Skip to content

Housing banner

Ex-Prisoners, SAAP, Housing and Homelessness in Australia

7. Policy and programs addressing reintegration and homelessness

Policy directions around the world

United Kingdom

A significant and highly visible increase in street homelessness during the late 1980s and early 1990s, apparently resulting from changes in welfare policy, led to a concentrated policy effort to address homelessness in the United Kingdom (Anderson 2001: 9). The principal policy response was establishment of the Rough Sleepers Initiative, primarily in central London and Scotland. Implementation of this initiative contributed strongly to the recognition that addressing homelessness involved the coordinated efforts of a diverse range of agencies.

Applied more specifically, there has evolved a recognition that in order to ameliorate re-offending and homelessness, prisoners' individual needs must be met in a timely, tailored and culturally appropriate fashion. For instance, the Scottish Executive Justice Department poses a model of offender accommodation in which individually tailored support and supervision is provided to offenders on the basis of assessed risk. Accommodation options for needy offenders range from hostel, to private rental accompanied by necessary supports. Just as accommodation support is tailored for individuals, so surveillance, supervision and non-accommodation supports are tailored and regularly reviewed, with the aim of promoting independent living to enhance community safety. Specific measures have been inbuilt to ensure adequate supports are given to prisoners with special and complex needs (see Scottish Executive Justice Department 2001).

[ top ]

The complexity of the issues confronting returning prisoners, coupled with the aim of reintegration and social inclusion rather than just reduced re-offending necessitate whole of government responding. In addition to the portfolios of custodial and community corrections and housing, collaborative policy approaches also draw in portfolios as diverse as health, education, workplace planning, social benefits administration, and police. Naturally the expertise and existing services of non-government agencies are also drawn into this joint working approach. Recommendations made to the UK government about correctional responses to homelessness (Rough Sleepers Unit 2000) include:

  1. assessment of housing status and related risk factors at prison reception;
  2. targeting prisoners at risk of homelessness;
  3. linking prisoners to employment programs;
  4. providing information and advice to prisoners in an appropriate form;
  5. working closely with, and referring prisoners to, specialist, voluntary, nongovernment service providers;
  6. working closely with local housing authorities to ensure appropriate policies and provide liaison with the private housing sector; and
  7. imprisoning people in their local area to ensure relationships are maintained.

[ top ]

While such approaches may be deemed 'correctional' and be driven by the corrections portfolio, it is clear that corrections must adopt a collaborative approach and work with other government and non-government agencies to achieve these outcomes.

Much of the policy thinking in the UK and Europe in recent years has been informed by social inclusion/exclusion theory. This approach suggests that structural and personal factors, generally associated with debt, lead to certain groups and individuals being separated from social interaction and the benefits available to others in society (Baldry et al. 2003d: 156). The factors typically regarded as contributing to social inclusion or exclusion are employment opportunities, geographical location, educational opportunities, mental illness and a safe and secure family context (ibid.).

The significance of the social exclusion approach becomes apparent when one considers that these emerge as the same factors that have been shown to characterise both the prison population and the homeless population. Indeed, the lack of affordable and secure housing is regarded as one of the primary factors contributing to social exclusion. Those in prison or detention, and those recently released from prison to be amongst the most socially excluded members of society and among the most unlikely to become integrated into communities (Jones, Finer & Nellis 1998).

Hence, Baldry et al. (2003d: 60) have noted that post-release policy in the UK and Europe has sought to address both systemic and individual matters, focussing on:

[ top ]

United States of America

In the USA, there has tended to be a focus on individual employment programmes as the answer to post-release problems, though this varies from one state to another (Baldry et al. 2003 c: 160; Finn 1998a; Finn 1999). These programs often involve components or training, education and related support as well as direct assistance with accessing employment and may involve pre-release support and assessment (Finn 1998b). This has been despite a review which indicated that levels of employment were no different amongst ex-prisoners who had participated in employment programs than in those who had not (Finn 1998c). If successful, employment programs can help to address disadvantage and social exclusion on various levels, particularly by giving ex-prisoners an income from which they can better pursue stable and secure accommodation and move away from poverty and welfare dependence. Employment can also bring improved self-esteem and develop social skills through giving the ex-prisoner a more positive and appropriate peer group.

In the USA, the Public Safety Ex-Offender Self-Sufficiency Act recently introduced to (but not yet, at the time of writing, passed by) the US Congress, acknowledges the critical role housing plays in recidivism, and aims to encourage offenders' ability to access housing. Specifically, tax credits will be used to encourage the development of supported transitional housing for those who have been convicted, by states, local areas, developers and other voluntary organisations. It also explicitly acknowledges that housing issues are only one aspect of successful reintegration, and job training and other supports are needed to assist the successful transition to community life (Davis 2003).

[ top ]

New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Department of Corrections has recognised the importance of adequately preparing inmates for release and reintegration to the community (New Zealand Department of Corrections 2002: 17). The Department has established self-care units for prisoners nearing release. In these units the inmates take responsibility for budgeting, food ordering and preparation, cleaning, laundry and co-operative decision making and the general responsibilities that come with daily living. The Department contends that this approach helps to bridge the gap between the prison environment and the community environment.

Perhaps most reassuring is the fact that current thinking about the means of positively impacting upon homelessness tallies well with good practice in the delivery of post-release services to prisoners. Table 2 describes the current trends in post-release and homelessness policies, illustrating areas of shared thinking.7


