Together Women (TW) 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/together-women-tw-report-html-version
This analysis looked at the reoffending behaviour of 717 women who started receiving support from Together Women (TW) between June 2021 and August 2022. The overall results show that women who received support from Together Women were less likely to reoffend, reoffended less frequently and took longer to reoffend than those who did not take part. These results were statistically significant.
TW is a charity that supports women across the North of England. Through their women’s centres, they provide tailored support across a range of different pathways including trauma informed support, holistic support to break cycles of trauma, abuse, and reoffending, and evoke change.
The headline analysis in this report measured proven reoffences in a one-year period for a ‘treatment group’ of 717 female offenders who began receiving support between June 2021 and August 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 Together Women 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: |
|---|---|
| 26 of the 100 women committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 26%), 8 women fewer than in the comparison group. | 35 of the 100 women committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 35%). |
| 109 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 women during the year (a frequency of 1.1 offences offences per person), 40 offences fewer than in the comparison group. | 148 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 women during the year (a frequency of 1.5 offences per person). |
| 135 days was the average time before a reoffender committed their first proven reoffence, 41 days later than the comparison group. | 94 days was the average time before a reoffender committed their first proven reoffence. |
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 between 5 and 12 women. This is a statistically significant result. | |
| The number of proven reoffences committed during the year could be lower by between 14 and 65 offences. This is a statistically significant result. | |
| On average, the time before an offender committed their first proven reoffence could be longer by between 25 and 57 days. This is a statistically significant result. |
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending rate: | |
|---|---|---|
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from Together Women decreases the number of proven reoffenders during a one-year period.” | ||
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending rate: | |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from Together Women increases/has no effect on the reoffending rate of its participants.” | ||
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending frequency: | |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from Together Women decreases the number of proven reoffences committed during a one-year period by its participants.” | ||
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending frequency: | |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from Together Women increases/has no effect on the number of reoffences committed by its participants.” | ||
| ✔ | What you can say about the time to first reoffence: | |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from Together Women lengthens the average time to first proven reoffence for its participants.” | ||
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the time to first reoffence: | |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from Together Women decreases/has no effect on the average time to first reoffence for its participants.” |
3. Figure 1: One-year proven reoffending rate after support from Together Women
4. Figure 2: One-year proven reoffending frequency after support from Together Women
5. Figure 3: Average time (days) to first proven reoffence after support from Together Women
6. Together Women in their own words
“TW is a charity that supports women across the North of England. From their women’s centres, they provide tailored support across a range of different pathways including trauma informed support, holistic support to break cycles of trauma, abuse, and re-offending, and evoke change.
Women access structured one-to-one support via a professional Keyworker, personal development groups such as self-esteem and confidence building sessions. They also have access to a healthy relationships and anger manager and bespoke specialist services. These are hosted within the women’s centres for ease of access for the women who are banned from statutory services. Alongside structured and planned interventions, women attending the centre can also gain access to added value services such as access to toiletries, period products, towels and clothing, food parcels and onward referrals to food banks and individual grants for white goods and utility bills.
The referrals received from Probation Practitioners (PPs) via the shared case management system, Refer and Monitor (R+M), are prescriptive with the PP requesting support on specific pathways; identifying what they consider to be the most appropriate interventions and the number of enforceable RAR days (Rehabilitative Activity Requirements) to be completed within a defined timeframe (date interventions to be completed by) which is sometimes the same date as the end of sentence date.
All TW services are tailor made with action plans specific to the individual woman’s needs. TW Criminal Justice Keyworkers can recommend support from other interventions if needs are identified during assessment. The action plan can be added to with the agreement of the referring PP. The support varies depending on several factors, such as the number of support needs identified for a woman and whether the complexity of these needs is assessed as being low, medium or high. The timeframe that TW work with individuals is in part prescribed by the number of RAR days detailed by the Probation Practitioner on referral. These can vary from between 4 (lowest recorded) and 80 (highest recorded) RAR days. Internal analysis of referrals during year one of the MOJ CRS contract concluded that 72% of all referrals received requested support across more than two pathways and 31% of referrals requested support across more than four pathways. Interventions for the different pathways run consecutively which extends the length of time in service. Typically, a personal development group comprises of five sessions of which all need to be attended.”
7. Response from Together Women to the Justice Data Lab analysis
“Together Women are pleased to receive the evidence that participation in our gender-specific and trauma-informed interventions significantly reduces reoffending. Women who receive our support are less likely to reoffend, reoffend less frequently, and take longer to reoffend compared to those who did not receive support. Importantly, this evidence is classed as statistically significant, meaning the differences observed are unlikely to be due to chance, providing robust support for the effectiveness of our interventions.
The Justice Data Lab concluded that the reoffending rate for Together Women was 26%, meaning 26% of women supported between 2021-2022 reoffended, with 74% not reoffending during the time period. This compares to a reoffending rate of 35% for women in the control group. These results are particularly significant as they compound the evidence that gender-specific and trauma-informed services in the community are “what works for women”.
The findings also provide quantitative evidence that community-based interventions delivered through the network of Women Centres are effective at addressing the root causes of offending. This supports the social, moral, and economic argument for the use of community orders for women, rather than short-term prison sentences, as highlighted in both the Corston Report (2006) and the Female Offender Strategy (2018).
Together Women are proud of the significant impact we have had on reducing the frequency of reoffences per woman. Women we support reoffend less frequently, reinforcing the need for our holistic, community-based approach, which focuses on rebuilding women’s lives, supporting women as victims of crime, mending broken families, healing communities, and alleviating the burdens on public services.
While we welcome these findings, we have some questions about the comparison group used in the analysis. There is limited information relating to the comparison group and despite the treatment and comparison group being well matched, in relation to demographics and types of offence, it is not explicitly stated that the comparison group did not receive gender specific support.
