerated people who want to apply to university (e.g., Unlock & Narco in the UK; Center for Community Alternatives & Family League of Baltimore in the US). Like ban-the-box in employment, one favoured strategy is to delay the review of criminal records until after conditional offers are made, thereby reducing discrimination in the initial admissions process. The movement’s influence is reflected in recent position statements from governmental agencies in both countries.

In May 2016, the US Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2016) released a report titled Beyond the Box, which presented research literature, highlighted student stories and advocated that students with criminal histories go to college. Citing the racially disproportionate effects of the American criminal justice system, the Department called the use of criminal justice information in admissions a barrier to higher education access and recommended that US institutions reconsider such practices. It offered recommendations on limiting the scope of criminal history reviews and easing the burden on applicants (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In large part due to this report, the US state of Louisiana passed a law prohibiting public institutions from inquiring about most criminal convictions on initial admissions applications (Roll, 2017).

In the same month, the UK Ministry of Justice released its report on the state of higher education in prison: Unlocking Potential (Coates, 2016). In addition to a robust evaluation of prison education, the report addressed the educational prospects of prisoners after release and emphasised the importance of access to higher education. In the evaluator’s opinion, ‘One of the major barriers for prisoners in continuing education on release is the safeguarding and risk assessment practice of universities and other education providers’ (Coates, 2016, p. 55). As such, she called on the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to ‘ensure [a] smooth transition’ from prison to university and recommended that universities ‘rigorously and universally’ implement the guidelines issued by Supporting Professionalism in Admissions (Coates, 2016, p. 55). Finally, citing former Prime Minister David Cameron’s call to ban the box for civil service positions, Coates urged, ‘Colleges and universities in receipt of public funds should be challenged to match this ambition’ (Coates, 2016, p. 55).

In both cases, neither report carries authority to enforce any change in policy, although they may motivate jurisdictions or institutions to change policies, as in the case of Louisiana. Rather, the reports reflect positions of the Obama (US) and Cameron (UK) administrations and mark significant progress for ban-the-box advocates. It is too soon to say, however, if the Trump (US) and May (UK) administrations will pursue the ban-the-box policy recommendations for higher education put forth in these reports.

In sum, the policy’s implementation appears to have followed similar patterns in the US and the UK, though it is not entirely clear from these sources as to why exactly the policies were developed in the first place. Despite some evidence suggesting the policies are ineffective, the policies have none the less become widespread. For the first time since their implementation, however, there now exists expressed counterarguments from governmental agencies that urge higher education institutions to reconsider their current admissions practices.

Theme C: admissions policy language

In both the US and the UK, higher education institutions have great autonomy in establishing their own policies. As such, each admissions policy is unique, and comparison at the institutional level reveals differences in procedural minutiae. For the purposes of this paper, admissions application forms and written policies were compared and analysed at a broader level to find trends across UK and US policies. Next, the policy characteristics of scope and tone are explored by highlighting policy excerpts that demonstrate particularly contrasting approaches to the policy.

Scope

There are important differences in the scope of university admissions policies. Specifically, the types of crimes that are deemed relevant for disclosure vary between the UK and the US, which appear to be reflective of the variations found in criminal records laws. Generally, US institutions cast a wide net in their application questions. The Common Application (US) has altered its question over the years in its attempt to target the appropriate group of applicants. The original question added in 2006–2007 was: ‘Have you ever been adjudicated guilty or convicted of a misdemeanor, felony or other crime?’ (Jaschik, 2017). Shortly after it added the question, the Common Application planned to ask a question about pending crimes, but after backlash from admission counsellors, it reversed course (Jaschik, 2007). In 2016, the Common Application reported it would amend its question after institutions received pressure from the U.S. Department of Education to reconsider the question all together (Jaschik, 2016). In 2017, the Common App removed ‘or other crime’ to reduce confusion and limit scope, leaving misdemeanours and felonies required for disclosure (Jaschik, 2017).

