A Home for Christmas: Leaving Prison amidst a National Housing Crisis

Helen Kosc

Helen is a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Oxford, Department of Sociology. For the last 18 months, Helen has conducted a long-term and large-scale ethnographic study of prison resettlement. She has shadowed the resettlement journeys of 150 men released from one, local category B prison over the course of 1.5 years. In both her participant observation and her qualitative, sequential interviews with the men, she hears men saying time and time again:

In here, at least I’m a number. Out there I am no one.

There is nothing for me to look forward to out there. I’d rather be in here.

I’ll do anything, anything to get me back inside the warm for a few nights.

She writes this piece, not as a work of fiction, but as a true story. Rather, as a culmination of 150 true stories. Heartbreaking, almost unbelievable, but all true. Behind her text and her summary are the men’s voices, thoughts, sentiments.

Inspired by her most recent conversation with a prison leaver who told her “I would rather be here for Christmas”, Helen hopes that through this short, thought-provoking piece, you reflect on the men and women released homeless from prison, wishing for a home for Christmas.

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

You are released amidst a national housing and cost of living crisis in this country. On any given night in England this year, there are an estimated 309,550 people and 72,320 households experiencing homelessness. This number, including 123,000 children, is a 14% jump from last year alone.

4 in 10 adults in Great Britain are reporting a difficulty affording their rent and mortgage payments, average house prices in cities like Oxford are a soaring 18 times the UK average yearly household income, and the number of available social housing units is at a remarkable low – the lowest rate in decades.

You are released during a time where divestment in social homes and care for the vulnerable in this country is at an all-time low. With food prices become unaffordable, the hope of a roof over your head unimaginable, and the chances of getting a job in this economy with a criminal record near-impossible, poor timing, you think to yourself as your release date approaches.

Research shows financial crises and periods of austerity ‘disproportionately affect the marginalized and the vulnerable’[1] you’re not one for academic studies, but this one seems pretty true to you.

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

You are not alone, in a country that incarcerates more individuals than any other country in Western Europe, you are part of an ever-growing prison population. The prison population in England and Wales has risen by 80% in the last 30 years, and you’re currently part of an 80,659 individuals, expected to rise by another 7,400 by early 2024.

With 61% of you committing a non-violent offence and 2 in 5 serving six months or less, you are not the only prison leaver coming out homeless this cold and chilling December. 

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

Historically studies have consistently shown that housing upon release can significantly reduce reoffending by at least 20%, with those having accommodation arranged being four times more likely to gain meaningful employment, education and training [2]. The research is not in your favor.

More than three-quarters (79%) of prison leavers in your position – homeless upon release – are reconvicted within the first year of release. This is compared to the 48% of general prison leavers who return in one year, and one-third who return in one month.

The statistics are not in your favor.

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

So what are your options?

Council housing? There is a current wait list of 2780 people on your council’s housing registrar and a wait time of 10-20 years.

Rough sleeping? Where you’re at elevated risk of developing respiratory disease, dental problems, skin diseases, asthma, bronchitis, epilepsy, and have a higher likelihood of experiencing heart problems, stroke, diabetes, anxiety, severe depression, suicidal tendencies, self-harming behavior and violent and/or sexual assault [3]. 

Sofa surfing? Categorized as a ‘hidden homelessness’[4] that actually effects 8 times as many people as rough sleeping [5]. A state of ‘permanent impermanence’ where you lack privacy and personal space, and are often forced to rely on the very same contacts you hope to – and the ones desistence textbooks urge you to – avoid.

So whether you hope you are deemed ‘priority’ need and offered a spot in temporary council accommodation, have a means of securing a floor or sofa to sleep on with an old acquaintance you hope you can trust, or are going to try to find somewhere quiet (and hopefully safe) to sleep on the streets, you are going to be homeless.[6] Each ‘choice’ is temporary and not ideal, each requires taking on its own unique set of risks. Not much of a choice really. Is prison still an option?

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

Where am I going to sleep tonight? Who do I still know in the area? Who owes me a favor? What can I eat for less than £1.50 these days? How cold is it going to be? Do I need a blanket? Will I be safe? When I run out of money, how will I eat? What supermarket will be easiest to steal from?

Of all the questions going through your mind as you walk through the prison gates, the question of whether or not to desist from crime is likely not of much importance. But, in subtle and nuanced ways, it lingers behind every question above.

