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

Ev 70Justice Committee: Evidence2. Executive Summary2.1 This submission tells the story of the involvement and experiences of a number of Women’s Centres andProjects in delivering gender specific community based solutions for women offenders and vulnerable womenat risk of entering the Criminal justice System. It gives evidence of some progress, but explains why thefollowing is needed:2.1.1 A coherent cross departmental strategy, with Ministerial leadership and oversight and acommitment to shift resources from the expensive end of the Criminal justice System to earlyintervention and prevention.2.1.2 An understanding of what it means to work in partnership, and an evaluation of how effectivepartnership working has been.2.1.3 A clear understanding of what equality means in practice—and that equality legislation shouldbe a lever to provide the right services and not an excuse to do nothing.2.1.4 An appropriate and timely transition from centrally managed grant aid supporting interventionsfor women offenders to locally commissioned services.2.1.5 A ring fenced budget (National and local) to ensure that women are not lost in the biggernumbers of male offenders.3. The Elephant in the Room3.1 Women’s Breakout members start from a position of agreeing that the case has been well made that:— The majority of women imprisoned should not be there.— To prevent and reduce crime committed by women gender specific approaches delivered inwomen only community based organisations work best.— To achieve equitable outcomes for the majority of women, they need to receive differentinterventions to the majority of men.3.2 The development of gender specific community based alternatives to custody were introduced as apartnership response to the Corston Report with the Ministry of Justice working with the third sector to identifywhat works and to build on that learning. While there is a growing body of evidence relating to the value ofthe Women’s Community Services, the evidence base is constantly challenged as being insufficiently robustfor commissioning; and it is also suggested by some that to treat women differently in the Criminal JusticeSystem would be to discriminate unlawfully. These two themes have emerged in recent years, and the pressureto evidence and prove has shifted to the voluntary sector providers, and “partnership” has receded. However,while we know that these views exist, they are not often voiced in open dialogue around women offenders,where the primary view expressed is that the three points above are agreed.4. Evidence4.1 Women’s VCS organisations are uniquely placed to respond flexibly to address the immediate needs ofwomen in crisis and their children, for example on the day of a court appearance, as well as providing ongoing,follow-through support. The Women’s Community Centres each have distinct approaches tailored tolocal circumstances. For example, the external evaluation of Support for Women Around Northumberland(SWAN) noted the success of its virtual one-stop-shop approach in addressing rural isolation and associatedservice inequality. SWAN’s evaluation credited the ability of the service to fill a gap by combining intensivecrisis support for women who needed to escape from imminent danger with a range of services to nurtureresilience and bring about long-term rehabilitation and recovery.4.2 The success of the Women’s Community Centres is further reflected in the NOMS Quarter 3 PerformanceReview, where female offending rates in Probation Trusts with a funded Centre were 8.82%, significantlybelow the predicted 9.09%.4.3 The evidence and argument is available, and we would hope that the Inquiry starts with the CorstonReport, as the Corston review of women with vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System looked in detail atthese matters and established the baseline to move forward.4.4 Further, the NOMS Commissioning Intentions 2013/14 also provides welcome clarity with regard toservices where the evidence base is limited or absent by other standards, and supports a whole system approach.Our member organisations form part of a wider approach to tackling offending and there is a robust rationalefor why a gender specific approach to working with women is effective. This is acknowledged on page 18 ofthe discussion document “Where possible services should be delivered in women only groups” and the statementthat “it is unrealistic to expect that a single service must always demonstrate an impact on reconviction withouttaking into account the other circumstances of an offender’s life”. This is directly relevant to our services.