Although many US universities accept the Common Application, most also offer their own applications, and wide variation in scope is easy to find. The College of St. Joseph asks, simply: ‘Have you ever been convicted of a felony?’ (College of St. Joseph, 2017). Southern Illinois University at Carbondale asks three increasingly broad questions: (1) ‘Have you pled guilty or no contest to, or been convicted of a felony?’ (2) ‘Have you ever pled guilty or no contest to, or been convicted of any crime involving violence or the threat of violence?’ (3) ‘Do you have any criminal charges pending against you involving a felony, violence, or the threat of violence?’ (Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2017). The University of Oregon casts a wider net: ‘Have you ever had a protective, restraining, or stalking order entered against you?’ and ‘Have you ever pleaded no contest or been adjudicated guilty or convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other crime in the US or any other country?’ (University of Oregon, 2017). Eastern Michigan University even asks about juvenile crimes: ‘Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or found to be delinquent by a juvenile court, or are there any such charges pending against you at this time?’ (Eastern Michigan University, 2017). As a result, these policies sweep in many more individuals for reasons that may not be relevant for evaluating an applicant’s safety risk, which is why US admission policies have been heavily criticised for being overly broad in scope (Rosenthal et al., 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2016; Weissman et al., 2010).

UK admission policies, likely due to the ‘spent and unspent’ framework of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, have a much narrower scope, and like the Common Application, the UK’s Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (‘UCAS’) has altered its question over time. Originally, the yes/no question was: ‘Do you have any criminal convictions?’ (Davies, 2000, p. 162), but in 2004, the UK Information Commissioner (who enforces the Data Protection Act) expressed concern about the overly broad question: ‘No clear explanation was given of why this information was required or how it would be used’ (Information Commissioner, 2004, p. 24). UCAS agreed to change the question to account for differences in spent and unspent convictions, such to limit the scope. After an incident in 2009 involving a medical student whose place was withdrawn over an undisclosed spent conviction, UCAS reportedly considered dropping the question altogether; instead, it tightened its language to reduce confusion (Shepherd, 2009). Now, UCAS asks: ‘If you have a relevant criminal conviction that is not spent, please tick the box; otherwise leave it blank’ (Supporting Professionalism in Admissions, 2014, p. 39). Detailed help texts provide applicants with information about what qualifies convictions as relevant and spent. However, as shown in Theme D, this question may still not be as straight-forward as it seems, because many applicants tick the box in error.

Tone

The degree of sensitivity in the tone of written policies also differs in notable ways between the US and UK, which is best represented in the opening lines. UK policies commonly lead with welcoming statements that encourage applicants not to be dismayed by the criminal history question. For example, the University of Central Lancashire opens with:

The University actively promotes equality of opportunity for all and welcomes applications from a wide range of people. Having a criminal conviction will not necessarily prevent someone from studying at the University; this will depend on the nature of the course and the circumstances and background of the offences. (University of Central Lancashire, 2015, section 5.5.1)

Similarly, Northumbria University states: ‘The University does not wish to debar individuals with criminal records from taking advantage of the opportunities provided by Higher Education. In general, a criminal record is not to be regarded as an obstacle to studying at this University’ (Northumbria University, 2017, para. 1). Ulster University goes further in stating: ‘The University acknowledges the role of the [sic] education in the rehabilitative process and a criminal record will not preclude an applicant from being offered a place’ (Ulster University, 2016, section 5.12.3).

Some US policies, on the other hand, are terser. For example, Grand Valley State University begins with: ‘Applicants for admission, readmission and re-entry submitted by those individuals who have exhibited evidence of anti-social behavior require review beyond that made for academic decisions’ (Grand Valley State University, 2017, para. 1). Colorado State University opens with: ‘Some applicants to CSU have a criminal or disciplinary history. We require those applicants to tell us about those events before we consider admitting them to CSU’ (Colorado State University, 2017, para. 1).

