Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:25 am
Time: 12:25 am
Results for offender resettlement
2 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Resettlement Provision for Adult Offenders: Accommodation and education, training and employment Summary: In April 2015 far reaching changes will be introduced to 'transform' the way that offenders are rehabilitated and to reduce the risk they reoffend. Offenders serving sentences of less than one year will be subject to statutory supervision. Support and supervision of low- and medium-risk offenders will pass from the probation service to voluntary and private sector providers commissioned through regional Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC). Higher-risk offenders will be supervised by a new national probation service. Offenders serving short sentences and those with less than three months to serve should be held in ‘resettlement prisons’, in or linked to the area in which they will be released. Resettlement services should be organised on a 'through the gate' basis, making greater use of mentors than at present and with providers paid in part according to the outcomes they achieve in reducing reoffending. The primary aim of this report is to inform the development of these new services by examining the effectiveness of existing arrangements to help offenders obtain suitable and sustainable accommodation and education, training and employment (ETE) on release as part of wider resettlement provision. The report follows a cohort of 80 offenders from prison through the gate into the community and identifies their accommodation and occupation status shortly before release, on release and one and six months later. The offenders in this study were chosen because they were already subject to statutory supervision on release as they were serving sentences of one year or more. We are confident that in the key areas there is a direct parallel with provision for offenders serving shorter sentences, although care should be taken in interpreting the results. It is important to recognise where there are differences, not least to ensure that the requirements of offenders serving longer sentences do not get overlooked in the pressure to establish the new arrangements. Many previous studies have highlighted the importance of accommodation and ETE to reducing reoffending. The Social Exclusion Report of 2002 indentified them as two of the critical resettlement pathways that have been the focus for much effort since, and the ‘Surveying Prisoners Crime Reduction’ survey a decade later unsurprisingly came to similar conclusions. Offenders themselves consistently tell us during inspections how important having somewhere secure and stable to live, and something constructive to do, is to staying out of trouble after they are released. The findings of this report are striking. Most importantly, it absolutely confirms the central importance of an offender’s family and friends to their successful rehabilitation. Of course, sometimes an offender’s family may be the victims of their crime and sometimes they may be a negative influence that contributes to their offending behaviour – we found a small number of examples of this in this inspection. However, overwhelmingly, this inspection confirmed our view that an offender’s family are the most effective resettlement agency. More than half the offenders in our cohort returned home or moved in with family and friends on release, even if this was only a temporary measure. The few who had a job on release had mainly arranged this with the help of previous employers, family or friends. Helping offenders maintain or restore relationships with their family and friends, where this is appropriate, should be central to the resettlement effort. But too often, these relationships are seen simply as a matter of visits which may be increased or reduced according to an offender’s behaviour. We found no evidence that families were involved in sentence planning for instance, even when an offender said they were relying on them for support after release. Too little account was taken of whether initial arrangements were sustainable and what continuing support might be needed. Of the 48 offenders who moved into their own home or with family and friends on release, a fifth had needed to move in with different family/friends when we checked on them after six months. What should happen, where possible, is resettlement work which helps the offender and his or her family to maintain or rebuild relationships; an assessment of any offer of support; and, where appropriate, involvement of the family in plans for release. We are concerned that work on family relationships that will continue to be provided, if at all, directly by the prison will not be integrated with work done by resettlement service providers. In contrast to the support provided by offenders’ family and friends, our findings in this report reinforce the criticism we have previously made about formal offender management arrangements in prisons1. We found that contact between offenders and offender supervisors or managers varied considerably and even where there was good contact, this had little impact on accommodation and ETE outcomes at the point of release, although contacts were more effective post-release. Sentence planning and oversight were weak and resettlement work in prisons was insufficiently informed either by an individual assessment of the offender concerned or a strategic assessment of what opportunities would be available to offenders on release, with input from relevant organisations and employers. Information sharing across prison departments was poor overall but better in open prisons and those preparing long-term offenders for release. It will be important that those prisons designated as ‘resettlement prisons’ in the new arrangements urgently begin to create the ‘whole prison’ approach to resettlement that is too often lacking at present. It would certainly help address these problems if prisons had a better understanding of current accommodation and ETE outcomes. At present they rely heavily on self-reported information from offenders at the point of release with no follow-up on longer-term accommodation and ETE outcomes, which as our findings demonstrate, is an ineffective way of judging the effectiveness of resettlement services. Offenders who posed a high risk of harm were placed in approved premises where their risk could be appropriately managed. Offenders expressed concerns to us about the adverse influence of other residents of approved premises, and two of the nine offenders who went to approved premises on release were subsequently recalled, but others had progressed six months later. Shortages of affordable rented accommodation, references, a lack of resources to pay deposits and rent in advance, and the practical problems of arranging accommodation from inside prison, meant that rented accommodation in the private or social housing sectors was not an option for any of the offenders we followed. Often offenders were able to move in with family/friends on release, even if just as a temporary measure, but the three in our sample who did not have this option were forced to rely on emergency shelter immediately after release. Access to affordable rented accommodation will be a significant challenge for new providers and it is likely that there will need to be an expansion of rent deposit and guarantee schemes and other provision if it is to be met. Some offenders in our cohort such as young adults who had been in care as ‘looked after children’ and women offenders who took over the sole care of their children after release had entitlements to housing that needed to be identified and met. Of course, finding and sustaining accommodation is not simply a question of paying the rent but also of having the skills necessary to live independently. For those who might struggle to live independently because of their age and lack of maturity, such as young adults, or older offenders who had become institutionalised by long sentences, some form of supported accommodation was necessary if they were not placed in approved premises. Details: London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 6, 2016 at: https://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-activity/resettlement/criminaljusticejointinspection/1693032014_Resettlement-thematic-for-print-Sept-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-activity/resettlement/criminaljusticejointinspection/1693032014_Resettlement-thematic-for-print-Sept-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 141360 Keywords: Ex-offender EmploymentOffender ResettlementPrisoner ReentrySupported Housing |
