DOCSLIB.ORG

Community Sentences: a Solution to Penal Excess? Helen Mills 4 Community Sentences: a Solution to Penal Excess? Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Community Sentences: a Solution to Penal Excess? Helen Mills 4 Community Sentences: a Solution to Penal Excess? Contents Community Sentences: a solution to penal excess? Helen Mills Reform S Str ector ate gies About the authors Helen Mills is a research associate at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies Acknowledgements Rebecca Roberts, my colleague, at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, has been essential to the process of developing the ideas in the Reform Sector Strategies project, which this paper is part of. Thanks to colleagues at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies for engaging in numerous conservations and helpful debates which moved this paper on in various ways. In particular thanks to Melinda Kerrison for gathering some of the statistical information drawn on in this paper. Professor George Mair at Liverpool John Moores University and Doctor Mary Corcoran at Keele University provided valuable comments on an early draft of this paper. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies is grateful to the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation for the financial support to undertake this project. Registered charity No. 251588 A company limited by guarantee Registered in England No. 496821 Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 2 Langley Lane, Vauxhall, London SW8 1GB [email protected] www.crimeandjustice.org.uk © Centre for Crime and Justice Studies July 2011 ISBN: 978-1-906003-30-2 Community Sentences: a solution to penal excess? Helen Mills 4 Community sentences: a solution to penal excess? Contents 7 Introduction 11 Chapter 1: Reforming community sentences as a way to reduce the prison population 15 Chapter 2: How far did community sentences take us as an alternative to custody? 21 Chapter 3: Implications for those committed to challenging the use of custody 24 References 24 Appendix: Sources Tables 17 Table 1: Prison and community sentence receptions pre- and post-2005 reforms 18 Table 2: Sentencing outcomes for indictable offences pre- and post- community sentence reforms (%) 18 Table 3: Proportion of community-based sentences imposed for summary offences Figures 8 Figure 1: Prison population 1900–2009 12 Figure 2: Community sentences’ role in strategies to tackle prison numbers 15 Figure 3: Prison and community sentence population, 2009 and 1998 16 Figure 4: Numbers commencing all community sentences, 1994–2009 17 Figure 5: Numbers commencing community-based sentences by type of order, 1994–2009 17 Figure 6: Short-term prison receptions and community-based sentence commencements, 2004–2009 18 Figure 7: Proportion of indictable offences sentenced to short-term custody, 2003–2009 19 Figure 8: Number of prison receptions under 12 months, 1994–2009 6 Community sentences: a solution to penal excess? Introduction This paper examines the use of community sentences as a mechanism for reducing reliance on custody in England and Wales. It focuses on the period since the late 1990s, a period in which there has been much consensus among political parties and the penal reform sector that addressing the problematically high prison population is bound up with the pursuit of ‘better’ community sentences. The intention of this paper is to explore two key questions: • What can be learnt from the successive attempts to manage prison demands by reforming community sentences during this period? • And what are the implications and challenges for penal reformers going forward? Community Sentences: a solution to penal excess? is the first of two papers produced by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) as part of its Reform Sector Strategies project. About the Reform Sector Strategies project CCJS began the Reform Sector Strategies project in 2010, with the intention of exploring the extent to which current directions in penal reform offer genuine alternatives to custody in England and Wales. With this eighteen-month project, funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, we hope to generate an open, forward-looking dialogue about the development of coherent and credible approaches to tackling penal expansion, and to think through the challenge of reducing the prison population in the longer term. As its name suggests, Reform Sector Strategies is a project explicitly for, and about, those engaged in the process of bringing hoped-for change to the penal system. This paper refers to ‘penal reform organisations’ and ‘penal reformers’. This is intended to describe nationally focused organisations that view the use of prison as a last resort, are committed to policies aimed at rehabilitation rather than punishment, and undertake lobbying, media work, research and campaigning on criminal justice issues to achieve these ends. To keep the scope of this project manageable, the focus here is restricted to organisations largely devoted to national campaigning and lobbying, as opposed to service delivery. Categorising organisations by the term ‘penal reform’ incorporates a diverse range of activities, with key organisations and initiatives over the past decade including the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust and SmartJustice, Nacro, the Criminal Justice Alliance (and its predecessor the Penal Affairs Consortium), Payback, Rethinking Crime and Punishment, and Make Justice Work. The use of the single term ‘penal reform’ is not intended to suggest that the organisations considered under this umbrella are uniform or that they all agree. This paper will be followed by a second, which will explore the challenges facing the development of coherent strategies to curb penal excess and offer a series of ‘promising ideas’ to address these challenges. 