Universities in the UK also tend to emphasise the rights of applicants to a fair review process and to fair treatment under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, as in this opening statement from Nottingham Trent University: ‘The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that applicants applying to Nottingham Trent University, declaring a relevant criminal conviction, are treated in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974ʹ (Nottingham Trent University, 2017, para. 1). Kingston University opens with this introduction:

Having a criminal record does not necessarily prevent an individual from studying at the Kingston University. These procedures are designed to ensure that any application from an applicant who has a criminal record is fairly assessed, taking into account the interests of the individual concerned, the wider university community, legislative requirements and (where appropriate) the particular requirements of relevant professional bodies. (Kingston University, 2017, section 1)

In contrast, some US universities emphasise their legal authority to deny admission to students rather than emphasising students’ rights. For example:

Ferris State University is dedicated to making education available to anyone wishing and able to benefit from it. However, there is no fundamental right of entitlement to admission at the University, and the University reserves the right to deny admission when appropriate. (Ferris State University, 2016, para. 1)

Similarly, the University of Central Florida states:

Universities may deny admission or readmission to an applicant due to past misconduct on or off campus, providing such denial is consistent with state and federal law. Florida Board of Governors Regulation 6.001 authorizes universities to refuse admission to applicants due to past misconduct. (emphasis original; University of Central Florida, 2017, para. 1)

The University of Central Florida goes on to state: ‘The University reviews all applications in which a student discloses prior criminal conduct or prior educational misconduct to determine whether the admission of the applicant is in the best interest of the University’ (emphasis added; University of Central Florida, 2017, para. 2). Notice how this statement, pitting the interests of the university against the student, stands in contrast to the Kingston (UK) policy that emphasises equally weighing the interests of the applicant, university community, laws, and licensing regulations.

These excerpts represent only a fraction of the variations in policy language among US and UK universities, but overall, the scope and tone of policies in the US and UK are noticeably different, which appear to be reflections of the differences in criminal records laws. The UK’s Rehabilitation of Offenders Act limits the scope of criminal history review, and out of caution, UK universities express assurances they will not wrongfully discriminate against people with convictions, per the recommendations of Supporting Professionalism in Admissions (2014). US universities, however, have broader legal authority to inquire about wide-ranging criminal history, with few restrictions on how they may subject applicants to criminal review procedures. Where applicants in the UK may feel supported by the carefully-worded policies, students in the US may be deterred by the more confrontational policies. In fact, one study of US institutions found 62 per cent of applicants with criminal histories dropped out of the admissions process after submitting an initial application, at a rate three times higher than the general attrition rate (Rosenthal et al., 2015). This was attributed to applicants avoiding the stigmatising criminal history review process that ensued. Evidently, the scope and tone of these policies likely have an impact on applicant behaviour. Theme D next presents new evidence about university applicants in the UK, including a glimpse into how they respond to the criminal history questions.

Theme D: admissions data

With a thorough review of the admissions policies under foot, it next begs the question, how many students are affected by these policies? Only one study in the US has uncovered how many students with criminal history are applying to higher education institutions compared to how many are rejected solely due to their convictions (Rosenthal et al., 2015). This study is the first to do so for UK universities.

Application and rejection rates

Admissions data from a small sample of UK universities were collected to get a glimpse at this policy phenomenon. Specifically, universities in the sample reported for 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 (a) the total number of undergraduate applicants who declared criminal convictions and (b) the total number of those applicants who were rejected solely based on their convictions. Of the 30 universities contacted, three did not respond, five did not hold the requested data or rejected the request, one provided incorrect data and eight provided incomplete data. Of the 21 universities that provided useable applicant data, 4,585 students in 14–15 and 3,986 students in 15–16 indicated having criminal history (see supplemental data). This offers possibly the first benchmark of the volume of people with criminal records seeking undergraduate higher education in the UK.

Of the 13 universities that provided useable application and rejection data, applicants were rejected solely on the basis of their convictions at rates ranging from as low as 0 per cent at four institutions to as high as 21.43 per cent at one institution, averaging 2.06 per cent in 14–15 and 4.56 per cent in 15–16 (Table 1). With application and rejection values totalled, the overall rejection rates were 1 per cent and 2.18 per cent in 14–15 and 15–16, respectively.

Table 1. UK Universities applications and rejection rates, n = 13.

