Women and families: duties to collaborate in an era of devolution

In this guest blog, Dr Tom McNeil, CEO of The JABBS Foundation for Women & Girls, argues that devolution could drive change for women and families, provided there is a meaningful connection between local empowerment and national leadership. 

The devolution opportunity

Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s devolution agenda presents big opportunities for early intervention for women and families; provided collaboration is made central to health agencies, Mayoralties and government funding.

Devolution sceptics fear devolved funding could mean more responsibility, without the power to reap the fiscal rewards of local investment. Those enthused by the idea of new local tax powers or greater local tax revenue retention need to address how struggling areas can keep pace. Less prosperous regions may lack the means to make bold investments, meaning fewer revenues to retain. Elevating culturally glamorous places like Manchester may not translate for areas currently reliant on redistribution policies. 

Burnham has already proposed local income tax retention policy. Alongside the creation of No 10 North, there is a substantive and symbolic power shift underway. For people less nerdy about local government operations, however, ‘devolution’ still seems vague. 

I argue that devolution could drive change provided there is a meaningful connection between local empowerment and national leadership. My experiences of devolution through Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) give me particular optimism for its role in ‘early intervention’. By this I mean ‘compassionate support to address complex life circumstances impacting women and families’; whether it be access to food or much more challenging family problems. PCCs will soon evolve into Deputy Mayors and ‘Policing Leads’, but PCC functions will remain pertinent – the Home Office expects the new models to preserve devolved leadership, local convening and partnerships, to tackle the causes of crime. However, progress on social issues like domestic abuse, poverty and ill health is not an automatic by-product of devolution. This is why I believe a specific focus is needed on the necessary collaborations and conditions within devolution mechanisms.  

Women and girls suffering 

I emphasise early intervention for women and families because that is my line of work, but it need not exclude men. Nevertheless, evidence highlights the deep social challenges impacting thousands of women and children. Using an internationally validated Women’s Risk Needs Assessment, the University of Birmingham finds women caught in the criminal justice system have long-term histories of preventable hardship. Over 80% of criminal justice-involved women have endured abuse (intentional emotional, physical or sexual harm or injury) at some point in their lives; four times as high as the general population. More than 80% of this cohort have a mental health diagnosis or referral; 8.5 times more likely to attempt suicide compared to wider society. Over 50% have reported substance misuse as a driver of their offending, but less than 35% received treatment. A staggering 50% have been homeless or have lived in hostel or shelter accommodation. Statistical analysis finds that these life experiences compound the rate and complexity of other traumatic events, meaning missed opportunities contribute to long-term escalation. 

The Centre for Young Lives has rebuilt the ‘Vulnerability Index’; originally established by a Children’s Commissioner for England. Using government data, the Index shows a 33% rise since 2018 of children living in temporary accommodation. 1.27 million children are referred for mental health problems. Over 176,000 children miss more than half of school; tripling since 2017–18. We need more evidence on ‘what works’ in early intervention, but evidence exists. A 2025 Institute for Fiscal Studies paper, for example, found children’s centres had long-term benefits for school attainment, health and crime reduction. 

Positive devolution examples 

During my time as Assistant Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands, I was aware some believed PCCs politicised crime, were unnecessary and costly and were less democratic than councillor-led police authorities. I found, however, that PCCs enhanced visibility, accountability, convening power and flexible funding powers. This meant many grassroots leaders, residents and national bodies knew where to go to collaborate on creative solutions to crime.  

Through these mechanisms, one of the country’s first women’s problem-solving courts was created. This was an innovative partnership between probation, health services, women’s centres and other agencies; supporting a cohort of women in the community rather than prison. This devolved-level leadership has helped shape the government’s support for a new series of women’s problem-solving courts nationally. Earlier community alternatives to custody arose from the creativity of third sector women’s centres in the West Midlands (e.g. Anawim and Black Country Women’s Aid). It was the agility of PCC convening and funding that enabled this support for women in crisis to develop. These local initiatives have likewise influenced the Ministry of Justice’s new women’s diversion fund. The PCC also promoted, funded and convened partnerships in support of Birmingham Pathfinder; a unique family support service operating in schools. Evolution in how family support is provided nationally stands to learn a lot from the work and evidence being created here. While the devolved power has been instrumental, successes fundamentally derive from the amazing local leadership and inclusion of communities within each initiative, over decades.  

Despite the positive story, existing devolved structures are flawed. The examples given show ideas can thrive when supported by a visible local power, but the foundations are fragile. The women’s court was only legitimised when a national pilot scheme opened, despite being discussed locally for years. West Midlands women’s centres are an inspiration, but could do more if given a stable seat at the table of local decision makers. Birmingham Pathfinder continues to evolve many partnerships, but it is heavily reliant on goodwill. For opportunities to connect to other new government early help investments like ‘Families First’, there needs to be a stronger expectation of meaningful local collaboration.  

