Eur J Crim Policy Res DOI 10.1007/s10610-013-9225-3

Comparing Income and Housing of Former Prisoners After Imprisonment with their Situation Before Imprisonment Gijs Weijters & Alexander More

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract There is ample evidence that imprisonment deteriorates the income and housing situation of former prisoners. Little is known about the degree to which income and housing of (former) prisoners deteriorates during imprisonment. The objective of this article is to give a more detailed description of the changing income situation and housing situation during imprisonment by describing income and housing of (former) prisoners directly before and directly after imprisonment. To this end we make use of data on the entire population of prisoners who were released from Dutch prisons during the second half of 2008. Our results show that prisoners are characterised by a considerably problematic profile with regard to income and housing both before and after imprisonment. The income and housing situation of prisoners is worse directly after imprisonment than directly before imprisonment. Keywords Aftercare . Consequences of imprisonment . Harm of imprisonment . Prisoners

Introduction Imprisonment is associated with a deterioration of a prisoner’s financial situation. Prisoners who were employed before being detained often miss out on their income during their imprisonment and run the risk of losing their job. In addition, because of their lack of income, prisoners may be unable to settle their old debts or prevent the development of new debts, such as rent arrears. The lack of financial means during but also after serving a prison sentence affects, among other things, prisoners’ housing situation. Without an income, it is difficult for prisoners to hold on to their accommodation outside. The costs attendant to housing, such as the rent of a house or a room and also other recurring expenses, continue during their imprisonment. Furthermore, imprisonment may be a reason why parents or friends no longer welcome the prisoner. Negative changes may therefore occur during imprisonment, not only with regard to income but also with regard to housing. Such negative changes regarding

G. Weijters (*) : A. More Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), Ministry of Security and Justice, Postbus 20301, 2500 EH The Hague, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

G. Weijters, A. More

finances and housing are unintended and undesired, and may be considered as a harm of imprisonment. We know from earlier research that it is possible to reduce recidivism by supporting prisoners with their problems in these areas, or when they are aided in more general terms during their rehabilitation into society (Lipsey and Cullen 2007). In this regard, it is most important that the interventions focus on a prisoner’s changeable criminogenic risk factors (Andrews and Bonta 2006; Gendreau et al. 2006). This fits in with the age graded informal social control theory (Sampson and Laub 1993; Laub and Sampson 2001, 2003). An important aspect of this theory is the influence of turning points in one’s life. Life changes, like getting a job and getting married, may lead to turning points in life, which for offenders can result in a stronger bond to society and desistance from crime. To use Shadd Maruna’s words (2001), assisting prisoners in changing their lives with regard to their financial situation and accommodation may help them in making good. There is a relation between missing out on accommodation and income and having debts on the one hand, and committing offences (again) on the other hand. Studies among former prisoners who did not have any accommodation after serving a prison sentence show that they returned to prison more often than former prisoners who did have housing after their prison term had ended (Baldry et al. 2006; Carlisle 1996; Metraux and Culhane 2004). In addition, homelessness is proven to be related to criminal behaviour (McCarthy and Hagan 1991). Not having any income at their disposal is problematic for former prisoners, as it makes them incapable of seeing to their primary necessities of life. Furthermore, people with a low income turn out to be suspected of committing an offence more often than people with a higher income are (Blom et al. 2005; Skardhamar and Telle 2012). Research also shows that prisoners who have debts get re-detained more often than prisoners without debts (Baldry et al. 2003). We can deduce from these findings that a lack of accommodation, a lack of income and having debts are all factors contributing to a greater risk for former prisoners of once more getting involved in crime. Earlier studies on the financial and housing situation of (former) prisoners have mostly been carried out in the context of research into the rehabilitation of former prisoners. Regarding the area of income, the focus of this research is mostly on the influence of prior incarceration on getting a job, since having a (stable) job is assumed to have a tempering effect on relapsing into criminal behaviour (Blokland and Nieuwbeerta 2005; Geller et al. 2006; Pettit and Lyons 2009; Sampson and Laub 1993; Uggen 2000; Western et al. 2001). The idea behind this is threefold. First, having been detained can result in a stigma. Secondly, imprisonment may result in a deterioration of job skills. Thirdly, imprisonment may be the cause of a decreased availability of social capital, a necessary resource for finding employment (Western et al. 2001). All of these aspects are not conducive to the rehabilitation of former prisoners. With regard to housing, the picture is more or less the same. Stable accommodation is assumed to be an important factor for the realization of a prisoner’s successful return into society (Baldry et al. 2003), but it is often hard to find for former prisoners (Adamczuk 2007; Roman and Travis 2006). In this context, earlier studies have focused either on the influence of imprisonment on housing problems, or on prisoners’ expectations about housing possibilities after they have served their sentence (Geller and Curtis 2011; Niven and Olagundoye 2002; Roman and Travis 2006).

