Scottish Government

The Provision of Advice about Housing to Prisoners in Scotland: an evaluation of the projects funded by the Rough Sleepers Initiative.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes six projects funded by the Scottish Executive through the Rough Sleepers Initiative to provide support to prisoners with a range of housing issues. Funding for the projects was agreed in 2000, and current funding runs to 2004. A seventh project (providing a range of community-based support to former prisoners, including long-term prisoners), promoted by Falkirk Council and delivered by SACRO, was also funded. This project is described briefly in Chapter 2 of the main report.

The report is in 6 chapters. The first chapter sets out the background to the research and a range of current issues in relation to both penal and housing policy. The second chapter provides an introduction to the Rough Sleepers Initiative and to the work of the projects. Chapter Three to Five cover, in turn, reception and induction, pre-liberation and post liberation issues. The final chapter sets out a series of conclusions and recommendations.

The methodology for the research involved detailed interviews with staff of the projects, prison-based social work and other staff, and SPS staff (at HQ and within establishments), as well as staff at HMP Kilmarnock. A total of 153 prisoners were interviewed about current and previous housing issues, and their experiences of seeking support. A total of 43 former prisoners were interviewed in a community setting. A survey was also undertaken of a sample of 20 local authority housing services in order to identify current policy and practice.

The rationale for the provision of housing support lies in the widely accepted view (supported by a considerable body of research evidence) that prisoners as a group run a high risk of homelessness on liberation. Short term prisoners, who typically have little or no supervision on liberation, face a range of difficulties, often encompassing financial, employment, addiction, and a variety of family issues, each of which can compound, or can be compounded by, housing problems. Such problems have also been linked to an increased likelihood of re-offending. For these reasons, the projects were targeted at short term prisoners, although there is also a range of support available to long term prisoners through SPS, and through both local authorities and voluntary organisations on liberation.

The projects are managed by Shelter, ECSH (on behalf of Edinburgh City Council), Glasgow City Council, Inverclyde Council, Rowan Alba (on behalf of East Ayrshire Council) and Dumfries and Galloway Council and vary considerably in size and scope, and in their mode of operation. Support is available at all Scottish establishments holding short term prisoners.

The projects are locally managed within the broad scope of local outcome agreements which exist between the Scottish Executive and local authorities covering a range of homelessness services. The only exception to this is the Shelter project which operates within a free standing outcome agreement with the Scottish Executive. It was found that there was relatively limited monitoring of the projects, either individually or as a group, and no specific monitoring framework was agreed covering projects of this type. Attempts to use the standard homeless monitoring approach common to all RSI-funded projects were not entirely successful for a range of reasons.

Although the projects were found to be, in general terms, well managed, there were a range of issues identified which impacted on the service prisoners received. Foremost among these was that most of the projects were, at various times, unable to provide cover for holidays or sickness, or to replace staff who had left unexpectedly, leading to significant gaps in service. In some cases, these gaps extended to more than 6 months, although there is evidence that Scottish Prison Service (SPS) staff and staff from other agencies did generally manage to provide some level of service to prisoners over these periods. A further area of concern was that one project, operated by Inverclyde Council, summarily withdrew its service within Greenock prison to prisoners from outwith the local authority area, leaving the majority of the prison's population, including women transferred from Cornton Vale, with no direct access to housing support. In some establishments, it is also questionable whether the level of provision is sufficient to cope with demand.

Working conditions within establishments were found to vary considerably. In Polmont, Edinburgh and Kilmarnock, for example, projects are based within Throughcare Centres. These centres operate on the basis that all external agencies are based in one location, and prisoners are escorted from their halls. This appears to work quite well, although there are issues with the very short working day and access to essential administrative tools such as telephones and computers. In other establishments, where Throughcare Centres have not yet been implemented, project staff generally interview prisoners in halls. This causes a range of practical difficulties, including a general lack of space and difficulties in securing escorts (where project staff are not key trained).

The services provided by the projects are, with one fundamental exception, similar. Most projects deal with both remand and sentenced prisoners, and will attempt to interview prisoners on reception to ascertain whether they require support with either housing benefit issues or with surrendering a tenancy (due to the 13 week limitation on housing benefit for many prisoners). In most establishments, this appears to work well, with a high level of cooperation between agencies, and there is evidence of a decline in the number of prisoners building up arrears, or whose tenancies are being terminated. This approach, however, relies on there being an effective induction process and this is not yet in place across all SPS establishments.

Projects, in all cases, will provide on-going support to prisoners throughout their sentences, and as they approach liberation. The system of identifying prisoners requiring support appears to work well across SPS, although in some cases, prisoners could be identified earlier, thus allowing additional work to be undertaken by project workers where required.

Perhaps the key issue identified by the research was the fact that the nature of the service provided on liberation is quite different depending on the nature and approach of the project concerned. Staff from Glasgow City Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council can carry out assessments prior to liberation and can generally put in place support packages, usually involving accommodation. Staff within the other projects can only refer prisoners to local authority housing services on liberation. This process appears fraught, with a general complaint from projects of a lack of cooperation and feedback. This disparity of treatment is most obvious in Cornton Vale and Polmont (where Glasgow City Council provides a service to a only a proportion of the population), but also exists in Barlinnie and Low Moss, and in Dumfries. In these prisons, local residents receive a substantially different level of support to other prisoners, and leads to understandable frustration and feelings of unfairness.

