Tag Archives: legislation

Released with nowhere to go: housing solutions for prisoners

Posted on by

It has been widely argued that securing adequate housing for ex-offenders reduces rates of recidivism. However, it is not uncommon for a person to be released from prison with nowhere to live and there have been criticisms over the statutory support available for prison leavers, and the lack of housing options available on release.

Being homeless on release from prison can lead to a downward spiral, re-offending and more prison time, incurring substantial social and economic costs for all concerned. The annual cost of re-offending to the economy in the UK has been estimated at between £9.5 and £13 billion.

Housing linked to re-offending

Various studies have highlighted the link between housing and recidivism and the importance of housing support for rehabilitation.

A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) back in 1996 highlighted that ex-prisoners are more likely to re-offend if they do not find satisfactory accommodation on release – two-thirds of ex-prisoners with no satisfactory accommodation re-offended within 12 months of release, while just a quarter of those with good accommodation did so.

The Social Exclusion Unit highlighted in a 2002 study that housing was one of the factors that had a “huge impact” on re-offending and that having stable accommodation reduces the risk of re-offending by a fifth.

A report published in 2012, found that three-fifths (60%) of prisoners believed that having a place to live was important in stopping them from re-offending in the future. It also found that 15% of people in prison were homeless prior to custody. More than three-quarters of prisoners (79%) who reported being homeless before custody were re-convicted in the first year after release, compared with less than half (47%) of those who did not report being homeless before custody.

The Howard League of Penal Reform has highlighted that a third of people leaving prison say they have nowhere to go. If those on remand are included, it is estimated that this could represent up to 50,000 people annually.

Further, the rough sleeping in London report (CHAIN) found that 32% of people seen rough sleeping in 2015/16 had experience of prison, indicating that a significant number hidden homeless are ex-offenders.

Such statistics suggest a clear link between housing and re-offending. It has even been suggested that ex-prisoners have intentionally re-offended to avoid homelessness.

 ‘Inadequate’ housing support

The JRF report found that the general level of housing support received by prisoners was ‘inadequate’.

Worryingly, 15 years after this report, Barnardo’s highlighted the need for improved support for young ex-offenders as it found children as young as 13 were being released from custody without a safe place to live. Barnardo’s argued that supported accommodation on release from custody could produce savings of more than £67,000 per individual over a three-year period.

A review of probation services carried out in 2014 also criticised the system, finding that:

“contact between offenders and offender supervisors or managers varied considerably and even where there was good contact, this had little impact on accommodation and ETE [employment, training and education] outcomes at the point of release, although contacts were more effective post-release. Sentence planning and oversight were weak and resettlement work in prisons was insufficiently informed.”

The Public Accounts Committee has more recently noted that “the offender housing problem is deteriorating”, despite probation reforms. And Crisis has also raised concern about the lack of financial or practical support to find accommodation for those leaving prison.

Current action and the Homelessness Reduction Act

Most prisons have a housing and resettlement service called ‘through the gate’, introduced by the government in 2015. However, early reports on these services have not been hopeful, described as “having a negligible impact on reducing prisoner re-offending rates, two years after its introduction.”

Local authorities also have a statutory duty to assist homeless and vulnerable ex-offenders in some circumstances, and if not entitled to social housing, they must provide advice to ex-offenders at risk of homelessness. This duty has been strengthened by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 in England, which has just come into force. The Act puts an obligation on prison or probation services to notify a local authority if they believe a person to be at risk of homelessness.

Crisis has described the Act as “the most significant change to the homelessness legislation in 40 years”.

In Scotland, the Scottish Prison Service and partners launched the Sustainable Housing on Release for Everyone (SHORE) standards in December 2017. These standards represent a good example of preventative measures, which aim ‘to ensure that the housing needs of individuals in prison are handled at an early stage, in a consistent way across Scotland, regardless of where they come from, their housing status and how long they have been in prison or young offenders’ institution’.

Will it make a difference?

It is too early to tell whether these actions will have the desired impact but here’s hoping they will be more effective than previous reforms. It has been suggested that such provisions will go some way to help create the culture change needed but that it is not enough.

The evidence points to the need for greater collaboration and partnership working across all sectors.

With the shortage in housing, austerity, and increasing numbers of homeless people among the whole population, it will certainly be no mean feat.

The Knowledge Exchange provides information services to local authorities, public agencies, research consultancies and commercial organisations across the UK. Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team. 

The land of “neverendums”. For the Swiss, direct democracy is a way of life, but could it work in the UK?

