Clients exiting custodial arrangements

Specialist homelessness services (SHS) provide support to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The following summarises evidence from the SHS Collection (SHSC) about clients exiting custodial arrangements. For more comprehensive analyses and the most recent data please use the hyperlinks on each evidence statement or the evidence sources at the end of this page.

Evidence summary

Clients exiting custodial arrangements account for just over 3% of all SHS clients[1].

Most SHS clients exiting custodial arrangements need accommodation assistance, more specifically, long-term housing is most commonly needed[1].

The most common reasons clients exiting custodial arrangements request support from SHS agencies is due to transition from custodial arrangements, followed by housing crisis and family and domestic violence[2].

More than half of all SHS clients exiting custodial arrangements also report experiencing mental health issues and/or problematic drug and/or alcohol use and, around 1 in 7 experience family and domestic violence[1].

The likelihood of accessing future SHS services increases when clients exiting custodial arrangements are also experiencing issues relating to mental health[3].

 

Many adults entering prison have experienced homelessness, with around 2 in 5 being homeless in the four weeks prior to incarceration and nearly one-third of surveyed women in prisons were in short-term or emergency accommodation during the same period (AIHW 2023).

As of June 30, 2024, there were around 44,400 prisoners in Australian prisons, reflecting a 6% increase from the previous year (ABS 2024). The number of people in Australian prisons has increased by 31% over the decade to 2024, with the imprisonment rate rising from 186 to 208 prisoners per 100,000 adults (ABS 2024). 

People exiting custody are vulnerable to experiencing housing insecurity (AIC 2018). In 2022, nearly half (48%) of those set to be released expected to be homeless, with 45% planning to stay in short-term or emergency accommodation and 2.8% anticipating sleeping rough (AIHW 2023). Stable housing is crucial for helping individuals transition successfully back into society and reducing the likelihood of reoffending (Martin et al. 2021). Currently, 45% of those released from prison return with a new sentence within two years (SCRGSP 2025).

Pathways into homelessness

Stable accommodation is essential for successful reintegration into the community. People discharged from prison often face stigma due to their incarceration history and discrimination from landlords and potential employers (Schetzer and StreetCare 2013). Returning to accomodation with family and friends may also be unsafe or not appropriate for successful reintergration, due to family and domestic violence, exposure to offending behaviours and/or access to alcohol and other drugs in the home (Drake et al. 2025; POA 2020). Additionally, people applying for parole may struggle to secure appropriately located and affordable housing, which can lead to parole refusal or breaches of parole conditions, resulting in a return to prison (Schetzer and StreetCare 2013).

Young people exiting youth detention often find themselves caught in a cycle of detention and homelessness (Flatau et al. 2022). Young people exiting youth detention into homelessness, may participate in survival crimes to attain basic needs; increasing their visibility to police and the possibility of returning to prison (Flatau et al. 2022). Housing instability and homelessness are factors contributing to the rising youth detention population, with many young people being remanded due to a lack of suitable accommodation options (Cunneen et al. 2016, Richards 2011). Among young people released from detention, 8% accessed homelessness support within 12 months of their release (AIHW 2012).

People with a history of youth justice supervision remain at high risk of homelessness in adulthood. Adults who were previously under youth justice supervision are nearly twice as likely to experience rough sleeping (Bevitt et al. 2015). Compared with those who have only accessed specialist homelessness services, those with experiences in both youth justice supervision and homelessness services are more likely to report drug and/or alcohol issues and to end their support from homelessness services while still sleeping rough (AIHW 2016).

Longitudinal research using Australian data (Moschino and Johnson 2019) indicates that homelessness itself does not increase the risk of incarceration. When controlling for various personal and circumstantial factors, the effect of homelessness on incarceration is largely mitigated. However, addressing housing needs around six months after release significantly reduces rates of reincarceration.

Pathways out of homelessness

Post-release housing assistance can effectively address the cycle of imprisonment and homelessness. Ex-prisoners with complex needs who receive public housing have lower re-imprisonment rates compared with those who only receive private rent assistance (Martin et al. 2021). Yet, people exiting prison for the first time, wait on average 5.9 years for public housing and only 14% of prison discharges in 2018–19 received support from specialist homelessness services (AHURI 2021; Martin et al. 2021). Those relying on social networks or short-term housing solutions are also more likely to be re-imprisoned within six months of release (Moschion and Johnson 2019).Beyond securing stable housing, individuals exiting custody also need additional support to maintain their tenancy, including help with paying rent and bills on time and managing relationships with neighbours (POA 2020). Support accessing available wrap around services such as legal and financial assistance, education and employment, in addition to mental health and alcohol and/or other drug support are also important in providing people exiting prison the best opportunity for successful reintegration into the community (Justice Connect 2021).

About the Specialist Homelessness Services data – defining clients exiting custodial arrangements

The Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) Collection (SHSC) commenced in July 2011.

In the SHSC, a client is identified as leaving a custodial setting if, in their first support period during the reporting period, either in the week before or at presentation, their dwelling was an adult correctional facility, a youth/ juvenile justice correctional centre, or an immigration detention centre. Additionally, if they cited transitioning from custodial arrangements as a reason or the main reason for seeking assistance, or if their formal referral source to the agency was a youth/ juvenile justice correctional centre or an adult correctional facility, they are identified as leaving a custodial setting.

Some clients were still in custody when they began receiving support. It is important to note that in the SHSC, it is not possible to differentiate between clients who received assistance without leaving an institutional setting and those who may have left an institutional setting but returned before the end of support.

Children under the age of 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence in Australia. Therefore, clients under 10 years of age who were identified as exiting from adult correctional facilities or youth/ juvenile justice correctional centres have been excluded.

For more information, see Technical notes.

Evidence sources

Source report

Time periods

Contents

1. Specialist homelessness services annual report

2011–12 onwards

Summarises the characteristics of clients receiving support from specialist homelessness services throughout financial years, including the services requested, outcomes achieved, and unmet requests for services.

2. Specialist homelessness services data cubes

2011–12 onwards

Customisable demographic data cubes.

3. Specialist homelessness services client pathways: clients exiting custodial arrangements in 2014–17

2015–16

Using the Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) longitudinal data set, analysis of a cohort of adult Clients exiting custodial arrangements in 2014–17 was undertaken to examine SHS support patterns for a cohort of service users.