Identity papers may be lost or expired; the last tax return may date back several years; social and administrative rights may have lapsed or been cancelled. All sources confirm that the challenge of bureaucracy is a major roadblock to accessing habitation upon release from prison. These papers are a prerequisite to taking the necessary steps to access housing, especially social housing, as obtaining a new identity document, filing a tax return, and proving access to income are vital first steps to recovering social rights. Without them, it’s impossible to put together a solid file, an essential requirement when applying for social housing.

Updating a person’s administrative situation from detention is no easy feat: sometimes, their papers have been lost for years, and Internet availability could be limited or non-existent. This makes completing procedures absurdly challenging because many of them – income reporting, applying for housing benefits or family allowances, signing up for training courses, etc. – are now online. Camille, who was formerly imprisoned in France, says this cuts incarcerated people off from the rest of the world: “The digital divide is a real issue. Everything is online. These days, there’s no argument for not having Internet access in prison. (…) Some people spend 15 years in prison, then they get out and they don’t know what anything is! To them, the outside world is like a sci-fi movie; it must be terrible. People in detention should be able to go to the tax website or the job centre website and create an email address. Some people leave prison without an email address. How do they get on? You can’t do anything without email now.”

Several members of the association Le MAS in Lyon agree with Camille about the potential obstacles. “Nowadays, the smallest request, especially for social housing, must be done online. But getting a computer into detention is tricky. Sometimes, we do everything on paper first then copy the information onto the computer once we leave, but it’s a wasteful process, and some things can’t be done by proxy. Many administrative procedures require a telephone number for their text message verification system. Many people in prison have forgotten their login information, and some are not strong readers and writers to begin with. It can become a nightmare”, explains Sylvie Daniel, department manager at Le MAS.

 The need for support in completing administrative procedures is a common refrain. In the Lyon metropolitan area, Le MAS offers assistance via the Single Re-integration Office (Bureau Unique d’Insertion, BUI), in both open custody and secure custody. It offers a variety of services: requesting identity cards, filing tax returns, and establishing or re-establishing access to health and/or social rights – in particular active solidarity income and housing benefits.

These little boosts are far from trivial: they help reduce waiting times and jump-start preparation for release as early as possible. “Once all the papers are ready, it’s easier on the outside: people can present a strong application to obtain social housing. Otherwise, they would have to settle for accommodations”, says Virginie Macon from Le MAS.

In France, the prison service for rehabilitation and probation (SPIP) is responsible for providing socio-educational support to incarcerated persons during their detention and for helping them secure access to housing, treatment, training and employment. François-Marie Tarasconi is Deputy Head of the Social Policy and Partnerships Department at the re-integration and probation sub-directorate of the French Directorate of Prison Administration. He points out that prison counsellors for re-integration and probation (CPIPs) have a unique stance that is not always understood: access to accommodations and/or housing is not considered an end in and of itself but rather a driver for preventing recidivism. “CPIPs are not social workers, as one might imagine, but more like legal experts and criminologists, given their background”, he explains. “The nuance is important. First, housing is only one of the many focuses of their work. Second, SPIP monitoring is only for a limited period, and once this prison monitoring stops, the person is transferred to the common law system. Lastly, there is a significant power imbalance: once the person is on the outside, if the CPIP finds cause for concern during the judicial monitoring, the counsellor can write up a report that could eventually lead to the person being sent back to prison. CPIPs report to their manager or to a judge: they are not a confidant like a social worker; they are under a justice mandate. It’s very different.”

As regards access to social housing, François-Marie Tarasconi specifies that the criteria for prioritisation by the prison service are different from those in common law. The latter focuses on the person’s situation, considering homelessness and vulnerability, as well as on how long ago the request was made. The prison service tends to consider other priorities: a person with somewhere to stay but located in an area with a legal geographic prohibition would be given priority by the SPIP to access different accommodations. François-Marie Tarasconi explains that a request made more recently, because the person is leaving detention unexpectedly, can take priority over a previous request made by someone who is already experiencing homelessness. This is a fact that is openly regretted by numerous other interested parties.

