Research and analysis

​Criminal justice system and homelessness: A rapid evidence assessment

Published 11 December 2025

Applies to England

1. The link between the criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems

Rapid evidence assessment

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) commissioned the Centre for Homelessness Impact (CHI) led consortium (delivered by RSM UK) to undertake a deep dive into the interaction between the criminal justice system and homelessness and rough sleeping systems. A rapid evidence assessment has been carried out to collate and examine learning across the UK.

The rapid evidence assessment addresses two research questions with specific key lines of enquiry (that guide the structure of the report):

What is known about how people interact with the criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems? Key lines of enquiry: How does interaction with CJS influence the likelihood of homelessness/rough sleeping? How does it differ depending on individual circumstances? How does it influence the length of time a person experiences homelessness?

To what extent do the criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems (their policies and programmes) support people leaving prison into settled accommodation? Key lines of enquiry: What works well and less well? How do the different elements interact? What, if any, gaps are there in provision? How do wider system factors influence effectiveness?

Learning from the rapid evidence assessment highlights gaps in current service provision. These can then be explored through fieldwork to assess what improvements could be made to support people leaving prison into settled accommodation.

1.1 The structure of this report

Chapter 2 outlines what is known about how people interact with the criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems.

Chapter 3 describes policies and programmes to support people leaving prison to find settled accommodation.

Chapter 4 collates the learning on gaps in provision and provides a summary of the next steps for fieldwork.

The methodology for this rapid evidence assessment can be found in Annex A.

2. What is known about how people interact with the criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems?

2.1 How does interaction with the criminal justice system influence the likelihood of homelessness/rough sleeping?

The intersection between criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems is marked by a cyclical relationship where each can exacerbate the other. Research consistently shows that some people leaving prison are at a higher risk of facing significant challenges in finding settled housing, increasing their risk of homelessness (Bashir et al., 2021).

The number of people leaving prison and experiencing homelessness, or the risk of homelessness, is significant. Recent data from the Ministry of Justice (2024), reveals that in 2023/24, 9,210 individuals were released from prison into homelessness or rough sleeping conditions. This represents 13% of the 70,000 total prison releases during that period. However, this figure only tells part of the story. It excludes those who may be homeless and temporarily housed in Probation Approved Premises, Bail Accommodation Support Services (BASS), Community Accommodation Services (CAS-2 or CAS-3), or housing provided by the Home Office Immigration Enforcement Services. This additional group includes 17,320 individuals, and when combined with those directly experiencing homelessness, accounts for 38% of all people leaving prison. These figures highlight the demand for settled housing solutions and support.

People leaving prison can be particularly susceptible to homelessness and rough sleeping for a variety of reasons. These might include a breakdown of previous relationships and lack of support networks, difficulties in accessing housing due to certain policies, limitations on where they can be accommodated given the nature of crimes committed or probation requirements, financial difficulties, and a lack of employment upon leaving prison. Some people may also opt to prefer to stay in rough sleeping environments, rather than engaging with services (Bowpitt, 2020).

For many, the route to homelessness begins while they are in prison. Imprisonment frequently leads to the direct loss of housing, with up to one-third of people losing their homes while in custody (Welsh Government, 2018). Even when housing is retained, it can be insecure or unsuitable, heightening the risk of homelessness and the further interaction with the justice system.

Upon release, people leaving prison are currently facing a housing market where social housing is scarce. In addition, there are high up-front costs of renting, and private landlords are reluctant to rent to individuals who are supported by a probation officer, fearing rent arrears or property damage (Homeless Link, 2020). There are, however, opportunities for those leaving prison to interact with the homelessness system before release. For instance, Community Offender Managers, Prison Offender Managers and Pre-Release Teams are responsible for accessing and identifying an individual’s resettlement needs including housing and community links upon release (NAO, 2023).

Adding to these challenges is the pervasive stigma associated with people having a criminal record. Homeless Link (2020) described how discrimination can often manifest in subtle yet detrimental ways, such as online searches by landlords that reveal past convictions, leading to the immediate rejection of tenancy applications. This kind of discrimination results in a precarious housing situation, making it difficult for individuals to find and maintain settled accommodation. The Welsh Government Expert Review Panel (2023) highlighted that some people do not meet landlord requirements due to not being able to provide references, bank statements, identification, excessive deposits or rent in advance.

This stigma creates a barrier not only in housing but also in employment, another critical factor for stability. In England and Wales, statistics from the MoJ (2024) show that the proportion of people released from custody who were employed at six months from their release rose from 21.4% (2022/23) to 29.5% (2023/24). Whilst this increase shows some marked improvement, it still presents the stark reality that 70% of people leaving prison are unemployed six months after release. It is also likely that this statistic is an underestimation. Adults released from custody or starting court orders had a proven reoffending rate of 34.1% (versus the overall reoffending rate of 26.5%), which suggests that some people were likely to have returned to prison (Ministry of Justice, 2024)^{[footnote 1]}. The challenge in finding employment is also compounded by stigma, where half of UK employers surveyed (n = 1849) would not consider employing someone who had interacted with the criminal justice system (YouGov, 2016). Without a job or settled income, the risk of homelessness becomes even greater.

The Welsh Government Expert Review Panel (2023) also highlighted how legal obstacles further complicate the housing options for those leaving prison. Allocation policies and landlord insurance requirements can exclude individuals with some types of criminal convictions including arson and sex offences from accessing certain housing options.

Compounding these issues are the complex needs of many individuals leaving prison, including mental health issues and substance use. The lack of adequate support for these needs often leads to housing instability and homelessness (Feinstein et al., 2005).

Furthermore, family breakdowns, which are common among those in prison, leave many without the necessary support networks to help them reintegrate into society and secure settled housing. Bramley et al. (2015) identified that support networks play a role in resettlement and housing stability. For some individuals, re-establishing relationships with family or partners provides a foundation for finding and maintaining housing. However, for others, the absence of such support or the loss of supportive relationships—such as the death of a parent or the breakdown of a relationship—can hinder their ability to secure settled accommodation, increasing their risk and length of time experiencing homelessness.

The Scottish Government (2015) described how variations in service provision during and after leaving prison can create uneven outcomes. For example, this includes differences in whether housing services carry out homelessness prevention work, offer transportation, or provide reintegration services. Some people leaving prison do not receive consistent support in retaining or securing accommodation, making them more likely to face homelessness upon release.

The Welsh Government (2016) described how people on remand are less likely to receive comprehensive support than people leaving prisons with fixed release dates. This is further complicated as people leaving prison from remand are often ineligible for accommodation support from national programmes in England.

Engaging with the criminal justice system can result in people experiencing homelessness for longer periods. Several barriers arise from having a criminal record, such as stigma, discrimination, and legal restrictions, all of which can delay the process of finding settled housing (described above). Delays in securing settled housing are also compounded by the cyclical nature of re-offending. People who cannot find settled housing or access essential support services, such as mental health care or substance use support services, may struggle to reintegrate successfully into society. These challenges can lead to re-offending, re-imprisonment, and further instability, creating a cycle that prolongs homelessness. This can result in the normalisation of re-offending and homelessness. This may result in individuals perceiving prison as a safety net or structured environment, further complicating efforts to break the cycle (Gough and Coghlan 2022).

2.2 Drivers of interactions between the criminal justice and the homelessness and rough sleeping systems

To fully understand how people interact with the criminal justice system and homelessness or rough sleeping system, it is important to examine the drivers of those interactions. This section categorises drivers as structural and individual drivers. Structural drivers refer to societal and systemic factors that create environments that can lead to homelessness and offending, while individual drivers are personal characteristics and experiences that increase vulnerability to interacting with the criminal justice system and/or the homelessness and rough sleeping system. Note that it is important to recognise that whilst this section describes individual barriers, which is not to say that they are the fault of an individual.

2.2.1 Structural drivers for people interacting with the criminal justice system

Poverty is a fundamental structural factor that increases the likelihood of an individual’s interaction with the criminal justice system. While poverty itself does not directly cause crime, it is a prominent driver in how or why people interact with the criminal justice system. Poverty is not simply a contextual backdrop but can influence each driver described in this rapid evidence review.

People living in poverty can often experience limited access to education, healthcare and settled employment. This lack of opportunity can result in desperation, increasing the likelihood that people may engage in behaviours that bring them into contact with the criminal justice system (Quilgars et al., 2012). For example, in London, a 10% increase in the cost-of-living is associated with an 8% increase in crimes such as violence, robberies, shoplifting, burglary and theft (Dominguez & Kirchmaier 2024).

The introduction of Universal Credit across England and Wales provides a stark example of how economic policies can influence poverty and crime rates. Tiratelli et al. (2022) explored the impact of the reform to Britain’s social security system, which reduced incomes for most claimants. As Universal Credit enrolments increased, so did crime rates in a given area. They argue that their findings suggest that Universal Credit seems to have exacerbated the discrepancy between what society promises and the standard of living that is available, increasing the likelihood of offending and the level of crime.

McAra & McVie (2016) tested the relationship between violence and poverty. They found that poverty and violence are systematically linked with those from low socio-economic status households having 1.5 times greater odds of involvement in violence than those from more affluent family backgrounds. In this context, the authors suggested that violence becomes a means of asserting power and identity for those who lack opportunities to achieve status through more socially acceptable means.

Gaitán-Rossi and Guadarrama (2021) carried out a systematic review of the literature on the mechanisms that link poverty and crime. They found that urban poverty is both a determinant of crime and a consequence. They described the mechanisms that living in communities of extreme poverty increases exposure to contexts of social disorder, reduces family social capital, and increases the likelihood that young people will engage in violent crime.

Inequality, heavily linked to poverty described above, can impact access to services and plays a crucial role in increasing the risk of criminal justice system involvement. The Health Foundation (2024) identified that 25% of people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods live in the 10% of neighbourhoods with the highest crime rates. This compares with only 3% of people in the least deprived neighbourhoods.

Unemployment adds to the challenges faced by those living in poverty, further increasing the likelihood of criminal justice interactions. Wu et al. (2011) highlight how income inequality and unemployment can drive people to commit criminal acts for economic survival. The absence of a settled income not only heightens economic pressures but also fosters a sense of hopelessness. This can make involvement with the criminal justice system more likely as people struggle to meet their basic needs.

