‘It’s all considered to be unacceptable behaviour’

Abstract

Despite a growing recognition of the intersectional relationship between homelessness and incarceration, we have a limited knowledge about housing policy and practice for people leaving custody and (ex)offender groups in the community. Addressing these gaps, this paper provides an overview of the main local housing authority statutory duties in the provision of housing support for prison leavers and (ex)offenders in England and Wales, and situates the issues with accessing accommodation within the wider context of austerity. The paper presents a case study that explores criminal justice practitioners’ experiences of working with local authority housing agencies. Stemming from 25 interviews with housing practitioners and criminal justice practitioners, the paper outlines the main challenges facing criminal justice agencies as they try to secure accommodation for homeless (ex)offenders and resettle them in the community. Finally, the paper concludes by raising critical questions about the housing options for this population, now and in the future.

Keywords

criminal justice system (ex)offenders homelessness local housing authority statutory duty

Introduction

The plight of homelessness within the criminal justice system presents several issues for thinking about housing options and housing access for prison leavers and (ex)offenders in the community. Homeless people are disproportionately incarcerated in comparison with the general population, and people leaving prison are more likely to be placed in insufficient and temporary accommodation, homeless hostels and/or sleep rough (Carlisle, 1996; Social Exclusion Unit, 2002; Cooper, 2013). While criminal justice policy and housing policy have variously responded to the intersectional relationship between homelessness and incarceration, this relationship has persisted at a steady rate in the last three decades (McCarthy and Hagan, 1991; Carlen, 1996; Social Exclusion Unit, 2002; HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014). Most recent estimates show that approximately 40% of all rough sleepers have recently left prison and between 15% and 30% of the prison population experience homelessness prior to entry (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002; Centre for Social Justice, 2010; HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014). Moreover, the number of children and young people who are homeless has occurred in tandem with the resort to sending children to custody, where a ‘lack of suitable accommodation’ is said to ‘lead to the over-use of secure accommodation’ (HC, 2004: 46; Barnardo’s, 2011).

Despite a growing recognition of the intersectional relationship between homelessness and incarceration, we have a limited knowledge of housing policy and practice for prison leavers and (ex)offender groups in the community. Local housing authorities (LHAs) have a ‘statutory duty to assist homeless and vulnerable ex-offenders’ in some circumstances and provide them with adequate housing support (CLG, 2009: 1). However, the implementation and interpretation of these statutory powers and how they come to impact upon this population is far less documented in criminological and criminal justice studies than are the risk factors and/or criminogenic needs of homeless populations (McCarthy et al., 1998; Martijn and Sharpe, 2006; Mallett et al., 2001). With the exception of a few studies (Cowan and Fionda, 1994; Cowan et al., 1999; Harding and Harding, 2006), the role of LHAs is often considered tangentially when analysing the revolving door between homelessness and incarceration. Criminological and criminal justice studies tend to focus upon resettlement and accommodation ‘needs’ of prisoners, isolating criminal justice resettlement practices from wider LHA statutory duties. This lack of attention surrounding the statutory obligation is surprising given that resettlement and tenancy service providers operating within the criminal justice sector are typically commissioned by LHAs, enabling them to satisfy their statutory obligation – to prevent homelessness in their district area (CLG, 2006).

This article will first outline desistance studies and policy discourses that situate housing as the main stream of support that can remedy offending-related issues, but will show how this relationship is countered by the political drive to increase tenant insecurity and criminalize tenants through the enforcement of crime control strategy. Second, it will examine the main statutory housing duties owed to prison leavers and (ex)offenders in the community. Here, legal concepts of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘intentionality’ and how they impact upon this population, will be critically examined. This article will then move on to explore how austerity-driven policies, introduced in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008, have eroded the housing options for disadvantaged groups, within both public and private sector housing.

Third, this paper will reveal the main findings stemming from a case study carried out in a large county area in England, covering five local authority districts. It will relate findings surrounding the experiences of criminal justice practitioners as they engage with LHA statutory agencies and local housing policy. Involving a sample of 25 participants recruited from the criminal justice sector and housing organizations, this study will highlight the main challenges facing criminal justice practitioners as they navigate their way around homelessness legislative frameworks and local housing policy. Finally, this paper will conclude by summarizing the main challenges in securing accommodation for prison leavers and (ex)offender groups.

Housing and offending: A paradoxical relationship

Desistance, ‘the process of turning away from criminality’ (Farrall et al., 2010: 547), is discussed in tandem with housing and employment. Desistance studies commonly refer to housing as a key structural foundation that enables individuals to desist from crime, where housing is said to help facilitate successful reintegration, help to address wider offending-related issues and enhance the possibility of achieving employment (King, 2013; Laws and Ward, 2011; Shephard, 2015). In 2002, the Social Exclusion Unit asserted that stable housing can reduce reoffending by 20% and, more recently, the Ministry of Justice (2014) claimed that people who are released from prison with acute housing needs are more likely to reoffend, compared to those released into stable housing.