Table 2: Current international trends in post-release and homelessness policy approaches
POLICY APPROACH Preventing Homelessness Promoting Reintegration
SERVICE DELIVERY ETHOS
Partnerships
* interagency/intersectoral: whole-of-government response, ideally coordinated at highest levels & implemented organisation wide 3 3
* government & non-government: coordinating whole of government actions with the community /voluntary/private sector 3 3
Stakeholder input: into the policy development process 3 Partial
Dedicated funding: long-term funding to allow for long-term responses & to convert pilots into programs 3 3
Addressing the client/consumer holistically: considering & addressing multiple disadvantages & challenges 3 3
Flexibility of client options: a range of interventions appropriate to differing client needs, spanning a support-independence continuum 3 3
Client empowerment: encouraging clients to actively participate in service provision when able & valuing client input to policy development 3 Partial
Respecting clients' rights: with rights codified & guiding service provision 3 6
Developing client independence: encouraging clients to actively participate in community life to the best of their capabilities, using graduated supports 3 3
Developing client responsibility: encouraging clients to accept responsibility for their past actions & future conduct 6 3
Developing staff skills: to ensure that workers can meet specialist client needs 3 3
Prevention: actively intervening to identify & negate problems before they develop; stopping people from embarking on detrimental pathways 3 6
Early intervention: actively intervening to identify & negate problems that indicate a risk of following a negative pathway to its logical conclusion 3 3
IMPLEMENTATION Client assessment
formal & standardised: a system-wide instrument that allows uniform assessment of risk 6 3
informal: professional expertise guides assessment of risk 3 6
Client input to individual services: linked to client empowerment; specifically considering the needs, goals & desires of clients 3 3
Case planning & management: coordinating the delivery of disparate services from a single point & planning for movement through the system & exit from the system. May involve brokerage & referral if necessary. 3 3
Separating support from bureaucratic requirements: ensuring that one is not contingent on the other. In the case of homelessness, this is a separation of support & housing management; in post-release terms, it is the separation of support & surveillance/supervision functions. 3 Debated
Continuum of care/throughcare: following the client through the system, to ensure gaps are plugged and services are continuous 3 3
Tangible targets: setting quantifiable, outcome-based goals for implemented policy 3 3
Information management: implementing computerised system to facilitate client tracking through the system 3 3
Formal program evaluation: collating relevant data, & building the collation & evaluation process into program implementation 3 3
Exploring innovative funding options to supplement diminishing public dollars e.g. attracting private dollars to the sector 3 6
Targeting: services to those most at risk 3 3
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES
Promoting social inclusion 3 3
Educating the community: to reduce discrimination 3 6
Capacity building: helping communities develop the social & economic resources to prevent people pursuing detrimental pathways 3 3

[ top ]

Policy divergence

Despite substantial concordance between different policy approaches, there are also areas of policy divergence, which will need to be resolved when developing policies to address homelessness and housing for ex-prisoners. These relate to:

Client responsibility and client empowerment

Public acceptance of perceived benefits for prisoners is not readily forthcoming. Not surprisingly, some hold the opinion that prisoners have forfeited the right to actively participate in community life and reap the associated benefits. In applying a restorative ethos and encouraging offender responsibility for past misdeeds and future rehabilitation, the general public can witness an offender's commitment to reintegration (Lehman et al. 2002). Conversely, people who have experienced homelessness should be encouraged to harness their assets to exit their homeless state (Neil & Fopp 1994), but cannot be held responsible for the (possibly) societal factors that contributed to their housing situation. In a related fashion, the contributions clients can make to homelessness policy development, program implementation, and their own receipt of services are well recognised in client empowerment models of homelessness service delivery (e.g. McDonald 1994). Whilst prisoners are encouraged to contribute to their own reintegration and case planning, their input is typically not sought with respect to broader policy development or service implementation both for the reasons outlined above, and because of the practical security concerns of correctional authorities. Similarly, the development of post-release policy typically does not involve the same extensive level of consultation with all potential stakeholders as in the development of housing strategies. The roles and rights of the prisoner as client will need to be clearly defined.

[ top ]

Client assessment

Standardised instruments exist to assess prisoners' risk of re-offending. Correctional services in many jurisdictions around the world employ these system-wide. When coupled with case management and effective information management, assessment can permit all relevant partners in service provision to access and track clients' progress (confidentiality provisions notwithstanding), thus ensuring a continuum of care and a shared understanding of client needs. Every Australian jurisdiction has acknowledged the important role assessment plays in correctional practice, although jurisdictions vary in the degree with which they have actively implemented the assessment of all offenders using standardised tools and procedures.

Similar standardised and validated instruments have not yet been developed for system-wide use in the provision of homelessness services, but given the links between homelessness and post-release adjustment, it is critical that instruments employed in either sphere consider homelessness, other non-accommodation needs, and other factors linked to offending.

Separating functions

Those responsible for the delivery of homelessness services highlight the benefits associated with separating the administration and management of housing from

the provision of non-accommodation supports. Benefits include clients clearly understanding how they relate to various service providers, and removing the potential for clients' rights to be compromised (e.g. Neil & Fopp 1994). Consistent with consumer empowerment, it is critical that access to housing support is never contingent on accepting non-accommodation services (for example McDonald 1994). In contrast, the correctional official responsible for the administration (supervision) of ex-prisoners in the community is often the person best placed to also provide (often mandatory) supports for these individuals, as has been the case under more traditional models of parole. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of traditional models of parole supervision as there is little research that examines the relationship between parole supervision and deterrence or rehabilitation (Travis et al.: 21). It is known that simply increasing or intensifying levels of supervision or adopting stricter responses to breaching of conditions does not reduce offending (ibid.).

[ top ]

More recent conceptualisations of the roles of community correctional officers call for a combination of administration and support functions, with both these functions contributing to positive reintegrative change in the client8 (see Taxman 2002). When ex-prisoners are not under community supervision (such as when they have been unconditionally released), those delivering supports have no way in which to compel clients to accept reintegrative interventions. In stark contrast to current thinking regarding homelessness, some suggest that incentives should be given to ex-prisoners when they successfully address reintegrative challenges such as AOD misuse (see Taxman 2002). Incentives would clearly need to be appropriate for individuals, but presumably they could include benefits such as priority access to housing. It is imperative therefore that there is a clear understanding between all parties as to what role access to accommodation might play in any incentives scheme and how this fits with beliefs about separation of function.

Australian policy trends -- national

The Australian Government has recognised that homelessness can have profoundly negative effects upon individuals, families and communities. The causes and effects of homelessness are complex, therefore the Government has also recognised that an holistic and coordinated response across the whole of government is necessary to tackle this problem, especially if homelessness prevention is the long-term aim. In May 2000, the then Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman, called for community input into the development of a National Homelessness Strategy (NHS). The still-evolving NHS, built on stakeholder input, aims:

[ top ]

through strategies of prevention, early intevention, crisis and support, and working together in social coalition. There is a strong emphasis on the participation of Australian and State/Territory Government agencies and appropriate community groups in policy evolution, implementation and delivery. The important place of the recipients of relevant services is also emphasised, as are the diverse needs of those particularly vulnerable to homelessness.