Aim and Scope In the previous section we have shown that there is ample evidence that imprisonment has a negative effect on the income and housing situation of former prisoners. Yet, little is known

Income and housing of former prisoners

how the situation regarding income and housing changes during imprisonment. It is the question whether the deprived situation regarding income and housing has developed during imprisonment, whether it already existed before the imprisonment began, or whether the prisoner’s situation was even worse before the imprisonment. The goal of this article is to provide insight into the changes occurring during imprisonment in the financial and housing situations of prisoners. We will do this by first describing the financial and housing situation of prisoners as it is at the moment the imprisonment starts. Next, we will show to what extent the situation regarding income and housing changes during imprisonment. Such change may be negative because a source of income or a housing situation that was available before the imprisonment does not exist any more after the prison term has been served. A positive change is possible as well when income and accommodation are organised during the prison term of prisoners who did not have these prior to their imprisonment. To provide insight into this, we will use data of people who were detained in the Netherlands. It so happens that in the Netherlands, for the benefit of the aftercare provided to prisoners, the situation of prisoners regarding these areas is registered both at the start and at the end of their prison sentence. For this study, we had access to data on the whole population of (former) prisoners in the Netherlands, which enabled us to map out the consequences (positive as well as negative) of imprisonment in the areas of finances and housing for the national population of prisoners.

Aftercare Policy in the Netherlands In the Netherlands, recidivism among former prisoners is high. Well over 60 % of former prisoners are convicted again by a judge for a new offence within four years time (Wartna et al. 2009), while almost 50 % of the former prisoners are locked up again in a penitentiary institution within four years’ time (DJI 2008). Many former prisoners return to society unprepared, that is, without having any of the necessary basic provisions at their disposal, such as a valid identity card, an income or accommodation. With the aim of reducing the recidivism of former prisoners, the Ministry of Security and Justice has set up the Comprehensive Approach to Aftercare Programme (PSAN). The goal of this programme is to improve the aftercare given to former prisoners by cooperating with municipalities and other chain partners, to ensure that former prisoners have accommodation, an income and a valid identity card from the moment they are released from prison. In addition, the programme is focused on having insight into a released prisoner’s possible debts and on having a plan for debt assistance ready, in case this is necessary. Finally, the prisoner’s need for care must be assessed and, if needed, such care must be realized. The Dutch aftercare policy uses the period of imprisonment to prevent the situation of prisoners from deteriorating in comparison to the situation before imprisonment. On the other hand, the imprisonment period is also used to improve the situation of prisoners as much as possible. Potentially homeless prisoners can organise their future stay in a shelter already while they are serving their sentence, and the trajectory leading to work can start during a term served in prison as well. The target group of the aftercare policy consists of all adult prisoners with a valid asylum status who settle in a Dutch municipality after their stay in a Dutch prison. Because the policy’s focus is on rehabilitation, prisoners who move on to a forensic institution after their imprisonment has ended, or foreigners who are forced to leave the Netherlands after their release from prison, are not prepared for a return to society during their time in prison.1

1

In total, this involves 32.2 % of all prisoners who have completed their sentence.

G. Weijters, A. More

In cooperation with the municipality where prisoners intend to settle after serving their prison sentence, their return is already prepared during their imprisonment. All prisoners belonging to the target group of the aftercare policy are put into contact with a social worker employed in their penitentiary. Based on a personal conversation with the prisoner, this social worker produces a file recording all problems of prisoners with regard to their accommodation, income, debts, care needs and identity card. The social worker indicates the areas for special attention and subsequently shares this information with the municipality where the prisoner plans to settle after release. These files are put into the archives of the Digital Platform for Alignment of Aftercare (DPAN). During imprisonment, prisoners, municipality and social workers work together to ensure that prisoners will have accommodation, an income and an identity card upon their release from prison. There will also be insight into possible debts and contact with care facilities will be started up or continued as soon as the prisoner indicates that he or she needs some kind of care. After the prisoner’s discharge from prison, the file in DPAN is updated with information on the situation at the moment of the prisoner’s release. Since the situations at both the start of the prison term and the release from prison are recorded, it is possible to examine whether the situation of prisoners has changed during their imprisonment. Next to these standard aftercare services for all prisoners, there are other programs and interventions which operate in Dutch prisons with the intention to reduce recidivism. The Dutch National Agency of Correctional Institutions (DJI) provides an overview of these interventions which take place during detention (DJI 2012). These interventions focus on various aspects of life after prison, like housing, finances, and debts.

