Shall I go first, or is that directly to Yasmin? No. I think that there was work on national indicators previously, and I know that there's a commitment to revisit that work, and that's really important. Relating to questions around accountability and scrutiny previously, it's really key, isn't it, that we are not data driven, but data gives us a starting position and gives us something to further delve into.
I think that what we need to be cognisant of, at the moment, particularly around anything that's related to criminal justice, but for other things as well, is that there are accountability structures everywhere. For a lot of public services, they are overwhelmed with the questions that are asked of them and the reports that they have to do. So, we need to understand what is available that is close to what we would want to look at at the moment, which we should be looking at first, as a starting position, and that then, we understand what that is telling us and then what gaps we have in understanding those things. So, against the objectives, against the work streams: what is the existing reporting, what is the existing data that would meet our needs in the first instance, and what could we then develop from there? There is a lot of data around at the moment, but we do have to, I think—.
One of the critical things, I think—. You were mentioning early intervention and prevention earlier. There might be drivers for some of those later successes. So, how many people are seeking services? How many people are having criminal justice outcomes? How many people are at the final outcomes of their journey? Actually, what we need to understand is the earlier part of it, because there are so many people that don't get through to any services, who are potentially on their own, making their way through things. That could be because of a lack of confidence. That could be through lack of knowledge. That could be through many different things: barriers, perpetrator control. We know at the moment, around the cost of living, that there will be an increase in economic abuse, which will be suppressing people from coming forward. So, we need to look at those things.
What would be the indicators to people having more trust and confidence in our system? It doesn't necessarily mean that they would have that final outcome. It might be something else that we seek and we look at. Do people know about these things? So, our data sets have to include that bit, as well as the end, because there's a hell of a lot of difference in the in between, isn't there? I think that, sometimes, we risk just looking at the end product, which misses a lot of survivors.
Also in terms of our role, it has been decided—. So, the survivor voice was a work stream. It's not now. It's being seen as a golden thread that runs through, and we will have a scrutiny role for the national partnership board and the programme board and all of the work streams as well. So, the survivor voice will be an element of scrutiny. They will see, and have oversight of, the work that all runs through, and the delivery of the strategy. So, that will be a task for Yasmin and I to work with that group—the chairs of that group—to ensure that it is both meaningful and accessible, and that there will be accountability for us, in our role: are we representing people correctly? But also, is the intention set the right one, and is it being delivered upon from a survivor public perspective? So, I think that it's critical to understand that that's an important part for us in our role, both as scrutiny of ourselves, but also that accountability.