Prison population and penal reform: working towards sustainability

It is a requirement for the court to get a report from a justice social worker before sentencing someone to a CPO. However, there are exceptions when a CPO can be given without a justice social work report. These are: when the CPO is not above level one (between 20 and 100 hours) of the unpaid work or other activity requirement; or when the CPO is being given for an unpaid fine.

A report from a justice social worker will give the court background information, such as any offences previously committed, the person’s risk of reoffending, their health, and their living situation along with a suggested preferred disposal to consider, and if the recommendation is a CPO, an initial case management plan.

There are ten different requirements that can be given as part of a CPO. The court will decide which ones should be selected for each sentence. This will depend on the nature of the offence and what can be done to help prevent the person from committing more crimes. Once a CPO has been imposed, the management of that order is a matter for the court and local authority justice social work services.

Types of CPO requirement

• Unpaid work or other activity: someone subject to a CPO can be ordered to carry out between 20 and 300 hours of unpaid work, identified by local services and communities. The “other activity” component of the requirement focuses on developing their interpersonal, educational and vocational skills to support long-term desistance from offending.
• Supervision: someone can be required to attend regular appointments with a justice social worker, who supports them to address the factors underlying their offending behaviour and supervises their compliance with the requirements of the CPO. This includes arranging referrals to other public and third sector services.
• Compensation: this is a requirement to pay money to victims for injuries or distress caused, or damage to property. The money is paid to the court who ensure it is then transferred to the named person.
• Programmes: attendance at a programme arranged by a social worker to deal with offending behaviour. The two main national, accredited programmes are Caledonian (domestic abuse) and MF2C (sexual offences). Local authority areas may also use local programmes which are not nationally accredited (e.g. these could focus on drug and alcohol misuse).
• Residence: requirement to stay at a certain address.
• Conduct: order to do certain things or not do certain things. Courts can only use this requirement if they consider that it will help secure or promote good behaviour by the person or stop them from committing more crimes.
• Restricted movement: the person can be required to remain at a specific address for up to 12 hours a day, and/or to stay away from a specific place or class of places for up to 24 hours a day. This requirement can be imposed by the courts for either a period of up to 12 months for a person aged 18 or over, or for a period of up to 3 months for a person aged under 18, and compliance with the requirement can be electronically monitored.
• Mental health treatment: If the person has been diagnosed with a mental health condition that plays a role in their offending, they can receive support and treatment. This can include staying in hospital or attending medical clinics. It can also include getting counselling or any other treatment put forward by a doctor.
• Drug treatment: treatment might include being ordered to attend a clinic or hospital.
• Alcohol: this could include an order to receive counselling or attend a clinic to receive treatment.

In 2024-25, 16,500 CPOs were imposed. Of these, a substantial proportion were issued with an unpaid work requirement (69%), and with a supervision requirement (67%). The average number of requirements imposed was 1.66. Though the highest figure of the last 10 years, it suggests that most people only receive one or two requirements. Alcohol Treatment (1.1%), Drug Treatment (1.4%) Mental Health Treatment (0.2%) and Residence Requirements (0.1%) are infrequently used. Behind these national figures, there is a level of variation between local authorities reflecting the local model of delivery in line with local need.

These figures make clear that the focus of CPOs has tended to be on unpaid work and supervision to tackle underlying offending behaviour rather than more specific requirements designed to tackle particular aspects underlying offending behaviour.

It is important to better understand how CPOs can be tailored to a person’s circumstances to ensure they are a credible alternative to a custodial sentence.

There are a range of ways in which this could be achieved, for example:-

• Any unnecessary or ineffective requirements could be removed.
• Any behaviours and needs not yet addressed could be met by adding additional requirements.
• Current requirements could be amended to ensure they can be used more flexibly and effectively, for example by removing legislative barriers and allowing a wider range of activity to take place.

