Community sentences in Scotland are most commonly delivered through Community Payback Orders (CPOs), which allow people who have committed offences to be punished in a way that also benefits the community and addresses the causes of their offending. Before a judge can usually impose a CPO, they must first receive a report from a criminal justice social worker. This report provides important background information about the individual, including their previous convictions, their likelihood of reoffending, their personal circumstances, their health, and what support they may need to change their behaviour. There are limited exceptions to this requirement, such as when the unpaid work or activity requirement is at the lowest level, between 20 and 100 hours, or when the order is imposed because a fine has not been paid.
Once a CPO is made, a criminal justice social worker employed by the local authority is responsible for supervising it. Their role is not only to monitor compliance but also to work with the individual to reduce future offending. In carrying out this role, the social worker may need to consult with a range of other organisations, including judges, Police Scotland, voluntary agencies, community councils and victim support groups. This reflects the idea that community sentences are not only about punishment but also about public protection and rehabilitation.
A Community Payback Order can include up to ten different requirements, and the judge decides which of these should be used in each case. The choice depends on the nature of the offence and on what measures are most likely to prevent further criminal behaviour. The most common requirement is unpaid work, which can range from 20 to 300 hours. This work is intended to benefit local communities and can include activities such as cleaning public spaces, redecorating community buildings, gardening in parks, helping in charity shops, or delivering furniture and goods to vulnerable people. Unpaid work may also involve activities designed to improve employability, such as learning new skills or receiving help with writing a curriculum vitae.
Another frequently used requirement is supervision. Under this condition, the person must attend regular meetings with a criminal justice social worker. These sessions focus on identifying the reasons behind their offending and helping them develop better decision-making skills. Supervision also allows the social worker to check whether the individual is complying with the rest of the order. In some cases, the court may include a compensation requirement, which obliges the person to pay money to their victim for injury, distress or damage to property.
Judges can also impose programme requirements, which involve attending structured courses arranged by social workers. These programmes are designed to tackle offending behaviour and often focus on issues such as substance misuse or anger management. A residence requirement may be used to ensure stability, for example by ordering the person to live at a particular address, such as with their parents. Conduct requirements allow the court to place specific restrictions on behaviour, such as prohibiting someone convicted of shoplifting from entering a particular shop. These are only used when the judge believes they will help prevent further offences.
In more serious cases, restricted movement requirements can be imposed. These may involve a curfew, requiring the person to remain at a certain address for up to twelve hours a day, or an exclusion condition that keeps them away from a specific place for up to twenty-four hours a day. Such restrictions can last for up to twelve months and are designed to reduce opportunities for further offending.
Three of the possible requirements focus on treatment for underlying problems linked to criminal behaviour: mental health, drugs and alcohol. If a person has a diagnosed mental health condition that contributes to their offending, they may be ordered to receive treatment such as counselling, clinic appointments or, in some cases, hospital care. Where drug misuse is a factor, the court can require attendance at clinics or hospitals to address addiction. Similarly, if alcohol misuse is connected to the offence, the person may be required to attend counselling or treatment services.
Overall, Community Payback Orders aim to balance punishment with rehabilitation. By combining practical consequences, such as unpaid work and restrictions, with support through supervision and treatment, CPOs seek to reduce reoffending while allowing individuals to remain in the community and make amends for the harm they have caused.
Pathological Demand Avoidance, also known as Pervasive Drive for Autonomy, is a profile most commonly associated with autism and, in some cases, ADHD or other neurodevelopmental conditions. First described in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, PDA has received growing attention in North America in recent years. Although it is not currently recognized as a standalone diagnosis in major classification systems, many individuals and families experience it as a distinct and meaningful pattern of needs and responses. PDA is often misunderstood or misidentified, particularly because individuals may appear sociable, articulate, and capable while internally experiencing extreme stress around everyday expectations.
At the heart of PDA is a high level of anxiety and an intense need for control over one’s own actions. People with a PDA profile experience ordinary demands as overwhelming, including things they may want or enjoy doing. These demands can involve daily tasks such as eating, sleeping, dressing, and attending school or work, as well as social expectations or internal bodily needs. Avoidance is not a deliberate choice or a form of manipulation; rather, it is a stress response driven by a nervous system that perceives loss of autonomy as a threat.
