Women’s Centres: are they fit for purpose?

An Introduction

Women’s centres came came into place after The Corston  Report in 2007 which  made 43 recommendations for gendered criminal justice reform in order to create a more women-centred and holistic approach to supporting women affected by the criminal justice system. Many such centres were set up with little oversight, all claimed to be gender focused.

They were part funded by the Ministry of Justice, and received substantial grant funding from over 20 trust and grant making foundations.  The National Offender Management Service (now HMPPS) and  Probation Trusts have also funded the centres since 2009. In 2009, the government produced a strategy for diverting women away from crime and recommended use of women’s centres as an alternative to custody.

However, when centres started to receive Ministry of Justice funding, there was no assessment of local need and funds were allocated on the basis of providers applying for funding. This made it unclear whether the level of services provided is aligned to need in local areas or whether funding was just given to those who applied for it, whether they needed it or not.

Engagement with women’s centres is often voluntary, but in some areas,  it is now enforced via ‘specified activity requirements’ within the community, suspended sentence orders and conditional cautions. This implies an element of coercion within these schemes, which is a concern, as voluntary attendance is crucial for women when building strong attachment relationships with their caseworkers.

Enforcement robs service users of any choice. Sustainability concerns are constant because of the government’s insistence on annual funding arrangements. The uncertainty for centres affects staff morale and causes a high turnover of staff.

Interviews with women show the value they place on their relationships with their caseworkers and so, this must  be consistent. High turnover of staff can affect women’s self-esteem, willingness to trust and ability to manage emotions.

In reviewing these women centres, it is important to note particular experiences or case studies.

Nicola Harding’s research highlighted the approach of a community service practitioner called  Nat. She drew a map showing her journey in life and the two paths she could have taken. Nat said she chose a path that led her to a crime-free life, but as she comes from the same origins as many of the criminalised women, she could have chosen a path that led her into criminalisation.

She repeatedly stressed the importance of choice, largely ignoring the oppression and social inequality that criminalised women face. She failed to acknowledge the role of victimisation and trauma in the criminalisation of women.

In the particular centre where Nat worked, children were not allowed and there was no childcare available. The women’s inability to secure childcare led to missed community punishment hours or probation supervision appointments, which increased the perceived risk and need for surveillance of the woman.

Many women felt being supervised by probation services meant they were being judged by their officer. Probation staff are constantly making judgements and risk calculations about each of the women’s risk of re-offending which in turn will increase or decrease amount of supervision or scrutiny. If a woman demonstrates mothering behaviour, for example, they are seen as a lower risk and lessens the grip of surveillance. Some women’s responses, in particular, about their experiences in women’s centre include:

“There was nothing positive about probation, she was very judgemental, all she could see was the crime, couldn’t see me behind it. It was an awful experience; I just wanted to finish it and move on with my life”

“My overall experience was poor. I think probation officers need to have more training, particularly around mental health. They need to be more compassionate and understanding and really want to help. Perhaps have an individual needs assessment, look at the person and the crime rather than just the crime” 

“I always have difficulty now in trying to contact my probation officer and I think that’s because they are too busy now. ‘Cos of all these changes my probation has changed twice, I had such a good relationship before and one I have to start again” 

“I was getting on well with my probation officer, really starting to trust her and open and then bang I get a new one. Now I’m back to square one, I was sexually abused when I was younger, so it takes me a while to trust”