DEVELOPING A PARTNERSHIP BASED APPROACH

TO HOMELESSNESS AND REINTEGRATION FOR

PEOPLE LEAVING PRISON
A joint event hosted by Scottish Prison Service, Chartered Institute of Housing
(Scotland), SHELTER, the Scottish Housing Regulator, Association of Local
Authority Chief Housing Officers and SOLACE

Friday 15 April 2016

Presentation by Tony Cain

Policy Manager ALACHO
Listening to the first two presentations, and in particular the
facts and figures around, homelessness, reoffending and the
experience of those leaving prison it would be difficult not to
conclude that there is a substantial gap in housing service
provision in this area.
The Ried Howie report already mentioned presents a pretty
stark conclusion in this respect. A couple of passages in
particular jump out for me including the observation that there
is
no consistent pattern or level of housing related service
provision across Scotland.

Looking specifically at the service gaps the report provides the

following list

lack of overall strategic approach

Limited monitoring
Lack of overall structure and joined up approach
Resource limitations
Gaps in knowledge and awareness
Attitudes and behaviours
Impact of (non housing) policy and practice

Im not sure I have ever read a more comprehensive description

of failure in service planning or delivery.
The report goes on to lists seven next steps as part of its
conclusion. The one that is likely to jump out for housing folk is:
Consideration should be given to Community Justice
Scotland having national leadership of housing and
reoffending overseeing the development of improved local
support through monitoring of the new national strategy
for community justice and the national performance
framework with local partners.
It may come as a little bit of a surprise to some when I say that
I suspect that may be exactly the right approach in the current
circumstances.

In fact I would probably go further and suggest that Community

Justice Scotland may be the right organisation to lead on the
commissioning of services too.
Ill return to this point in a bit, but before I look at how we
improve I want to take a bit of time to think out loud about
what improved services may look like and what exiting service
models we could draw on to develop them.
Like most things in the housing world some of this is pretty
uncomplicated. Experience, common sense and all the
evidence tells us that for many (but by no means all) of those
leaving prison the availability of suitable housing will be key to
preventing reoffending.
Reoffending aside the importance of early contact for those
leaving prison to prevent homelessness has been long
understood. The current version of the statutory guidance on
the operation of the homelessness legislation is quite clear
that. It says that:
Local authorities should therefore work together with
prisons, social work departments and voluntary

organisations to put in place measures to prevent people

becoming homeless on release from prison.
In addition to this very clear statutory obligation the housing
options model provides a framework for the early identification
of housing issues and risks with a structured approach to
working through options, including affordability and access
whilst leaving the client with choices about how to proceed.
Indeed liberated prisoners are specifically identified in the
housing options guidance as one of the typical housing options
clients and whilst the housing options approach doesnt
guarantee a home, It is underpinned by set of statutory rights
for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness that
should, on the face of it provide a solution if all else fails.
So why doesnt it work that way?
First of all its important to acknowledge that it does work that
way for some of those leaving prison. And to the extent that it
doesnt work, it fails in much the same way that it fails for
many other vulnerable clients with chaotic lifestyles or those
facing multiple exclusion as the current fashion has it.

But those leaving prison arent in quite the same situation as

most other clients and it is possible to do better. And if in doing
better we reduce reoffending that should be an extra incentive
to look again at how we deliver services in this area.
If we accept the conclusions of the Reid Howie report we do
need to acknowledge that business as usual isnt delivering and
we need to change it.
It is after all not as if there arent examples to hand of services
that have improved outcomes, Alison Watson has already
talked about some of them and there are many others.
For me the problem comes down to how we conceptualise the
issue and to leadership.
If business as usual isnt working well enough then we need to
do something differently. If instead of seeing the issue as just
another facet of homelessness we think about it in terms of
discharge from an institution we can start to look at a number
of other models, including those in the health service.
Im not about to compare liberation form prison to bed
blocking, but I do think that the approach to service delivery

that has been developed to reduce bed blocking and support

health clients has some value.
The principles of:

early identification of issues;

person centred needs assessment;
holistic service delivery;
bespoke responses; and
longer term commitment to clients when appropriate

are all relevant.

And there are some specific service models that are worth
looking at. The advice service provided to cancer patients by
MacMillan for example.
This is a nationally designed locally commissioned and
delivered service that ensures that every cancer suffer receives
direct contact and an offer of targeted benefits and financial
advice and support quite literally within days of diagnosis.
The service is pretty much universal, delivered locally by
appropriately trained and supported staff and can provide a
platform for access to a wide range of assistance.
Its also a model that can be developed to work for those in the
criminal justice system but not just those in prison.

Which I think takes us back to the question of leadership.

Statutory framework and current guidance not withstanding we
know that services are patchy, under resourced and not
delivering the outcomes we want.
It seems to me not unreasonable to place the responsibility for
overseeing the transition from prison to community on the
criminal (community) justice system in the same way as other
institutions have to take responsibility for the outcomes
following discharge.
That is not to suggest that either that housing services have no
responsibility in this area or that we have no interest in
improved outcomes. But this is a specialist service area, those
that know these clients best are likely to be those most directly
involved in the justice system. Placing the commissioning of
Scotland wide specialist services that support improved access
to housing and housing related services within the organisation
with the most direct interest in the outcomes achieved seems
to me to be common sense.
So, on that basis, I think the Reid Howie report is right to
recommend that Community Justice Scotland should lead the

process of service improvement in this area. As Ive suggested,

I would go further and place the responsibility for
commissioning services with them too.
But the commissioning of services is only one part of the jigsaw.
There are two other critical areas; the availability of suitable
housing and how services are funded.
Both of these will be critical to success and both issues are big
enough in themselves to take a whole day on. But todays
discussions would be incomplete if we dont look at them.
On availability and suitability of housing I would say in the first
instance that in a world where access to housing and in
particular social housing is limited, contested and in reality
rationed it is unlikely to be possible or appropriate to provide a
fast track to a house for offenders.
Thats not to say that allocations policies and the choice
afforded to those housed under the homelessness legislation
shouldnt be looked at but I am saying that in a condition of
general shortage offenders cant expect preferential treatment.

That then means that the housing journey on liberation is likely

to include temporary accommodation as it does for most other
homeless applicants.
But there are quite legitimate questions to be asked about the
nature of that temporary accommodation and the use of bed
and breakfast and hostels in particular.
In fact I think we need to look again at the stock of temporary
accommodation and the physical changes that are needed to
ensure that it is safe and suitable for all those use it.
As it happens changes to the benefit system are forcing that
review in any event. The Scottish Prison Service and the
Community Justice Authority need to be involved in that
process as it takes shape over the next year or so.
Then there is the issue of money, investing in improved
temporary accommodation and service delivery will require a
significant financial commitment from both local and central
government.
What it cant involve is any expectation that social landlords
will foot the bill.

Thats not me being protective or engaging in special pleading.

The statement is based on both what is fair and what is
consistent with current finance regulations.
By way of explanation for that statement I would point out that
landlord services are paid for from the rents of current tenants.
Aside from the fact that it would be quite unfair to tax social
housing tenants through their rent to pay for the services we
are talking about, the guidance around local authority housing
finance in Scotland and the UK benefit rules themselves dont
allow it.
Landlords can contribute to the capital cost of new temporary
and interim accommodation but there needs to be a clear
acceptance on the part of the Scottish Government that
reducing reoffending by improving access to housing and
housing related services will require a significant long term
commitment to both revenue can capital expenditure.