This document summarizes a presentation on developing a partnership approach to homelessness and reintegration for people leaving prison. The presenter argues that current services have significant gaps and are not strategically planned or monitored effectively. They propose that Community Justice Scotland should take a leadership role in overseeing housing services for former prisoners and commissioning specialized nationwide services based on models from health care. The presenter also discusses the need for suitable temporary accommodation and a dedicated funding source for improved services that does not rely on rents from social housing tenants.
This document summarizes a presentation on developing a partnership approach to homelessness and reintegration for people leaving prison. The presenter argues that current services have significant gaps and are not strategically planned or monitored effectively. They propose that Community Justice Scotland should take a leadership role in overseeing housing services for former prisoners and commissioning specialized nationwide services based on models from health care. The presenter also discusses the need for suitable temporary accommodation and a dedicated funding source for improved services that does not rely on rents from social housing tenants.
This document summarizes a presentation on developing a partnership approach to homelessness and reintegration for people leaving prison. The presenter argues that current services have significant gaps and are not strategically planned or monitored effectively. They propose that Community Justice Scotland should take a leadership role in overseeing housing services for former prisoners and commissioning specialized nationwide services based on models from health care. The presenter also discusses the need for suitable temporary accommodation and a dedicated funding source for improved services that does not rely on rents from social housing tenants.
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.