Resettlement provision for children and young ... - Ministry of Justice

establishments were monitoring the type of accommodation to which young people were
released and whether it was suitable and sustainable. There was no evidence that
establishments were working to a set definition of suitable and sustainable accommodation
and some casework managers asked if such a definition had been published. The YJB has
defined what is meant by ‘suitable accommodation’ (see Section 2) but there was no evidence
in any of the records we scrutinised that discussions had taken place about whether the
accommodation found for a young person could be described as suitable against this
definition. Resettlement and casework managers reported that they were occasionally in
disagreement with YOTs about the appropriateness of accommodation, but arrangements
were difficult to change because of the lack of suitable accommodation in local areas.
8.4 Performance data collected from YOTs for 2009–10 showed that in England at the end of a
community intervention or release from custody, 96% of young people had suitable
accommodation in place. 40 In Wales 75% of young people had suitable accommodation prior
to entering custody and 90% on release.
8.5 For our case sample, 39 (95%) of the 41 young men had an address to go to on release, of
which case supervisors felt four-fifths (82%, n=32) were suitable and sustainable. Two young
men did not have an address on release and had had to report to the local authority as
homeless, one of whom was a 16-year-old Section 20 looked after child.
8.6 Twenty-six young men went to live with their family, including three looked after children (at the
time of the fieldwork interview, two had not known where they would be living on release). For
those going to live with family, case supervisors consistently reported that a suitable and
sustainable address was somewhere where the family were ‘supportive’. In two cases, the
family accommodation was not considered suitable and sustainable by case supervisors.
Case study 10
One young person, aged 16, explained that he would be returning to live with his mother once released.
This house was described in the ASSET as being a five-bedroom house, though 13 people were living
there. Though his parents were supportive and wanted him to return home, he often stayed out late at
night and had not been in education since he was 13. At his first training planning meeting, the YOT
manager had agreed to look into arranging a hostel place, though the case supervisor did not have any
information about this at the time of our interview and reported that the young person was returning
home. The young person’s home was described as chaotic and overcrowded, and he would lack
parental guidance and was likely to be undernourished. The young person did return to live at home on
his release and he was still living there one month after release but was not involved in any ETE.
Case study 11
One young person, aged 18, had previously been living with his parents but his offence was against his
father so he was unable to return home. The case manager and probation worker (due to his age) had
been working to try to arrange accommodation but had problems finding a placement due to the nature
of the offence and the young person’s refusal of help from an external agency. His grandparents
stepped in and agreed to let the young person live with them, though initially the YOT had concerns
about possible firearms at the address. The YOT and police assessed the address and allowed the
young person to return there on release.
68