The Commission set out the view that CPOs should be more person-centred rather than based on specific requirements. It noted that “supporting the use of discretion rather than highly prescriptive requirements may help ensure orders remain flexible and proportionate, reducing unnecessary breach risks when circumstances change.” It considered that since justice social workers are best placed to have both direct personal knowledge of the relevant individuals and appropriate services, the precise means of addressing needs in a CPO should be a matter for the social worker. This would constitute a more person-centred approach that enables the appropriate treatment requirements to be used without legislative barriers.

In considering such an approach it would be important to be mindful of potential risks and unintended consequences, for example, it could lead to increased workloads for justice social workers, and if sentencers had less control over the composition of a specific CPO it is possible that they may be less inclined to use them.

The Commission emphasised that “Ultimately, reducing the use of ineffective short custodial sentences must go hand in hand with strengthening protections, information, and support for victims.” Victims require community disposals to be robust, well monitored, and evidence-based so they can be reassured that they are safe and the offending is being taken seriously. The Commission’s engagement made clear victims’ desire for improved information at key stages throughout the justice process, for example, related to what conditions apply to a community order, and when a person may be released from custody. It was also noted that electronic monitoring could play a valuable role in preventing people who have offended from approaching victims or going to particular places.

The Commission also heard concerns about what victims considered to be “inconsistent and sometimes infrequent use of Non-Harassment Orders (NHOs), especially in cases involving domestic abuse, stalking, or persistent offending.” The Scottish Government agrees that where victims need protection, NHOs should be considered and applied consistently, although this is a matter for independent decision-makers in the judiciary.

Community sentencing provides an opportunity to help provide support to address the issues that can underpin offending behaviour such as addiction, homelessness, trauma, or mental ill health.

Support provision as part of a community sentence depends on the capacity of local services, particularly justice social work and the third sector. Individuals on CPOs often have multiple, overlapping needs, which can increase instability and make addressing offending more difficult, requiring a co-ordinated, multi-agency response. Justice social work therefore plays a key role in arranging referrals to wider public services, with charities and third sector organisations providing essential additional support.

The main forms of support for people on community sentences are:

• Justice social work supervision: structured support, case management, regular one-to-one contact to address offending behaviour, linking individuals to community services.
• Programme-based interventions where as part of the order, individuals may access offence-focused programmes (e.g. addressing violence, domestic abuse).
• Practical and social support (often through referral rather than direct delivery) e.g. housing, employability and skills, welfare benefits advice and financial inclusion, substance use services (alcohol and drug partnerships), mental health services.
• Third sector provision delivered by charities and community organisations e.g. mentoring services, recovery services, women-specific services.

The Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission set out views that people serving community sentences would benefit from increased support. It suggested that Scotland could learn from Northern Ireland’s Enhanced Combination Order (ECO) which provides courts with more intensive community sentencing options and noted that in Northern Ireland the number of short custodial sentences imposed by courts in which ECOs are available decreased by over one fifth.

ECOs are intended to be flexible with a focus on multi-agency working, targeted interventions, accredited programmes, restorative practice, and where appropriate, parenting/family support work. People who have offended are assessed by psychologists, with the potential to receive a bespoke mental health intervention, depending on needs.

If the Scottish Government was to emulate this approach there may be benefits of taking it forward through legislation, or alternatively sharing best practice between areas and encouraging regional collaboration may lead to effective results more quickly.

Evidence shows that community sentences are more effective than short prison sentences at reducing reoffending. They enable individuals to access justice social work support to address the underlying causes of their behaviour, while allowing them to remain in employment, sustain housing, and maintain family and community ties—factors known to support desistance.

At present, CPOs are used as an alternative to someone being imprisoned. This can mean they are most often used where an individual is already close to receiving a prison sentence. However, the evidence suggests that earlier intervention through justice social work support can be effective in addressing offending behaviour before it escalates to that point.

Expanding the use of CPOs to a broader range of cases would allow more individuals to benefit from structured support in the community, including those who may not be on the cusp of imprisonment but would still benefit from targeted intervention. This would help address the drivers of offending at an earlier stage, while avoiding the disruption associated with short periods in custody and the risk of individuals being exposed to further criminal influences. As part of this approach, it would be important to ensure that breaches are managed in a way that does not inadvertently increase the use of custody.

