Women Leaving Prison: Being Set Up to Fail?
- Dr Kelly Bracewell
- 2 days ago
- 5 min read
What does a prison sentence actually punish?
For many women, the answer extends far beyond the time spent behind bars. The sentence often continues long after release through homelessness, poverty, trauma, fractured family relationships and a lack of safe, coordinated support. In many cases, these consequences are not accidental—they are entirely predictable.
Our evaluations of specialist services supporting women leaving prison have repeatedly highlighted the same message. Release is frequently the point at which women become most vulnerable, yet it is also the stage at which support is often weakest. If rehabilitation is genuinely the aim of our criminal justice system, we have to ask whether the current approach is achieving exactly the opposite.
An estimated 60% of women in prison are survivors of domestic abuse, and many have experienced sexual violence, coercive control, or exploitation according to the Prison Reform Trust in 2024. Reports consistently show that most women in custody in England and Wales are serving short sentences for non‑violent offences (often survival offences), frequently linked to poverty, substance use, and survival strategies rather than serious criminality (Prison Reform Trust, 2021; Ministry of Justice, 2018; 2025; House of Commons Justice Committee, 2022; Corston, 2007; Women in Prison, 2024).
So why do we continue to subject them to the consequences of imprisonment?
Women (and the professionals supporting them) have told us that these short sentences mean that they lose their homes/housing and belongings, access to employment or benefits, mothers are separated from their children, and they lose support networks. The multiple losses they describe means that their punishment is not simply incarceration. Corston* (2007) argued that short prison sentences for women are ineffective, disruptive, disproportionately harmful and a major cause of homelessness and instability.
Given that community services remain chronically underfunded, it is unsurprising that prison rarely addresses trauma in any meaningful or lasting way. Without trauma-informed support, either during custody or after release, many women are left to navigate unsafe relationships, poor mental health and substance dependence alone. The implications for policing and public safety are clear. Unmanaged trauma increases vulnerability to further victimisation and criminalisation, perpetuating a cycle that benefits no one—not the women themselves, not their families, and certainly not wider society.
Housing Concerns
Housing remains perhaps the single greatest destabilising factor for women leaving prison. Corston (2007) argued that secure accommodation should be a priority, yet almost two decades later this recommendation has still not been fully translated into practice. Our research, alongside wider national evidence, consistently shows that many women leave custody without stable accommodation, with some being released directly into homelessness or unsuitable mixed-sex hostels.
Across our studies, women have described these mixed-sex hostels as unsafe environments characterised by male intimidation, criminality and drug use. They spoke openly about exploitation, harassment and further abuse. For women whose lives have already been shaped by sexual violence, coercive control and trauma, such environments are not simply unsuitable—they can be profoundly re-traumatising.
Housing instability also becomes a significant driver of reoffending. Women frequently lose accommodation during short prison sentences because Housing Benefit ceases after 13 weeks. On release, many are then told they have "no local connection", preventing them from accessing stable housing. In effect, we create the very conditions that make successful resettlement so difficult. Without somewhere safe to live, attending probation appointments, accessing healthcare or securing employment becomes increasingly unrealistic. Women may then face recall to prison through breaches of licence conditions—a technical form of reoffending—or resort to further offending simply to survive, whether through theft, involvement in the drug economy or exploitative relationships. These outcomes should not surprise us; they are entirely predictable.
Ultimately, stable accommodation underpins every aspect of successful resettlement. It enables women to engage with probation, maintain recovery, access mental health and substance misuse services, and pursue employment or education. If we recognise that housing is a fundamental human need, why do our systems continue to create barriers to securing it?
Why this matters for professionals
For police officers, probation practitioners, housing providers and safeguarding professionals, women leaving prison often reappear during periods of crisis—through missing person reports, exploitation investigations, domestic abuse incidents or low-level offending. These are not isolated events but the foreseeable consequences of systemic failures in resettlement.
Evidence from specialist organisations consistently demonstrates that women-centred, community-based services, such as those provided by Housing for Women and Edge 360, reduce reoffending and improve safety outcomes. By offering women-only accommodation, advocacy and trauma-informed support, these organisations provide the stability needed to break cycles of offending. Expanding such provision and intervening earlier would not only improve outcomes for women but would also reduce demand on frontline services and represent better value for the public purse.
If the purpose of the criminal justice system is to reduce harm and improve public safety, then the current approach to women's release from prison is failing. More importantly, it has been failing for many years. Existing research has repeatedly demonstrated the same shortcomings. Corston (2007) highlighted these issues almost two decades ago, yet the same gender-specific harms continue to persist. How much more evidence is required before meaningful action is taken?
Redirecting investment towards early intervention, secure housing and women-specific support would reduce pressure on policing, probation and the courts while addressing the underlying causes of offending. The evidence has been clear for many years. What has been missing is the political and operational commitment to act upon it.
Reform
Recent national policy developments suggest that change may finally be on the horizon. The Labour Government has proposed reforms that indicate a move away from custodial responses towards gender-specific, trauma-informed alternatives designed to reduce reoffending and minimise intergenerational harm. These proposals include:
A significant reduction in the number of women sent to prison, thereby reducing the number cycling through homelessness and unstable accommodation.
The establishment of a Women's Justice Board—the first dedicated governance structure for women's justice since the Corston Review.
Collectively, these proposals represent the most significant policy shift since Corston. They acknowledge that women's offending is often rooted in structural inequality, victimisation and chronic instability rather than inherent criminality.
However, important questions remain about implementation. Expanding Residential Women's Centres and strengthening already overstretched community services will require sustained long-term investment. Without adequate funding, there is a real risk that the Women's Justice Board will lack the capacity to deliver the trauma-informed, holistic alternatives it promises. Furthermore, diverting larger numbers of women away from custody will inevitably place additional demands on housing, probation, mental health and domestic abuse services, all of which are already under considerable pressure. This raises legitimate concerns about whether the wider system is currently equipped to deliver meaningful reform in practice.
Personal reflection: I began my criminology and criminal justice degree in 2008. Nearly twenty years later, I find myself writing about many of the same issues identified in the Corston Review. While the evidence has grown stronger, meaningful change has been painfully slow. That, perhaps, is the most frustrating finding of all. Dr Kelly Bracewell
Kelly is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Lancashire focusing on gender-based violence, research & evaluation, survivor voices
Comments