Author: Drummond, Caroline Title: 'Have you got anybody you can stay with?' Housing options for young adults leaving custody Summary: Safe and stable housing is a critical factor in reducing reoffending rates for young people leaving custody. It provides the foundations for a young person to rebuild their life and move forward into a positive future away from crime. However, many young custody leavers face severe challenges in accessing accommodation on release; a situation which can push them into homelessness, chaotic housing situations and reoffending. Centrepoint and Nacro have conducted this research to examine the housing options and support in place for young people as they leave the prison system. The research is based on interviews with young custody leavers aged 18 to 25, and interviews with the practitioners who support them across a range of agencies. This research was carried out in late 2017, before the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) and before the clarification from Government that all young people under 21 who have secured accommodation would be able to claim housing costs through Universal Credit. Our analysis highlights three thematic requirements and associated barriers which we believe need to be addressed to enable young people to access safe and secure accommodation on release from custody. While we continue to call for a joined up, cross government Housing Strategy which meets the needs of vulnerable people, including young people that leave the criminal justice system each year, we have identified some practical solutions, that if adopted in the current system could make a real difference to young people leaving custody and experiencing barriers to accessing safe and stable housing. a) Young people leaving custody need the right preparation: - Young people leaving custody should have a resettlement plan to ensure that their housing needs are met and necessary services are in place prior to their release; however, many of the participants in the research reported that planning was insufficient and not done far enough ahead of their release to be effective. - Disruptions such as transfers to different prisons during a sentence can hinder effective pre-release planning and mean that young people miss out on the engagement and support they need. - Inconsistencies in joint working between prisons, community rehabilitation companies (CRC) and the National Probation Service (NPS) make it difficult to offer consistent pre- and post-release preparation and assistance. Practitioners also highlighted high workloads and insufficient resources as barriers to providing meaningful support. - Young people in custody for short periods or recalled to custody may not have the opportunity to engage with housing and post-release planning, increasing the risk of poor housing outcomes and reoffending upon release. - Home Detention Curfew (HDC) can ease the transition from custody, improve access to employment and training opportunities and assist resettlement in general. However, practitioners expressed concerns that some young people who would be eligible cannot access HDC because they do not have housing to go to or provide unsuitable home addresses. b) Young people leaving custody need access to a safe and stable home with an ongoing support network: - Too many young people experience homelessness after leaving custody. Across Centrepoint's accommodation, young custody leavers are almost twice as likely to have slept rough as those without experience with the prison system. This risks them turning to negative support networks and reoffending in order to secure a bed for the night. - Historically some local housing authorities have not assessed young people until they have left custody, even though pre-release work with probation and rehabilitation services may begin months before. This means young people are only able to engage at a point of crisis, undermining efforts to prevent homelessness. - Prior to the HRA some young custody leavers are seen as having made themselves 'intentionally homeless' by their local authority on the basis of having been convicted of a crime, and in general are not seen as being in priority need for homelessness assistance despite their vulnerability. The implementation of the HRA provides an opportunity to ensure this is no longer possible. - While supported accommodation is often the most suitable option for young people leaving custody, proposed changes to funding may put services at risk, particularly those that support people without a statutory right to housing. - The private rented sector is largely inaccessible for young custody leavers, with high upfront costs which are unaffordable for many prison leavers. Interviewees also highlighted landlords' reluctance to let to young people in general and especially young custody leavers. - Returning to the family is often a young person's best accommodation option after leaving custody and the retention of family links throughout a sentence can decrease the chance of reoffending. However, this does not work for those young people who have come from an unstable family situation, and should not be assumed as the best option in every case. c) Young people leaving custody need financial security: - Making a claim for Universal Credit can be difficult while in custody, where access to the internet and Job centre Plus work coaches is limited and inconsistent and where young people may not have the documentation they need to complete an application. However, these barriers are leading to unacceptable delays in receiving essential financial support after release. - Lower entitlements to benefits make it much more difficult for custody leavers to access appropriate housing they can afford. The Shared Accommodation Rate (SAR) drastically limits the accommodation available and can force custody leavers into shared housing which may not be appropriate for their needs. - The discharge grant someone receives when leaving prison has remained at L46 for over 15 years. For young custody leavers trying to make a fresh start whilst looking for employment or waiting for benefits to be processed, this amount is not enough for them to get back on their feet. - Finding and sustaining employment is key to securing accommodation and reducing reoffending. The research highlights some innovative and effective training programmes, building in wraparound support around employment, but found that provision is inconsistent across the wider prison and probation estate. - Criminal records present a major barrier for young custody leavers looking to access employment, with both employers and applicants unsure what legally needs to be disclosed. Details: London: Nacro; Centre Point, 2018. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Report: Accessed June 15, 2018 at: https://www.nacro.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nacro-Centrepoint-Report-Have-you-got-anybody-you-can-stay-with-June-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nacro.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nacro-Centrepoint-Report-Have-you-got-anybody-you-can-stay-with-June-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 150557 Keywords: HousingJuvenile ReentryOffender ResettlementPrisoner ReentryYoung Adult Offenders |