Concerns regarding the morality and effectiveness of women’s prisons are reflected in the statistics revealing 45% reoffend within a year of being released from prison. Alternatives that help reduce reoffending and keep women safe from further trauma must be a priority.
Funding is very precarious for the existing network of women’s centres. It is also sporadic and not ring fenced as part of any Government department’s spending or budget. The social value generated by women’s services is said to be five to eleven times greater than the amount of money invested in them. There are constant changes in the type of funding that is available to these centres. They are constantly faced with the challenge of fundraising.
There has become an increased competition for funding and the requirements for this funding has become tighter, making it harder again to achieve a secure and stable source of income.
Some centres have been able to receive some funding from charitable organisations, but this is mostly through project-based grants and funding for core costs is rare. Funding from local authorities has been severely reduced in the last decade, leading to other statutory bodies, such as Public Health England and local Police and Crime Commissioners, offering funding.Each applicant presents a plan with a budget to deliver the services required, meaning lowest cost and economies of scale are favoured over specialisation and quality. Some have to generate their own income, with most only making a modest amount. They rely on membership fees, meaning they struggle to retain and recruit members. The sporadic nature of funding means these centres cannot possibly provide high-quality, consistent and sustained delivery of services and support for women.
Cuts to funding has been accompanied by an increase in demand for services, meaning some services have introduced or raised their eligibility thresholds so that they only accommodate the very worst cases. This means frontline third-sector organisations are having to deal with this, receiving people with unmet support needs who are turning to voluntary organisations as their last resort.
Many funding streams only run for a few months to a year, which makes the issue of recruiting and training staff difficult. Contracts are normally tied to specific projects, meaning staff lack job security. This is an issue, as we already know the service-users value a long-term and trustworthy relationship with the staff. One staff member said:
“Women supported get really upset with staff turnover because the support work is very intense and there is a very high level of trust, as it’s the only way women will open up”
The View Magazine is advocating for women’s centres with the following safeguards:
a) All services to be trauma-led
b) All staff to be regulated and subject to scrutiny by HCPC or CQC
c) Ring-fenced, statutory funding which is tied to longer contracts of 2 – 5 years
d) Minimum service requirements such as hours and programs to be delivered, set against a needs analysis of what women want in that area
e) Proper monitoring and scrutiny of how contracts are being delivered and reducing reoffending outcomes
f) Services which equip women with the tools to push back against structural inequalities
g) No coercion or forced element of attendance
h) Services which are designed by and for the women who will use them, so women’s voices are raised, and they are given a platform to speak out against the trauma and oppression they have experienced.