Brighton Women's Centre (BWC) report (HTML version)
Published 31 October 2024
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/justice-data-lab-statistics-october-2024/brighton-womens-centre-bwc-report-html-version
This analysis looked at the reoffending behaviour of 114 women who started receiving support from Brighton Women’s Centre (BWC) between January 2020 and November 2022. The overall results do not show a statistically significant effect on a person’s reoffending behaviour. More people would need to be analysed to determine the way in which the programme affects reoffending behaviour, but this should not be taken to mean that the programme fails to affect it. A previous analysis was published in April 2017, covering a separate cohort. This can be found in the Justice Data Lab statistics collection on GOV.UK.
BWC aims to empower women and reduce inequality by promoting independence in safe, women-only spaces across Sussex. Their Inspire programme supports women with multiple vulnerabilities at all stages of involvement in the criminal justice system. Women who go to Inspire receive trauma informed, bespoke, integrated case work support from a multi-agency team.
The headline analysis in this report measured proven reoffences in a one-year period for a ‘treatment group’ of 114 female offenders who began receiving support between January 2020 and November 2022, and for a much larger ‘comparison group’ of similar offenders who did not receive it. The analysis estimates the impact of the support from Brighton Women’s Centre on reoffending behaviour.
1. Overall measurements of the treatment and comparison groups
| For 100 typical women in the treatment group, the equivalent of: | For 100 typical women in the comparison group, the equivalent of: |
|---|---|
| 25 of the 100 women committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 25%), 4 women fewer than in the comparison group. | 28 of the 100 women committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 28%). |
| 88 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 women during the year (a frequency of 0.9 offences offences per person), 29 offences fewer than in the comparison group. | 117 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 women during the year (a frequency of 1.2 offences per person). |
Time to first reoffence has not been included as a headline result due to low numbers of reoffenders, which could give misleading results.
Please note totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts due to rounding.
2. Overall estimates of the impact of the intervention
| For 100 typical women who receive support, compared with 100 similar women who do not receive it: | |
|---|---|
| The number of women who commit a proven reoffence within one year after release could be lower by as many as 12 women, or higher by as many as 4 women. More women would need to be available for analysis in order to determine the direction of this difference. | |
| The number of proven reoffences committed during the year could be lower by as many as 68 offences, or higher by as many as 10 offences. More women would need to be available for analysis in order to determine the direction of this difference. |
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending rate: | |
|---|---|---|
| “This analysis does not provide clear evidence on whether support from Brighton Women’s Centre increases or decreases the number of participants who commit a proven reoffence in a one-year period. There may be a number of reasons for this and it is possible that an analysis of more participants would provide such evidence.” | ||
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending rate: | |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from Brighton Women’s Centre increases / decreases / has no effect on the reoffending rate of its participants.” | ||
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending frequency: | |
| “This analysis does not provide clear evidence on whether support from Brighton Women’s Centre increases or decreases the number of proven reoffences during a one-year period. There may be a number of reasons for this and it is possible that an analysis of more participants would provide such evidence.” | ||
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending frequency: | |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from Brighton Women’s Centre increases / decreases / has no effect on the number of proven reoffences committed during a one-year period by its participants.” |
3. Figure 1: One-year proven reoffending rate after support from Brighton Women’s Centre
4. Figure 2: One-year proven reoffending frequency after support from Brighton Women’s Centre
5. Brighton Women’s Centre in their own words
“BWC (Brighton Women’s Centre) aims to empower women and reduce inequality by promoting independence in safe, women-only spaces across Sussex. The Inspire service supports women living with multiple disadvantages at all stages of the criminal justice system. Women who come to Inspire receive trauma informed, bespoke, integrated case work support.
Women are offered one-to-one sessions with their case worker either at women-only hubs or the women’s centre as well as at probation offices. The number of sessions held is dependent on the level of complexity of the support required and how many sessions the woman feels she needs. The support provided is holistic and considers the needs of each individual.”