Devolution reforms & duties to collaborate

In my role, I attended many local and regional forums, discussing big social issues including mental health, child poverty, youth justice and digital innovation. The intentions were good, but dialogue was stuck on ‘big picture’ principles. Finding agreement was rarely the main challenge. Instead, opportunities were often missed due to a failure to get into the weeds. Statutory agencies were battling ring-fenced funding, fighting capacity crises, institutionally defensive or navigating the constraints of national government commissions. Grassroots groups were frequently in survival mode. The most powerful organisations could ignore difficult technical conversations about service improvement. 

These problems are surmountable. There are new government investments into family support, parent help through family hubs, youth interventions, child mental health assistance in schools, community mental health facilities, enhanced social housing budgets, evidence-led alternatives to custody and job guarantee schemes. The devolution goal should partly be about ending the fragmentation of these efforts. Many are unaware of these investments, and there is limited local integration, with real consequences for people. The evidence consistently finds that many people in crisis suffer multiple disadvantages. Despite that, we will often see a family where a mother, father and their children’s needs are being addressed (or not being addressed) by multiple disparate services. A parent with an addiction attending a family hub may not reliably find their way to good support for substance misuse. Their children will probably not be recommended to local youth activities to help navigate difficult home lives. Connecting a mother to the specialised support of a women’s centre is even less likely. This is not the fault of stretched professionals doing their best, but a symptom of fragmentation.  

The role of ‘evidenced social policy’ should therefore be more central to regional economic growth agendas.

I appreciate the drive to connect employers to education, and ensure employment gives younger and older generations purpose, stability, agency. Equally, tackling ill health and hardship is fundamental for enabling people to flourish in enterprise, business and industry. Connecting early intervention to the aims of entrepreneurialism could legitimise giving these issues a bigger role in devolution. To achieve that, an inherent tension needs resolving.

Devolution is about empowering regions, local authorities and communities, but it does not replace the need for a national vision.

Many local authority obligations concern social policy, and yet these are national problems. If some areas are able to choose to dispense with compassionate early support, then we risk inadvertently consolidating inequality. As Assistant Commissioner, I witnessed postcode lotteries in the treatment of women and men with issues like addiction and homelessness. Without an energised national vision for excellence in community rehabilitation, huge geographic variability remains. Pure ‘bottom-up’ efforts might limit or slow opportunities to repeat successes elsewhere. To address these tensions, we need mechanisms that enable creativity in ‘how’ devolved authorities and communities deliver on community wellbeing, but without losing sight of a national drive for change. In my view, the ideal devolution requires a set of duties to collaborate at the devolved level that enshrine national leadership on the importance of early intervention. This includes a specific duty on health agencies, a broad duty on Mayoralties and better government funding mechanisms.

Health collaboration on women’s inequalities 

Women’s centres have existed for decades and are typically third sector organisations that specialise in supporting women at risk of being caught in, or already caught in, the criminal justice system. While they have been profoundly resilient in winning funding nationally and locally, they are often on the periphery of local strategies to tackle inequality. Third sector providers are often seen as less legitimate or credible. More often there is insufficient understanding of the opportunity to engage women who distrust statutory agencies. Therefore, a duty to collaborate between women’s centres and NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) could be pivotal. Here local ICBs would need to consider how they can work with local women’s centres to tackle health inequalities; from sexual to mental health commissioning, co-location, enhanced referrals and other joint strategic planning. The duty would require specificity, while allowing significant variability. Having experienced some ICB partnership forums, I saw great intentions. However, opportunities for tangible partnerships were minimal because the expectation on collaboration from health agencies lacked teeth; mostly manifesting in light consultation. If a duty meant that women’s centres were acknowledged in every area and meaningfully considered on an operational level for community partnerships (e.g. co-locating community mental health support) then truly tangible improvements for women could be achieved.

Mayoral duty on early intervention 

There should be a second duty on Mayoralties to convene ‘operational’ collaboration between early help and early intervention initiatives including women’s centres and family hubs. These expectations should not force partnerships where alignments cannot be found, but would promote more than ‘agreement on principles’, e.g. reducing child poverty. Instead, they would push for more operational delivery around the shared early intervention vision – co-location, joint commissioning, enhanced referrals, shared ownership, reduced service complexity for people. 

Pooled devolved funding 

On the tension between local freedom and national direction, I argue packages of devolved funding and powers need to come with real flexibility. Building on ‘common outcome frameworks’ looks like a credible avenue – giving areas pooled budgets with significant flexibility on how to deliver a range of wellbeing outcomes for communities.  

Giving real control by devolving more Whitehall budgets, accompanied by duties to collaborate, could make for the ideal compromise.

Photo by Amélie Mourichon on Unsplash.

Join our mailing list