CPOs could also be strengthened to make them more suitable for more serious offending, including cases where custodial sentences (particularly in the 12–24 month range) might currently be imposed. Options could include increasing the maximum number of unpaid work hours, extending the maximum duration of orders, expanding the use of electronic monitoring (such as GPS or alcohol monitoring and enhancing both programme requirements and support provision to address more serious or persistent offending.

Where an individual subject to a CPO has demonstrated significant efforts, made positive progress, and the assessed risk/needs have been reduced to the extent that there is little benefit in continuing to intervene in the individual’s life, an application can be made for early discharge of a CPO. The possibility for early discharge incentivises good behaviour, and more usefully allocates community justice resources to those in need. However, it is rare, with only around 4% of successfully completed CPOs resulting in early discharge and with considerable variation between local authorities.

The UK Parliament recently legislated to introduce a provision whereby if the person on a community order has carried out the qualifying amount of work while complying with certain criteria, such as not failing to attend for work (without reasonable excuse), the number of unpaid work hours required can be reduced.

It also introduced a provision to terminate a community order on completion of all requirements and objectives in the sentencing plan, to encourage early engagement, and to negate the need for individual applications to the court to vary or revoke the order based on progress made.

Individuals subject to a CPO are required to comply with its terms, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of the order. Effective enforcement is essential to maintaining the credibility of community sentences. Consequences for breaching an order include the imposition of a fine, variation of the order or revocation of the order and imposition of a new community order or imprisonment. In the Commission’s Call for Evidence, respondents highlighted challenges in managing breach, including delays in progressing cases through formal processes.

Where non-compliance occurs, responses should be timely, proportionate and consistent, recognising both the need to maintain the authority of the court and the importance of supporting individuals to re-engage. Those supervising orders must act in a way that is fair, reasonable and transparent, while ensuring that non-compliance is addressed in a manner that commands public and judicial confidence. National guidance sets out expectations for managing breach, although a 2021 Scottish Sentencing Council (SCC) report noted that aspects of the process rely on professional judgement and local practice.

The SCC report highlighted judicial concern about delays in reporting breaches and the need for more timely escalation where compliance is not achieved. It also recognised that improvements to the efficiency of breach processes are necessary to support more responsive enforcement and ensure that consequences follow non-compliance without undue delay.

The Commission recommended strengthening policy and guidance to support more consistent practice, including clearer expectations around when non-compliance should result in formal breach action. This includes supporting a graduated approach to enforcement, where appropriate, but within a framework that ensures persistent or serious non-compliance results in clear and timely consequences.

We welcome views on how breach processes for CPOs can be strengthened to better balance flexibility with accountability. This includes how national guidance and local practice can support earlier intervention, clearer and more consistent thresholds for formal breach, and a more efficient court response. We are particularly interested in views on the use of graduated responses, the circumstances in which custody is appropriate following breach, and how to ensure that community disposals remain both credible and effective in the event of non-compliance.

Background

Substance use and related harms are a significant challenge in Scotland, both as a public health issue and in their relationship with offending behaviour. People with substance use issues are more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system, often alongside other complex and interrelated needs such as mental health issues, poverty, trauma and social exclusion.

Evidence consistently shows a strong link between substance use and offending and many in custody report drug use prior to imprisonment or at the time of their offence. This reinforces the importance of ensuring that the justice system is equipped to respond effectively to substance-related offending, supporting reduction of harms and reoffending.

Community justice options are often appropriate for individuals whose offending is linked to substance use. The main disposals are a Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or a Community Payback Order (CPO) with a drug treatment requirement.

DTTOs are intensive community disposals designed to address problem drug use among individuals whose offending is linked to substance dependency. They were introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

DTTOs are a direct alternative to imprisonment which focus on drug treatment as the primary means of reducing offending behaviour. They are given for up to three years and require individuals to engage in structured treatment alongside regular drug testing and frequent court reviews, with the aim of reducing both drug use and associated offending.