In addition, we recognize that reoffending rates, while important, should not be viewed as a stand-alone measure of success. Reoffending as a binary measure does not capture the incremental progress made by women in changing behaviour as they recover from trauma, reduction in the seriousness of reoffences, or the complex and fluctuating circumstances in women’s lives that contribute to reoffending. We hope that future analyses will take a more comprehensive approach to evaluating success.
Even with the exclusion of over half the women we supported, and our concerns regarding the comparison group, Together Women believes this report highlights the ongoing social and economic impact of our work. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with the Ministry of Justice to better understand the underlying data, refine comparison methods, and ensure future evaluations fully reflect the scope and impact of gender-specific, trauma-informed services.
Furthermore, we believe these findings present a powerful argument for expanding gender-specific services and aligning them more closely with broader societal and governmental goals. We will seek further engagement with the MOJ and other stakeholders to ensure that Together Women’s evidence-based, trauma-informed approach continues to evolve and serve women effectively.”
8. 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 Yorkshire & the Humber and the East Midlands 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 | 717 | 2,638 | 190 | 751 (916) |
Three headline measures of one-year reoffending were analysed, as well as four additional measures (see results in Tables 1-7):
- Rate of reoffending
- Frequency of reoffending
- Time to first reoffence
- Rate of first reoffence by court outcome
- Frequency of reoffences by court outcome
- Rate of custodial sentencing for first reoffence
- Frequency of custodial sentencing
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 1-7 show the overall measures of reoffending. Rates are expressed as percentages and frequencies expressed per person. Tables 3 to 7 include reoffenders only.
8.1 Table 1: Proportion of women who committed a proven reoffence in a one-year period (reoffending rate) after support from Together Women 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 717 | 2,638 | 26 | 35 | -12 to -5 | Yes | <0.01 |
8.2 Table 2: Number of proven reoffences committed in a one-year period (reoffending frequency - offences per person) by women who received support from Together Women 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 717 | 2,638 | 1.09 | 1.48 | -0.65 to -0.14 | Yes | <0.01 |
8.3 Table 3: Average time (days) to first proven reoffence in a one-year period for women who received support from Together Women, compared with a matched comparison group
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group time (days) | Comparison group time (days) | Estimated difference | Significant difference? | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 190 | 751 | 135 | 94 | 25 to 57 | Yes | <0.01 |
8.4 Table 4: Proportion of women supported by Together Women with first proven reoffence in a one-year period (reoffending rate) by court outcome, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Court outcome | Treatment group rate (%) | Comparison group rate (%) | Estimated difference (% points) | Significant difference? | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 190 | 751 | Either way | 43 | 43 | -9 to 7 | No | 0.86 |
| Summary | 20 | 19 | -5 to 8 | No | 0.66 |
8.5 Table 5: Number of proven reoffences in a one-year period (reoffending frequency) by court outcome for women supported by Together Women, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Court outcome | Treatment group frequency | Comparison group frequency | Estimated difference | Significant difference? | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 190 | 751 | Either way | 1.95 | 2.52 | -1.09 to -0.04 | Yes | 0.03 |
| Summary | 0.86 | 0.71 | -0.08 to 0.39 | No | 0.20 |
8.6 Table 6: Proportion of women who received a custodial sentence for their first proven reoffence after support from Together Women, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group rate (%) | Comparison group rate (%) | Estimated difference (% points) | Significant difference? | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 190 | 751 | 25 | 24 | -6 to 8 | No | 0.74 |
8.7 Table 7: Number of custodial sentences received in a one-year period by women who received support from Together Women, compared to similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group frequency | Comparison group frequency | Estimated difference | Significant difference? | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 190 | 751 | 1.84 | 1.53 | -0.26 to 0.88 | No | 0.29 |
9. Profile of the treatment group
The programme is delivered in the community throughout Yorkshire & the Humber and the East Midlands. Women on the MOJ CRS Women Services scheme are referred in for gender specific support delivered in a trauma informed environment within TW’s women’s centres.
| Participants included in analysis (717 offenders) | Participants not included in analysis (631 offenders with available data) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 100% | 100% |
| Ethnicity | ||
| White | 89% | 89% |
| Black | 4% | 4% |
| Asian | 4% | 4% |
| Unknown | 3% | 4% |
| UK national | ||
| UK nationality | 94% | 90% |
| Foreign nationality | 3% | 4% |
| Unknown nationality | 3% | 6% |
| Index disposal | ||
| Community order | 54% | |
| Suspended sentence order | 21% | |
| Caution | 1% | |
| Fine | 3% | |
| Other | 3% | |
| Prison | 20% |
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 69 years at the beginning of their one-year period (average age 36).
Information on index offences for the 631 participants not included in the analysis is not available, as they could not be linked to a suitable sentence.
For 10 people, no personal information is available.
Information on individual risks and needs was available for 513 people in the treatment group (72%), recorded near to the time of their original conviction. This information is not complete for all 513 women across all risks considered for this analysis. For those where information is known for specific risks, some key findings are shown below.
- 99% had evidence that their thinking and behaviour was linked to reoffending
- 94% had some or significant problems with problem solving
- 93% had some or significant problems with awareness of consequences
10. 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 95% of variables are categorised as green on JDL’s traffic light scale, indicating that the matching quality achieved on the observed variables was very good.
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.
11. Additional information on the dataset
11.1 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.
11.2 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 Yorkshire & the Humber or the East Midlands have been excluded from this analysis. This is because the treatment group did not include any individuals who had a GOR outside of these regions.
12. Numbers of people in the treatment and comparison groups
13. Further information
13.1 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.
13.2 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:
13.3 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