The Australian Government is not directly responsible for the administration of custodial justice (this responsibility belongs to the states and territories) yet the NHS acknowledges the housing vulnerabilities of, and recommends appropriate responses to, those in contact with the justice system and in housing crisis. Specifically, the NHS goals for those in contact with the justice system are:

[ top ]

In order to achieve this, relevant authorities will need to make a priority actions that:

In addition to the partners and initiatives captured within the NHS, a key initiative is the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP). This Commonwealth-state/territory government scheme aims to achieve national outcomes such as the reduction of homelessness, the promotion of self-reliance and independence amongst those who have experienced homelessness, and partnerships with other service systems to meet client needs. Strategies include case management, seeking and using client feedback, and the development of flexible and responsive services. The Australian Government occupies a leadership role in the initiative, whereas the states and territories are tasked with developing strategies consistent with the national framework and working to realise these, whilst also providing data to assess performance (see Department of Family & Community Services 1999a; Department of Family & Community Services 1999b).

[ top ]

As noted earlier, 1,282 SAAP agencies operated across Australia in 2002/03 and total recurrent SAAP funding for that financial year was $310.4 million (AIHW 2003: xvii). Agencies provided 176,300 support periods to 97,600 clients during that financial year. SAAP is not a small-scale program.

SAAP agencies do not merely provide supported accommodation. An examination of services requested by SAAP clients in 2002/03 shows high levels of demand for assistance in areas such as:

The list of services provided under SAAP is in itself an indication of the complex nature of homeless and the diversity of factors that contribute to its reduction or escalation.

There is some criticism in the literature of the Commonwealth's strategic response. It has been argued that the Commonwealth has not taken the national leadership role that it should and that the NHS needs to more fully complement state and territory strategies (Wright-Howie 2003: 32). Wright-Howie argues that much of the NHS relies on research projects, reference to existing programs and pilot projects that will not necessarily make a lasting difference to levels of homelessness.

[ top ]

The role of short-term pilot programs in the NHS has also been criticised by Cresswell (2003: 7-8). While noting that the NHS has engendered awareness and led to strategic development, projects and evaluation at different levels of government and the community, Cresswell contends (pp 7-8) that the NHS must be more than just a collection of pilot programs. To achieve lasting outcomes, there needs to be a greater commitment of resources to those areas identified as causes of homelessness, such as through actions to reduce housing waiting lists, reduce poverty and unemployment, address family violence and child abuse, increase SAAP funding to meet unmet demand and increase access and specialist service options. To achieve this says Cresswell, the NHS would need to incorporate a long-term action plan supported by committed Commonwealth resources and close, supported partnerships between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The action plan would need to deliver well-resourced, targeted and evaluated initiatives that addressed the causes of homelessness, clearly linked to strategies in areas such as employment health and well-being.

The argument that the Commonwealth needs to provide greater leadership and funding is also brought out by the Community Housing Federation of Australia (2001), which sees community housing as having great potential to contribute to the development of affordable housing. The Federation argues that there needs to be a national housing system, rather than housing assistance, underpinned by a national housing strategy that addresses economic and policy barriers that are currently limiting expansion of the community housing sector (2001: 4 and 10). Adequately funded community housing, the Federation contends, can link with complex needs and provide appropriate supports, as has been demonstrated through the development of holistically responsive community housing programs in the United Kingdom (2001: 14-15).

Wood (2003: 6) sees the NHS somewhat differently, noting that the Strategy aims to build the knowledge base on homelessness through funding pilot programs that aim to develop innovative solutions to both prevent and respond to homelessness. The Strategy then feeds the knowledge into policy formulation and administration. The advantages of this kind of approach, Wood contends, are that it is dynamic and flexible. On the other hand, he says that the approach obscures visibility of its impact, particularly in terms of prevention. It is hard to demonstrate that responses that operate at one level, such as by targeting families, have a future impact at another level, such as reducing youth homelessness. Nonetheless, Wood is very supportive of the way the Strategy has raised the profile of homelessness and the level of response at the national, state and local government levels that it has generated.

[ top ]

Australian policy trends -- states and territories

Each Australian jurisdiction has either articulated, or is in the process of developing, its strategic approach to homelessness in response to the NHS and SAAP. Despite the varying stages of evolution, there is consistency in the means being adopted

to address homelessness. Table 3 on page 68 summarises the policy directions articulated by the jurisdictions with respect to addressing housing stress and homelessness. Policy directions are drawn from publicly available documents produced by differing government agencies, but given that all states and territories espouse a whole of government response to homelessness, it is reasonable to assume that policy actions are intended to be viewed in the context of the entire jurisdiction.

As can be noted from Table 3, all jurisdictions are embracing the notion of collaborative working partnerships between government agencies, or 'whole of government' responses, and there is a strong emphasis on partnerships with community agencies as well. Across the jurisdictions there is a major emphasis on developing responses that are flexible and meet clients' individual needs as well as recognising the need for a fully developed knowledge and data base.

It is essential that all jurisdictional strategies adequately consider the needs of subpopulations of people experiencing homelessness, such as ex-prisoners. As seen in Table 3, the majority of jurisdictions explicitly acknowledge that ex-prisoners are vulnerable to housing stress and homelessness, but this brief examination of published jurisdictional policy material suggests that Victoria and Western Australia are the only two states in which correctional and public housing authorities are working in direct collaboration to provide dedicated, specialist housing for offenders leaving custody.

[ top ]

Australian Capital Territory

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is in a unique position within Australia as it does not, at the time of writing, operate a correctional facility for sentenced prisoners. The ACT does operate remand, periodic detention and juvenile justice facilities. Offenders convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by ACT courts serve their sentences in New South Wales under cost recovery arrangements with that state. Despite not operating a sentenced facility, the ACT potentially faces issues with housing individuals released from remand custody, those who return to the ACT after serving sentences in NSW and a small number who may relocate or return to the ACT after being in custody in other states.