8 Community sentences: a solution to penal excess? Why this paper? The issues explored here are grounded in two beliefs. The first is that the use of prison is excessive. Increased prison numbers have been a continuing feature of the criminal justice system in England and Wales since the mid-1990s. By 2009, the prison population was nearly a third larger than it was in 1999. When considered in the context of the longer-term custodial trend, these prison demands represent a fundamental shift in the use of custody, with the prison population almost doubling over the past 30 years (see figure 1). Figure 1: Prison population 1900–2009 1 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies shared the desire that many had spoken about in the penal reform sector to halt this expansion and reduce the prison population. The second starting point informing this paper is scepticism that the promotion and reform of community sentences is an effective mechanism to address the numbers in custody. This scepticism emerged from a previous CCJS project that monitored community sentences following their reform in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Over the course of three years, until 2009, CCJS produced seven reports covering a range of subjects about how the reformed orders were working in practice. One of the most memorable contributions at a seminar held to coincide with the publication of the final report in the series was from a former Home Office official. In a discussion about the disappointing impact the new orders appeared to have had as a reducer of custody, he said, ‘None of the attempts to reduce the custodial population through reforming community sentences have worked in the last 40 years.’ This struck us as an issue worthy of greater attention for two reasons. First, community sentence reform has been an active policy area and this looks set to continue with the Coalition. Since the late 1990s, government efforts to address growing prison numbers have been characterised by the attempt to persuade sentencers, and the public, that community sentences are credible enough to use in place of some custodial sentences and that material changes could be made to make community sentences more onorous is a thread that has linked numerous government attempts to address growing prison numbers (see chapter 1 for more detail). 1. Average annual prison population. Excludes those held in police cells. Second was our sense that a huge amount of time, energy and effort had been spent by penal reformers promoting community sentences over this period, at least partly with the hope of slowing and reducing prison numbers. Hence, whether community sentences are a mechanism to reduce reliance on custody is an important matter for those engaged in progressive penal reform, and one which would benefit from critical scrutiny given the continued public promotion of community sentences by many in the sector. This paper sets out to examine the impact of community sentence reform and promotion on the size of the prison population and to reflect on the issues this poses for those committed to penal reform. It draws on: • Meetings with key representatives from penal reform organisations • An analysis of sentencing data since the late 1990s • Over 50 documents from this period, including reports from penal reform organisations, campaign documents and evidence to numerous select committee enquiries during this period. 2 The focus here on national campaigning and the overall prison population. Attempts to consider particular demographics of the penal population, such as women or young people, or to evaluate local pilots of community sentence practice are outside the remit of this paper. Chapter one of this paper considers government policy and the penal reform sector’s approach to promoting community sentences as an alternative to custody since the late 1990s.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restorative Justice and the Judiciary Information Pack
    Restorative justice and the judiciary Information pack October 2015 Restorative justice and the judiciary information pack 1 Contents 3 Introduction by Jon Collins 4 The facts on restorative justice 5 Restorative justice and the judiciary 10 Checklist for restorative justice 11 Why the judiciary can have confidence in restorative justice 12 Restorative justice in the magistrates’ court by Richard Monkhouse 14 Pre-sentence restorative justice national pathfinder programme by Kate Hook 16 Ed and Rumbie’s story 18 Restorative justice in the youth courts by Pete Wallis 19 Restorative justice as part of a community sentence 20 Shad’s story 22 Henry’s story 2 Restorative justice and the judiciary information pack Introduction This information pack has been developed by the Restorative Justice Council (RJC) to raise awareness of restorative justice among the judiciary. The RJC is the independent third sector membership body for the restorative justice field. Our role, with the support of the Ministry of Justice, is to promote access to high quality restorative justice for all victims of crime in England and Wales. The information contained in this pack is intended to help the judiciary understand more about restorative justice and found that 77% of people believe that victims their role in the restorative justice process. of crime should have the right to meet their offender. Restorative justice is an effective response to crime. It empowers victims by giving them a Restorative justice also has the support of the chance to meet or communicate with their government. Their genuine commitment to offender to explain the real impact of the embed it within every stage of the criminal crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Attitudes Toward Crime: a Survey of Colorado .~ "
