TY  - RPRT
AU  - Baldry, Eileen
AU  - McDonnell, Desmond
AU  - Maplestone, Peter
AU  - Peeters, Manu
CY  - Melbourne
L1  - internal-pdf://0818775687/AHURI_Final_Report_No046_Ex_prisoners_and_acco.pdf
M3  - FR
N1  - This significant Australian study of people released from prison found that rough sleeping and not having effective accommodation support were both strongly linked to returning to prison.
The study defined homelessness as rough sleeping, as living without proper shelter, because that is how their participants understood it. The researchers note that if they had included people in Chamberlain and MacKenzie‘s (1992) categories of secondary and tertiary homelessness then most of the sample would have been defined as homeless (Baldry et al. 2003, p.11).
Baldry et al (2003) conducted a longitudinal study in NSW and Victoria which interviewed participants pre-release and then 3, 6 and 9 months post-release. The initial pre-release sample was 355 people, and 70 per cent (238 participants) were followed up post-release, a very high study retention rate for this kind of research which produced a statistically valid sample (Baldry et al. 2003, p.8). All findings reported are statistically significant correlations.
On the most conservative estimate, the study found that homelessness increased from 18 per cent prior to incarceration to 21.4 per cent post release, and that homelessness was significantly associated with recidivism. Sixty-one per cent of those homeless on release returned to prison, compared to 35 per cent of those with accommodation (Baldry et al. 2003, p.12). Interview data indicated that up to half of

the participants experienced episodes of homelessness over the follow up period (Baldry et al. 2003, p.12).
Housing stability, measured by the number of moves between interviews, was strongly associated with recidivism. Only 22 per cent of those who did not move or moved only once returned to prison compared to 59 per cent of those who moved twice or more (Baldry et al. 2003, p.11). Half of the sample moved more than twice between interviews, and 15.5 per cent moved more than four times (Baldry et al. 2003, p.11).
The study found that the two factors most strongly predictive of returning to prison were moving often and worsening problems with heroin (Baldry et al. 2003, p.22). Problematic substance use of all kinds was found to be associated with increased likelihood of returning to prison (Baldry et al. 2003, p.19).
The housing situation most associated with staying out of prison was living with parents, partners or family members. Only 23 per cent of this group returned to prison, compared to 52 per cent of those living with others or alone (Baldry et al. 2003, p.13). The qualitative data indicates that relationships with family could be a significant source of support, however troubled relationships equally could lead to homelessness (Baldry et al. 2003, p.21).
The study also found that participants‘ own assessments of post-release housing support and other services were reliably accurate for predicting prison return outcomes (Baldry et al. 2003, pp.15–17). Eighty-two per cent (N=62) of those who reported that housing support was helpful stayed out of prison, while 69 per cent (N= 52) of those who reported unhelpful support did return to prison (Baldry et al. 2003, pp.15–16). This indicates that program design could be significantly improved using the input of prisoners and ex-prisoners.
Overall, women, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, and people with debts were significantly more at risk of returning to prison.
A particularly disadvantaged sub-group in this study was Indigenous women from NSW. They experienced the highest rate of re-incarceration and homelessness. These women did have a dedicated support worker pre- and post-release however the fundamental problem was an inability to find suitable housing. Most of this group were cycling in and out of prison on short sentences. They were often unable to live with family, needed accommodation for their children and had debts to the Department of Housing (Baldry et al. 2003, p.25).
NV  - 70068
PB  - Australian Housing and Urban ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿Ú Institute, Ecumenical Housing Inc
PY  - 2003
RP  - This significant Australian study of people released from prison found that rough sleeping and not having effective accommodation support were both strongly linked to returning to prison.
The study defined homelessness as rough sleeping, as living without proper shelter, because that is how their participants understood it. The researchers note that if they had included people in Chamberlain and MacKenzie‘s (1992) categories of secondary and tertiary homelessness then most of the sample would have been defined as homeless (Baldry et al. 2003, p.11).
Baldry et al (2003) conducted a longitudinal study in NSW and Victoria which interviewed participants pre-release and then 3, 6 and 9 months post-release. The initial pre-release sample was 355 people, and 70 per cent (238 participants) were followed up post-release, a very high study retention rate for this kind of research which produced a statistically valid sample (Baldry et al. 2003, p.8). All findings reported are statistically significant correlations.
On the most conservative estimate, the study found that homelessness increased from 18 per cent prior to incarceration to 21.4 per cent post release, and that homelessness was significantly associated with recidivism. Sixty-one per cent of those homeless on release returned to prison, compared to 35 per cent of those with accommodation (Baldry et al. 2003, p.12). Interview data indicated that up to half of

the participants experienced episodes of homelessness over the follow up period (Baldry et al. 2003, p.12).
Housing stability, measured by the number of moves between interviews, was strongly associated with recidivism. Only 22 per cent of those who did not move or moved only once returned to prison compared to 59 per cent of those who moved twice or more (Baldry et al. 2003, p.11). Half of the sample moved more than twice between interviews, and 15.5 per cent moved more than four times (Baldry et al. 2003, p.11).
The study found that the two factors most strongly predictive of returning to prison were moving often and worsening problems with heroin (Baldry et al. 2003, p.22). Problematic substance use of all kinds was found to be associated with increased likelihood of returning to prison (Baldry et al. 2003, p.19).
The housing situation most associated with staying out of prison was living with parents, partners or family members. Only 23 per cent of this group returned to prison, compared to 52 per cent of those living with others or alone (Baldry et al. 2003, p.13). The qualitative data indicates that relationships with family could be a significant source of support, however troubled relationships equally could lead to homelessness (Baldry et al. 2003, p.21).
The study also found that participants‘ own assessments of post-release housing support and other services were reliably accurate for predicting prison return outcomes (Baldry et al. 2003, pp.15–17). Eighty-two per cent (N=62) of those who reported that housing support was helpful stayed out of prison, while 69 per cent (N= 52) of those who reported unhelpful support did return to prison (Baldry et al. 2003, pp.15–16). This indicates that program design could be significantly improved using the input of prisoners and ex-prisoners.
Overall, women, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, and people with debts were significantly more at risk of returning to prison.
A particularly disadvantaged sub-group in this study was Indigenous women from NSW. They experienced the highest rate of re-incarceration and homelessness. These women did have a dedicated support worker pre- and post-release however the fundamental problem was an inability to find suitable housing. Most of this group were cycling in and out of prison on short sentences. They were often unable to live with family, needed accommodation for their children and had debts to the Department of Housing (Baldry et al. 2003, p.25).
ST  - Ex-prisoners and accomodation: what bearing of do different forms of housing have on social reintegration
T2  - ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿ÚFinal Report No. 46
TI  - Ex-prisoners and accomodation: what bearing of do different forms of housing have on social reintegration
UR  - /research/final-reports/46
ID  - 64
ER  -