 CPIPs receive very little training on the steps for completing housing and/or accommodation applications, with only a few hours spent on the subject. They are often unfamiliar with social welfare policies, and it can be difficult for them to guide incarcerated persons and engage the relevant services and partners.

These are not new observations. Social service assistant positions were created within the SPIP to address these issues and to enable improved cooperation with partners in the field of accommodation and housing. The Directorate of Prison Administration now makes various documents available to CPIPs, including a Guide to social rights to enhance their understanding of people’s rights and existing schemes.

These changes within the SPIP are occurring in a context made particularly tense by the constant rise in the number of people in prison. This has clear consequences on the quality of monitoring in detention: incarcerated persons don’t see much of their CPIPs, the waiting times between meetings are growing longer, and there is not enough time to identify habitation needs. “According to recommendations by the Council of Europe, each CPIP should handle around forty cases”, explains François-Marie Tarasconi. “When we have a bit of luck, everyone in the department has around 70 cases. But that can climb to nearly 120. Obviously, we cannot ensure the same quality of work with so many cases. This increases the temptation to entrust certain subjects to third-party services, even if they have even fewer available resources. It’s not necessarily a good strategy. Delegating due to excessive workload is pointless if we ultimately learn that people reoffended because they ended up in unresolved homeless situations after receiving support from a third-party service that wasn’t well-suited to their profile.”

Numerous organisations, especially associations, fill in certain gaps by putting programmes into place to help prepare for accessing housing or accommodation upon release. In the Lyon metropolitan area (France), Le MAS has developed a scheme for accommodations and housing for people leaving prison (dispositif hébergement logement sortant de prison, DLSP). Following referral by CPIPs, its team works with people incarcerated in the prisons of Lyon-Corbas and Villefranche-sur-Saône. Sylvie Daniel explains the programme: “The team meets people and assesses their situation in terms of housing or accommodations. It conducts the most qualitative evaluation possible to provide the best possible guidance based on the person’s wants and needs, especially in terms of general location. Using the information gathered, we make an assessment, which is recorded in the [SIAO’s]¹ software and can then be updated as time goes on.” In short, the DLSP’s purpose is not to find housing or an accommodation but instead to prepare for the transfer to the integrated reception and guidance service (service intégré pour l’accueil et l’orientation, SIAO). “We ensure that the file is as complete and well-developed as possible, but we know that many people fall by the wayside because there aren’t enough options upon release. Numerous requests will go unanswered.”

Help desks for accessing rights are developing around France. AJHIRALP, for example, an association in Grenoble, is mandated by a convention to provide service, two Wednesdays per month, to incarcerated people who may be freed within six months and who are oriented by the SPIP. Its goals include helping people access common law schemes, recover certain social rights and, in some cases, secure transitional accommodations.

In Quebec (Canada), the YMCA offers a service to prepare for release as well as community support with the goal of residential stability. “Planning for Prison Release” aims to prepare and support people incarcerated in facilities in Montreal and at the Rivière-des-Prairies Detention Facility who could become homeless upon release. Isabel Gervais, who coordinates the service, discusses how it operates: “We explore every area of the person’s life with a view to identifying factors supporting and factors undermining housing. We build a plan together with the person, with the aim of obtaining affordable, permanent and secure housing that meets their specific needs.” The person is supported until they are settled in stable habitation. “We are working to improve the early identification of people at risk, but with the reality of short detention sentences, we nevertheless receive requests within a few days of release sometimes.”

In Finland, some housing counselling services operate in detention. They offer guidance and chat with the prison personnel and incarcerated individuals about their lifestyle and the type of habitation that would best suit them after their release from prison (housing first, rehabilitation housing, etc.). These services are able to evaluate the person’s situation and sign them up for waiting lists several months before their release. Life Without Crime (RETS) offers these services on-site, within prisons, and, according to Mia Juselius, a specialist in housing for prison leavers who works at RETS, also remotely. “I act as a liaison between the incarcerated person, the local government and the prison service”, she notes. “The prison service is not very familiar with the services available to incarcerated people in terms of support or assistance. In some ways, I am a translator or messenger.”