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ? Ji :oi ~. .:~c, ~<, :~~ ;t ~ .~! ~t ~ ~ ATTITUDES TOWARD CRIME: A SURVEY OF COLORADO .~ ". ~ CITIZENS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS fi ,fj ,} ~ * ~ {f 'f 3,< !1g :t. o LARIMER l~ p; iI,r ~ ~ ~Ii ~ "fi 1988 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ATTITUDES TO\!'JARD CRIME: A SURVEY OF COLORADO CITIZENS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS BY KIM ENGLISH JOAN CROUCH SUZANNE PULLEN 122910 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated In this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily repr~sent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by Colorado Department of Pub 1 j c S a..f.e±dl:----__ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). NC.JRS. ~urther reprodu~tion outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copYright owner. IA~. 8' 19'~ ACQUHilTION§ ........ AUGUST 1989 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE WILliAM R. WOODWARD, DIRECTOR MARY J. MANDE, RESEARCH DIRECTOR THIS RESEARCH WAS SUPPORTED BY GRANT NUMBER 87-SJ-CX-K032 BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUBJIMARy........................................................................................ ix What Collorado Citizens Think about Crime.................. ........... .......... ........... ix Reactions to Crime ............................................................................... ,............ x Attitudes toward Sentencing and the System.................... ................ ............ xi INTRODUCTION ............................................ I11 .... U.. !tIl.............................................. 1 Characteristics of the Respondents..................................... ........................... 2 Ethnic Groups......
    [Show full text]
  • Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2017 a Ministry of Justice Publication Under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991
    Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2017 A Ministry of Justice publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Published 29 November 2018 Contents 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 3 2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 8 3. Victims ............................................................................................................................ 13 Crime Survey for England and Wales .............................................................................. 14 Violent Crime ................................................................................................................... 15 Intimate violence ............................................................................................................. 16 Homicide ......................................................................................................................... 19 4. Police Activity ................................................................................................................. 23 Arrests ............................................................................................................................. 23 Liaison and diversion services ......................................................................................... 26 Out of Court Disposals ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Community Sentencing in Oklahoma: Offenders Get a Second Chance to Make a First Impression
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 36 Issue 4 Symposium: Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Twenty-First Century Summer 2001 Community Sentencing in Oklahoma: Offenders Get a Second Chance to Make a First Impression Linda G. Morrissey Vickie S. Brandt Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Linda G. Morrissey, & Vickie S. Brandt, Community Sentencing in Oklahoma: Offenders Get a Second Chance to Make a First Impression, 36 Tulsa L. J. 767 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol36/iss4/2 This Legal Scholarship Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Morrissey and Brandt: Community Sentencing in Oklahoma: Offenders Get a Second Chance t COMMUNITY SENTENCING IN OKLAHOMA: OFFENDERS GET A SECOND CHANCE TO MAKE A FIRST IMPRESSION The Honorable Linda G. Morrissey* and Vickie S. Brandt** The judge had no choice. She did not want to sentence the drug-addicted, single mother before her to twenty years in prison. But Oklahoma law said that, since this was not the woman's first felony conviction, she had to go straight to the penitentiary. Never mind that the woman's previous felonies were nonviolent drug offenses, or that she had a two-year-old son to raise. She told the judge, with tears streaming down her face, "I have no family.
