More and more women are being released from prison into homelessness. It’s an ongoing cruelty

Britain’s beleaguered justice system has rarely been out of the news during Labour’s tenure. Early and accidental prison releases have drawn the ire of the press and the public, with a further row over scrapping certain jury trials now emerging.

But beneath the headlines, in communities all over the country, well-known and well-entrenched cycles of imprisonment, substance addiction, crime and homelessness continue for thousands every year.

And of the UK’s 90,000 or so prisoners, it is the roughly 3,600 women who suffer these challenges to the greatest extent. Now more than ever, the housing crisis is helping keep far too many women on a carousel of homelessness, custody, release and recall – without security and without a chance at restarting.

Read more:

• Prisoners released into homelessness has surged 82% in two years – we’re setting people up to fail
• How the criminal justice system is setting people up to fail
• Prisoners are dying within a day of their release. What’s going wrong?

Women leaving custody experience very disparate circumstances, and some are very well supported as they rebuild their lives, but there remains a lack of consideration of the stark profile differences between men and women as inmates.

A substantial majority of women in prison have been domestically abused, and the rate of self-harm on the female estate is over eight times higher than the male equivalent. Women in prison are eleven times as likely to commit suicide than the general female population. These are distinct challenges and vulnerabilities, and suggest a procedural emphasis on intensive, specialised support for women throughout their sentence, and especially in the immediate days and weeks post-release.

Too often, this is unavailable, with women released into insecure accommodation arrangements, or no arrangement at all. In the year to March 2024, slightly less than half of women left prison into settled accommodation, with the number only rising to 63% after three months.

Certain institutions are failing women as a matter of course. A recent HM Inspectorate of Prisons report revealed that at one women’s prison, HM Foston Hall, “about 60% released after a short, fixed-term recall left homeless compared to 20% for the general population”.

“The cycle of homelessness continued for too many,” it warned.

To be sure – that is the prison inspector reporting that three of every five women who have been recalled for a short stint (i.e. two weeks) are being released into homelessness.

This is not an emerging phenomenon – the BBC were reporting on women being given tents as they were released into homelessness from HM Bronzefield a decade ago. As one women, quoted in a recent HM Eastwood Park inspection, said: “I’m constantly [homeless] on the streets… being homeless is the main reason I keep coming back.”

Why is this happening?

There are systemic and procedural barriers to housing security for ex-prisoners that need to be immediately addressed.

Even before accommodation can be sourced (if it can at all), probation and local authority teams struggle with late referrals that do not leave time to source options. Short-term recalls are disruptive, may lead to loss of housing, and do not give support workers long enough – a situation made harder by the complexity of certain local authority referral systems, which a recent Accommodation for Ex-Offenders (AfEO) evaluation labelled “onerous” and “unwieldy”.

Every women being released into homelessness is, for lack of a better term, a policy failure, and we have allowed this result en masse.

Too often, cases are handled by different key workers, due to probation or local authority staff turnover. Exasperated women, caught in the system, describe having to explain their circumstances (often a difficult process given the likelihood of abuse) repeatedly to different staff. Staff turnover (and shortfalls) in the probation system has long been viewed as a barrier to trust and continuous engagement. A leading cause of recall is disengagement with probation services.

Simplifying and improving pre-release housing support and the probation experience aside, the greatest challenge is a lack of suitable accommodation, whether that be intensive supported settings or general housing supply. Wider market conditions and oft-encountered landlord prejudice mean sourcing stable, affordable, well-located accommodation is becoming increasingly difficult.

There are multiple state-provided housing pathways after custody in the UK. The Community Accommodation Service (CAS) housing options provided by HMPPS after release vary according to need. CAS1 consists of approved premises, supervised 24/7, for higher-risk prisoners. CAS2 is for releases on bail, deemed medium-risk, with CAS3 being the transition pathway (housing residents for 12 weeks) for ex-prisoners at risk of homelessness upon release.

There are also funding pots available to local authorities, AfEO programme (a separate funding programme between 2021 to 2025, now consolidated into the Rough Sleeping Prevention and Recovery Grant), which local authorities can use to support at-risk individuals.

Whatever the provision type, a national shortage of affordable housing sees local authorities struggling to source properties, and too many women refusing offers of CAS3 housing which is often miles away from their families and support network – indicative of much wider housing provision pressures faced by councils.