University	14–15 Number of applications	14–15 Number of rejections	14–15 rejection Rate	15–16 Number of applications	15–16 Number of rejections	15–16 Rejection rate
Birmingham City	405	0	0.00%	361	0	0.00%
City University of London	216	1	0.46%	194	1	0.52%
Kent	88	3	3.41%	66	0	0.00%
Leeds Beckett	379	1	0.26%	294	4	1.36%
Manchester Metropolitan	352	11	3.13%	253	13	5.14%
Northumbria	489	0	0.00%	432	0	0.00%
Nottingham Trent	25	2	8.00%	14	3	21.43%
Portsmouth	79	5	6.33%	50	7	14.00%
Salford^a	–	–	–	48	1	2.08%
Sheffield Hallam	258	1	0.39%	230	11	4.78%
South Wales	127	0	0.00%	103	2	1.94%
Staffordshire	37	1	2.70%	62	5	8.06%
Ulster	47	0	0.00%	52	0	0.00%
Totals	2502	25		2159	47
Average Rejection Rate^b			2.06%			4.56%
Overall Rejection Rate^c			1.00%			2.18%

^a University of Salford provided data for 15–16, only.

^b Mean of column.

^c Total rejections divided by total applications.

For comparison, Rosenthal et al. (2015) collected similar admissions data from 20 institutions in the State University of New York system (US). They estimated nearly 3,000 people with felony convictions apply to the 60-institution system each year. From the sample of 20 institutions, applicants were rejected due to criminal history at rates from as low as 0 per cent at six institutions to as high as 77.8 per cent at one institution, for an average rejection rate of 15.87 per cent. However, the authors did not report the raw numbers of applications and rejections, so the overall rejection rates cannot be calculated.

Results indicate that many applicants with criminal history apply to universities, of which only a small percentage are rejected solely on the basis of their convictions. However, the data from the UK and US samples only offer a rough benchmark for cursory comparison, which is a limitation of this study. The value of the UK data is more so for describing the policy phenomenon for the first time rather than for robust comparison. In future research, more rigorous methodologies are required for sampling and comparing admissions application data.

Error declarations

An unexpected finding in the UK data was evidence of error declarations. University administrators investigate each applicant who declares having relevant criminal convictions, often finding that some declare in error. In their responses to the data request, ten UK universities indicated that applicants commonly declare in error, three of which reported error numbers (Table 2). For example, Wolverhampton remarked, ‘It must be added that the particular [Universities and Colleges Admissions Service] question relating to criminal convictions is widely misunderstood and there are significant instances of declarations being made in error.’ Error rates ranged from 10.96 per cent to 49.46 per cent, indicating applicants commonly do not understand the question, do not understand the status of their criminal convictions, or respond by accident. Error declaration data are not available from the US study for comparison.

Table 2. UK Universities reporting errors in declarations, n = 3.

University	14–15 Total Declarations	14–15 Errors	14–15 Error Rate	15–16 Total Declarations	15–16 Errors	15–16 Error Rate
Kingston	268	86	32.09%	186	92	49.46%
Liverpool John Moores^a	146	16	10.96%	163	41	25.15%
University of South Wales	127	15	11.81%	103	14	13.59%

Seven other universities indicated that error declarations were problematic but did not provide statistics: Manchester Metropolitan, Northumbria, West England, Central Lancashire, Birmingham City, Wolverhampton, and City University London.

^a Includes graduate student applicants, thus the totals and error rates are not comparable to the others.

Discussion

This descriptive study of US and UK admissions policies has revealed several key findings. First, there are many similarities between the two countries. In particular, the timing of when these policies were implemented, the procedures themselves, the governments’ recent responses and even the rejection rates are comparable. Though no evidence was uncovered to suggest that policies in one country spawned policies in the other, it is hard to imagine that the nearly identical practices spontaneously emerged in countries an ocean apart. A deeper historical analysis is needed to understand exactly how, when, where and why these policies emerged and to what extent they were diffused across borders.