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Justice: the Executive Summit on Criminal Justice Reform
    PROGRESS REPORT Doing Justice: The Executive Summit On Criminal Justice Reform October 2015 Prepared for the: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President National Association of Drug Court Professionals Carson L. Fox, Chief Executive Officer 1029 North Royal Street, Suite 201 Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel. (703) 575-9400 Fax. (703) 575-9402 Allrise.org Printed in the United States of America. Drug courts perform their duties without manifestation, by word or conduct, of bias or prejudice, including but not limited to, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, language, or socioeconomic status. Copyright © 2015, National Association of Drug Court Professionals All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Doing Justice: The Executive Summit on Criminal Justice Reform October 2015 This project was supported by Grant No. G1299ONDCP02A awarded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the Executive Office of the President. Doing Justice: The Executive Summit on Criminal Justice Reform 3 INTRODUCTION The United States’ criminal justice system is at a critical point of transition. State and federal inmate populations have grown exponentially in recent decades, partly in response to determinate sentencing policies and mandatory minimum sentencing ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Community Sentencing Annual Report
    The purposes of the Oklahoma Community Sentencing Act, according to 22 O.S.S. § 988.3., are to: 1. Protect the public; 2. Establish a statewide community sentencing system; 3. Adequately supervise felony offenders punished under a court-ordered community sentence; 4. Provide a continuum of sanctions to the court for eligible felony offenders sentenced to a community sentence within the community sentencing system; 5. Increase the availability of punishment and treatment options to eligible felony offenders; 6. Improve the criminal justice system within this state through public/private partnerships, reciprocal and interlocal governmental agreements, and interagency cooperation and collaboration; and 7. Operate effectively within the allocation of state and local resources for the criminal justice system. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ..................................................................................................................iv Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................vi Preface............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Statewide Goals for Community Sentencing....................................................................... 2 Implementation & Progress...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Community Sentences Government Response
    Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences Government Response Response to Consultation CP(R)20/2012 October 2012 Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences Government response Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty October 2012 Cm 8469 £10.75 © Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk and on our website at www.justice.gov.uk ISBN: 9780101846929 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2520239 10/12 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences Contents Ministerial Foreword 3 Introduction 6 Responses to specific questions 11 The consultation criteria 31 Annex A: list of respondents 32 1 Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences 2 Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences Ministerial Foreword The public wants a justice system that protects them from crime and properly punishes those who have committed it. But ours is failing to live up to expectations.
    [Show full text]
  • Recidivism Rates in Individuals Receiving Community Sentences: a Systematic Review
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Recidivism rates in individuals receiving community sentences: A systematic review 1 1 2 1 Denis YukhnenkoID , Achim Wolf , Nigel Blackwood , Seena FazelID * 1 Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2 Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 Objective We aimed to systematically review recidivism rates in individuals given community sen- tences internationally. We sought to explore sources of variation between these rates and how reporting practices may limit their comparability across jurisdictions. Finally, we aimed OPEN ACCESS to adapt previously published guidelines on recidivism reporting to include community sen- Citation: Yukhnenko D, Wolf A, Blackwood N, Fazel tenced populations. S (2019) Recidivism rates in individuals receiving community sentences: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 14(9): e0222495. https://doi.org/10.1371/ Methods journal.pone.0222495 We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SAGE and Google Scholar for reports and studies of Editor: SteÂphanie Baggio, Geneva University recidivism rates using non-specific and targeted searches for the 20 countries with the larg- Hospitals, SWITZERLAND est prison populations worldwide. We identified 28 studies with data from 19 countries. Of Received: October 29, 2018 the 20 countries with the largest prison populations, only 2 reported recidivism rates for indi- Accepted: September 2, 2019 viduals given community sentences. Published: September 20, 2019 Results Copyright: © 2019 Yukhnenko et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the The most commonly reported recidivism information between countries was for 2-year Creative Commons Attribution License, which reconviction, which ranged widely from 14% to 43% in men, and 9% to 35% in women.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Sentences and Financial Penalties
    Community Sentences and Financial Penalties Use of community sentences Community-based sentences are a form of criminal sanction handed down by the courts. Often they are defined and discussed with reference to what they are not: imprisonment. Hence, they are referred to as ‘alternatives to custody’ or as ‘alternatives to prison’. Prisons tend to dominate our thinking about punishment but, in fact, community sentences are much more frequently used than imprisonment – and many prisoners are also subject to supervision in the community after release. However, both community sentences and sentences of imprisonment are much less frequently used than financial penalties (fines and compensation orders). Chart 1, taken from a Statistical Bulletin by the Scottish Government titled Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, 2017-18, illustrates the penalties issued by the courts for charges that have been proved in court (for more information about how the court system and wider criminal justice system work, see SCCJR ‘Scottish criminal justice system’). Some key findings for the period April 2017 to March 2018 include: In 2017-18 there were a total of 87,716 people who had a charge proved in court. Financial penalties accounted for the majority of court sentences (47%). Custodial sentences accounted for 14% of all penalties in 2017-18. 20% of all convictions in 2017-18 resulted in a main penalty of a community sentence. ‘Other sentences’ accounted for 18% of all penalties. These include: o an absolute discharge (when the court decides to impose no penalty). o admonishing of the offender (when the court warns the offender not to do it again).
