Community sentencing

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.

Source

The Good Lives Model: A Strengths-Based Approach to Rehabilitation

The Good Lives Model (GLM) represents a positive and strengths-based approach to offender rehabilitation. Developed by Tony Ward in 2010, it focuses on promoting personal fulfilment, well-being, and the pursuit of meaningful life goals rather than solely addressing risk factors or deficits. While it differs in emphasis from the traditional Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) framework, the GLM complements risk management by providing a more holistic, person-centred and engaging structure for rehabilitation (Ward & Fortune, 2013).

At the core of the GLM lies the belief that all individuals strive to achieve certain “primary human goods.” These are fundamental needs and aspirations that contribute to psychological well-being, such as life, knowledge, creativity, pleasure, spirituality, friendship, community, inner peace, excellence in work and play, and excellence in agency or autonomy. People pursue these goods through “secondary goods,” which are the specific activities or means used to achieve them. For example, running might be a secondary good that satisfies the primary good of excellence in play. However, when individuals lack the internal skills or external resources to pursue these goods in healthy and pro-social ways, they may resort to harmful or illegal behaviours. A person might, for instance, engage in harmful sexual behaviour as a misguided attempt to meet needs for intimacy or inner peace (Willis, Yates, Gannon & Ward, 2012).

The GLM views intervention as a process that helps individuals build the skills, strengths, and supports necessary to pursue their goals without harming others. Practitioners work collaboratively with clients to explore their values, aspirations, and personal definitions of a “good life.” Together, they develop a Good Lives Plan, identifying alternative and socially acceptable ways to meet primary goods while addressing risk factors that could hinder success (Purvis, Ward & Willis, 2011). This approach aims to replace harmful behaviours with positive strategies that allow individuals to live meaningful, fulfilling lives that do not cause harm to others.

Although originally developed for adults who had engaged in sexual offending, the GLM has been successfully adapted for use with children and young people by G-MAP, a UK-based service. This adaptation, known as the GLM-A, simplifies the model’s language and concepts to make them accessible and relevant to younger audiences. In this version, “primary goods” are referred to as “my needs,” while secondary goods are described as “how I meet my needs.” The eleven adult-focused primary goods have been condensed into eight primary needs that are more suitable for young people: having fun, achieving, being one’s own person, having people in one’s life, having purpose and making a difference, emotional health, sexual health, and physical health.

The GLM-A provides a framework for understanding the needs that drive a young person’s behaviour and informs the interventions required to help them meet these needs in appropriate ways. Interventions are carried out collaboratively, involving the young person and their family or carers, and recognising the importance of the wider social and systemic context (Fortune, Ward & Print, 2014).

In Scotland, the G-MAP model has been implemented through the Safer Lives Programme, introduced in 2008. This programme trains practitioners to use the GLM-A as part of their therapeutic work with young people who display harmful sexual behaviour. Initial evaluations of the GLM-A have been highly positive (Leeson & Adshead, 2013). Practitioners reported that the model improved their understanding of young people’s behaviours, enhanced engagement with children and carers, and provided a motivational and hopeful framework for change. Young people themselves found the model easy to understand and empowering, as it helped them recognise why they acted as they did and what steps they could take to change.

Further research into the implementation of Safer Lives in Scotland (Simpson & Vaswani, 2015) found that practitioners viewed the GLM-A as enriching their practice, sometimes by adding useful tools, and at other times by transforming their overall approach. They appreciated the model’s alignment with person-centred and strengths-based values and welcomed its shift away from a purely risk-focused perspective toward one that fosters growth and rehabilitation.

Despite its strengths, some critics have argued that the GLM focuses too narrowly on individual change and does not give enough attention to the social contexts that influence offending behaviour. McNeill and Weaver (2010) suggest that building social capital—such as supportive relationships, community involvement, and legitimate opportunities for participation—is essential to long-term desistance from offending.

Although the GLM and GLM-A have been applied primarily to individuals engaging in harmful sexual behaviour, the principles are equally relevant to other forms of offending. By focusing on personal growth, well-being, and the pursuit of pro-social goals, the GLM offers a promising framework for a wide range of rehabilitative practices.

In conclusion, the Good Lives Model and its adaptation for young people mark an important shift in offender rehabilitation, moving from a focus on risk and deficit toward one of growth, meaning, and human potential. By understanding and addressing the underlying needs that drive behaviour, the GLM empowers individuals to build better lives for themselves and safer communities for others.

Source

The Foundations and Evolution of Anti-Oppressive Practice Theory

Anti-Oppressive Practice (AOP) theory has emerged as a pivotal framework within the realm of social work, advocating for equity, social justice, and transformative change. Rooted in the historical critique of social work’s complicity in systemic oppression, AOP seeks to dismantle entrenched power dynamics that perpetuate inequality and injustice. This article delves into the intricate layers of AOP theory, tracing its origins, core themes, and its dynamic role in shaping contemporary social work practices.

