19. Memorandum submitted by
the Ley Community
The Ley Community provides a long and intensive
residential rehabilitation programme for up to 58 entrenched addicts,
many of whom have spent substantial periods of time in custody.
It is not unusual for a Judge to indicate to an offender that
he would be considering a prison term of over five years should
the offender be breached for failure to keep to the conditions
of residence and return to Court.
The treatment programme lasts for twelve months
and is very structured. Residents have little free time for themselves,
and agree to a regime that seriously restricts their civil liberties:
all phone calls are "covered", letters in and out are
read by staff, and visits are only allowed after several months,
and then supervised. Residents also have no access to money whilst
in treatment, with their personal purchases managed through staff.
Very high standards are demanded from residents.
The local Environmental Health Officer has commented that the
standard of cleanliness in the Community kitchens exceed any restaurant
in the County. The programme is run as a Therapeutic Community
whereby residents take responsibility for running the various
departments in a large residential facility. Once they have settled
into the regime, they have the opportunity to explore the reasons
behind their addiction and offending behaviour. For many, this
takes them to come to terms with early childhood trauma: physical,
emotional and sexual abuse, abandonment and loss. The process
requires residents to form strong relationships with each other,
and hold each other to account.
After eight to nine months in the programme,
residents have become comfortable with themselves, and fairly
institutionalised. They then move into the stage of the programme
that prepares them to leave: undertaking voluntary work, socialising
outside the Community in Oxford, and preparing for looking for
full time employment. During the nine years that I have worked
at the Ley Community, all but two residents who have completed
the programme have obtained full time employment on the open job
market. They are required to have worked for three months before
they move on with their peers into rented accommodation in Oxford
having saved for their deposit and a months rent in advance. The
importance of full time work and no longer being dependent on
State Benefits is crucial to ex-residents self-esteem.
Around 40% of residents admitted to the programme
complete their treatment and move on in employment. For a time
last year, we were running well under full occupancy along with
many of the other residential treatment facilities in the country.
There would appear to be a serious lack of "joined up thinking"
when there are places available for treatment unused when the
prison population is apparently at crisis point. Unfortunately,
the cost of paying for a prison bed comes from a different source
to that which pays for residential treatment in the Community.
Over the last few years, the Government has greatly increased
the funding for drug treatment, but this has primarily been focused
on community provision (structured day care and methadone prescribing).
During 2006-07, I understand that there was a drop of nearly 10%
in referrals into residential drug treatment with the result that
some units were put at considerable risk, whilst others were forced
to close.
Highly structured residential drug treatment
facilities are not an easy option to a custodial sentence. Many
of the residents at the Ley Community state that prison is a much
less demanding option that staying in treatment: indeed, some
chose to leave knowing full well that they will be returning for
a further lengthy prison sentence. At present, the National Treatment
Agency, the Special Health Authority set up by the Government
to oversee drug treatment, is undertaking a major exercise to
ensure that all residential units meet defined quality standards.
This is a welcome initiative, as Courts need to be confident that
treatment programmes in each facility are robust and effective.
The Ley Community receive many visitors each
year, and the usual response is bewilderment as to why there are
not more residential facilities like the Ley. In July 2006, we
made a bid for capital money from the Government for residential
and in-patient provision to set up a residential unit specifically
for Priority and Prolific Offenders as a regional resource for
the National Offender Management Service. We felt that such a
resource would fit the regional strategic plan for dealing with
offenders. Unfortunately, the timing was poor as the funding stream
for NOMS has yet to be decided, and we were unable to progress
the bid.
I very much hope that members of the Home Affairs
Committee will be able to visit the Ley Community as part of their
inquiry. I have no doubt that treatment facilities such as the
Ley Community have a potentially significant role in effective
sentencing.
Paul Goodman
Chief Executive
28 February 2007
| 