Nordin & Almen (2017) reached a similar conclusion. They showed that long-term unemployment had a strong association with violent crime. This effect was greater than that of unemployment on property crime. They hypothesised that long-term unemployment creates a feeling of alienation that fosters violent and other non-rational behaviours.

Housing instability can result in people living in precarious housing conditions, such as overcrowded or substandard housing and are more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system (than people in settled housing). Pape et al. (2023) describe that unsafe, insecure and unaffordable housing can increase the risk of violence within a household. Hill (2020) and Centrepoint (2023) both highlight that the increase in the cost of rents within the private rented sector have resulted in insecure housing situations and rent arrears, which can result in people being more likely to engage in risky behaviours as a method of survival. The statistics are stark: 79% of those who were homeless before custody reoffend within a year, highlighting the importance of addressing housing needs to reduce reoffending (Homeless Link, 2020).

2.2.2 Individual drivers for people interacting with the criminal justice system

People with untreated or poorly managed mental health conditions are at a higher risk of interacting with the criminal justice system (MacInnes, 2020). Mental health conditions can impair judgement, leading to behaviours that bring people into contact with law enforcement, particularly during crises. Prison can then become the default response to mental health crises, resulting in imprisonment rather than appropriate mental health treatment. This is because prisons are being used as emergency safe places under the Mental Health Act 1983 as there are no mental health beds available in the community (Justice Committee 2021). This is important as people leaving prison are 29 times more likely to die from all causes within the first two weeks post-release compared to the general population (MacInnes, 2020). Specifically, people leaving prison are eight times more likely to commit suicide twelve months after their release, compared to the general population, with a lack of housing being a significant factor in increasing the risk of suicide (MacInnes, 2020). Whilst the role of untreated or poorly managed mental health conditions can play a role in how people interact with the criminal justice system, it is important to recognise that not all people experiencing mental ill health will engage in activities that bring them into contact with the criminal justice system. Addressing mental health needs has the potential to influence reoffending. For example, recent evidence highlights that people with community sentences, who also received mental health treatment, had a lower offending rate than those with a short custodial sentence (27% for those with mental health support versus 36% for those with short custodial sentences) (MoJ, 2024).

Substance use drives interactions with the criminal justice system and often intertwines with homelessness. Highlighted by Quiglars (2012) many individuals released from prison with unsupported substance use issues struggle to reintegrate into society. Additionally, substance use can worsen mental health issues, creating a dual diagnosis that is particularly prevalent among those who are both homeless and involved with the criminal justice system. Data from Bramley and Fitzpatrick (2015) shows that 58% of those with substance use suffer from mental health problems, further complicating their reintegration prospects. Additionally, recent data highlights that only 43% of adults released from prison successfully started community treatment (Office for Health Improvement & Disparities 2024). This challenge has been recognised, and health and justice partners within the government have come together to support continuity of care between prison and the community. People leaving prison should get a priority appointment with a community treatment service to help them stay engaged. This appointment should be within three weeks of leaving prison for the person’s care to be considered continuity of care. Guidance has been developed to support providers to deliver continuity of care.

Family dynamics are a strong determinant in the likelihood of interacting with the criminal justice system. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2023) suggests adverse family circumstances are associated with an increased risk of offending. For example, children who experience neglect or domestic violence are at a higher risk of engaging in anti-social behaviour, which can lead to early encounters with the criminal justice system (Local Government Association, 2018). Additionally, the absence of positive role models or parental guidance often results in increased vulnerability to criminal activities, especially among young people (HM Inspectorate of Probation 2023).

A history of trauma, particularly childhood trauma. Individuals who have experienced abuse, neglect, or other traumatic events may develop coping mechanisms or behaviours that lead to interaction with the criminal justice system. Quilgars (2012) highlighted that trauma can result in difficulties with emotional regulation, trust, and social interactions, leading to anxiety, depression, complex emotional needs (formerly referred to as personality disorder) and psychosis. These individuals are often overrepresented in the criminal justice system, where their underlying trauma remains unaddressed.

Low educational attainment also plays a role in interactions with the criminal justice system. Whilst these findings sit within the section for individual drivers, this is an oversimplification as there are also structural elements at play.

Individuals with limited education often have fewer job opportunities, leading to economic instability and a higher likelihood of engaging in illegal activities (Bramley & Fitzpatrick, 2015). People leaving prison are amongst the most disadvantaged and lowest skilled in the population. Research conducted by the Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) (2015) found that 46% of people entering the prison system were functionally illiterate, compared with 15% of the general population. ONS (2022) data identified that young adults who received custodial sentences had lower levels of educational attainment, with 36.9% achieving the expected level of English and Maths by the end of Key Stage 2 compared with 53.0% of their peers with non-custodial sentences or cautions, and 72.4% of those without criminal convictions. This greatly impacts the ability of people leaving prison to gain employment, again leading to economic instability and a higher likelihood of engaging in illegal activities. Nevertheless, some people in prison have engaged in education and accredited programmes – in public prisons in England, 47,712 prisoners completed an initial maths and/or English assessment (MoJ,2024).

This section highlights the commonality of drivers for the routes into homelessness and interaction with the criminal justice system (which are described above).

The drivers of homelessness and criminal activity are deeply interconnected, often creating a cycle that can be difficult to break. Specifically, research by Bramley and Fitzpatrick (2017) links structural factors like poverty, unemployment, and inequality to an increased likelihood of homelessness.

Substance use is another overlapping driver, frequently linked to both homelessness and the criminal justice system (Bramley et al., 2015). One paper shows that people affected by substance use disproportionately experience both homelessness and prison sentences (Black, 2020). For example, in London, Combined Homelessness and Information Network (2020) showed that people who have experienced rough sleeping and had been in prison at some point in their lives are 27% more likely to be affected by substance use and 9% more likely to have an alcohol need when compared to the general rough sleeping population.

Individuals affected by substance use can find themselves without settled housing due to the associated financial and social challenges. Additionally, local authority community treatment funding has reduced resulting in local variation with some areas cutting funding to treatment by 40%, in turn creating a lack of capacity in support services.

Mental health issues also play a significant role, as untreated or poorly managed mental health conditions can lead to behaviours that result in involvement with the criminal justice system, while simultaneously making it difficult to maintain settled housing. Trauma, particularly from adverse childhood experiences, can lead to both homelessness and criminal behaviour, as individuals can develop coping mechanisms that may involve substance use or other illegal activities (Johnsen & Blenkinsopp, 2024).

Research has shown that people who experience homelessness are likely to have some form of trauma, often in childhood (Sundin & Baguley, 2015). Linking back to common drivers with the criminal justice system, 85% of those in touch with criminal justice, substance use and homelessness services have experienced trauma as children (Bramley & Fitzpatrick, 2015).

2.3 How different groups interact with the criminal justice system and the influence on homelessness

People interact with the criminal justice system in various ways, influenced by their gender, ethnicity, age and life experiences. As demonstrated within this paper, many of the drivers that can lead to interacting with the criminal justice system are similar to those of homelessness. It is important to note that the characteristics identified often involve a degree of intersectionality. This means that an individual’s interaction with criminal justice and homelessness can be influenced by more than one of the factors identified in this chapter.

The NAO (2023) highlighted the importance of exploring the differential outcomes for people leaving prison. They recommended that HMPPS consider implementing a revised approach to future Commissioned Rehabilitative Services contracts. The aim would be that it would enable providers to systematically report on outcomes achieved for each person leaving prison.

It is worth noting that this section describes the different ways in which people interact with the criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems. It does not determine whether they have a priority need or what type of duty they may be owed in England.

Gender: Research from the Prison Reform Trust (2023) highlights that 69% of women entering prison have committed a non-violent offence, compared with 40% of men. In comparison, the latest MoJ offender management statistics (2024) highlight that men are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, such as sexual offences, assault, robbery, and murder, which often result in longer prison sentences. As a result, women often have shorter prison sentences or community orders when compared to men. This can result in women having limited access to accommodation support programmes (due to the eligibility criteria). This can result in women being at higher risk of experiencing some forms of homelessness such as hidden homelessness, as they turn to sofa surfing or staying in exploitative and unsafe environments.

The experiences of men and women in the criminal justice system reveal distinct patterns shaped by different life circumstances and societal roles. The Howard League (2022) reports that mental health issues affect 71% of women in prison, a rate significantly higher than the 47% reported by men. The lower proportion of men with mental health issues may be a symptom of societal expectations that often discourage men from seeking help for mental health problems, leading to unmanaged conditions that can result in criminal behaviour (Fazel et al., 2017).

Domestic violence and abuse play a crucial role in this dynamic. Bozkina & Hardwick (2021) highlight that nearly 60% of women in the criminal justice system have been victims of domestic violence or abuse, a critical factor in their criminal behaviour. Similarly, McMillan et al. (2021) found that 78% of women in prison in Scotland have a history of significant head injury – most of which occurred in the context of domestic abuse that often lasted over periods of several years. Furthermore, more than half of the women who interact with the criminal justice system, 53%, have endured abuse as children, compared to 27% of men (Prison Reform Trust, 2017). This early trauma can make them more vulnerable to criminal justice involvement as adults.

Nevertheless, both women and men in prison face disruptions to their social networks and support systems, but women often experience these disruptions more acutely. The Welsh Government (2023) described that women’s prisons are typically farther from their communities as there are fewer women’s prisons available. This geographic isolation exacerbates the trauma and disconnection from family support, increasing the risk of homelessness upon release. In contrast, men, while also facing disruption, may experience less severe separation from their local support networks due to the higher number of male prisons and their relative proximity to home.

Minority Ethnic Groups: Sturge (2024) highlights that at the end of March 2024, just over a quarter (27%) of the prison population in England and Wales are from an ethnic minority group (when accounting for 18.3% of the population). It is argued that people from ethnic minority groups experience disproportionate involvement with the criminal justice system due to discriminatory policing and harsher sentencing (Lymperopoulou, 2024). Furthermore, Ministry of Justice (2023) statistics highlight that Black and Asian people in prison are more likely to be serving long sentences than other groups.

