Memorandum by the National Probation Service
Northumbria (HOM 46)
HOMELESSNESS AND ACCESS TO HOUSING FOR OFFENDERS
AND PEOPLE RETURNING FROM CUSTODY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
From the outset, it must be acknowledged that
offenders and returning prisoners are not seen as a popular group
to housing providers. As such many offenders are unable to gain
stable or suitable accommodation, leading to a greater likelihood
of reoffending.
Recent changes in the organisation and focus
for local authority housing providers eg
— the transfer of social housing to
LSVT's and ALMO's[62]
— the introduction of Choice Based
lettings systems; and
— the higher profile for ASBO's[63]and
tenancy enforcement;
have resulted in offenders experiencing poorer access
to suitable housing and practices developing which clearly run
counter to the prohibitions and aspirations of the Homelessness
Act 2002.
HOW CAN
THE PROVISION
OF STABLE
HOUSING FOR
OFFENDERS MAKE
COMMUNITIES SAFER?
— A homeless returning prisoner is
up to twice as likely to reoffend as one with a stable home to
return to.
— Offenders who are subject to community
based punishments are significantly more likely to complete their
supervision if they are living in stable accommodation. Completion
of supervision and intensive programmes reduces reoffending.
— Offenders with established addresses
can enable the police and probation service to monitor their whereabouts
and behaviour.
The experience of the probation service, backed
by research demonstrates that stable housing plays a key role
in reducing reoffending and protecting the public.
SURELY WE
CANNOT EXPECT
HIGHER-RISK
OFFENDERS BE
OFFERED HOUSES
WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY
Many local authority housing providers see higher
risk offenders, particularly sex offenders as presenting such
housing management difficulties that they present, often completely
unfair, hurdles in their way when seeking housing.
Only a small percentage of returning prisoners
present a high risk to others. All offenders linked to the probation
service are subject to ongoing risk assessment and any identified
risks managed appropriately.
— Offending behaviour is supervised
through orders, programmes and licences
— The majority of sex offenders are
a risk to a particular person rather than a generalised risk and
their behaviour as a tenant is usually exemplary—not wanting
to draw attention to themselves.
— Offenders who have difficulties in
living within the community can be supported by specialist tenancy
support workers.
— People who present very high risk
are subject to Multi Agency Public Protection Panels which engage
criminal justice and housing agencies in managing an offender.
Despite this, a regional survey carried out
amongst Housing Managers found that:
— 35% of housing managers felt they
did not have the knowledge to make decisions about housing sex
offenders;
— 59% would accept an application from
a sex offender subject to support being available and of concern;
and
— 29% of managers would prefer to exclude
sex offenders from their property altogether.
DON'T
MOST PRISONERS
HAVE HOMES
TO RETURN
TO?
Research has shown that nationally 40% of all
prisoners are effectively homeless on release. Figures for the
North East would show about 30-55% are homeless when returning
from custody.
Virtually all prisoners living in the private
sector lose their homes and the majority of owner occupiers have
their homes repossessed.
32% of prisoners are homeless on reception into
prison and it is estimated that about 70,000 released prisoners
a year will face homelessness.
The result is returning prisoners sleeping on
other people's sofa's, spending short periods with friends and
family or striking up acquaintances with people often vulnerable
women in pubs and clubs. Others live in bed and breakfast accommodation
and nightshelters.
The picture is not promising with large numbers
of offenders not living in stable or suitable housing but actually
living in unsupervised and unsupported accommodation in the very
estates where they are being excluded from in the name of "community
safety". These offenders may be compromising other people's
benefits, tenancies and at a far greater risk of reoffending.
REDUCED ACCESS
TO SOCIAL
HOUSING
The Homelessness Act sought to reduce homelessness
amongst vulnerable groups such as returning prisoners and the
"Supporting People" programme aims to help offenders
to maintain their accommodation. Both of these initiatives are
being thwarted by a reducing access to housing in the public sector.
Currently local authorities have either undertaken
stock transfer or are in the process of making decisions to transfer
the stock and/or the management of property to independent companies.
The early experience of probation in the North
East has been a change in ethos from often previously accessible
council systems to exclusions and difficulty in gaining property
if the applicant is the slightest bit undesirable.
This has shown itself in such things as:
— Properties, particularly the traditional
"hard to let" units having reduced in preparation for
redevelopment eg one local housing group withdrew 1,500 properties
in preparation for regeneration.
At the same time homelessness figures have risen,
options for "right to buy" exercised leading to less
social housing for the general population, never mind vulnerable
and unpopular groups.
