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

32 Women offenders: after the Corston Reportcentre and they have been working with this woman beforehand, they will have beenable to build a relationship with her and get her to divulge information thatotherwise she would not. We can only sentence on the information that we haveavailable to us.” 14974. Our evidence suggests that existing community orders for women are robust. It can bedemonstrated that community sentences are more effective for women than for men. TheCriminal Justice Alliance drew our attention to analysis showing that in like-for-like cases,the reconviction rates for women given community orders were between 6% and 13%lower than for similar offenders released from sentences of under 12 months. Women arealso more likely than men to comply with, and complete, their community sentence. 15075. It is now well known that community sentences are cheaper than custodial ones, butthis is particularly the case for females for whom average custodial costs are far higher thanmen’s. Women’s centres are also demonstrably cheaper than probation in deliveringservices for women who offend. 15176. Helen Grant saw it as a priority to develop “robust, punitive, community options”which would provide credible alternatives to custody for sentencers for women whorepresent a low risk to the community. 152 Examples of this would include diversionaryprogrammes, gender-specific offending behaviour programmes, specified activities,alongside punitive elements—which, following the Crime and Courts Act 2013, must beincluded in every community order—like curfews, unpaid work or tagging. Helen Grantdefended community sentences as: “[...] not fluffy, easy options [...] they have to challengethe woman to change her life, really to get a grip, to get out of these awful relationships andto get off the drink and the drugs.” 153 Some witnesses expressed concern about theextension of punitive elements to all community sentences. For example, Home Groupurged caution in the extended use of electronic monitoring for women offenders as itmight impact detrimentally on childcare responsibilities and the risk of domestic violence.Similarly, extending the use of fines might lead to a greater risk of child poverty. 15477. Several of our witnesses believed that changes to the sentencing framework wererequired as part of the solution to reducing the prison population. For example, theHoward League and Women in Prison argued for a reduction of the powers of magistratesto imprison women on short sentences for non-violent offences. 155 The Howard Leaguealso proposed changes to the Code for Crown Prosecutors and to sentencing policy and149 Q 210150 Ev w70, See Ministry of Justice, Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System, 2010. Greater proportions ofwomen than men achieve positive outcomes for both community orders (67% versus 63%) and suspended sentenceorders (73% versus 63%).151 Qq 79–80 [Ms Doal]. See also Ev w16: NOMS guidance on working with women offenders provides interesting costcomparisons for women in the criminal justice system which it suggests provides a business case for working moreeffectively with them: prison placements accrue costs of approximately £56,415 per year; generic community ordersdelivered by probation cost £2,800 per year; and a dramatically reduced costing of £1,360 for women supervised viaa holistic, women’s centre based approach. NOMS, A Distinct Approach: guide to working with women offenders,London, March 2012152 Q 288153 Q 289154 Ev w28155 Ev 74, Q 153 [Ms Crook]