But studies that set out the causal links between housing and desistance often fail to consider the wider social and political risks linked to housing, and understate the ways in which housing exacerbates vulnerability. Rather than help to address offending-related issues, housing policy plays a central role in the enforcement of criminal and civil laws and, therefore, criminalization of tenants. Over the last three decades a range of powers have been dispersed from criminal justice authorities to housing authorities and social landlords, which has stimulated a turn in ‘housing governance’ (Flint, 2006). Housing governance is mainly characterized by the ability to monitor and control anti-social behaviour and other civil offences, involving a range of housing-based interventions (Flint, 2006, 2013; see also Burney, 1999). These powers have further led to the development of crime control partnerships, involving social landlords and statutory and non-statutory criminal justice agencies that target tenants accommodated in social housing.

The idea that housing can provide a strong sense of security and stability for (ex)offenders in the community, as desistance studies suggest (McIvor et al., 2009; Calverley, 2013; King, 2013; Laws and Ward, 2011; Shephard, 2015), is mitigated by the political drive to exacerbate vulnerability, by criminalizing tenants through the enforcement of crime control strategies. Framed in this way, it can be argued that housing is paradoxically linked to offending.

Vulnerability and intentionality

Homelessness statutory frameworks set out the main legal housing duties and mandatory housing support for prison leavers and (ex)offenders. They provide LHAs with official guidance on how to lawfully determine eligibility and entitlement to homelessness and housing support. The Homelessness Act 2002 was a significant landmark for people caught up in the criminal justice system, as it introduced new statutory duties to consider prison leavers and (ex)offenders when determining homelessness eligibility and housing access. For the first time, the Homelessness Act 2002 extended ‘priority need’ categories to include people who are vulnerable as a result of leaving prison. The act covered:

a person who is vulnerable as a result of: i) having served a custodial sentence, ii) having been committed for contempt of court or any other kindred offence, or iii) having been remanded in custody. (HC, 2014a: 7)

Now that prison leavers and ex-offender groups are included in homelessness statutory legislation, LHAs have adapted their local housing policy and practice, to meet the housing needs of this additional group. But the inclusion of (ex)offenders groups in this Act, and what it means for housing entitlement is not straightforward. Those applicants must first undergo the vulnerability test to assess if they are vulnerable as ‘a result of leaving prison’. Since its inception in the Housing (Homeless) Persons Act 1977, the notion of vulnerability has been ‘one of the most contentious areas of the law on homelessness’ (Morgan, 2007: 192). This is mainly due to the fact that vulnerability is not universally defined in homelessness legislation and has therefore been applied unsystematically. This was certainly the case until 1998, when a Court of Appeal case established the ‘Pereira test’, which set out a highly contentious definition of vulnerability: that a homeless person is vulnerable if he/she is less able to defend himself or herself than ‘an ordinary homeless person’ (Rose and Eastman, 2012).¹ This definition set a high benchmark for evidencing vulnerability, where applicants must ‘satisfy’ and prove to local authorities that they are more vulnerable than the average homeless population – not the general population. Given these difficulties with ascertaining vulnerability, it is argued that the vulnerability test operates as a ‘gate-keeping function’ (Carr and Hunter, 2008: 304) and prison leavers and (ex)offenders are not exempt from this gate-keeping function. One former Housing Minister did not appear to believe that all people leaving prison who are homeless, are vulnerable:

The common strand of vulnerability – not whether someone has been in prison – is what local housing authorities need to consider when assessing whether someone is a priority need for accommodation. Not all ex-offenders will be vulnerable. (HC, 2014a: 8)

Despite the inclusion of (ex)offender populations within homelessness legislation in England and Wales, the Homelessness Act 2002 actually made no significant changes to the provision of statutory housing support, partly due to the vulnerability rule.

The Homelessness Act 2002 further failed to change the intentionality and unintentionality rule. Following the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, the notion of intentionality stresses individual responsibility and accountability for their homelessness. Intentionality is used as part of the eligibility assessment where local authorities assess what individual actions and/or omissions may have caused a person to become homeless in the first place.

he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy. (CLG, 2006: 96)

Prison leavers and (ex)offenders are disproportionality classified as ‘intentionally homeless’ by virtue of the fact that they committed ‘the crime in the first place’ (HC, 2014a: 10). In this respect, homelessness legislation situates the person guilty of committing the crime as the primary casual factor that, upon their conviction, caused them to lose their home.²

While the Homelessness Act 2002 places a statutory duty on LHAs to take a more proactive approach in preventing homelessness amongst prison leavers and (ex)offenders, and extends priority need groups to include people who are vulnerable as a result of leaving prison, these initiatives still fail to offer this group the same housing provision and protection as non-offender applicants. An important point to stress is that the exclusion of (ex)offenders and prison leavers from full-duty housing support is not a result of malpractice and breach of statutory legal obligations. Rather, homelessness and housing legislation is framed in such a way that provides LHAs with a range of discretionary powers that permit them to exclude people with a history of offending. Despite their obligation to take into account the vulnerability of (ex)offenders and prison leavers and implement various prevention strategies within the criminal justice sector, LHAs are also obliged to judge each case ‘on its own merits’, which ensures a significant degree of discretionary power (Lidstone, 1994).

