• Acknowledgments
• Executive summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The extent of the problem
• 3. An overview of homelessness
• 4. Prisoner re-integration, recidivism and homelessness
• 5. Homelessness and offending
• 6. The benefits of intervening to promote reintegration and prevent homelessness
• 7. Policy and programs addressing reintegration and homelessness
• Research with staff and ex-prisoner clients
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendices

Ex-Prisoners, SAAP, Housing and Homelessness in Australia

• Previous: Results of interviews with staff of SAAP funded agencies
• Next: Appendix C

Results of interviews with ex-prisoner clients

• Characteristics of the sample population
• Demographics of the client population
• Prison and release from prison
• Finding accommodation
• Use of SAAP services
• Children and family

Characteristics of the sample population

It is important to acknowledge that the sample of ex-prisoner clients interviewed for this research is not representative of the whole ex-prisoner population. It was not envisaged that the methodology would produce a random sample. The sample of persons interviewed is selective on a number of dimensions. The sample was significantly narrowed to only those people who are clients of the six service provider agencies who were directly involved in the research. Therefore the sample necessarily excludes all those ex-prisoners who are exclusively clients of other service providers. Most significantly, and the importance of this qualification will be borne out in various ways in the research findings, the sample necessarily excludes all those ex-prisoners who do not utilise accommodation-related service providers.

Within this reduced population, the sample was further reduced to those clients who were willing to take part in the research and were, other than the two clients interviewed by telephone, available for interview at the time the interviewer was in the jurisdiction. In some cases clients who had originally indicated to agency staff they were willing to participate subsequently changed their minds. In one case, a number of appointments were made with a client whose rapidly changing personal circumstances during the time of the interviewer's visit led to him moving into a crisis situation and therefore becoming unavailable for interview.

As noted earlier, the involvement of agency staff in identifying potential interview subjects and facilitating contact with the interviewers was of invaluable assistance to the project. At the same time this also served to narrow the sample group to those who were, in most instances, specifically identified by staff as potentially willing and reasonably able to be interviewed. It was also apparent that in many cases staff members were identifying those clients the staff felt would be able to provide interesting input to the research and staff were consciously referring a selected cross-section of clients. This approach certainly contributed to the depth of information gained, though perhaps at the expense of a somewhat more random distribution of clients.

[ top ]

Demographics of the client population

Age and gender

Forty-one clients were interviewed in this research. Clients ranged in age from 19 years to 65 years. The average age of the clients was just over 35 years, with a median age of 35. This is not inconsistent with the average age of the overall prison population, which in 2002 was 33.4 years (ABS Prisoners in Australia 2003).

Thirty-two of the clients interviewed (approximately 78%) were male and nine clients were female (approximately 22%). The proportion of females in this study was much higher than are imprisoned nationally. The prison census taken on 30 June 2003 showed that 93.4 per cent of serving prisoners were male and 6.6 per cent were female (ABS Prisoners in Australia 2003).

Income

All clients interviewed reported their main source of income as social security payments. A small number of clients had recently commenced working on a casual or part-time basis, but their income from employment was still secondary to their income from social security payments at the time of interview.

Education

Most clients interviewed (n=34; approximately 83%) had received some high school education outside the prison system but had not completed high school. Most indicated they had left high school after Year 8 or Year 9. Two clients had received only primary school education, while one had completed high school without undertaking any further study. Three clients had attained some kind of trade or technical qualification while one had undertaken higher tertiary study.

The majority of clients (n=33 or approximately 80%) had not undertaken any study or received any other qualifications within the prison system. While most indicated in response to a later question that they had undertaken various programs in prison, including behavioural management programs, literacy, numeracy and some vocational programs only eight indicated they had completed any formal study. Of these, six clients said they had gained a trade or technical qualification though it was not always clear whether this was actually to the level of a formal qualification. One client who had not previously completed high school study said he did so in prison, while the client who had gained a higher tertiary qualification undertook some of this study in prison.

[ top ]

Health

During the interview clients were asked how they would rate their current state of physical health on a five point Likert scale that ranged from 'very poor' through to 'very good'. Clients were then asked how they would compare their physical health at the time of interview to their state of health at the time they were leaving prison (on the last occasion, in the case of those imprisoned more than once) using another five point Likert scale ranging from 'much worse' through 'same' to 'much better'. Where clients stated their health was 'much worse', 'worse', 'better' or 'much better' they were asked why they thought this was the case and what they thought had changed.

Very few clients indicated concerns with their current state of health with only two (approximately 5%) saying they were currently in very poor health and two others saying their health was poor. Twelve clients (approximately 29%) said their health was fair. Eighteen clients (approximately 44%) felt in good health, with seven (approximately 17%) reporting themselves in very good health. Overall, the average score on the Likert scale was 3.6, falling mid-way between fair and good, while the median score was 4, indicating a good state of health.

The greatest number of clients reported their health was the same at the time of interview as it was when they last left prison with 15 clients (approximately 37%) giving this response. Three clients (approximately 7%) felt their health was much worse since they left prison while 14 (approximately 34%) felt it was worse. Seven clients (approximately 17%) felt their health was better at the time of interview than when they left prison while two (approximately) five per cent saying it was much better. The average response on the Likert scale was 2.78, indicating health that was slightly worse while the median and modal response was 3, indicating it was the same.

Clients reporting that their health was much worse or worse since leaving prison cited a range of reasons for this. Five clients attributed their decreased health status to not eating as regularly or other aspects of an unstable lifestyle such as paying less to attention to health and hygiene. Four clients said they had recommenced drug use since they left prison. Three said they were fitter in prison because of time they had spent in the gym and using weight equipment. Others cited having children since leaving prison, stress arising from the insecurity of not having prison 'networks' and a condition arising from past employment as reasons for their declining health. One client gave a contradictory response indicating that his health had declined because prison impacted negatively on peoples' health.

[ top ]

Several of the clients whose health had improved cited related but opposite reasons to those whose health had declined. Two clients said they had begun getting their drug use under control since leaving prison, another said he was getting more exercise as he now walked everywhere he had to go. One client was now in better shape because he had been overweight in prison and was now eating less, while another felt that, due to his support agency, he was now free of the stress of being locked up and worrying about his safety. Another said he had felt depressed and lazy while in prison. Another client had been ill at the time he was admitted to prison and had been getting better since his release, while another had stabilised the medication for his mental health problems since leaving prison. The final client said that he was now more aware of the community and so was keeping out of trouble.

Interpreting responses to the perceived health status questions is problematic for a range of reasons. As noted, the most common response was for clients to suggest their health had not changed at all. Where it had, some responses were contradictory with two clients indicating their health was now very good, but nonetheless worse than when they left prison. A number of clients cited psychological or mental health reasons for their change in health status, despite the question being about physical health and this being emphasised by the interviewers. Finally any interpretations may be confounded by age variations between the clients and the fact that some clients had been out of prison for many years at the time of interview. Both of these factors could have led to normal changes in health status over time or inaccurate recollections influencing the clients' answers.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that of the clients reporting declines in their health, a slight majority (n=9 or approximately 53%) were from agencies not providing intensive and individually case-managed support and less likely than others in the study to be in stable accommodation. This is despite only 41 per cent

of clients overall having come from this group. Of the nine clients attributing their declining health to drug use, irregular meals or other aspects of an unstable life, all came from this relatively unstable group. Five of the nine had nowhere to live at the time of interview while two others were living in boarding houses. While there are problems attributing significance to this finding for the reasons suggested, it strongly suggests a possible avenue for further study.

[ top ]

Prison and release from prison

This section will look at the client's histories of imprisonment. Clients were asked whether they had been in prison more than once. Those who had been in prison only once were asked when they were released from prison. Those who said they had been in prison more than once were asked when they were last released from prison. This way of modifying the question was used throughout the interview, such as with later questions that asked about the client's accommodation experiences since they were (last) released from prison.

Clients were asked how long they served the last time they were in prison. Clients were then asked if they had been released on supervision and, if so, whether they were still on supervision. Clients who indicated they had been to prison more than once were then asked about the number of times they had been in prison or juvenile detention and the periods they had served on each occasion. Finally, all clients were asked how old they were when they first went to prison or juvenile detention.

Number of occasions held in prison

There was a good deal of variation in the number of occasions clients reported having been in prison or juvenile detention. The average number of occasions was just over 7 and the median number of occasions was 4.5. It is difficult to identify a typical pattern of occasions for this group however due to the large amount of variation. Fourteen per cent of clients (n=6) reported having been in prison once, and a further 27 per cent (n=11) reported having been held on two or three occasions. On the other hand, 24 per cent (n=10) had been in custody on 10 or more occasions with 14 per cent of the group (n=6) having been in prison or detention 20 or more times. For most with a very high number of occasions, a large proportion of these occasions were apparently very short periods of juvenile detention. It should be noted too that a number of clients could not recall precisely the number of occasions they had been in custody and in a small number of cases the researcher could not clearly determine whether the occasions reported included juvenile detention. One client stated that he simply could not remember how many times he had been in prison.

[ top ]

Age when first imprisoned

There was also significant variation in the age at which clients first served a period of imprisonment or detention. While a number of clients reported having been institutionalised as orphans or wards of the state from a very young age, the youngest reported age at first detention was nine years old. This client reported to have been detained or imprisoned on 29 occasions, with a maximum period of five years. The oldest reported age when first imprisoned was a client who had been imprisoned twice since a first reception at age 42. The average age of first imprisonment or detention was just over 21 years, with a median age of 19.

Length of time served

Clients were asked how long they had served during their most recent period of imprisonment. There was considerable variation within the group. Periods served varied from one day to 19 years with an average period of approximately one year seven months. The median period was six months.

