and the proposed eviction of its "tenants'' raises several serious issues.

There will always be risks when programmes aimed at getting ex-inmates on their feet again are run by ex-inmates without adequate supervision.

And it seems to us that as well-intentioned as the founders of the Woodshop were, they had problems since launching the original Woodshop pilot scheme.

These culiminated in criticisms of the programme by area MP Delaey Robinson, who alleged on the floor of the House of Assembly that the scheme was being used for drug dealing.

Soon afterwards, an inspection committee for the programme, formed to see if it could be integrated into Government's alternative sentencing plans, found that "it cannot address the needs of former inmates, or offer effective rehabilitation''.

That's a damning indictment of the programme, essentially saying it does not work.

Woodshop founder Cleveland Simmons seems to have accepted the criticism, but claims that of the 50 or so former inmates who have passed through the Woodshop's doors, just eight have returned to prison, and five of these eight were jailed for failing to pay child support.

That is a credit to Mr. Simmons, although it is probable that the programme has not been up and running long enough for the results to be substantiated.

There can be no question that ex-inmates who are able to find jobs and shelter when they leave prison are less likely to re-offend.

The committee formed to inspect the Woodshop now says a new scheme supervised by rehabilitation and substance abuse professionals and bound by generally accepted business practices should be open by October.

That is good news, because the Woodshop, for all of its faults, is the only agency now in existence which is keeping ex-inmates off the street.

The major question is what should be done between now, when the Woodshop has been discredited and the people living in its building threatened with eviction, and the time when the new agency opens.

Government deserves credit for not proceeding with plans to evict the men from the building, when that would essentially make them then homeless. How, after all, can you evict a person from a shower room? At the same time, whatever scheme replaces or supersedes the Woodshop must be able to provide shelter and work for ex-inmates. It should not be a make-work programme, which would appear to be part of the Woodshop's financial problems.

So, too, was slack leadership. Mr. Simmons may have made "mammoth'' efforts, but his relaxed approach to drug use alone means he is not suited to run a back-to-work programme for inmates.

It may be that the Woodshop was allowed to run without supervision for far too long. Clearly, schemes of this kind must be adequately supervised and must provide all the support that former inmates need.

Government should speed up its own ex-inmate scheme and replace the Woodshop's as soon as possible.