To desist or not desist? Or better yet, to desist but for how long? Until night 5 on the street? Until you’re starving and out of money? Until you get a bottle smashed over your head while sleeping on the streets? Until you get assaulted by your neighbor in council housing? Until your only option left is to stay at an abusive ex partner’s? Until you are thrown out of the hospital bed for ‘abusing’ the services?

Desisting from crime, like any other behavioral change, is active and effortful – not just a passive event that takes place overnight. It is a negotiation that takes place every single day – not to pick up that drink, not to ingest that substance, not to call up an old friend, not to visit that ex-partner, not to resort to theft when your stomach is rumbling, not to breakdown when you’re sleeping on the streets. It is an active decision made every day to take one more step away from the ‘old version’ of yourself until he or she is eventually abandoned altogether.

However, when no new friends exist, when alcohol is the only way to make your concrete bed comfortable, when your prescription runs out and drugs are the only escape from your inner demons, when you’ve been rejected from council housing and received yet another ‘no’ from a job application, the negotiation becomes more challenging.

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

And while some prison leavers will manage to stick it out, at the cost of their mental, physical, or social wellbeing, many will not. Many will return to prison. And those that return to prison will have to face the same choices again the next time they are released; and the next time; and the next time…until we dramatically change the housing landscape and resettlement policy in this country.

So at some point, starving, freezing and abandoned, you decide you cannot survive another night in the cold. You know of men who have self-harmed to ‘buy’ a night or two in a hospital bed, but one or two nights doesn’t feel like enough for you. You dawn your balaclava and enter your exclusion zone, waiting, hoping, to get caught. I’ll be home for Christmas, you think, as you’re handcuffed and walked over to the police car. I’ll have a home for Christmas, you repeat to yourself as you are driven to the prison gates. And surely enough, the next day as you awake in a warm bed, with a roof over your head, a cellmate, and three meals a day, you knew your Christmas wish had come true.


[1] Stubbs et al., 2022; Armando, 2021; Hastings et al., 2017

[2] Niven & Stewart, 2005

[3] Crisis, 2012; Theodorou & Johnsen, 2017; Homeless Link, 2014; Keogh et al., 2015; Brett et al., 2014; Bines, 1994; Beijer et al., 2016; Lewer at el., 2019.

[4] Minich et al., 2011; Peters, 2012; Crawley et al., 2013; Findlay et al., 2013; Mayock and Corr, 2013; Elwell-Sutton et al., 2017; Mayock and Parker, 2019

[5] Fitzpatrick et al., 2021; Barton & Wilson, 2021

[6] Reeve & Batty, 2011

About the author

Helen Kosc is a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Oxford, Department of Sociology. For her Doctoral research, Helen is conducting a long-term and large-scale ethnographic study of prison resettlement, shadowing the resettlement journeys of 150 prison-leavers over 18 month.

Contact

@HelenKosc

www.linkedin.com/in/helen-kosc-561b9a149/

www.helenkosc.com

This article gives the views of the author, not the position of the British Society of Criminology or the institution they work for.

Deprivation and Crime: Let’s avoid going round in circles.

Reka Solymosi and Carly Lightowlers

The connection between crime, including violence, and deprivation is firmly established, and many studies seek to deploy measures of deprivation in analyses of crime. One approach to conceptualising and operationalising deprivation commonly used in England is the English indices of deprivation 2019, specifically the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The IMD operationalises deprivation and provides a useful tool to understand the link between crime and deprivation. However, the IMD is not without problems, as crime is included as one of the indicators of deprivation. Including crime rates as part of the deprivation measure can artificially inflate the correlation with the (crime) outcome and thus overestimate crime levels.  In this blog we demonstrate an alternative approach by re-calculating a composite deprivation score while excluding the crime indicator.

Deprivation as a predictor of crime

The link between crime and deprivation may be attributed to either offender motivations or strained social relations within deprived communities (i.e., social disorganisation (Shaw and McKay 2010; Lightowlers, Pina-Sánchez, and McLaughlin 2021).

Settings that are more deprived are believed to provide a conducive environment for violent behaviour, as they promote polarisation and erode the sense of community and trust, ultimately resulting in increased violence (Lightowlers, Pina-Sánchez, and McLaughlin, 2021; Wilkinson, 2004).