The ACT Government established an Affordable Housing Taskforce and a Homelessness Advisory Group in 2002 to oversee the development of a homelessness strategy (see Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services - DHCS - 2003; Wood 2003). Representatives from government departments and the community sector engaged in needs analysis, community consultation and established working groups to look at a range of specific issues, including those relating to corrective services and youth justice (ACT Homelessness Advisory Group 2003). The Government allocated $13.3 million in the 2003/04 Budget to respond to housing and homelessness issues.

[ top ]

The recently released ACT Homelessness Strategy (DHCS 2003: 4) identifies a number of groups needing specific focus, including people leaving custody or who are involved in the criminal justice system. The Strategy notes that people leaving custodial care often do not have a home or job to return to and are less likely than the rest of the community to have a financial reserve. People leaving custody are noted to be reliant on income support and face discrimination in the labour market, while unstable post-release accommodation is recognised as a major predictor, together with drug and alcohol misuse, of an offender's return to prison.

The Strategy is based on principles that include collaborative partnerships between the various government agencies and the community sector, on the basis of a compact established between the community sector and the ACT Government (DHCS 2003: 9). The Strategy recognises the benefits that can arise from a greater community awareness and understanding of homelessness and that this will begin to reduce barriers and discriminatory practices experienced by homeless people (DHCS 2003: 10).

The ACT Homelessness Strategy establishes a wide range of actions which seek to build on collaborative mechanisms and improved understanding to improve access to housing and outcomes for the homeless on many levels. It establishes 82 separate actions under 13 objectives. Many of these are broad in scope across the homeless population and impact on outcomes for ex-prisoners as members of the general population. More specific actions include identifying options to better support women and children escaping family violence, developing medium term accommodation and support for people leaving custody or involved with the criminal justice system, including developing intensive support options for those who need it.

ACT Corrective Services has begun to address accommodation issues that might arise if a prison were to be established in the ACT. The report of the ACT Prison Community Panel (2000), facilitated by ACT Corrective Services, noted that a community support network is essential if rehabilitation is to be successful, and noted post-release support, half-way houses and accommodation assistance as fundamental components of that support network. The panel also noted that special attention needed to be paid to the transition from the prison to the community, again noting the need for accommodation and other support (2000: 8 & 64).

[ top ]

New South Wales

In 1999 the New South Wales Government implemented the Partnership Against Homelessness (PAH) initiative, which brings together 10 government agencies in a collaborative effort to address homelessness. The initiative recognises ex-offenders within one of the eight priority areas identified under PAH (New South Wales Department of Housing (NSW DOH) 2003a). The PAH network includes the Department of Corrective Services as well as agencies such as the Department of Housing, the Department of Health and the Premier's Department (NSW DOH 2003b).

The PAH aims to improve services for the homeless by (NSW DOH 2003b):

Amongst the initiatives being pursued by PAH, of the most relevance to ex-prisoners, are (NSW DOH 2003a: 2):

[ top ]

The NSW Department of Corrective Services (NSW DCS) identifies the focus of their throughcare model as using an offenders' time in custody to prepare them for a successful return to the community and recognises housing as a fundamental aspect of this return (NSW Department of Corrective Services - NSW DCS - 2002: 6). As well as its involvement with PAH, the Department provides funding to a number of community-based non-profit organisations who support ex-prisoners, including Glebe House and Guthries Housing which provide supported crisis accommodation for recently released males and females respectively (NSW DCS: 34).

NSW DCS also convened the Inner City Homelessness Service Planning Forum, as part of the PAH initiative, in 2001 (Inner City Homeless Planning Forum 2001). Among the needs in homelessness service provision identified in this forum were:

The establishment of the PAH is a significant step in establishing a collaborative 'whole of government' approach to homelessness and, from the point of view of homelessness among ex-prisoners, it is particularly encouraging to see the NSW DCS as a key partner in the initiative. The work of the PAH also needs to be seen in context with the support provided by a range of non-government organisations providing support, either specifically to ex-prisoners or to the homeless generally (Meehan 2002: 11-12) as well as the assistance provided by the Commonwealth through SAAP and various government agencies.

Despite the PAH initiative, Meehan contends that there remain some critical gaps in the NSW approach to homelessness. He argues that while there are efforts to put in place specific service provisions, these are not supported by a comprehensive policy framework and there is not a wide variety of options and targeted programs for specific subpopulations. Meehan also argues that, while the PAH brings together all the relevant government agencies, there is a lack of coordination between government and non-government organisations. In relation to the problems faced by ex-prisoners, Meehan also points to a lack of pre-release information on housing options and a lack of programs designed to keep homeless people out of prison. Meehan calls for a greater recognition of the high-level needs of prisoners, the introduction of housing options information into prisons and the development of more prisoner-specific supports.

It remains to be seen at this stage whether the PAH embraces Meehan's contentions, though its establishment certainly provides greater scope to address these problems than was previously the case.

[ top ]

Northern Territory

The Northern Territory experiences unique homelessness and accommodation issues due to its geographic location, the sparseness of its population centres, its relatively large Aboriginal population and the existence of remote Aboriginal communities (Rechner 2003: 22). A large itinerant Aboriginal population has led to policy responses which recognise the ways in which concepts of home and homelessness are culturally different than those of the non-Aboriginal population. The Territory also has a very high imprisonment rate, which includes a significant over-representation of Aboriginal inmates.

The Northern Territory's overarching policy on homelessness and housing is 'Home Territory' operated by Territory Housing. It aims to improve accessibility and suitability of accommodation for those with special needs, including those with disabilities or serious medical conditions, youth, the Aboriginal population, seniors, victims of family violence and those who are itinerant or homeless (Territory Housing 2002). The policy does not specifically address accommodation issues for ex-prisoners.

Northern Territory Correctional Services recognises accommodation as one of the issues on which Community Corrections clients may require specialist support (Northern Territory Correctional Services 2001: 47). Community Corrections works on establishing relationships with community service providers and notes that it facilitates referrals in the community as well as in the prison environment (ibid.). It is interesting to note though that the Department's Annual Report does not make specific mention of accommodation issues for those not serving a Community Corrections order, nor does the Department mention these issues in its Strategic Plan (NT Department of Justice 2002).