6. Response from Brighton Women’s Centre to the Justice Data Lab analysis
“BWC (Brighton Women’s Centre) is grateful to the Justice Data Lab for the work undertaken to evidence the effectiveness of our work in supporting women away from the CJS. Although this report shows that there was a reduction in offending after interventions delivered by our Inspire service, we are disappointed that it was not large enough to be deemed statistically significant.
Since its inception in 2009, we have continued to evidence the benefit of holistic, integrated and trauma informed packages of support for women living with multiple disadvantages.
A previous analysis was published in April 2017, covering a separate cohort which demonstrated a statistical significance in the lower frequency of reoffending for those who received support than those who did not receive support from the service. It is important to take into account that the cohort analysed within this publication overlaps with the COVID-19 pandemic including lockdowns and operational restrictions. The adaptations that were necessary to our service delivery model including inability to work face to face with women, restrictions and challenges with accessibility to other services and the additional disproportionate pressures on women’s lives would all have no doubt had a part to play.
We note that information on individual risks and needs was available for 61 people in the treatment group (54%) although this information was incomplete. Inspire uses a referral meeting model to manage our limited capacity by prioritising working with women who have the most disadvantages, potentially with the greater likelihood to reoffend. Where information on risk was available, 97% of women had evidence that their thinking and behaviour was linked to reoffending. After Inspire’s interventions, 83% of women we worked with reported an improvement in their attitudes, thinking, and behaviour. We remain confident in the effectiveness of our interventions in reducing reoffending and having a positive impact on women’s lives as a whole.”
7. Results in detail
One analysis was conducted, controlling for offender demographics and criminal history and the following risks and needs: accommodation, employment history, financial history, education, relationships, drug and alcohol use, mental health, thinking skills, and attitudes towards offending.
1. Regional analysis: treatment group matched to offenders in the South East of England using demographics, criminal history and individual risks and needs.
The sizes of the treatment and comparison groups for reoffending rate and frequency analyses are provided below. To create a comparison group that is as similar as possible to the treatment group, each person within the comparison group is given a weighting proportionate to how closely they match the characteristics of individuals in the treatment group. The calculated reoffending rate uses the weighted values for each person and therefore does not necessarily correspond to the unweighted figures.
| Analysis | Treatment Group Size | Comparison Group Size | Reoffenders in treatment group | Reoffenders in comparison group (weighted number) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regional | 114 | 3,525 | 28 | 624 (997) |
Two headline measures of one-year reoffending were analysed (see results in Tables 1-2). Other analyses are not included due to the small number of reoffenders:
- Rate of reoffending
- Frequency of reoffending
The standard acceptable level of statistical significance necessary to demonstrate impact is 0.05. This means that it is very unlikely with 5% probability that the difference between the treatment and comparison groups, as illustrated by the p-values in the tables below, could have occurred by chance alone.
Tables 1-2 show the overall measures of reoffending. Rates are expressed as percentages and frequencies expressed per person.
7.1 Table 1: Proportion of women who committed a proven reoffence in a one-year period (reoffending rate) after support from Brighton Women’s Centre compared with a matched comparison group
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group rate (%) | Comparison group rate (%) | Estimated difference (% points) | Significant difference? | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 114 | 3,525 | 25 | 28 | -12 to 4 | No | 0.37 |
7.2 Table 2: Number of proven reoffences committed in a one-year period (reoffending frequency - offences per person) by women who received support from Brighton Women’s Centre compared with a matched comparison group
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group frequency | Comparison group frequency | Estimated difference | Significant difference? | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 114 | 3,525 | 0.88 | 1.17 | -0.68 to 0.10 | No | 0.14 |
8. Profile of the treatment group
The programme is delivered in the community throughout the South East. Referrals are received from probation offices for women as part of the Community Rehabilitative Services (CRS) contract.