Trends in use

The use of DTTOs in Scotland has declined significantly over the past decade. In 2024–25, 230 DTTOs were imposed, the lowest in a decade. This represents a 62% drop since a peak of 600 in 2018-19. Around half are successfully completed. This decline is linked to a range of factors including capacity constraints within treatment services, workforce challenges, local variation in delivery shortages and increased use of alternative disposals, particularly CPOs.  Another key factor is that the testing and treatment model set out in the DTTO guidance is no longer well aligned with current patterns of substance use. In particular, changes in drug use away from opiates mean the model is often not suitable for addressing present needs, and as a result practitioners are increasingly less likely to recommend DTTOs to the courts.

DTTOs also have relatively high reconviction rates compared to other community disposals.

Community payback orders with drug treatment requirements

CPOs can include a drug treatment requirement alongside other requirements to address wider needs. DTTOs and CPOs with a drug treatment requirement are intended to differ in purpose, intensity and delivery.

DTTOs are for people with entrenched, high-risk drug dependency, involving intensive supervision, frequent testing and regular court oversight. In contrast, CPOs take a broader, more flexible approach, using drug treatment as one of several tailored requirements, typically for a wider range of people with less severe dependency. CPOs with Drug Treatment Requirements are not routinely used, with 225 imposed in 2024-2025.

Research suggests that in practice: DTTO and CPO requirements can overlap significantly; the threshold for DTTOs is high and many individuals may be considered more suitable for flexible, multi-need approaches. An evidence review by the Scottish Government on community sentencing options for people with substance use problems questioned the benefits and necessity of offering both DTTOs and CPOs with a treatment requirement, noting “the conditions of a DTTO can be almost exactly replicated within the CPO framework.”

Evidence highlights a number of challenges affecting both DTTOs and wider community disposals:

• Variation in delivery across local areas.
• Limited access to treatment services, including workforce and capacity issues.
• Practical barriers for courts, including difficulty identifying treatment providers at sentencing.
• Judicial confidence, particularly where services are not consistently available.
• At the same time, there is increasing use of alternative requirements (such as conduct requirements) to support engagement with substance use services.

A public health approach to substance use and justice

There has been a clear shift in Scotland towards treating substance use as a public health issue. The Scottish Government’s Alcohol and Drugs Strategic Plan (2026–2035) emphasises:

• person-centred and trauma-informed approaches;
• early intervention, prevention and harm reduction;
• coordinated, multi-agency support;
• improving consistency and timeliness of access to treatment and recovery;
• reducing stigma and barriers to engagement.

This reflects growing recognition that effective responses to substance-related offending require integrated health and social care approaches rather than justice interventions alone. The Strategic Plan includes a commitment to promoting a public health approach to justice through:

• “exploring ways to expand the use of community-based early interventions, problem solving courts and community sentences for people whose offending is linked to alcohol and drug use”.
• “reviewing the current use of community interventions including CPOs, Drug Testing and Treatment Orders and structured deferred sentences to assess whether they can be used to better address the underlying causes of offending behaviour, including alcohol and drug use.”

Moreover, to address co-occurring drug and alcohol needs, the Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission recommended that the Scottish Government “evolve the DTTO model into a Substance Misuse Treatment Order, enabling courts to address both drug and alcohol-related offending.” The Commission noted that addiction in Scotland often involves both drugs and alcohol, so limiting courts and treatment orders to drug misuse alone misses much of the issue.

Currently, a CPO may be imposed with an alcohol treatment requirement where an individual is considered to be alcohol dependent, however, like CPOs with drug treatment requirements, these are also rarely imposed. Only 175 CPOs with Alcohol Treatment Requirements were imposed across Scotland in 2024-25(1.1% of CPOs).

Given these developments, it is appropriate to consider whether the current DTTO model aligns with current evidence, including a public health approach to substance use, and is an effective disposal for addressing substance‑related offending.