Inclusion and exclusion in the re-housing of former prisoners
| Author | Allison Harding,Jamie Harding |
| Published date | 01 June 2006 |
| Date | 01 June 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550506063566 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Inclusion and exclusion in the re-housing of
former prisoners
Allison Harding, Northumbria Probation Service
Jamie Harding, Northumbria University
Abstract A case study demonstrates some of the causes of widespread housing
difficulties among former prisoners, such as a lack of appropriate advice in prisons
and a failure to coordinate the work of the prison and probation services. While
the government has taken action to tackle these problems, a more fundamental
difficulty is that social landlords may be unwilling to meet housing needs because
they perceive that offenders pose a threat to community safety. Changing this
perception is essential to prevent conflict between the government’s housing and
resettlement policies and to ensure that the needs of former prisoners are met.
Keywords community safety, exclusion, homelessness, housing, re-offending,
resettlement, short-term prisoners
Housing situation and re-offending
The government has expressed concern over the high rate of re-offending among
former prisoners, particularly young men and those who have served short
sentences (Social Exclusion Unit [SEU], 2002: 14). It acknowledges that the risk of
re-offending is linked to a former prisoner’s housing situation and suggests that
severe accommodation problems can increase the likelihood of re-offending by
up to 20 per cent (Home Office, 2004a: 9). This suggestion is supported by the
findings of Farrall (2002) and the National Association for the Care and Resettle-
ment of Offenders (2000) that there are particular difficulties with re-offending
among short-term prisoners and that these problems are aggravated by poor
housing conditions.
The extent of housing problems among prisoners is demonstrated by estimates
that approximately one third are not living in permanent housing prior to their
137
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2006 NAPO Vol 53(2): 137–153
DOI: 10.1177/0264550506063566
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Article
imprisonment (SEU, 2002: 21) and that two thirds have no form of settled
accommodation to go to on release (Home Office, 2004a: 9). Allen and Barkley
(2002: 268–9) found that probation officers often faced severe difficulties in trying
to find suitable housing for offenders on their caseload.
One factor that has historically hindered former prisoners in seeking to access
local authority accommodation is that most were excluded from the main home-
lessness duty established by the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. Under this
Act, local authorities had an obligation to secure suitable housing for a household
that passed four tests: namely, that they were homeless, not intentionally homeless,
in priority need and had a local connection (Watchman and Robson, 1989: 82–3).1
As the majority of offenders failed to satisfy the priority need category – which was
most frequently applied to households with dependant children (Watchman and
Robson, 1989: 92–9) – the local authority’s obligation to them was only to provide
advice and assistance (Watchman and Robson, 1989: 186–7). In addition, Cowan
and Fionda (1994: 454–5) found that local authorities often considered prisoners
– particularly short-term prisoners – to be intentionally homeless if they had lost
their accommodation when they were sent to prison.
The case study
A case study of one urban local authority in the North East of England is used
here to illustrate some of the housing difficulties experienced by former prisoners
and the tensions that underlie government attempts to relieve these difficulties.
Interviews were undertaken with six ex-prisoners living within the local authority
area who were known to have experienced problems with accommodation. Four
of those interviewed were men under the age of 35 who had served sentences of
between six and 15 months, one was an older man who had served a longer
sentence, and one was a woman who had spent over a year in custody. Interviews
were also conducted with five professionals who had experience of working with
former prisoners in the area: an employee of the local authority, Northumbria
Probation Service’s partnership and accommodation manager, a member of the
resettlement team, a worker in a hostel and an employee of a housing project
that accommodates large numbers of former prisoners. All the interviews took
place in the winter of 2003–2004.
Using case study material as part of an evaluation naturally raises questions
about the extent to which the findings can be generalized. The North East of
England has been identified on a number of occasions as region that has a
surplus of rented accommodation in some urban areas (see, for example, Keenan
et al., 1999; Power and Mumford, 1999; Guardian; 7 October 2003) so the case
study could not identify additional difficulties that might be faced in areas with
high aggregate demand for housing. In addition, the region has a small ethnic
minority population and all the former prisoners who were interviewed were
White. The study was, therefore, unable to address issues of ethnic diversity or
racial disadvantage in the experience of seeking accommodation. However, it will
be argued later that the experiences of former prisoners highlighted tensions
Probation Journal
138 53(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial