DOCSLIB.ORG

Community · Corrections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Community · Corrections If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. p ell."y.-I1I­ COMMUNITY · Jt- -). ~J i CORRECTIONS ACT ____ L.f-...,__ Assistan , , - 1 --. " --.' F ~ ""'~; ; - "",II IT - 11111 , T ,II 1/' - ,- , Itt' I "H" ,...... Ie. _" n" 1/1 l 11 11 " I /l"JlTI /11 - , I ,n lffl ll1r ,Hill I _ HI 11' ,lI ,,' , Ii,1,.'1 I - - I . , '. 1 ~ i .-- .:...~ f ! ~ i :,.-, .\ ",'1 .<~'- . \ I .. _ " '/' • .. • ~, , ,.. .1 , \~ aQMMUNITY~RRECTIONS ACT Technical Assis~nce Manual ii :1 l/ il byy! II II Patrick D. McManus !I Lynn Zeller Barclay :i :1 \ 'I Ii ,I ! \) ! !I if ;j !/ I , ) ) 94494 u.s. Department~ National Institute of Justice od d exactly as received from the This document ha~ bee~ ~epr, u,ce 'ts of view or opinions stated person or organlzatton onglOat;r~~ It. :u~~ors and do not necessarily In this document arei thol~,e 0 or peOlicies of the National Institute of represent the offic l a pos Ion !I Justice. I Published by Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material In ml- .J The American Correctional Association [I ~1~~aC~~~~&~£8nal II 4321 Hartwick Road, L-208 !'I Association College Park, Maryland 20740 ,.'.:j to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). I i~ Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ \ I~.:1 sion of the copyright owner. ~ ,.i~ \ i 'I '. This project was supported by Grant #ES-2 awarded by the National In­ stitute of Corrections, United States Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in thi~ publication are those of the American Correc­ tional Association and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice. Grant Recipient,~ The American Correctional Association Task Force on Community Corrections Legislation Members of the Task Force PREFACE Bobbie L. Huskey, Chair Bruce McManus Indiana Minnesota Les Belleque Larry Solomon The American Correctional Association is the oldest and most represen­ Oregon Washington, DC tative organization of corrections professionals in the country. Our iden­ tification began with prisons and prison issues in 1870 because of the Ronald Hayes Anthony P. Travisono need for professionalism in prison management following the Civil War. As California Maryland our membership became interdisciplinary and correctional manpower ex­ panded beyond the prison, the Association's interests broadened con­ Roger Werholtz siderably. We support a balanced approach that includes community cor­ Kamas rections as an integral component of a comprehensive correctional policy. In 1978 the Association promulgated a policy statement regarding this im­ portant aspect of corrections (Appendix I). The American Correctional Association This booklet provides information and assistance to those interested in community corrections, particularly those who develop or implement cor­ H.G. "Gus" Moeller Anthony P. Travisono rectional policy. Legislators, judges, local elected officials, prosecutors, President Executive Director defense attorneys and, of course, people working in the field of correc­ Terrell Don Hutto Edward J. McMillan, CPA tions might find it especially useful. President-Elect Assistant Director, Finance But others who are not directly connected with lithe system" will find Amos E. Reed Marge L. Restivo this booklet informative as well because corrections affects everyone, if in Past President Assistant Director, Conventiom, no other way than through the tax dollars required to support the field. Su Cunningham Advertising and Publicatiom Community corrections has become something of a buzzword, with dif­ Vice Presidfmt William J. Taylor ferent meanings for different people. (This booklet does not attempt to :i Helen G. Carrothers Assistant Director, Membership, cover everything that might be broadly defined as community corrections, !l" Training and Contracts but rather focuses only on community corrections legislation defined as: 11 Treasurer A statewide mechanism through which funds are granted to local units of government to plan, develop and deliver correctional sanctions and services at the ISBN 0-942974-59-X local level. © The American Correctional Association The overall purpose of this mechanism Is to provide local sentencing \ options in lieu of imptisonment in state institutions. 