Previous periods of imprisonment

Clients were asked to give approximate dates, or approximate periods of time, for each of the terms of detention or imprisonment they had served. Those reporting more than a small number were asked to indicate the shortest and longest periods served. There was very wide variation in these periods. One client reported, once the interview was underway, that she had not in fact been imprisoned at all, but had been held overnight in the police watch-house on six or seven occasions. All other clients reported they had been held in prison, with the shortest periods ranging from two days to 19 years. The average of the shortest periods served by this group was approximately 10 months, though this is somewhat skewed through inclusion of the 19 year sentence. With this one sentence removed the average shortest periods falls to slightly over four months. Removal of the next highest period, two years nine months, reduces the average to approximately 31/2 months. The median shortest period served was 21/2 months. The average of sentences below the median was approximately 24 days, and the average above the median, with the 19 year sentence excluded, was approximately 232 days, indicating the degree of variation within this group.

The longest periods of custody ranged from one day to the same period of 19 years. The average period was just under two years two months. With the 19 year sentence excluded this fell to approximately one year eight months. The median longest period served was one year. The average below the median was five months, and the average of sentences above the median, including all sentences, was two years 11 months.

[ top ]

Release on supervision

Twenty five clients (approximately 61%) said they had been released from prison under some form of supervision, typically parole but also home detention or bail. Seventeen of those clients said they were still under supervision at the time they were interviewed.

Of the 25 clients who had been released on bail, two were living in boarding houses at the time of interview. It had been a considerable amount of time since both these clients had been released -- approximately three years for one and eight years for the other -- so it is not reasonable to draw any inferences between their supervision status and current accommodation. The same can be said for seven others who had been released on parole between six months and 18 months before the interview, although one of these clients was still under supervision.

The remaining 16 clients had all been released on parole within the preceding six months, 15 of these within the preceding three months. All of these clients were still on parole at the time of interview. Of these 16 clients, one was living with a relative in an apparently ongoing situation while one was staying at a shelter as a bail condition. Two of the remaining clients were in privately rented homes and one was in public housing. Eleven of the clients, approximately 69 per cent of those released on parole, were in supported accommodation when interviewed. In total 15 of the 16 clients (approximately 94%) released on parole within the preceding six months were in apparently stable, ongoing housing.

Sixteen clients had not been released on parole or other supervision. Only one of these clients was in supported accommodation and his pathway to that service had been through hospital three months previously, rather than following his prison release. Two of these clients were living in boarding houses and had been out of prison for several years. Six clients not released on supervision had nowhere to live. Three of these clients had been released within the preceding three months -- one within the previous week -- the others between two and seven years previously. Two of the remaining clients were living in a shelter, with two others each in public housing and sharing with friends. Therefore, of the 16 clients released without supervision, half were not in stable or ongoing housing, with either nowhere to live or living in an emergency accommodation shelter. The number in unstable housing could have been higher, but no assessment can be made of the stability of those in shared accommodation.

[ top ]

Conclusions -- prison and release from prison

In drawing any conclusions from examining these periods, a few necessary precautions must be taken. As noted earlier, it is not claimed that the sample population for this study was either randomly selected or representative of the overall ex-prisoner population. The information is solely derived from clients' recollections and the extent and apparent accuracy of these recollections varied considerably between individuals. With limited exceptions, the periods of time recorded are approximate and are only intended as a guide.

With these precautions in mind, it can be seen that while there is marked variation, overall this group exhibits a fairly high degree of criminality, based on the length of their most recent periods of imprisonment and their longest periods of imprisonment. A quarter of the group reported having been in prison on 10 or more occasions. This is perhaps not remarkable given that the group, as discussed below, are all accessing accommodation services and most are either in supported accommodation or accommodation facilitated by the accommodation service. With the likely exception of those with no accommodation or those in very short term temporary accommodation, these clients have generally reached a stage in their lives and imprisonment history where they are seeking to make major changes in their lives and are able to secure the support of service providers to do this. These circumstances are most likely to arise when a person has experienced imprisonment at least a few times and perhaps where the length of the sentences they are receiving is increasing.

Within the limited sample group of this study, there is a strong relationship between being released from prison on parole or other supervision and being able to access stable and ongoing accommodation. This relationship was borne out as well in questions which examined the use of services by clients, with a number of clients feeling that community corrections or parole officers were an important source of support and assistance. This view was echoed by staff of several agencies, with the related view that the prospects for those released into the community without supervision or support in place were quite dim compared to those that had such mechanisms.

The strength of this finding can be weakened to an extent by the fact that some of the clients in supported accommodation where in that accommodation as a bail or release condition, and therefore support was mandated in their cases. The nature of the agencies participating also tended to influence this result. At the same time, and perhaps with greater effect, the finding is strengthened by the knowledge that the sample group for this survey did not include people who had been released from prison without support and had either returned to prison or were still out of prison but not receiving support. If the sample could be extended to include all released prisoners, it is anticipated that a far greater proportion released without support would be in unstable accommodation or have returned to prison. This may be a speculation worth pursuing in other research.

[ top ]

Finding accommodation

This section will examine some of the issues for ex-prisoners trying to find and keep accommodation. Clients were asked questions about the type of accommodation they were living in at the time of interview, their expectations about where they would be living at the time they were released and their experiences finding accommodation since being released. They were also asked about the accommodation they had before their last admission into prison and problems they had finding and keeping accommodation in the past. Clients were also asked, based on their knowledge and experiences, what advice they could give to someone who was just about to be released from prison and was worried about where he or she was going to live. Finally, clients were asked, based on their knowledge and experiences, whether they felt there were some kinds of accommodation that were suitable for people leaving prison and whether there are other types of accommodation ex-prisoners should avoid.

Where clients are living now

The accommodation situation clients were in at the time of interview was to a very large extent a product of the types of agencies who volunteered to participate in the study. As one of the agencies was a homeless men's shelter, the clients interviewed there were necessarily homeless and either sleeping rough on the streets or in squats, or staying in the temporary situation offered by the shelter. One other agency did not provide direct accommodation services but provided general assistance and informal referrals as an adjunct to its mandated role as a lunch and drop-in centre. The clients interviewed at this agency therefore constituted a slightly broader cross-section of accommodation situations.

As the majority of participating agencies provided some form of supported accommodation, most clients were either in this supported accommodation at the time of interview, or were living independently in housing the agency had helped them secure.

[ top ]

The way in which the nature of the participating agencies skewed these results is indicated by the finding that some 35 per cent of clients interviewed (n=15) were identified as being in supported accommodation at the time of interview. A further eight clients (approximately 20%) were living in privately rented or public housing. Four clients (approximately 10%) were living with parents or relatives, or sharing with others, in situations that seemed relatively stable. Therefore, overall some 65 per cent of clients in this group were, at the time of interview, living in situations that offered an apparently reasonable degree of stability.

At the same time, approximately 14 per cent of clients (n=6) reported having nowhere to live at the time of interview. Five of these clients were squatting in vacant houses or other buildings, while one reported that he lives with his sister on and off but mainly lives on the streets. At the time of interview this client stated that he was living outside the homeless shelter so he could look after his aunts and uncles who also lived outside the shelter.

Four clients (approximately 10%) identified as staying in a shelter or other temporary accommodation while a further four were living in boarding or guesthouses. As discussed in more detail later a considerable number of the clients interviewed felt that shelters, refuges and boarding or guesthouses were environments that ex-prisoners should avoid if possible. Many clients felt that these environments exposed ex-prisoners and other residents to tensions, drug use and alcohol use which would be likely to lead to them re-offending or at least significantly increase the risk of returning to drug use or a lifestyle that included offending. Together with those clients who were in clearly vulnerable situations as a result of having nowhere to live, it can be seen that despite the skew towards interview subjects being in supported or other stable accommodation, some 35 per cent of clients interviewed for this research were living in situations that possibly exposed them to a markedly increased risk of further offending.

[ top ]

Pathways to current accommodation

Clients were asked whether they had tried to find accommodation themselves before coming to the support agency for help. This question was somewhat irrelevant in the case of clients coming to the lunch and drop-in centre as they were not receiving any direct accommodation services from that centre though one client was receiving accommodation support from a service in the same town. That client had gone straight from prison into accommodation arranged by that service. All other clients of that centre reported they had made their own efforts to find accommodation and were living in shared housing or in a boarding house.

Most clients who had nowhere to live stated they had made efforts to find accommodation but had been unable to. One client, who indicated he had been homeless and living on the streets for much of his life, had decided to return to living on the streets without trying to secure more stable accommodation. This client stated he was able to live with his sister from time to time when he needed a break from living rough but was otherwise relatively comfortable with the prospect of living on the streets. This client also indicated that he believed through his offending history, being Indigenous and having a limited income he would have no chance of finding accommodation in any case.

Amongst other clients, the question of whether they had tried to find other accommodation was strongly linked to the stage at which they had become a client of the agency. Ten clients had come from prison directly into supported accommodation. In most of these cases residing at that particular accommodation was a condition of parole, bail or home detention bail. In some other cases clients had been able to arrange accommodation at that site and had that address nominated in their parole order. One client noted that he had ensured the agency's supported accommodation was included in his parole order as a way of 'forcing his hand' and giving him a strong support base to address his offending behaviour.

In a number of other cases clients had found accommodation with relatives or friends following their release from prison, but this became unavailable for various reasons. This led to them being in a degree of crisis at the time they presented to the agency for assistance.

[ top ]

Accommodation expectations when leaving prison

Clients were asked what expectations they had, shortly before or at the time of, their last release from prison regarding their accommodation. Clients were asked if they had an expectation of where they were going to live and if they had accommodation arranged. Whether a client had been able to make firm arrangements for accommodation, particularly supported accommodation, made important differences to his or her perceived prospects of success, expectations and attitude.

Of the 15 clients in supported accommodation at the time of interview, 12 had been able to arrange this prior to their release and therefore knew that they had this accommodation to go to. One other client had supported accommodation arranged for him but stated that he was not aware of this until a support worker met him at the prison gate. Three more clients in privately rented or public housing at the time of interview had moved from prison into supported accommodation and had since moved to their present accommodation through assistance from their supporting agencies. One other client had gone from prison into privately rented housing organised by his supporting agency. As will be discussed later in this report, there appears to be a strong relationship between provision of accommodation-related support and successful progress towards re-integration among this client group.