As such many studies seek to deploy measures of deprivation in analyses of crime. In England, the English indices of deprivation 2019, specifically the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is often used to conceptualise and operationalise deprivation. The IMD provide a set of relative measures of deprivation for small geographical areas (Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs)), based on seven domains (Noble et al. 2019):

  • Income (weight: 22.5%)
  • Employment (weight: 22.5%)
  • Education, Skills and Training (weight: 13.5%)
  • Health and Disability (weight: 13.5%)
  • Crime (weight: 9.3%)
  • Barriers to Housing and Services (weight: 9.3%)
  • Living Environment (weight: 9.3%).

Every LSOA in England is assigned a deprivation score based on the above indicators. Higher scores indicate greater deprivation.

Challenges with using the IMD as a predictor of crime

A drawback of using IMD scores to predict crime is that area level measures of crime comprise one of the indicators used to derive the composite deprivation score. This results in several concerns:

Circularity: The inclusion of the crime indicator in the IMD can result in circularity, whereby the predictor variable (deprivation) is also affected by the outcome variable (crime). This can make it difficult to establish causality in the relationship between deprivation and crime.

Overestimation: As a result, using the IMD with the crime indicator may overestimate the relationship between deprivation and crime, as the inclusion of the crime indicator will inflate the deprivation score for areas with high crime rates.

Overfitting: However, if deploying all the non-crime domains as separate indicators we may run into collinearity between these (especially if the sample size is small or model overfitted). Moreover, retaining a single deprivation variable is a more parsimonious modelling strategy, allowing one to intuitively assess deprivation’s overall effect on crime. This reduces the chances of overfitting models, which is crucial in area level analysis (as these are often on relatively small sample sizes).

One approach taken to get around this issue is to select only one indicator (e.g. the income domain), to predict crime. For example, as deployed by Lymperopoulou and Bannister (2022) in their study of the spatial concentration of poverty and crime.

However, if we are concerned with deprivation more generally (as opposed to poverty), adopting this approach raises further conceptual and methodological concerns. Specifically, the following:

Oversimplification: Deprivation is a complex phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by a single factor such as income or employment. By relying solely on income as an indicator of deprivation, we oversimplify this multidimensional concept. 

Model misspecification: The relationship between deprivation and crime is not the same in all areas. Using only one indicator, such as income, may not capture the complexity of this relationship across different geographical areas or populations. If income is not a good predictor of crime, then using only this indicator may result in further model misspecification, as this can lead to biased estimates and incorrect inferences about the relationship between deprivation and crime. Endogeneity is a common problem in econometrics, and occurs when a predictor variable is correlated with the error term in a regression model. This means that the predictor variable is not independent of the unobserved factors that affect the outcome variable, which can lead to biased and inconsistent estimates.

Reverse Causality: While it is often assumed that deprivation leads to crime, it is also possible that crime can contribute to deprivation by reducing economic opportunities or decreasing property values.

Recalculating the IMD without the crime indicator

We propose another approach, adopted by Lightowlers, Pina-Sánchez, and McLaughlin (2021), to re-calculate an index of multiple deprivation without the crime indicator.

The IMD score comprises the weighted sum of seven indicators, exponentially transformed to allow combining them (see Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). To calculate IMD without the crime indicator, we accessed these scores, and re-combined them, excluding the crime indicator. To do this, we simply re-weighted the other six domains using the same ratio to ensure that the total weight is still 1.00 (i.e. divide them all by 1 – 0.093, the weight of the crime indicator). We then create a composite IMD score from the new weighted sum of these scores, resulting in a general deprivation score that contains all indicators except the crime indicator. We are comfortable in adopting this approach because the original weights were also somewhat arbitrary and subject to judgement (see section 3.7 and Appendix G in Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019a), and in any case the revised weights are not that dissimilar to the originals.

Steps taken to recalculate the IMD in this way can be found here  https://github.com/maczokni/recalculating_imd.

The impact of excluding/including the crime indicator

To test the impact of this approach we furnish an illustrative example and hypothetical research question: Is there an association between area-level deprivation and the number of violent crimes in Cleveland? Data about the outcome – in this case the number of violent crimes at LSOA level, was available from the data.police.uk website.

We obtained one year’s worth of violent crime data from March 2022 to March 2023 for Cleveland and pursued an analysis of the spatial correlation of violence with deprivation. To do so we deploy the original IMD score LSOAs in Cleveland, using a simple spatial error model.

We then compared this to the same analysis using the recalculated IMD (minus the crime domain). Details of the analytical steps taken can be found here https://github.com/maczokni/recalculating_imd.