— This has led to ever more restrictive
"rationing" policies being developed, including such
approaches as "excellent tenant" status as a requirement
for housing. This obviously excludes virtually all people returning
from custody. In one company a current tenant with an unblemished
record was refused "excellent tenant" status due to
a small patch of weeds being found behind their garden shed!
— The need for tighter rationing and
estate management has led to practices reverting to those of previous
times which appear to be both against the spirit and letter of
the Homelessness Act. For example in one ALMO application from
offenders regularly receive standard letters which contain sections
such as—
"You are not eligible to join the scheme
. . . This means that you can not express an interest in any property
for the following reason(s) (eg):
You have been convicted or cautioned for an
arrestable offence (which is not spent under the Rehabilitation
of Offenders Act 1974 which was committed within the locality
of your previous address in which you are requesting rehousing."
This has appeared, with other similar standard
statements for application after application from offenders. Apart
from the letters being materially incorrect in many cases, it
is clear that cases are not being considered either individually
or on the basis of present behaviour.
Case Study
Daniel is a 58 year old man with a physical
disability. In 1984 he sexually abused two of his children. This
did not come to light until 2002 when he was reported by one of
his children. He admitted guilt and was sentenced to 18 months
in prison.
Daniel had been living by himself in a flat
rented from the local council with a good record as a tenant.
When he went into prison he tried to maintain his property by
paying his rent from prison but was unable to do through lack
of funds. His tenancy was given up in a proper and responsible
fashion.
On release from prison Daniel was unable to
regain his accommodation and lived in Approved Premises for five
months whilst staff sought to negotiate with the local ALMO for
him to be eligible for housing. Although he was:
— Was physically disabled
— Did not want to live near his family
or anyone who knew him
— Had previously been a good tenant
— Had offended 20 years previously
He was refused housing on three occasions.
Daniel represents a low risk offender with good
prospects for rehabilitation and as a tenant. If he was excluded
as eligible the prospect of the majority of returning prisoners
being seen as eligible by the ALMO is small.
CHOICE BASED
LETTINGS
Choice based lettings schemes seem a fair approach
to the discredited point's allocation, but for returning prisoners
and people with a poor history, they are making access to housing
increasingly more difficult.
The response of one LSVT was that prisoners
could not have access to the scheme unless there was a dedicated
computer terminal in the prisons.
The schemes do have a certain number of management
lets built in but certainly it needs to be acknowledged that in
the development of such schemes the needs of vulnerable people
and people without access to property shops and computers needs
to be acknowledged.
ANTI SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
AND TENANCY
ENFORCEMENT
I would be amongst the first to agree that neighbourhoods
have the right to live in peace and safety and those residents
who are not prepared to abide by these expectations should face
penalties.
However, the current focus would seem to spend
considerable time in enforcing poor behaviour without a similar
effort being put into preventing this spiral into bad habits.
I have outlined above how stable and suitable accommodation
can reduce offending. People's stake in their home can turn them
from people who resent and take from society to members of communities.
This is often reflected in application forms
which focus on "the bad things" in a person's past but
gives them little opportunity to express how they have changed
and their hopes for the future.
Information gathered by providers includes "police
checks" which will highlight past convictions. What is missing
is risk of harm assessments which can be provided by the probation
service and progress in changing behaviour which could be provided
by the probation and prison service.
This approach is included in the HARP protocol
which is described below.
In summary, local authorities and local housing
companies need to understand the community safety agenda from
a preventative as well as enforcement perspective. Offenders are
going to live in their properties and need to be actively managed
rather than evicted when it is too late for everyone.
HOUSING RELATED
SUPPORT
The irony in this shift in difficulty in gaining
housing is that the "Supporting People" programme enabled
considerably more housing support to become available to offenders
to help them obtain and sustain tenancies. This has become greatly
reduced by support workers spending considerable amounts of time
seeking out housing rather than supporting people in their tenancies.
HOUSING AND
RETURNING PRISONERS—THE
HARP PROTOCOL
An increasing concern for providing offenders
with housing on release from prison in the North East has resulted
in the development of a strategy to bring together statutory and
voluntary sector housing providers in the region with the prison
and probation services, to create a common approach to planning
for the housing of returning prisoners.
This has resulted in the creation of the HARP
protocol which seeks to address:
— Statutory housing authorities' duties
towards the prevention of homelessness.
— Prison and Probation's commitment
to effective resettlement.
— The promotion of community safety.
— Maximising the contribution of RSL's
and the voluntary sector to housing and supporting offenders.
The protocol, which has been developed by the
housing and correctional services agencies in the region, has
taken an approach which begins prior to a person going into custody,
makes best use of the time spent in prison and plans for release.
The framework also recognises the need for managed short notice
action and support for prisoners.
