1.1 History and Goals of Court-Ordered Community Service

The use of court-ordered community service as a condition of probation originated in the United Kingdom in the 1970s, when the Wootton Report recommended the practice as an alternative to incarceration (Advisory Council on the Penal System, 1970). The Criminal Justice Act of 1972 reflected the report’s recommendations, establishing the circumstances under which court-ordered community service should be utilized and offering guidelines for its implementation. Importantly, court-ordered community service, intended to serve as an alternative to incarceration, was only an option when the charged offense was one for which incarceration would otherwise be required (Pease, Reference Pease1985). The option was also limited to those aged 16 and over and included a term no longer than a year, with probationers assigned to complete between 40 and 240 hours. The assignment of community service was a standalone punishment and not an add-on to other probation requirements. Once the practice was established in the U.K., many European countries and the United States began to adopt court-ordered community service as a probation sanction, though countries implemented it differently (see Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025, for a review). In the U.S., for example, community service is rarely a standalone punishment but is, instead, issued alongside other sanctions, such as drug testing, victim restitution, fines, and house arrest (Martin et al., Reference Martin, Sykes, Shannon, Edwards and Harris2018; McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a, Reference McIvor, Miller and Wright1993b).

By the end of the twentieth century, court-ordered community service was in wide use, with its popularity likely tied to the long list of goals used to justify its implementation. First, proponents argue that probation sanctions save money (Gelsthorpe & Rex, Reference Gelsthorpe, Rex and Mair2004) by reducing costs for communities and for maintaining prisons and jails (Brown, Reference Brown1977; Harland, Reference Harland1980; McDonald, Reference McDonald1986, Reference McDonald1988). This assumes, of course, that those sentenced to community service would, otherwise, have been sentenced to incarceration. The second stream of arguments in favor of court-ordered community service focuses on the potential restorative benefits to the community. Adherents of this goal see the community, at large, as a victim of the offender’s crime and community service as restitution (Brown, Reference Brown1977; Eglash, Reference Eglash, Hudson and Galaway1977; Hudson et al., Reference Hudson, Galaway and Novack1980; McIvor, Reference McIvor2004). Thirdly, community service can help the offender, particularly juveniles, in meaningful ways by developing the skills and experience necessary for paid work (Bazemore, Reference Bazemore1991; Brown, Reference Brown1977; Klein, Reference Klein1982), reducing recidivism and increasing reintegration.

Given the range of goals for court-ordered community service (McIvor et al., Reference McIvor, MacNeill, Durnescu and Butter2010), it is not surprising that judges who sentence probationers may have different agendas than the officers who supervise them (Bazemore & Maloney, Reference Bazemore and Maloney1994). This problem is compounded by the aims and goals of local receiving organizations, as their interest in working with CSWs usually involves accomplishing their organizational mission. Additionally, these entities may communicate incompletely and sporadically about their objectives for community service, further complicating their ability to meet these goals. Bazemore and Maloney (Reference Bazemore and Maloney1994, p. 24) observed that, in many places, this goal misalignment had rendered community service “little more than a bureaucratic function at best and a burden to staff and community agencies at worst.” Given these competing objectives, it is important to examine the scholarship on the success of court-ordered community service (see Gelsthorpe & Rex, Reference Gelsthorpe, Rex and Mair2004).

1.2 Empirical Research on the Cost-Effectiveness of Court-Ordered Community Service

A widely stated goal of court-ordered community service (and probation in general) is to reduce costs: it is assumed to be less expensive to administer probation than it is to incarcerate an offender. This logic applies, though, only if probation is truly used in place of incarceration. Probation has been shown to be a powerful tool for “net-widening” (Phelps, Reference Phelps2013), a well-known phenomenon in which the criminal legal system extends its control to those who commit offenses that do not typically result in incarceration (e.g., Tonry & Lynch, Reference Tonry and Lynch1996). Since probationers might otherwise have received a suspended sentence, it is difficult to argue that probation sentences, in general, save money, given the costs associated with maintaining probation offices and coordinating probation sentences. Because court-ordered community service is largely reserved for low-level, nonviolent offenders, it is particularly unlikely that those sentenced to community service would spend time in prison or jail. Court-ordered community service also has its own unique costs, as community agencies must invest time and personnel costs into training and supervision of CSWs (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025).

While a few studies have attempted to examine the claim that court-ordered community service saves money, most of these studies were conducted in Europe, so their findings may not be directly transferable to the U.S. context. Knapp, Robertson, and McIvor (Reference McIvor1992), comparing costs of community service and alternative custodial sentences in Scotland, concluded that community service is less expensive than incarceration but that the cost savings are lower than the government claims: it costs the court system about the same amount of money to administer a community service sanction as it does a six-week custodial sentence. This excludes costs to the convicted person or their families, who are often responsible for paying fees for probation services, or the costs that the supervising agencies incur.

1.3 Empirical Research on the Impact of Court-Ordered Community Service on Communities and Community Organizations

It is important to understand the impact of court-ordered community service on community organizations and the community at large when considering whether its role as a court sanction is meeting its intended goals. The U.S. Court system has declared that “in addition to the specific sentencing purpose to be served, the desired by-product of community service is always to benefit the community” (Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 2024). In addition, restitution is an often-cited goal of CSW programs (e.g., Austin & Krisberg, Reference Austin and Krisberg1982; Bazemore & Karp, Reference Bazemore and Karp2004; Harris & Lo, Reference Harris and Lo2002).

The limited research on this topic focuses primarily on agency workers’ perceptions of CSW programs and the attitudes of those whom CSWs serve. In this vein, McIvor (Reference McIvor, Miller and Wright1993b) found that the vast majority of people surveyed in Scotland who received CSW assistance – mostly elderly residents getting help with household tasks – reported that they benefited from the work and that it was well done. Ninety-six percent of those surveyed said they would use CSW teams again. Similarly, Caputo (Reference Caputo1999) found that six of the eight community agency representatives interviewed as part of a larger project on the effectiveness of community service orders were either satisfied or very satisfied with their work. In addition, half of the agency employees noted the value of CSWs completing work that the agency otherwise would not have been able to manage. Recent research similarly finds that (1) agencies often engage CSWs because they perform labor that volunteers do not want to perform and (2) agencies with short-term, labor-intensive projects, such as stocking shelves at a food bank, are particularly likely to report a benefit to CSW labor (Clerkin, Coggburn, & Lawrence, Reference Clerkin, Coggburn and Lawrence2025).

Studies have also considered the monetary value and concrete products of the labor CSWs perform in assessing program success. An evaluation of an intensive community service program in New York City that involved probationers, as well as those on parole, found that the program produced 60,000 hours of labor for the community (McDonald, Reference McDonald1986). In arguing for the success of CSW programs, Bazemore and Karp (Reference Bazemore and Karp2004) cite Dickey and Smith’s (Reference Dickey and Smith1998) study listing the tangible products of CSW labor: “gardens, graffiti-free neighborhoods, less dangerous alleys, [and] habitable housing for the homeless” (p. 35). Some agencies also report more flexibility with how CSW labor is used as compared to volunteers, as CSWs can be assigned to tasks that volunteers do not want to perform (Clerkin et al., Reference Clerkin, Coggburn and Lawrence2025; Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). Review articles have also noted generally positive outcomes for communities (e.g., Harris & Lo, Reference Harris and Lo2002).