Methods Data To describe the financial and housing situation of prisoners at the beginning and the end of their prison sentence, we make use of the files produced by social workers on the basis of a personal conversation with each prisoner for DPAN. The aim is to make such a file for each prisoner belonging to the target group of the policy. The function of these files is to list the problems prisoners face prior to their imprisonment with regard to their income, housing, debts, care needs and their identity card. This file is brought up-to-date at the time of release of prisoners, with the addition of information on, among other things, their financial and housing situation at that moment. A disadvantage of using DPAN is that it has not been developed for research purposes. The main aim is to support social workers in their work on the reintegration of prisoners. Another disadvantage of DPAN is that it does not provide quite detailed information. With regard to the income and housing situation we only know whether or not someone has an income or accommodation just before imprisonment, and at the moment someone is released from prison. The main source of income is only known for the situation just before imprisonment. When someone has multiple sources of income before imprisonment, only the main source of income is known. For the housing situation we know the type of accommodation both at the beginning and at the end of detention. To provide insight into the consequences of imprisonment for prisoners’ finances and housing situation, we have selected files from prisoners who have been released during the period from 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2008. These files had to include at least information on the income status of prisoners before and after being detained, their accommodation status before and after being detained, or their debts prior to their imprisonment.

Income and housing of former prisoners

Research Group The research group consists of 9688 (former) prisoners. Table 1 presents a number of background characteristics of the former prisoners from the research group, compared to the policy’s total target group (N=15,356) who were discharged during that same period. The research group differs on a number of background characteristics from the policy’s total target group. First of all, the male prisoners are overrepresented in the research group. Prisoners from the research group are on average also somewhat younger and were imprisoned for a longer time. The cause of these longer prison terms is that social workers do not always succeed in speaking to short-staying prisoners and in producing a file on them. Short-staying prisoners are therefore underrepresented in the research group. Furthermore, former prisoners from the research group were born more often in the Netherlands and less often in other Western countries. Prisoners from other Western countries mostly originated from Central and Eastern Europe (so-called CEE countries). Less often we have information on them, because there is little social workers can do for CEE citizens with regard to aftercare. These people can stay legally in the Netherlands and are thus included in the policy’s target group. Yet, they are often not registered in the office of records, which frequently makes it unclear in which municipality they settled after their imprisonment ended. This vagueness is reinforced by the language barrier, which hinders prisoners when they try to tell a social worker to which municipality they intend to return. In addition, they do not have access to municipal facilities. A disadvantage of information on the situation prior to imprisonment is that it is based on what the prisoner tells the social worker. Yet, the prisoner may paint a picture very different from reality. The situation described by prisoners thus does not necessarily have to be consistent with their real circumstances. A disadvantage of the information on the situation when someone is released from prison is that, at that very moment, it is not always clear to the social worker what the situation of the prisoner will look like after the imprisonment has ended. In these cases the social worker provides an estimate of the situation. The last disadvantage is that there is no information on debts or debt assistance after the end of the imprisonment in the discharge file. Operationalisation Prisoners have an income when they receive salary, welfare payments, invalidity benefits, income from a self-owned business, a basic state pension, a student grant, or when others provide for them. Prisoners without an income either do not have any regular income, or indicate they are making money with moonlighting or other illegal activities. Prisoners with accommodation have a rented home, a self-owned home, rent a room, live in with family or friends, or stay in a shelter.2 Other types of housing, such as a trailer, a hotel or an (anti)squat, are considered as accommodation as well. Homeless people without a postal address are counted as belonging to the group without any accommodation. A prisoner has debts when fines go unpaid or there are other creditors. Any possible mortgage debts are not included. Prisoners have obtained an income or an accommodation if they had no income or housing prior to their imprisonment and did have them after their imprisonment ended. Prisoners have lost their income or accommodation if they had them prior to their imprisonment, but did not have them after their imprisonment ended. 2

In this research we consider shelter as having an accommodation, although in the US shelter stays are sometimes used as an indicator of homelessness. We do so, because in Dutch aftercare policy shelter is considered as a type of accommodation, because their aim is to get prisoners off the streets.