Austerity and housing

If accommodating prison leavers and (ex)offenders was already beset with issues, housing policy and welfare reforms introduced in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008 have further restricted prison leavers’ and (ex)offenders’ access to social housing. Austerity-driven housing and welfare policies have made it increasingly difficult for key marginal groups to obtain social housing and, thus, to live in affordable accommodation. The former Coalition government set out their plans for restricting access to social housing and stated that:

Social housing is a scarce resource, and the Government believes that it is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest to restrict access in this way, to ensure that, as far as possible, sufficient affordable housing is available for those amongst the local population who are on low incomes or otherwise disadvantaged and who would find it particularly difficult to find a home on the open market. (CLG, 2013b: 5)

In the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2007/08, the Coalition government introduced several housing benefit and welfare reforms, affecting the housing options for (ex)offenders and prison leavers. Single accommodation rates (SAR) are a good case in point. First introduced in 1996, SAR limit the housing benefit allowance for young single people up to the age of 25, where housing benefit allowance is based on average rental rates for shared accommodation: one bedroom with a shared bathroom, kitchen and lounge. In 2012, the Coalition government extended SAR to cover single people up to 35, thus increasing the total number of people now qualifying for reduced housing benefit allowance. Given that the majority of the prison population are under the age of 39, it is expected that a large portion of this group will go into shared housing (Ministry of Justice, 2015).³ Accommodating people who are foremost economically disadvantaged in shared accommodation is problematic because it is not always suitable or appropriate for certain groups and can lead to a concentration of people with complex needs (JRF, 2012).

But the housing options for people aged 35 and over are not much better. The ‘bedroom tax’, which incurs an increased rent for households with one or more spare rooms, has increased competition for one-bedroom accommodation in the social rented sector and social landlords are giving ‘top priority to downsizers’ to people wanting to downsize to one-bedroom properties (DWP, 2015: 19). These changes made to housing policy now make it even more difficult for prison leavers and (ex)offenders to access one-bedroom properties in their district area.

But perhaps the most significant policy reform is the Localism Act 2011. In 2011, the then Coalition government restored the powers and freedoms to LHAs allowing them to disqualify eligible homeless people from housing allocations. Ordinarily, eligible homeless people are given ‘reasonable preference’ as a way of prioritizing their housing allocation. However, and since the introduction of the Localism Act 2011, LHAs now have greater discretionary power to:

… adopt criteria which would disqualify individuals who satisfy the reasonable preference requirements. This could be the case, for example, if applicants are disqualified on a ground of anti-social behaviour. (CLG, 2013b: 14)

Where local authorities had the power to disqualify applicants on the basis of ‘behaviour’ even prior to the Localism Act 2011, they had to adapt their allocation policy around the ‘behaviour’ categories set out in the Housing Act 1996. However, since the Localism Act 2011 these categories have been removed and ‘it is now left up to authorities how to define this behaviour’ (HC, 2014b: 6).

The Localism Act 2011 also changed the power to house homeless persons in the private rented sector. Previously, applicants had the right to refuse an offer in the PRS and stay on the waiting list for social housing, however the right to refuse a PRS offer has since been withdrawn and homeless people can now be housed in private rented accommodation against their consent.

The burden of the deficit problem and subsequent austerity-led cuts have culminated in a series of welfare reforms and housing policies that have exacerbated housing inequality and amplified housing poverty for economically disadvantaged groups. It is widely understood that recent housing policy reforms bring the poorest households closer to market rent rates (JRF, 2012, 2015), at a time when private sector rents are significantly more expensive than social rents (CLG, 2013a). Not only do these reforms exacerbate the exclusion of (ex)offenders and prison leavers from accessing even the most basic form of housing, but they raise critical questions about the housing options for this population, now and in the future.

The remainder of the paper draws upon interview data with criminal justice and housing practitioners. It explores the role of LHAs in rehousing (ex)offenders and prison leavers and highlights the experience of criminal justice practitioners as they navigate their way around homelessness legislative frameworks and local housing policy.

The research

This paper incorporates a case study that was carried out in a large county area in England, covering five local authority districts. Carried out between October 2013 and March 2014, the study explored the operational experiences of criminal justice practitioners and housing practitioners working to accommodate (ex)offenders within the county area. Practitioners coming from housing authorities, prison, community resettlement services, the probation service and through-the-gate service were all recruited to take part in a series of interviews and a focus group, to facilitate the exploration of issues concerning the organizations themselves as well as how they saw their roles in relation to other professional groups. Participants were foremost identified and recruited on the basis of their experience in working with housing (ex)offenders. The snowball technique (Vogt, 1999) was also used, where participants initially identified by the researchers would introduce other professionals and agencies to the study. In total, the study recruited 25 participants and used qualitative research methods (Silverman, 2013), including 21 semi-structured interviews and one focus group. Each interview and focus group lasted between 40 minutes and one hour. Participation was voluntary and every individual gave informed consent. Participants are anonymized, which extends to the agencies they work for and the geographical areas they work in. This research was approved by the University Ethics Committee and National Research Committee for the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).

As this case study is based on one English county area, the data is not generalizable, but the strength of this study lies in the range of practitioners involved, as well as the number of LHAs included.

