Mothers and pregnant women in contact with the justice system: priorities for the Women’s Justice Board

Insights Perspective

---

Tara De Klerk, Analyst

Tuesday 25 February 2025

You can find out more about our work on maternal imprisonment here. 

To get in touch about this work please email Tara De Klerk or if you are interested in our wider think tank research, please email our Director of Research Sophie Davis.

The criminal justice system often fails to address the specific vulnerabilities of mothers and their children, resulting in repeated cycles of harm. Acknowledging that “prison isn’t working for women”, the Justice Secretary announced the creation of the Women’s Justice Board (WJB), established to reduce the number of women in the prison estate and address the distinct needs of women in the criminal justice system (CJS).

Independently, the Sentencing Review has been tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of the sentencing framework, with the aim of reducing the pressure on the prison estate. Both present opportunities to respond more appropriately to mothers and pregnant women at risk of coming into contact with the CJS.

Galvanised by the recent momentum to reform how the justice system addresses female offending, Crest hosted a Parliamentary roundtable with Birth Companions and the National Women’s Justice Coalition to elevate maternal imprisonment as a critical priority. The roundtable was chaired by Carolyn Harris MP and brought together experts from the voluntary sector, health, justice, government and academia. Below, we discuss four priority areas for the WJB and Independent Sentencing Review to improve the way in which the CJS responds  to mothers and pregnant women.

Priority 1: Embed services for mothers in the community  

In our research on the cost of maternal imprisonment, Crest found that female offenders are often among the most vulnerable in society, exhibiting multiple complex needs. Today, at least 57% of women in prison and under community supervision are victims of domestic abuse and many have faced significant childhood trauma. 

Crest research found that custody further compounds trauma and emotional distress. Meanwhile, interventions with children affected by maternal imprisonment can cost the taxpayer as much as £265,008 per family. By contrast, community services can provide cost-effective and rehabilitative support for women at risk of entering the criminal justice system. 

Specifically, women’s centres can support women to stay in their community and provide a range of services including housing, finances, domestic abuse and harmful substance use. The Women’s Budget Group has also collected evidence on the potential savings to the public purse from women’s centres, with research showing that a place at a women’s centre ranges from £1,223 to £4,125 per woman depending on needs, whilst a place in prison costs £52,121. Polling conducted by Crest for our research found clear support among the public for better services in the community, with 56% agreeing that funding for new women’s prison places should instead be used to fund women’s support services, such as women’s centres.

However, the provision of women’s centres is inconsistent, resulting in a postcode lottery for mothers and children. Where women’s centres are available, a lack of long-term funding threatens the delivery of specialist services and targeted support. Sustainable funding is crucial for women’s centres to be effective.

Roundtable participants agreed that increased and sustainable investment in third-sector organisations and the use of community-based alternatives is crucial if we are to direct women away from the criminal justice system and keep them out of prison. 

Priority 2: Sentencing options tailored to mothers  

Women in the justice system typically commit low-level offences, such as TV licence evasion, meaning that their cases are predominantly handled by the magistrates courts. With the Justice Secretary announcing plans to expand magistrates’ sentencing threshold from 6 to 12 months, the number of women’s cases that fall under their jurisdiction will  expand. 

Sentencing guidelines are in place to ensure magistrates consider primary carer status and pregnancy as mitigating factors yet our research suggests that the awareness and application of these guidelines are low. The piloted provision of judiciary training has led to greater judicial awareness of maternal imprisonment harms as well as significant benefits in sentencing outcomes for mothers. However, there have been some difficulties in rolling out this training, particularly to magistrates, including the lack of a centralised training platform. Roundtable participants agreed that the increased use of the magistrates court must be supported with consistent, centralised and mandatory magistrate training on the specific needs and rights of mothers.

In addition to training, attendees suggested scaling up Women’s Problem Solving Courts (WPSCs). WPSCs differ in type but share key elements such as intensive support to address underlying and interconnected issues such as trauma, addiction, poverty, and coercion, and regular judicial monitoring. Despite evidence suggesting that these courts can enable better rehabilitation and reduce re-offending, their use in England and Wales is still limited and voluntary partner organisations involved in the Birmingham and Manchester pilot have not received additional funding necessary to perform their key role.  

Even where custody is necessary, a more contextualised sentencing framework that accounts for mothers’ specific circumstances is needed across all offence types. 

Priority 3: Maintaining the mother and child relationship  

Mothers and pregnant women who commit low level offences should only be sent to prison as a last resort. Prisons are high-risk environments for pregnant women, with women in prison seven times more likely to experience a stillbirth than the general population. 

When custody is necessary, a priority should be placed on seeking to maintain the mother-child relationship. In our research, mothers described the devastating loss of maternal identity in prison and the emotional distress caused by separation from their children. However, it is not only mothers but also their children who bear the consequences of maternal imprisonment; many children experience mental health issues, school exclusions, and increased involvement in crime themselves. Only 5% of children stay in their family home once their mother is sentenced to prison and many mothers struggle to rebuild relationships with their child. Roundtable attendees agreed that maintaining family relationships is vital for turning women away from criminality and limiting disruption to children’s lives. 

Progress has been made in the management of Mother and Baby Units (MBUs), where women can continue to live with their babies and infants. Close partnership-working between courts, prisons, social care, and probation have enabled courts in some parts of the country to increasingly delay sentencing until MBU applications are fully processed. This resonated with one roundtable participant with lived experience of an MBUwho expressed her gratitude to the judge and prison for working together to ensure that she had time to apply for a MBU placement, meaning that she could maintain contact with her child while in custody. 

Social workers in prisons can help mothers understand their rights and navigate local authority and Family Court processes related to the care of their children. Embedding a social worker in every women’s prison is a crucial step in improving the holistic support given to mothers and children. Mothers who do experience the removal of a child should be offered trauma-informed intensive support to help them move forward with their lives.

Priority 4: A whole system approach to mothers

The justice system should not be treated as the solution to female offending. It is the responsibility of a range of public services to ensure that the community is a place of safety with strong, well-funded statutory and third-sector services providing wraparound support to mothers at risk of offending. This requires cross-departmental collaboration, shared accountability, and better-integrated support systems, including mental health, social services, and community infrastructure. 

The roundtable was an excellent example of collaborative working, with stakeholders from government, third sector organisations, academia and those with lived experience in attendance. Mobilising cross-sector partnerships is vital to achieving the government’s ambition to reduce mothers and pregnant women in prison; we must maintain these efforts to break down silos and adopt a whole-system approach. 

The system also often overlooks vulnerable mothers and pregnant women, including those with no recourse to public funds, those facing deportation, and those held in immigration centres. A public health approach, incorporating the 1001 days framework, could enable services both within and outside the CJS to come together to provide strong and holistic support for all women.

We hope that the government, Independent Sentencing Review and the Women’s Justice Board carry forward these priorities to ensure that the system is better equipped to support vulnerable mothers and pregnant women.