For many of these clients, having support and accommodation arranged meant the difference between being held in custody and released on either parole or bail. A number of clients were on bail, with or without home detention conditions, at the time of interview. In most cases these clients had been bailed to the hostel or flat provided by the accommodation service and residing in that location was a condition of their release. The significance of having appropriate accommodation when facing charges was borne out by one client who stated that each of his four periods of detention had been while he was held on remand, having no fixed abode to go to. Other clients also reported past instances of having been held due to a lack of accommodation, with two clients indicating they had continued to serve a term of imprisonment while being eligible for parole (in one case for 10 years) as they could not arrange stable accommodation or support they could go to on release.

[ top ]

Of the 18 clients (approximately 44% of the group) who reported they had a clear expectation of where they would be living after release, only one did not have apparently stable, ongoing accommodation at the time of interview. This was a client living in a homeless men's shelter who stated he had arranged temporary accommodation at the shelter while on remand and residing there was a condition of his release on bail. This client presented as being positive in his outlook for the future, and said he was using his time at the hostel to accrue some money so he could move on to a rented property.

A far smaller proportion of those who left prison without clear accommodation arrangements was in stable, ongoing accommodation at the time of interview. Of the 23 clients (approximately 56% of the group) in this category, six (approximately 23% of the sub-group) identified as having nowhere to live. In fact, all of the clients in this study who had nowhere to live left prison without any accommodation arranged or any clear expectation of where they would be living. A further six clients who had left prison in this situation were living at the time of interview in either a shelter or boarding house. While a boarding house can provide a form of stable and ongoing accommodation, as discussed later in this report it is not necessarily a desirable environment for ex-prisoners to be going into and represents a less satisfactory accommodation outcome than medium or long-term supported or independent accommodation.

On this basis, nearly 50 per cent of clients in this group who had left prison without appropriate or desirable accommodation arranged were without this form of accommodation at the time of interview.

In some cases, clients reported having an expectation of where they would be living, but not one that would be considered desirable. Two clients, who had since been able to move on to ongoing accommodation, stated they expected to be living 'on the streets' or 'in a tent by the river'. Another said he knew that when his first half-payment from Centrelink ran out he would have to find somewhere to squat and had in fact been squatting since he got out of prison two months before the interview. One client, who found out a month before his release that he would be able to go into a rental home assisted by his accommodation agency, said before this knowledge he fully expected to be living on the streets when he was released. Other clients simply said they were only concerned with getting out the gate, and did not worry about accommodation until later.

One client, living in a homeless shelter, said that he did not want to have any expectations or plans for when he left prison, as trying to set goals meant setting himself up for failure which would then undermine his self-esteem. He felt that while people like to have plans when they come out of prison, there is not enough support available in the community to allow these plans to be carried out. Another client said he would come up with dreams for his future, but social security income 'doesn't let you reach your dreams'.

Another client had unexpectedly found support from his family, which he was finding invaluable in helping him get his life back together and keep him out of prison. The only problem, this client reported, was that he had not made any plans because he never expected to be out of prison for as long as his family's support had allowed him to be.

[ top ]

Experiences since leaving prison

For those clients able to move from prison directly into supported accommodation, the transition back into the community was clearly smoother than for those without this form of accommodation. Clients in supported accommodation appeared far better placed to start dealing with issues of daily living such as arranging social security payments, organising finances and developing domestic and life skills than were clients without stable accommodation and support. Overall, these clients demonstrated more positive attitudes about their prospects of staying away from drug use and offending and seemed committed to returning to the community.

One client, who had since moved into supported accommodation, stated that he was being held on domestic violence-related charges and had been bailed to the marital home where the domestic violence had been perpetrated and his wife was still living. Another client was released on bail to a supported accommodation house but chose to leave because of the amount of offending being carried out by other residents.

Another client had made arrangements a short time before his release to share a publicly rented flat with a friend but arrived at the house to find the house empty, his friends having been arrested in the meantime and the flat cleaned out. This client lived in the flat as a squatter until moved on by the police. He subsequently spent time in a crisis shelter then in a homeless shelter before receiving accommodation through his current service provider.

[ top ]

For most clients reporting they had nowhere to live, their lives since release from prison had been characterised by instability or, as some clients put it, by 'chaos'. One client reported that in the last 12 months he hadn't lived in any one place for more than two weeks. He would find an empty house, flat or commercial building to squat in and would stay there until detected and moved on by the police. This client's lifestyle seemed to follow a fairly consistent pattern. Across a fortnightly cycle he would receive a social security payment and take up cheap accommodation in a private motel in an area away from his 'old associates'. He indicated that he would feel committed during this part of the cycle to getting his life together by saving some money and working towards a stable home and employment. After two or three days he would become bored and go back to his old associates where he would spend his money on illicit drugs. Within two or three days his money would run out and he would return to the homeless shelter where he would live until his next fortnightly social security payment when he would recommence the same cycle.

While other homeless clients did not demonstrate this pattern with the same clarity, other clients reported similar instability in accommodation linked to illicit drug use cycles and spoke of other people they knew with similar lifestyles. A staff member in one agency stated that many people coming to that agency would follow similar patterns of intense illicit drug use immediately following a social security payment, followed by a period of 'hanging out' for more drugs during the rest of the period. These cycles also impacted on accommodation levels at the shelter, with staff reporting that many clients would 'disappear' when they got their social security payments and return a few days later when this money had run out.

[ top ]

In other cases clients did not identify illicit drug use cycles or patterns but cited illicit drug use as a major factor in their current situation. One client, for instance, had been able to live with his brother in stable accommodation for three months after being released from prison. The client then recommenced using drugs, leading to his brother evicting him. Since that time the client's life had been marked by periods of time in crisis shelters, homeless shelters, detoxification and rehabilitation programs, relapse and further imprisonment, accommodation in a boarding house until his money ran out and he got behind in his rent and finally the situation of homelessness and squatting he was in at the time of interview.

The relationship between drug use, offending and accommodation instability will be discussed in more detail later in this report.

For some clients, particularly homeless clients, drug use interacts with other forms of chaos in their lives. Another homeless client reported that she had previously had relatively stable accommodation, living for around six months at a time with her partner or sharing with friends. She reported that she had lost a publicly rented house she shared with her partner through disputes with the neighbours and a loss of her employment. She had then been evicted from a number of shared houses through unpaid rent resulting from her housemates 'taking off' or housemates not paying their share of the rent. The stress of these situations then led to increased drug use that resulted in her living on a short-term basis in a number of boarding houses. At the time of interview, her drug use meant that she could not afford to stay in boarding houses and, together with her partner, was squatting wherever she could find an empty building.

A number of clients, particularly but not exclusively those having nowhere to live, reported a lack of money as their main barrier to having more stable accommodation. This seemed to vary from one location to another and was more prevalent among those clients not receiving daily living support. Most of the homeless clients identified a lack of money as the major barrier to them being able to secure ongoing accommodation. While some clients blamed themselves for 'blowing their money' on illicit drugs or alcohol and acknowledged they had not planned their finances well, others felt that the amount they received in social security payments was insufficient for them to accrue enough for an accommodation bond, or was not enough to pay rent other than for a boarding house room. One homeless client said that he could not even afford a boarding house room and was living in a squat while coming to the homeless shelter for his meals.

It is noteworthy that homeless clients citing money as the principal barrier did not indicate an awareness of any assistance, in the form of bond loans or other support, that may have been available through Centrelink or their state public housing agency.

[ top ]

Where clients lived before prison

During the interviews all clients were asked where they were living before they went to prison. It should be noted at the outset that the answers given in response to this question, and conclusions drawn from them, can only be considered indicative. Clients did not always have a clear recollection of where they were living at that time and they did not always answer in a way that allowed one clear category to be identified. In some cases it had been a considerable period of time since the client had last been imprisoned and this hampered recollection in some of these cases. A considerable proportion of clients indicated their lives had been chaotic and accommodation unstable during the period before imprisonment, and the nature of their accommodation may have changed several times in that period.

In all cases where the client's recollection or answer was not clear, the category recorded was the one judged by the researcher to be the most indicative of their situation. In these cases the researcher sought endorsement from the clients as to the category recorded.

Twelve clients (just under 30% of the group) reported they had nowhere to live in the period immediately before their imprisonment. One other client said he had stable public housing, living in the same property for six years before his imprisonment, but relationship problems had left him living on the streets during the two or three months before his arrest. Three of these clients continued to have nowhere to live at the time of interview.

Three clients (approximately 7%) stating they were living in boarding houses before their imprisonment. Two of these clients were living in a shelter at the time of interview and the other had nowhere to live.

[ top ]

Two clients said they were living in a shelter, or another form of temporary accommodation, at the time of their imprisonment. Two others reported they were living in supported accommodation at that time. Each of these clients was living in either supported accommodation at the time of interview, or in rented housing facilitated by the accommodation agency. While further examination of this point would be necessary, there is an interesting possibility that these clients' exposure to accommodation-related services in the past may have assisted them in being aware of the types of support and assistance they have been able to access during or after their latest release from prison. Further to this point, two of the three clients who were in public housing before their imprisonment were in supported accommodation at the time of interview. The other was a client who, while living at a homeless shelter at the time of interview, was very positive about using his time at the shelter to save some money to pay off some old fines and move towards stable, rented housing.

Six clients (15% of the group) stated they were living in privately rented homes before their imprisonment. Four of these clients were in supported accommodation at the time of interview, with one each in a boarding house and a shelter. Four of these clients specifically indicated their accommodation was stable and ongoing before their imprisonment.

The issue of previously stable accommodation also arose in the case of the six clients who reported they were living with parents before imprisonment. Three of these clients indicated they were in a stable, family home that is apparently no longer available to them since their offending and imprisonment. Three of these six clients were in supported accommodation at the time of interview, with one each in a boarding house, public housing and having nowhere to live. No client who lived with parents or relatives before their imprisonment was living with parents or relatives at the time of interview. Two of these clients indicated that their family had withdrawn their support as a result of the client's offending behaviour, while this appeared to be the case with one other client.