We found the model deploying the original IMD score suggested there were, on average, 2.89 more crimes per LSOA that year for each increase in the (continuous) deprivation score (model 2). This compared to 2.79 more violent crimes for each increase in the deprivation score of an LSOA when deploying the recalculated IMD (without the crime domain) (model 1). This finding corroborates our suggestion that using the original IMD inflates its effect.

Summary

In this blog we have demonstrated an alternative approach to the IMD by re-calculating a composite deprivation score while excluding the crime indicator.

Using the example of violent crime rates in Cleveland, we found a positive association between multiple deprivation score and violent crime. Our results also demonstrated that including crime rates as part of the deprivation measure will artificially inflate the correlation with the (crime) outcome and thus overestimate crime levels. However, as the change in effect size was not dramatic, this did not alter the conclusions drawn from these data.

Nevertheless, this solution solves the conceptual and statistical issues referred to earlier and is a useful approach for those wishing to study the association between crime and deprivation more precisely in their work.

To access the code for the above recalculation and modelling outlined here please visit https://github.com/maczokni/recalculating_imd

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to Stephen Clark (University of Leeds) who introduced and advised Lightowlers on this as a possible approach to pursuing the analysis in Lightowlers et al. (2021) and Dr Jose Pina-Sánchez (University of Leeds) for comments on an earlier draft of this blog.

References

Lymperopoulou, K. and Bannister, J (2022). The spatial reordering of poverty and crime: A study of Glasgow and Birmingham (United Kingdom), 2001/2 to 2015/16. Cities 130 (103874). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103874.

Lightowlers, Carly, Jose Pina-Sánchez, and Fiona McLaughlin. 2021. “The Role of Deprivation and Alcohol Availability in Shaping Trends in Violent Crime.” European Journal of Criminology, 14773708211036081.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019) English indices of deprivation 2019: technical report. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019-technical-report Accessed: 09/03/2022.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019a) ‘File 9: transformed domain scores’. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 Accessed 28/03/2023

Noble, Stefan, David McLennan, Michael Noble, Emma Plunkett, Nils Gutacker, Mary Silk, and Gemma Wright. 2019. “The English Indices of Deprivation 2019.” London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Shaw, Clifford Robe, and Henry Donald McKay. 2010. “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas: A Study of Rates of Delinquency in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities (1969).” In Classics in Environmental Criminology, 103–40. Routledge.

Wilkinson, Richard. 2004. “Why Is Violence More Common Where Inequality Is Greater?” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1036 (1): 1–12.

About the authors

Dr Reka Solymosi is a Senior Lecturer in Quantitative Methods at the Department of Criminology at the University of Manchester. Her research focuses on using new forms of data to gain insight into people’s behaviour and subjective experiences, particularly focusing on crime, victimisation, transport, and spatial research.

Dr Carly Lightowlers is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Liverpool, with research experience as an academic and in local and central government. Alcohol consumption, associated offending and sentencing are key research interests, although she has researched violence more broadly (e.g. 2011 English riots and modern slavery). 

Contact

Dr Reka Solymosi
Department of Criminology,
The University of Manchester
reka.solymosi@manchester.ac.uk
@r_solymosi
https://rekadata.net/

Dr Carly Lightowlers
Department of Sociology,
Social Policy and Criminology
School of Law and Social Justice,
University of Liverpool     
c.lightowlers@liverpool.ac.uk
@Carly_LL

This article gives the views of the authors, not the position of the British Society of Criminology or the institution they work for.

The BSC Blog

all about current issues on crime, criminology and criminal justice

1868 A Civilizing Moment?

A one day conference reflecting on 150 years since the abolition of public execution

Race and the Death Penalty in Britain

An interdisciplinary research project at the University of Sussex

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

BSC Policing Network

Connecting Policing Researchers In The UK And Beyond

BSC Learning and Teaching Network

For Everyone Interested in the Scholarship of Teaching Criminology and Criminal Justice

Postgraduate Blog

Produced for criminology postgraduates, by criminology postgraduates.

BSC Victims Network

Criminology, law, sociology, victimology

Irish Criminology Research Network

criminal justice issues of critical concern.

Harm & Evidence Research Collaborative (HERC)

The home of criminology research at The Open University

Border Criminologies blog

all about current issues on crime, criminology and criminal justice

Discover WordPress

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.