‘They can just pick up a phone . . . .’: Operational issues with referring applicants from inside prison

This first section presents the main challenges and administrative obstacles in making a homelessness application from inside prison. LHAs are legally obliged to assess homeless applicants, or people threatened with homelessness, within 28 days of approaching their LHA (CLG, 2009). For people exiting prison, this time period is crucial. Ideally, homelessness assessments should be made prior to the applicant’s release, to assuage any obstacles in the immediate post-release period. However, findings from this case study mostly reveal that assessments are rarely carried out prior to release. One prison housing reception manager, below, claims:

Everyone says the referrals take 28 days but it can be much more. A big problem area is that local authorities vary so much. There’s one of us [housing reception team in prison], but we need to work with five different boroughs: with five different applications, all of them wanting different details about the client. (Prison Housing Reception Manager)

This quote highlights the operational issues with gathering and sharing information between different local authority administrative systems and how this can delay the homelessness assessment from taking place inside prison. Prison housing reception teams must work alongside five different LHAs when they refer prisoners who they identify as ‘no fixed abode’ (NFA) to make a formal homelessness application. However, no two LHAs will have the same administrative system, which can lead to extra paper work for the prison housing reception team principally responsible for making the referral.

We asked LHAs to outline their current approach to making contact with people inside prison with identified housing needs. We found that rarely do LHA staff meet applicants inside the prison to conduct the initial homelessness assessment: to determine priority need and make a homelessness decision. We asked LHA managers if they felt that a stronger presence within prison would enable them to make a homelessness decision prior to the release date. They claimed that other useful approaches were put in place to help them conduct the assessment, without physically going into the prison. One LHA manager, below, highlights their approach to making contact with prisoners to conduct the assessment:

Because of our referral system, we wouldn’t need to [go into the prison], they can just pick up a phone and speak to our referral service and they will speak to one of the managers anyway. (LHA Manager 2)

Given the lack of staff resources within housing authorities, the direct telephone line was considered to be more efficient than going to the prison. However, when we prison housing reception staff about the telephone direct line for carrying out assessments, they claimed that it was incompatible with existing prison operations. One manager said:

… to do a telephone interview, from here in the prison, you must have a member of staff present. We’ve seen 80 cases a month of NFA and we can’t deal with it all. On their global phone list, prisoners have the number of their MPs but not local authorities. I keep asking the prison deputy governor if we can include housing on the phone list, but they never do. (Prison Housing Reception Manager)

The quote above is indicative of the organizational difficulties inside prison with facilitating homelessness assessments via telephone. The prison housing reception manager explains that prison staff must be present during these phone calls and therefore arranged in advance. But with an average of 80 clients per month, all of them identified as NFA, the respondent above suggests that there is not enough prison staff resource to facilitate homelessness assessments on behalf of LHAs.

We asked LHA managers why they felt that homelessness assessments and decisions failed to be made prior to applicants’ release date. They appeared to share the view that assessments can be made fairly quickly, but delays arise mostly due to a lack of sufficient client-based information – information deemed to be necessary for completing the assessment. So common are these issues in gathering information that most LHA managers claim that they often complete the assessment on the day of the applicant’s release, not prior to it. One LHA manager, below, outlines their experience with gathering information for the assessment:

If the information from [the prison housing reception team] has come through, and [there is] other information we’ve needed that they couldn’t provide, and agencies haven’t provided to us yet as well, then we can’t make the [homelessness] decision until we’ve seen him [applicant] face-to-face. (LHA Manager 3)

LHA managers specifically expressed a concern regarding the lack of information about the applicant’s offending history, as well as a summary of the current conviction details. These details were seen as important for decision-making and LHAs relied mainly upon the prison housing reception team to share this information. One LHA manager, below, their experience with gathering information for the assessment:

Some of the info that is given by [the prison housing reception team] is pretty sketchy: they haven’t always got a lot of info that they can give us. The nature of the offence, any health issues, it can, on occasions be quite vague in comparison to some of the other prisons … On occasion, we will find even on the day of release we’ve requested info and we still haven’t been given that info which can slow up decision-making and any work that’s needed to be done with a client. Generally speaking, you will find that because of a lack of access to info on a lot of occasions, the [homelessness] decision will be made when the client is released and be able to confirm some info. (LHA Manager 2)

The above quote indicates the gaps in information gathering and sharing of this information between the prison and LHAs. Many LHA managers claim that, where information is incomplete, homelessness decisions are made on the day of the applicant’s release, and it is the responsibility of the individual applicant to appear at the relevant LHA office to complete the assessment. When we asked the prison housing reception staff about their experiences in sharing client-based information with LHAs, they claim that they only have access to ‘live’ prison data – such as applicants’ current conviction, progress within prison and so forth – and that offender managers ordinarily hold information required by LHAs.

In summary, this section illuminates the operational difficulties and problems in resourcing staff to conduct homelessness applications prior to applicants’ release dates. Interviewees from inside prison highlighted a range of administrative difficulties in organizing applicant referrals across several LHAs. No two LHAs will share the same administrative system for organizing information and housing reception staff must try to coordinate the referral across these disparate processes. These findings further highlight various gaps in operational knowledge that exist between LHAs and prison housing reception teams, which appeared to cause tension in determining which agency held the main responsibility for gathering information. More importantly, and as a result of these issues, this case study finds that these operational issues prolong the homelessness decision-making process for applicants coming from prison. As outlined at the beginning of this section, homelessness policy guidance emphasize the importance of conducting homelessness assessments prior to applicants’ release dates, yet this case study shows that LHAs often assess people on the day of their release, for reasons related to a lack of staffing and operational difficulties in gathering and sharing information.

