For decades, court-ordered community service has been used as an alternative to incarceration. The intention is to reduce costs, provide restitution to the community and support individual rehabilitation. But does it actually work?
A new study from the University of Georgia suggests it doesn't.
"These goals aren't really being met. It's mixed," said Rebecca Nesbit, lead author of the study and a professor in UGA's School of Public and International Affairs. "If we want community service to live up to its potential, we need to think differently about how these programs are designed."
Costs shift to nonprofits, community organizations when community service is ordered
The researchers examined court-ordered community service programs in Georgia through interviews with both nonprofit managers and the individuals assigned to complete service hours. The findings suggest that court-ordered community service can be effective under the right conditions. But it often falls short.
While community service is often framed as a cost-saving alternative to incarceration, that is frequently not the case, the study found. In many instances, the offense that resulted in court-ordered community service wouldn't result in incarceration anyway.
When community service is ordered, the organizations, often nonprofits, take on the responsibility of supervising, training and tracking participants, with limited resources and little additional support.
Costs aren't saved, the study found. They are shifted.
Personal barriers, like lack of transportation, pose obstacles to service work
Many of the community service workers faced personal barriers to completing their court-assigned volunteer work, including limited transportation, lack of childcare and family responsibilities. A couple study participants reported losing their jobs while trying to complete their service requirements.
Many court-ordered workers were assigned to manual or behind-the-scenes tasks, such as cleaning or stocking, with little human interaction. That felt purely punitive to the workers.
As one participant shared, "Cleaning toilets doesn't make me feel more connected to my community." Without meaningful engagement, the goals of rehabilitation and restitution become harder to achieve.
"Court-ordered community service can potentially be transformative under very specific circumstances, but across the board that is not happening," Nesbit said. "It depends a lot on the attitude of the community service worker and the attitude of the staff at the organization."
These barriers make it hard for people to complete their court-ordered service - not because they don't want to but because of the difficulty of fitting it into their lives.
Community service can work but requires thoughtfulness
When the court-ordered community service does work, it really works, the researchers found.
Participants returned to organizations as volunteers after completing their hours. Some were even offered paid employment. Others were inspired to find new ways to volunteer or get involved in their communities.
"We have an example in our data of a woman who was doing her community service work at an organization that offers GED classes in Spanish," Nesbit said. "She later came back and earned her GED in Spanish through that organization. I thought that was really powerful because it shows how community service can open people's eyes."
Should we abolish community service? Researchers say no
The researchers aren't suggesting getting rid of community service entirely. But they do think it needs redesigning.
The study suggests the system would be more effective if community service were assigned more thoughtfully instead of being used as a default punishment. Individual circumstances should also be accounted for, including work schedules, family responsibilities and transportation challenges.
Giving individuals as much choice as possible as to when, where, how and even if they perform court-ordered service may be a good solution, but it often varies from probation office to probation office.
"If we redesign these programs with an eye toward respect for people and how the experience can benefit both the individual and the community," Nesbit said, "there's real potential there."
Published by Cambridge University Press, the study was co-authored by Jody Clay-Warner, a professor in UGA's Franklin College of Arts and Sciences and director of UGA's Owens Institute for Behavioral Research, and Su Young Choi, a doctoral graduate from UGA's School of Public and International Affairs who is now an assistant professor at the University of Wyoming.
