Women offenders: after the Corston Report - United Kingdom ...

Justice Committee: Evidence Ev 5526 March 2013 Helen Grant MP, Ian Porée and Michael SpurrLast year, the probation trusts added £180,000, whichis what takes it to £3.78 million this year. We have saidthat the whole of what was spent last year above thebaseline provision will be ring-fenced. The baselineprovision is what standard services for women will beprovided from. I think that is really important. The workthat has been going on has been to extend provision,particularly in those trusts that had not had anyadditionality through the original £3.5 million. I knowthere was a lot of concern about what was happeningwith the services, as discussions were taking placewith women’s centres and others. I met the Corstonfunders, and we have provided complete transparencyabout where we are in those negotiations. I know thatthe National Audit Office is going to look at what hashappened with that money. I welcome that, because Ithink it will demonstrate that more money is actuallygoing into this. Of course, it would be great to havea lot more money to put into this area, but we have areducing budget. To be able to ring-fence and increasethe amount of money that is there for additionality is asuccess in what is an important area for us.Q267 Steve Brine: With a challenging budget, whathas NOMS been doing to monitor the effectiveness ofthe women’s centres? What information do you holdabout their effectiveness in reducing reoffending, forexample?Michael Spurr: There is a limited evidence base at themoment for their effectiveness in reducing reoffending.As you will appreciate, it requires clear measures andtime to be able to say what impact has occurred. Quitefrankly, we have not had the clear measures in anyof those centres and the data that would enable us toevaluate them on a reducing reoffending basis.Q268 Steve Brine: Why not? Because you have nothad enough time to do so? How long has the oldest ofthem, for instance, been there?Michael Spurr: About three years. The reality is thatthe individual centres themselves have not collatedthe data. They have done some work on evaluation;the women’s turnaround projects, for example, wereevaluated. It did not conclude that we were able, with thedata that were available, to say that these had reducedreoffending. However, it did conclude that there wasvalue in the centres; most people would recognise that.On the softer measures, there was general agreementthat what the centres were doing was positive for thewomen who were there and that, generally, they fita “What Works” agenda in terms of building socialesteem and engaging people, particularly early onin their offending lives. At this moment, we haveindications that these are positive, but we do nothave evaluative evidence that demonstrates that theyare reducing reoffending. We have set requirementsfor collation of data from the centres as we now goforward with formal contracts. NOMS has beeninvolved directly with the centres only for the last twoyears. We have now set data collection requirementsthat will enable us to have a better evaluation of howthe centres are operating going forward.Q269 Steve Brine: You can see my concern. We as aCommittee are trying to put together a report backedby evidence to support policy moves. Although youare saying that there is general agreement that theyare building self-esteem, if women are going out andcommitting more crimes, but doing so with confidence,that does not really satisfy me. I was slightly surprised, tobe honest, when we went to Adelaide House yesterday.I concur with Mr Corbyn that it was very impressive.The unit was led with strength and confidence by avery strong woman called Pat Thomas, who was verymuch the matriarchal figure. However, when we askedabout their success rate, they did not know. Then, whenI asked about their being recommissioned, she said thatyou were about to recommission them for another 12months. On the basis of what—a general feeling thatthey are doing good things?Michael Spurr: They take difficult-to-place womenwho would struggle to find accommodation andsupport on the outside. Relatively small numbers areinvolved. Getting proper evaluated statistical evidencewith small numbers and cohorts is always difficult.Reoffending data in themselves are difficult to collate.Generally, you need relatively large cohorts that youcan match against similar cohorts to see whether ornot a particular intervention has had an impact. Whatthe centres are doing is broadly in line with our wider“What Works” evidence base. We are looking to refinethat and get better evaluated data, but you should notstop doing work that is broadly in line with the “WhatWorks” agenda.Q270 Andy McDonald: You say that because it isa small number it is hard to evaluate. We are sittinghere wondering why that should be. We would havethought that a smaller number was easier to evaluate,as there would be smaller numbers to track, reflect onand report on.Michael Spurr: Individual centres will talk about theirindividual women and say, “We have had success,”but, in statistical terms, to be able to demonstrate thatthat particular intervention has been the cause of thatsuccess, you have to be able to match the people withwhom they are working with a similar cohort of peoplethey have not been working with. That is what I meant.That is harder to do with smaller numbers than with alarger cohort of people.Helen Grant: I think we are going to be in a position todo that very soon, because since April, we have beenmonitoring the referrals that have been made from theprobation trusts to the 31 women’s centres. In a fewweeks’ time, we will have a year’s worth of data. Thenwe will be able to compare the reoffending rates ofwomen who have been into the women’s centres, forexample, with those of women who have not.Q271 Steve Brine: I suppose I am trying to separateout the 31 women’s centres from the six approvedpremises. Those are the more hard-core end, aren’tthey?Michael Spurr: Approved premises are primarilyaround protection, as opposed to women’s centres,which are more open—for those who run the riskof offending, as well as for those who have beenoffending. It is equally difficult to evaluate the specificimpact they have made on that group. However, as Isaid, we are collating data and looking at a range of