[ top ]

Two of the clients who previously lived with parents or relatives indicated that this was not necessarily a stable situation, with both indicating they moved around between living with their parents and with other relatives or friends. There was similar instability in the case of the seven clients (17% of the group) who reported that they previously shared a home with friends or others. Three of these clients noted that their accommodation before prison was very unstable. Two clients reported 'a lot of drifting around' between sharing with different people and, in one case, living on the streets. Another client stated that he had only ever been out of prison for a 'couple of weeks' at time and had an extremely unstable lifestyle, continually moving around between the streets, hostels, boarding houses and motels depending on the cash he had available at the time.

Overall, 14 clients (34% of the group) indicated they were in stable or reasonably stable accommodation situations before their last period of imprisonment. One of these clients had been in stable accommodation for 18 months before his imprisonment, and had gradually been getting more stable as he matured, but indicated his accommodation and lifestyle were very unstable before that. Another client reported having stable accommodation, but also indicated that he had a lot of problems paying his rent due to his drug use. One client said that he had held a stable home in a regional area for a long time before moving to the state's capital city for medical reasons. He had then found significant difficulties with maintaining stable accommodation in the city, largely due to family problems. Two clients indicated that while they had ongoing rental accommodation, this would not have been possible without help from their supporting agency.

Alongside this, 27 clients (66%) were in unstable accommodation in the period immediately before they were imprisoned. The accommodation situations of most of these clients were marked by the 'chaos' that a lot of them referred to -- continually moving around between situations, such as living on the streets, or sharing with different people, staying in boarding houses or motels when they had some money available. Many of these clients attributed the instability to illicit drug use and the lifestyle that accompanied it, including having to move from places they were staying because of problems caused by their drug use, offending and financial instability. As one client put it 'the lifestyle that goes along with crime and heavy drug use doesn't always include stable housing'. A small number of these clients stated they would continually stay on the move to avoid police detection while dealing illicit drugs.

[ top ]

Loss of property and possessions while in prison

A problem identified by a number of clients was the loss of their property and possessions while in prison. A number of clients had been in stable accommodation but lost access to this through not being able to pay rent while in prison. A number of clients also reported they had to leave possessions behind when taken into custody and had later found everything they owned had been stolen while they were in prison. These kinds of losses can be devastating for a newly released prisoner, already faced with the challenges of starting to rebuild their lives from scratch when they return to the community.

Some supporting agencies provide a storage service where people going into prison can store their possessions, for a nominal fee. This is very beneficial to some offenders but relies on them being aware of the service and being to make the necessary arrangements before they are imprisoned or their possessions are stolen.

Relationships between offending and accommodation

In a pair of questions, clients were asked whether they saw relationships between their offending and problems they may have had with accommodation. They were asked whether they felt difficulties with finding and keeping somewhere to live had played a part in their offending, and whether they felt their offending had made it difficult for them to find and keep somewhere to live. In a later question, clients were asked how they felt being in prison had affected their accommodation options.

As noted earlier, clients were not asked directly about their offending and it was made clear before any questions were asked that they were not expected to talk about their offending. Nonetheless many clients chose to make some references to the nature of their offending, and it is acknowledged that the nature of the questions seeking to pick up on the relationships between offending and accommodation perhaps tended to encourage these responses.

[ top ]

Whether accommodation problems contribute to offending

More than 70 per cent of clients (n=29) felt there was a clear relationship between their offending and problems with finding and keeping accommodation. Close to half of these clients made specific reference to drug use as the major contributing factor in their offending and accommodation problems. Many other clients did not refer specifically to drug use, but did refer to chaotic lifestyles and instability arising from never having enough money for food or accommodation.

It became clear that while there is a strong relationship between illicit drug use, the lifestyle that tends to surround it, offending behaviours and stable accommodation, this relationship is a complex and multi-faceted one for these clients. For some clients, it was drug use, or other offending behaviours, that established a lifestyle which resulted in, or at least included, unstable accommodation. A number talked about their lives being out of control and never having enough money to buy food or secure any kind of ongoing accommodation. Some maintained that their offending and drug use were not the result of unstable accommodation, rather that the offending and drug use were the real problem and unstable accommodation was either the result of these behaviours or was secondary to them.

Some clients said that the main concern in their lives was buying illicit drugs or finding the money for drugs. Having accommodation was a secondary consideration and they were not concerned about where they were living or staying providing they were supporting their drug habit. A small number of clients stated that having unstable accommodation was a conscious decision, as they would move constantly to avoid police detection. For others the instability was a consequence of not having money for accommodation, or a consequence of having to move away from relationships with family or friends that had been damaged by the client's drug use and offending. One client summed up this aspect of the relationship between drug use and accommodation by saying simply that you cannot have structure in an addicted lifestyle.

[ top ]

Many of those clients who related their offending with accommodation problems saw their offending as a survival tactic. Nine clients (close to one quarter of the total group) stated they had committed offences simply to get money for food or to be able to afford a room to rent. One of these clients talked about how he would drift around between living on the streets, staying at friends' houses or staying in good motels, depending on the cash he had available from one day to the next. Another client said that she didn't use illicit drugs when she was in a stable environment but would steal food and turn to drugs during times when she was homeless. This client commented that she did not offend when her basic human needs for shelter and food were being met.

It was apparent with most of these clients that illicit drug use was also a factor, as it was expenditure on illicit drugs that resulted in them not having enough money for food and accommodation.

In other cases though, clients saw their offending as directly resulting from the instability of their accommodation and their lives overall. A number of clients said their offending arose from frustration. This frustration came from a range of sources -- from not being able to find proper accommodation or stay in the one place, from not being able to find a job or from family breakdown.

A number of clients bore out the importance of having stability, particularly stable accommodation, in minimising their offending. One client stated that all his offending came down to stress resulting from not having stable accommodation. When he had a roof over his head and did not have to worry about accommodation, he would be much more free of stress and could carry on a lifestyle without offending. This client reported that he had spent much of his adult life living in short term accommodation. When he first came into the accommodation, he felt much calmer and could start thinking about building a life without offending. As the time when he had to leave would come closer, he would become more and more anxious about where he was going to stay next and this would inevitably lead to offending.

[ top ]

This client's feelings were not unique, even within this small population. Several other clients felt they would have offended less if they had stable accommodation. As noted above, some clients said they had offended simply to get money to rent a motel or boarding house room. Others said that when they did not have anywhere stable to live they felt they had nothing left to lose. One client talked of giving up and thinking 'bugger it, I might as well re-offend or breach my parole'. Another saw his drug use as a 'band aid' to help him feel better about not having anything worthwhile in his life.

For several clients, it was the tension that came from not having a stable home that was a major factor in their offending and their drug use. One client attributed his offending to the tension and lack of stability that came from not having a home base where he could go to 'chill out' and relax and where he had something to look forward to at the end of the day. One 36 year old client said that, before receiving the independent living support she was receiving at the time of interview, she had never before had a place where she felt comfortable, and that stress and instability linked to accommodation had played a big part in her offending and self-harming behaviours. Another client talked about how instability would leave him constantly pre-occupied with what he had to do to achieve stability and how he could get money for food and to establish some security in his life. Another client spoke of never having a stable home and always being on edge, always looking for 'an easy score'. A number of other clients talked of the stress of living rough and having to associate with others in the same situation as a major factor in their offending.

Another client talked of times in her life when she was in what she called 'keeping mode'. These were times, for periods of months or even years, when she had a home and her life was marked by routine and stability. When in 'keeping mode' it would take something quite dramatic to force her out of this stability and move her from where she was staying. There had been times in her life though where such dramatic things had happened -- she referred to problems with housemates and with neighbours -- and she had lost her accommodation and stability. During those times she began to think differently and became more erratic, leading to drug use and offending. It would then take time before she could again move into a more stable lifestyle and begin rebuilding her life.

[ top ]

It is important to note that not all clients in this group saw that problems with finding or keeping accommodation had contributed to their offending behaviour. In all, 12 clients (approximately 29%) stated that their offending had nothing to do with accommodation. In a number of cases these were clients who had been in stable accommodation, mostly living with family or in privately or publicly rented homes. In a number of cases these clients had been imprisoned on only one or two occasions and it appeared the offences were not related to drug use or linked to any kind of unstable or chaotic lifestyle. In these cases it appeared, as much as could be discerned from the information volunteered by the client, that the motivations underlying these offences had not been linked to obtaining money for survival or food, or as a response to tensions or frustrations arising from the clients' lifestyles. In one case the client responded that his offence had been a one-off thing, definitely not related to accommodation. In another case the client said he had offended simply because he wanted to.

Offending as a barrier to finding accommodation

A small majority of clients (n=21 or 51%) stated that they felt their offending, or the fact they had a criminal record and had been in prison, was a barrier when trying to find accommodation. Most of these clients noted that it was very hard, or even impossible, for them to secure private rental accommodation through a real estate agent. The most common problems encountered were an inability to provide rental references and having to explain the gap in their accommodation history during the period they were in prison. Some clients said they were honest about having been in prison and most had found this resulted in a refusal of their tenancy application.

[ top ]

Several clients talked about having been directly discriminated against by real estate agents or landlords due to their criminal record or ex-prisoner status. One talked about boarding house rooms, which he knew for certain were empty, suddenly becoming unavailable when the landlord learned the client had been in prison. Another client said he had been refused properties on the assumption that his 'druggie mates' would always be hanging around, even though this client stated that his offences were not drug-related and he had never used illicit drugs or associated with illicit drug users. A small number of clients said they would not disclose their criminal record, but two of these clients said they had been evicted from accommodation when their history became known.

Several clients said that, even aside from the problems of successfully applying for tenancy, they had no prospect of being able to afford to rent privately, particularly with rising rental costs and the need to come up with a substantial amount of money for bond.

A number of clients felt the private rental market was entirely cut off from them and saw no prospect of entering that market.

It is important to note that, for many clients, the barriers to being able to secure private accommodation were also stopping them being able to find work. Many clients noted that their criminal history and ex-prisoner status was a major barrier to their employability and a number said that employers 'didn't want to know you' when they found out about the clients' history.