This case study now explores the experience of those criminal justice practitioners working within the community who support (ex)offender clients who are homeless and must liaise with local housing authorities to try and rehouse them.

‘With all the best will in the world …’: Experiences of the homelessness assessment from criminal justice agency perspectives

This section reveals findings from the case study which engages with criminal justice practitioners within the community as they try to secure suitable accommodation for clients who are homeless. Given the range of housing needs overwhelmingly experienced by people in the criminal justice system, practitioners in this field have a strong working knowledge of homelessness legislation and statutory housing duty owed to (ex)offenders and prison leavers. This case study found that criminal justice agencies, which include the probation service, resettlement providers and through-the-gate agencies, frequently liaise with LHAs to rehouse and advocate on behalf of their clients. We asked through-the-gate staff members about their broad experience of supporting their clients to make homelessness applications to be rehoused. These practitioners reported that, when conducting homelessness assessments, LHAs rarely factored in their clients’ vulnerabilities and saw the vulnerability test as a rationing device that can lead to a negative homelessness decision. One through-the-gate staff member outlines their experience below:

… Asperger’s, the attention deficit disorder … You go to Borough X [name of LHA] with ADHD and you are not housing anybody because it is not seen as a priority need … it is not seen as accepted …. Local authorities fight tooth and nail not to put anybody into any accommodation whatsoever. They don’t believe whatever [vulnerable need] the person says they have. (Through-the-Gate staff member)

Although practitioners in this case study demonstrated a strong working knowledge of the key housing duties owed to people leaving custody, and would frequently advocate on behalf of their clients, they did not appear to exert any influence over the homelessness decision-making process. When we asked criminal justice practitioners about the extent to which their clients are affected by the ‘intentionality rule’, they responded that their clients were too quickly dismissed as ‘intentionally homeless’, due to having committed a crime.

With all the best will in the world, they [homelessness applicant] are not going to get very far because, obviously making a homeless application, if you manage to get yourself into prison then obviously you were aware that committing that crime you were making yourself intentionally homeless, so … (Probation Manager)

In summary, findings from this case study reveal various challenges facing criminal justice practitioners in gaining a positive homelessness assessment for their clients. Not only do these findings highlight the extent to which (ex)offenders and prison leavers are disadvantaged by the vulnerability and intentionality test, but further reveal the relative powerlessness expressed by both statutory and non-statutory criminal justice practitioners when supporting their clients to be rehoused through their local housing authority. This lack of influence is incongruent with the policy narratives surrounding the intersectional relationship between housing and offending and the widely accepted relevance of housing for reducing reoffending. Both policy frameworks – criminal justice policy and housing policy – suggest that a productive working partnership can help prevent homelessness amongst prison leavers, however this case study reveals the deep-seated powerlessness of criminal justice practitioners supporting clients to be rehoused.

The next section will go on to explore housing allocations policy and reveal how it is used to legitimately exclude prison leavers and (ex)offenders from accessing housing.

‘We would probably look at them quite favourably’: Housing allocation and suspension

This section presents evidence surrounding the housing allocation process and the local policy response to prison leavers and (ex)offender applicants. When a person is accepted as statutorily homeless and in priority need they will be given ‘reasonable preference’ by their LHA (CLG, 2012) to ensure housing priority. LHAs also have the power to disqualify applicants and give ‘reduced preference’ based on applicants’ ‘past behaviour’ that may be seen as ‘unacceptable’ and/or ‘anti-social’ (CLG, 2012). One LHA manager, below, describes their system of allocating housing:

In practice, because every application has to be looked at on its own merits, there will be differences in outcome. So the way the system works is we ‘band’: somebody applies and they are given a band which goes from A to F or they are made ineligible. A is the top priority, people who are statutory homeless, medical cases, that kind of thing. (LHA Manager 5)

Although it was claimed that each applicant is considered on ‘its own merit’, this study mostly found that prison leavers and (ex)offenders were often viewed as ‘ineligible’ for housing allocation. Disqualification criteria, such as ‘unacceptable behaviour’ and ‘rent arrears’ in previous tenancies, were often taken into account in the allocation process. As one LHA manager explains below:

If somebody has some kind of offending behaviour, which could be offending or rent arrears, which are listed here [ineligible criteria] then they may be ruled ineligible or they may go on ‘band F’ which is the bottom. (LHA Manager 4)

This study found that applicants with an offending history were either put on a low priority housing band (band F) or suspended from the housing register for 12 months. When we asked housing practitioners about the significance of suspending applicants, they suggested that it allowed applicants time to rehabilitate and provide satisfactory evidence to the LHA that they have fully ‘reformed’, prior to starting a tenancy agreement. Almost all housing practitioner participants stressed that suspended applicants should demonstrate some active involvement with rehabilitation programmes, which extends to the enrolment on ‘tenancy training’ programmes. Two participants outline this procedure below:

Ex-offenders who try to register for rehousing are looked at each on their own merits, really. And what they [LHAs and Housing Associations] take into consideration, to decide whether they are eligible or ineligible for the [allocation] scheme, is obviously the length of time they’ve been in prison, the crime that they’ve committed, what they’ve done or what they’ve been involved in to turn their life around and that type of thing. They are the kinds of things they’ll take into consideration before they will register applicants. (LHA Manager 3)