Women are, on average, imprisoned 64 miles away from home, which can mean they lose their local connection and priority status with their previous local authority. There is also a shortage of more intensive support options, leading to some probation professionals describing situations where women end up in CAS3 settings who require more intensive help upon release.

Even once in (more) stable initial accommodation settings, women can be prone to return to more dangerous circumstances. Women-only settings face the challenge of residents with male partners wanting to bring partners over, or leaving once told men are not permitted on-site. Drug use is not monitored in some supported settings, but others employ an abstinence policy to protect all residents with substance issues.

These are tough choices for providers to make, and decisions about these issues often involve trade-offs. Regional probation teams describe taking the hard decision to keep settings women-only, sometimes with empty beds, even in the knowledge that there are men leaving prison into insecure circumstances – to avoid inappropriately mixed-gender bail houses, which can cause women to leave and escape unsafe circumstances.

At all stages of the women’s journey into, out of, and after custody, there are too many pathways to homelessness. Once homeless, women are more at risk. Women who are sleeping rough are often invisible, as they minimise risks to protect themselves, and they are less likely to access the help and support they need. In some cases, women may engage in sexual activities, including prostitution or returning to an abusive partner, as a means of securing accommodation.

What are the solutions?

There are common features to the examples of best practice, despite the varied needs of women coming out of prison (and in many cases, the needs of their children).

The first is coordination amongst agencies – so that probation staff, housing teams, social services can anticipate potential needs upon release. Women should be supported pre-release with a referral process if required (with their housing and support needs identified as early as possible in their sentence), ideally to move into suitable accommodation close enough to probation appointments and health and treatment services.

This can be arranged more easily with having housing practitioners (members of the local authority housing team, for instance) (partially) based in prisons or at least having regular access to prison wings – to enable early and appropriate contact and assessment as women serve their custodial sentences. Co-location should be more keenly pursued in general.  A recent systems-wide evaluation praised the AfEO scheme, and the staff recruited to deliver it, for enabling closer working relationships between prisons, probation, and employment support teams.

Beyond coordination, relationships matter intensely. Having one point of contact and developing trust keeps women engaged in the probation system, avoiding recall. Ensuring immediate access to an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA) can help prevent women returning to dangerous settings.

There is also a crucial need to establish more women-only supported housing. There are numerous examples of excellent practice around the country – whether that be Hope Street in Southampton, or Anawin’s Dawn House in Birmingham. Lessons from the Re-Unite supported housing pilot, which decreased reoffending by over half the national rate, remain relevant – but essentially show the value of a professionally-staffed, understanding, compassionate environment for women, in that case specifically mothers and their children.

These settings have to be close to existing support networks friends or family, along with health and probation services and decent, stable working opportunities. These conditions are easier described than produced, but a system which is still dumping women on the street after release should not be accepted by taxpayers, even those motivated exclusively by value for money.

Well resourced and coordinated systems around women leaving prison must become ubiquitous, but wider questions about the effectiveness of short sentences for women are becoming unavoidable. The unique challenges women face in prison have been mentioned, but the disruption caused to women’s lives (and the lives of their children) after a short sentence are considerable.

Judges do not sentence women to six weeks and subsequent homelessness, but in too many cases, that is the punishment faced. 2027 will mark 20 years since Jean Corston reported that she was “dismayed to see so many women frequently sentenced for short periods of time for very minor offences, causing chaos and disruption to their lives and families, without any realistic chance of addressing the causes of their criminality”.

It is encouraging that the Government seem to be receptive to the use of community, rather than custodial, sentences (along with their intentions to reduce remand and increase probation staff headcount). Such commitments ring slightly hollow, however, when set above continued, even increasing, rough sleeping the night of release.

Fraser Maclean is the policy manager at Commonweal Housing, who will be hosting webinars for probation and housing practitioners to share best practice in the near future. If you would like join, email Fraser at fraserm@commonweal.org.uk.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

Change a vendor’s life this winter.

Buy from your local Big Issue vendor every week – and always take the magazine. It’s how vendors earn with dignity and how we fund our work to end poverty.

You can also support online with a vendor support kit or a magazine subscription. Thank you for standing with Big Issue vendors.