Prior to custody
Probation staff discuss options about managing
housing in the event of a person being sent to prison. Properly
terminating or securing a tenancy results in reduced rent arrears
and damage to the property increasing potential for rehousing
on return. Information booklets which contain standard letters
to the landlord have been created to support the work.
On Reception in Prison
Within 48 hours of arrival in prison, everyone
is expected to have an interview which identifies and acts on
areas such as:
— Contacting the landlord to secure
or terminate the tenancy.
— Regularising Housing Benefit.
— Arranging for possessions to be safeguarded.
During Custody
Applications to register for housing are made
at the beginning of sentences with housing providers, making "in
principle" decisions. Sentence plans include work to help
prisoners improve their chances of gaining housing through Tenancy
Awareness programmes and life skills input. Applications for housing
will be made four months prior to release date if possible and
should no likely accommodation be found two months before release,
Homeless LA Homeless Teams will be engaged.
On Release
Wherever possible people released from prison
will be accompanied to the provider's office to sign up, get keys
and ensure that benefits are applied for. Appropriate support
will also be provided through a variety of sources such as LA,
Supporting People and Probation.
Communication, communication, communication
The key to the effectiveness of the HARP protocol
lies in clear communication, jointly understood risk assessment
and trust between the agencies involved. It is currently in a
final draft form and now the real work for partners begins—gaining
agreement within their agencies. The project will have succeeded
if providers are able to sign up to similar approaches which enable
prisons and probation to effectively work in partnership with
Local Authorities and other community based accommodation providers.
Joint Working
The HARP Protocol has been developed by staff
from:
— National Probation Service Northumbria;
— Tyne & Wear Housing Authorities;
— District Housing Authorities in Co
Durham;
— District Housing Authorities in Northumberland;
— The Prison Service North East Area;
— Voluntary Sector Housing Providers;
— Government Office North East; and
— Housing Action North East.
Following the agreement of local authorities
which is progressing extremely well, there is the need for local
ALMO's and LSVT's to sign up to the framework.
The HARP protocol is available on www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk
under the section Practitioners—Guidance.
FACTS AND
STATISTICS
There have been criticisms that often statistics
mask the facts. This is an area where care needs to be taken that
the ODPM does not seek to paint a picture based on what we would
like to see rather than thee reality.
Currently the Prison Service has a KPI for accommodation
which essentially counts a returning prisoner as having accommodation
if they have an address to return to. This may well be a Nightshelter,
a friend's floor or an address which fails to materialise. Whilst
the statistics may appear to show a positive trend, the service
itself would agree that this does not necessarily represent stable
housing.
There is a danger that the apparent rise in
Homeless figures over the last couple of years may be treated
in the same way, ie classifying to achieve a desired result. In
this case however it is likely that homelessness officers and
agencies will be expected to apply more stringent criteria before
classifying homeless people but this would have no effect on the
actual number without accommodation.
Perhaps a broader collection of figures would
be helpful in identifying the real dimension of the homeless problem,
particularly amongst vulnerable and unpopular groups.
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
There is a tendency for offenders and returning
prisoners to be excluded from housing which rather than protect
communities can result in higher levels of offending and disruption
of tenancies.
Authorities can either seek to exclude or manage
offenders in tenancies. The probation service would seek to promote
the management of offenders to both reduce reoffending and monitor
offenders who present a risk.
There appears to be a need for training for
housing staff in relation to working with sex offenders and beyond
that there is a need for a change of attitude towards this group
which whilst not presenting housing management difficulties in
many cases are feared as all being of high risk.
The change from local authority management of
social housing to independent companies and RSL's has resulted
in greater difficulties in access. It is suggested that the Homelessness
Act 2002 be broadened to include RSL's and ALMO's and through
the Housing Inspectorate or the Housing Corporation it should
be ensured that the allocation provisions of the Homelessness
Act are being implemented properly.
Choice based lettings scheme are reducing choice
for all but the best tenants and do not meet the needs of offenders.
This area needs to be further explored to provide a system which
can meet the needs of vulnerable and unpopular groups.
Perhaps it would be of interest for the ODPM
to pilot a number of preventative schemes focusing on housing
offenders and supporting them to become non offending positive
members of society. This can begin in prisons with tenancy awareness
programmes and follow through tenancy support work.
The HARP protocol provides a way forward for
planning for the housing needs of people returning from custody.
This approach could be monitored and joint planning between the
agencies involved promoted as good practice.
Whilst it is tempting to try to rework statistics
to demonstrate progress, the world of homelessness should not
be distorted by such manipulations. We need an accurate picture
of peoples needs, particularly those of vulnerable and unpopular
groups.
62 Large Scale Voluntary Transfer and Arms Length Management
Organisations. Back
63
Anti Social Behaviour Orders. Back
| 