G. Weijters, A. More

Table 1 Comparison of characteristics of the research group and the target group for aftercare policy (%)

Research group

Target group aftercare policy

Gender Male

93.0

91.5

*

Female

7.0

8.5

*

N

9,688

15,356

18 and 19

5.1

4.8

20 to 24

19.1

18.2

25 to 29

15.7

15.6

30 to 34

13.7

13.6

35 to 39

15.0

14.9

40 to 44

12.7

12.8

45 to 49

9.2

9.6

Age

**

50 to 59

7.8

8.4

60 and older

1.8

1,9

N

9,688

15,356

The Netherlands

65.9

63.2

Turkey

2.5

2.3

Morocco

4.9

5.1

Surinam

7.3

7.6

The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba

7.6

7.8

Other Western

4.6

6.4

Other non-Western

7.1

7,5

N

9,688

15,290

Until 10 days

9.5

19.9

10 days to 2 weeks

4.5

5.8

2 weeks to 1 month

16.6

20.4

1 to 3 months

27.7

23.0

3 to 6 months

19.1

13.8

6 months to 1 year

13.7

9.7

More than 1 year

8.9

7.5

N

9,660

15,205

No earlier sentences

34.9

35.6

1 earlier sentence

16.9

17.0

2 earlier sentences

10.8

10.6

3 to 5 earlier sentences

17.0

16.8

6 to 10 earlier sentences

12.2

11.6

11 to 20 earlier sentences

7.0

7.1

More than 20 earlier sentences

1.3

1.3

N

9,453

15,059

Country of birtha

Duration of imprisonment

* Characteristics differ significantly between the research group and the target group of the aftercare policy (p<0.05) ** The research group is significantly younger than the total target group of the aftercare policy (Independent Samples T Test (p<0.05) *** The research group was detained significantly longer than the total target group of the aftercare policy (Independent Samples T Test (p<0.05) a Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese and Antilleans, sometimes also called the four big ‘classic’ migrant groups in the Netherlands, are often used as separate origin groups in Dutch research. This applies to the present study as well

*

*

***

Number of earlier prison sentences served

Income and housing of former prisoners

Results The Financial Situation of (former) Prisoners Before and After Imprisonment We describe the financial situation of prisoners by indicating to what extent they had an income or had run up debts at the moment their imprisonment began. We can outline the income situation at the start of the imprisonment based on information on 7590 prisoners. It turns out that 76.2 % (N=5780) of the prisoners had an income. We also know of part of the prisoners who had an income prior to imprisonment which type of income was involved (see Table 2). Four out of ten prisoners who did have an income before their imprisonment earned it through paid employment (41.2 %). Almost one in every four prisoners received welfare payments (27.3 %). Furthermore, another 12.5 % received invalidity benefits. We know that 8,155 prisoners had debts at the beginning of their imprisonment. Of the entire group, 72.1 % had debts when their imprisonment started. Almost half (47.6 %) of the 18- and 19-year-olds were already indebted. This percentage grows with every consecutive age group. Of the 23-year-old prisoners, approximately 75 % had debts. For older age groups, this percentage remains more or less stable. Only prisoners aged 50 and older seem to show a clearly lower percentage of people who were in debt (68.7 %). We do not know the amount of debt for every indebted prisoner, because this has not been registered for all prisoners. Of almost a third (34.5 %) of the indebted prisoners, we have no indication of the amount of their debt. In approximately one in every five cases, debts were involved of over 10,000 Euros (see Table 3). In 3.2 % of the cases, debts were involved of even more than 50,000 Euros. It attracts attention that the amount of debt increases relative to the age of the prisoners. Furthermore, prisoners between the ages of 18 and 24 were indebted more often to phone companies, Internet providers and health insurance companies than prisoners aged 25 and older were. Prisoners aged 25 and older more often had rent arrears and arrears in the payment of gas, water and electricity than young adults had. The consequences of imprisonment for the income of prisoners were considerable. Many prisoners lost their income while they were detained and had been unable to organise a new source of income on the day of their release. This applies to 28.6 % (N=1655) of the prisoners who had an income prior to their imprisonment. Yet, there is also a group of people who did not have an income before their imprisonment, but who did succeed in organising a source of income. Of the prisoners without any income prior to their imprisonment, 22.9 % (N=415) did have it after their prison term ended. When we look at the income situation of the entire group at the moment of their discharge from prison, 59.8 % (N=4540) proved to have an income Table 2 Types of income prior to imprisonment % Paid employment

