Niacro

NIACRO RESPONSE TO THE NI SEX OFFENDER STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (NISOSMC) REVIEW WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT ACCOMODATION.

1.        INTRODUCTION

1.1       NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, is a voluntary organisation, working for 35 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities.  NIACRO provides services under the headings of: working in communities; working with children and young people who offend; working with offenders and ex-prisoners; working with prisoners, their families and children; influencing policy and practice; and applying resources effectively.

1.2NIACRO’s Vision is to be acknowledged as making a unique contribution to the development of a society in which the rights of everyone, including offenders, are equally respected.

1.3NIACRO’s Mission Statement is, “working to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities.

1.4NIACRO welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report of the review and is pleased to input into the accommodation debate for Sex Offenders.

Whilst many of the points raised in this brief paper emanate from staff who work closely with the Resettlement needs of this category of Offender it should be noted that we have also taken time to seek the views of a number of individuals who are currently engaged with NIACRO services and who have personal experience of housing issues. Engaging in this process has however delayed our response in this matter.

Responses will be made under the two broad headings of temporary accommodation and permanent accommodation.

2.         TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION

1. Should Sex Offenders (and other dangerous ex-offenders) be temporarily accommodated together (regardless of levels of risk) and to the exclusion of others?

·Whilst NIACRO accepts it is not good practice to separate all sex offenders from other offenders thus forcing “exclusive” groupings and exacerbating risk management issues it does support the view that individuals with a low category of risk should not be forced to share accommodation with those determined as high risk.

·It would be more appropriate for those sex offenders and dangerous offenders who presumably will be subject to some form of licence/probation supervision in the community to be temporarily accommodated in an environment where professional staff can assess their levels of risk and identify appropriate needs and resettlement requirements.

This must incorporate an interagency model that include key statutory and voluntary organisations in order to ensure that following an agreed period of time informed decisions can be taken regarding  the most appropriate living accommodation/environment. This must be best suited to the needs of the individual whilst simaltaneously taking account of the wider environment. Ultimately protection of the public must be paramount.

1. Should there be a more geographical spread of temporary accommodation?

·There should a more even distribution of provision throughout the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland.  Currently the majority of temporary accommodation is clustered in Belfast and Derry/L’Derry, also Cookstown, Ballymena, Portadown.  There is a deficit of provision in the West particularly in counties Tyrone and Fermanagh.

1. What form of temporary accommodation? What would fill the gap? What level of service is required?

·Practical experience would demonstrate that a more tolerant approach is required when dealing with individuals with complex needs and often involving alcohol/drug dependency. The tight constraints placed on them by mainstream hostels often leads to them being barred.  This is exacerbated by the fact that many individuals are unable to afford private rented accommodation.  This often leads to re-offending and consequent return to prison.

·Hostels such as Dismas and Thompson House are suited to dealing with individuals assessed as category 3 given the high level of supervision and monitoring required/available. Other models of accommodation e.g. fold housing should be considered for low risk offenders, as well as “move-on” accommodation such as provided by the Edward St Hostel in Portadown. This could allow for specified time-frames and place greater emphasis on Resettlement and progressing into independent living – providing opportunities to develop skills in cooking, money-management, employment, personal health. Whilst this should be monitored individuals could gain greater responsibility for their own social and life skills. Such a model would also allow for different types of offences (low risk) to be housed together whilst retaining a level of independent space.

3.        PERMANENT ACCOMODATION

1.Is there a need to be more definitive about the roles of NIHE/Has/Private Sector in the provision of permanent accommodation?

·There is a shortage of accommodation available within the social rented sector (NIHE/Housing Associations) and this deficit has to be addressed.

·The NIHE does not have access to accommodation that is suitable for single men/women that is not based within residential areas. Housing Associations that can/do provide appropriate accommodation must be supported to understand and fully contribute to MASRAM and risk management processes.

·Within the Private Sector accommodation is not accessible due to prohibitive rents. NIACRO would support affordable “capping” of rent under accessible rent guarantee schemes throughout Northern Ireland to address this issue.

·Developers should be tasked with providing 5%-10% of new build at an affordable housing rate.

·The Supporting People budget should be reviewed to determine if it can be used to support individuals into permanent accommodation.

·The idea of ‘purpose-built’ accommodation should not be ruled out.

2.Should a permanent accommodation model reflect the geographical origin of Sex Offenders / dangerous ex-offenders?

· In principle NIACRO would support such a model in terms of recognising the importance of strong family and community links within a Resettlement process and the need to support Families of Offenders. We recognise that they can play a valuable role in effective supervision.  There are two key factors which have to be considered in order to balance this view:

1.That full consideration is given to all risk factors concerning/effecting the individual returning to place of origin.

2.That the views of the community must be sought and respected.

The issue of perceived/real risk to communities is undoubtedly the greatest area of challenge for all those involved in the management of sex offenders and dangerous offenders and particularly with regard to accommodation issues.

The issue of providing suitable accommodation for sex offenders needs to be addressed across a wide spectrum otherwise particular communities feel they are carrying an unfair burden of responsibility or are more vulnerable in terms of risk. The publication of figures for registered sex offenders by geographical location is an important issue for communities and should be taken into account in the provision of suitable accommodation.

NIACRO hope that the above comments based on practice will form a useful contribution to this challenging debate and would welcome further discussion on this matter.

January 2007