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

Justice Committee: Evidence Ev 81Overall Findings5. We found that the strong lead given by the Ministry of Justice and National Offender Management Servicehad been successful in promoting considerable activity at a regional and local level in relation to womenoffenders. Probation Trusts had worked well with the National Offender Management Service and the Ministryof Justice as well as partners and other agencies to develop a sound strategic framework for working withwomen offenders.6. Measures to assess the progress made on implementing the strategic framework were generallyunderdeveloped at all levels. The measures that we examined were too often over-reliant on scores from theoffender assessment system, OASys and consequently not applicable to women serving short prison sentencesof under 12 months who were not subject to OASys. Without these outcome measures, demonstrating theeffectiveness of their intervention in terms of reducing reoffending, it was difficult for statutory organisationssuch as Probation Trusts to assess the impact of the work undertaken at a strategic level or for the smaller,often voluntary, organisations to put themselves forward as a viable option for future funding.7. Although a great deal had been achieved, it was apparent that, with the changes in the NOMS structureand the subsequent removal of the regional framework, the sustainability of many of the measures now inplace and their subsequent development would depend on the capacity of the probation service to engage withlocal providers. A locally coordinated joint approach to the needs of women offenders was paramount.Considerable efforts were being made by Probation Trusts to develop relationships with those partners at alocal level who could support the women’s agenda. Nevertheless, provision varied considerably, particularly inrespect of mental health services where inconsistencies in the services offered could impact disproportionatelyon women offenders because of their multiple needs.8. All involved acknowledged, in the current financial climate, the importance of joint commissioningarrangements in delivering mainstream services. The involvement of the new Health and Wellbeing Boardsand the Police and Crime Commissioners, when operational, will be essential to the success of any sucharrangements as will that of the Local Criminal Justice Boards, with their capacity to act as brokers betweenthe various local agencies. The potential contribution of the voluntary sector to this agenda, particularly thosedelivering services to address local needs, also has to be recognised.9. We saw a lot to praise during the course of the inspection. Although there was a lack of women-specificprovision for both unpaid work and offending behaviour programmes, women-only groups, where run, weregenerally successful. Approved premises provided a credible and sustainable alternative to custody. BailAccommodation and Support Services were a useful means by which custodial remands could be reduced butawareness by courts and probation of these services tended to be low, so they were underused.10. The women’s community centres, where established, were a useful resource which enabled women,whether offenders or those at risk of offending, to access a range of services offering practical support andhelp in a conducive and non-threatening environment. The services on offer varied from one centre to anotherbut, typically, included advice and guidance on a range of issues of concern to women, including employment,finance, benefits, debt, housing, childcare, health and substance misuse. Although attendance at the centres wasnot in itself an alternative to custody unless specified as a formal requirement of an order, they could play animportant part in securing the engagement, and thereby compliance, of women offenders subject to supervisionby the probation service in work to address their offending. This aspect of their role was, in our opinion, toooften neglected or overlooked but both could and should be developed, particularly when working with thosewomen who probation found otherwise hard to engage.11. Relationships between women’s community centres and offender managers were often underdevelopedand it was apparent that work at the centres was often undervalued by probation staff who did not consider itintegral to the achievement of the sentence plan. The centres, despite being a valuable resource in themselves,consequentially suffered, in varying degrees, from being isolated from the work of probation. Referral rateswere frequently low. However, where centres were used effectively, they provided a safe place where workcould be undertaken to address both the current and any future offending by the women concerned and promotetheir compliance with their order.12. Sentencers were generally amenable to imposing non-custodial sentences on offenders where they posedonly a low risk of harm to others; they worked hard to establish the right balance between the needs of thewoman, the gravity of the offence and the risk of harm to the local community. Whilst the sentencing guidelinesdid not allow for women offenders to be treated differently from men, mitigating circumstances, often linkedto complex domestic situations, permitted sentencers to apply different approaches in many women’s cases.13. Although sentencers were generally content with the quality of pre-sentence reports prepared for them,we considered that reports did not always promote community sentences as a credible sentencing optionnor did they always provide a sound base on which to plan the work to be done with the woman duringher sentence.