41.2

Welfare payments

27.3

Invalidity benefits

12.5

(Basic state) pension

0.9

Self-owned business

1.4

Student grant

3.3

Other Unknown Total (N)

1.8 11.6 5,780

G. Weijters, A. More Table 3 Amount of debt (including unpaid fines) before imprisonment % Less than 1000 Euros

15.2

1000<5000 Euros

19.3

5000<10,000 Euros

10.3

10,000<50,000 Euros

17.3

More than 50,000 Euros

3.2

Unknown

34.5

Total (N)

5876

directly after their imprisonment. By contrast, before their imprisonment, 76.2 % of the prisoners still had an income. With regard to income, the situation had therefore deteriorated during imprisonment. For prisoners of whom we know the type of income they had prior to their imprisonment, Table 4 presents the extent to which they still had an income at the moment of their discharge from prison. We do not know, however, the type of their income after their imprisonment ended. This table shows that especially those prisoners who received a student grant prior to their imprisonment, or who had some other type of income (for instance money received from family), did not have any income directly after their term in prison had ended. What also attracts attention is the relatively high number of prisoners who received welfare payments prior to their imprisonment, but who did not have any source of income directly after their discharge from prison. With regard to income, we know several background characteristics relating to a change in prisoners’ income situation during their imprisonment (see Appendix 1). The chances of prisoners losing their income during their prison term decrease as they get older. By contrast, these chances increase relative to the number of times that prisoners have returned to prison. The length of the prison term plays a twofold role where income is concerned. A lengthier imprisonment is related to losing one’s income but also to obtaining an income during a prison term. A longer prison sentence thus gives prisoners time to obtain an income but increases the risk of losing their income as well. Furthermore, the results show that for prisoners who did not have some sort of housing prior to imprisonment it is more difficult to obtain or retain their income during imprisonment. Thus it seems that the more problematic the situation of prisoners is, the more difficult it is to use the time of imprisonment to settle an income for them. Table 4 Income directly after imprisonment per type of income prior to imprisonment (%) Type of income prior to imprisonment

% Prisoners who had an income after imprisonment

N

(Basic state) pension

86.8

Self-owned business

84.0

81

Invalidity benefits

73.8

721

53

Earnings

71.8

2,384

Welfare payments

63.9

1,578

Student grant

57.4

188

Other

57.1

105

Income and housing of former prisoners

The Housing Situation of (former) Prisoners Before and After Imprisonment We know of 7901 prisoners what their housing situation was when their imprisonment began and what their housing situation was when their prison term came to an end. Of these prisoners 83 % (N=6558) had some kind of accommodation prior to their imprisonment. Table 5 presents the types of accommodation of prisoners who had some kind of housing prior to imprisonment. The majority rented a house. In addition, over 30 % of the prisoners were living with family. In large part these were youngsters still living with their parents. Of a small group of prisoners who had accommodation after their imprisonment ended, we know the type of accommodation (see Table 5). The distribution per type of accommodation directly after a prison term has been served differs from the distribution prior to imprisonment. It is remarkable that the share of prisoners who rented a house after their imprisonment had ended is significantly smaller than the share of prisoners who rented a house prior to their imprisonment (30.7 % and 38.4 %, respectively). The percentage of prisoners who after the end of their prison term obtained accommodation through a shelter is, on the other hand, significantly higher than it is prior to getting imprisoned (12.5 % and 6.9 %, respectively). The increase in the percentage of former prisoners in shelters must be mainly attributed to discharged prisoners who had no accommodation prior to their imprisonment. Of the prisoners who did have accommodation before their imprisonment, 5.5 % (N=358) lost it during their prison term. Yet, 35.7 % (N=480) of the prisoners who did not have any kind of accommodation before their imprisonment, had obtained accommodation at the moment of their discharge from prison. In total, 84.5 % (N=6680) of the former prisoners had some kind of housing at the moment of their release. This percentage is somewhat higher than the percentage of prisoners who had some kind of accommodation prior to their imprisonment. Table 6 indicates the extent to which those prisoners still had housing, of whom we know the type of accommodation they had before their imprisonment. The table shows that the more stable the housing situation prior to getting imprisoned was, the higher the percentage of prisoners who had housing after their prison sentence had been served. Prisoners who were living with family before their imprisonment also still had accommodation after their prison term had ended. We have also gained insight into the background characteristics relating to either obtaining or losing accommodation. A logistic regression analysis (see Appendix 1) shows that men run Table 5 Types of accommodation for prisoners before and after imprisonmenta Before imprisonment