The relationship between work and accommodation is a significant one as being employed clearly benefits a person's chances of securing stable accommodation, from a straight financial point of view, as well as through the ability to provide references. Being employed is likely to suggest stability and reliability to a prospective landlord. Many of the clients interviewed were working towards finding employment as a fundamental component of their goal of securing stable accommodation and their broader goal of successfully re-entering the community. For these clients, whether or not they had found employment was the key factor in their expectations for the future.

[ top ]

At the same time, a lack of stable accommodation can affect a person's ability to secure employment. Two clients referred to the need to have a 'home base' and telephone you can operate from while looking for employment, or where a prospective employer can make contact with you. Another client said it was impossible to find work when your address and telephone number was a shelter. This was also echoed on a number of occasions during staff interviews, where staff members said prospective landlords or employers had abandoned contact when they learned the client was staying in a shelter or hostel.

For many clients it was apparent that having employment and stable accommodation was critical to their self-esteem and prospects of establishing a lifestyle free from offending.

Some clients did not see their offending or their time in prison as a barrier to finding accommodation. Sometimes this was expressed in a positive sense. A small number of clients said they had always been able to find accommodation when they needed it, though having sufficient money was still a problem. One client, who had an extensive history of childhood institutionalisation and juvenile detention, saw his imprisonment as a benefit to his accommodation prospects. Through imprisonment he was able to access the intensive support service that had helped him secure a rental property and was helping him get his life back together in many ways. Another client, perhaps coincidentally of the same service, felt he had learned far more about finding and keeping employment and accommodation while in prison than he ever had in the community. As discussed in more detail later in the report, this view of imprisonment as a positive aid to accommodation was not one expressed by other clients.

[ top ]

Expectations of future accommodation

Clients were asked what expectations they had about where they would be living in the future, specifically in three months' time and in 12 months' time.

Clients' expectations about their future accommodation were closely related to the type of accommodation they had at the time of interview. Three months into the future, most clients living in privately rented homes, public housing or in supported accommodation were expecting and hoping to be living in the same place. Some in supported accommodation were expecting to have moved to another stage of their particular agency's program, such as moving from a short-term hostel to medium-term independent living. Others were hoping to have qualified for public housing during that time, or have been able to find work and have enough money to be renting privately.

These clients were also generally optimistic about where they would be living in 12 months time. Seventeen of the 23 clients in private rental or public housing, or in supported accommodation, said they expected to be in ongoing housing. The majority of these expected to be in permanent public housing, with a smaller number in private rental and one expecting to be in the same supported accommodation. It is worth noting that several of these clients talked about their medium-term future in very positive terms, expecting to be in work or study, hoping to resolve problems with former partners and children or simply 'settled and going in the right direction'. Less positively, one client said she expected to either be in public housing or back in jail, while six felt that 12 months was simply too far away for them to have any expectations.

[ top ]

Interestingly, the four clients living in boarding houses at the time of interview all expected to be living in the same boarding house in three months' time. One of them expected to still be there in 12 months, while two expected to be renting their own homes within that time. One of the four clients in boarding houses did not have any expectations for 12 months ahead.

Those clients living with parents, relatives or friends and those with nowhere to live seemed less certain about their expectations and hopes. One living with a relative hoped to be with that relative at both future points, while another living with a relative hoped to be living with her daughter in either supported accommodation or public housing at both points. One client living with friends was happy there and had not thought about three months into his future, while 12 months was too far away to consider. Another in this situation was thinking about renting a home, but was unsure whether to return to his past area, where the offending occurred and a lot of other negative influences were concentrated, or look to move somewhere else. For this client, 12 months was too far ahead as well.

Clients living in shelters seemed relatively positive, with two of the four expecting to be renting their own home at both points in the future. The other expected to be living with her mother or in an outreach shelter in three months, while expecting to be waiting for public housing in 12 months' time. The other was concentrating on dealing with being on probation and could not look into the future.

[ top ]

Clients who had nowhere to live at the time of interview generally did not have expectations, or even strong hopes, about their futures. At the three month point, one wanted to be in a boarding house, but was finding it hard to break out of a cycle of drug use and resulting illness that prevented him moving ahead. Another was hoping to get into a boarding house if he could find work and get into detoxification and drug rehabilitation. Two were saving money for bond and rent to get their own flats, one through busking, while another talked in loose terms about buying a caravan somewhere. The other homeless client had no plans to be living anywhere other than on the streets, in either three months or 12 months.

Of the six clients with nowhere to live, three thought that 12 months into the future was too hard to think about. One who talked about saving money for a flat at the three month point expected to be sharing with friends in 12 months. The client saving money through busking hoped to have a car within 12 months and so have a greater choice of where to live. The client saving for a caravan said that 12 months was too far away. He never made plans that far ahead because if he did he would fail and be really hard on himself. The most positive response was the client hoping to find work and get into detox, who hoped to have a job, be drug free and reunited with his parents and family within 12 months.

While conclusions can only be drawn from this limited sample with some degree of caution, it is apparent that those clients living in stable accommodation are able to be much more positive about their futures than those not in positions of stability. Those receiving close support in particular seemed able to be quite definite about their expectations and portrayed these expectations in realistic terms. For those in less stable positions without support, their futures seemed based more on hope than expectation.

[ top ]

Positive and negative types of accommodation

Clients were also asked, based on their knowledge and experiences, whether they felt there were some kinds of accommodation that were suitable for people leaving prison and whether there are other types of accommodation ex-prisoners should avoid.

A common theme emerging from these responses was that most clients saw guest or boarding houses as very negative environments, together with emergency accommodation shelters. Many clients talked about the drug and alcohol abuse prevalent amongst residents in boarding houses, as well as in emergency accommodation shelters. They felt that these environments placed ex-prisoners in situations where there were many temptations and pressures to re-offend and where the influences of other residents would be highly detrimental to a person trying to make positive lifestyle changes.

Many clients also saw problems arising from the close living conditions of people in boarding houses or shelters. They said there was a great deal of conflict in those environments, as people were continually 'in each others' faces'. This created tensions that could lead to violent conflict or other forms of offending and could have serious impacts on a person's self-esteem and motivation.

[ top ]

A number of clients referred to boarding houses as being no better than prisons. A couple talked about boarding house rooms being just another cell, no better than the cell they had in prison. Some felt that these rooms did not give people the space they needed to get away from one another, again creating tensions and conflicts. A number of clients talked about how you could not aspire to own anything while you lived in a boarding house as it was sure to be stolen. The lack of material possessions, together with the decrepit and dirty living conditions many had found in boarding houses, was damaging to the self-esteem of many clients. In many cases clients had found being in prison a better option than trying to get by in a boarding house environment.

Many of the clients who saw boarding houses or emergency shelters as detrimental to ex-prisoners also acknowledged that they were usually the only options for people with little money and no family or other support. The clients were generally not critical of the intentions behind people or organisations providing these accommodation options. Some clients were critical of boarding house landlords who they saw as more concerned with making money than providing clean and safe living conditions.

At the same time, a number of clients indicated they found boarding houses a positive option as they provide a form of stability and independent living at a cheap rent. Some clients had found boarding houses that were quiet and free of drug and alcohol use and had been able to live comfortably in these environments for a period of years. As noted earlier, the four clients living in boarding houses at the time of interview had no immediate plans to leave.

Several clients suggested they did not think that any particular types of accommodation were unsuitable for ex-prisoners, rather that there were specific geographic areas that ex-prisoners should avoid. These were particular low socio-economic areas, with high rates of drug use and criminal behaviour, where many negative people and other influences were seen to congregate. Clients however recognised that it could be very difficult to find accommodation outside these areas.

[ top ]

Advice for a person soon to be released from prison

Clients were asked, based on their knowledge and experiences, what advice they could give to someone who was just about to be released from prison and was worried about where he or she was going to live.

The main point of advice offered by many clients was that a person in this position should be careful not to return to their old associations. They felt that a newly released prisoner who made contact with old friends and went back to the same area where they had previously lived and offended had little prospect of not reoffending. Some felt that even returning on one occasion could be enough to leave the person faced with temptations and pressures that could lead to re-offending and behaviours such as drug and alcohol use. While many noted that it was difficult to establish new friendships and find accommodation away from certain low socioeconomic and high crime rate areas, a newly released prisoner had to make these efforts if he or she was serious about changing their life. Related to this, many clients pointed to the importance of a newly released prisoner finding support and assistance as soon as they could after release, or arranging it before release if possible. Many indicated that support was critical to positive lifestyle changes and that a lack of support was the main reason many people reoffended and returned to prison. These clients were very strong in their advice that a prisoner approaching release, or immediately after release, needed to do whatever they could to find out about avenues of support and make use of whatever services were available.

A number of clients also referred to the importance of a newly released prisoner finding positive activities to keep them from being bored. Many had themselves found boredom a factor in their offending behaviours. Finding work, if possible, was seen as a very positive way to keep occupied.

Several clients talked about the need for recently released prisoners to be careful in their use of money and not blow it all straight away.

[ top ]

Conclusions -- finding accommodation

It has been emphasised throughout this section that the nature of the agencies participating in this study tended to have a very big influence on the information given by clients about their accommodation experiences. Virtually by definition, the nature of the agencies participating in the research determined the nature of the accommodation the clients were living in at the time of interview. This to an extent is self-evident and does not in itself lead to any particular conclusions.

What the differential involvement of agencies does is highlight the considerable differences between the experiences and expectations of clients receiving close support from a dedicated accommodation agency, and those who were receiving support and assistance but not necessarily in an intensive and individually case managed way.

Clients living in supported accommodation, or in accommodation which a support agency had helped them access, were in positions where they could start dealing with the issues of returning to and establishing themselves in the community. They could start working towards employment and dealing with problems such as illicit drug use. These clients seemed in a far better position to do this than clients in less stable accommodation situations. Clients in stable accommodation were far more positive in their expectations of where they would be living in the future, and seemed placed to be more realistic and certain in these expectations.

[ top ]

Most of the clients in supported accommodation had the advantage of leaving prison with a clear idea of where they would be living. Those who did not leave prison with accommodation arranged were far more likely to be living in unstable accommodation at the time of interview. This finding supports the need for greater resources to expand the capacity of support agencies to access potential clients while they are still in the prison system and have accommodation arranged for them by the time they are released. As noted elsewhere, this is not an easy thing to implement but, given the apparent relationship between a lack of stable accommodation and criminal offending, consideration of the possibilities of moving in this direction are clearly warranted.