If someone is ineligible because of their behaviour, we say, ‘well, you are ineligible at the moment until you show that you have taken steps’. So if someone comes to us and says, ‘well I think I’ve changed’ and ‘this is my proof’, then we may well take that into account and we may accept them. But if we make someone ineligible we will say ‘we will review it in 12 months but if you think you can prove earlier than that that you have actually changed your life …’. If somebody was released into a private tenancy and they came to us after six months and said ‘I’ve kept the tenancy’, ‘I’ve paid the rent’, ‘I haven’t been in trouble’, ‘I’ve been complying with all probation have asked me to do’ [then] we would probably look at them quite favourably, so we do try to help people if we can. (Housing Officer)

As the quote above indicates, housing authorities and practitioners added various terms and conditions, requiring applicants to demonstrate a range of housing-related activities and training that can be all described as ‘pro-social’. Given the range and diversification of such programmes delivered in the criminal justice sector, it is highly likely that prison leavers and (ex)offenders will already have ample experience of these activities and thus, equipped with the necessary ‘tenancy skills’, as required by LHAs. However, housing practitioners rarely consider rehabilitation as having already spent a custodial sentence, or community order. Rather, they were concerned with specific rehabilitative activities that take place during the housing suspension period. These terms and conditions, as described in the quotes above, require applicants to demonstrate a range of activities that can be all described as ‘pro-social’. This study found that housing practitioners rarely considered rehabilitation as having already spent a custodial sentence, or existing probationary supervision in the community. Rather, they were most concerned with specific rehabilitative activities that take place during the housing suspension period.

When we asked criminal justice practitioners about their experience of the housing allocation process and its impact on their client group, they expressed a level of frustration, especially concerning the suspension policy. Two criminal justice practitioners describe their experiences below:

Because of the exclusions within allocations, they [LHAs] are just excluding everybody with a conviction. People are either deemed ineligible, due to convictions, or they are given a reduced preference to Band F. And what clients are telling us is that they have to demonstrate 12 months good behaviour. (Probation Manager)

I’ve got [clients with] gun crime, gang crime and shoplifting … it’s all considered to be unacceptable behaviour within their community, so they automatically get 12 months suspension period. They might as well say, ‘don’t refer them for 12 months’. (Community Resettlement staff member)

Criminal justice practitioners appeared to share the view that the housing allocation process serves an exclusionary function, where prison leavers and (ex)offenders can legitimately be suspended from accessing social housing for 12 months. As the participant indicates above, this exclusion can exacerbate the vulnerability of prison leavers and (ex)offenders in the community.

In summary, this case study illustrates the extent to which housing allocation policies work against (ex)offender applicants and highlights the range of powers and freedoms given to LHAs to reduce preference and relegate applicants to a lower housing band and/or suspend them from the housing waiting list until they can demonstrate reformed behaviour. While this case study cannot be generalized, given that it originates from one county area and relates experiences deriving from local housing policy, it nevertheless highlights the level at which policy discourses of ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘reform’ – normally associated with the criminal justice sector – are embedded in housing allocation policy and further illuminates the exclusionary function they have, especially when considering (ex)offender groups and prison leavers.

‘They fill the gap’: Housing (ex)offenders in the private rented sector (PRS)

Given the various barriers that prison leavers and (ex)offenders face in accessing social housing, as highlighted in previous sections, this study found that criminal justice practitioners diverted clients away from local authority housing and, instead, encouraged them to search for accommodation in the PRS. When we asked criminal justice practitioners about their experience of accommodating their clients in the PRS, the majority of respondents suggested that the PRS was more responsive to their clients’ housing needs and offered a quicker route into rehousing, compared to local housing authorities. Two respondents outline their experience of accommodating (ex)offender clients in the private sector, below:

Private properties have been better for years. They are better than the housing [authority] process. They fill the gap. (Prison Housing Reception Manager)

There were problems with getting into the private rented sector, but it is a lot easier process than going through the council, (Through-the-Gate staff member)

Austerity measures that have led to a disinvestment in and restrict access to social housing has, in turn stimulated the growth and dominance of the PRS across the UK. For the first time in 100 years, more people are currently living in the PRS, compared to social rented sector. But this dominance of the private sector for accommodating (ex)offender groups is not a new revelation for criminal justice practitioners. Practitioners informed us that they have been using this sector for years. We asked criminal justice agencies about their operational and administrative arrangements for accommodating clients in the private rented sector. One probation manager, below, describes their scheme for providing financial assistance to help their clients secure accommodation in the private sector:

What happens is that we identify a private landlord who is willing to take a bond from probation. That bond lasts six months so it lasts from the start of the tenancy and it covers rent arrears and damage to property so if someone accrues an arrears or damages a property during the six months of the bond then we will pay out and it’s a maximum of £500. All the landlords sign our letter which gives the start date and the end date and it’s very clear that if they don’t make a claim within that six months then we are not going to pay out basically. (Probation Manager)

The probation manager above also informed us that they had paid out a total of £250 to landlords for property damage cost since the implementation of the bond scheme two years ago, suggesting that the scheme has been a successful one. We found that the majority of housing, homeless and criminal justice agencies involved in this study all operated a ‘bond scheme’, with a similar arrangement to that outlined above. While some participants related mostly positive experiences of the bond scheme, others appeared more tentative about the short-term security it provided. One criminal justice practitioner, below, describes their working experience of the bond scheme:

It’s a good idea [the bond scheme] but I think they [tenancy services] need to look at the length of time the bond is for, because no landlord is going to say ‘I’ll accept that person and accept that in six months that bond is not going to be there anymore’. After six months the private landlord is going to say ‘now what am I meant to do?’ That person has to save up within the first six months to pay off [the deposit] and if you are on Job Seekers Allowance, how are you going do that? (Community Resettlement staff member)

The quote above illustrates the shortcomings of the bond scheme and raises questions about affordability and suitability of the private rented sector for (ex)offender groups and prison leavers. While the bond scheme supports people to acqire accommodation, criminal justice practitioners raised concerns about the permanence of these tenancies, and what happens when the six-month bond period ends. Given that tenants need to secure a rent deposit, the PRS is not always a suitable option for low-income earners. As the participant above suggests, it is highly likely that this group will be in receipt of welfare benefits which, given this limited income, raises question about affordability and ability to secure a deposit after the bond scheme has ended.

This study found another limitation surrounding access to the private sector accommodation. With entitlement restricted to single accommodation rates (one bedroom in a shared accommodation) for people under 35, accessing accommodation in the private rented sector was said to be dependent upon there being a sufficient supply of multiple occupancy housing within each local authority district. We asked LHAs about their experience of accommodating people in the private rented sector, since the introduction of the welfare reforms in 2012. One housing manager, below, outlines their experience and issues with housing composition in the various local authority districts:

We’ve been monitoring that quite closely, since the 35 year rule came in. A third of our contacts are under 35 … that’s a major impact on the service trying to do [accommodate] under 35s; not all are ex-offenders but some of them are. We haven’t got one bedroom properties where the rent is low enough for the local housing allowance to cover, and we are relatively low in terms of the private sector, in comparison to obviously [names another bigger LHA district] … so they [people under 35] are the ones who are being disadvantaged. (LHA Manager 4)

As the quote above indicates, housing composition for each LHA differs across districts, even neighbouring ones. The district area where people under 35 are accommodated is largely determined by its housing composition and mix of housing tenure. To successfully accommodate people under 35 in receipt of SAR (Single Accommodation Rates), the given district area must have a supply of multiple occupancy housing stock and/or housing stock with rents low enough to meet SAR housing allowance. Without the provision of this housing tenure, people under 35 will either have to move to a district area where such housing stock is in supply, or pay the rent shortfall and potentially fall into rent arrears. Similar concerns with housing stock, exacerbated by the welfare reforms, where raised by the national homeless charity, Crisis. Involving a snap-shot survey of shared accommodation, Crisis found that out of 4360 shared properties advertised in three areas – Birmingham, London and Leeds – only 13% were affordable within the SAR.

Viewed as a crucial source of accommodation by criminal justice practitioners, PRS is only vital insofar as prison leavers and (ex)offenders are excluded from social housing. In other words, the PRS is not without its shortcomings and we must continue to question its long-term suitability for this group. Since the welfare reforms, prison leavers and (ex)offenders under the age of 35 are required to live in private rented accommodation with shared amenities and communal spaces. Not ideal, this requirement first relies upon there being a sufficient supply of shared accommodation to accommodate tis group in their home district area and second, it can lead to the concentration of marginalized and disadvantaged people in communities.

Conclusion

Despite a growing recognition of the intersectional relationship between homelessness and incarceration, we have a limited knowledge about housing policy and practice for prison leaver and (ex)offender groups. Addressing these gaps, this paper has unpacked the main legal provision of housing support for these groups in England and Wales, and situated these provisions within the wider context of austerity.

Over the last three decades, housing has been paradoxically linked to offending: where desistance studies suggest that access to sufficient housing can help to support reintegration and reduce reoffending, housing governance studies illuminate the centrality of housing policy in the enforcement of crime control strategies and criminalization of social housing tenants. What is more, the current dominance of austerity, as the global response to the financial crisis in 2008, is set to alter the relationship between housing and offending. With a dwindling supply of social housing stock, overshadowed by a buoyant private rented sector, governments are changing people’s legal entitlement to social housing, restricting access and promoting the private rented sector as a viable alternative. This raises question about the affordability and long-term suitability and of the PRS for prison leavers and (ex)offenders.

This paper presented case study findings that altogether highlight the exclusionary function of housing policy and the uneven power relationship between housing practitioners and criminal justice practitioners. It illuminates the main stages of the homelessness application, where applicants must adhere to a complex administrative process and criminal justice practitioners exert limited power and influence over the decision-making. Case study findings show that applicants must undergo a complex and time-consuming administrative process and, what is more, criminal justice practitioners have limited power and influence over the homelessness and housing decision process. It is only in this context that the private rented sector is seen to appeal to criminal justice practitioners. This study has found that criminal justice practitioners have more success with accommodating clients in the private rented sector and have implemented key arrangements for facilitating this. However, the value of this sector for those individuals accommodated there remains to be seen. With a time-limited bond scheme, high rents and uneven supply of shared accommodation, the private rented sector may not be the long-term housing solution for accommodating (ex)offenders and prison leavers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Arden

Dymond

(2012) Manual of Housing Law, 9th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Barnardo’s (2011) No Fixed Abode: The Accommodation Struggle for Young People Leaving Custody in England. London: Barnardo’s.