Orientation between the different organisations can sometimes be difficult. This problem was pointed out both by people leaving prison and by social workers. Prison Insider met several people formerly incarcerated in France who highlighted how necessary it is to improve access to information in detention. Camille condemns the fact that she could not access information on the network of local associations near where she was held. She mentions that it was a genuine necessity at that time. She also adds that, although it wasn’t her case, this lack of information could significantly impact some people’s reintegration: “No one is directing us to the solutions offered by associations. Do people not know about them, or do they not want to recommend them? I’m not sure, but the reality is there isn’t any communication.” Michelle*² regrets not being informed, when such knowledge could have been useful, of the existing associations that could have helped her with various administrative procedures. She says that little booklets should be distributed with tips and all the steps that can be taken to prepare for release to avoid becoming vulnerable once outside.

 Everyone Prison Insider spoke to confirms the necessity of making information available. The team in charge of the Single Re-integration Office (Bureau Unique d’Insertion, BUI) within Le Mas, for example, is developing communication materials such as brochures, as well as short videos to be played on screens in facilities so that incarcerated people who are unable to read can also access the information.

In many countries, it is not uncommon for a guide to be distributed in the new arrival unit with all the information about life in detention. But the existence of similar documents to prepare for release is less common. In Canada, Isabel Gervais says that a significant number of requests for services or references cannot be handled by the “Planning for Prison Release” service. The team in Quebec has responded by developing new tools, including a “release kit” provided to people who cannot be given support.

In Finland, the housing support network for released persons (VAT) aims to reduce homelessness and recidivism among people released from prison who are serving community sanctions. It works alongside the prison service and local authorities and currently consists of 32 member organisations around the country. These organisations provide various services to released people, including housing assistance. The member organisations have access to over 3,000 flats located in different regions. The VAT also plays a role in raising awareness and in training different stakeholders. In addition, the network developed an online guide to assist released people with housing, which is updated regularly. It aims to increase transparency in work on homelessness and housing assistance for people with criminal convictions.

The guide highlights the importance of service providers actively presenting their support services to people in prison. It notes that information sessions and “service fairs” are regularly organised in numerous prisons for this purpose. Informational brochures can also be sent to prisons. The guide states that it is advisable for VAT organisations to begin their dialogue with incarcerated persons as early as possible. This is also an opportunity in which “an incarcerated person can be authorised to leave the prison, for example to explore housing possibilities on the outside”.

In early 2024, the European Observatory on Homelessness published a report on the connections between the experiences of incarceration and homelessness in Europe. It mentions that, in a large number of European countries, the systems are isolated, with little to no coordination. This is due in particular to the absence of a single authority or a collection of dedicated resources with full responsibility for the process of ensuring housing solutions for people leaving prison.

Many incarcerated individuals say that the lack of collaboration between housing/accommodation actors makes it more difficult to benefit from, or even learn about, rights and existing schemes. For the prison service, other public organisations and associations, the collaboration problems complicate day-to-day work as well as the identification and monitoring of people who need services in detention. When relationships do exist between organisations, they are often described as informal and interpersonal rather than institutional.

In France, there have long been coordination difficulties between the prison service for rehabilitation and probation (SPIP) and the integrated reception and guidance service (SIAO). A 2016 circular detailing the coordination procedures between the services was issued to improve their interactions. One person is supposed to be designated to act as a first point of contact for the other service. In practice, certain SPIPs have effectively established conventions with the SIAOs in their area, but official agreements are lacking. Furthermore, the nature of the conventions between SPIPs and SIAOs tend to vary from one region to another, with no consistency on the national level.

