Introduction

Addressing the underlying causes of offending is essential to reducing reoffending, supporting recovery, and creating a more effective and sustainable criminal justice system. As set out in Clinks' Voluntary Sector Manifesto 2026, greater investment in community-based support is needed to ensure people can access timely and effective interventions for issues such as drug and alcohol dependency, mental ill-health, trauma, and social exclusion. The manifesto highlights the important role of voluntary sector organisations in delivering personalised support and rehabilitation, and calls for greater confidence in community-based approaches that can reduce reliance on custody while achieving better outcomes for individuals and communities.

Drawing on these themes, this guest blog by Andrew Cass from Change Grow Live explores the role of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs), including Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs) and Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATRs), as a credible alternative to short custodial sentences. It argues that strengthening treatment pathways requires earlier intervention, effective partnership working between probation and treatment providers, personalised support based on individual need, and sufficient resources to meet growing demand. In doing so, it makes the case for a more integrated and treatment-focused approach that addresses the root causes of offending, improves recovery outcomes, and supports safer communities.

Strengthening Community Sentence Treatment Requirements

The criminal justice system is currently facing unprecedented challenges arising from a high prison population, limited custodial capacity and additional pressures facing Probation. In response, policymakers are increasingly exploring alternatives to custody, particularly for individuals receiving shorter custodial sentences.

Its important to have visibilityof and accountability in the community offer, whilst also both strengthening and maintaining consistency of community-based interventions, ensuring CSTRs are viewed as credible alternatives to custody by courts, probation practitioners, and the wider public. 

The Case for Earlier Intervention

When considering influencing overall direction of sentencing, it would be beneficial to consider treatment interventions at a far earlier stage of an individuals offending. At present, access to structured treatment can be driven by the criminal justice process itself, meaning many individuals only receive support following arrest, charge, court proceedings, and sentencing. This can result in lengthy delays between identifying a need and delivering a treatment response. 

Individuals entering Police custody often experience acute challenges relating to drugs & alcohol, mental health, social exclusion and general lifestyle issues. Early assessment and referral into treatment services can support addressing these underlying factors, rather than waiting for formal sentencing outcomes to enforce engagement. Such an approach would support CSTR sentencing recommendations by providing evidence of how an individual was addressing their treatment needs, setting recovery goals, and utilising their individual capital rather than the sentencing process dictating access to treatment. 

Building Effective Community Sentences

The effectiveness of sentencing depends on the quality of the assessment and recommendation being presented to court. In turn, this requires a system where the relationship between Probation and treatment providers enables a thorough assessment and evidences service user engagement. Such shared accountability will give confidence in local arrangements and assurance to courts in sentencing alternatives to custody. 

Requirements must combine rehabilitation with accountability, ensuring that both public protection and behaviour change objectives can be achieved. Sentencers need assurance that individuals will receive structured interventions capable of addressing the causes of offending whilst maintaining adequate levels of supervision and monitoring. Evidence of systemic risk management and joint case management can give confidence to this decision.

An important feature of successful CSTR delivery is the ability to tailor interventions to individual circumstances. Early models of CSTR delivery classified treatment intensity according to standardised categories; low, medium and high. More recent guidance has moved towards personalised plans based on assessed need. This change reflects growing recognition that recovery pathways vary significantly between individuals and that effective interventions must respond to personal circumstances rather than applying generic programmes. 

However, it is acknowledged that there are practical challenges associated with this approach.

Personalisation requires sufficient staffing, resources, and service flexibility. Without these foundations, there is a risk that tailored models become standardised in practice despite policy intentions.

The Importance of Integrated Services

Strong partnership working and effective communication networks are key determinants to influence successful outcomes. Examples already exist across the sentencing pathway, including treatment practitioners working within police custody suites, specialist workers operating within courts, and integrated arrangements where Drug & Alcohol workers support Probation Practitioners with pre-sentence assessments and sentencing recommendations. 

Such partnerships create opportunities for individuals to access treatment rapidly and enable courts to make informed decisions regarding suitability for treatment requirements. They can also improve both continuity of care and risk management by ensuring information is shared effectively between agencies.

Consequently, an individual's access to treatment and support may depend significantly on where they enter the criminal justice system. Greater consistency could be achieved through better understanding of what works to reduce reoffending. This includes access to learning networks and visibility of successful operational models; it is encouraging that recent strategic plans led by OHID and HMPPS appear to be directing CSTR delivery towards this model. 

Resource Pressures and Growing Demand

One of the most significant challenges facing treatment services is the rapid increase in demand. There has been sustained growth in CSTR numbers and substantial increases in prison Continuity of Care referrals. Whilst a positive step forwards in terms of people being sentenced to and receiving appropriate support to reduce associated risks, these trends are creating additional pressure for treatment providers already managing complex caseloads. 

A further issue arises from increased recalls, potentially associated with prison early-release schemes. Resources that might otherwise be dedicated to supporting CSTRs are increasingly focused on continuity of care work linked to prison releases and recall management. This creates tension within services and potentially limits the resources available to support the anticipated expansion of community sentencing options. 

Strengthening Risk Management

A more collaborative approach to risk management could potentially support diversion of resources to CSTR management. Whilst Probation practitioners carry primary responsibility for managing risk of reoffending, treatment providers possess extensive expertise in assessing and managing complex behaviours, particularly where drugs and alcohol are involved. 

This is also true of enabling effective approaches to working with particular groups, such as young adults or women, and enabling visibility of lived experience; whilst there is evidence of the system being more open to people with lived experience, there are also examples of where barriers continue to block that engagement, such as via vetting and lived experience involvement in policy development. 

The Corston report has long defined the objective of establishing a distinct, woman-centred, and holistic approach to address the root causes of women's offending and reduce reliance on custody. The tailored approach offered by CSTRs provide a framework to enable this approach, addressing women's needs and additional complexities alongside approaches designed to engage women in treatment.

Drug and alcohol services routinely manage risks associated with prescribing controlled medications, safeguarding concerns, relapse prevention, and behavioural change. Harnessing this expertise through effective communication and responsive delivery models could strengthen risk management across community orders while reinforcing confidence in community-based alternatives. An integrated case management model in which Probation and treatment services share ownership of risk and rehabilitation outcomes, placing the individual at the centre of the model and recognising progression against recovery goals and risk reduction rather than prioritising administrative compliance, would assist in demonstrating the value of CSTRs.

Conclusion

There is a compelling case for expanding and strengthening CSTRs as part of a broader response to prison overcrowding and criminal justice reform. Success will depend on earlier intervention, effective partnership working, consistent service provision, and sufficient resources to meet growing demand. Importantly, treatment should be driven by individual need rather than the pace of criminal justice processes. By embedding treatment opportunities at the earliest stages of contact with the criminal justice system and developing stronger integration between Probation and treatment services, CSTRs can become a more effective tool for reducing reoffending, improving recovery outcomes, and providing a credible alternative to custody.