Centenial Celebration

Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Date: November 22, 2024 Fri

Time: 12:01 pm

Results for housing for ex-offenders

1 results found

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons

Title: Resettlement Provision for Children and Young People: Accommodation and Education, Training and Employment

Summary: Resettlement is one of the main tests against which the Inspectorate judges the health of a prison. This thematic review, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, examines accommodation and education, training and employment (ETE) resettlement provision for sentenced young men aged 15 to 18 in young offender institutions. It reports on the work carried out in custody to prepare young people for release, using survey data as well as indepth interviews with 61 sentenced young men, their case supervisors and follow-up information on what happened to them on release. The heads of resettlement and learning and skills in each institution provide an establishment perspective. Ensuring that young people have suitable and sustainable accommodation and ETE on release from custody is a vital first step to reduce reoffending and enable young people to successfully reintegrate into the community. This is no small task – in our sample of 61 young men more than eight out of 10 (84%) had an accommodation and/or ETE need identified. In our survey almost half of young men said they were under 14 when they were last at school and 86% said they had been excluded at some point. All establishments had a strategy to drive forward resettlement work but in most cases these did not involve external agencies and had not been informed by a recent needs analysis of the population. The training planning process should be central to coordinating work to address young people’s individual needs, with targets set for a young person’s time in custody and plans for their release. We found from our fieldwork that several establishment case supervisors, who oversaw the training plan, had a good knowledge of the young people in their caseload. Most young men reported that training plan targets had been discussed with them, although less than two-thirds in our case sample knew what their targets were and only half said they had had a say in the targets set for them – this then had a real impact on whether they tried to achieve them. In custody, the range and quality of education and training provision was generally satisfactory and it was clear that, where possible, a young person’s preferences had been taken into account when allocating them to ETE. Most, although not all, young men said they were involved in some form of ETE at the time of interview and three-quarters said they had received or were working towards a qualification – 62% thought that these would be useful on release. Although it could often have been better tied to resettlement planning, at several establishments the use of release on temporary licence (ROTL) was improving, with some good quality work placements on offer. Case supervisors realised the importance of accommodation and ETE in resettlement work and reported that these issues were considered from the point of a young person’s arrival in custody. However, training planning targets often placed the onus only on the young person and did not specify what resources would be put in place or how they would be helped to achieve them. The main focus was on how they spent their time in custody and there were few long-term targets aimed at those responsible for ensuring plans were in place for their release. Establishments reported that this was the responsibility of youth offending teams (or social workers for looked after children). At the Heron unit at Feltham young people also had a resettlement broker who was involved in resettlement planning while young people were in custody, but who also offered intensive support to them for at least six months following release. Despite their key role, the attendance of social workers at training planning meetings for looked after children was poor. In contrast, relationships with community-based youth offending teams (YOTs) were well developed and YOT case managers normally attended training planning meetings. However, plans were not always finalised in time for the pre-release meeting which, understandably, worried young people and frustrated case supervisors. Two of the 61 young men interviewed said that not having accommodation had prevented their early release, but no establishments monitored this. It was not evident that discussions were taking place about whether accommodation arrangements set up at the point of release were suitable and sustainable. In our case sample, 61% of young men said they would be living with family on release and the majority were optimistic about it as they felt their family’s support was the key to their successful resettlement. Although establishments realised the importance of young people maintaining contact with family where appropriate and encouraged it, more structured work needed to be done to rebuild or maintain relationships while young people were in custody. This left two-fifths of our sample who required accommodation to be arranged for their release, which was a vital step before other release plans could be put in place. Case supervisors reported a range of barriers to finding suitable accommodation, including a limited supply of local authority housing and issues around the young person’s behaviour or offence. They also reported a range of barriers to arranging ETE for release, including limited availability in the community. At the time of interview, only 14 of the 48 young men who said they wanted to continue education had a place arranged. Worryingly, of the 42 young men who said they wanted to work (either full-time or part-time alongside education), only nine reported that they had a job arranged on release – and for seven of these it had been arranged through family, without help from the establishment or the YOT. Follow-up information was requested from case supervisors on what happened to the young men in our case sample on release and a month later, with information received for 41 and 37 of the young men respectively. Only 13 young men (32%) had both suitable accommodation (as assessed by case supervisors) and ETE on release. Two, including a looked after child, were forced to report as homeless. One in five were placed in accommodation assessed as unsuitable by case supervisors; this included three young men who had had to go into bed and breakfast lodgings – one was still there a month later – and two who were living with family where this was a cause for concern. Only a third of young men had an ETE placement arranged on release, only half of these were still attending a month later and only a fifth of those who had not got a placement on release had one confirmed a month later. Where ETE placements had fallen through, case supervisors felt this was due to unstable accommodation, a lack of family support, the young person’s lack of motivation or problems due to the timing of course start dates. A month after release six of the young men were in custody and one was ‘on the run’ – three of the young people who had returned to custody were looked after children. This report raises a key question – how effective is the resettlement work conducted in custody in terms of the actual outcomes for young people? This was not monitored by establishments and our follow-up information highlights the need to look beyond the gate in order to evaluate the effectiveness of resettlement work. Overall the outcomes for our sample were very disappointing. The Heron unit, although we can make no conclusions based on our small sample, seemed a promising initiative, as did the resettlement consortia, although the young offender institutions involved were not visited for this report. These are being formally evaluated and we look forward to seeing the results. Although our recommendations are to the Ministry of Justice, Youth Justice Board and National Offender Management Service we recognise that, to ensure all young people have suitable accommodation and ETE on release from custody, a joint approach with other government departments and external agencies is required. The starting point should be an acceptance that vulnerable young people released from custody are children in need. This would go some way toward focusing the joint effort that is needed to prevent them from returning to custody and becoming entrenched at an early age in a life of crime.

Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2011. 118p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/Resettlement-thematic-june2011.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/Resettlement-thematic-june2011.pdf

Shelf Number: 121879

Keywords:
Correctional Education
Correctional Programs
Housing for Ex-Offenders
Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)
Reentry
Rehabilitation
Young Adult Offenders