Posted on by
4162379181_a065367c32_o

Image by Till Westermayer via Creative Commons

Next week, voters across the UK will finally make their decision on the country remaining in or leaving the European Union. This is only the third UK-wide referendum ever to be held. The first was in 1975, on Britain’s membership of the European Economic Community. The second took place in 2011, on a new voting system to replace first-past-the-post.

Although referendums in different parts of the UK have become more commonplace – such as those on the 1998 Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland and on Scottish independence in 2014 – they are much less frequent at UK level. This is because of the UK’s tradition of representative democracy, where sovereignty rests with parliament. In Switzerland, however, representative democracy runs parallel to a system of direct democracy, which gives voters the last word on legislation.

The Swiss system

Of all the national referendums held in Western democracies since World War II, more than two-thirds have been held in Switzerland. Swiss voters go to the polls three or four times a year, deciding on issues as varied as immigration, complementary medicine, and financing of local sports facilities. Swiss referendums may be triggered in several different ways:

  • Obligatory referendum (following a constitutional amendment or an application to join an international organisation, such as the United Nations or the European Union)
  • Optional referendum (puts parliamentary decisions to the popular vote, but only if 50,000 valid signatures are collected within three months)
  • Popular initiative (proposers have 18 months to collect 100,000 signatures to force a vote on a particular issue)
  • Counter proposal (if parliament disagrees with a popular initiative, it can put forward alternative. Both votes are held at the same time, and if both are approved, the one with the highest number of “yes” votes is the winner)

As one writer on Switzerland has observed,

“…the Swiss people are the final decision-makers on almost every single policy, whether it affects their own neighbourhood or the whole country. This democratic freedom and the right to be heard are inalienable rights for the Swiss, who proudly view them as the source of their stability and prosperity.”

More referendums in the UK? The arguments for and against

On the face of it, any political system which encourages greater citizen participation is to be applauded. Proponents of referendums argue that they are exercises in civic engagement, stimulating debate and increasing interest among people who would usually show no interest in politics.

A good example, in a UK context, is the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. The campaign energised voters across the country and the poll itself saw a historic turnout of 84.6%. Despite being on the losing side, both the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party reported a surge in membership in the aftermath of the referendum result.

Supporters of the wider use of referendums also believe they can provide a mandate for specific policies, such as the Republic of Ireland’s vote supporting equal marriage in 2015, and can legitimise important constitutional issues, such as devolution.

However, opponents of the referendum as a democratic tool contend that the issues debated during referendum campaigns can’t be decided by a simple binary choice, or are too complex for the public to understand. Professor Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, has argued that the UK’s membership of the EU should be decided by elected officials with a sound understanding of the major economic issues:

“It is an outrage that people as ignorant as me are being asked to vote. This is a complicated matter of economics, politics, history, and we live in a representative democracy not a plebiscite democracy. This should be a matter for parliament.”

A recent leader article in The Economist noted that referendums may be used by fringe groups or populist parties to exercise outsize influence. In recent years, the nationalist-conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP) has gained enough signatures to force referendums on issues such as the construction of new minarets for Swiss mosques and the imposition of quotas on immigration. Some in Switzerland believe that these campaigns have damaged the country’s image and incited hostility towards ethnic minorities.

In addition, a narrow decision can raise questions about the legitimacy of the result. The slim margin (50.4%) of Swiss voters supporting immigration quotas in 2014 make it more likely that the country will be asked to vote on the issue again. This could be problematic, with voters potentially becoming fatigued or apathetic if they are asked to vote too often. In the Swiss case, the average voter turnout for all 10 of the elections and referendums held in 2014-2015 was 50.1%, although turnout fluctuated between a high of 63% and a low of 42%.

Final thoughts

For some, the EU referendum campaign has shown up the deficiencies in the use of referendums to make momentous decisions – conjecture, claims, counter-claims and inconclusive arguments. For others, it has been an important exercise in direct democracy, giving the people a chance to debate an issue of vital importance to the entire country.

Unlike Switzerland, the UK has an unwritten constitution, and there are no rules on what can trigger referendums. Only in rare cases have British governments put a single issue to the people, a feature of UK politics that is set to continue. Whatever the outcome of next week’s vote, it’s unlikely that the UK will move towards the Swiss system of direct democracy.

If you liked this post, you might also be interested in other blog posts about democracy and referendums:

Rent controls: lessons from Berlin?

Posted on by

 

3953104549_7b217c065d_o

Image: James Carson

In March 2016, a study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research highlighted the growing problem of rising rents in the UK. The Cost of Renting found that the average private rent in England is growing at an annual rate of 2.5%, and forecast that rents were set to rise by 28% on average by 2026. The findings support recent studies suggesting that the UK is now the most expensive place in Europe to rent.