While these studies indicate that CSW labor can benefit communities, the costs of the programs might offset the benefits for some agencies (Clerkin et al., Reference Clerkin, Coggburn and Lawrence2025). Probation programs are generally expensive to operate, and there are additional personnel costs when probation officers coordinate with community agencies. Agencies also incur costs when they utilize CSW labor: the time and effort involved in managing CSWs often exceeds that for agency volunteers, given the time reporting requirements (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). Further, while proper onboarding and training matter as much for CSWs as they do for volunteers, the time investment in CSWs is much less likely to yield long-term commitment to the organization (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). Research also finds that agency staff report having to engage in closer supervision of CSWs than of volunteers, which is time-consuming (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). Thus, the benefits that communities receive may be offset by the costs associated with CSW programs.

1.4 Empirical Research on the Impact of Court-Ordered Community Service on Community Service Workers

Another goal of court-mandated community service programs is to reduce recidivism. Empirical research examining the extent to which court-ordered community service fulfills this goal focuses on CSW attitudes and reoffending and/or rearrest rates. We focus here on studies featuring an appropriate comparison group, which is necessary for making causal claims.

Research on recidivism comparing CSWs to persons receiving a jail sentence shows mixed findings. Killias, Aebi, and Ribeaud (Reference Killias, Gilliéron, Kissling and Villettaz2000) conducted a field experiment in Switzerland that compared people randomly assigned to community service work or to a jail sentence of up to fourteen days. There were no significant differences in new convictions across the two groups, but there were fewer police reports involving the CSWs than those jailed. Participants were also interviewed immediately after completing their sentence and then surveyed two years later, though only 65% of the CSWs and 51% of the incarcerated group returned the follow-up survey. While there were no differences in employment or satisfaction with social life across groups, the group sentenced to jail reported more optimism about their future compared to CSWs. An eleven-year follow-up on a subset of these participants revealed no significant differences between the CSW and jailed groups in either reconvictions or measures of social integration. Interestingly, the participants assigned to jail were significantly more likely to report income in the follow-up year than were those in the CSW group (Killias et al., Reference Killias, Gilliéron, Villard and Poglia2010).

In contrast, Wermink and colleagues (Reference Wermink, Blokland, Nieuwbeerta, Nagin and Tollenaar2010), in an eight-year follow-up of over 4,000 persons in the Netherlands, found significantly lower rates of recidivism among those sentenced to court-ordered community service compared to those who were imprisoned. At least two other studies also find lower recidivism among CSWs than among those sentenced to jail (e.g., Bol & Overwater, Reference Bol and Overwater1986; Spaans, Reference Spaans1998).

1.5 Current Study

Given the wide-ranging goals of CSW programs, it is not surprising that findings from the limited evaluation research are mixed. Much of this research also takes place in Europe, where CSW programs operate in a significantly different social and judicial context than in the U.S. This suggests the need for research that compares program outcomes cross-nationally and that assesses the potential success of all three primary goals of CSW programs simultaneously.

Before embarking on wide-scale evaluation research, though, we need preliminary data to understand more about how CSW programs operate and how CSWs and community agencies experience the programs. Here, we take a first step in assessing whether court-ordered community service in the U.S. can meet its varied goals by focusing on the experiences of CSWs and the agency staff who supervise them within the jurisdiction of two probation offices in Georgia. Our goal in presenting this case study is to identify facets of program operations that bear further investigation. We do this by examining how CSWs and organizations experience these programs and whether their experiences mesh with the intended goals. For example, if the CSWs experience the programs as stigmatizing, then the reintegration goal would likely not be realized. Similarly, if agency managers report that participating in the program is overly burdensome and they do so out of a sense of obligation, then restitution goals are in question.

Specifically, we assess the potential effectiveness of court-ordered community service in the districts under study by examining whether organizations’ and CSWs’ experiences lay the groundwork for program success. As Bazemore and Karp (Reference Bazemore and Karp2004) point out, chain gangs were also a form of “community service,” albeit a highly degrading and punitive form. While CSW programs for probationers are very different from chain gangs, they still involve conscripted labor. It is an open question whether conscripted labor can effectively lead to rehabilitation and reintegration, and even restitution goals are called into question if program costs are excessive. In considering this issue, we implicitly examine the philosophical underpinnings of CSW programs, as well as the practical implications of the programs on communities and probationers.

We organize our research around the perceived effects of court-ordered community service programs on the community organizations that participate, the community, and CSWs. We also examine the role of court-ordered community service on CSWs’ volunteer intentions, drawing on insights from the volunteer management literature. We bring these questions together to assess whether CSW programs operate in ways that advance program goals and then provide policy recommendations.

2.1 The Probation Offices

The research team worked with two probation offices within the same judicial district in Georgia. The first office, which we will call the Dogwood Office, serves an urban county, while the second office, called the Azalea Office, serves three rural counties. Like other probation offices, these offices are tasked with supervising probationers within their jurisdiction, under the auspices of the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (DCS) (2017). The offices identify public and nonprofit agencies in the community to receive their CSWs. Participating organizations agree to supervise CSWs appropriately and to properly maintain and return their time sheets. The probation offices typically provide a list of community service sites to each CSW and allow them to select where to serve, but officers have the latitude to assign CSWs to a location at their discretion. DCS policy requires felony offenders to complete their community service hours within three years, while misdemeanor offenders have twelve months to do so. Probation offices have the latitude to assign additional community service hours in lieu of a fine. Within the judicial district where our study takes place, judges typically require 40 community service hours for the first DUI and 240 for a second. However, probationers vary in the number of community service hours they are required to perform.

The Dogwood Office is an independent probation office supervising 1,500 active probationers. After discovering instances of CSWs paying for fraudulent time sheets, the Dogwood Office adopted stricter policies for its partner agencies, including a required training module. At the time of the study, the Dogwood Office was consistently working with twenty-two nonprofits and ten public agencies. The Office also provided CSWs to an additional five nonprofits for special events once or twice a year.

Due to its more rural placement, the Azalea Office struggles to find enough partner agencies across the three counties it serves. At the time of the study, the Azalea Office was partnering with eight agencies – two government and six nonprofit. The Azalea Office would also permit CSWs to do some service hours at their own office, particularly when staff felt the CSW would need extra supervision or assistance. The geographic spread of the area and demographic make-up of the counties served by the Azalea Office compound the challenge of identifying sufficient partners to receive CSWs, especially for those with transportation challenges or mental/physical disabilities. At the time of data collection, the Azalea Office was supervising 100 probationers with community service requirements.

2.2 Data Collection Procedures

Our two partner probation offices shared their lists of CSW-receiving organizations, and we invited each agency, specifically the person responsible for managing CSWs, to participate in the study. (Typically, this individual also supervised the organization’s volunteers.) We conducted semi-structured interviews with thirty-one managers representing thirty organizations (twenty-five associated with the Dogwood Office and six with the Azalea Office). Most of the interviewees (n = 25) were employed by nonprofits, and the remainder were with public organizations. Interviews were conducted in Fall 2017 (with the exception of one interview in June 2018), either in person or on the phone, and were recorded and transcribed. Interview topics included questions about the benefits and challenges of working with CSWs and how community service affects the organization and its CSWs.