1 ., Part I describes the dilemma facing American corrections in the 1980s and beyond. It sketches the context in which community corrections legislation is most often considered and debated. Part II is an in-depth examination of several states that have community corrections legislation meeting the definition above. The essential elements of such legislation are highlighted. In Part III, these same states are examined to see how well they have achieved their goals thus far and what results were either unintended or unforeseen. Part IV addresses what community corrections legislation can and can­ not be expected to accomplish. Building on the experience of other states, this section provides a guide to drafting and implementing these laws and pitfalls to be avoided.) This booklet on community corrections legislation is not meant to offer INTRODUCTION a cure-all approach that will work in every state. But community correc­ tions legislation may be a part of some states' solution to the increasingly costly and ominous overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country. An average reader can finish this booklet in 30 minutes. We hope you In 1981, one of the Association's major concerns centered around will take the time. burgeoning inmate populations in most state correctional systems. One solution was a community corrections policy stressing that if the concept of community corrections was accepted, we could lessen our reliance on institutional confinement. This concern was not new to the Association; however, we needed to develop an implementation process for the policy. Bobbie Huskey, former manager of community diversion for the Virginia Department of Corrections and currently the Executive Director of PACT, Anthony P. Travisono Inc., in Michigan, was asked by Past President Amos E. Reed and President Executive Director H.G. "Gus" Moeller to spearhead a task force to determine the best American Correctional Association approach for marketing "Community Corrections Act" legislation. Task force members were chosen immediately and writers selected to develop an implementation booklet. The enclosed booklet represents the first phase of the task force's ef­ forts. The Association's members strongly believe in the concept of com­ munity corrections and appreciate the diligent work of the tasl< force members and writers. The Association is also grateful to the National In­ stitute of Corrections (NIC) for its financial assistance In developing this im­ portant booklet. This booklet is written for corrections professionals and all state , I legislatures. It is not an academic treatise on community corrections. I I Rather, it is an action-oriented handbook of sound correctional strategy for developing effective community corrections programs. 2 3 --~~ __ "L ___ _ CONTENTS Preface 1 Introduction 3 Part I The Problem Overcrmoding • Cost • Crime 6 Control Policy vs. Correctional Policy • The F?.du.re ~ Part II compont":t;;o~~~~nity Corrections 10 Legislati ~ cic ground 'd. Esserzt'ial Ele- ments • State 8u.m/fnaries • A Sample Carrzmun~trr~GM:a,{~,ftlan" J.~ ,It·-\! Part III What Have Been the ResyJts? Oregon 20 • lvli'1A/€DQ ~!J1liir~'t~C\i\t§lClvsZ:on Part IV Implementation Issues Is This an Idea That 24 Makes Sense jor Us? • Where Do We Start? • HowDo We Choose our "TargetPop- ulatiaYl,"? • How Much Will It Cost? • How To Divide the Pot: A Question oj Equity • What A bout Disincentives: The CIw..rgeback Is- sue • Haw Do We Bring About the NecessanJ Coordination and Cooperation? • ~Vho Ought to Run the Local Systems? Summary 35 DOs and DON'Ts 36 Appendix I Policy Statement on Community Corrections 37 \ 4 5 ~ 4, , ! But legislatures have only rarely provided the facilities and resources necessary to accommodate the increased populations. In most cases wardens and directors of corrections have been forced to simply stuff more bodies into already crowded prisons. Traveling around the country one sees inmates housed in tents, sleeping in corridors and gymnasiums, and crammed two and three to a tiny cell barely adequate to handle one. But lack of space to house inmates is only a part of the problem. Jobs and other programs to occupy the inmates' time are woefully lacking, a situation that can only worsen as populations swell. As any warden will testify, too many inmates with little to do and crowded together in cramped quarters is an extremely dangerous combination. PART I The courts have not been unaware of the deplorable conditions in many of our prisons and have felt compelled to intervene. Thirty-eight states are currently under court order to improve prison conditions, not just because they are bad, but because they cannot even meet the minimal re­ quirements gUaranteed by the Constitution. THE PROBLEM In ordering compliance with constitutional minima the courts have cited a variety of conditions, but running through nearly all of these decisions has been the common theme of overcrowding. Why have things been allowed to get so bad? Why do we find ourselves with dangerously overcrowded prisons, unable to safely and humanely house and occupy inmates? A major part of the answer is cost. Prisons are extremely expensive both to build and to operate. The issue of cost, then, Overcrowding is an important part of the context for discussing community corrections legislation. The current state of affairs in most U.S. jails and prisons is a troublesome one. It supplies the context for debate about Cost community corrections .Iegislation. There are currently more How much do prisons cost? A lot. Far more, in fact, than most people i ever dreamed. The cost of a new prison used to be thought of primarily as I men and women in America's jails and prisons than ever the capital expenditure required for construction. Not that prison con­ before.
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]