Second, it is remarkable that 2,502 applications from people with criminal history in 14–15 and 2,159 applications in 15–16 were submitted to the 13 sample universities in the United Kingdom (Table 1), which suggests higher education is in strong demand by people with criminal history. More remarkable, despite the multi-stage procedures of the admissions policies, only 25 applicants in 14–15 and 47 applicants in 15–16 in the UK sample were rejected specifically due to their criminal histories. Even without more robust data and quantitative analysis, it is safe to conclude that few applicants are rejected solely on the basis of their convictions. This finding has important implications for the future use of these policies, described in the policy implications section below.

Third, there were notable differences in the scope and tone of admission policies, which appear to be reflections of the differences in national criminal records laws. Where UK universities emphasise access, promote student rights and limit the review of records to relevant, spent convictions, US universities emphasise their legal authority to deny admission based on criminal history and inquire about broad categories of criminal records. Even without legal mandate to do so, US institutions seeking to implement a less stigmatising process for applicants can emulate the tone of UK policies by using language that encourages applicants, assuages fears of immediate rejection and promotes a fair, transparent review of only the categories of criminal convictions that are most relevant.

With the presence of comparatively similar policies in the US and in the UK, one might wonder if criminal records review is a global trend in higher education. To present knowledge, universities in other major countries do not collect criminal history information at the point of general admission, but what was once a uniquely American and British practice of pre-employment criminal background checks appears to be spreading elsewhere in continental Europe (Larrauri, 2014). Could this mean criminal history review is coming to European higher education and beyond? Additional investigation is needed to determine if higher education institutions in other countries are considering criminal history in admissions decisions.

Policy implications

This comparative analysis offers new perspectives on the use of criminal history in university admissions in the US and the UK. To avoid repeating the critiques and recommendations of others (Coates, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, 2016; Weissman et al., 2010), two additional implications for the continued use of these policies are considered.

Application question

The wording and scope of the application question is an unsettled issue. In both countries, the questions have gone through several iterations in response to criticisms that they are overly broad. In the UK, applicants frequently declare having relevant convictions by mistake (Table 2). This causes substantial burden on university administrators who must investigate the claims, and perhaps more detrimental, applicants become unnecessarily subjected to intrusive review procedures. Supporting Professionalism in Admissions (2014) recognised the issue of error declarations, and if the practice is to continue, in either country, the application question itself needs to be improved. First, narrowing the scope to offences that are most concerning to university officials (i.e., the convictions that commonly result in rejections) will likely reduce the number of people stigmatised by the question. It also limits the number of applicants declaring convictions, thereby reducing administrative time in processing applications. Second, testing the question to improve the validity (such that it accurately screens out people who have a propensity for future crime) and reliability (such that only the people who should respond to it do so, thus reducing error declarations) is critical for improving efficacy.

Impact evaluation

In the US and UK samples, a small proportion of applicants were denied admission due to criminal history. This raises the question as to whether the amount of administrative effort this policy requires – plus the unintended consequences of stigmatisation and attrition for applicants – is worth its value in safety outcomes. After all, no systematic evaluation of safety outcomes has been conducted. The ultimate question is one of the counterfactual: had the rejected applicants been admitted, would they have committed a crime worthy of having their place at the university withdrawn in the first place? Of course, we can never know, but clever policy evaluators can come close to answering the question with quasi-experimental methods. Additional research is needed to determine if the benefits of these policies outweigh their social and monetary costs.

Conclusion

This comparative policy analysis raises awareness of an understudied issue in international higher education. In the United States and the United Kingdom, admissions policies for the review of criminal history information are overall quite similar, but they vary in scope and tone, possibly in reflection of criminal records laws. Importantly, this study offers new data from a sample of UK universities, suggesting a very small percentage of applicants are denied admission based solely on criminal history. In addition, it was discovered that many applicants in the UK tick the criminal history box in error. These key findings call into question the efficacy of current practices. Each year, thousands of people with criminal records apply to universities in both countries, and as the ban-the-box movement gains momentum, higher education managers and policy makers will either need to present evidence of policy effectiveness or consider abandoning the policies altogether.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Dr. Jacqueline D. Taylor and Family Graduate Research Grant from the College of Education at Michigan State University.