About

Before conducting a deep dive into the interaction between criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems, a rapid evidence assessment took place to identify what evidence was out there already. 

Scale of the issue: In 2023/24, 38% of all prison leavers (26,530 people) were released into homelessness or temporary accommodation. This includes 9,210 people (13%) released directly into homelessness or rough sleeping, plus 17,320 in temporary provision like probation hostels or Home Office housing.

The cycle: Prison leads to homelessness, which increases reoffending, which leads back to prison. Up to one-third of people lose their housing while in custody. Those who were homeless before custody have a 79% reoffending rate within a year. Six months after release, 70% remain unemployed.

Shared root causes: The same factors drive both criminal justice involvement and homelessness - poverty, unemployment, mental health conditions, substance use, childhood trauma, family breakdown, and low educational attainment. 85% of those in contact with criminal justice, substance use, and homelessness services experienced trauma as children.

Who is Most Affected

Women: Face particular challenges due to shorter sentences (limiting support access), higher rates of trauma and domestic violence, and limited women-only accommodation. 71% of women in prison have mental health issues versus 47% of men.

Other vulnerable groups: Ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented (27% of prison population vs 18% general population). Care-experienced individuals make up 25% of both prison and homeless populations. Foreign nationals with no recourse to public funds face extreme barriers. People on remand receive minimal support despite not being convicted.

Current Support: What Exists

CAS-3 (Community Accommodation Service Tier 3): Provides up to 84 nights transitional housing with floating support for prison leavers at risk of homelessness. Nationally, 65% maintain accommodation for over 6 months, with 60% exiting successfully.

Accommodation for Ex-Offenders (AfEO): Local authority-led programme supporting access to private rental sector. Phase 2 allocated £23.7m across 111 local authorities. Referrals increased 30% between phases, with 2,562 tenancies secured. 62% of tenancies sustained over 6 months.

What works well: Holistic, person-centred approaches; multi-agency collaboration; continuous engagement from prison through release; early housing needs assessment; dedicated specialist staff; low-threshold to accessing services.

Critical Gaps and Barriers

No national strategy: Absence of cross-departmental approach creates fragmented, inconsistent support varying dramatically by geography and eligibility.

Geographic lottery: Not all areas have access to programmes like AfEO. Service availability depends on local authority priorities and funding.

Eligibility exclusions: People on remand, those with community sentences, and foreign nationals with NRPF often cannot access support despite being at high risk of homelessness.

Short-term support creates cliff edges: CAS-3's 84-night limit and AfEO's 6-month support period often insufficient for people with high support needs. Limited move-on accommodation options mean people face new homelessness risk when support ends.

Structural housing barriers:

• Severe shortage of affordable private rental accommodation
• Local Housing Allowance rates frozen and inadequate, especially for under-35s (shared accommodation rate)
• Landlord discrimination against people with criminal records
• Poor quality temporary accommodation can exacerbate substance use and mental health issues

Inadequate wraparound support:

• Mental health services lack capacity (local authority funding cut by up to 40% in some areas)
• Substance use support insufficient (only 43% successfully start community treatment)
• Gap in continuity of care from prison to community
• No support for "Medium needs" group (not priority need but need tenancy support)
  

System capacity issues: Severe staff shortages, high caseloads, inadequate training on housing duties, poor coordination between agencies, fragmented data collection preventing outcome tracking.

‍Programme Performance and Challenges

AfEO challenges: No sampled local authority met Phase 2 tenancy targets. Key barriers included lack of affordable housing, recruitment difficulties (staff unaware role focused on property procurement), and managing unrealistic expectations from prison leavers about accommodation type.

Unintended consequences:

• Positive: Stronger local/regional partnerships; improved communication between agencies; better understanding of local needs
• Negative: Tensions with other vulnerable groups awaiting housing; very limited women's referrals; concerns that broad eligibility (anyone within 12 months of leaving custody) limits spaces for CAS-3 move-on; regional disparities in access and quality

Evidence gaps: Most programmes lack clear targets beyond tenancy numbers. Data limitations prevent tracking long-term outcomes or evidencing contribution to reducing homelessness and reoffending. Inconsistent definitions and fragmented data collection impede comprehensive analysis.

Policy Insights

Service Provision: Before and During Prison

Early intervention: Identify housing needs at the start of sentences and develop personalised housing plans. Finalise plans before release with sufficient time for probation and housing team collaboration.

Build tenancy readiness: Incorporate tenancy skills coaching (budgeting, bill payment, understanding tenancy agreements) into support plans early in sentences.

Dedicated housing expertise: Establish specialist local authority roles focused on supporting prison leavers at risk of homelessness. Co-locate staff in prisons at least one day weekly - they need specialised housing knowledge to bridge service gaps and streamline pathways.

Service Provision: Filling the Gaps

Clarify and strengthen guidance: Revise the Homelessness Code of Guidance to address ambiguities creating inconsistent support. Strengthen guidance on fair priority need assessments to reduce gatekeeping. Provide training for housing and probation teams to align practices.

Gender-specific provision: Establish more women-only supported housing with trauma-informed care, staffed by trained professionals. Locate near support networks (where safe) for accessing mental health and addiction services.

Support people on remand: Explore expanding CAS-3 and AfEO eligibility to include people on remand. Address challenges of maintaining housing and safeguarding belongings during remand periods despite no conviction.

System Coordination and Collaboration

Streamline benefits access: Explore dedicated welfare benefits leads to support timely access to entitlements for custody leavers. Pilot test whether the role works best within prisons, housing, probation, or Jobcentre Plus. Create a single point of contact to streamline benefit claims and reduce homelessness risk during critical post-release period.

Improve health and housing coordination: Establish consistent liaison teams with prison, probation, and local health representatives meeting regularly to review cases and streamline referrals. Investigate why RECONNECT service (designed for continuity of care) isn't being used as intended.

Integrate data systems: Create unified data system integrating prison, probation, and housing data with secure access controls. Develop clear Duty to Refer protocols specifying required information detail. Train staff on data sharing best practices and importance of timely, accurate information exchange.

Standardise property quality: Establish a cross-agency task force (housing authorities, probation, community organisations) to develop standardised property condition checklists. Conduct regular inspections and provide compliance training.

Cross-government housing coordination: Create an inter-agency housing coordination committee with representatives from relevant government departments. Meet monthly to review needs, share data, and develop integrated policies addressing multiple groups' housing requirements (reducing competition between Home Office and MHCLG for properties).

Evidence and Evaluation

Test cost-effective approaches: Undertake research to evaluate financial and logistical benefits of different approaches. Pilot in small areas to test feasibility and impact before scaling.

Improve data quality: Agree collective outcome definitions (homelessness, rough sleeping, settled accommodation) and share with organizations collecting monitoring data to reduce inconsistencies across programmes and local areas.

Enable long-term tracking: Explore feasibility of person-level data collection for Management Information and secondary datasets. Work with local areas and government departments to review data collection/sharing requirements, quality checks, and aggregation processes ensuring consistency with longitudinal datasets.

‍