Demands for someone with PDA are not limited to direct instructions. They also include casual suggestions, expectations based on routines or social roles, praise that creates pressure to perform again, internal sensations such as hunger or illness, and even self-imposed goals. Because these demands accumulate, a person’s capacity to cope can fluctuate widely. What seems manageable one day may feel impossible the next. This helps explain why behavior can appear inconsistent across settings or situations.
PDA can be understood as a nervous system difference. Individuals with this profile tend to have heightened sensitivity to perceived threat, particularly when their freedom to choose is limited. When this happens, their bodies may enter a fight, flight, freeze, or fawn response. These reactions can look like arguing, refusing, running away, shutting down, becoming overly controlling or submissive, lying, joking compulsively, forgetting, fainting, or escaping into fantasy. These responses are not planned strategies but automatic attempts to regain safety and control. In this framework, behavior is a form of communication about stress and unmet needs.
Traditional behavior-based approaches often fail for people with PDA because they increase pressure and reduce autonomy. Systems based on rewards, consequences, or rigid routines tend to make anxiety worse rather than better. From the perspective of the person with PDA, such strategies feel like coercion, even when they are well intentioned. Avoiding demands is therefore a matter of being unable to comply, not refusing to do so. Many individuals mask their distress in certain environments, especially at school or in clinical settings, which can lead professionals to underestimate their support needs.
Effective support focuses on relationship, trust, and collaboration rather than control. Individuals with PDA are more likely to engage when they feel respected and when their autonomy is protected. Indirect language, shared decision-making, humor, and flexibility can reduce the sense of threat associated with demands. Explaining the deeper reasons behind requests can help them make sense of what is being asked and why. Emotional co-regulation is also essential, as PDA individuals are highly sensitive to the emotional states of others. When adults remain calm and regulated, it becomes easier for the individual to do the same.
It is equally important to recognize what does not help. Punishment, lectures, shaming, and rigid enforcement of rules tend to escalate distress rather than resolve it. Challenging behavior should be understood as a signal that something is wrong, not as the problem itself. Support requires weighing whether a task is truly worth the emotional and physiological cost for the individual at that moment.
Many people come to understand PDA during a period of burnout, which occurs when prolonged stress leads to a significant loss of coping capacity. Burnout is often marked by increased avoidance, intense mood swings, heightened anxiety, withdrawal from social interaction, and intolerance of previously manageable demands. Recovery from burnout requires very low levels of demand, extended time to rest and feel safe, and a slow, pressure-free return to activities. It also requires that others in the person’s life understand what burnout is and how to avoid pushing too hard, too soon.
In conclusion, PDA challenges conventional ideas about motivation and discipline. Instead of focusing on how to make someone comply, support involves asking how to help them feel safe enough to participate. Maintaining emotional calm, resisting punitive instincts, and prioritizing connection are essential. People with PDA cannot regulate their emotions if those around them are dysregulated. With understanding and the right environment, individuals with PDA can be imaginative, empathetic, spontaneous, and deeply insightful. When their nervous systems are supported rather than threatened, they are far more able to engage with the world in meaningful ways.
Understanding why people commit crimes is essential for building effective rehabilitation programs and reducing reoffending. At the heart of this work lies the concept of criminogenic needs—the dynamic factors that drive criminal behavior. Unlike fixed characteristics such as age or criminal history, criminogenic needs can be changed through targeted, evidence-based interventions. Because of this, they play a crucial role in shaping modern correctional practice and public safety strategies.
What Are Criminogenic Needs?
Criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors—areas of a person’s life, behavior, or mindset that increase the likelihood of criminal activity and can be improved through intervention. These include substance misuse, negative peer associations, or antisocial attitudes. When these factors are present, an individual is more likely to offend; when they are addressed, the risk of reoffending decreases.
This makes criminogenic needs especially important within the criminal justice system. While static risk factors such as past convictions or early exposure to crime can predict future behavior, they cannot be changed. Criminogenic needs, however, offer an actionable pathway toward rehabilitation.
Key Characteristics of Criminogenic Needs
Criminogenic needs stand out because they influence criminal behavior directly, are changeable through targeted treatment or support, provide clear intervention points for reducing reoffending, and guide individualized rehabilitation plans. By focusing on these dynamic areas, practitioners can help individuals build the skills, habits, and supports necessary to avoid future criminal involvement.
Major Categories of Criminogenic Needs
Antisocial Attitudes and Beliefs
Holding beliefs that support or justify criminal behavior – such as hostility toward authority, lack of empathy, or rationalizations for wrongdoing – significantly increases the likelihood of reoffending.
