Housing and re-offending

Citation

Linney, J. and O’Leary, C. (2013), "Housing and re-offending", Safer Communities, Vol. 12 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/sc.2013.56012aaa.001

Housing and re-offending

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Safer Communities, Volume 12, Issue 1

In recent years housing, in particular, stable accommodation has been increasingly identified as an important element in avoiding recidivism (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). However, the issue is multi-faceted and complex, as identified in the articles in this special edition of Safer Communities. The articles all highlight that whilst the role of housing in reducing recidivism is recognised, there is a need for more research to understand the nature of this role. There are also questions raised about the nature of suitable accommodation for offenders, the availability and cost of such accommodation, the role of housing interlinked with other initiatives, now and in the future, which require further investigation. Without this evidence and further investigation the future of housing for offenders and policy development is uncertain.

Policy makers and practitioners are concerned with the development and implementation of robust programmes that reduce recidivism. But Chris O’Leary’s article identifies that the exact role of stable accommodation in reducing recidivism is at present unclear. He undertook a detailed review of available evidence. This included an examination of the systematic reviews in the field (Aos et al., 2006; Lipsey and Cullen, 2007) followed by a standard search of available literature and finally a review of evaluations that quantified the relationship between housing and recidivism. Whilst the evidence indicates that stable accommodation does impact on reducing recidivism, O’Leary shows that available empirical evidence does not clarify the nature or extent of the role of stable accommodation. In addition, he identifies a number of key questions where the evidence is unavailable, such as “does stable accommodation in itself reduce the risk of someone re-offending?” and “is stable accommodation a prerequisite of successful rehabilitation?”. O’Leary concludes that whilst recent research is adding to our knowledge, the lack of clear evidence poses major difficulties for both policy makers and practitioners in developing future policy and services.

John Flint’s article considers another aspect of housing and offending, the link with regulation of behaviour. His article examines the policing of offending within public housing in New York City and British cities. Flint considers the similarities in techniques such as exclusionary practices and the control of public space. He also highlights the significant differences between the stronger role, in Britain, of public (or social) landlords in policing offenders and the greater emphasis on interventions with households to reduce recidivism. Flint undertook a series of interviews in New York with executive officers from the New York Police Housing Bureau and New York City Housing Authority and the Manhattan Housing Borough Commander. The British findings were based on the findings of evaluations of housing and anti-social behaviour initiatives. Flint argues that whilst sophisticated ambiguous approaches are used in New York City, the management of repeat offenders within the British public housing sector is robustly embedded and is increasingly based on intensive interventions. Flint concludes that with the present politics of austerity, there is a danger that the role of social housing will be reduced, with the state responsibilities being abdicated to an under-resourced voluntary and community sector, resulting in just the policing of general disorder of public space.

In a short article, Jo Linney considers how the future welfare reform will impact on offenders, housing and recidivism. In particular she considers how the availability and accessibility of suitable stable accommodation for offenders will be affected by the introduction of specific housing benefit changes, including shared accommodation rate for the under 35s. Whilst highlighting one specific aspect, Linney concludes that the impact of the savings gained through welfare reform and the reduction in other areas such as specialist supported accommodation, may be offset by the increased costs of recidivism and that this needs to be monitored and further researched.

Whilst it is clear that evidence needed to fully understand the links between housing and re-offending is lacking, as highlighted by Chris O’Leary, recent research is adding to our knowledge. Mark Ellison, Chris Fox, Adrian Gains and Gary Pollock’s article adds to this evidence by reporting on the evaluation of the impact on re-offending of one specific project Vision Housing – a small London-based specialist-housing provider. Ellison et al. point out that the figures cited to evidence the link between recidivism and housing are from the Social Exclusion Unit (2002) report Reducing Re-Offending by Ex-prisoners. This research is from an unpublished Home Office Report over one year and covers only those with severe accommodation needs. There are also a number of other limitations to this research, including how accommodation was defined. The evaluation carried out by Ellison et al. used the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS3) with the Police National Computer (PNC) to compare actual reconviction rates after one year. Although the lack of a comparator group is highlighted as a limitation of the research, the evidence clearly indicates a 10 percent reduction in the reconviction rates over one year and a 12.9 percent reduction over two years of those accommodated and supported by Vision Housing. In addition, greater reductions were evidenced in specific groups – for example, 19 percent reduction in the under 35s and 35.9 percent reduction in re-offending for women. A second phase of evaluation with discussions to include a comparison group is underway.

Third sector organisations (TSO) have an important role in relation to housing and offenders, both in relation to accessing housing through the provision of advice and assistance but also as housing providers. Alice Mills, Dina Gojkovic, Rosie Meek and David Mullins examine the contribution of TSOs in assisting offenders to access suitable accommodation and the importance of a partnership approach. The article relates to a study undertaken involving 680 short surveys of offenders and a qualitative interview study in eight prisons. Mills et al. outline that the initial two-year study examined the role and effectiveness of TSO work with offenders and their families generally. The study identified the importance of housing for offenders and highlighted that housing provision was perceived as the second most important area for improvement. Mills et al. conclude that whilst stable housing plays an important role in reducing the risk of re-offending it should not be seen in isolation from other initiatives. As with other papers Mills et al. have identified the need for and importance of further research.

Jo Linney, Chris O’Leary