Written evidence submitted by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (TH0026)

 

 

Introduction

  1. We welcome the opportunity to submit a response to the Public Accounts Committee inquiry about tackling homelessness.

 

  1. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) is an independent inspectorate whose duties are primarily set out in section 5A of the Prison Act 1952. We provide scrutiny of the conditions for and treatment of prisoners and other detainees and report publicly on our findings.

 

  1. Studies such as the NAO study in 2024 highlighted that those entering prison report higher levels of homelessness, as compared with the general population. Further information about what we find whilst on inspection in relation to homelessness is set out below and we hope this is of assistance to the Committee. Accommodation issues with regards to immigration detention are also briefly covered.

 

Prisons lack of accommodation on release

 

  1. For many years, we have reported on significant gaps with the availability of suitable and sustainable accommodation on release, despite stable accommodation being associated with reduced reoffending. Too many prisoners are released homeless or to very short-term accommodation. Our 2023-24 Annual Report reiterated these concerns and highlighted some prisons such as HMP Lindholme and HMP Lowdham Grange, that were releasing prisoners despite not having a resettlement function.[1]

 

  1. Our inspections in 2024-25 continue to find issues with accommodation on release. We have made priority concerns in relation to accommodation at various prisons this year. For example, at HMP Peterborough (men’s) prison, there was far too little help to find housing and in the previous 12 months, about 30% of prisoners were released homeless.[2] At HMP Cardiff, during the previous year, 43% of prisoners released were homeless or only had a very temporary place to go to. Outcomes beyond the first night of release were not known.[3]

 

  1. At HMP Durham, prison data on accommodation outcomes was incomplete and did not include the larger number released from court. The data for sentenced prisoners on release showed that 64% did not have sustainable accommodation (intended to last more than 12 weeks) and a quarter were released homeless.[4] HMP Nottingham, also a reception and resettlement prison, had also released a quarter of sentenced prisoners homeless in the previous 12 months and it was uncertain how many had been recalled.[5]

 

  1. We found a critical lack of housing stock in the local area for prisoners at HMP Hull. A large Salvation Army hostel had recently closed and we were told that demand for social housing in the city outstripped supply by four to one. Outcomes were notably worse for men released under the ECSL scheme, with about 40% released homeless, twice the average, and a third had already been recalled.[6] At HMP Oakwood, an otherwise high preforming prison, securing release accommodation for those who needed it was challenging in the local area and 13% of prisoners had been released homeless in the previous 12 months.[7]

 

  1. The above examples primarily focus on homelessness, but we also regularly report on a lack of sustainable accommodation, even where homelessness has initially been prevented. At Drake Hall, only about 40% of women had been released to settled and sustainable accommodation in the previous 12 months. About 50% of women went to temporary accommodation and, despite staff’s strenuous efforts, 10% went out homeless. What little suitable housing stock was available had been overwhelmed by early release schemes.[8]

 

  1. At HMIP we consider a sustainable time-period to be accommodation that is in place for a minimum of 13 weeks after release. Sustainable accommodation includes settled – owned or rented property (private or social) and settled – friends/family. Temporary or transient accommodation, such as short-term stays with friends and family or time in supported housing, are not sustainable. We recognise that arrangements that may initially appear relatively long-term can quickly unravel and may not be as long-term a solution in practice. As part of our inspections, we also consider, as far as is possible, whether accommodation is suitable. However, use of this term in prisons is currently loose, often resulting in confusion and a lack of consistency.

 

  1. Open prisons tend to achieve better outcomes in relation to accommodation. At HMP Hatfield for example, in the previous year, all prisoners had an address to go to on their first night of release, with nearly 70% released into sustainable accommodation.[9] The introduction of Strategic Housing Specialists based in prisons has also been a promising development.

 

Specific concerns for remand prisoners

 

  1. An area of concern for the inspectorate is accommodation provision for prisoners on remand. At HMP Belmarsh, despite around 60% of prisoners being unsentenced (with around 40% remanded in custody until their cases were dealt with in court and just under another 20% waiting to be sentenced), there was no data about what happened to prisoners released without a conviction or those sentenced and released immediately from court because of time already spent on remand.[10] Outcomes for these prisoners were also largely unknown at HMP/YOI Chelmsford, where most prisoners were now on remand or unsentenced.[11] In the women’s estate, given that many women on remand are likely to be primary carers, this is particularly concerning.

 

Prison survey data relating to accommodation

 

  1. Data about the suitability and sustainability of the accommodation into which prisoners are being released is crucial, but often only limited data is collected. Establishing the effectiveness of an establishment’s accommodation provision can therefore be challenging. At the inspectorate we are reliant on the data provided to us by individual jails, but we also separately ask detainees about their accommodation needs and any support received.

 

  1. An important component of our inspections is the completion of the detainee survey. Members of the research team conduct a survey of a representative proportion of the detainee population, which is a key source of evidence, gathering detainee perceptions.

 

  1. For inspections published between April 2023 and March 2024, we asked detainees expected to be released in the next 3 months via the survey ‘Do you need help to sort out the following for when you are released: finding accommodation?’. In men’s prisons, of those surveyed, 62% said they did. Men in high secure prisons (100%) and Category B training prisons (71%), which will not have a resettlement function, were most likely to report needing help with accommodation. In women’s prisons, of those surveyed, 65% said they needed help finding accommodation when they are released.

 

  1. Those who needed help finding accommodation were then subsequently asked ‘Are you getting help to sort out the following for when you are released, if you need it: finding accommodation?’. In men’s prisons, only 41% said they were. Men in prisons holding people convicted of sexual offences were most likely to say they were getting help (69%), followed by men in young adult prisons (48%). Those in high secure prisons were the least likely to say they were getting help (33%). In women’s prisons, 50% said they were getting help with accommodation.[12]

 

Immigration detention

 

  1. As with prisons, an important component of our inspections of immigration detention is the completion of the detainee survey. For inspections published between April 2023 and March 2024, we asked ‘When you first arrived, did you have any problems with: housing?’. Of those surveyed, 17% said they did.

 

  1. At Brook House IRC, in the year to July 2024, 20 people were released into the community homeless, including some assessed as vulnerable.[13] In the previous six months before our inspection, 58% of detainees at Brook House IRC had been released into the community, an increase from 51% at our previous inspection.

 

 

  1. In our inspection reports we speak to many detainees who are anxious and stressed because they have been granted bail but continue to be detained because of a lack of bail accommodation. This can greatly extend the length of administrative detention: at Harmondsworth IRC, of the 17 detainees in this situation, one had already waited five months for release.[14] At Brook House IRC, it was unclear how many were in this situation as there was no monitoring of numbers.

 

November 2024

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Annual Report 2023-24 – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[2] HMP Peterborough (Men) – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[3] HMP Cardiff – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[4] HMP Durham – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[5] HMP Nottingham – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[6] HMP Hull – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[7] HMP Oakwood – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[8] HMP/YOI Drake Hall – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[9] HMP/YOI Hatfield – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[10] HMP Belmarsh – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[11] HMP/YOI Chelmsford – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[12] Annual Report 2023-24 – HM Inspectorate of Prisons (see excel workbook attachments)

[13] Brook House Immigration Removal Centre – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

[14] Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre – HM Inspectorate of Prisons