[ top ]

Queensland

The Queensland Department of Housing's (QLD DOH) policy strategy is based on a highly outcomes focused direction which seeks to create sustainable communities, provide successful housing outcomes through client delivery which is integrated, flexible and easy to access (QLD DOH 2000). The strategy recognises the need for partnerships, including with the Department of Corrective Services(QLD DCS) and recognises people leaving correctional institutions as a particularly vulnerable

sub-population with complex needs. The strategy also reflects approaches to the management of public housing stock in an environment that creates significant challenges for the financial management and availability of housing.

Queensland has also developed an action plan to target homelessness which, for 2003/04, focuses on Indigenous housing and public space issues. The plan includes development of a memorandum of understanding between Queensland state and Commonwealth departments to assist offenders clear housing debts prior to release. This is welcome, given that these debts have been identified earlier in this paper as a significant barrier to some individuals establishing long-term housing.

QLD DCS recognises the need to assist prisoners in their preparation for reintegration into the community and the Department's Annual Report notes that Queensland correctional centres have well-established practices to achieve this (QLD DCS 2002: 33). The Department participated in the Senior Officers Group on Homelessness which was formed to coordinate actions arising from the Queensland Government's Homelessness Strategy (QLD DCS: 34). The Department acknowledges that rehabilitation cannot be achieved in isolation from other government and nongovernment agencies (QLD DCS 2003: 6).

Against this background, Hill (2003) has argued that Queensland lacks a workable framework for addressing homelessness because the Commonwealth and State authorities do not address the key structural issues, such as health, education and income. Hill contends that local governments and non-government agencies have to try and address the effects of these structural problems, despite them being beyond the scope of these bodies to deal with. Hill has further argued that Queensland policy has been developed without proper consultation, including with homeless people and that structural changes have resulted in there being far more pathways into homelessness than out of it.

[ top ]

South Australia

Reducing homelessness is priority for the South Australian Government's Social Inclusion Initiative, established to deal with a range of major social issues (Social Inclusion Board 2003: v). The Social Inclusion Board directs the Initiative. The four key elements of the Initiative's framework on homelessness are:

The Social Inclusion Board has recommended, amongst a total of 37 recommendations, that:

... the Department for Correctional Services lead the development of a cross-government strategy, in collaboration with the Department of Human Services and the non-government sector, to address the accommodation and support needs of people at immediate risk of homelessness exiting correctional facilities (Social Inclusion Board: xiii)

and that

... the Department for Correctional Services lead the development of a cross-government strategy, in collaboration with the Department of Human Services and the non-government sector, to address the accommodation and support needs of homeless people, and people at immediate risk of homelessness, exiting remand (ibid.: xvi).

[ top ]

This latter recommendation recognises that those people frequently held by the police in the City Watch House are an extremely vulnerable group, marked by transience, complex needs, challenging behaviours, lack of support and often held for breaches of the peace while heavily intoxicated (ibid.: xvii).

Implementation of programs to improve transition from correctional facilities and remand to the community, and improve housing outcomes for ex-prisoners and offenders, has been established as one of the first actions to come from the Initiative (Social Inclusion Unit 2003: 14-15). The Social Inclusion Board, in formulating its recommendations noted the range of barriers ex-prisoners face trying to secure appropriate accommodation (ibid.: 45), including:

The Social Inclusion Board has noted (2003: 46) that prisoners serving less than six months, who constituted 87 per cent of discharges in 2002, especially those without a non-parole period, are not particularly well served by the assessment and sentence planning process and do not receive case management services. The Board's recommendations were made against a background which includes a Department for Correctional Services estimate that about 10 per cent of clients in community-based corrections were without safe, secure and stable housing (ibid.: 47-48). This number rose to 23 per cent for female prisoners. The Board also recognises the particular challenges and vulnerabilities faced by Aboriginal prisoners and female prisoners, including problems around reconciliation with children.

[ top ]

Tasmania

The overarching homelessness policy in Tasmania is the 'Affordable Housing Strategy' which is aimed at low income earners and others with special needs

(Housing Tasmania 2003). Affordable housing is a strategic priority area, recogising that housing provides a vital foundation to link people with employment, education, health and other services and a basis for facilitating participation in the wider community. The Strategy recognises the need for a collaborative approach across the government and community (Housing Tasmania). The Strategy also involves a major reform of SAAP (Murray 2003), including:

Consultation leading to development of the Strategy involved a range of government and non-government agencies and interest and advocacy groups (Robyn Kennedy & Coy 2003). It is notable though that there was no stakeholder consultation with agencies or bodies representing the interests of ex-prisoners, nor does the Strategy specifically mention ex-prisoners as a high-risk or high-needs group. This may or may not be related to the fact that the Strategy focuses on and discusses 'affordable housing' without specifically examining homelessness.

Justice Tasmania, the Department responsible for corrections in that State, does not make reference to homelessness, ex-prisoner accommodation issues or preparation for return to the community in its Annual Report (Department of Justice and Industrial Relations 2003) or on its website (http://www.justice.tas.gov.au).

[ top ]

Victoria

Policy concerning the post-release housing needs of ex-prisoners is most fully articulated and advanced in terms of implementation in Victoria. The interagency Transitional Housing Management -- Corrections Housing Pathways Initiative (THMCHPI) commenced in December 2001 and its final evaluation report is due in June 2004. The THM-CHPI is the product of two Victorian Government initiatives, namely the Victorian Homelessness Strategy and the Corrections Long Term Management Strategy (Aktepe & Lake 2003: 3). These Strategies recognised ex-prisoners as a highly vulnerable group and that efforts needed to be undertaken to reduce reoffending and rising prison numbers.