Directly after imprisonment

Self-owned home

5.5

3.6

*

Rented home

38.4

30.7

*

Privately rented room

6.1

4.3

Living with family

31.4

33.8

Living with friends or acquaintances

9.1

9.5

Shelter

6.9

12.5

*

Other

2.5

5.6

*

Total (N)

5,812

1,617

* The type of accommodation differs significantly between before and after imprisonment (p<0.05) a

missing before imprisonment: 11.4 % and after imprisonment: 75.8 %

G. Weijters, A. More Table 6 Accommodation directly after imprisonment per type of accommodation prior to imprisonment (%) Type of accommodation prior to imprisonment

N

% prisoners who had accommodation after imprisonment

Self-owned home

96.9

318

Living with family

96.4

1,827

Rented home

95.3

2,234

Privately rented room

92.1

353

Other

91.8

147

Living with friends or acquaintances

89.8

531

Shelter

89.6

402

a greater risk of losing their accommodation during imprisonment than women do. Furthermore, prisoners with longer sentences run a greater risk than those who are detained briefly, while the risk increases relative to the number of times prisoners have returned to prison. The longer prisoners are detained, however, the greater the chance he or she obtains accommodation during their prison term. We may conclude that the longer a prison term lasts, the more time a prisoner has to obtain an accommodation, but the harder it gets to hold on to the accommodation one already had. Furthermore, the results show that for prisoners who did not have an income or an identity card prior to imprisonment it is more difficult to obtain or retain housing during imprisonment. For the prisoners who had housing when they were discharged, we can indicate how the type of accommodation has changed during imprisonment. This is described in Table 7. It shows that former prisoners do not always have the same type of accommodation when they were released as when their imprisonment began. Almost 85 % of the prisoners who owned a home prior to being detained still owned it directly after their prison term had ended. In addition, it is remarkable that of the prisoners who privately rented a room prior to their imprisonment, approximately half had some other form of accommodation directly after their prison term had ended. Of this group, most moved in with family (16.2 %) after they had Table 7 Types of accommodation prior to imprisonment per type of accommodation directly after imprisonment (%) Type of accommodation directly after imprisonment Privately Shelter Other N Type of accommodation Self-owned Rented Living Living with rented before imprisonment home home with family friends or acquaintances room Self-owned home

84.8

1.5

3.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

7.6

66

Rented home

0.5

79.6

8.9

4.2

1.0

3.9

1.9

593

Living with family

0.0

1.4

87.1

4.3

0.4

3.9

2.9

487

Living with friends or acquaintances

0.0

4.8

14.3

63.5

1.6

11.9

4.0

126

Privately rented room

0.0

4.0

16.2

10.1

50.5

15.2

4.0

99

Shelter

0.0

1.0

6.2

0.0

1.0

88.7

3.1

97

Other

0.0

0.0

13.8

6.9

0.0

3.4

75.9

29

Homeless

0.0

4.4

16.8

13.3

5.3

38.1

22.1

113

Income and housing of former prisoners

served their sentence, or moved to a shelter (15.2 %). To start living with family seems to be an alternative for prisoners who had some other kind of housing before their imprisonment. In this manner, 8.9 % of the prisoners who rented a house before being detained moved in with family, and the same goes for 14.3 % of the prisoners who lived in with friends or acquaintances prior to their imprisonment.

