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

Justice Committee: Evidence Ev 714.5 The same paper acknowledges the difficulty of helping someone whose time in prison is very brief (page18) and gives the average time in custody as about 50 days. This is a clear illustration of different expectationsin relation to evidence of outcomes between different parts of the Criminal Justice System. A prison has anoffender on site, available for twenty four hours a day, for an average of fifty days and it is acceptable that theoffender leaves without positive progress being recorded as long as the requirement to house safely, decentlyand in secured accommodation are met. Community projects are expected to evidence positive progress after13 weeks of contact once a week, where the woman also has competing life priorities that may mean she doesnot attend. Given the different costs between custody and community it is surprising that calls for the reductionof the prison estate are not stronger.4.6 We are keen to work with MoJ and NOMS to continue to build a shared understanding of how ourservices contribute to the desired outcomes, but it is disappointing that our engagement has not yet started,given the timetable for commissioning Women’s Community Services, and the discussions that are alreadygoing on in relation to evidence.5. Developing a Network of Community Centres5.1 It is absolutely clear that there is progress to celebrate, and both the Ministry of Justice and the NationalOffender Management Service have shown a commitment to developing and sustaining a network ofcommunity centres which provide a holistic set of rehabilitative interventions within a single safe space.However, the gender specific community based approach to working with women offenders and those at riskof offending has not been part of a strategic plan to embed this provision in the mainstream with appropriateresources to ensure sustainability and national coverage.5.2 In the first two years following the publication of the Corston Report (2008–10), there was a significantfinancial resource to support the extension of this provision. However— There is no legacy data capture system or co-ordination of evaluations to provide evidence ofthe value of this approach as a credible part of the National Criminal Justice System.— Two years is not sufficient time to demonstrate success and embed learning, and it is notsufficient time to bring about a shift in a Criminal Justice System that has operated in the sameway for a very long time.— Many projects did not start at the start of the two year funding cycle, and when the fundingstream came to an end some had been operational for less than one year.— There was no planned continuation strategy for the Ministry of Justice.5.3 Following the close of this funding stream, a unique arrangement developed between the CorstonIndependent Funders Coalition (CIFC) and the Ministry of Justice (subsequently NOMS), and the Women’sDiversionary Fund was put into place. It was clear throughout this arrangement that the CIFC were supportinga transitional period to allow for women’s community services to become mainstreamed. While this fundingwas welcomed, it was not without its challenges— Funding to support work on women at risk of coming into contact with the Criminal Justicesystem has diminished, and in many cases disappeared, and so the opportunity to prevent anddivert at early stages has also been lost for many women.— The network of community centres did not continue to grow, indeed the numbers reduced.— Practical difficulties were experienced in respect of late notification of the continuation offunding and uncertain monitoring requirements.5.4 The funding from the Corston Independent Funders Coalition to the programme of projects was timelimited and ended at the end of March 2012. Responsibility for funding the Women’s Community Servicesmoved wholly from MoJ to NOMS and NOMS identified in good time (December 2011) £3.5 million tocontinue their funding arrangement with the projects and to also cover the funding that had been contributedby the Corston Independent Funders Coalition. The budget was delegated to Probation Trusts but with arequirement for this to be used to commission the existing projects in the financial year, but after that timeprojects would be competing in the open market place. However,— While we understand and agree with the principles of value for money and competition, it istoo soon for this approach to be subjected to the open market and grant funding should continuefor a further three years.— The confusing approach to monitoring and reporting of performance has continued, and thetransition to Probation Trusts does not appear to have been well managed. Consideration doesnot appear to have been given to the findings of the Justice Select Committee Report onProbation (2011) or the Joint Thematic Inspection Report Equal but Different (2011) in relationto limitations in Probation Trusts in addressing the needs of women offenders.— Only those Probation Trusts with existing projects received an additional budget for workingwith women offenders, and in the summer of 2012 those Probation Trusts were told not toexpect the additional budgets in future years. This implied that future funding for WomensCommunity Services would need to be found from within the reducing budgets of ProbationTrusts.