The team of the “Support, Journey, Access to Housing” project at the Interdepartmental Delegation for Accommodation and Housing Access (Délégation interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au logement, DIHAL) discusses the importance of the 2016 circular and its implications: “The aim is to ensure the best possible coordination between the SPIPs and the SIAOs. The circular recommends signing conventions to try to jointly identify and formalise partnerships in order to create longevity. We know that partnerships can often develop at a given time between specific people, so the idea is to maintain and systematise the relationships between SPIPs and SIAOs, with the goal of identifying and anticipating incarcerated persons’ needs as well as possible.” The DIHAL team points out that the delegation has a role in leading government services in local areas.

 As such, it organises meetings, in connection with the Directorate of Prison Administration, with all of the local stakeholders and resources that participate in orientation work. A few goals of these meetings are to gain momentum, start discussions and ensure that partnership procedures are extensive and adapted to local resources and networks.

“During these meetings, a certain number of best practices are referenced: SPIPs should participate in guidance committees within SIAOs; public justice contact people should be established within SIAOs who can visit detention centres to provide information or offer training and advice, etc.”, explains the team. They also mention advanced coordination cases implemented in certain areas, especially where the available offer is quite poor.

In Paris until 2022, the SPIP had in place a commission to prioritise cases within the service, without the presence of the SIAO. In 2018, François-Marie Tarasconi formalised the operation of the commission, which was created in 2016. He reflects on its operation: “Each week, a dozen CPIPs presented their cases to a dedicated group of CPIPs focused on the issue of accommodation/housing as well as the SPIP social service assistant and a director. The director was present to ensure that the decision-making process was neutral, in the sense that they were not following individual cases. Orientation advice was given during the commission meetings, then priorities were set for the SIAO according to the SPIP’s specific criteria. Each week, we had one or two successful orientations, which is amazing. Prior to that, some colleagues said it had taken them nearly a year to complete one successful orientation.”

For François-Marie Tarasconi, this system had some clear advantages: it helped break down CPIP’s isolation with these issues that they were often unfamiliar with, the criteria used by the SPIP enabled the SIAO to leverage additional prioritisation criteria in cases of nearly equivalent situations, according to their own criteria, and it was possible to establish statistical monitoring highlighting the effectiveness as well as the limits of the method.

However, the system established by the Paris SPIP did not last, stopping in 2022. François-Marie Tarasconi says that this system was nevertheless exported to other areas, where it was adapted according to local needs depending on the size of the SPIP, the percentage of homeless people and cooperation with the SIAO.

In Ontario (Canada), Reza Ahmadi stresses that cooperation and collaboration efforts vary greatly from one place and from one community to another. “Some put in place planning tables bringing together national, provincial and municipal authorities, as well as all the social service providers”, he explains. “The goal is to examine the circumstances of every liberated person on a case-by-case basis. The prison service says, ‘This person will be released in a week. They need housing assistance or this other type of assistance’, and the people around the table can address those needs.” Reza Ahmadi clarifies that although things tend to be improving, there is still a long road ahead: “In some communities, these tables have existed for years; in others, there are little working groups, but in some, nothing is in place yet.”

In Finland, the prison service notes that multidisciplinary cooperation plays a key role. It places particular emphasis on cooperation with social assistance departments (in charge of social services and health care), local governments and civil society organisations. Prison and probation services work with Life Without Crime (RETS) and participate in the housing support network for released persons (VAT).

 To facilitate cooperation between local governments, the prison service and service providers, VAT collects information relating to best practices and effective cooperation models. It organises training courses and seminars around four times per year on topics relating to housing assistance for people with criminal records, reducing homelessness and promoting reintegration.

Members of the network see these meetups as a common forum for the different stakeholders working with people who have been in conflict with the law. They present an occasion to exchange information and working practices and to develop cooperation between the different institutions and organisations present.

Various cooperation models in the field of housing for people released from prison have sprung up in Finland. Among them is the Joensuu Cooperation Group for Housing, which promotes coordination to provide access to long-term housing and support services. The group is coordinated by a member of the prison service and includes representatives from social services, professionals specialising in substance use disorders and mental health, not-for-profit landlords, organisations providing subsidised housing, and so on.