The Victorian Homelessness Strategy Ministerial Advisory Committee (2001) recognised that prisoners faced certain critical problems in relation to homelessness:

[ top ]

The Victorian Homelessness Strategy Focus Group on Homelessness and Pre- and Post-Release Services for Prisoners (Victorian Department of Human Services 2001a) recognised that to be effective, post-release services had to have the following key principles:

The focus group also noted that appropriate exit plans needed to provide an assessment that took into account major risk factors for homelessness, such as homelessness or poor housing history before imprisonment, having lost housing during imprisonment, having serious alcohol or other drug issues and having a lack of community support (Department of Human Services 2001b). The group also considered that it was most cost-effective for those serving short sentences to retain their housing during the sentence and that a prisoner's place on the public housing waiting list should be frozen during their term of imprisonment.

[ top ]

Arising from this, the THM-CHPI aims to:

The Initiative has been introduced in three Victorian prisons, one a women's prison, one a large metropolitan prison and the other a regional prison (Aktepe & Lake: 4). The Initiative aims to address one of the critical problems for prisoners by ensuring existing accommodation is not lost during incarceration (if relevant) or by facilitating placement in appropriate accommodation upon release, that is, either specialist housing stock, or through timely negotiation with relevant agencies (Aktepe 2003; Aktepe & Lake 2003).

[ top ]

The Office of Housing allocated 61 transitional housing properties to the Initiative, within the Transitional Housing Management (THM) Program. Housing Placement Workers have been established in each of the pilot prisons and provide information, assessments, referrals and placements. If an individual prisoner meets the criteria for the THM-CHPI, demonstrates capacity to live independently and agrees to the terms of the Initiative they are matched to an accommodation and support package. If a property is available, the prisoner is referred to an Initiative Support Provider who assists with the prisoner's resettlement into the community through support and assistance with addressing the issues that contributed to the prisoner's accommodation problems.

While the success of the Initiative cannot be judged until the in-built evaluation process is completed, early indications have been very positive, with a number of clients moving into long-term housing, a high rate of successful bail applications and reduced periods of incarceration for those who have re-offended (Aktepe and Lake: 7). Implementation of the Initiative has also highlighted the complexities of competing work cultural interests between the various stakeholders. A specific problem has been tension arising from balancing the need to access clients in prison well before their release date, and the difficulty of keeping one of the limited stock of accommodation beds available during this period (Aktepe & Lake: 6). The Initiative has also highlighted the numbers of people leaving prison with complex mental health issues and/or a significant intellectual disability who are not prepared to live independently at the point of their release (ibid.: 7).

In addition to its involvement in THM-CHPI, the Victorian Department of Justice operates 'Bridging the Gap', a $3.5 million pilot program offering intensive transitional support to high risk/high needs offenders through access to drug and alcohol treatment, health and legal assistance, training and employment and support with accommodation and family issues (Victorian Department of Justice 2002). The Department has also invested in the development of pre-release programs and information booklets (see Victorian Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders (VACRO) 2003).

[ top ]

Western Australia

Western Australia established a State Homelessness Taskforce in 2001 to develop ways government agencies could work together to address homelessness (Ellery 2003: 23). The Western Australian Government's response to the Taskforce's report acknowledged interruptions to stability through imprisonment, long-term care or institutional living as a major cause of vulnerability to homelessness (Government of Western Australia 2002). In this response, the Government allocated $1.36 million over four years to support those exiting the justice system.


Table 3: Housing policy directions articulated by Australian states and territories
POLICY APPROACH (a)                                                
Housing or correctional policy explicitly recognises ex-prisoners as vulnerable to homelessness (b) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
SERVICE DELIVERY ETHOS
Partnerships
  • interagency/intersectoral
 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
  • government & non-government
 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Stakeholder input × √ × √ √ √ √ √
Dedicated funding for ex-prisoner initiatives √ × × × × × √ √
Addressing the client/consumer holistically √ × √ √ √ √ √ √
Flexibility of client option √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Client empowerment √ × × × × × × √
Clients' rights √ × × × × √ √ √
Developing client independence √ × × × × × × √
Developing client responsibility × × × × × × × ×
Developing staff skills √ × × × √ √ √ √
Prevention √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Early intervention √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
IMPLEMENTATION
Client assessment
  • formal & standardised
 × √ × × × √ × ×
  • informal
 √ √ √ × × × × ×
Client input to individual services × √ √ × × × × ×
Case planning & management √ √ √ √ √ √ × √
Separating support from bureaucratic requirements × × × × × × × ×
Continuum of care/throughcare for prisoners × √ × √ √ × × ×
Tangible targets × √ √ √ √ × × √
Information management √ √ √ × √ × × ×
Formal program evaluation √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Exploring innovative funding options √ × √ √ √ √ √ ×
Targeting clients at risk √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES
Promoting social inclusion × × √ √ √ √ × ×
Educating the community × √ √ √ √ √ × ×
Community capacity building × × √ √ √ × √ ×

(a) Appendix B contains a listing of the public domain documents consulted in order to gain insight into policies articulated by the relevant authorities in states and territories. Importantly, this information is not based on an exhaustive search of all possible information sources: rather it is intended to provide a broad indication of recent and developing policy, and anticipated or actual practice.

(b) Unless otherwise stated, the policy relates to people experiencing homelessness in general, not ex-prisoners in particular.

[ top ]

The Western Australian Attorney-General, Jim McGinty (McGinty 2002), reporting on a visit to various European countries, noted that re-offending is not simply a justice department problem, but is a problem requiring management across the whole of government. He acknowledged a lack of suitable housing as one of the causes of re-offending and discussed the need to establish partnerships between the Departments of Justice, Health, Housing and Education and Training, in addition to other government and non-government agencies to work towards a common goal of reducing re-offending.

Subsequently, Western Australia has implemented a coordinated and collaborative approach to prisoner reintegration through establishment of the Community Re-Entry Program for Prisoners (WA Department of Justice 2003). The Department of Justice has allocated $2.4 million to establish a 'Re-entry Coordination Service' in each prison throughout the state. Non-government organisations have been contracted to deliver services to provide support for prisoners through links to accommodation, training, employment and drug treatment. The initiative also includes funding for intensive mentoring and support services for very high needs prisoners as well as the allocation of additional public housing for people leaving prison.

[ top ]

Some suggestions for best practice in dealing with ex-prisoner homelessness

Drawing on policy directions and developments around the world, it is possible to make a few suggestions regarding principal features of best practice in the areas of post-release homelessness.