For foreign nationals under immigration controls, particularly those with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), the situation becomes even more precarious. While local authorities can offer advice and information on homelessness, they are legally unable to provide housing assistance to this group. Additionally, individuals with NRPF are ineligible for welfare benefits, including Housing Benefit, making it extremely difficult for them to secure settled housing after release from prison. Although some may be allowed to rent and work in the UK, the inability to access public funds means that unless they secure employment that can cover rent, they face a heightened risk of homelessness (Homeless Link, 2016).

Structural drivers, such as poverty and inequality (specifically, systemic racism and unequal access to resources), play a significant role in shaping how ethnic minorities interact with the criminal justice system and homelessness (Bramley, 2022). Research by Unlock (2019) highlights that many people from ethnic minority communities (78%) believe their ethnic background has compounded the difficulties they face due to their criminal records. This perception reflects the broader societal issues that contribute to the cyclical pattern of disadvantage affecting these communities. 

People who are Care Experienced: The Office for National Statistics (2020) highlighted that more than 52% of looked after children in England had a criminal conviction by the age of 24, compared 13% of adults who had not been in care.^{[footnote 2]} Additionally,15% of looked after children had received a custodial sentence, over ten times the proportion of children who had not been in care. The evidence also demonstrates that care experienced individuals are more at risk of interacting with the criminal justice system during early adulthood than their peers (ONS, 2022). Care-experienced individuals may commit property crimes like theft or burglary due to financial instability (ONS, 2022).

Strong family ties often play a critical role in preventing homelessness for those transitioning from prison. Bozkina & Hardwick (2021) research indicates that about 57% of people released from prison return to live with family. Those who maintain family connections while imprisoned are more likely to have accommodation arranged upon release and show lower reoffending rates (48% compared to 61% for those without family support). This suggests that family support can be a stabilising factor that reduces the risk of reoffending and homelessness. Some people who are care experienced do not have this stabilising network. As a result, care experienced individuals are disproportionately affected by homelessness making up 25% of the homeless population, and almost 25% of the prison population (Berman 2013).

However, maintaining these relationships can be challenging. HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2014) found that arrangements to live with family on release often break down due to inadequate efforts by prisons to support these connections. For example, only 35% of men and 41% of women reported receiving encouragement to stay in touch with family, and only 20% received regular visits (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2021). When family support systems fail or become strained, individuals may face increased risks of homelessness and reoffending. Therefore, for care experienced people who lack strong family ties, there can be a great risk of homelessness.

Young People: McAra & McVie (2016) highlight that young people typically engage in petty crimes such as vandalism, shoplifting, or minor drug offences. These actions can result in community sentences, but in more severe cases, they may face custodial sentences. Peer pressure and a lack of positive role models often drive these behaviours, influencing the likelihood of imprisonment, especially for repeat offenders.

Mental health issues, highlighted by the Welsh Government (2023), are prevalent among young people involved in the criminal justice system and can lead to repeated interactions with the criminal justice system and increased risk of homelessness. Additionally, a history of trauma, particularly experiences of abuse or neglect, also contribute to the challenges these young people face, often leading to difficulties in securing settled housing (Bramley & Fitzpatrick, 2015). Furthermore, when looking at women the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody (2017) noted that 30% of women had a previous psychiatric admission prior to imprisonment. While the connections between mental health needs and homelessness are intricate and not always direct, research indicates that these needs often contribute to and are closely linked with homelessness.

Research carried out by Bramley & Fitzpatrick (2015) highlights those intersections of multiple domains of disadvantage, where homelessness, substance use and the criminal justice system interact. Identifying that at least 250,000 people across England have contact with at least two out of three of the domains and 58,000 experience all three. The research describes that poverty is almost universal among this cohort and that mental health is also a common factor for many. These domains of disadvantage affect groups differently with white men, aged 25-44, predominantly affected. However, that is not to say that men are more likely to experience homelessness than women, but more that they can experience it differently. This demographic is often affected by economic and social marginalisation as well as issues such as childhood trauma. This can lead to negative impacts on the children who might be in contact or have had contact with caregivers facing multiple domains of disadvantage thus perpetuating the cycle of these domains.

3. To what extent do the criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems support people leaving prison into settled accommodation?

This section explores the various policies and programmes within the criminal justice and homelessness sectors aimed at helping individuals leaving prison find settled housing. It focuses primarily on accommodation support in England and does not cover non-housing-related programmes that address health, mental health, or substance use. However, it is worth noting that some of the housing programmes mentioned do offer broader support. Some examples of programmes or policies are provided from across the devolved nations to help compare and contrast with approaches in England.

The programmes discussed are predominantly government-funded and delivered by a range of partners, including local authorities, voluntary and community organisations, and prison and probation services. Additionally, this section examines both the successes and challenges in providing support to people leaving prison and considers how broader systemic factors influence the effectiveness of these programmes.

3.1 Overview of programmes and policies that support people leaving prison into settled accommodation

3.1.1 Legislation

The government in England has implemented a range of policies and legislation to address housing and homelessness. The Housing Act (1985) and Housing Act (1996) established the statutory framework for housing, with local authorities responsible for ensuring housing needs are met. The Homelessness Reduction Act (2017) further enhanced obligations, requiring local authorities to intervene earlier in cases of potential homelessness, offering more support to individuals at risk of homelessness (Government UK 2017) This included a duty to refer for specified public bodies (including Prisons and Probation), which requires these services to identify and refer people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness to a local authority.

Under the Homelessness Reduction Act, people leaving prison are entitled to support under the homelessness prevention and relief duty. Local authorities must work with prisons to assess housing needs early and provide appropriate support, such as tenancy training or financial assistance, to help secure settled accommodation.

Currently, in England, people are only entitled to the full homelessness duty if they are considered to be in priority need. As per the Guidance from MHCLG (2022), priority need for homelessness in England includes pregnant women, households with dependent children, domestic abuse victims, vulnerable individuals (due to age, disability, or health), young people aged 16-17 and people leaving care who are under 21. A person may be found to be in priority need if they are considered to be vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence, been committed for contempt of court or a similar offence, or been remanded in custody (The Health and Social Care Act 2001).

Given the increased risk of homelessness, the government introduced specific measures to support people leaving prison. The Offender Management Act (2007) and subsequent strategies, such as the Reducing Reoffending Strategy, highlight the importance of settled accommodation in reducing reoffending. The Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 (CAS-3), part of the wider Community Accommodation Service, offers transitional housing for those leaving prison without suitable accommodation, aiming to prevent homelessness and reduce reoffending (Ministry of Justice, 2014). Additionally, the Accommodation for Ex-Offenders (AfEO) scheme provides targeted funding to local authorities to secure housing for individuals leaving prison.

However, there is an absence of a national, cross-departmental strategy in England that addresses the housing needs of people leaving prison. This lack of coordinated policy resulted in a fragmented and inconsistent approach to service delivery across regions and at different stages of the criminal justice process. This left many individuals without the necessary support needed to find settled accommodation after release.

3.1.2 England nationally

This section provides an overview of the policies, programmes and interventions designed to provide accommodation support for people leaving prison. The focus is initially on England nationally, before focusing on selected support identified in England regionally, and the other nations of the UK. It is important to note that not all programmes or interventions are available to all, and some are no longer operational.

The Community Accommodation Service

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) created a Community Accommodation Service (CAS) to deliver appropriate targeted accommodation and support for people leaving prison. CAS provides the opportunity to harmonise, enhance, and make more effective use of the total accommodation offer. It consists of a three-tiered structure, the existing HMPPS accommodation (Approved Premises and Community Accommodation Services, Tier 2 (APs and CAS-2), and a new temporary accommodation provision offering up to 84 nights’ accommodation to prison leavers at risk of homelessness who are subject to probation supervision – CAS-3.

The programmes are currently implemented in England and Wales, however, the subsequent fieldwork of this research will focus solely on England.

The Community Accommodation Service, Tier 1

The Community Accommodation Service, Tier 1 (CAS-1), was established in January 2021 as part of the Ministry of Justice’s £50 million investment package to reduce reoffending.^{[footnote 3]} CAS-1 provides investment for the provision of approved premises for people leaving prison who are classified as having high and very high risk of serious harm. These premises are staffed 24 hours a day, and require residents to:

• engage in a minimum number of hours per week (decided by local authorities) of purposeful activity, for example, seeking employment
• work on their offending-based behaviours and attitudes
• attend relevant treatment or intervention programmes

The approved premises aim to increase the effectiveness of public protection, by attempting to rehabilitate people leaving prison, while also allowing staff to understand and manage the behaviour of residents. To further support this, CAS-1 also offers a range of activities involving workforce professionalisation (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

An evaluation was undertaken of the Reducing Reoffending Package by IFF Research in 2023. Findings from the evaluation demonstrated that CAS-1 was perceived to have had positive effects on outcomes for people leaving prison and a positive impact on staff morale and awareness. Surveys of both residents and staff members demonstrated that the maintenance of the premises had the biggest impact on both groups as they felt happy with the quality of accommodation (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

This programme aligns with the structural elements on the intervention level framework. whereby it involves changes to the physical, technological, and organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system

The Community Accommodation Service, Tier 2

Launched in October 2022, the Community Accommodation Service, Tier 2 (CAS-2) replaced the Bail Accommodation and Support Services (BASS).^{[footnote 4]} CAS-2 provides support to courts and prisons through the provision of suitable accommodation for those who would otherwise be held in prison (HM Prisons and Probations, 2023). The support also provides a platform for resettlement by addressing individual needs to strengthen the likelihood of rehabilitation (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

CAS-2 support is provided in the following levels of priority:

• people leaving prison on bail
• people subject to Home Detention Curfew
• people referred because of the risk to recall to prison due to loss of accommodation
• people who are referred from Approved Premises
• people referred due to being homeless at their conditional release date

CAS-2 provides a mix of one-bed self-contained units and two, three, and four-bed shared houses with communal living space, kitchen, and bathroom. The accommodation is provided for the duration of an individual’s bail or home detention curfew. NACRO staff members make weekly visits to provide support and to make sure residents are adhering to bail conditions and any licence requirements and provide a platform for resettlement.