We also conducted interviews with individuals who have community service requirements as a condition of probation. We tried to screen for individuals who had completed at least ten hours of service, but four study participants had not yet completed any community service. Probation officers used an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved recruitment script to recruit study participants during their regular follow-up visits. Offering a $15 Walmart gift card as an incentive for participation, we interviewed thirty-four probationers, eighteen associated with the Dogwood Office, and fourteen with the Azalea Office. We collected data between February and March 2018. Most of the interviews occurred in a private room in the respective probation office but thirteen were conducted by telephone for the respondents’ convenience. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Interview questions covered barriers to completing service hours, their perspectives on how community service has helped or hurt them, attitudes about community service as a punishment, and intention to continue as a volunteer.

2.3 Qualitative Coding and Analysis

The research team used a two-cycle coding technique to analyze the data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, Reference Miles, Huberman and Saldaña2020; Saldaña, Reference Saldaña2016). In the first cycle of coding, the main topic for each passage was identified and coded with a descriptive word or phrase. In the second cycle, the descriptive codes were grouped into themes.

The CSW interviews included a handful of closed-ended questions that asked about CSWs’ perceptions of community service as a policy intervention. They responded using a five-point Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree, (2) somewhat disagree, (3) neutral, (4) somewhat agree, and (5) strongly agree. Throughout this document, we report the percent of CSWs who agreed or strongly agreed with each question. CSWs were asked to verbally elaborate when they disagreed with one of the statements. These elaborations were translated into descriptive codes, following the two-cycle coding procedure outlined above.

2.4 Community Organizations and Managers

The community organizations in our study work in a variety of areas, including thrift stores (7), recreational facilities (4), human services (4), medical (3), and animal welfare (2). Most of these organizations have worked with CSWs for ten or more years, though two had only recently started doing so. While most organizations work with CSWs on an ongoing basis, four of them use CSWs only on an ad hoc basis to help with large events. Some organizations only work with a couple of CSWs each month and others (primarily the thrift stores and animal welfare organizations) would use dozens over the same period.

We interviewed the person at each organization who manages the CSWs. Our final sample included five “volunteer coordinators,” a few executive directors or assistant executive directors, and employees in other managerial roles (e.g., facilities manager). A few respondents were board members. We refer to all of these individuals as “managers” throughout. Tables 1a–1c summarize basic background information on the managers, who are assigned pseudonyms.

Managers had an average tenure of nine years at their current organization. Because most had other duties besides managing volunteers, volunteer (and CSW) management responsibilities typically took less than 20% of their work time. Only two of the managers had received any specific credentialing for managing volunteers, although several had master’s degrees that included management education. The managers also varied greatly in how much professional development they had received regarding working with volunteers. Seven reported having no professional development, and another seven had only taken the required training offered through their probation office. The rest of the managers reported participating in trainings offered through their community, a university, or other nonprofits. A more detailed description of the managers is provided in our prior work (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025).

2.5 The Community Service Workers

We interviewed thirty-four CSWs, 18 with the Dogwood Office and 14 with the Azalea Office. Tables 2a–2d show the basic demographic characteristics of our sample of CSWs, who were each assigned a pseudonym.

The CSWs in our sample leaned toward being male (19), white (27), and young (17 under age 30). They also had low levels of education (four have a bachelor’s degree or higher) and were relatively poor. Twenty-six CSWs claimed an annual salary of less than $40,000. Their employment situations varied greatly – unemployed (12), employed full-time (12), and employed part-time (10). Seven CSWs were university students.

The CSWs were on probation for a variety of crimes, including larceny (32%); underage drinking (26%); vehicular crimes, such as DUI (21%); drug offenses (15%); and violent crimes (6%). The length of their probation ranged from six months to five years or more, with eighteen on probation for a year or less. The amount of required community service ranged from 20 to 330 hours (average = 66 hours). The typical CSW had completed 40 hours of community service at the time of data collection, although four respondents had not yet completed any.

The CSWs in our sample performed community service in a variety of environments, including nonprofit organizations (16), like thrift stores or animal shelters; public agencies (13), like libraries or recreational facilities; and a church (3). Two disabled individuals received alternative service assignments. Many of the organizations working with the CSWs in our sample were also part of our manager sample; however, several CSWs did service work at organizations that were not represented in our interviews (i.e., those not appearing on the preapproved lists provided by the probation offices). We share a more detailed description of the CSWs in our prior work (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025).

3.1 Benefits to the Organization

The managers reported three primary benefits of working with CSWs. First, most feel that many CSWs are good, compliant, reliable workers. Second, they can be used almost as quasi-employees because they are scheduled to come in at regular, predictable intervals. Third, they help to build the organization’s long-term human resource capacity. We discuss each of these benefits below.

3.2 Challenges of Court-Ordered Community Service Workers

While organizations experience important benefits when working with CSWs, the managers also articulated several drawbacks. The major challenges include (1) some CSWs being difficult workers, (2) CSWs with unrealistic expectations, (3) challenges related to CSW fit with the organization or the work, (4) supervision/administrative costs, and (5) challenges interacting with probation offices.

3.3 The Restorative Potential of Court-Ordered Community Service: Increasing Benefits to Community Organizations

Our findings suggest that while there is potential for court-ordered community service to provide restitution through work in community organizations, this is not always realized. While CSWs can benefit community organizations in some important ways, working with them represents real organizational costs and challenges. Some of these costs can be mitigated or reduced through a greater investment in good volunteer management practices, as discussed in detail in our prior work (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). However, it is important to note that many community organizations work with CSWs because their limited financial and human resources adversely affect management capacity. There is also a lack of evidence-based best practices for working with CSWs. Therefore, it is likely that many community organizations find that the costs of working with CSWs outweigh the benefits, especially when they have limited volunteer management capacity. These organizations might either choose not to receive CSWs at all or quickly discontinue doing so. Prior research supports this: larger organizations that have a volunteer manager were more likely to use CSWs relative to smaller organizations and those without a dedicated volunteer manager (Clerkin et al., Reference Clerkin, Coggburn and Lawrence2025). Future research is needed to provide more insight into why organizations either choose not to work with CSWs or discontinue doing so. Clearly, management capacity is part of that equation.

In our sample, the Azalea Office worked with a much smaller number of community organizations than did the Dogwood Office, possibly due to its location in a more rural area. Nonprofits in rural areas tend to be smaller and have less organizational capacity than those in urban areas and face significant funding challenges (Newstead & Wu, Reference Newstead and Wu2009), and report greater challenges with staffing and volunteer management capacity (Walters & Wallis, Reference Walters and Wallis2021). Therefore, community organizations in rural places might find it more difficult to work with CSWs in ways that provide sufficient benefits to the organization. This is an important consideration for lawyers and judges assigning community service; not every community has equal capacity to absorb and productively work with CSWs. Unless community agencies are able to engage with CSWs in ways that provide a true benefit to the community, it is unlikely that the goal of restitution can be met.

Our results also indicate that the legal system and probation officers should play a greater role in preparing CSWs for community service. At the time of sentencing, judges and lawyers should carefully consider whether an individual has the soft skills necessary for community service work. Probation offices should provide training to CSWs to help them understand how community service works and set reasonable expectations for their service. Probation offices should be familiar enough with their community partners to direct CSWs to organizations that fit their interests and work schedules. The Dogwood Office provides many of these services, and community organizations greatly appreciate the structure and support they receive from that office (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). More probation offices need to take such a proactive role to guide their CSWs to success.