Conclusion and Discussion The objective of this article was to provide insight into the changes taking place during imprisonment regarding the financial and housing situation of prisoners. Yet, some remarks need to be added to our findings. To begin with, the research population is not entirely representative of the total population of former prisoners. The prisoners included in the research population are more often men (who lose their accommodation more frequently during their prison term than women do), they are somewhat younger (older people lose their income less frequently), they are detained longer (the lengthier the term in prison, the greater the risk of losing one’s housing and income, but also the greater the chance of obtaining them), and they were born in the Netherlands more often (people born in the Netherlands lose their income less frequently). Secondly, the information on the prisoners’ situation before imprisonment is based on what the prisoners themselves have been saying. Research of the Dutch Inspectorate for the Implementation of Sanctions shows that prisoners do not always properly indicate that they have a problem prior to their imprisonment (ISt 2008). Furthermore, the situation as described at the moment of a prisoner’s release from prison is an assessment made by a social worker. Especially with regard to prisoners’ income situation, this estimate is often more pessimistic than turns out to be true afterwards. Prisoners may, for example, have planned an appointment on the day of their discharge to apply for a benefit at the municipality. The social worker may not always be sure whether the prisoner will really show up at this appointment. Because of this uncertainty, the social worker will subsequently indicate often that prisoners do not have an income at the moment of their release. Another disadvantage of the used dataset is that it only provides descriptive information about the income and housing situation of prisoners. With regard to the income and housing situation we only know whether or not someone has an income or accommodation just before imprisonment, and at the moment someone is released from prison. The main source of income is only known for the situation just before imprisonment. When someone has multiple sources of income before imprisonment, only the main source of income is known. This is problematic as we know that prisoners frequently have different sources of income to provide themselves with a decent income (Venkatesh 2006). Our results show that prisoners are characterised by a considerably problematic profile with regard to finances and housing. During their imprisonment, the income and housing situation of prisoners does not get any brighter. We know that former prisoners who become homeless after they have served their prison sentence, who do not earn any money or get into debt, will repeat their offences more often than prisoners who got these things straightened out (Baldry et al. 2003, 2006; Uggen 2000). In order to deal with recidivism of former prisoners, it is necessary to keep paying attention to these areas of life. On the one hand, this can be accomplished by seeing to a reduction of the negative consequences of imprisonment with regard to prisoners’ housing and finances. On the other hand, it remains important to deal with these risk factors already during a prison term, by making it possible to use this period to bring about a positive change in the position of prisoners. We have seen that this works for a small

G. Weijters, A. More

part of the prison population. However, we have not been able yet to test the reasons why some prisoners can be helped during their imprisonment. This research only gives an explanation based on opportunity; namely that prisoners serving longer time are more likely to obtain income or housing. In future research the effects of interventions and programs which take place during imprisonment, or during parole, must be tested on their possible, positive influence on the advantage of imprisonment (see for example Cheliotis 2009). Furthermore, it is by no means certain that prisoners who do have some form of income or housing at their disposal will relapse into criminal behaviour less often. After being discharged from prison, 9.5 % of the prisoners start living with friends or acquaintances, while 12.5 % stay in a shelter. These are only temporary addresses. Having stable accommodation is an important factor in reducing the risk of a relapse into criminal behaviour (Metraux and Culhane 2004). We also know that former prisoners without stable housing (i.e. ‘sofa-surfers’) are characterized by a problematic lifestyle, which enhances reoffending (Maguire et al. 2007). The relation between not having an income during the first period after an imprisonment and recidivism is less clear. We do know, however, that there is a relation between having a job and the (temporary) discontinuation of criminal behaviour (Laub and Sampson 2003; Sampson and Laub 1993; Tripodi et al. 2010). Possible reasons why people demonstrate less criminal behaviour when they have a job are that they come into intensive contact with people who do not behave criminally (Warr 1998), and the presence of social control by others (Sampson and Laub 1993). The mechanisms that are assumed to prevent criminal behaviour are not present when people only receive social benefit and do not engage in activities during the day. Research shows that people on social benefit are suspected of committing a crime three times more often than people who are not (Blom et al. 2005). Thus, it is unclear to what extent having an income can prevent recidivism. The ultimate objective of the prevention of the harm of imprisonment with regard to housing and income is to reduce the high recidivism among former prisoners. With this study, we have shown that the income and housing situation of prisoners does not improve during their imprisonment. Future research will have to prove whether the prevention of the harm of imprisonment actually does result in a reduction of recidivism among former prisoners.

Appendix 1

Table 8 Relation between background characteristics and obtaining and losing one’s income and housing Obtain Income

Lose Housing

Income

Housing

Male Age

0.903 −0.011

*

Country of birth The Netherlands (ref.) Turkey

0.308

Morocco

0.773

Surinam

0.620

*

Netherlands Antilles and Aruba

0.403

*

Other Western

0.608

*

*

*

Income and housing of former prisoners Table 8 (continued) Obtain

Lose

Income

Housing

Income

Other non-Western

Housing

0.379

*

No registered partner

0.406

*

Unknown

−0.173

Marital status Registered partner (ref.)