Antisocial Peer Associations
Spending time with individuals engaged in criminal or high-risk activities reinforces harmful behaviors and normalizes offending.
Substance Abuse
Addiction or heavy substance use can impair judgment, fuel risky behavior, and drive individuals to commit crimes to sustain their habits.
Family and Relationship Problems
Dysfunctional family environments, exposure to criminal role models, lack of support, or poor supervision can contribute to criminal involvement.
Education and Employment Challenges
Low educational attainment, a history of job instability, or lack of employable skills can create financial strain and leave individuals with unstructured time, both of which increase the risk of offending.
Limited Prosocial Leisure Activities
When individuals lack healthy and meaningful ways to spend their time, they may drift toward risky or illegal activities.
Behavioral and Personality Traits
Impulsivity, poor problem-solving skills, aggression, and difficulty managing emotions increase the likelihood of criminal acts.
How Criminogenic Needs Are Identified
Professionals identify criminogenic needs using structured, validated assessment tools. These instruments evaluate a person’s attitudes, behavioral patterns, life circumstances, and history to provide a clear picture of their risk level and intervention needs. The process often includes interviews, reviews of personal and criminal history, analysis of social relationships and substance use, and assessments of thinking patterns and decision-making. These tools promote consistency and reduce reliance on subjective judgment.
Why Understanding Criminogenic Needs Matters
Focusing on criminogenic needs is fundamental to effective rehabilitation. By targeting the root causes of criminal behavior, interventions can reduce reoffending, promote long-term behavioral change, improve public safety, ensure efficient use of resources, and support individualized case planning. Rather than applying general or one-size-fits-all responses, professionals can tailor programs such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, substance abuse treatment, employment support, or relationship counseling to the areas that matter most.
Conclusion
Criminogenic needs provide a roadmap for meaningful change. By identifying and addressing the dynamic factors that contribute to criminal behavior, the criminal justice system can better support individuals in building safer, healthier lives while reducing the risk of reoffending. Understanding these needs is crucial for effective, humane, and evidence-based rehabilitation.
Leadership is a crucial component of meaningful change, shaping vision, influencing values, and motivating others to act. It plays a central role in cultivating organizational cultures that welcome innovation and support new approaches to practice. This article explores the connections between leadership, culture, and change in the context of a strengths-based transformation initiative within adult social work services. Drawing on a theory-of-change methodology, the study used multiple qualitative methods over twenty-four months to examine the expectations of those responsible for leading change and the experiences of those implementing it. Participants included senior leaders, social workers, operational managers, professionals from health and the voluntary sector, and community representatives. The programme’s underlying assumptions suggested that distributing leadership both within and beyond social work organizations would foster innovation in practice. The findings indicate that, in practice, senior leaders remained central to driving change, and that the involvement of communities was more limited than intended. Although the need for culture change was widely acknowledged, the practical knowledge required to initiate and sustain it within local contexts was often underdeveloped. Strengthening understanding of distributed leadership and cultural transformation, alongside building infrastructures that support co-production and community-led contributions, will enhance the effectiveness of social work transformation efforts.
Introduction
Leadership in social work is widely recognized as a key factor in shaping environments in which practitioners can thrive, high-quality practice can flourish, and collaborative work with individuals and communities can deepen. Leadership is also commonly discussed in relation to initiating and embedding change. Leaders articulate a compelling need for transformation, unite people behind shared goals, and encourage voluntary commitment to new ways of working. Social work scholarship emphasizes that leadership inherently involves enabling positive change, whether by addressing injustice, improving experiences of individuals and families, or enhancing social systems. A range of leadership models, including transformational, distributed, and strengths-based leadership, are seen as particularly relevant to social work because they connect with the profession’s value base and its emphasis on collaboration, empowerment, and shared influence. Leadership is not confined to formal management, as social workers in direct practice often serve as agents of change by influencing colleagues and systems through their professional credibility and skills.
Organizational change in social work is complex. While planned reform and emergent pressures both shape practice, many variables influence how change unfolds. Contextual factors such as financial constraints, tensions between professional and managerial priorities, scrutiny, and the emotional demands of the role often affect practitioners’ capacity to engage with change. Organizational culture, with its multiple layers and subcultures, strongly influences whether new approaches become embedded or resisted. Despite its importance, culture can be difficult to define and even harder to reshape. Leadership has been identified as a key factor in aligning vision and practice and distributing agency across systems in ways that support cultural readiness for change.