In contrast to the UK, renting in Germany is less expensive. For historical as well as economic reasons, only 43% of Germans are home owners (compared to over 70% in the UK). The rest rent their homes, making rent rises a highly sensitive political issue in Germany.

In recent years, Germany has been experiencing a housing shortage. Last year, the Cologne Institute for Economic Research reported that in 2014 the number of new flats and houses built in the biggest cities was 50% fewer than needed to cope with rising population numbers. As a result, rents in Germany have been rising more steeply.

Introducing rent caps

Last year, concerns about keeping homes affordable for tenants on average incomes prompted the German government to introduce legislation on rent control. The new law means that private landlords taking on new tenants can only raise rents by up to 10% above the local average for similar properties.

Even before the law was passed the state government of Berlin had announced that it would be the first city in Germany to introduce rent controls. In recent years, the German capital has been growing by around 50,000 people a year, putting greater strains on the city’s housing market. Rents in Berlin have risen on average by almost 53% in the past five years, and in some districts, by 79%.

The trend has raised concerns among Berliners that their city could be on the way to emulating London, where growing numbers of people are struggling with the cost of living in their private rented homes. The Cost of Renting report found that Londoners on average spend nearly a third of their disposable income on rent payments, and suggested that worsening rent affordability may push residents on lower incomes out of the capital. Rent control is one measure intended to prevent Berlin going the same way as London.

17333355432_41228f32d5_o

Image: James Carson

The impact of rent controls

Within weeks of Berlin introducing its rent cap, there were signs that the move was having an immediate effect, with the average rents per square metre falling by 3.1%. But in February 2016, a survey of Berlin rents by CBRE found that the year-on-year rise across the city for 2015 was 5% (compared to the 2014 rise of 6.5%).

On the face of it, this looks like the new controls are not working. But the rent cap was always intended to slow down Berlin’s spiralling rents, rather than bring them to a halt, and on those terms the law has been effective. Moreover, while new rents for Berlin’s most expensive apartments rose by 5.7%, rent rises for the cheapest 10% of flats rose by just 2%.

And, as if to underline how serious Berlin is about tackling rising rents, in addition to the rent controls on private landlords, the Berlin state government has also introduced new rules for over 500,000 social and state-owned housing tenants, guaranteeing that rent rises will not price them out of their homes.

Lessons for the UK?

Since Berlin introduced rent controls, other German states, including Hamburg and Bavaria, have followed suit. This has prompted some commentators to wonder if the idea could help to tackle the UK’s housing crisis.

A recent report from Shelter highlighted the serious impact of rising rents in London:

“Those who find it difficult to pay their rent are likely to cut back on food for themselves or clothes for their children. Others get deep into debt to avoid going into rent arrears or to cover the high costs of frequently moving home. At worst, a growing number of London renters lose their home and become homeless.”

Although London has seen the steepest rises, other parts of the UK have also been affected. In April 2016, figures showed that rents on new tenancies in Greater London were, on average, 7.7% higher than a year ago. But in Scotland the increase was 7.3%, just ahead of the East Midlands with 6.8%.

Writing in the Financial Times, columnist Jonathan Eley acknowledged the differences between the UK and German housing markets, including the high numbers of renters in Germany and the larger number of properties owned by institutions (in contrast to the UK, where most private rented sector properties are owned by individual buy-to-let landlords). However, he concluded that the UK had something to learn from the introduction of rent controls in Germany:

“It is not perfect, but it does a much better job of balancing the interests of tenants and owners than the policies of successive UK governments, who have basically ramped up house prices without much thought for the long-term consequences.”

It’s still too early to say whether Germany’s attempt to tackle rising rents will have a long-lasting impact. But if the measures succeed in putting a brake on spiralling rents, there may be growing calls here to follow Berlin’s example.

Further reading
If you’ve enjoyed this blog post, you might also be interested in these previous posts:

Generation rent: are there lessons from Germany?
To regulate or not to regulate? Housing standards in the private rented sector
Support for the squeezed middle: could public subsidies tackle London’s housing crisis?

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

Is the Freedom of Information Act ‘working effectively’?

Posted on by
Wall with the words 'Freedom Street'

Image by Kevan via Creative Commons

 

By Steven McGinty

In July, Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Lord Bridges, announced that there would be an independent cross-party review on Freedom of Information (FOI).

The UK’s FOI Act was introduced in 2000 (in Scotland, FOI legislation came into force in 2005). The Act requires public bodies to publish certain information about their activities and to respond to requests for information from the public.