Duration of imprisonment

0.282

*

0.469

*

Number of earlier prison sentences Income prior to imprisonment Housing prior to imprisonment

0.638

Identity card prior to imprisonment Nagelkerke pseudo R2

0.077

0.649

*

0.465

*

* 0.218

0.760

*

0.715

0.331

*

0.182

0.021

*

0.040

*

−0.431

*

−0.450

*

−0.343

*

−0.297

*

0.097

0.035

N (abs.)

1,810

1,343

5,806

6,558

Missing (%)

0,5

0,7

3,0

3,2

*

*p<0.01

References Adamczuk, H. (2007). Meeting the housing needs of prisoners and ex-offenders in the UK: Opportunities and limitations. Birmingham: University of Central England. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark: Lexis/Nexis. Baldry, E., McDonnell, D., Maplesston, P., & Peeters, M. (2003). Ex-prisoners and accomodation: What bearing do different forms of housing have on social reintegration? Melbourne: AHURI. Baldry, E., McDonnell, D., Maplesston, P., & Peeters, M. (2006). Ex-prisoners, homelessness and the State in Australia. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(1), 20–33. Blokland, A., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology, 43(4), 1203–1240. Blom, M., Oudhof, J., Bijl, R. V., & Bakker, B. F. M. (2005). Verdacht van Criminaliteit: Allochtonen en Autochtonen Nader Bekeken. Den Haag: WODC/CBS. Carlisle, J. (1996). The housing needs of ex-prisoners. Yourk: Joseph Rowntree foundation. Cheliotis, L. K. (2009). Before the next storm: Some evidence-based reminders about temporary release. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(4), 420–432. DJI. (2008). Annual Report 2007: Safely working towards change. Den Haag: DJI. DJI (2012). Overzicht erkende penitentiaire programma’s van 1 April 2011 – 1 April 2012. Available online at: http://www.dji.nl/Onderwerpen/Volwassenen-in-detentie/Straffen-en-maatregelen/. Geller, A., & Curtis, M. A. (2011). A sort of homecoming: incarceration and the housing security of urban men. Social Science Research, 40, 1196–1213. Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2006). The Effects of Incarceration on Employment and Wages – An Analysis of the Fragile Families Survey. Available online at: http://www.saferfoundation.org/files/ documents/Princeton-Effect%20of%20Incarceration%20on%20Employment%20and%20Wages.pdf. Gendreau, P., Smith, P., & French, S. A. (2006). The theory of effective correctional intervention: empirical status and future directions. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 419–446). New Brunswick: Transaction. ISt (Inspectorate for the Implementation of Sanctions). (2008). Aansluiting nazorg in het gevangeniswezen. Den Haag: ISt. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 28, pp. 1–69). Chicago, IL/London: The University of Chicago Press.

G. Weijters, A. More Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320. Maguire, M., Hutson, S., & Nolan, J. (2007). Accomodation for ex-prisoners in the south west region. Pontypridd: University of Glamorgan. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McCarthy, B., & Hagan, J. (1991). Homelessness: a criminogenic situation? British Journal of Criminology, 31(4), 393–410. Metraux, S., & Culhane, D. P. (2004). Homeless shelter use and reincarceration following prison release. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(2), 139–160. Niven, S., & Olangundoye, J. (2002). Jobs and Homes: A Survey of Prisoners near Release. Home Office Findings 173. Pettit, B., & Lyons, C. J. (2009). Incarceration and the legitimate labor market: examining age-graded effects on employment and wages. Law & Society Review, 43(4), 725–756. Roman, C. G., & Travis, J. (2006). Where will I sleep tomorrow? Housing, homelessness, and the returning prisoner. Housing Policy Debate, 17(2), 389–418. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Skardhamar, T., & Telle, K. (2012). Post-release employment and recidivism in Norway. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(4), 629–649. Tripodi, S. J., Kim, J. S., & Bender, K. (2010). Is employment associated with reduced recidivism? The complex relationship between employment and crime. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 706–720. Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: a duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 67, 529–546. Venkatesh, S. A. (2006). Off the books: The underground economy of the urban poor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Warr, M. (1998). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36(2), 183–216. Wartna, B. S. J., et al. (2009). Recidivism Report 1997–2006: Development in the reconviction rate of Dutch offenders. Den Haag: WODC. Western, B., Kling, J. R., & Weiman, D. F. (2001). The labor market consequences of incarceration. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 410–427.