Background

Lack of stable housing was identified as a pathway to offending and reoffending by the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) in their 2002 report on reducing reoffending. The SEU identified a number of issues relating to accommodation for those who have offended, such as losing tenure following imprisonment, barriers to social and private rented accommodation, housing benefit delays, referral restrictions, and homelessness.

Key statistics are as follows:

• of those supervised in the community on 30 June 2018 with a completed OASys (Offender Assessment System), 37 per cent of women and 32 per cent of men had accommodation identified as an offending-related need
• data from the Greater London Authority showed that in 2014/2015, 32 per cent of rough sleepers in London had been in touch with the criminal justice system at some point, and 15 per cent of the prison population had been homeless prior to custody
• the prevalence of different accommodation statuses at the point of release from custody (2018/2019 data) is shown in the figure below.

In England, the Homelessness Reduction Act (2017) imposed a duty on probation providers to refer service users to the local housing authority when they are at risk of becoming homeless. The Act also places two duties on statutory authorities (led by local authorities) to work together to prevent homelessness and to relieve homelessness. However, there is no agreed position on the priority that those who have offended should be given in relation to accessing accommodation.

Approved premises are often used for those released from custody who are assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm.

Summary of the evidence

Associations with reoffending

A 2014 Ministry of Justice (MoJ) evidence summary reported that ‘the provision of suitable accommodation may not reduce levels of reoffending by itself, but it can be seen as a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for the reduction of reoffending’. However, the report also noted that there was scant evidence for precisely what works in securing accommodation and the links to any reduction in reoffending. Similarly, a 2013 literature review concluded that, ‘…taken as a whole, it is clear that stable accommodation has a potential role in programmes aimed at reducing recidivism. The nature of that role, the causal mechanisms underlying that role and the methods used to increase stability of accommodation are not clear from the literature.’

MoJ researchers have analysed datasets of completed OASys datasets for probation service users.  Their analysis found that accommodation status was a highly dynamic factor, with many service users experiencing changes in status from the initial assessment, and such changes being predictive of non-violent and violent reoffending. Stable accommodation was found to be negatively correlated with reoffending (when controlling for other risk and positive factors) and was often linked to supportive family members. ‘Suitability of accommodation’ is now a scored item within both the OASys General reoffending Predictor (OGP) and the OASys Violence Predictor, helping to predict reoffending and violent reoffending.

Domestic violence perpetration was also found to be a ‘recurring theme’ in OASys accommodation assessments, with abusers often living with previous victims or new partners and children who were at risk.

‘Housing first’ approach

Researchers have found that hostel accommodation can foster networks of criminal associates and thus undermine resettlement and rehabilitation. As such, a ‘housing first’ approach has been recommended to move individuals into mainstream housing with security of tenure, rather than segregating them into hostel accommodation. The ‘housing first’ approach was indicated as promising in tackling homelessness by a Campbell Systematic Review.

The video below, produced by Turning Point Scotland, explains the principle of ‘housing first.’

Disclaimer: an external platform has been used to host this video. Recommendations for further viewing may appear at the end of the video and are beyond our control.

Securing move-on accommodation can be difficult, particularly for women. The small number of women’s approved premises means that women can be placed far from their home area which makes working with the local authority to secure accommodation very difficult.

Transitioning from custody

In a 2016 qualitative study of an English prison’s housing reception service, researchers found that dealing with around five separate local housing authorities (LHA) was problematic. Each LHA required different personal information and each required assessment to be undertaken by telephone, necessitating an officer to be present. With around 80 cases per month likely to be no fixed abode on release, this was impossible for the prison to resource. From the LHA perspective, they could not resource a prison in-reach team and did not see a problem with prisoners “just picking up the phone.”

Back to Specific areas of delivery Next: Education, training and employment

Last updated: 02 February 2021