Overall, although it is recognised that change will follow from the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003, there is an apparent lack of consistency in the way local authorities deal with former prisoners. Among the main issues highlighted in the research are a general unwillingness to provide interview times or named staff, a lack of temporary and permanent accommodation, and an apparently inconsistent operation of local connection and bad neighbour policies. Perhaps the aspect of most concern to both prisoners and projects is that some local authorities appear to offer only very limited periods of temporary accommodation to homeless former prisoners, with eviction likely in some cases in as little as 28 days. A range of evidence suggests that some former prisoners are re-offending rather than be forced to re-present as homeless, or sleep rough. This suggests that an urgent need exists to clarify policies on the provision of temporary accommodation.

In terms of impact, it is clear that the six prison-based housing advice and assistance projects are making a difference. The extent of that difference is difficult to assess accurately, due to inconsistent approaches to monitoring and the inability of many of the projects (albeit through no fault of their own) to identify final outcomes. The identification and prevention of arrears, and the work to terminate tenancies, is making, and will, over time, make a significant contribution to the life chances of many prisoners. It will also make a contribution to reducing the work of local authorities, and to the maintenance of the housing stock. Two main issues remain outwith the scope of projects to address - the 13 week rule for Housing Benefit and the lack of provision for storing prisoners' possessions.

It is less clear that some of the projects are making a significant difference in relation to the liberation of prisoners. This is not really a shortcoming in relation to their work, more that they lack the means to undertake assessments and allocate properties (as exists with two of the projects). This is a significant area of inconsistency.

Overall, the research concludes that there is a clear need to continue to undertake work of this kind in prisons. Changes to legislation may lead to a change in focus over time, although in the absence of changes to Housing Benefit legislation, there remains an urgent need to work to prevent arrears and abandonments. There are, however, a range of issues which, it is suggested, should be addressed if housing-related work with prisoners is to be fully effective and accountable.

The key recommendations suggested by the research are:

For the Scottish Executive:

• Although Housing Benefit is a reserved matter, it is suggested that further representations be made on removing the current 13 week limitation.
• The Scottish Executive could consider whether there is any effective means of providing storage for prisoners' possessions.
• In the interests of consistency, the Scottish Executive should consider accelerating the commencement of at least some of the provisions of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003.
• The Scottish Executive should monitor the implementation of the right to temporary accommodation, and assess whether clarification of the guidance is required in the light of apparent local interpretations.

For the Scottish Executive and SPS:

• A housing service should continue to be provided in Scotland's prisons.
• This service should be provided on a consistent basis across Scotland.
• A strategic approach should be taken to the identification and development of projects, with an assessment being undertaken of the demand (or need) for the service and the level of service tailored to this. This could then form the basis of tender process (or a direct contract) in relation to the delivery of a housing service to prisons across Scotland.
• It is essential that any future work is guided by a detailed specification of services. The current situation where services can be arbitrarily withdrawn is clearly unacceptable.
• It is essential that, for any future work in a prison environment, a comprehensive and effective monitoring system is designed and implemented.
• It is essential that any service developed in future is structured in a way to ensure that cover is provided for periods of staff illness or where a post holder leaves.
• It is essential that remand prisoners receive a service which meets their needs. While not all remand prisoners have housing-related needs, many do, and there is currently no certainty that these will be identified or addressed.
• Although it was outwith the scope of this exercise, SPS should consider examining whether the housing needs of long term prisoners at the point of sentence are being met.

For the Scottish Executive and CoSLA/Housing Services:

• It may be helpful for the Scottish Executive to clarify to local authorities how they might interact with prison based projects, and to set out clearly the basis on which these projects can interact with prisoners in custody.
• It would be helpful if local authorities could nominate a single point of contact with whom prison based workers and SPS staff can liase.
• There would be considerable benefits to prisoners and to their chances of resettlement if a means could be agreed whereby housing officers based within prisons could undertake homeless assessments on behalf of receiving local authorities prior to the prisoner being liberated.
• In the light of the work done by prison-based housing projects in preventing the build up of arrears and in reducing the likelihood of abandonments, the Scottish Executive may wish to consider whether to recommend that more local authorities adopt "responsible surrender" policies for prisoners whose sentence is longer than 6 months.

For SPS:

• It would be helpful to develop a network for SPS and PPS staff involved in this area of work.
• SPS could consider the development of a short course in housing issues (with intranet support) for staff involved in Throughcare Centres or involved in induction.
• There are a small number of practical issues which SPS could consider addressing in future work, perhaps by the agreement of a protocol. These include access to a confidential interview area, access to a phone, access to a computer and access to SPIN.
• It is important, in establishments where there is no induction available to all or some prisoners (e.g. remands), that SPS staff cooperate fully in publicising housing issues and making referrals to project workers.