| Participants included in analysis (114 offenders) | Participants not included in analysis (228 offenders with available data) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 100% | 100% |
| Ethnicity | ||
| White | 82% | 77% |
| Black | 3% | 6% |
| Asian | 0% | 2% |
| Unknown | 16% | 15% |
| UK national | ||
| UK nationality | 93% | 93% |
| Foreign nationality | 3% | 3% |
| Unknown nationality | 4% | 5% |
| Index disposal | ||
| Community order | 50% | |
| Suspended sentence order | 31% | |
| Caution | 2% | |
| Conditional discharge | 1% | |
| Fine | 3% | |
| Other | 3% | |
| Prison | 11% |
Please note totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts due to rounding.
The individuals in the treatment group were aged 18 to 64 years at the beginning of their one-year period (average age 36).
Information on index offences for the 228 participants not included in the analysis is not available, as they could not be linked to a suitable sentence.
For 42 people, no personal information is available.
Information on individual risks and needs was available for 61 people in the treatment group (54%), recorded near to the time of their original conviction. This information is not complete for all 61 women across all risks considered for this analysis. For those where information is known for specific risks, some key findings are shown below.
- 97% had evidence that their thinking and behaviour was linked to reoffending
- 94% had some or significant problems with problem solving
- 86% had some or significant problems with family relationships
9. Matching the treatment and comparison groups
The analyses matched the treatment group to a comparison group. A large number of variables were identified and tested for inclusion in the regression models. The matching quality of each variable can be assessed with reference to the standardised differences in means between the matched treatment and comparison groups (see standardised differences annex). Over 80% of variables are categorised as green on JDL’s traffic light scale, indicating that most variables were well matched.
Further details of group characteristics and matching quality, including risks and needs recorded by the Offender Assessment System (OASys), can be found in the Excel annex accompanying this report.
This report is also supplemented by a general annex, which answers frequently asked questions about Justice Data Lab analyses and explains the caveats associated with them.
10. Additional information on the dataset
10.1 Index dates
The index date is the date at which the follow up period for measuring reoffending begins.
- For those with custodial sentences, the index date is the date they are released from custody.
- For those with a court order (such as a community sentence or a suspended sentence order), the index date is the date when an offender begins the court order.
- For those with non-custodial sentences such as a fine, the index date is the date when the offender received the sentence.
10.2 Participants excluded from the analysis
Some individuals have participated in the programme following their release from prison or after they have received a court order or non-custodial sentence. A maximum inclusion criterion of six months between the index date and intervention start date has been applied to these individuals to ensure the analysis captures any ‘treatment effects’. Any participants with intervention dates more than six months from the index date are therefore excluded from the analysis.
Individuals in the comparison group who have a Government Office Region (GOR) outside of the South East of England have been excluded from this analysis. This is because the treatment group did not include any individuals who had a GOR outside of this region.
10.3 Other considerations
Part of the cohort within this publication overlaps with the COVID-19 pandemic including lockdowns and operational restrictions. It will therefore be affected by the continued recovery of the courts system. Particularly, continued delays in the processing of cases mean that increased numbers of reoffence convictions may fall outside of six-month waiting period and therefore not be counted in these statistics.
Separately, a previous analysis was published in April 2017, covering a separate cohort of individuals. However, it was decided not to aggregate the data as BWC’s model has changed since then.
11. Numbers of people in the treatment and comparison groups
12. Further information
12.1 Official Statistics
Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR).
OSR sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics should adhere to.
You are welcome to contact us directly with any comments about how we meet these standards.
Alternatively, you can contact OSR by emailing [email protected] or via the OSR website.
12.2 Contact
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/media-enquiries
Other enquiries about the analysis should be directed to:
12.3 Justice Data Lab team
E-mail: [email protected]
© Crown copyright 2024
Produced by the Ministry of Justice
Alternative formats are available on request from [email protected]
This document is released under the Open Government Licence