Collaborative approaches

Within the area of welfare provision, there has emerged in recent years a strong emphasis on collaborative working between various government departments and non-government practitioners and agencies. This trend, seen in both Australia and the United Kingdom, aims to achieve a more effective delivery of welfare services and responses, and recognises the need to address the full range of welfare issues within the community. In the UK this collaborative approach has generally been referred to as 'joined up thinking', while in Australia the notion of 'whole of government' working has been dominant (Anderson 2001: 16-17).

In both Australia and the UK the trend towards collaborative working has seen the development of more comprehensive strategies to address homelessness. In Australia this has included the development of homelessness strategies at both the national and State level. In the UK, several major reviews have been undertaken and efforts continue to be made to develop and refine strategic directions using joined up approaches (Anderson: 17).

While the emphasis on collaborative and holistic approaches appears to be a positive direction, there is a lack of empirical evidence to show whether or not it is actually effective in improving the situation of homeless people (Anderson: 18). It is important however, to recognise that collaborative working can provide a means of more effectively coordinating resources and more effectively operating the mechanics of policy development (ibid.). A collaborative approach does not in itself determine what resources will be applied to addressing homelessness, nor does it determine what the policy directions will be. It can provide a means of getting towards the root causes of the social disadvantages that contribute to homelessness. Actually addressing these root causes though, requires each agency or body involved to not only work collaboratively but to work effectively within their area of responsibility. For agencies to work effectively, they must have policies that are well-designed and directed, and adequate and appropriate resources to successfully implement them.

[ top ]

Applying collaborative thinking to the issue of homelessness among ex-prisoners, it is notable that many service providers, particularly government agencies, have not recognised ex-prisoners as a 'special needs' client group. Government agencies, such as those responsible for housing and health, may provide services to ex-prisoners alongside other clients without recognising the particular needs that ex-prisoners bring. It has therefore generally fallen to the corrections agency to endeavour to provide offender-specific services (Ogilvie 2001b: 16). One of the difficulties with this approach is that the corrections agency, in particular its community corrections arm, has had to rely on interactions with other agencies and balance the sometimes competing interests of incapacitation, punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence and denunciation (ibid.).

Providing effective services to ex-prisoners needs to recognise the central roles played by a variety of Government agencies, particularly those with responsibilities for housing, health, education, employment and training (ibid.). This needs to coincide with a recognition of the specific needs of ex-prisoners and a recognition of the whole-of-community benefits to be gained from minimising re-offending and behaviours such as drug and alcohol abuse. Assisting ex-prisoners to successfully return to the community requires these agencies to work together with the corrections agency to establish integrated and sensitive responses to the accommodation and other needs of ex-prisoners. As Ogilvie (2001b: 17) notes, the challenge in doing this is to overcome the notion that ex-prisoners do not deserve the extra attention and services they may need to avoid multiplying or perpetuating the punishment that incarceration provides.

In working towards a recognition of the specific needs of ex-prisoners, it is important that agencies allow the views of ex-prisoners, as well as non ex-prisoners who have experienced homelessness, to inform their policy development. Consultative processes should involve representatives of bodies representing or providing services to ex-prisoners and the homeless. Government departments should draw on the existing research to inform their policy development processes and may even become involved in conducting or commissioning original research. As Anderson (2001: 18) has noted, policy development on homelessness tends to be largely 'top down' with the agenda being set by central government and then filtering down to operational agencies. This is not to say this approach is negative, as it allows governments to play a strong leadership and coordination role and links policy closely with resources. At the same time however, it does not necessarily allow for the empowerment of homeless people in the policy development process and 'there remains considerable scope for the voices of homeless Australians to be heard as part of the 'whole of Government' approach to addressing their needs' (Anderson 2001: 18).

[ top ]

Establishing prisoner-sensitive interactions

A number of writers have commented on the need to be particularly aware of the needs of serving prisoners and ex-prisoners in providing them with support and assistance (for example see Davis 2001: 15). This client group tends to have a distrust of Government agencies and other authority figures and may be very cynical about the ability or genuine willingness of others to help them in meaningful ways. As noted earlier, those who have served time in custody may be overly wary or confrontational, have problems engaging in socially acceptable ways and may have deficits in many basic living skills. Prisoners and ex-prisoners may have experienced traumas and disadvantages beyond most others in the community. They may be less able to cope with stress and may be easily discouraged by problems or set-backs.

Those in government or community agencies who interact with serving prisoners or ex-prisoners may need specific training or education if they are to understand the particular needs of this client group and deal with them in ways that avoid conflict and provide effective and appropriate support. Service providers must be able to establish a rapport based on this understanding and be accepted by the client as credible and sincere. While workers in the welfare or community sectors must always be careful to ensure they do not offer services or assistance they cannot ultimately deliver, this is particularly important when dealing with ex-prisoners who may feel they have been let down many times before.

[ top ]

Pre- and post-release programs

There is a clear need for programs to be available to serving prisoners which will help them acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully re-enter the community. However most prisoners do not participate in programs and the level of participation appears to be dropping (Travis, Solomon & Waul 2001). In New South Wales, the number of hours of education provided to prisoners has markedly reduced in the last decade (Baldry et al. 2003c: 6).

Research that has included interviews with prisoners and ex-prisoners suggests that the process of reception, induction and classification does not prepare prisoners for the realities of prison life, or assist them in preparing for their release (Rough Sleepers Unit 2001). The research also suggests most prisoners are not adequately prepared for release and many leave prison without any real idea about where they are going or what they are doing (for example see Rough Sleepers Unit 2001).

Given that, as noted earlier, almost all prisoners received into the correctional system will be released from it at some stage, a throughcare approach suggests that the process of identifying and putting mechanisms in place to address a prisoner's post-release needs should begin as early as possible in the period of incarceration. Certainly the indeterminate nature of remand custody and sentences that include a parole period does not make this process any easier but it is important that attempts be made to ensure all prisoners -- whether remanded or sentenced -- are adequately prepared for their release. For many prisoners adequate preparation can mean, quite simply, the difference between a successful return to the community or a return to offending and possibly imprisonment.