Although leadership and culture are frequently highlighted as central to social work transformation, relatively little research has explored their role in depth. This article addresses that gap by examining how local areas engaged with these dimensions during the implementation of a strengths-based transformation programme in adult social care. Rather than evaluating the programme’s outcomes, this article focuses specifically on how leadership and culture were understood, enacted, and experienced during the change process.
Assumptions about leadership, culture, and change
Across participants, leadership was seen as essential to the programme’s success. Senior leaders who publicly aligned their values with the ethos of the programme and demonstrated them in practice were viewed as crucial enablers. Participants expected leadership to shift from traditional top-down approaches to more relational styles that trust practitioners, encourage creativity, and distribute authority. This required leaders to reflect critically on past behaviours and organizational norms, particularly those that constrained professional autonomy. Leadership development opportunities and change champion roles were commonly viewed as tools for fostering this shift.
Culture change was also seen as necessary, yet many participants struggled to clearly articulate what aspects of culture needed to change or how this would be achieved. Most framed the desired shift as a movement away from centralized control toward professional autonomy, mirroring the broader distinction between deficit-based and strengths-based practice models.
The continuing influence of individual leaders
Despite aspirations for distributed leadership, the programme’s success was often attributed to individual senior leaders whose personal commitment, credibility, and authenticity inspired others. Such leaders were described as passionate, pragmatic, and influential, creating momentum and a shared sense of purpose. Their involvement generated trust and motivated engagement across teams. However, reliance on individual leaders created vulnerability, as turnover in senior roles sometimes halted or reversed progress. This risk extended to practice innovations, which could lose momentum without shared ownership across teams.
Vertical distribution of leadership
The programme’s theory of change envisioned leadership emerging at all organizational levels. Participants offered examples of distributed leadership, such as frontline teams shaping new practices or community access initiatives responding flexibly to local needs. Healthcare staff, social workers, and other professionals were sometimes encouraged to contribute to innovation groups. However, hierarchical structures, accountability demands, and resource pressures often limited the extent of meaningful distribution. Middle managers played a pivotal role, serving at times as facilitators of innovation and at other times as barriers influenced by competing priorities and pressure.
Horizontal distribution across organizations and communities
Efforts to extend leadership across sector boundaries revealed ongoing challenges. Collaboration between social care and health was hindered by differing cultures, disputes over resources, and historical tensions. Although joint training improved relationships, deep integration remained limited. Partnerships with the voluntary and community sector were valued for their knowledge of local assets, but their leadership potential was constrained by funding dependencies and contractual arrangements that reinforced hierarchical relationships. Co-production with people with lived experience was similarly limited, often mediated through existing advisory groups rather than enabling direct leadership. Nonetheless, there were emerging examples of initiatives that began to integrate lived experience into transformation processes more meaningfully.
Discussion
Strengths-based practice remains deeply aligned with core social work values such as equality, inclusion, and community orientation. Yet embedding such practice within existing systems requires cultural change and leadership that reinforces these values. The study highlights the ongoing difficulty of articulating and operationalizing culture change, which demands long-term, coordinated effort rather than generalized aspirations. Leadership, while better understood conceptually, remained heavily anchored in hierarchical expectations, with senior leaders continuing to serve as the main drivers of change. This reliance, although often constructive, complicated efforts to build truly distributed leadership systems.
The limited involvement of people with lived experience and community organizations suggests that social work systems continue to face barriers in shifting power beyond organizational boundaries. Factors contributing to this include lack of skills in community development, reduced emphasis on such approaches in professional education, and structural constraints shaped by commissioning practices. Nonetheless, the profession’s values and historical commitment to social justice position it to lead by example in advancing co-production and inclusive leadership.
Conclusion
This study underscores the importance and complexity of leadership in social work transformation. While distributed leadership is widely endorsed in principle, in practice most change remained dependent on senior leaders, highlighting the need for thoughtful succession planning and stronger cultural embedding of new approaches. Achieving distribution of leadership vertically and horizontally requires deliberate, realistic strategies and long-term commitment.
The findings point to several practical implications, including the need for deeper understanding of cultural transformation, stronger infrastructure for co-production, renewed focus on community development skills, and leadership development that includes practitioners, people with lived experience, and partners from health and the voluntary sector. Social work, grounded in values of inclusion and shared power, is well placed to advance these approaches and model transformative leadership.
Beyond Barriers 