Finally, we want to highlight that many organizations in our sample have hired a former CSW and more would have done so if they had the necessary resources. This is an important and interesting policy outcome. Prior research on community service initiatives also revealed instances where CSWs were hired by their host organizations (McIvor, Reference McIvor, Beyens, Blay and Boone2016). Given that employment is strongly related to a reduction in recidivism (Delgado, Reference Delgado2012; Laub & Sampson, Reference Laub and Sampson2003; Petersilia, Reference Petersilia2003), the fact that community service can potentially lead to stable employment is important. Employment can provide economic stability, social integration, and a sense of purpose, benefitting community organizations, CSWs, and the wider community. (It is also striking that so many organizations had CSWs continue as volunteers after their community service; we will address that topic in more detail in Section 6.)

4.1 Community Service Workers’ Perspectives on Community Benefit

We asked CSWs several closed-ended questions about whether they perceived their community service work as benefiting their community. Table 3 summarizes responses to these items.

Overall, CSWs expressed a range of views about whether and how their service benefited the community. Many CSWs indicated that community service allowed them to give back and helped them learn more about their community, while fewer felt confident that their work contributed to addressing the problems of their community in a meaningful way. While these responses might be subject to social desirability bias, these data suggest that CSWs often distinguished between participation in community service and impact on the community, reflecting mixed perceptions about whether they felt that their community service work was a positive thing for their community.

The interview data support this divide about perceived community benefits. CSWs who felt positively seemed to consider community service an appropriate price to pay for their misdeeds. For example, Camila stated: “You feel like you’re making up for it in some way.” Alexander expanded this idea:

This indicates that CSWs who felt guilt for some harm to their community viewed community service as a way to make things right. For these CSWs, the mere act of engaging in community service was enough to feel that they had made some type of restitution.

Other CSWs, in contrast, viewed community service strictly as a punishment. They observed that their crimes had not hurt anyone (beyond themselves), so they resented the notion that restitution was necessary. Sebastian voiced his frustration:

Therefore, the nature of an individual’s offense could be an important factor influencing CSWs’ views on this subject.

For other CSWs, the nature of their community service experience shaped their perspectives about community benefit. Those who had difficult experiences or who felt that their tasks were meaningless were more adamant that community service did not benefit their community. Chloe expounded on this view by saying that manual labor or janitorial work does not make her feel that she is helping her community. She said, “I know a lot of [CSWs] do jobs that aren’t really interacting directly with people. They may be just cleaning toilets or something, and I don’t know if that would make me feel more connected to my community.” Henry added, “I don’t feel like I’m helping at all; it just feels like I’m a janitor. I feel like free labor.” In the absence of direct contact with people they are serving, CSWs might just feel used or punished rather than feeling like they are providing a meaningful service. This meaningfulness matters.

4.2 Community Service Workers’ Perspectives on Community Service as a Policy Tool

We also sought to ascertain CSWs’ thoughts about the use of community service as a punishment in the criminal legal system. Table 4 shows their responses to the closed-ended questions about the fairness of community service.

Across interviews, CSWs expressed varied and sometimes ambivalent views about community service as a policy tool. Many CSWs described the number of community service hours they received as fair, while others, particularly those assigned substantially higher numbers of hours (Ethan, Hazel, and Jackson), much more than the average number of community service hours (69) within the sample, questioned the proportionality of their sentence.

When asked whether people should be forced to do community service, CSWs offered a range of reactions, reflecting tension between the compulsory nature of the sentence and its perceived advantages related to incarceration. But the majority of CSWs indicated that they would rather do community service than spend time in jail. Interestingly, a few CSWs would prefer jail time to service, implying that community service was not universally perceived as the least burdensome or most appropriate sanction. These responses indicate that CSWs are somewhat tolerant of community service as a punishment, particularly if it keeps them from serving jail time.

Halfway through the interview process, we added a question: Should community service be required as a punishment? While just half of our full sample responded to this question, the thirteen answers were mixed across feeling it should be required, that it should not be required, or that it should be situational. Chloe felt that community service was a fair policy tool. She said, “I think it’s a fair way for people to give back to the community and … keep people accountable for themselves to make sure that they’re not gonna make the same mistake again, that they’re being productive members of society.” Henry expressed an opposing view. He felt that community service was too much of a burden on people – labor with no benefit – saying: “To require somebody to do free labor, like, if someone has a job, like, they have to take time out of their job to possibly do … a free job for somebody else … and you’re not getting career building skills or anything like that to help you in the future.”

These competing views indicate that CSWs do not hold universal views about community service.

CSWs felt that the assignment of community service should depend on the individual’s crimes and be conditioned by their family and personal situation. They did not approve of community service as a blanket or catch-all sentence for any crime. Aden considered community service to be appropriate in some situations (e.g., for a DUI) but felt that some individuals’ family situations should preclude the assignment of community service. He reasoned:

Ezra agreed that community service could be a substantial detriment to people trying to support their families, especially those from disadvantaged situations, saying: “If they work and they’re taking time from their job that they need to feed themselves and their families, then it’s not right …. it nets a lot of the poor people in society and makes their lives worse to stay out of work, so it disproportionately comes to socioeconomic status.”

In Section 5, we will discuss the barriers CSWs face when trying to complete their community service work, including the challenge of managing paid work and family responsibilities while still trying to complete community service. The CSWs’ comments about community service as a policy tool highlight the depth of their concern about these barriers – for themselves and for others.

Ezra also expressed concerns about giving community service as a punishment on top of other sanctions. He felt that community service by itself could be an acceptable policy in some circumstances, but the addition of other punishments reduced the value of community service.

Ezra’s concern echoes scholars and advocates who have called attention to the utilization of community service to widen the criminal legal net. Instead of an alternative to incarceration, consistent with the original intent of the policy, courts tack community service onto other probation sanctions, increasing the likelihood that people will be unable to complete their probation successfully.

4.3 Managers’ Perspectives on Community Benefit

When asked to reflect on whether they feel that community service meets the objectives of the criminal legal system, managers’ answers were mixed. While most believed that community service can benefit most CSWs in some way (as we will discuss in Section 5), they were also skeptical about the benefits to the larger community.

A few managers, though, believed that community service benefits the community. “I think it’s a very good program,” said Harper. “Having them do community service is beneficial for the community and for them.” This view represents an assumption that if CSWs do positive work in a community organization, it will naturally benefit the wider community.

A more common theme, however, was the potential impact of community service on recidivism – one of the policy’s major goals – rather than broader community benefit. While most conceive of reducing recidivism as an effect of community service on individual CSWs, the managers’ responses made it clear that they were also thinking about reduced recidivism as a broader community benefit. The managers who doubted whether community service reduces recidivism offered two rationales: (1) community service does not address the underlying problems that led the CSWs to commit a crime, and (2) they see many individuals who return to do more community service at a later date for another offense. Aria scoffed at the idea of community service preventing future crimes: “If it’s a DUI and they’re here working for 40 hours, nah, that ain’t gonna make them stop drinking and driving.” Aria felt that community service could benefit CSWs in other ways, but not through preventing future crime. Amelia agreed:

These comments illustrated that the managers viewed a disconnect between CSWs’ community service work and their crimes. They did not believe service would deter CSWs from committing future crimes because it was not addressing the underlying motivating problems.

Some managers doubted whether community service met broader policy goals because individuals would return for more court-ordered service after repeating the same offense. When asked about the policy’s potential, Noah commented, “I don’t know, but I do see multiple offenses and repeat offenders, so …,” implying that the presence of repeat offenders was evidence that this policy tool was not deterring crime and thus not reducing recidivism. These situations contribute to the managers’ views that community service does not have a larger impact on society.