When a prison staff member, probation officer or social worker identifies an incarcerated person without a fixed address, they suggest that the person join a working group. It is up to the incarcerated person to indicate their needs on a form and mention the organisations that could provide the relevant services. The relevant parties are invited to a meeting to discuss the person’s situation: their previous place of residence, any debts or substance use problems, any additional needs in terms of support, and so on. Housing preferences are also mentioned. The group then collectively assesses needs in terms of housing and support. It may be specified, for example, that housing access is contingent on receiving other assistance, and the goal is to know who will do what and when.

The expression “prison leavers” encompasses several realities: most of them are released at the end of their sentence and are no longer accountable to the justice system, while others leave as part of a sentence adjustment and remain under judicial supervision for varying durations.

A large number of people interviewed mention the importance of transitional times between prison and the outside world in order to prepare for access to a long-term housing solution. However, transitional times are more the exception than the rule, especially for short sentences. The researchers Juliette Baronnet and Tiphaine Vanlemmens point out that incarcerated persons are not on equal footing concerning the possibility of obtaining sentence adjustments. These are most often granted to people who are considered the most stable and/or those who can receive long-term support, particularly in the case of long sentences. Additionally, sentence adjustments are contingent on having an address and, consequently, an accommodation or housing solution, which, for homeless people, can mean going through an association. Since associations are typically short on spaces and in high demand, they represent a possibility but not a guarantee.

In France, some people in prison can be granted a unique sentence adjustment: community placement. In this situation, people are entrusted by a judge to an association, which is responsible for providing accommodations and monitoring the conditions and obligations ordered by the judge. The accommodations can take different forms, such as shelters, studios, shared rentals, or farms. The type of habitation and the number of spaces are severely restricted by limited housing availability. Marine Tocco is Head of the Justice and Social Cohesion division at Les Foyers Matter, an association in Lyon that supports people leaving prison through a community placement measure by providing accommodation in flats with flatmates. She notes that, due to a lack of available spaces, the waiting list only gets longer, and the choice to be in a shared flat is not, in practice, actually a choice: “We mostly have shared rentals because it’s really challenging to find small places like studios. So we offer flats with two bedrooms, much to our chagrin, forcing people into a type of habitation that is not necessarily well received or a positive experience.” Marine Tocco clarifies that the likelihood of having to share a flat is mentioned as soon as discussions about community placement begin, before the person has accepted the sentence adjustment. “We have a few one-person housing options, but we set them aside for women, who are far fewer and rarely arrive two at a time, and for people with highly sensitive profiles who would run the risk of being knocked about in a shared flat and wouldn’t be able to cope”, she adds.

The Mouvement Emmaüs is developing farms in several regions in France to accommodate people serving the end of their prison sentence via community placement. It aims to support people by offering them accommodation in small-scale facilities, a re-integration activity, primarily in the agricultural field, and social and professional support. Caritas Alsace founded “Le 30”, a care house located in Strasbourg that, like the farms, supports people finishing their sentence outside of prison walls. The support provided to the eight people staying at the facility is described as highly customised. Over the course of several months, team members will assist them with all the administrative procedures necessary to prepare their return to “normal” life, including for identity papers, social rights, treatment, and so on.

In Canada, halfway houses host a portion of the incarcerated population so that they can finish their sentence outside of prison. These facilities are designed to be “bridges between life in detention and a complete return into the community”, according to David Henry, CEO of the Association of Social Rehabilitation Services in Quebec (Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec). This time in the community enables people to prepare for what comes next and, in particular, to get up to date administratively and look for a new place to stay. Conditional release permits people to be supported and assisted in their administrative procedures and drastically reduces the risk of recidivism, according to the Quebec Commission on Conditional Release (Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles). However, Daniel Benson, a social worker who has served time, mentions that halfway houses lack available spaces and many people leave prison without support, especially following short sentences.

Although these initiatives are often acknowledged for their usefulness and their relevance, they remain largely inadequate to address current needs, in particular when considering increases in the number of incarcerated individuals. As such, it is easy to conclude that many people experience an abrupt prison release without support.