Historical Context and Theoretical Foundations

The genesis of social work in the mid-nineteenth century, particularly in Victorian UK, was intertwined with the industrial capitalist milieu marked by rampant poverty and stark social inequities. Early social work efforts, often spearheaded by charitable organizations, operated under paternalistic paradigms that distinguished between the ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ poor. These interventions, while providing rudimentary relief, failed to address the systemic roots of poverty, instead reinforcing moralistic judgments and social stratification.

AOP theory critiques this legacy, highlighting how social work has historically functioned as an apparatus of social control, upholding the interests of dominant groups while marginalizing the oppressed. However, within this historical framework lies a radical kernel—an undercurrent of resistance and advocacy for social justice that AOP seeks to amplify and institutionalize.

Core Themes of Anti-Oppressive Practice

AOP theory is anchored in several core themes that collectively underscore its commitment to dismantling oppression and fostering inclusive, equitable social relations:

Intersectionality: Drawing from Black feminist thought, AOP employs intersectionality to analyze how overlapping systems of oppression—such as race, class, gender, and (dis)ability—interact to shape individuals’ lived experiences. Intersectionality highlights that oppression is not experienced in a vacuum; instead, it manifests through the convergence of multiple, intersecting social identities. For example, a Black woman may face not only racial discrimination but also gender-based biases, with these experiences compounding to create unique challenges distinct from those faced by individuals experiencing only one form of marginalization. Recognizing these complexities enables social workers to tailor their interventions more effectively, addressing the nuanced realities of those they serve.
Critical Social Analysis: AOP emphasizes the importance of critically examining social structures, policies, and practices that perpetuate inequality. Critical social analysis involves unpacking how historical, political, and economic forces shape contemporary power relations and contribute to systemic oppression. By deconstructing dominant narratives, social workers can expose the structural barriers that inhibit social mobility and reinforce privilege. This analytical lens encourages practitioners to move beyond surface-level symptoms and engage with the root causes of social injustices, fostering systemic change.
Advocacy and Activism: Central to AOP is the role of social workers as advocates and activists. Advocacy is not viewed as an optional component but as an ethical imperative integral to social work practice. This involves not only supporting individuals in navigating oppressive systems but also challenging and transforming those systems through policy reform, community organizing, and public education. Social workers are encouraged to align themselves with social justice movements, amplifying marginalized voices and contributing to collective struggles for equity and human rights. This dual focus on micro and macro advocacy underscores the holistic nature of AOP.
Critical Allyship and Attunement: AOP promotes the concept of critical allyship, where social workers actively support marginalized communities while critically reflecting on their own positionalities and privileges. Critical allyship requires a commitment to continuous self-examination, recognizing how one’s identity and social location can influence professional practice. It involves listening to and learning from the experiences of those who are directly impacted by oppression, ensuring that allyship is informed, respectful, and responsive. Critical attunement complements this by fostering an acute sensitivity to the power dynamics within client-practitioner relationships, promoting practices that are collaborative rather than hierarchical.
Cultural Safety and Humility: Moving beyond the static notion of cultural competence, AOP advocates for cultural safety and humility. Cultural safety focuses on creating environments where individuals feel respected, valued, and free from the risk of cultural harm. This approach acknowledges that cultural competence alone is insufficient, as it often reduces culture to a checklist of characteristics. Cultural humility, on the other hand, emphasizes an ongoing process of self-reflection and lifelong learning, where social workers recognize the limits of their knowledge and actively seek to understand diverse cultural perspectives. Together, these principles foster more equitable and meaningful engagements with diverse populations.
Participatory Practices: AOP encourages participatory approaches that empower service users by involving them in decision-making processes. This participatory ethos challenges traditional hierarchical models of social work, promoting collaborative and co-constructive practices. By valuing the expertise and lived experiences of clients, participatory practices shift the dynamic from “helping” to “partnering,” fostering mutual respect and shared power. This approach not only enhances the effectiveness of interventions but also reinforces the agency and autonomy of individuals and communities, aligning with the broader goals of social justice and empowerment.
Emancipatory Praxis: At its core, AOP is an emancipatory project aimed at achieving social justice and equity. Emancipatory praxis involves a reflective cycle of action and critical reflection, where practitioners continuously evaluate and adapt their approaches to challenge oppressive systems. This praxis is informed by a commitment to social transformation, seeking not only to alleviate immediate hardships but also to dismantle the structural conditions that produce and sustain inequality. By integrating theory with practice, emancipatory praxis empowers both social workers and the communities they serve to envision and enact alternatives to oppressive social arrangements.