4.4 Managers’ Perspectives on Community Service as a Policy Tool

The managers also commented on the desirability of community service as a policy tool. Several managers believed that community service was a better alternative than putting people in jail, especially for relatively minor infractions. Asher explained: “I think it’s also a much better alternative than sitting in a jail or prison for X amount of months, weeks, however long. It keeps them involved in the community and able to keep their job, able to stay with their family, things like that.”

Emma agreed, pointing out the wisdom of using community service to give people a “second chance” before incarcerating them. She said:

Managers also pointed out how grateful CSWs were that they could pay off their fines through service. They felt that this added a layer of mercy and understanding for individuals in a difficult position.

However, the managers were also quick to point out the challenges and barriers that CSWs face when completing community service, and they indicated that those challenges could dampen any potential policy success. Olivia, for example, believed that the system sets CSWs up to fail by requiring them to juggle their jobs, families, and community service. This implicitly suggests that community service fails to benefit the community, since people who are unable to complete their probation sentence become a burden on the courts. She shared:

While the managers were often grateful for the work that CSWs did in their organizations and believed the organization benefited from their service, they were also aware that community service is not a good one-size-fits-all policy choice due to home and family situations and other barriers to completing the service. This corroborates the CSWs’ own perspectives – that community service might not make sense in all situations.

4.5 The Restorative Potential of Court-Ordered Community Service: Benefit to the Community

We have sought to understand CSWs’ and managers’ perspectives about community benefit. Their responses focused mostly on community service as restitution to the community, but they also touched on broader conceptualizations of community benefit, such as recidivism and connection to the community. While our respondents were fairly positive about the ability of community service to benefit community organizations and CSWs, they were much more jaded about community service’s potential to change a CSW’s relationship with their community or to benefit the community more broadly.

CSWs had mixed views, heavily influenced by the nature of the original offense and the types of tasks involved, on whether community service provides restitution to their communities. Many CSWs felt that they had not harmed their community and that it was not reasonable to ask them to make reparation. They resented being forced to do community service, and prior research supports this finding (McDonald, Reference McDonald1986). Other CSWs pointed out that merely doing manual labor did not make them feel that they were actually helping anyone or doing anything beneficial for their community, consistent with previous studies (McIvor, Reference McIvor1992). In our earlier work, we found that CSWs – just like volunteers – prefer meaningful tasks and interactions with beneficiaries (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). Preventing these interactions reinforces the message that CSWs are separate from their community and that their contributions are unwanted – a message that is inconsistent with a restitution goal.

Interestingly, when asked about benefits to the community, several CSWs and managers commented on the potential of community service work to decrease recidivism, which would indirectly benefit the community. While some CSWs and managers felt that doing community service can change a person, they also pointed out that community service does not address the root causes of crime and is thus unlikely to deter future crime. The managers commented on seeing several “repeat offenders” coming back to do more community service after a new infraction. While these anecdotal accounts cannot be used to assess whether community service influences recidivism, it is interesting that our participants expressed mixed opinions on this point. In some ways, their opinions are consistent with the mixed empirical literature: some research suggests that community service results in lower recidivism rates than other sanctions (e.g., Wermink et al., Reference Wermink, Blokland, Nieuwbeerta, Nagin and Tollenaar2010), while other studies find no effect of community service on recidivism (e.g., Killias et al., Reference Killias, Gilliéron, Kissling and Villettaz2000). Notably, the former studies compare court-ordered community service to a jail sentence, which, given the disruption and stigma of incarceration, yields an unsurprising result. A more appropriate comparison would be between community service and a non-incarcerative sentence, especially since most of those sentenced to community service in the U.S. are convicted for a crime unlikely to result in a jail sentence. Nonetheless, it is interesting that the lack of scholarly consensus about the effects of community service on recidivism is echoed among managers and CSWs.

Beyond issues related to restitution and recidivism, it is difficult to identify any strong causal argument in the policy discourse for why and how community service will provide broader benefits to the community, or what the nature of those benefits would be. Beyond that, even if the legal system’s assertions about community benefit were clearer, quantitatively identifying and measuring any broader benefits would be incredibly difficult and costly, and it has been attempted by very few scholars. As we noted, some early studies sought to estimate the economic impact of community service hours by putting a dollar value on CSW time spent in service (McDonald, Reference McDonald1986) and assessing client satisfaction with the services that CSWs provided (McIvor, Reference McIvor, Miller and Wright1993b). While these studies found that CSW programs produced positive community outcomes, considerably more research is needed to determine whether the effects of community service justify their expense.

In essence, arguments supportive of community service’s potential for community benefit rest upon an assumption that the organizations working with CSWs are positively influencing or changing their communities. However, this assumption is tenuous given the significant challenges many nonprofits face, such as limited resources, declining donations, and workforce shortages that hinder their ability to fulfill their missions (Independent Sector, 2024). Because of this, many nonprofits lack the capacity to invest in good management structures to support CSWs (Hager, Reference Hager and Brudney2004; Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2004).

Beyond resource constraints, it is inherently difficult to engage in good program evaluation or outcome/effectiveness metrics. Nonprofit organizations often struggle to conduct rigorous program evaluations due to their complex governance structures, multidimensional goals, and the socially constructed nature of their achievements, making effectiveness a relative and comparative measure rather than an absolute one (Forbes, Reference Forbes1998; Herman & Renz, Reference Herman and Renz2008). Benjamin and colleagues (Reference Benjamin, Ebrahim and Gugerty2023) highlight the challenges in assessing the extent to which nonprofits contribute to social impact, emphasizing the limitations of existing evaluation frameworks. Given these constraints, we cannot assume that all CSWs will complete their community service in an effective, well-managed organization that has a large, positive impact on its community. Without robust data on nonprofit effectiveness, the assumption that court-ordered community service reliably benefits communities remains unsubstantiated.

Despite all this, our findings indicate that both CSWs and managers find community service to be a more humane and reasonable alternative to incarceration, though they worry about its net-widening role. These concerns are justified, since most people sentenced to community service are convicted of crimes that do not typically result in a jail sentence. Thus, community service is not a true incarceration “alternative,” which was its original purpose (Pease, Reference Pease1985). Instead, the imposition of community service provides another avenue for probation failure, which can result in jail time. Our participant responses reflect this issue, noting that CSWs, particularly those who are trying to work and/or care for family, face many barriers to successful completion of their service. These burdens are often compounded by additional probation sanctions on top of community service, making CSWs’ situations even more difficult. We discuss these potential impacts on CSWs in the next section.

5.1 Barriers to Completing Community Service

We asked CSWs several questions assessing their motivation to complete their community service work and to overcome the obstacles facing them. Table 5 summarizes responses to several closed-ended questions, which we use primarily to orient the reader rather than to assess prevalence or magnitude.

CSWs consistently expressed a strong desire to complete their required hours. Most CSWs said completing their community service is an important priority to them and emphasized their motivation to get their community service hours within the required timeframe. While these results indicate that CSWs are committed to satisfying this requirement, uncommitted CSWs might not have responded to our interview request. As a result, our results are likely biased toward committed CSWs. However, these responses underscore a central finding of our study: even highly motivated CSWs encounter substantial obstacles to completing their service.

When asked about the ease of community service hour completion, many CSWs described that they often miss other commitments so they can get their community service hours done. These results suggest that, for at least a notable portion of CSWs, balancing community service with other aspects of life is challenging. This is noteworthy given our sample of relatively committed CSWs; those who are less committed might be more easily overwhelmed by barriers to service.