However, there is an evidence gap in the outcomes and effectiveness of the CAS-2 service.

This programme aligns with the structural elements on the intervention level framework whereby it involves changes to the physical, technological, and organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system.

The Community Accommodation Service, Tier 3

The Community Accommodation Service, Tier 3 (CAS-3) is designed to support people leaving prison who would otherwise be at risk of becoming homeless upon release. CAS-3 aims to ensure that no one leaves prison without the offer of a place to live and to provide a pathway to settled accommodation (HM Prisons and Probations, 2023).

Accommodation provided by CAS-3 ranges from 1-bedroom self-contained units to a maximum of 4-bed spaces with shared facilities. Accommodation is available for people leaving prison for up to 84 nights (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

CAS-3 was launched in July 2021 within five early adopter probation regions and has since expanded to the 12 probation regions in England and Wales. The eligibility for CAS-3 means that it is open to adults leaving prison who are aged 18 or over and at risk of experiencing homelessness on release from prison following a custodial sentence and who are subject to probation supervision. People are also eligible when moving on from a CAS-1 or CAS-2 residence, and who are experiencing homelessness.

A report on CAS-3 conducted by the RR3 Special Interest Group demonstrates the need for CAS-3, as it provides transitional accommodation for people leaving prison who would otherwise be homeless upon release. The CAS3 service also provides basic floating support to assist the prison leaver in maintaining the accommodation, signposting to other services and support the move on to settled accommodation as directed by the Probation Practitioner. The service complements the overall sentence plan aimed at supporting the prison leaver to resettle into the community and desist from further offending by providing an enabling platform from which their other needs can be addressed.

Evidence from the five early adopter regions demonstrates the positive impacts of CAS-3 on people leaving prison. The themes from the initial rollout regions included

• transformation and impact: The CAS-3 provided individuals with a sense of safety and value, potentially for the first time in their lives
• support and safety net: The additional support provided by the service, enabled a safety net that helps individuals get back on their feet when other options are unavailable
• gratitude and personal assistance: A recipient of the support mentioned they were very grateful for the direct assistance provided by a support provider

Further research by the Inspectorate of Probation demonstrates that while CAS-3 is useful for people leaving prison and approved premises, it is difficult to find accommodation following the 84 nights in CAS-3. This is identified due to the lack of adequate provisions for long-term housing solutions, which means that individuals often face a new “cliff edge” after their support period ends.

The Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Special Interest Group (Third Sector Advisory Group, 2024) described that the initial rollout of CAS-3 had been slower than anticipated, leading to insufficient capacity and limiting the service’s ability to mobilise in all areas due to a lack of private sector housing. Furthermore, the paper also states that communication issues from the government regarding new funding and housing provisions further hindered the ability of delivery organisations to effectively utilise CAS-3 resources, especially in securing properties. It goes on to highlight that women faced particular challenges in accessing CAS-3 accommodation and this was linked to the belief that women may have complex needs often stemming from prior experiences of abuse. Thus, there was a greater need for self-contained accommodation for women and a need to avoid certain areas considered as potentially unsafe.

This programme aligns with the structural elements on the intervention level framework whereby it involves changes to the physical, technological, and organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system.

3.1.3 England regionally

The Accommodation for Ex-Offenders programme

The Accommodation for ex-Offenders programme aims to reduce reoffending and homelessness by supporting people leaving prison to access the private rented sector (Department for Levelling up, Housing, and Communities, 2023). The AfEO programme has been delivered during two phases. Phase 1 was launched in July 2021 and extended twice until March 2023. During phase 1, MHCLG provided a total funding of £15,673,885 to 87 schemes across 145 local authorities. Phase 2 launched in April 2023 and will run until March 2025. Phase 2 funding was provided to 84 schemes across 111 local authorities and totalled £26,344,943 (Department for Levelling up, Housing, and Communities, 2023). This phase has built on the learning from phase 1 of AfEO as outlined below.

Improvements in data collection processes, ensuring metrics are decided pre-emptively before the start of phase 2. Reducing the frequency of data collections from bi-monthly to quarterly improved the quality of data returns and lowered the burden on local authorities. Additionally, improvements to collaborative working by implementing national networking events in areas where AfEO is heavily concentrated, as well as, working closely with the Ministry of Justice and the Community Accommodation Service programme. The commitment to collaborative working also includes having timely identification and assessment processes in place before people leave prison, jointly developing accommodation and support pathways. Further, increased funding to attract higher quality candidates to roles and provide greater financial incentives to landlords of the private rented sector. Finally, recognising the importance of support, MHCLG encouraged LAs to have a staff to client ratio of 1:15.

The AfEO programme aims to provide support to adults aged 18 or older, who are leaving prison and are at risk of homelessness. To be eligible for this programme, individuals must demonstrate readiness to maintain a tenancy. This support extends not only to those directly leaving prison but also to those transitioning from specific accommodations, for example, Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 accommodation. Additionally, individuals who are experiencing rough sleeping within 12 months of their release from prison are eligible for assistance. However, applicants must not be assessed as having a priority need and support is only provided to those who are deemed ready for a tenancy. Applicants must also qualify for Universal Credit housing costs while lacking access to affordable housing.

AfEO can be tailored by each local authority, to meet the local needs of the local population. Examples of support local authorities can provide include tenancy assistance, such as engaging with landlords to encourage them to take part in the scheme, financial help including incentive payments, and specialised insurance to secure private rentals. AfEO also provides support to people in prison, to prepare them for sustaining a tenancy once they are released. This includes providing workshops and training, to help ensure people leaving prison can sustain tenancies. The readiness for a tenancy is then measured using factors such as tenancy history, substance use, affordability assessments and length of sentence.

An internal evaluation of phase one was conducted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government. During the evaluation, findings demonstrated approximately 2,750 new tenancies were created, from approximately 12,474 referrals. This was due to issues with recruitment of support staff, with a lot of areas struggling to mobilise due to lack of staff. Of the 2,750 new tenancies, 62% of them were sustained for over six months, with the key enablers for this being cited as strong tenant engagement and open and regular communication (Department for Levelling up, Housing, and Communities, 2023).

The AfEO programme evaluation also demonstrated that recruitment issues were common, with new joiners unaware the role was based around property procurement, as this didn’t fit the job title. This led to difficulties in mobilising the programme in multiple areas. The evaluation also demonstrated the need to manage the expectations of people leaving prison. One example includes the person leaving prison feeling disappointed they did not receive a one-bed flat but were instead accommodated in a house of multiple occupation.

This programme aligns with the structural elements on the intervention level framework, whereby it involves changes to the physical or organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system. ^{[footnote 5]}

STAR Accommodation programme – Derbyshire

The STAR Accommodation Project (STAR) opened in November 2018. It was designed to provide the support needed by people on probation and people released from prison to enable them to progress to independent living and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. This support included the provision of housing and a wraparound support package. 

The project was delivered by Ingeus and provided housing in a single project for thirteen people at any given time. These included nine single occupancy rooms, two two-bedroom flats, and a communal room for appointments, community activities and group work. As part of the project, a comprehensive support package was also provided via a YMCA Housing Navigator, an Ingeus community support worker and an Ingeus housing case worker to aid the development of holistic and individualised assessment and intervention plans and provide the environment for people leaving prison to ‘make positive changes in their lives’ (Webster, 2021). This included:

• supporting people leaving prison to explore their mental, emotional, and physical wellbeing
• providing guidance to identify problems and respond in a healthier way
• explaining the meaning of rehabilitation
• breaking down myths and stigmas related to mental health
• providing coping strategies and external support pathways
• explaining how recovery is achievable
• improving self-esteem and developing self-awareness for people leaving prison
• providing methods of communication and building positive relationships

A panel comprising Ingeus staff, local authority support workers and the YMCA Housing Navigator assessed all applicants who were referred to the project. Each applicant was assessed on an individual basis, ensuring all that were accommodated were eligible. Once accepted, residents were eligible to stay at the project for a period of up to six months.

As of 2022, 51% of recipients of the STAR project had successfully completed the programme and progressed to settled accommodation following their six-month accommodation. Many residents described improved their wellbeing, completed training courses, and found jobs while part of the STAR project (Webster, 2021). The project demonstrated that providing high-quality accommodation motivated people to value their home, address problems, and engage in positive activities.

This programme aligns with the structural elements on the intervention level framework, whereby it involves changes to the physical or organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system.

The Offender Accommodation Pilot 

Developed as part of the Government’s £100m 2018 Rough Sleeping Strategy, the Offender Accommodation Pilot aimed to provide funding for settled accommodation for up to two years and support to help people leaving prison integrate into communities for the long-term (Ministry of Justice, 2019).

Held in three prisons, Leeds, Pentonville and Bristol, each prison piloted a new partnership approach between prisons, local authorities, probation staff, charities and others who worked together to provide the support people leaving prison need when they were released. These supports were mainly aimed at providing settled accommodation but also included supporting people leaving prison to access benefit payments and reduce the risk of a return to prison (Ministry of Justice, 2018).

The pilot was announced in 2018 and was available to adult males on sentences of less than 36 months in each of the three prisons. In total, 324 people were enrolled on this pilot.

A process evaluation was published in 2023 and found that the pilot was perceived to have achieved its key aims of preventing homelessness and reducing reoffending. Other perceived outcomes included improvements in physical health and mental wellbeing, increased engagement with support services, better relationships with others, and a readiness to seek employment. However, for people leaving prison with crime and substance use entrenched in their lifestyles, provider staff reported that it was challenging to break the cycle of reoffending (Ministry of Justice, 2023). An impact evaluation on this pilot is also in progress and results are expected to be published in Spring 2025.

This programme aligns with the structural elements on the intervention level framework, whereby it involves changes to the physical or organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system.

The Shelter Prisoners Advocacy Release Team

The PART service aimed to support people leaving HMP Leeds by ensuring they had settled and appropriate accommodation and received the necessary support for successful resettlement, thereby reducing the risk of re-offending.