Since its introduction, the FOI Act has facilitated the release of information from across government. The most high profile releases have involved MPs’ expenses and correspondence between British diplomats ridiculing the notion of a widespread increase in migration from Poland to the UK, once they joined the EU.

Lord Bridges explained that the review would focus on three main issues:

  • whether there is an appropriate balance between having a transparent and accountable government and the need for sensitive information to be protected;
  • whether the Act adequately recognises the need to have a ‘safe space’ for policy development and implementation;
  • whether there is an appropriate balance between the need for public access to information and the burden on public bodies of providing this.

However, is this review really necessary?

Over recent years, a number of public figures have voiced their concerns over the Act. Even the man who introduced it, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, has stated that he was a “naive foolish, irresponsible nincompoop” to introduce it. He also suggested that it undermined “sensible government”.

Similarly, the former head of the Civil Service, Lord O’Donnell has argued that the requirement to release Cabinet minutes risked preventing “real discussions” between ministers.

There has also been discontent from local government, struggling to shoulder the financial cost of the Act. For instance, Ken Thornber, leader of Hampshire County Council, stated that:

“We spent £365,000 in 2010 answering freedom of information requests. What else could I do with that money? More social workers, more school inspectors, more spent on road maintenance.”

Although clearly frustrated by the Act, he doesn’t suggest withdrawing it. Instead, he proposes the idea of a £25 charge. His hope is that this would deter individuals from making ‘frivolous requests’.

In the 2010, University College London’s (UCL) Constitution Unit estimated that the cost of FOI requests for local government was £31.6 million. It also highlighted that civil servants spent 1.2m hours responding to nearly 200,000 requests.

Safeguards already exist

However, the review also has its opponents. For example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the World Wide Web, has attacked the government’s decision. In particular, he criticises the UK Government for using its position at the top of the World Wide Web Foundation’s Open Data Barometer (annual worldwide survey of open government) to justify the review.

Anne Jellema, Chief Executive of the World Wide Web Foundation, has also added her disapproval. She explains that the UK’s position at the top of the Open Data Barometer should not be an excuse to undo the progress that has been made. In addition, she claims that the government is behind European countries on other transparency and accountability issues, such as state surveillance and freedom of the press.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has raised concerns over the review panel. It highlights that there are no panel members with a proven commitment to transparency. Currently, the five person committee consists of high profile political figures, such as former Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard and former Labour Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

The Act has been praised for holding public bodies to account. For instance, the Daily Telegraph discovered that local authorities spent £2m on hotel bills over just 3 years, including stays at the Four Seasons in New York.

There are also those who maintain that safeguards are already in place. For example, section 35 of the Act provides a qualified exemption, which limits the release of information to the public. This safeguard is explicitly aimed at protecting the policy-making process.

A key challenge for any state is to strike the appropriate balance between effective governance and public accountability. Yet, with so many differing views, universal agreement is unlikely.  Therefore, no matter the outcome of the review, it’s likely that this debate will continue.

Further reading:

What’s happening to make big data use a reality in health and social care?

Posted on by

data-stream-shutterstock_croppedBy Steven McGinty

At the beginning of the year, NHS Director Tim Kelsey described the adoption of new technologies in the NHS as a ‘moral obligation’. He argued that the gaps in knowledge are so wide and so dangerous that they were putting lives at stake.  It’s therefore no surprise that the UK Government, the NHS, and local governments have all been looking at ways to better understand the health and social care environment.

The effective use of ‘big data’ techniques is said to be key to this understanding. Big data has many definitions but industry analysts Gartner define it as:

“high-volume, high-velocity and high-variety information assets that demand cost-effective, innovative forms of information processing for enhanced insight and decision making”

However, if health and social care is to make better use of its data, it’s important that an effective infrastructure is in place. As a result, changes have been made to legislation and a number of initiatives introduced.

Why is it important to know about big data in health and social care?

The effective use of data in health and social care is a key policy aim of the current government (and will most likely continue under future governments).  The changes that have been made so far have had a significant impact on the policies and practices of health and social care organisations. The vast majority focus on information sharing, in particular how organisations share data and who they share data with.

What changes have been made to support big data?

Care.data

This was the most ambitious programme introduced by NHS England. It was developed by the Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) and set out to link the medical records of GP practices with hospitals at a national level. It was expected that datasets from GPs’ records and hospital records would be linked using an identifier such as an NHS number or a person’s date of birth. However, due to concerns raised by the public, particularly in regards to privacy, the programme was delayed. The programme has now resumed but new safeguards have been introduced, such as the commissioning of an advisory board and the ‘opt out’ provision, where patients can opt out from having their data used for anything other than their direct care.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Care Act 2014

The Acts have both introduced provisions that impact on data. For instance, the Health and Social Care Act enshrines in law the ability of the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) to collect and process confidential personal data. In addition, the Care Act clarifies the position of the Health and Social Care Act by ensuring that the HSCIC doesn’t distribute data unless it’s part of the provision of health and social care or the promotion of health.