CSWs expounded on these barriers in their interviews. The primary challenges, discussed in turn below, included work commitments and scheduling challenges, family obligations, transportation issues, and community service fatigue.

5.2 Community Service Workers’ Perspectives about How Community Service Impacts Them

We asked CSWs a small number of closed-ended questions about ways that community service might benefit them. Their responses are shown in Table 6. Many CSWs indicated that the experience led them to learn something about themselves, while assessments of whether community service helped them to get ahead in life were far more ambivalent.

CSWs further reflected on the ways that community service can benefit them, and they provided a range of responses. For some CSWs, community service offered no advantage to them, considering it merely a punitive task rather than a beneficial experience. Ezra described it this way:

However, CSWs also acknowledged potential benefits of community service, even if they acknowledged that benefits might be conditional on the situation. The three primary benefits were: deterring future crime, gaining a new perspective, and experiencing personal growth.

5.3 Managers’ Perspectives on How Community Service Impacts Community Service Workers

The managers also shared their beliefs about the ways that community service affects CSWs. Their responses indicated two primary patterns – community service was a positive benefit for the CSW most of the time or it is beneficial only in some cases. Managers gave a wide range of responses on how they believe community service affects the CSW, across three main categories – personal and workforce development, learning about community needs and resources, and the psychological rewards of service. The sections below discuss each of these impacts and the moderating factors that influence whether CSWs experience them.

5.4 The Rehabilitative Potential of Court-Ordered Community Service: Perceptions of Effects on Community Service Workers

These findings suggest that, when the right conditions are met, community service can potentially benefit at least a subset of CSWs, establishing a foundation for achieving court-ordered community service goals. Interestingly, the CSWs and managers highlighted different – albeit overlapping – potential benefits of community service work. The CSWs pointed to their role of deterring future crime, providing a new perspective, and experiencing personal growth. The managers’ list of benefits also included adding personal and workforce development, learning about community needs and resources, and the psychological rewards of service. These results are generally consistent with prior research that found that a majority of CSWs believed that they benefited from the experience in some way, by, for example, learning new skills, gaining work experience, learning more about themselves, and getting a better understanding of other people (Allen & Treger, Reference Allen and Treger1990, p. 69). The potential benefits listed by the CSWs and managers in our sample included all the benefits mentioned in previous research and added some interesting new ones, such as the ability for CSWs to learn more about the services offered by nonprofit organizations in their community.

However, these benefits are by no means guaranteed. Many CSWs and managers believed certain conditions needed to be met for CSWs to benefit from their service. Strikingly, the groups identified many of the same moderating factors, including personal and family situations, the work environment, and relationships with organization staff, the nature of the work, and individuals’ personal attitudes, as important precursors of beneficial service. Our prior research supports this, indicating that a good management infrastructure, supportive policies, positive work environment, healthy relationships with staff, and meaningful work were important success factors for organizations working with CSWs (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). In that work, we discussed several important strategies that community organizations could take to improve their ability to work with CSWs (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). One focuses on providing CSWs with meaningful work – tasks that CSWs consider to have value and to benefit another person. When CSWs feel that the work they have done has created value for themselves and the beneficiaries, their service is more likely to change their attitudes (Gelsthorpe & Rex, Reference Gelsthorpe, Rex and Mair2004; McIvor, Reference McIvor1992, Reference McIvor, Beyens, Blay and Boone2016; Rex & Gelsthorpe, Reference Rex and Gelsthorpe2002). While those with a strictly punitive view of community service might balk at this idea, McIvor (Reference McIvor1993a) points out that CSWs still view community service as a punishment even if they do enjoyable or interesting work.

Despite the potential for CSWs to benefit through service (under the right conditions), community service can also harm CSWs. This can occur through wages (or even jobs) lost while trying to complete community service hours. One study found that people sentenced to community service were less likely to report income years later than those sentenced to jail (Killias et al., Reference Killias, Gilliéron, Villard and Poglia2010). This may suggest that community service impedes employment goals, which is an important part of rehabilitation. A community service sentence may particularly affect single parents, who might have to arrange (and pay for) childcare and sacrifice time with their children to complete their community service hours. Relatedly, many CSWs face real barriers to successful completion of their community service hours, such as navigating work schedules, family obligations, and limited transportation. These practical challenges can be very difficult to surmount, especially for individuals with low incomes or weak support networks. Additional burdens and barriers may set these individuals up to fail at their community service – and possibly even probation in general. This also raises a larger policy question. Supporters of the punitive view of community service will view costs and barriers as a natural part of CSWs’ punishment for their crimes, not a problem to be fixed. Proponents of community service as rehabilitation or restitution will likely view these costs as an impediment to policy success.

In terms of benefits for the CSW, community service as a policy tool is falling short, especially as it is currently designed and implemented. We agree with other scholars who have argued that “more carefully conceived community service interventions could be tailored to meet rehabilitative and reparative objectives which previously brought support and enthusiasm for these sanctions” (Bazemore & Maloney, Reference Bazemore and Maloney1994, p. 2). Some of the necessary adjustments would be to encourage and support community organizations to provide CSWs with meaningful work and interaction with beneficiaries rather than menial manual labor. It would also entail more support and screening from probation offices to ensure that CSWs get a good service fit. Other policy recommendations would be to provide more training and support for both probation offices and community organizations, to help them design systems that would allow for the fulfillment of rehabilitative and reparative objectives.

6.1 Intention to Volunteer at Host Organization

Several CSWs indicated a willingness to volunteer at their host organization after completing their community service obligation. CSWs provided several reasons for wanting to continue. First, they highlighted the fact that they enjoyed doing service and helping other people. “I always like helping,” said Elena. Some believed that service would benefit themselves or their family in some way. Mason stated, “I know it will help me. And that is another way of giving back to the people [who are] coming in after me.” Some would return because either a specific person (e.g., their manager) or the organization as a whole created a good experience for them, thereby increasing their desire to give back. A final reason for returning as a volunteer was related to a sense of fulfillment or satisfaction with the work done. Luca performed his community service at two organizations but was only willing to continue as a volunteer at one of them. He justified this by saying, “I got more of a sense of fulfillment and more of a sense of pride and community … by doing that job, more than the [other organization’s] job.” Positive experiences with community service hours made the idea of volunteering sound positive to these CSWs.

However, others had less positive experiences with community service work and dismissed the idea of returning. Sebastian stated, “I may find other opportunities for volunteering, but not the organization where I worked [as a CSW].” Some CSWs cited the lack of time to volunteer or the opportunity costs of doing so. “Just, with me doing the community service, it took away from my time spending with my kids,” said Willow. However, several other CSWs said that they would not return because their community service was unpleasant and they did not enjoy the tasks they were doing. “Yeah, it just wasn’t a good experience,” Jack lamented. Benjamin didn’t feel connected to the host organization or its mission. He said, “I’m just not interested in what they do. Maybe at animal shelters or something, I might want to do that.” A final reason for not volunteering at the host organization pertained to the stigma CSWs felt as community service workers. “It would be nice to be able to contribute back for them and hopefully not be a hassle or be viewed differently because I am a community service worker,” said Luca. Negative experiences dampened CSWs’ willingness to consider volunteering for their host organization.