The service was funded by the Pilgrim Trust and Lankelly Chase, with a total cost of £426,000 over three years. The average cost per participant was £2,219. The main target group was men in housing need, serving less than a 12-month sentence, who would not receive statutory post-release support. It also included men with longer sentences who had been on licence recall.

The service included support in prison, immediate post-release support, and longer-term resettlement support. This involved arranging accommodation, meeting clients at the prison on release, and helping them move from temporary to permanent housing.

The evaluation highlighted the importance of pre-release support in securing accommodation, the need for ongoing support to modify behaviour, and the challenges of inter-agency communication and information sharing. The service was able to influence some institutional barriers but had limited impact on structural factors like housing availability.

This programme aligns with the structural elements on the intervention level framework, whereby it involves changes to the physical or organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system.

The Supporting Prisoners upon Release Service (RESET) Intervention

The RESET intervention, highlighted by MacInnes (2020) aims to support prisoners with mental health needs during their pre- and post-release transitions. Funded by Oxleas NHS Trust, and delivered by Clarion Housing and Nacro, it targets people leaving prison at risk of homelessness with high reoffending rates and minimal community support. The eligibility criteria include meeting level 3 or higher on the Oxleas stepped care model. Activities include post-release support for housing, healthcare, welfare, and employment. The service assists individuals with complex needs through advocacy, mental health support, and liaison with various statutory agencies. 29 out of the 31 recipients of the service noted overwhelmingly positive views of the service from service users noting the service support being user focused, speedy, and consistent. The group receiving the RESET intervention were significantly less likely to be homeless and to have reoffended at 14 days post release and 3 months post release.

Floating support services – various local areas

Floating support services are delivered as part of a number of programmes in England including AfEO. Floating support services are often commissioned through VCSE organisations and aim to help individuals transition out of prison and into the community. The support provided often includes help with maintaining a tenancy, as well as mental health support, reducing social isolation and helping to break cycles of re-offending (HM Inspectorate of Probation 2020).

3.1.4 Northern Ireland

Probation Approved Accommodation (Ex-Offenders Housing Support)

The Probation Approved Accommodation (Ex-Offenders Housing Support) within Belfast aims to provide accommodation and support to rehabilitate people leaving prison successfully back into their communities. To meet this aim, it provides purpose-built accommodation alongside wrap-around support, such as providing support plans to ensure access to benefits, health provision and education or training opportunities.

The Probation Approved Accommodation provides accommodation and support for adult prison leavers, for those classed as medium to high risk and those who are subject to supervision under licences or other restrictions. This is funded and provided by Extern which includes two facilities for people leaving prison. Innis Centre is a purpose-built 20-bed project, providing accommodation, supervision, and monitoring. The centre caters for people who were assessed as medium to high risk and staff develop support plans for each individual and ensure access to benefits, health provision and education or training opportunities. Dismas House offers 14 beds to people recently released from prison and who are subject to supervision under licences or other restrictions. Service users can be supported to access internal and external services for issues related to substance use, mental health or physical health issues (Community NI, 2023).

This aligns with the approach delivered in England providing both accommodation and wrap around support. This programme aligns with the structural project type on the intervention level framework whereby it involves changes to the physical or organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system.

3.1.5 Scotland

Sustainable Housing On Release for Everyone standards

In Scotland, the Sustainable Housing on Release for Everyone (SHORE) standards were introduced in 2017 to ensure that people leaving prison have consistent access to settled accommodation upon release. Best practice for coordinating and maintaining access to necessary services for individuals in prison are organised into four key timeframes: at the point of imprisonment, the main duration of the sentence, the eight weeks prior to release, and the period after release.

The goal of SHORE standards is that at the point of imprisonment, each person’s housing, health, and welfare benefit needs are assessed. The local authority is then contacted to arrange access to homelessness prevention services and efforts are made to maintain existing tenancies by working with external parties, including private landlords. During the sentence, a lead support worker ensures that progress is made in securing sustainable housing for each individual. In the two months leading up to release, GP appointments, homelessness and benefit applications, and tenancy arrangements are made. After release, a post-release plan is agreed upon, involving family and support networks to ensure progress toward clear housing, service, and support goals.

Throughout these stages, the SHORE protocol provides a person-centred approach, actively involving each individual in planning and preparing for a smooth transition from prison. This process has been recognised as an effective method for coordinating services across agencies through a unified plan. Anecdotal evidence from a CHI ‘Evidence Sprint’ in 2021 suggested that opportunities to prevent homelessness have increased since SHORE’s introduction. However, there is little evidence on the scale of implementation of SHORE standards across Scotland. Nevertheless, the National Strategy for Community Justice highlighted a priority for fully implementing and embedding these standards across all local authority areas.

A strategic review of SHORE standards delivery is planned in 2024. This will bring together organisations across the criminal justice and homelessness systems: Scottish Prison Service (SPS), COSLA (which represents local councils across Scotland), Community Justice Scotland, social housing providers and Scottish Government’s Homelessness Prevention Team. These standards will be updated to take account of the impact of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 and the implications of the proposed new homelessness prevention ‘ask and act’ duty linked to The Housing Bill (Scotland).

Criminal justice social work

Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW) aims to reduce reoffending and support the rehabilitation of people leaving prison through assessments, reports, and supervision, helping individuals reintegrate into society and lead law-abiding lives (Kirkwood, 2018). In Scotland, criminal justice social work provides mandatory support for those released to the community who have served a long-term sentence or four years or more.

CJSW’s key activities include conducting pre-sentence reports and risk assessments for courts, supervising people in the community, and running intervention programmes, like anger management and substance use treatment. Additionally, CJSW provides support services for housing, employment, and mental health to address broader social issues that may hinder successful reintegration into the community.

The effectiveness of CJSW is measured through outputs, such as the production of detailed court reports, the number of people successfully supervised, participation rates in intervention programmes, and the provision of support services.

Successful outcomes of CJSW include reduced reoffending rates, evidenced by a measurable decrease in criminal activity among those who have received services. Young (2022) highlights other indicators of success including the successful reintegration of people leaving prison into society, marked by settled housing, employment, and improved mental health, as well as positive behavioural changes that contribute to overall community safety. By focusing on these areas, CJSW plays a vital role in creating safer, more cohesive communities through effective rehabilitation and reduced crime rates.

It is also important to recognise the role of Throughcare Support Officers in Scotland. This role was developed in 2015, as the Scottish Prison Service felt there were disconnections between those leaving its care and services in the community following release and wider issues with a lack of support for people serving short-term sentences reintegrating back into the community. As a consequence of these disconnections, the desistance journeys of those leaving custody were more challenging, particularly for those serving short sentences (four years or less). An evaluation of this role had shown positive outcomes in terms of engagement with people who had interacted with the criminal justice system and progress in addressing individual needs (e.g. benefits and finance; housing; substance misuse; physical and mental health; education and employability). However, five years later, in 2019, due to operational pressures within the SPS (an overcrowded prison estate, combined with increasing levels of staff absences), the delivery of throughcare support by the SPS was paused (Maycock et al., 2020).

The evidence within Scotland demonstrates the differences between Scottish and English approaches. The introduction of the SHORE standards helps to ensure a consistent approach to providing settled accommodation to those leaving prison.

The Criminal Justice Social Work aligns with the support provided by CAS and AfEO. This is as it aims to provide activities to those in prison, to enable successful reintegration to the community.

The programmes from Scotland align with the structural project type on the intervention level framework, whereby it involves changes to the physical or organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system.

3.1.6 Wales

Prison Link Cymru

Prison Link Cymru (PLC) was developed in 2014 as part of the Housing Act (Wales) and was funded by the Welsh Government Homelessness Prevention Grant (Shelter Cymru, 2017). PLC provided housing and homelessness prevention advice and support to people entering prison who had existing accommodation. Assistance was also made available to people in prison who encountered housing issues during their sentences, providing low level financial support to support people in prison in keeping their housing.

The project worked with prisons across Wales and Northwest England which accommodated Welsh people in prison. This included HMP’s Berwyn, Altcourse, Styal, Cardiff, Swansea, Bridgend and Eastwood Park. At these prisons, PLC staff worked closely with the prison staff to ensure those needing help and support were referred into the project.

The main activities delivered by PLC included ensuring that people in prison were assisted to claim housing-related or other benefits/payments that they were entitled to, during sentence and upon release.

This support aligns with the English approach in providing support to those leaving prison by providing support to claim benefits. However, this does not bring together services in a holistic way to support the people leaving prison and keeps support separate.

This programme aligns with the structural project type on the intervention level framework, whereby it involves changes to the physical or organisational components of the system. This means that many actions at this level are usually required to create system-wide change, and there is less focus on upstream drivers of homelessness or the criminal justice system.

3.2 What works well in the delivery of support for people leaving prison

This section examines the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of current support mechanisms for people leaving prison, focusing on what works well.

Holistic and individualised approaches

Interventions for people leaving prison that consider the diverse and often complex needs of each individual, were deemed to be effective. RAND Europe (2014) highlights the One Service model as a notable example, where individualised case management played a crucial role. This approach involved caseworkers assessing the unique circumstances and needs of each person, to enable a flexible, client-led strategy that adjusted the intensity and type of support as required. By addressing immediate post-release concerns, such as securing accommodation, the One Service built trust and encouraged engagement to ensure that the support provided was relevant and beneficial. Additionally, the inclusion of purposeful activities and drop-in sessions helped to actively use time constructively, reducing the likelihood of reoffending. Anders and Dorsett (2017) highlighted that the One Service reduced the number of reconviction events among those discharged from HMP Peterborough by 9.7%.

Multi-agency collaboration

Successful post-release support programmes rely on multi-agency collaboration. As highlighted by Disley and Rubin (2014) and Webster (2021), working closely with various bodies across the wider system, including the police, probation services, mental health providers, and housing agencies, can effectively coordinate services to meet the diverse needs of people leaving prison.

Strategic links at the management level, such as active participation in local forums and criminal justice boards, further strengthen support services. These connections facilitate the sharing of critical information, the alignment of resources, and the adaptation of services to better serve the population. Quilgars et al. (2012) highlighted that multi-agency collaboration also allowed organisations to become more aware of what others offered. This enabled the organisations to signpost to each other and provide holistic support.