    [Show full text]
  • Community Correctionscorrections AA Callcall Forfor Punishmentspunishments Thatthat Makemake Sensesense the Center for Community Corrections
    CommunityCommunity CorrectionsCorrections AA CallCall forfor PunishmentsPunishments ThatThat MakeMake SenseSense The Center for Community Corrections A Call For Punishments That Make Sense October 28, 1997 CCC A public-private partnership promoting an effective system of community corrections The research conducted for this monograph was supported under award # 96-DD-BX-0053 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The manual was printed in cooperation with the American Correctional Association. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of the U.S. Department of Justice or American Correctional Association. Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................1 Contributors ...............................................................................................................3 A Call for Punishments That Make Sense...........................................................4 A Call to Action .....................................................................................................4 Why Community Corrections Is Important.........................................................6 Introducing Community Corrections.................................................................6 Achievable Results....................................................................................................8 How Community Corrections
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Decision Paper Drug Grant 230421 Signed For
    Executive Decision Making by an Officer with Delegated Powers Decision to be taken by: Sarah Scott, Executive Director of Adult Social Care and Director of Public Health Report title: Section 31 local authority grant for additional drug treatment, crime and harm reduction activity in 2021/22 – Permission to vary current provider’s contract The decision Approval is being sought to award a grant agreement to our current provider of community drug and alcohol services: Change Grow Live (CGL) via a contract variation. Background Cabinet (14/10/2020): Extension of the adult drug and documents alcohol treatment service contract A summary of the spending proposals submitted to PHE can be seen in Appendix 1 Public Health England Additional drug treatment crime and harm reduction funding: Universal component – menu of interventions can be seen in Appendix 2 Reasons for Gloucestershire County Council has been allocated a £415k the decision Section 31 local authority grant from Public Health England (PHE) for additional drug treatment, crime and harm reduction activity. The aim of the grant scheme is to drive down the crime associated with the drug market, particularly acquisitive crime and violent crime, and the rise in drug-related deaths. We are seeking permission to award the grant to our current drug and alcohol services provider via a contract variation. Resource The resource implications of the grant include finance officer time implications to receive and forward the money and the monitoring of delivery and submission of returns by the GCC contract manager. This is new funding for one year to enhance drug treatment, focused on reducing drug-related crime and the rise in drug-related deaths.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Briefing
    Information briefing Report From: Adult Public Health Commissioning Team Adult Social Care Directorate Report To: Birmingham Health & Wellbeing Board Date: July 2019 Title: Change, Grow, Live (CGL) – Overview of Service 1. Summary A ‘recovery’ approach has been taken regarding the treatment for Birmingham citizens experiencing the harms associated with drug and alcohol misuse. This currently involves the treatment and care of approximately 7000 service users. To support this, the Birmingham treatment and recovery single system is monitored and measured by the following key outcomes framework: • Increased levels of employment • Improvements in mental health • Reduction in re-offending • Reduction in blood borne virus • Improved housing transmission • Improved parenting • Reduction in domestic violence • Robust children’s safeguarding • Ensuring protection for vulnerable • Improvements in physical health adults 2. Overview of the Service 2.1 The Service Delivery Model To support the recovery focused delivery model CGL provide service users with the necessary advice and support delivered via a 5 tiered model which responds to differing levels of case complexity. The tiers include: Tier 1: Advice & Information; including signposting to other services which include advocacy and mutual aid. Tier 2: Non-dependent drug and alcohol use – Group / 1:1 work up to 12 weeks Tier 3: Dependent alcohol use, opiate use, heavy crack cocaine/synthetic cannabinoids etc. – Group/1:1 work, longer term, structured support Tier 4: In-patient specialist unit (Park House in Hockley) which delivers detoxification and stabilisation Tier 5: Aftercare provision – Group/1:1 work 1 The provision of adult drug and alcohol treatment services is defined as one of the “grant conditions” as part of the Public Health Grant.
    [Show full text]