Centre of Excellence for Information Sharing

This initiative came from the ‘Improving Information Sharing and Management (IISaM) project’, a joint initiative between Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Leicestershire County Council and the 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester. The centre has been set up to help understand the barriers to information sharing and influence national policy. They hope to achieve these goals through the use of case studies, blogs, the development of toolkits, and any other forms of shared learning. The centre has already published some interesting case studies including the Hampshire Health Record (HHR) and Leicestershire County Council’s Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS) approach to communicating how they deal with data.

These are just some of the steps that have been taken to make sure 2015 is the year of big data. However, if real progress is to be made it’s going to require more than top down leadership and headline grabbing statements. It’s going to require all health and social care organisations to take responsibility and work through their barriers to information sharing.

Further reading

Read our other recent blogs on health and social care:

Become a member of the Idox Information Service now, to access a wealth of further information on health and social care including best practice and commentary. Contact us for more details.

A ‘can do’ culture? Planning reforms in Wales

Posted on by

Flag of Wales in the windDevolution in the UK has seen the development and continued divergence of public policy and governance arrangements. The land-use planning system is just one area where devolution has been seen as an opportunity to devise more appropriate arrangements to tackle specific issues.

In a recent article in Scottish Planning & Environmental Law, Professor Greg Lloyd (Emeritus Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Ulster) considered recent moves by the Welsh government to reform and modernise the planning system.

As the political landscape of devolution has matured, the modernisation of planning has taken place within the context of wider reforms. In Scotland, for example, the National Performance Framework and the community empowerment agenda have added new dimensions to local governance and planning. Wales is also engaging in creating a new context to land-use planning and effectively repositioning planning.

A series of reviews (including the Welsh Assembly’s Legislative Statement 2011-2016; the inquiry into the planning system by the Sustainability Committee of the National Assembly in 2010-2011; and the Simpson Review in 2011) laid the foundations for further change.

In summer 2014, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Bill was introduced which will place a duty on public bodies to make decisions that leave a positive legacy for future generations. Professor Lloyd highlights that this “adds an explicit intergenerational articulation of what is considered to be sustainable development practice. The context to planning in Wales is being changed significantly and dramatically”.

This was followed in October 2014, by the introduction of the Planning (Wales) Bill 2014. At the time, the Minister for Natural Resources – responsible for land-use planning – said “I look forward to seeing these reforms, coupled with a “can do” culture across the planning sector, providing a system which can make a positive and lasting impact on our communities.”

The Bill seeks to provide a modern delivery framework for the preparation of development plans and planning decisions, including allowing Welsh Ministers to decide a limited number of planning applications in defined circumstances.

It also aims to strengthen the plan-led approach to decisions on planning applications by providing a legal framework for the preparation of a National Development Framework and Strategic Development Plans.

Improving collaboration and engagement with communities are other key objectives.

Professor Lloyd argues that while the rhetoric of reform and modernisation of the planning system is familiar, there is a real sense of purpose about the drivers of change.

“Could it be that planning in Wales is rediscovering an explicit ambition for planning to serve the public interest – both for the present and the future? There are lots of lessons from elsewhere in the Celtic fringe.”

————————————————

This blog draws on the article by Professor Greg Lloyd, “A can do culture? Planning reforms in Wales”, Scottish Planning & Environmental Law 166, December 2014, pp123-124

An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@idoxgroup.com.

June issue of Scottish Planning & Environmental Law out now

Posted on by

train tunnel

The Knowledge Exchange publishes a bi-monthly journal covering all aspects of planning and environmental law in Scotland. SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) launched over 30 years ago and is one of the leading information sources on land use planning and environmental legislation across the country. Continue reading →

The Public Bodies (Joint Working) Scotland Act 2014 – should it have gone further?

Posted on by

Health Cubes_iStock_000022075266Largeby Steven McGinty

Last month, on April 1st, the Public Bodies (Joint Working) Scotland Act 2014 was given its royal assent. According to Alex Neil, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, this new addition to the statute book signifies a ‘landmark’ change for the provision of healthcare in Scotland. The Act will be introduced in stages, with the full integration of health and social care expected by April 2016. The principal aim is to provide better patient outcomes through the integration of health and social care services. There has been broad support for the new legislation, but some say the Act has not gone far enough. Continue reading →