Continuous and proactive engagement

Continuous and proactive engagement with people leaving prison is essential, especially for those who have complex needs (Stewart et al., 2005). The One Service identified by Disley and Rubin (2014), exemplifies this approach by meeting people leaving prison at the gate and maintaining regular contact through phone calls, text messages, and home visits. This service is similar to the Ministry of Justice (2022) ‘Through the Gate’ service. This continuous support ensures that individuals receive the support they need, even if they initially resist or disengage, preventing them from falling through the cracks.

Highlighted by the MHCLG (2023) trust plays a critical role in engaging people leaving prison, particularly those who have experienced trauma or have been let down by services in the past.

Addressing immediate and long-term needs

Striking the balance of meeting long-term and immediate needs of people leaving prison, such as securing settled accommodation and accessing benefits, is highlighted by Greevy (2023) as a foundational aspect of successful reintegration. Programmes like The Shelter Prisoners Advocacy Release Team (PART) highlighted by Quilgars et al. (2012), demonstrate that ongoing support, including helping people move to appropriate accommodation (instead of staying with family and friends, where it is unsuitable) and ensuring continued access to health and social care services through multi agency working, is vital for sustained reintegration.

Moreover, the coordination of care that begins pre-release and continues post-release, as seen in PART’s collaboration with housing advice workers based in prison, ensures a seamless transition for people leaving prison. Such continuity of care, including support with substance use, helps in addressing not only immediate concerns but also in providing the stability and support needed for long-term recovery and reintegration.

Low threshold services and outreach

Low-threshold services can help to reach those who are often underserved. These services enable individuals to seek support without fear of exclusion due to substance use or other challenges. Outreach services, which bring support directly to individuals, effectively engage those who are reluctant or unable to access traditional service settings.

Women with lived experience of homelessness and substance use have emphasised the importance of such services, with Johnsen and Blenkinsopp (2024) noting that they encourage honest engagement and reduce the stigma associated with seeking help, while also being more accessible.

Housing First models, which provide settled housing without preconditions/ regardless of criminal background and offer wraparound support to support people with complex needs, have proven particularly effective for people with these experiences.

3.3 What works less well in the delivery of support for people leaving prison

This section examines the factors that contribute to the ineffectiveness of current support mechanisms for people leaving prison, focusing on the interplay between inadequate training, insufficient resources, poor coordination, and systemic discrimination.

Inadequate training and awareness among staff

One of the primary issues in supporting people leaving prison is the lack of adequate training for staff responsible for addressing accommodation needs. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2020) highlights that whilst there are briefings and occasional training sessions on Duty to Refer, most staff lack comprehensive training on how to assess and respond to the housing needs of individuals leaving prison. This challenge is compounded by the recruitment and retention issues described in the section on demand and capacity below. This gap in knowledge leads to inconsistent practices and, in many cases, a failure to provide the necessary follow-up after a referral has been made to local authorities.

For instance, in a detailed examination of 40 cases conducted by HM Inspectorate of Probation (2020) involving people leaving prison without settled accommodation, it was found that only one-third had evidence of a referral to local authorities, potentially relating to the lack of capacity to refer. Even when referrals were made, there was no consistent method for recording or following up on these referrals, leaving many prison leavers without the support they needed to secure settled housing. However, it is important to note that since this publication, there has been greater investment in HMPPS accommodation and improvements are expected to be realised. Madoc-Jones (2019), highlights that the inconsistency in support is exacerbated by the fact that many probation practitioners and court staff are unclear about their roles and responsibilities in this process, particularly once a referral has been initiated.

Siloed and short-term support services

The support provided to people leaving prison is often fragmented and delivered in siloes, which is particularly detrimental to individuals with complex and overlapping needs. Kerr et al. (2023) noted that services that are designed to assist people leaving prison to access suitable accommodation and support frequently operate independently of each other, leading to a lack of coordinated care. This fragmentation is further exacerbated by the short-term nature of support, which limits the ability of service providers to offer sustained support (Shaw, 2017).

For example, highlighted by the Third Sector Advisory Group (2024) contracts for many floating support services have limitations on the support period offered which can be as little as four weeks, a period insufficient for addressing the deep-rooted issues that many prison leavers face, such as mental health challenges, substance use, or the need for settled employment. The short duration of support is particularly problematic given the increasing complexity of the needs of people in receipt of the service. The failure to provide long-term, comprehensive support increases the likelihood of homelessness and reoffending among people leaving prison.

Discrimination and stigma in housing access

Research identified another significant barrier that people leaving prison face is the discrimination and stigma, particularly within the private rented sector (PRS). Highlighted by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (2022), landlords are often reluctant to rent to individuals with criminal records, a bias that is sometimes exacerbated by online searches or feedback from neighbours, which can result in eviction or denial of tenancy.

Securing accommodation for people leaving prison often requires convincing landlords that accommodating these individuals is both commercially viable and manageable (Webster, 2021). This process involves assessing needs, presenting a business case, and establishing partnerships with social housing organisations and private landlords.

Highlighted by the Ministry of Justice (2018), this discrimination is compounded by the practical difficulties of securing housing, such as the lack of being able to provide a guarantor or afford a rental deposit. Without adequate safeguards to ensure fair treatment and access to good quality accommodation, people leaving prison are frequently left with few viable housing options. This situation is particularly acute for women, who face additional challenges due to the limited availability of women-only supported accommodation, which is often essential for those with histories of domestic violence or abuse (Johnsen and Blenkinsopp, 2024).

Substandard and unsuitable accommodation

Many people leaving prison are placed in temporary or supported housing that is substandard or unsuitable for their needs (Bozkina & Hardwick 2021). The environments of some temporary accommodations can exacerbate pre-existing problems such as substance use or mental health issues. Additionally, the Welsh Government (2016) demonstrates that the shared nature of some accommodation, often with other people leaving prison, can increase the risk of reoffending and hinder rehabilitation efforts.

Landlords who receive enhanced housing benefits (for intensive housing management) but fail to provide appropriate support exacerbate the situation. Highlighted by the RR3 Special Interest Group (2023) demonstrates how this not only undermines the effectiveness of the support systems in place but also places vulnerable individuals in potentially harmful living conditions. This is due to these properties being poorly managed and poor quality housing, as highlighted by Crisis (2021).

Demand and capacity issues

The overall system for supporting people leaving prison is hampered by demand and capacity issues such as severe staff shortages, high caseloads, and insufficient resources. Highlighted by the Ministry of Justice and HM Prison & Probation Service (2023) these challenges have a direct impact on the quality of resettlement services, with many people leaving prison not receiving the necessary interventions or support due to the overwhelmed state of the probation service and other support systems.

For example, in 2022, the Ministry of Justice and HM Prison & Probation Service found that a significant proportion of prison resettlement plans failed to adequately identify the needs of the individuals they were meant to support. The high vacancy rates among probation officers and the overburdened nature of the system have led to poor coordination between prison and probation staff, resulting in inadequate preparation for release and insufficient follow-up support.

Criminalisation of homelessness

The criminalisation of rough sleeping, particularly through legislation such as the Vagrancy Act, presents a significant barrier to successfully addressing homelessness among people leaving prison. The Expert Review Panel on Homelessness (2023) highlighted the use of this legislation to move on or fine individuals for rough sleeping has further eroded trust between individuals and the authorities. This mistrust often prevents people from seeking help, even when they are victims of crime or need support services that could prevent them from becoming homeless. It is important however, as highlighted by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (2021) to establish the difference in arrests for those begging and committing anti-social behaviour and those rough sleeping.

3.4 How do wider system factors influence the effectiveness of support?

The lack of mental health support

Supporting people leaving prison with mental health needs upon release is essential for their successful reintegration into the community. Greevy et al. (2023) highlights this support not only helps in securing settled accommodation and improving health and wellbeing but also plays a significant role in reducing reoffending rates. However, as mentioned above, local authority community treatment funding has reduced resulting in local variation with some areas cutting funding to treatment by 40%, in turn creating a lack of capacity in support services.

Shortage of affordable, suitable housing

A shortage of housing stock and financial challenges, like delayed housing and welfare benefits and high upfront rental costs, influence the effectiveness of support. The reduction in investment highlighted by Homeless Link (2020) has significantly impacted those with housing needs and a history of offending. Since 2010, the closure of 133 homelessness projects has resulted in 4,000 fewer bed spaces, leaving many prison leavers without settled housing options. England et al. (2022) highlighted individuals under probation supervision face numerous barriers to securing suitable accommodation, exacerbating their risk of reoffending.

Kerr et al. (2023) highlighted that even when accommodation is found, it often sets unrealistic expectations about long-term affordability, especially in the face of rising rents and the freeze on Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates. This financial insecurity is a key factor in the high reoffending rates, as many people leaving prison struggle with debt, delayed benefits, and the inability to find affordable housing.

Impact of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act (2023) aims to enhance the quality of supported housing by implementing a new quality framework and standards. However, this can inadvertently reduce the overall availability of such housing for people leaving prison. The Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Special Interest Group (Third Sector Advisory Group, 2024) demonstrated that increased regulation and local scrutiny may discourage providers from offering housing to people leaving prison, particularly when they are pressured to accept higher-risk individuals without adequate backing from statutory organisations. This can result in a shortage of appropriate housing options for those leaving custody, exacerbating their vulnerability to homelessness.

4. Learning from the rapid evidence review

This section provides an appraisal of the gaps in the support offered, opportunities for cost-effective ways to improve homelessness and rough sleeping outcomes in the criminal justice system and wider learning for the deep dive evaluation.

4.1 Appraisal of gaps in the current provision of services to support people leaving prison to find settled housing

HM Inspectorate of Probation (2020) highlights that the integration of people leaving prison into communities is closely linked to the effectiveness of post-release services, particularly housing. Therefore, it is important to explore the current gaps in the provision of services and support. A critical appraisal of the research suggests that there is:

An absence of a national, cross-departmental strategy in England that addresses the housing needs of people leaving prison. This lack of coordinated policy resulted in a fragmented and inconsistent approach to service delivery across regions and at different stages of the criminal justice process. This left many individuals without the necessary support needed to find settled accommodation after release.