[ top ]

Collaborative approaches to service provision for prisoners need to be supported by a throughcare philosophy. Individualised interventions that address the full range of an offender's needs should commence as early as possible. This may require intervention through agencies such as those responsible for education, housing, health and social security when a person first comes into contact with the criminal justice system. The intervention of other non-justice agencies should be individually adapted and continued throughout and following correctional contact, to ensure the offender does not emerge from imprisonment with the same unmet needs that were linked to their original offending behaviour.

Corrective Services departments in Australia typically fund or contribute to funding only a small amount of post-release support. Baldry et al. (2003c: 3) note that in New South Wales, for example, only 0.3 per cent of the correctional budget is directed to community based post-release programs. A number of government agencies provide services to ex-prisoners in the areas of housing, health, family and community services and social security but, generally, these agencies do not have policies or programs specifically targeted to those recently released from prison (ibid.).

The importance of programs, whether provided by Corrective Services or community agencies, is shown by the finding that ex-prisoners who attend post-release programs are significantly more likely to remain out of prison than those who do not undertake such programs (Baldry et al. 2003c: 17).

[ top ]

Elements of effective program models

Winther (2003: 17-8) has suggested factors that should be considered in developing a program model to address the needs of individuals recently released from custody, while integrating with pre-existing supported accommodation programs. Winther developed these factors specifically for young people aged 17 to 21 who have a history of institutional care and severe conduct and behavioural problems associated with dual diagnosis issues. These factors could also be applied, with little modification, to program models targeting adult single men, adult single women and families.

Table 4: Suggested factors for post-release assistance model

Factors to Consider in Developing an Appropriate Model

[ top ]

Accessing serving prisoners

Taking into account the difficulties ex-prisoners face if they leave prison without appropriate accommodation or support arranged, service providers are now increasingly trying to provide 'in-reach' services to assist and support prisoners while they are still serving their sentences. Outcomes for releasing prisoners can be considerably enhanced if support services are able to provide information and assessment to prisoners approaching release. This allows the support service and the prisoner to establish a working relationship and to build trust while helping to ensure the prisoner's individual needs are understood and efforts made to meet them. In-reach work also allows the individual to leave prison knowing they have support and, where possible, accommodation arranged which allows them to immediately commence making positive steps towards reintegration.

One approach that has proven successful is the 'expo' organised by the Women's Accommodation Support Service (WASS), Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services of South Australia (OARS SA) in Adelaide Women's Prison (Dutreix 2003: 12). This involved 15 different agencies representing the areas of health, legal, financial, children, accommodation, domestic violence and drugs and alcohol. It gave the women prisoners an opportunity to gain information and talk to workers on an informal and non-confrontational basis that suited the individual women's needs. It also gave the prisoners contacts they could pursue as they approached release and after release. The reported success of this initiative could provide a good model for bringing external agencies into contact with serving prisoners and leading to better post-release outcomes for accommodation and other needs.

Policy suggestions from research

Baldry et al's (2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d) recent research into housing and recidivism outcomes for released prisoners provides a comprehensive insight into the difficulties faced by released prisoners and the factors that influence the likelihood of them returning to prison. The research has led the authors to propose a number of policy and practice initiatives to address the factors they identified. Their proposals are set out below.

[ top ]

Table 5: Policy suggestions from recent Australian research

[ top ]

Beyond government intervention

Of course numerous non-government service providers around the nation ensure that ex-prisoners are not left without supports (for example CRC in NSW see Irvine 2002; OARS SA see Dutreix 2003). These can operate in close conjunction with relevant correctional and housing authorities, but many provide services independent of government funding or policy. Detailing these is beyond the scope of the current short review, but it is critical that governments assess the extent of non-government and other community service operations (for example Community Housing, see Community Housing Federation of Australia 2001) to ensure that scarce post-release dollars are utilised to their best efficiency. This will need to be part of a broader whole of government attempt to assess and improve welfare service delivery at both the state/territory and Australian Government level. This approach would be contingent on ensuring consistent and relevant data collection9 across all agencies, regardless of whether they are involved in SAAP.

Practitioners working with Australians who find themselves homeless have remarked that leadership at a national level is critical to this process, because decisions that influence the macro-economic and social welfare environment are taken at this level, and coordinated responses across jurisdictions must be developed at a national level (Creswell 2003; Wright-Howie 2003).

[ top ]

While it is clear that having people in a situation of stable and secure housing -- whether this be public housing, private housing with government assistance, or independent private housing -- is preferable to having people in situations of homelessness, it would be wrong to conclude that simply providing housing will address the many social disadvantages that homeless people face. While it would be comforting to think that assisting a homeless person into housing will lift them from a state of social exclusion and remove problems such as poverty, restricted employment opportunities, poor health and exposure to crime, this is simply not the case.

As noted above, Mullins and Western (2001) have shown that public housing and government financial assistance are not enough to address severe levels of social disadvantage. These researchers did not compare the tenure groups to those without homes and their findings do not contradict the notion that those in public housing are better off than those with no housing. What the findings do suggest though is that providing homeless people with public housing, or assistance to remain in private housing, is not enough. As suggested above, addressing the problems faced by the homeless will necessarily involve a multi-agency approach that addresses -- both independently and collaboratively -- each of the areas of disadvantage. Giving a homeless person a place to live is an excellent start and provides a solid grounding for beginning to address the other problems. Failing to help the person find a job, move out of debt and poverty, become less socially isolated, deal with alcohol and other drug problems and address any offending behaviours will likely leave that person caught up again in a cycle that sees them lose their housing and stability and possibly end up back on the streets or in prison. It is self-evident that the homeless need homes, but they need far more than just a roof over their head.

  1. For detailed information, see Baldry & Maplestone 2002; Murphy Healey 1999; National Audit Office 2002; Rough Sleepers Unit 2001; Social Exclusion Unit 2002; Talbot & Scott 1996; US General Accounting Offi ce 2001
  2. There has, however, been debate as to whether this can lead to role confusion for both the client and the correctional worker.
  3. Such as obtaining realistic estimates of the numbers of ex-prisoner clients utilising specialist and nonspecialist accommodation and non-housing services, through the collation of detailed information concerning immediate and recent incarceration and accommodation history.

[ top ]