Burney

(1999) Crime and Banishment: Nuisance and Exclusion in Social Housing Winchester: Waterside Press.

Calverley

(2013) Cultures of Desistance: Rehabilitation, Reintegration and Ethnic Minorities London: Routledge.

Carlen

(1996) Jigsaw: A Political Criminology of Youth Homelessness. Buckingham: Open Press.

Carlisle

(1996) The Housing Needs of Ex-prisoners: Housing Research Findings Number 178. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Carr

Hunter

(2008) Managing vulnerability: Homelessness law and the interplay of the social, the political and the technical. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 30(4): 293–307.

Centre for Social Justice (2010) Green Paper on Criminal Justice and Addiction. London: Centre of Social Justice Studies.

CLG (2006) Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities. London: CLG.

10.

CLG (2009) Homelessness Prevention and Meeting Housing Need for (Ex)offenders: A Guide to Practice. London: CLG.

11.

CLG (2012) Allocation of Accommodation: Guidance for Local Housing Authorities in England. London: CLG.

12.

CLG (2013a) English Housing Survey 2011 to 2012: Headline Report. London: CLG.

13.

CLG (2013b) Providing Social Housing for Local People: Statutory Guidance on Social Housing Allocations for Local Authorities in England. London: CLG.

14.

Cooper

(2013) No Fixed Abode: The implications for homeless people in the criminal justice system. London: Howard League for Penal Reform.

15.

Cowan

Fionda

(1994) Meeting the need: The response of local authorities housing departments to the housing of ex-offenders. British Journal of Criminology 34(4): 444–458.

16.

Cowan

Gilroy

Pantazis

(1999) Risking housing need. Journal of Law and Society 26: 403–26.

17.

DWP (2015) Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy: Final Report. London: Department for Work and Pensions.

18.

Farrall

Bottoms

Shapland

(2010) Social structures and desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology 7(6): 546–570.

19.

Flint

(2006) Housing, Urban Governance and Anti-social Behaviour: Perspectives, Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.

20.

Flint

(2013) Policing public housing: New York and British cities. Safer Communities 12(1): 13–23.

21.

Harding

(2006) Inclusion and exclusion in the rehousing of former prisoners. Probation Journal 53(2): 137–153.

22.

HC (2004) Homelessness (Written Evidence 1116-II, 12 October) .

23.

HC (2014a) Housing Ex-offenders (England). House of Commons Library, Standard Note, SN/SP/2989, 16 April.

24.

HC (2014b) Housing Benefit: Shared Accommodation Rate. House of Commons Library, Standard Note, SN/SP/5889, 26 November.

25.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2014) Resettlement Provision for Adult Offenders: Accommodation and Education, Training and Employment (A Joint Thematic Review by HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of Probation and Ofsted). London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons

26.

JRF (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) (2012) Housing Options and Solutions for Young People in 2020. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

27.

JRF (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) (2015) Housing and Poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

28.

King

(2013) Desistance Transitions and the Impact of Probation. London: Routledge.

29.

Laws

Ward

(2011) Desistance from Sex Offending: Alternatives to Throwing Away the Keys. London: The Guilford Press.

30.

Lidstone

(1994) Rationing housing to the homeless applicant. Housing Studies 9(4): 459–472.

31.

McCarthy

Hagan

(1991) Homelessness a criminogenic situation? British Journal of Criminology 31(4): 393–410.

32.

McCarthy

Hagan

Lawrence

(1998) Uncertainty, cooperation, and crime: Understanding the decision to co-offend. Social Forces 77(1): 155–184.

33.

McIvor

Trotter

Sheehan

(2009) Women, resettlement and desistance. Probation Journal 56(4): 347–361.

34.

Mallett

Rosenthal

Myers

(2001) Providing services to homeless young people in Melbourne. Youth Studies 20(4): 26–33.

35.

Martijn

Sharpe

(2006) Pathways to youth homelessness. Social Science and Medicine 62(1): 1–12.

36.

Ministry of Justice (2014) Prisoners’ experience of prison and outcomes on release: Waves 2 and 3 of SPCR. Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) longitudinal cohort study of prisoners. London: Ministry of Justice.

37.

Ministry of Justice (2014) National Offender Management Service Offender Equalities Annual Report 2014/15. London: Ministry of Justice.

38.

Morgan

(2007) Aspects of Housing Law. London: Routledge-Cavendish.

39.

Rose

Eastman

(2012) Pleadings without Tears: A Guide to Legal Drafting Under the Civil Procedure Rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40.

Shelter (2015) Supreme Court clarifies rights of vulnerable homeless people. Available at: http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/05/supreme-court-clarifies-rights-of-vulnerable-homeless-people/ (accessed December 2015).

41.

Shephard

(2015) Improving outcomes for young black and/or Muslim men in the CJS. Probation Journal 62(2): 181–183.

42.

Silverman

(2013) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: Sage.

43.

Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners: Summary of the Social Exclusion Unit Report. London: Social Exclusion Unit.

44.

Vogt

(1999) Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences. London: Sage.