Geographic variations in service provision. Whilst some of the key programmes described in this rapid evidence assessment are classified as national programmes, not every local area has this support implemented (AfEO). This can highlight geographical gaps in service provision. This can become particularly important for people leaving prison who have to demonstrate a local connection for support in that area. It may be that the area where they have a local connection has less support for people in their circumstances than other areas.  

Variations in eligibility for support. Whilst programmes such as AfEO and CAS-3 are in place to provide accommodation for people leaving prison, some groups are not eligible for this support. For example, this includes people released from remand and people with no recourse to public funds. Without the support available, this can increase the likelihood of experiencing homelessness upon release. Recent data from the Ministry of Justice (2024) highlight that one in eight people in prison are foreign nationals (n=10,435), highlighting the scale of the challenge that the eligibility criteria can bring to the homelessness system. This phenomenon is shown in the English statistics where 29% of people experiencing rough sleeping are foreign nationals, whilst they account for an estimated 9% of the population (MHCLG, 2022; ONS, 2021).

Interventions focus on addressing immediate needs and less on upstream factors. This evidence assessment highlights that there are a number of programmes and policies that support people leaving prison who may be at risk of homelessness to find accommodation. However, these are generally focused on addressing the initial crises and are often short-term. Despite the overlap of upstream drivers for the criminal justice and homelessness systems, there is a lack of policies, programmes or interventions that address these upstream drivers. Section one of this report describes the influencing role that poverty, unemployment, trauma and other drivers have on people, yet there is little in the way of policy to address these factors. 

Accommodation services are not accounting for complex needs, such as mental health. People leaving prison with mental health needs are especially vulnerable to homelessness. MacInnes (2020) highlights that these individuals often require more specialised and focused support due to their complex needs, yet the current services, particularly those provided by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), are not adequately tailored to meet these demands. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (2020) also highlighted deficiencies in the planning and securing of suitable accommodation for people with mental health needs. This can significantly increase their risk of homelessness. Without proper mental health support, these individuals can struggle to reintegrate into society, which often leads to instability in housing.

The combination of these factors illustrates how the criminal justice system, when not effectively integrated with housing and wider services across the system, can directly influence the likelihood of homelessness among people leaving prison. Without comprehensive and consistent support, particularly in finding settled accommodation, many of these individuals are left in precarious situations that increase their risk of reoffending, creating a cycle of homelessness and criminal justice involvement.

4.2 Appraisal of gaps in the current evidence to support people leaving prison to find settled housing

Whilst not a gap in service provision, there are also some gaps in the literature that fieldwork can address as part of this deep dive. It is clear from this rapid evidence assessment that there is a wealth of literature on the drivers for interacting with either the criminal justice or homelessness systems. Some very key papers describe the overlap of these factors (the Hard Edges work by Bramley & Fitzpatrick, 2015 for example). However, there is:

Less evidence of the practical aspects of the interaction between the two systems. For example, understanding what works well, or less well, in the continuity of care for people leaving prison who may be affected by for example substance use. As part of that, how do information-sharing systems support or hinder this? The deep dive fieldwork will address some practical and operational challenges that can influence how people interact with the criminal justice and homelessness systems.

Less evidence on how the drivers result in different types of homelessness, and therefore the duties that may be owed to an individual. The evidence base is rich when describing the drivers of homelessness and rough sleeping, however the nuance of how the different drivers can interact to influence different types of homelessness is less explored.

A lack of evidence of how effective programmes and policies are for different people. One theme that has been drawn from the data is that men and women interact with the criminal justice system differently and that may impact how they experience homelessness. For example, MoJ (2024) data shows that women leaving prison have a higher rate of homelessness and rough sleeping than men (12.8% versus 8.8%). Not only that, but the proportion of women also experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping after leaving prison has increased at a higher rate than men (4pp increase for women versus 1.3pp for men from 2021).

4.3 Summary and next steps

Taking a systems approach to addressing homelessness within the criminal justice system is crucial because of the complex, cyclical relationship between imprisonment and homelessness. Individuals leaving prison face significant barriers to securing settled housing, including stigma, discrimination, legal restrictions, and financial challenges. These barriers often lead to homelessness, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of re-offending and re-imprisonment. Without settled housing, people leaving prison can struggle to reintegrate into society, facing difficulties in accessing employment, maintaining relationships, and receiving necessary support for mental health and substance use issues.

A systems approach recognises that these challenges are interconnected and require coordinated responses across government, including housing, justice, social services, mental health care, and employment support. By addressing these issues holistically, rather than in isolation, a systems approach can help to break the cycle of homelessness and re-offending. It ensures that people leaving prison receive the comprehensive support they need, including secure housing, to successfully reintegrate into society.

This rapid evidence assessment has highlighted gaps in the current service provision to test during qualitative fieldwork with local areas and national stakeholders.

This rapid evidence assessment identifies strong evidence for understanding drivers for CJS and HRS as independent systems, however there is less evidence exploring the overlaps between these systems and the interactions of the two systems. Furthermore, there is strong evidence on what works well and less well for service provision when considering HRS and CJS independently but less evidence on the system factors affecting effectiveness of service provision. There are thus notable gaps in published literature exploring the combined effects of service provision on interaction between CJS-HRS systems and considering service provision holistically. This lack of evidence provided the rationale for taking a systems approach to designing and conducting the fieldwork in the remainder of this deep dive research to address and fill these evidence gaps. 

The table below highlights these gaps in provision and how the stage of fieldwork will explore these gaps to add richness and context to the literature. It is important to acknowledge that the gaps in provision sit across the responsibilities of different government departments and highlights the needs for a system approach.

Gap in provision

There is a shortage of suitable housing for people leaving prison at risk of homelessness. This includes a lack of understanding what accommodation is needed, where and for who.

How this will be explored in the fieldwork

This research will use system mapping to help elucidate the flow of people to show the demand for different accommodation types and needs. This can help to provide insights for planning and policy decisions to support people at risk of homelessness.

Gap in provision

Some areas across England do not have access to funding for accommodation support programmes for people leaving prison (for example, AfEO). (highlighted through the overview of policies and programmes)

How this will be explored in the fieldwork

This research will explore homelessness outcomes of areas that do and do not have programmes. This can help to provide a high-level understanding of the impact of support programmes. These findings can then support decision-making on how to adapt or expand access to funding.

Gap in provision

Support programmes have gaps in the eligibility criteria for some people at risk of homelessness leaving prison. For example, people who receive a community sentence or foreign nationals with no recourse to public funds. (highlighted through the overview of policies and programmes).

How this will be explored in the fieldwork

Explore what happens for people who are not eligible for support through qualitative interviews and a local area level. This can help guide future policy developments to ensure that people leaving prison, despite their circumstances, are adequately supported.

Gap in provision

There are gaps in the knowledge of how effective policies and programmes have been in achieving outcomes for different people. (highlighted through the overview of policies and programmes)

How this will be explored in the fieldwork

The fieldwork will explore qualitatively, what is working well at a systems-level and for who. This will include groups of interest identified in this research, such as differences for men and women, foreign nationals and those who may have a short or community sentence. This can help guide future policy developments to ensure that people leaving prison, despite their circumstances, are adequately supported.

Gap in provision

There are gaps in the provision of wraparound support that address needs relating to upstream factors, for example, mental health support (highlighted through the overview of policies and programmes, and needs described in the drivers in this report).

How this will be explored in the fieldwork

Understand how key stakeholders in the systems believe that upstream solutions could be developed to support people leaving prison to find settled accommodation and break the cycle.

This will include a focus on areas such as mental health, substance use, unemployment and trauma.

Gap in provision

An absence of a national, cross-departmental approach that addresses the housing needs of people leaving prison, and the upstream factors that drive this interaction.

How this will be explored in the fieldwork

Understand system working practices and needs through discussions with national and regional stakeholders working in the criminal justice and homelessness and rough sleeping systems. This can help to provide insights and improvements to ways of working to best support people leaving prison whom may be at risk of homelessness.

Annex 1: Methodology

The rapid evidence assessment took a desktop approach to synthesise research on the relationship between the criminal justice system and homelessness. A purposive search of papers and reports was undertaken and focused on collating evidence published within the last ten years and articles written in English. The inclusion of some evidence before this time period has been included, where it offers valuable insights. Articles were focused on UK-based evidence or where the UK compared with other nations. The databases and online searches included: JSTOR, Google Scholar, and credible grey literature sources (e.g., programme or policy evaluations). Papers shared by MHCLG and expert advisors were included.

Search results and quality assessment 

In total, 79 documents and datasets were reviewed and information included in this rapid evidence assessment. This included papers from the academic literature, grey literature (evaluation reports etc) and government datasets. It should be acknowledged that additional relevant literature will be available but was not included in the review. This was due to the search approach within the timescales and in some cases, the critical appraisal of the robustness of some data (for example, blog posts or editorials). Each study was critically appraised using appropriate quality measures e.g. the extent to which methodologies are robust using the AMSTAR checklist together with GRADE criteria, for example, the extent to which evidence bases are free from bias and based on a rigorous methodology.

Data extraction

Key information was transferred to a spreadsheet for mapping and included: title, author, date, country, study type, methods/ evidence base, findings, strengths, and limitations reported in the study, and a quality appraisal. Findings were synthesised in accordance with the research questions. Relevant programmes or interventions were coded using the Intervention Level Framework (ILF) descriptions, as depicted in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Relevant programmes or interventions coded against ILF descriptions

Level	Description on each level
Paradigm	The most profound level, targeting fundamental beliefs and values that underpin the system. Changing paradigms involves shifting the core assumptions and ideologies that define system goals and approaches.
Goals	Focuses on the objectives and outcomes that the system aims to achieve. Modifying goals means altering what the system prioritises, which can redirect efforts and resources towards new endpoints.
System structure	Encompasses the network of relationships and interactions between the system’s components. Intervening at this level means changing how parts of the system interact or are organised, potentially improving efficiency or effectiveness.
Knowledge, feedback and delays	Targets the mechanisms that regulate system behaviour, including the feedback loops that amplify or dampen changes. Intervening here can adjust the system’s responsiveness and adaptability.
Structural elements	The most tangible level, involving changes to the physical, technological, and organisational components of the system. This can include introducing new technologies or modifying infrastructure.