6.2 Intention to Volunteer at Other Organizations

CSWs also indicated a willingness to consider volunteering at another community organization. Paisley expressed a positive attitude toward volunteering in general, “because it’s helping other people and people need help.” Interestingly, several CSWs reported that their intention to volunteer stemmed directly from what they learned or how they grew through their community service. For example, Lily said, “I’ve learned that volunteering is a really good thing, so it may be an option … I’ll definitely think about [changing] my outlook from not doing volunteering to maybe doing it seriously.” Kai agreed, saying, “It gave me a sense to go out – actually go out – to the community to help somebody in need … These people are actually in need. It helps me to see that.” Notably, neither Lily nor Kai had prior volunteering experience, indicating that community service broadened their perspectives and reshaped their views on volunteering as a meaningful and viable activity. Clearly, some CSWs were positively inclined toward volunteering, even if they did not want to return to the organization where they performed their community service hours.

Despite this, a group of CSWs had no desire or willingness to volunteer in the future. While a few CSWs cited work and family demands as a barrier, others indicated that their community service hours, as Sebastian said, “deterred [them] from volunteering.” Aden indicated that he felt that he did not owe his community anything, “Because I went ahead and did my time, and what was ordered from the courts, I have no further obligation to my community or the justice system. And I’ve paid my debt to society.” Penelope added, “Because I don’t wanna go work for free.” CSWs such as Penelope, Aden, and Sebastian viewed community service as merely a punishment to get through, and their experience doing community service did not change their minds about that. They were not interested in doing anything more.

6.3 Key Factors Influencing Future Intentions to Volunteer

We view a lack of desire to continue volunteering as a lost opportunity for community organizations, many of which want more volunteers or seek to expand their connections in the community. CSWs’ unwillingness to volunteer in the future may also suggest that reintegration goals are not being met. Presumably, if positive experiences make CSWs want to volunteer when their sentences are done, it is a win–win situation for CSWs, community organizations, and the wider community. As such, we wanted to understand which aspects of community service were associated with an expressed intention to volunteer. A deeper dive into our data identified four factors related to future volunteering intentions: connection to the organization’s mission, interpersonal relationships, recognition and appreciation, and prior volunteering experience.

6.4 The Rehabilitative Potential of Court-Ordered Community Service: Effect on Future Volunteering

It is important to consider the impact of community service on CSWs’ intentions to volunteer because it connects to the underlying policy goals. In particular, volunteering may be a means of reintegrating CSWs into their community through unpaid work for community organizations (McIvor, Reference McIvor, Beyens, Blay and Boone2016) and can help to foster an identity as a responsible citizen (Visher & Travis, Reference Visher and Travis2003). Volunteering can decrease antisocial behavior (Santinello et al., Reference Santinello, Cristini, Vieno and Scacchi2012) and is associated with other prosocial and civic behaviors (Putnam, Reference Putnam2000; Verba & Nie, Reference Verba and Nie1987; Verba et al., Reference Verba, Schlozman and Brady1995). In essence, volunteering represents good citizenship, so implementing community service in such a way that it sparks a desire to volunteer improves a CSW’s chances of continuing as a positively contributing citizen of the community. Volunteering is associated with numerous personal benefits, such as improved mental health and overall well-being, better physical health, feelings of confidence and self-efficacy, and expanded social networks (Jenkinson et al., Reference Jenkinson, Dickens and Jones2013; Musick & Wilson, Reference Musick and Wilson2003, Reference Musick and Wilson2007; Piliavin & Siegl, Reference Piliavin and Siegl2007; Thoits & Hewitt, Reference Thoits and Hewitt2001). Future volunteering can thus benefit CSWs directly, providing a stronger platform on which to build stable and productive lives, thus enabling a greater likelihood of satisfying policy goals.

Much of a CSW’s experience falls within an organization’s control. In our prior work on CSWs, we identified several management strategies for improving experiences for both CSWs and their host organizations, including crafting reasonable policies and procedures, providing a helpful and thorough onboarding process, creating a supportive environment, and recognizing and appreciating CSWs’ efforts (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). Many of the reasons that CSWs provided for not wishing to continue to volunteer, such as unpleasant experiences or tasks, feeling unconnected to the organization, and being stigmatized, are resolvable through these good management practices. Our work also highlighted the importance of providing CSWs with meaningful work and appropriate opportunities to interact with the organization’s beneficiaries (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). This aligns with prior research showing that CSWs who are better integrated within the organization and who have opportunities to interact with the direct recipients of their work were more likely to continue as volunteers (McIvor, Reference McIvor, Beyens, Blay and Boone2016). Clerkin and colleagues (Reference Clerkin, Coggburn and Lawrence2025, p. 12) also highlight the importance of these issues:

If community organizations adopt more of these best practices when working with CSWs, and if probation offices provide sufficient support, then CSWs’ experiences might be more beneficial, leading to a heightened desire to volunteer and better connections between CSWs and their communities.

7.1 Cost Savings

One of the primary policy objectives of community service is to provide cost savings to the criminal legal system, given the high costs associated with incarceration (Brown, Reference Brown1977; Harland, Reference Harland1980; McDonald, Reference McDonald1986, Reference McDonald1988). These savings are realized, though, only when mandated community service is used as a direct substitute for incarceration rather than as an add-on to a probation sentence. In the U.S., however, community service work is often assigned to those whose sentence would not otherwise have included incarceration, resulting in net-widening (Austin & Krisberg, Reference Austin and Krisberg1982; Caputo, Reference Caputo1999). For example, a recent study of court-mandated community service in Los Angeles found that 46% of community service orders were issued by traffic court, with speeding as the most common charge (Herrera et al., Reference Herrera, Koonse, Sonsteng-Person and Zatz2019). Most of the CSWs in our study were also convicted of offenses that typically do not yield a jail sentence, including underage drinking, DUI, and drug possession.

Even when community service replaces a short jail term, the cost savings may be exaggerated. Research in Scotland found that the average cost of court-ordered community service work was approximately the same as the cost of six weeks of confinement, making it cost-effective only if the community service work is assigned in lieu of a custodial sentence that exceeds six weeks (Knapp et al., Reference Knapp, Robertson and McIvor1992). Finally, failure to complete community service hours within a specified time period is considered a probation violation, punishable with jail time in many jurisdictions (Herrera et al., Reference Herrera, Koonse, Sonsteng-Person and Zatz2019; Klingele, Reference Klingele2013; Phelps, Reference Phelps2020). Thus, though strictly speaking it costs the criminal legal system less to assign community service to a given individual than to incarcerate them, it may well be that the availability of court-mandated community service results in increased costs for the criminal legal system overall.

The prevailing arguments for cost savings and the accompanying empirical research, though, focus solely on cost savings for the criminal legal system, particularly state and local government. One of the major implications of our research is that community service imposes real costs on nonprofits and public agencies that work with CSWs. Our findings clearly show that the supervision costs of working with CSWs are high; it takes time and administrative capacity to direct and manage CSWs effectively – more than it does to manage volunteers.