There is also a case for more resources to assist ex-prisoners to establish themselves in a household once they find stable accommodation. It emerged from the interviews with clients, as it did with staff, that many ex-prisoners find themselves returning to the community with only the most meagre of possessions and without many of the goods necessary to establish a basic household. In some cases, they may never have had these material goods, while in other cases they lost them while in custody. Either way, having a basic array of goods is essential for self-esteem and for facilitating and motivating a return to the community. Agencies who are better resourced to assist ex-prisoner clients with accessing these possessions will be better placed to assist these clients establish themselves in the community.

It is apparent that the relationship between offending and accommodation is problematic, primarily due to the confounding influence of illicit drug use on both variables. What emerges though is that many clients in this survey experienced considerable instability in their lives across a number of dimensions, including accommodation instability. While there is clearly a relationship between accommodation instability, illicit drug use and criminal offending, it is difficult at least within the designs of this survey, to attribute cause and effect within this relationship. It is apparent that for some clients accommodation instability led them into situations or states of mind highly conducive to drug use and offending. For others, accommodation instability resulted from illicit drug use and other offending. For most clients though it seems that accommodation, drugs and crime were all parts of a complex inter-relationship in which prior institutionalisation, abuse, intellectual disability and mental health issues and disadvantage at many levels were all components.

[ top ]

It will never be easy from a policy or social action perspective to intervene within the complexities of these relationships. The findings of this survey strongly suggest though that increased levels of intervention that address problems with accommodation can serve to disrupt other components of the relationship in that ways that will positively impact on levels of offending among clients.

Based on the views of ex-prisoner clients, the most useful direct accommodation interventions are likely to be those that give releasing prisoners a wider range of options beyond those presently available. In particular, options for low-priced accommodation other than boarding house environments would be valuable. This is not to say that all boarding houses are problematic, and some ex-prisoner clients are able to establish stable long-term tenancy if they find the right residence. The close co-location of former prisoners and others with drug and alcohol problems, in environments that challenge what may be limited coping and anger management skills, will inevitably attract problems and impact on former prisoners trying to return to the community on a limited basis. There appears to be a need for greater options for ex-prisoner clients to find affordable accommodation in environments with fewer other people around them and fewer pressures leading them towards problem behaviours.

Where these facilities are located will also be an important factor, with greater distribution of ex-prisoners across different areas of the community likely to impact positively on individual outcomes.

[ top ]

Use of SAAP services

In this section of the interview, clients were asked a number of questions which sought to provide an understanding of their use of SAAP and other services. Through this the research team hoped to find what services clients were using, currently and in the past, and identify some patterns in their use of these services. The study also sought to reveal the information or other pathways that led clients to accessing these services, including pathways originating within the prison system. The interviews also sought to gain clients' views on whether there were gaps in service provision.

Services clients were currently using

In the first part, clients were asked what services they were using, or had gone to, for help with finding accommodation and other issues concerned with getting themselves set-up in the community.

The responses given by clients in this part were almost entirely dependent on the nature of their main supporting agency, where they had one, and reflected the scope of the services offered by this agency. On this basis, the clients and their responses tended to fall very strongly into one of two categories -- those who were receiving ongoing, individually case-managed support and those who were receiving either occasional support for specific needs or no individualised support. These two categories created a clear delineation not only in the way clients were using services, but also in their perceptions of their service needs.

It is in the nature of the agencies participating in this research that all clients in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria identified the participating agency as the primary or sole service they were using. These are agencies providing intensive, individualised case management services. These services provide clients with accommodation, ranging from short-term crisis accommodation through to medium term housing. The services also assist and facilitate clients' moves into sustainable long-term housing.

[ top ]

These agencies also provide daily living support, sometimes in a very intensive way. They assist clients with accessing services provided by government agencies such as Centrelink and the state housing organisation as well as services provided by non-government agencies such as community housing. The agencies assist clients with their re-entry to the community through assistance with budgeting and financial management, living skills and seeking employment. These agencies assist clients to address drug-use and other offending-related problems through either direct provision of programs or referrals. Depending on the nature of the service and the clients' needs, the agencies may also provide support such as assistance with shopping or recreational activities.

Most of the female clients of OARS SA also nominated another community agency as one of the main services they were using. OARS SA does not directly operate any women's accommodation, although it does for men. The women's accommodation service of OARS SA works with other accommodation services and options to meet client needs.

Given the degree of support provided by these agencies, it is to be expected that clients of these services nominated them as the major, or often only, service they were using. Many clients stated simply that their agency was giving them every form of support they needed. In some cases clients nominated government agencies such as Centrelink, the state housing organisation or the state community corrections or probation and parole service as another service they were using and receiving help from. Some clients also nominated government or non-government agencies that were providing them with drug and alcohol, mental health, disability, employment or vocational services.

[ top ]

The manner and frequency with which clients were using services depended to a very large extent on how long they had been supported by the service and how far they had progressed through any stages of support the agency's model of service offered. In some cases, the level and complexity of the client's needs was also a factor.

Therefore, a number of the clients interviewed were receiving support on a daily basis, sometimes spending several hours of the day with their support worker. As CRC's hostel operates with a resident duty worker, clients staying at this hostel were able to access support 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Clients of this and other services would typically need a lot of intensive support during the few days or weeks when they first joined the service, especially if they had come straight from prison. This might continue until basic needs such as identification and other documentation, social security payments, bank accounts and medical needs were addressed or stabilised.

Generally the intensity of support needed would lessen after this initial period and would gradually reduce as the client's capacity to live independently increased and their return to the community became more stable. Over time, a client's need for support might gradually reduce from daily support to weekly or monthly. Similarly, the level of support needed might reduce from direct support and direct provision of services, to just advice or 'keeping in touch'.

Depending on the agency's service model, clients might progress to longer term housing, either operated or facilitated by the agency. This housing was typically public or community housing, but might be private housing in some cases. If the agency offered outreach services, these might continue for some time if needed. For instance, clients referred for interview by the San Miguel Family Centre had progressed to a point where they were living with their families in long-term public housing, needing only a minor level of outreach support every month or so.

[ top ]

In some cases an intensive level of support would have to be maintained for much longer, such as for those clients of the Salvation Army's Community Outreach Service (COS) with multiple, complex needs. In other cases a client otherwise requiring only a small amount of support might require intensive support during times of crisis.

The scenario was quite different for clients interviewed in Brisbane and Bunbury. The services in these locations -- the homeless men's hostel operated by Ozcare in South Brisbane and the In Town Centre -- did not offer individually case managed support or the type of daily living support and assistance offered by the other agencies.

Clients interviewed at the Ozcare hostel varied in which of the hostel's services they were using. Only three of the ten clients interviewed at the hostel were actually staying there. Two of these clients said they were getting assistance from hostel staff with finding longer-term accommodation. Only one stated he was receiving meals and accessing hygiene facilities at the hostel, though it is likely the other two were as well.

The other seven clients interviewed at the hostel were not staying there. While each was coming to the hostel for meals, they did not clearly indicate how regularly they were doing so. Four of the clients stated they were showering at the hostel, though it is possible the others were as well but simply did not think to mention it. None of these clients referred to the medical services provided at the hostel. The one female client interviewed at the hostel was squatting, but came to the hostel regularly for meals and showers. While the hostel was mandated to provide services to homeless males, it regularly had female clients coming for meals, showers and medical services and chose not to refuse females these services. Some of the female clients of the hostel were relatives or partners of men who were staying there.

[ top ]

While one client who ate meals at the hostel was staying in a boarding house, the other clients were homeless and not staying in the hostel. Most of these clients were squatting in empty buildings, while one slept with his relatives in the grounds of the hostel, outside one of the entrances. Some of these clients said they did not have enough money to pay for a bed at the hostel. In other cases, the clients appeared to be choosing homelessness rather than spending their money on a hostel bed. One client said it seemed to him a waste to pay money just so you could have a bed to sleep in, when that money could be better spent on other things.

Due to the nature of its services, the hostel's client group was highly transient in nature. At the time of interview, the average length of stay was 26 days but this was highly variable. Many clients, whether ex-prisoners or not, would only stay for a night until they arranged accommodation elsewhere. Others would stay for weeks. A staff member noted that the population tended to fluctuate in line with fortnightly social security payments. Many clients would leave the hostel when they got paid, as they would have the money for boarding house or similar accommodation. Sometimes these clients would return later in the fortnight when their money had run out. Other clients would not return, because they had found other accommodation or because of some other critical change in their circumstances, such as being taken into custody.

[ top ]

Pathways to current services

Two questions in this section sought to establish the pathways by which clients came to be using their current services by asking why they chose to use the service, and how they found out about the service.

The pathways that led clients to their current services were closely related to the nature of the service and the degree of individualised support the service offered. For those services offering structured and individually case-managed support, clients came to these services through the agencies' own efforts or its reputation. For other services, word of mouth and local knowledge played important roles in clients becoming aware of the agencies and their services.

Clients of CRC came to know of the service mostly through prison welfare officers or other prison program staff. Five of the six clients cited these sources of information, with one also saying that staff of the agency had come into the prison to present information about the service. The other client had learned about the agency from pamphlets in the prison.

The two clients of the San Miguel Family Centre, which provides supported accommodation for families in difficult situations, had both been referred by the NSW Department of Community Services (DoCS). These referrals came independently of the justice system, though the clients' drug-use problems, and their related involvement with the criminal justice system, were certainly factors mandating DoCS involvement and hence referral to San Miguel.

[ top ]

In South Australia, clients of OARS SA learned about that agency largely as a consequence of its long history of operation and good reputation amongst prison staff. Four clients of the agency said they had learned about the agency by word of mouth from other prisoners. Three clients had been referred to the agency by prison staff, while another been referred from a personal support program she said was run by Centrelink in the prison. Three clients said they had put in a request to see an agency staff member after seeing the agency's pamphlets in prison.