References

1. Anders, J. and Dorsett, R., (2017). HMP Peterborough Social Impact Bond: Cohort 2 and final cohort impact evaluation.
2. Bashir, M., Moloney, D., & others. (2021). Homelessness and predictors of criminal reoffending: A retrospective study. Wellcome Open Research.
3. Berman, G., (2013). Care leavers and their over-representation in the prison population. Innovation Unit.
4. Bowpitt, G. (2020). Choosing to be homeless? Persistent rough sleeping and the perverse incentives of social policy in England. Housing, Care and Support, 23(3/4), 135-147.
5. Bozkina, M. (2021). Preventing homelessness amongst former prisoners in England and Wales.
6. Bramley, G. and Fitzpatrick, S. (2015) Hard Edges: Mapping Severe and Multiple Disadvantage. London: Lankelly Chase Foundation.
7. Bramley, G. and Fitzpatrick, S., (2017). Homelessness in the UK: who is most at risk?
8. Centrepoint. (2023). Escaping the trap: A report on youth homelessness and crime. (Accessed: 28 August 2024).
9. Clinks. (2024). Special Interest Group on Accommodation 2023-24 – Report 1.
10. Community NI. (2023). Probation Approved Accommodation (Ex-Offenders Housing Support).
11. Department for Levelling up, Housing, and Communities. (2023). Accommodation for Ex-Offenders scheme: local authority funding allocations between July 2021 and March 2025.
12. Department for Levelling up, Housing, and Communities. (2023). Accommodation for Ex-Offenders scheme: local authority funding allocations between July 2021 and March 2025.
13. Department for Levelling up, Housing, and Communities. (2023). Evaluation of Phase 1 of the Accommodation for Ex-Offenders Programme.
14. Department for Levelling up, Housing, Communities. (2021). Accommodation for Ex-Offender scheme: Local authority funding allocations.
15. Disley, E. and Rubin, J. (2014). Phase 2 report from the Payment by Results Social Impact Bond Pilot at HMP Peterborough. RAND Europe.
16. Dominguez, M. & Kirchmaier, T., (2024). Cost of living research and crime in London.
17. England, E., et al. (2022). A Typology of Multiple Exclusion Homelessness.
18. Fazel, S., & Seewald, K. (2017). Severe mental illness in 33,588 prisoners worldwide: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
19. Gaitán-Rossi, P., & Guadarrama, C. (2021). ‘A systematic literature review of the mechanisms linking crime and poverty’ in Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 28: 1-25.
20. Gough, D. and Coghlan, M., (2022). Understanding Reoffending: Push factors and Preventative Responses.
21. GOV.UK. (2017). Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
22. Greevy, H., et al. (2023). £50m Reducing Reoffending Package Process Evaluation
23. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. (2023). The evidence base: Youth offending services and family relationships. (Accessed: 28 August 2024).
24. HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2020). Accommodation and support for adult offenders in the community and on release from prison in England.
25. HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2023). A thematic inspection of Offender Management in Custody.
26. HM Prison and Probation service (2021) Regional Reducing Reoffending Plans.
27. HM Prisons and Probations. (2023). Community Accommodation Service – Tier 2 (CAS 2) Stakeholder User Guidance.
28. HM Prisons and Probations. (2023). Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 (CAS3).
29. Homeless Link. (2020). Written evidence submitted by Homeless Link.
30. House of Commons Justice Committee. (2021). The Future of Legal Aid: Report of the Justice Committee.
31. Howard League for Penal Reform. (2022). APPG on women’s health and well-being: Final report. (Accessed: 28 August 2024).
32. James, S., Pape, M., Crowe, M., (2024). Housing Exploratory Research Summary.
33. Johnsen, S. and Blenkinsopp, J., (2024). Hard Edges: The reality for women affected by severe and multiple disadvantage.
34. Kerr, J., Kersting, F. and Reid, S. (2023). Offender Accommodation Pilot.
35. Local Government Association. (2023). The relationship between family violence and youth offending.
36. Lymperopoulou, K. (2024). Ethnic Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System: Evidence from the Crown Court in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology.
37. MacInnes, D., et al. (2020). Restarting a prisoner’s life onto a supportive path leading to RESETtlement in the community.
38. Madoc-Jones, I. (2023). Imaginary Homelessness Prevention with Prison Leavers in Wales.
39. Matteo Tiratelli, Ben Bradford, Julia Yesberg, The Political Economy of Crime: Did Universal Credit Increase Crime Rates?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 63, Issue 3, May 2023, Pages 570–587.
40. Maycock, M., McGuckin, K., & Morrison, K. (2020). ‘We are “free range” prison officers’, the experiences of Scottish Prison Service throughcare support officers working in custody and the community. Probation Journal, 67(4), 358-374.
41. McAra, L., & McVie, S., Understanding youth violence: The mediating effects of gender, poverty and vulnerability, Journal of Criminal Justice (2016).
42. McMillan, T. M., Aslam, H., Crowe, E., Seddon, E., & Barry, S. J. E. (2021). Associations between significant head injury and persisting disability and violent crime in women in prison in Scotland, UK: A cross-sectional study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 8(6), 512–520.
43. Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG). (2023). Rough sleeping snapshot in England: autumn 2022, technical report.
44. Ministry of Justice. (2014). Reducing Reoffending Strategy.
45. Ministry of Justice. (2022). Offender management statistics: Prison receptions 2021.
46. Ministry of Justice. (2022). Proven reoffending statistics: October 2022.
47. Ministry of Justice. (2024). Accommodation at Release from Custody, XLSX spreadsheet. (Accessed: 4 September 2024).
48. Ministry of Justice. (2024). Community Performance: Annual Update to March 2024.
49. Ministry of Justice. (2024). The impact of being sentenced with a community sentence treatment requirement (CSTR) on proven reoffending.
50. Ministry of Justice. (2018). Prisons to deliver trailblazing £6m rough sleeping initiative.
51. Ministry of Justice. (2019). Scheme giving ex-offenders a settled place to live up and running.
52. Ministry of Justice. (2023). £50m Reducing Reoffending Package Process Evaluation.
53. Ministry of Justice. (2023). £50m Reducing Reoffending Package Process Evaluation.
54. Ministry of Justice. (2023). Community Accommodation Service – Tier 2 (CAS – 2) Policy Framework.
55. Ministry of Justice. (2024). Prison Education and Accredited Programmes Statistics, April 2023 to March 2024.
56. Ministry of Justice. (2023). Offender Accommodation Pilot.
57. Nacro. (2022). Nacro Community Accommodation Service (CAS-2) England.
58. National Audit Office. (2023). ‘Improving Resettlement Support for Prison Leavers to Reduce Reoffending’.
59. Nordin, M., Almen, D. (2017). ‘Long-term unemployment and violent crime’, Empirical Economics, 52: 1-29.
60. Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service (OLASS). (2015). Research findings on functional illiteracy among prisoners.
61. Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. (2024). Adult substance misuse treatment statistics 2022 to 2023: report.
62. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2021). Population of the UK by country of birth and nationality: individual country data.
63. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2022). The education and social care background of young people who interact with the criminal justice system.
64. Parliamentary Committees. (2021). Reducing Reoffending: The Role of Accommodation.
65. Prison Reform Trust. (2017). There’s a reason we’re in trouble: Domestic abuse as a driver to women’s offending.
66. Quilgars, D., Jones, A., Bevan, M., Bowles, R., & Pleace, N., (2012). Supporting short-term prisoners leaving HMP Leeds: Evaluation of the Shelter Prisoners Advocacy Release Team.
67. Russell Webster. (2021). The STAR Accommodation Project Evaluation.
68. Scottish Government. (2015). Housing and Reoffending: Supporting People Who Serve Short-Term Sentences to Secure and Sustain Stable Accommodation on Liberation.
69. Shaw, J. (2017). Critical Time Intervention for Severely Mentally Ill Prisoners (CrISP): A Randomised Controlled Trial.
70. Shelter Cymru. (2017). Prison link Cymru.
71. Sosenko, F., Bramley, G., and Johnsen, S. (2020). ‘Gendered patterns of severe and multiple disadvantage in England’.
72. Sturge, G., (2024). UK Prison Population Statistics. House of Commons Library.
73. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2002, SI 2002/2051, Article 5.
74. The Health Foundation. (2024). Inequalities in likelihood of living in high-crime neighbourhoods.
75. Third Sector Advisory Group. (2024). RR3 Special Interest Group on Accommodation 2023-24: Report 3.
76. GOV.UK. (2017). Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
77. UK Government. (2023). Alcohol and Drug Treatment in Secure Settings 2022 to 2023: Report 2.
78. UK Government. (2021). Review of Drugs: Phase One Report – Summary.
79. Welsh Government. (2018). Evaluation of Homelessness Services to Adults in the Secure Estate.
80. Welsh Government. (2023). ‘Expert Review Panel on Homelessness Briefing for Meeting 8: Criminal Justice and Homelessness’.
81. Wu, Y., Lu, Y., & Chen, M., (2011). Income Inequality, Unemployment, and Crime: Empirical Evidence from China. Journal of Economic Development, 36(2), pp. 45-64.
82. YouGov (2016) Survey Results, Fieldwork 26 June–14 December. London: YouGov.

---

1. A proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one-year follow-up period that resulted in a court conviction or caution in this time frame or a further six-month waiting period (to allow time for cases to progress through the courts). Definition accessed at Guide to proven reoffending statistics. ↩

2. In England, a child looked after is one that is either provided accommodation by, or in the care of, a local authority. The term “looked-after children” includes unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, children in friends and family placements, and those children where the agency has authority to place the child for adoption. It does not include those who have been permanently adopted or who are on a special guardianship order. ↩

3. Note that approved premises have been long-standing since 2007 but classified as CAS-1 in 2021. ↩

4. BASS was originally launched in 2007. ↩

5. See methodology for further details. ↩