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

Women offenders: after the Corston Report 55in reducing reoffending was due to a requirement for clear measures, sufficiently sizeablecohorts, and time to demonstrate impact; he admitted that NOMS had neither themeasures nor the data to enable such an evaluation to be made, and had only recently,some three years after the centres were initially funded, set requirements for collation ofthe requisite data from the centres. 283 Nevertheless, he believed that the centres were able todemonstrate effectiveness against other indicators, for example, related to building selfesteemand engagement, which were “broadly in line with [NOMS] wider “What Works”evidence base”. 284 The Ministry of Justice’s expectation that women’s services will befunded related to demonstrable reductions in reoffending seems to contradict his view aswell as statements in NOMS Commissioning Intentions 2013-14 which states that ‘it isunrealistic to expect that a single service must always demonstrate an impact onreconviction without taking into account the other circumstances of an offender’s life’. 285139. Currently there is no system to capture and disseminate the experience of women’scommunity projects. There is also a risk that women's centres and other provision forwomen will not prove suitable for evidence-based commissioning both because they are inrelative infancy and because the MoJ has failed systematically to collect the informationrequired to determine effectiveness. This is unacceptable given that these projects receivedcentral funding. Data from individual projects indicate a strong impact, but because theyare not comparable results there is no ability to determine and disseminate best practice.NOMS now appears to be attempting to put this right but the fact remains that there islimited data on which to base commissioning decisions for the implementation ofTransforming Rehabilitation. The focus on quantitative evidence is also likely to prove amajor barrier for small specialist organisations, particularly those working with aminority group like women offenders, where there has been reliance on qualitative data,to illustrate success. NOMS must work hard with partners to develop the evidence basefor commissioners, and explore how existing providers can gain access to data relatingto their service users, in order to analyse and measure outcomes. If the strength of theevidence base remains weak as the transfer to new providers approaches then weconsider that alternative funding mechanisms must be found to support these centresuntil better evidence of their capacity to reduce offending, or otherwise, is available.A missed opportunity to reduce the use of custody?140. The Transforming Rehabilitation proposals could represent a missed opportunity touse a more targeted approach, which could reduce the dependence on custody. Experienceof the recent reduction in youth custody is relevant, and it should be possible to target areaswhere custody rates for women appear disproportionately high.141. We heard that as the metrics will not be related directly to reducing demand this maylead, perversely, to an increase in demand. Val Castell suggested that the reforms resultedin a blurring between community and custodial outcomes that could work one of two waysin terms of the propensity of sentencers to give custodial sentences: “It may mean thatthere will be less inclination to send somebody into custody because you will see that they283 Qq 267–269284 Qq 268–269285 Ev 69