Clients of the Salvation Army's Community Outreach Services had mostly been referred through the Salvation Army's role in providing clergy and visiting services to prisoners and, for three of the clients, as a result of the agency's specialist role of providing support to ex-prisoners with multiple, complex needs. One client of this service had not been referred while in prison, but from hospital where he was receiving mental health treatment. This client noted that, if not for this referral, he would have been homeless upon leaving the hospital. This suggests that pathways into homelessness for ex-prisoners may, at least in some cases, be echoed in pathways into homelessness for people leaving other institutions in disadvantaged situations.

The pathways to agencies were quite different for those 17 clients not receiving individualised support. Fifteen of these clients, including all clients of the In Town Centre in Bunbury, said they knew about the agencies from having lived in the area and knowing what places were around. Many of these clients also mentioned they had heard about the agency through word of mouth from other homeless people. Only one client had been referred to the Ozcare Centre by another agency -- specifically from a list of services given to him by a local charitable service -- while one had been referred by the court and was staying at the shelter as a bail condition.

[ top ]

It appears that for ex-prisoners not receiving individualised support, pathways into services are largely opportunistic and a matter of what they come to know about through informal channels. There appears to be little choice involved in their decisions to make use of these services. For some it is a matter of making use of services that are reasonably accessible within a loosely defined geographical area. Others suggested that there was simply not any other alternatives they knew of. In either case, it appeared that clients were not choosing to use the service through any kind of evaluative assessment of options. Rather they were responding to basic needs for shelter and nutrition by using whatever services they were reasonably able to access. In many cases, their use of the services fluctuated depending on what other sources of shelter and nutrition were temporarily available. While a very small number of clients talked about using the agency as a basis for making changes in their lives, clients generally did not appear to see the service as being involved in a process of change, or a process of integrating the client into the community in a different way.

The situation was apparently quite different for those clients receiving individualised support. For those clients, their contact with the service provider was, in most cases, the result of a conscious decision to make efforts towards a significant change in the client's circumstances after imprisonment. This decision may have been made by the client themselves, or another person involved in the correctional system may have decided to refer the client to the service. In either case, a conscious decision had been made that the service could assist in helping the client re-enter the community. Given the small number of services specifically working with prisoners, clients did not really have a choice of which service to go to. Rather the choice was whether to accept support or not.

[ top ]

Use of services in the past

Generally, clients' use of other services was limited and sporadic. Those services used were mostly church or charitable organisation-based services. Eleven of the 41 clients indicated they had made occasional use of food and clothing services provided by organisations such as the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, the Wesley Central Mission or the Smith Family. Some of these clients also said they had received financial assistance, such as money for fares, from these organisations. Clients experiencing past homelessness, who also used services such as food vans on a reasonably regular basis, mainly used these services. A number of these clients had also made occasional use of emergency accommodation such as shelters operated by these organisations.

Some additional clients also indicated they had used emergency accommodation on limited occasions in the past, but did not indicate any use of other food or clothing services.

Clients making use of church-based and charitable services in the past were quite non-specific about the frequency with which they used these services or how they came to access them. The general impression given was that clients would make sporadic or intermittent use of services whenever specific needs arose or they could not make do using independent resources. Clients appeared to become aware of these services through word of mouth or through living in and around particular areas rather than through any specific referral channels.

[ top ]

A few remaining clients who indicated they had previously received help from their currently supporting agencies or from government agencies such as Centrelink or housing agencies. Those clients who had previously used their supporting agencies had done so for services other than accommodation, such as assistance with food vouchers or other one-off assistance.

The remainder of clients in this group indicated they had not previously used any services. Some of these clients had been in situations of stable accommodation and income in the past and had not needed to use welfare or support services. Others had been in less stable situations but indicated they had relied on using their own means. Some of these clients suggested they could have made use of services but preferred to get by themselves and rely on their own limited resources.

Overall, there appeared to be a fairly clear line of separation within this client group between those people who had made extensive, though sporadic, use of support services and those who through choice or lack of need had not used services at all.

[ top ]

Assistance available within the prison system

Clients were asked what programs, information or other services were available inside the prison system to assist them with finding and keeping accommodation. They were then asked how much this varied from one prison to another and which of the available programs, advice or other services they took up. If there were programs, advice or other services the client did not take up, the client was asked why this was the case.

A majority of clients (n=24 or approximately 59%) said there were no programs available to them in prison to help with accommodation or other aspects of returning to the community. A number of other clients suggested there was some help available but were not necessarily clear about what form this may have taken.

Most of the clients who said there were no programs available indicated they had not received any form of advice or assistance at all to assist with accommodation or other post-release issues. A number of these clients felt they had been very much on their own and expected to cope with returning to the community without any preparation or assistance. Some suggested they had been able to undertake some programs peripherally related to returning to the community, such as rehabilitative programs or some that assisted them with basic employment skills, but others said there was nothing available to them at all. As one client put it, 'all I ever learned to do in prison was how to watch TV and how to do crime better'.

[ top ]

Some clients said they had picked up some information from pamphlets giving information about support agencies. Some had received assistance from welfare or liaison officers. Some clients noted that the nature of their imprisonment, such as receiving only a short sentence, being on remand or being in maximum security as an escapee, precluded them being able to access any programs that might have been available. Other said there may have been programs or assistance available, but they either did not feel they needed it, felt it would not help anyway or they did not make any effort to find out about what was available.

A number of clients suggested there was assistance available, but that an individual had to work hard to get access to it. Some suggested that prisoners had to make 'a real nuisance' of themselves to get access to programs or assistance.

These responses contrasted sharply with the small number of clients (n=6 or approximately 15%) who said they had been through programs specifically designed to assist them with preparing for release and re-entering the community. Clients in four of the five states visited reported they had undertaken specifi c programs. Each indicated this had been of assistance to them.

Client reports of whether the availability of assistance varied between different prisons tended to follow their response to whether there was any assistance available in the first place. Those that said there was nothing available tended to think that was the case everywhere, and there was nothing available in any of the prisons they had served in or knew about. Those who had done specific programs thought the program was available in any of the particular states' facilities. A number of clients did refer to perceived differences between facilities, suggesting there was no assistance available in remand or maximum security and some female clients referring to a lack of programs in women's prisons.

[ top ]

Clients did not indicate they experienced any particular barriers to them taking up available programs or assistance. As noted above, a number of clients said they would not have taken up any available assistance because they did not think they needed help, were cynical about whether it would be of any benefit or because the duration and nature of their custody prevented it.

There was no discernible relationship between how long it had been since a client was released from prison and whether they believed there was any assistance available to them, although it is likely that clients in prison more recently would have had more assistance available.

Although a majority of clients reported that they did not have access to assistance with accommodation matters while in prison, this cannot necessarily be taken as an indication of whether this assistance was in fact available. A strong theme to emerge from this question, and from other questions relating to clients' use of non-prison services, is that there is a good deal of variation between clients in whether or not they choose to make use of services or assistance available to them. It emerges from these responses that some clients prefer to try and solve their problems themselves, without assistance, even if they do not seem to be successful in doing so. Some clients are wary of being controlled by those offering assistance while others, or are cynical about whether they will actually benefit from the assistance. Others, through a lack of their own or others' efforts, do not become aware of assistance they could potentially access.

[ top ]

Perceived gaps in service provision

Clients were asked whether, based on what they now knew and what they had seen, they thought there were things missing that could be really helpful to people coming out of prison and needing to find accommodation or other help. A number of themes emerged from these responses.

Gaps in accommodation availability

Many clients saw a lack of emergency accommodation as a major gap in service. This was an issue for most female clients, especially those with child-care responsibilities. A number of clients, both male and female, saw accommodation availability as being a critical factor in preventing ex-prisoners from re-offending. Some also cited accommodation as being the key to preventing some people from being held in remand.

A number of clients suggested that the availability of more supported accommodation, particularly in the form of half-way houses, was a major issue. These clients saw that half-way houses would provide a chance for ex-prisoners to adjust to living independently and making decisions, while still providing components of the structure and rules they had adjusted to in prison. Some clients also saw a subsidised halfway-house as being a place where newly released prisoners could stabilise their finances, lifestyles and other aspects of their re-integration into the community.

Peer support

Several clients identified peer support as something that would be particularly helpful for ex-prisoners. These clients felt that former prisoners, who had successfully returned to the community, would be able to provide valuable and insightful advice and understand fully the issues that ex-prisoners faced. An alternative was the establishment of more services specifically targeting ex-prisoners.

[ top ]

Financial management assistance

Many clients identified a need for greater assistance with helping people budget and manage their limited finances on release from prison. Most of these clients saw a lack of money as being one of the main problems facing people on release and saw the first few weeks as being a particularly difficult and vulnerable period. Some clients said that people had no choice but to steal as the money they had would not cover rent and food. Only a small number of clients suggested increasing Centrelink payments as a way of addressing this, though. Most suggested programs, either inside or outside prison, to help people budget and manage their finances better so they did not spend all their money within a few days after release.

General support

A number of clients identified the need for more avenues of general support, especially daily living support, mentoring and advice. More assistance with finding employment was also mentioned by several clients. Depending on the kind of support they were currently receiving, clients tended to suggest either new sources of support or expanding existing agencies. Some clients were fairly specific about suggesting the need for more avenues of support that followed progressive pathways, with defined goals.

Many clients saw a strong link between the need for more support and levels of offending, with many suggesting that having more support available for prisoners on release would directly reduce the rate of re-offending.

[ top ]

Information about services

A number of clients at the homeless men's shelter saw the need for more information, both within prison and in the community, on available services. They felt there were services available to meet every need, but that disadvantaged people did not necessarily know about them or how to access them.

A number of other clients also indicated they felt there were services available for every need and did not see any gaps. Some of these clients suggested that if people were not using the services it was through their own choices and they could get help if they wanted it.

