Citation: Birkett, G. (2016). 'We have no awareness of what they actually do':Magistrates' knowledge of and confidence in community sentences for women offenders in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16(4), pp. 497-512. doi: 10.1177/1748895816632852 This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. for robust and effective sentencing options that enable the majority of non-violent women offenders to be punished in the community. While a laudable ambition, this strategy will only be successful if sentencers are aware of (and support) the options available to achieve this goal. PermanentConsidering government policy in relation to current levels of awareness among the magistracy, this article explores the factors that influence sentencing decisions for women. Highlighting reservations about the suitability of community provision, it also reveals the lack of information and training that magistrates receive on this issue. While there is certainly a willingness to learn and consider more creative options when sentencing women, it is clear that better knowledge of the offender and the options available are needed. Drawing on empirical research conducted with 168 magistrates in England and Wales, this article concludes with a number of practical avenues for improved communication, advocated by magistrates themselves. With many unaware of strategic direction on this issue, the implications for policy and practice are obvious.

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Political, academic and campaign-group commentary has critiqued the rapid implementation of the new agenda and examined its likely impact on existing services (particularly those run by the charitable sector). A growing body of research has also questioned the likely impact of the legislation on community provision for women, a field already beset with precarious funding streams. Lamenting the 'lack of strategic focus' on women, a recent review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) revealed that 'dedicated funding for women's community services has virtually disappeared, and provision is mixed and uncertain ' (2016a: 4). Drawing on 36 Permanent repository linkinterviews conducted with probation officers and practitioners (keyworkers) working for women's services, this paper validates such concerns. While the supposed subjects of an established government strategy, it is particularly regretful to report such findings in the tenth anniversary year of Baroness Corston's seminal report.

At the nexus of the social and penal policy fields, problem-solving justice promises to punish offenders while working to address the complex issues that drive their law-breaking behaviour. Appealing to the left and right due to its dual focus on pragmatism and welfarism, the concept has floated in and out of political fashion for the past two decades. Recent years have heralded a renewed political interest in the approach, closely aligned to the Conservative government’s commitment to ‘transforming justice’. With a focus on empowerment and collaboration, the problem-solving model has much to offer women offenders in particular. Drawing on data from a large-scale study into the sentencing and punishment of women under the new probation arrangements, this article reveals a divergence of views on gender-specific courts among sentencers, probation officers and third sector workers. Moral concerns about up-tariffing sit alongside the practical barriers of government bureaucracy and hindering legislation. With data pertaining to effectiveness (rather than potential) still required, this article argues that specialist problem-solving courts for women present a risky strategy, however seductive their promise.

No abstract