Brief Outline of the Study

This research looks at what works to prevent homelessness when people leave prison. We know that many people struggle to find stable housing after release, which makes it harder for them to rebuild their lives and can lead to reoffending. This study examines the connection between prison discharge and homelessness across the UK, reviews how well current government programs are working, and identifies the most promising approaches to help people secure housing after release. The findings highlight what's effective, where the gaps are, and what practitioners and policymakers should focus on to make a real difference in breaking the cycle between prison, homelessness, and crime.

Findings in Brief

• People leaving prison in England experience homelessness at a rate 40 times higher than the general population (6.3% vs 0.16%).
  ‍
• In fiscal year 2021-22, 4.2% (6,090) of households owed homelessness relief duty in England became homeless immediately upon prison discharge.
  ‍
• Across the UK nations, prison discharge consistently links to homelessness: 11% in Wales (2018-19), 5.2% in Scotland (2020-21), and 2% in Northern Ireland (2021-22).
  ‍
• 53% of people experiencing street homelessness in England had been previously incarcerated, with 11% indicating prison as their most recent accommodation.
  ‍
• Two-thirds of individuals known to have experienced homelessness after prison release reoffended within a year, compared to half of the total prison release population.
  ‍
• Employment outcomes are poor: only 13% of people released from custody were employed after six weeks, and 50% of employers would not consider employing someone with incarceration experience.
  ‍
• Existing government programmes show mixed results: 'Through the Gate' services face underfunding and understaffing; 'Duty to Refer' captures only a fraction of those experiencing homelessness (2,060 referrals vs 6,090 experiencing homelessness).
  ‍
• Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 (CAS3) showed initial housing improvements but failed to maintain long-term housing stability.
  ‍
• Critical Time Intervention (CTI) improved contact with mental health services for prison leavers but housing outcomes have not been systematically evaluated for this population.
  ‍
• Housing-focused re-entry programmes show promise for both housing stability and reduced recidivism but require more systematic evaluation.

Recommendations in Brief

• Promote implementation of evidence-based, integrated approaches such as CTI and re-entry programmes, with robust evaluation of their impact on housing outcomes specifically.
  ‍
• Increase coordination between governmental agencies and service providers before and after release through development of interagency protocols with stakeholder input.
  ‍
• Explore and evaluate proactive programmes to increase access to settled accommodation, including landlord incentive schemes and guaranteed accommodation upon release.
  ‍
• Increase support for prison staff and frontline workers to improve workforce capacity and reduce staff burnout, ensuring each person has a single point of contact for services.
  ‍
• Implement "quick wins": coordinate with local authorities at sentence start, complete homelessness applications before release, and avoid scheduling releases on Friday afternoons.
  ‍
• Conduct robust external evaluation of promising programmes like Scotland's SHORE (Sustainable Housing on Release for Everyone) standards and various accommodation schemes.
  ‍
• Improve data collection across all UK nations to better understand the scale and nature of post-prison homelessness.

‍