Conclusions -- use of SAAP services

Within this survey there was a clear delineation in the way different client groups used SAAP and other services, and the way they came to find out about them. Clients who were using the different agencies that provided individualised case management support on an on-going basis came to find out about those agencies and become their clients largely through the direct efforts of the agencies, or through information networks and reputations established through many years of work. Clients of these agencies were able to access the full range of ongoing support they needed and generally did not need support from other agencies, except through associations and referral from their main supporting agency. Pathways to support for these clients were generally direct and their use of the services ongoing and linked to their level of need.

[ top ]

Clients not being supported by these agencies were more irregular and less defined in their pathways and use of services. Both currently and in the past these clients tended to access services to address specific needs and would access them for as long as that specific need remained. Clients did not generally seem to be concerned with establishing ongoing relationships with services and some resisted the idea of using any kind of service as much as possible.

On one level there is a greater need for information, within the prison system and in the community, about services available to help ex-prisoners. By virtue of this study's methodology, all clients interviewed were accessing services to some extent. There may well be a considerable number of ex-prisoners in the community, or who had been in the community and since returned to prison, who could benefit from a greater understanding of avenues of support available to them. Not all will be interested, but there will be some who could use this information to good advantage. Disseminating information about services does carry the risk of already limited resources within agencies becoming even more stretched.

On another level, many ex-prisoners will find ways to access services they need without any further information. Local knowledge and word of mouth seem particularly effective in letting clients access services they need to survive. These may not be the types of services that are able to give clients ongoing support or add increased levels of stability to their lives, but they are invaluable in meeting immediate needs. Through providing basic necessities such as temporary accommodation, food, clothing or medical assistance at critical times these agencies contribute to improved health, well-being and safety outcomes for ex-prisoners and no doubt prevent re-offending in some cases. Many of these services are peripheral to the accommodation sector but assist the sector by meeting needs that arise when the limited accommodation options available are not sufficient or appropriate to meet an individual's circumstances.

[ top ]

Clients' responses in this section reflect client and staff views elsewhere, indicating the need for a greater range of accommodation options and support. In particular services that understand and are equipped to respond to the particular needs and issues of ex-prisoners are seen as necessary by the ex-prisoner client group.

It would be helpful if some of this targeted support could begin within the prison system, either through institutional staff or external agencies providing services within the prison. Where agencies are able to reach prisoners before release, the outcomes for those prisoners seem particularly positive.

The finding that most ex-prisoner clients did not feel they had access to assistance with finding and keeping accommodation or other post-release matters suggests that more may need to be done within the prison to put prisoners in contact with available assistance. The findings of this study suggest that rehabilitative outcomes for ex-prisoners are much better if they receive assistance and support to prevent them from re-offending or becoming homeless. It may be that more assistance needs to be made available where it is not currently, through developing programs and applying more resources. Or it may mean making it easier for prisoners to access assistance, or doing more to encourage prisoners to seek assistance and educate them about the benefits they can gain.

In suggesting this, it is recognised that correctional staff cannot require prisoners to access assistance if they do not wish to, that security considerations place constraints on how prisoners' activities can be structured and that a proportion of prisoners will always choose not to take up assistance available to them. At the same time, there is an imperative to maximise prisoners' access to assistance, and acceptance of that assistance, as much as reasonably possible.

[ top ]

Children and family

The interview instrument included a brief section where clients were asked about their relationship status, whether they had any children and issues around partners and children living with the client.

As the interviewers explained to clients before this section, the intention of these questions was to get an idea of how having a partner or children changed the issues for ex-prisoners trying to find accommodation. Clients were told that the questions were not about invading the person's privacy and the interviewer would not be asking for any names or personal details about the client's family.

The current project was not seeking to examine issues around homelessness for women and children in depth, but to simply understand basic core issues for this client group and provide a starting point for further investigation or to build on previous work.

No client declined to answer the questions in this section, nor did any client appear to have any concern or anxiety about answering the questions. In the case of two clients ---one a transgendered person and the other a client identified as a sex offender by his supporting agency -- the interviewer considered that asking these questions may cause some distress to the client and deemed it appropriate not to ask the questions. In both cases this was discussed with the client's support worker who agreed with this approach. In both cases the support worker volunteered that the client was single and had no children.

Children

Approximately half the clients in this group (n=21) had children. Six of the nine female clients interviewed had children. Fifteen of the 32 male clients had children.

Five of the clients in this group had one child each, six had two children each and five clients each had three children. Five of the clients had five or more children each.

[ top ]

Relationships

Of the 21 children with clients, 16 identified as being single (not in a relationship). Three clients with children stated they were in a relationship but not living together, while two were married/defacto (living together). This distribution of relationship types can be attributed to the nature of the supporting agencies as involved as most targeted single persons. One agency's client group was families and the two clients interviewed through this service both reported as married and living together with one or more of their children. In the case of the remaining clients, who were in relationships, this relationship did not appear to necessarily be with a parent of any of the children.

Accommodation problems and access to children

For many of the clients who had children, their lack of stable, and perhaps more importantly independent, accommodation was a direct barrier to their relationship with their children. Ten of the 21 clients, all male, cited a lack of stable accommodation as a major issue in being able to have their children live or stay with them. Six of these clients said they were hoping to be able to have their children live with them or stay with them once they had their own place, or more stable accommodation. Some of these clients acknowledged that having the children living with them was not a realistic option whatever their situation, but also recognised they could not even have their children stay overnight until they had more suitable accommodation. One client said he was working towards having a place where his three children could safely and comfortably spend the night. He said he wanted his children to be able to talk with him about their problems but that he could only have a shallow relationship with them now, only seeing them for a few hours at a time.

[ top ]

A small number of clients were in a position where they wanted more contact with their children, but were not even considering this until they had more appropriate accommodation. One client had tried in the past to get custody of his two children but had failed due to a lack of stable accommodation and his criminal history. Another said it was not even worth bothering to go to court for access until he had more appropriate accommodation where his daughter could have her own room, unlike in the hostel where he was living.

For some other clients, accommodation was not an issue in why their children did not live or stay with them. One client just said that having his daughter live with him hasn't been an option regardless of accommodation. One client, who had been homeless most of his life and was homeless at the time of interview, said he had never tried to have any of his five children live with him. One client said simply that his children are better off with their mother.

Overall, seven clients reported they had their children living with them before they went into prison. Two of these clients had children living with them at the time of interview while five of them no longer did. There were also three clients who had not been able to have their children living with them before they went to prison, but did at the time of interview. For two of these clients, controlling their drug use and the help of their supporting agency were the critical factors that had made this possible.

The relationship between accommodation and offending, particularly drug use, in affecting access and custody of children is, as with similar relationships found in this study, a complex one. In many cases it is difficult to isolate the roles of offending, drug use and unstable accommodation in preventing clients from being able to maintain a higher level of contact with their children.

A number of male clients clearly attributed the breakdown of their relationship with their children to drug use, whether it be their own drug use, the mother's drug use or both. Two clients stated they had signed custody of their children over to their parents-in-law and were happy to do so in the best interests of the child. One client had his six children living with him when interviewed, but had previously lost custody of them to foster care for three years, while he worked through his drug problems and, with the help of his supporting agency, began to stabilise his life. A female client had her three children taken into foster care when she was imprisoned three months before and, at the time of interview, had another 12 months to wait before she could get them back. One client had seen her daughter only twice in the two years since she had been arrested while another's children had been taken overseas by their father while she was in prison.

[ top ]

Movement of partners

Clients were asked:

If you are living with a partner and/or with children, did they move to the area you are now living to be with you?

This question sought to examine whether there was a possible impact on SAAP services in particular areas resulting from families moving to those areas. It was supposed that clients, after their release from prison might come to live in certain areas, marked either by their socio-economic status, availability of public housing or supported accommodation or the proximity of a releasing prison. It was speculated that partners might then move into those areas, possibly bringing children with them, resulting in an increased use of services in those areas.

This effect was not demonstrated in this client group. The vast majority of the group were either single and not in a relationship (n=31; approximately 76%) or in a relationship but not living together (n=7; approximately 17%). There was no suggestion by clients in the latter group that their partners had moved to the local area to be with them. In the case of the three clients who were living with partners, two of them were almost certainly living in the area because the agency that supported them was based in the same area. This was not having any impact on the agency though, beyond the fact that it was providing outreach services to these families as part of its core business. In the other case, the client had not served more than overnight stays in custody and she and her partner had arrived in the area together some time earlier.

The interviewer did encounter one case of a client, living in a supported accommodation hostel, whose girlfriend was coming from interstate to be with him and was expected to arrive at the hostel the day after the interview. This was an issue for staff, who advised that this situation did arise from time to time with their clients and did have some implications for operation of their service. Staff advised that the presence of a female partner in a male hostel could create a range of tensions and jealousies in the household, occasionally resulting in violent confrontations between residents and could also have negative effects on the client, such as through the partner encouraging him into drug use. Staff also said the arrival of the partner could have resource implications for their service or others, as the partner would usually be homeless when she arrived and would often need to be assisted through the limited resources of a women's accommodation service.

[ top ]

While the arrival of partners in these circumstances certainly carried resource implications, caused problems for staff, and disruption for the individual and the service, there was no suggestion that this happened frequently enough to be a major concern for the agency. The issue was not raised by any other service.

Conclusions -- children and family

As suggested, the particular role of accommodation instability in preventing many ex-prisoner clients having contact with their children is not easy to establish. As is the case with the relationship between accommodation instability and offending, the problem is complex and multi-faceted. It emerges though that a lack of stable, ongoing accommodation is at least a major fact preventing some ex-prisoner clients from having meaningful relationships with their children. The other factors that come into play, such as offending behaviour, illicit drug use, domestic violence and other components of family breakdown also contribute to this situation.

Providing stable accommodation alone will not bring families back together or allow ex-prisoners to provide good parenting or positive role models to their children. A greater availability of stable accommodation and support for ex-prisoners, especially those seeking to change their lifestyles and establish positive relationships, could help to address some of the ramifications of past behaviours and actions that have led to ex-prisoners becoming alienated from their families. Establishing positive and appropriate relationships with their children could at the same time contribute in many ways to these clients efforts towards lifestyle and behaviour change and help them to better integrate with the general community.

• Previous: Results of interviews with staff of SAAP funded agencies
• Next: Appendix C

[ top ]