Conclusion

Anti-Oppressive Practice theory offers a robust framework for understanding and addressing the complexities of social injustice. By grounding social work in critical, reflexive, and activist practices, AOP empowers practitioners to not only respond to the symptoms of oppression but to challenge and transform the systems that produce and sustain it. As social work continues to evolve, AOP remains an indispensable guide for those committed to the pursuit of equal opportunity, dignity, and social justice for all.

Source

Nutritional Social Work: A New Frontier in Social Justice

Nutritional social work is an emerging area within the field of social work that extends beyond food security and food justice. While these aspects remain crucial, nutritional social work emphasizes the quality and adequacy of nutrition as a critical factor in individual and community well-being. The profession of social work has long engaged with food-related issues, but there is a growing need to integrate nutritional concerns at all levels of practice, including policy, community engagement, and direct practice.

The concept of food security encompasses availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability of food. However, food security alone does not guarantee nutritional well-being. Nutritional security ensures that all individuals have access not only to sufficient food but to food that is nutritious and conducive to health. The intersection of food security and nutrition security is pivotal to addressing food justice issues. Social workers must consider how economic and geographic accessibility, cultural practices, and sustainability influence food justice efforts.

Historically, social workers have played a role in addressing food insecurity through policy advocacy, community organizing, and direct intervention. The profession has contributed to policy development aimed at reducing hunger and promoting equitable food distribution. Social work literature has shown a drastic increase in discussions around food insecurity since the 1950s, with strategies ranging from policy change to direct services like food distribution programs. For example, Canada Without Poverty (CWP) advocates for a national nutritious school food program, emphasizing the need for strong, rights-based policies to ensure healthy eating is accessible for all.

Community initiatives such as food banks, pantries, and soup kitchens have been longstanding responses to food insecurity, yet these interventions often fail to address underlying structural inequalities. Increasingly, social work practice is shifting toward systemic approaches that include sustainable food production, urban farming, and community gardens to enhance food sovereignty and nutritional access. Community gardens, in particular, have been instrumental in addressing food deserts—areas where fresh food is inaccessible—and food swamps, which are flooded with unhealthy food options. Vertical farming has also emerged as a sustainable urban agricultural practice that not only improves food security but fosters community engagement and reduces environmental impact.

At the policy level, social workers advocate for rights-based approaches to food security, pushing for policies that ensure access to nutritious food, support local agriculture, and promote living wages to improve affordability. Policies must be rooted in social justice and must challenge neoliberal economic structures that perpetuate food insecurity. Social workers have a role in shaping national and international policies that prioritize nutrition as a fundamental human right. For instance, advocating for food justice includes pushing for the integration of sustainable agricultural practices, addressing the impact of climate change on food systems, and supporting local food economies.

Community-based interventions are essential for addressing food deserts and food swamps, where access to fresh, healthy food is limited or non-existent. Initiatives like community gardens and vertical farming are gaining traction as they provide sustainable food sources, empower communities, and foster resilience. Social workers engaging in nutritional social work should facilitate these efforts, ensuring that they are inclusive and culturally appropriate. The psychological benefits of such community-led initiatives are also noteworthy, as they reduce the distress associated with food insecurity and promote mental well-being through social connection and empowerment.

Direct practice in nutritional social work involves incorporating nutritional considerations into social work assessments and interventions. This includes recognizing the connections between nutrition and mental health, chronic illnesses, and overall well-being. Research indicates strong correlations between poor nutritional quality and mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety. Social workers should collaborate with nutritionists and other health professionals to provide holistic interventions that consider dietary needs as part of comprehensive care plans. Addressing food insecurity through direct practice requires an understanding of the socio-political determinants of health and a commitment to equity and empowerment.

From a critical intersectionality perspective, food insecurity disproportionately affects marginalized communities, including Indigenous populations, racial minorities, and low-income individuals. Colonial and racist land policies have contributed to structural food insecurity, and social workers must engage in decolonizing food systems. Indigenous communities often face unique challenges related to food insecurity due to historical injustices, loss of traditional lands, and systemic marginalization. Efforts to improve nutritional security must prioritize participatory approaches that empower affected communities to define their own food needs and solutions, recognizing the importance of culturally relevant food systems.

Nutritional social work represents an expansion of the social work discipline into a vital yet often overlooked aspect of human well-being. By integrating nutritional considerations into social work education, research, and practice, the profession can play a transformative role in ensuring that all individuals have access to not only food but food that nourishes and sustains. As the field continues to evolve, social workers must advocate for systemic change while engaging in grassroots initiatives that promote nutritional justice for all. Social work education should incorporate nutritional security into curricula, emphasizing its relevance in direct practice, community development, and policy advocacy. Furthermore, a robust research agenda is needed to explore the impacts of nutritional interventions on social outcomes, thereby strengthening the evidence base for nutritional social work.

Source