The effort required to work with probation offices further exacerbates the costs imposed on community organizations. Our findings are consistent with the limited research on community agency-probation office interactions, in which agencies report that probation offices should provide better training for CSWs, improve reporting procedures, and communicate more effectively with community service agencies (Allen & Treger, Reference Allen and Treger1990). Managers reported limited training and communication from probation offices and believed that officers could better prepare CSWs, particularly by setting expectations and providing follow-up. These gaps suggest that, rather than absorbing supervision costs, probation offices shift them onto community organizations through inadequate preparation and oversight. Our study focused on government-operated probation agencies, though these challenges may be more pronounced in private probation agencies (Phelps, Reference Phelps2020). While more research is needed to assess the scope of these issues, our findings indicate that when probation offices do not effectively manage community service, CSWs impose significant time and administrative burdens on host organizations. In this way, CSW programs shift costs onto the very agencies intended to benefit from their labor. More broadly, our findings complement existing research by suggesting that court-ordered community service often operates in ways that undermine its intended goals. For example, work evaluating the cost-saving goal of court-ordered community service largely focuses on the criminal legal system side, examining net-widening (e.g., Phelps, Reference Phelps2013; Tonry & Lynch, Reference Tonry and Lynch1996) and the relative financial costs associated with community service versus jail terms (Knapp et al., Reference Knapp, Robertson and McIvor1992); this strongly suggests that court-ordered community service is falling short on its goal to save money. Our finding that agency costs are not always offset by CSW labor suggests that court-ordered community service may not meet its cost-savings goal.

Thus, we suggest that the costs currently borne by community organizations could, in theory, be absorbed by probation offices through improved training, closer monitoring, and more consistent follow-up with CSWs. Such changes could enhance program functioning by better aligning CSW placements with organizational needs and reducing administrative burdens on host organizations, to the extent that improved probation performance may increase the likelihood that community service contributes to its intended goals.

However, reallocating these costs to probation offices would not necessarily improve overall efficiency or produce net cost savings for the criminal legal system. Meaningful improvements in probation performance would require additional staff time, training, and administrative resources, increasing public expenditures rather than reducing them. In this sense, shifting costs upward may enhance effectiveness and program alignment, but it undermines claims that court-ordered community service is a low-cost alternative to incarceration. This reveals a fundamental trade-off in the policy: efforts to improve implementation and restorative potential may come at the expense of cost savings.

In sum, we challenge the claim that community service is a lower-cost policy alternative for the criminal justice system. Its overall cost-savings for the legal system are debatable, and its implementation creates costs for other organizations – costs that are not readily acknowledged. This is potentially problematic, given that nonprofits tend to be under-resourced and lack administrative and supervisory capacity (Light, Reference Light2004). Because many of these organizations lack a full-time, dedicated volunteer manager and volunteer management capacity, it is difficult for them to realize the benefits of CSW labor. Even when supervision costs are pushed back up to the probation offices, doing so does not necessarily make the system more efficient, nor does it automatically lead to other benefits, such as those described in the subsequent sections. The misalignment between policy goals and operational realities extends beyond cost savings to the broader objectives of restitution and rehabilitation.

7.2 Reconciliation/Benefit to Community

The second major policy objective for community service is to provide benefits to the community by helping local community organizations. In this way, it is designed to serve as a form of restitution between the probationer and the larger community (McDonald, Reference McDonald1988; Umbreit, Reference Umbreit1981). This view of community service is consistent with the restorative justice approach to corrections that emerged in the U.S. in the 1970s, when court-ordered community service first took hold (Zehr, Reference Zehr1990). The restorative justice movement advanced sentencing policies that centered the community in the correctional process and required the offender to earn back their place there (Braithwaite, Reference Braithwaite1999). Providing labor that benefits a community organization is seen as one way to accomplish this. The logic of court-ordered community service as restitution to the community, though, is predicated on several assumptions.

First, it assumes that the benefit to community organizations translates into a benefit to their communities. This is only true, though, if the community organizations, themselves, are effective. As mentioned earlier, many nonprofits lack administrative and management capacity, including evaluation capacity (Carman & Fredericks, Reference Carman and Fredericks2009; Light, Reference Light2004). A large body of literature addresses the challenges of measuring performance in the complicated work that many nonprofits undertake (Bach-Mortensen & Montgomery, Reference Bach-Mortensen and Montgomery2018; Carnochan et al., Reference Carnochan, Samples, Myers and Austin2013; Stone & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Reference Stone, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Flynn and Hodgkinson2002). This raises the question: do benefits to individual community organizations necessarily translate into broader community benefits? Such a translation depends on organizational capacity and effectiveness. When capacity is weak, then the use of community service as a form of restitution and, by extension, as a justification for the sanction, becomes far less certain.

Given that, our findings indicate that the managers believe that their organizations do realize some benefits of working with CSWs, enough to make it worth the costs of working with them. Echoing other studies, we find that organizations are generally satisfied with working with CSWs (Caputo, Reference Caputo1999; Karp, Bazemore, & Chesire, Reference Killias, Aebi and Ribeaud2004; Leibrich, Galaway, & Underhill, Reference Leibrich, Galaway and Underhill1986). It is probably safe to assume that those organizations that considered the costs of working with CSWs to outweigh the benefits have stopped participating and, therefore, are absent from our sample. This means that our findings could reflect higher levels of agency benefit than is typical and must be interpreted in light of this fact.

What is particularly attractive to organizations that report benefits to CSW labor is the fact that they can use CSWs as quasi-staff members – individuals who will show up (sometimes) on a regular schedule and do work for the organization. CSWs provide the benefit of consistent labor, which may be missing from regular volunteers. Trends in volunteerism have led to a loss of long-term volunteers – individuals who are willing to provide consistent labor for an organization over a long period of time; today’s volunteers prefer short-term assignments and episodic volunteer commitments (Cnaan et al., Reference Cnaan, Meijs and Brudney2022; Macduff, Reference Macduff and Brudney2005). Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 shifted volunteering patterns, such as decreasing the number of volunteers (Faulk et al., Reference Faulk, Kim, Derrick-Mills, Boris, Tomasko, Hakizimana, Chen, Kim and Nath2021) or shifting their roles and contributions within organizations (Walshe et al., Reference Walshe, Garner, Dunleavy, Preston, Bradshaw, Cripps, Bajwah, Sleeman, Hocaoglu, Maddocks, Murtagh, Oluyase, Fraser and Higginson2022), in ways that are still affecting nonprofits today. These shifts may influence organizations’ willingness and desire to work with a more consistent CSW population. Utilization of CSWs represents an adaptation to the realities of working with today’s volunteers, particularly for organizations such as thrift stores, parks, and animal shelters that need consistent manual labor as part of their organizational activities.

Several managers also reported having a CSW who either continued to volunteer after their sentence was completed or came on as a staff person, consistent with reports from community organizations in Scotland (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a). When CSWs form a long-term relationship with the agency, there is a direct and unanticipated benefit for community organizations. However, our results indicate that these outcomes might depend on a match with the organization’s mission, interpersonal relationships, and appreciation. Further research is needed to better understand the circumstances and mechanisms that lead to this outcome.

In addition, CSWs brought new connections, donations, and other resources to the organization. These additional benefits were often the result of special skills, knowledge, or networks that the CSW possessed, which were useful to the agency and made the CSW feel a strong connection to the organization. Though for CSWs this often depended on a lucky coincidence, it highlights the need for careful matching of CSWs to agencies in order to maximize benefit: agencies benefit most from volunteer labor when the abilities of the volunteers fit well with agency needs (Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2004; Park, Reference Park2024).

At the same time, our findings show real organizational barriers to working effectively with CSWs, reducing the potential benefits to agencies. As mentioned earlier, our sample of organizations had low volunteer management capacity; most had not invested a great deal in volunteer management infrastructure. This is not unique, as many nonprofit organizations under-invest in volunteer management capacity, which can lead to challenges in recruiting and retaining volunteers (Hager, Reference Hager and Brudney2004; Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2004). The top reasons traditional volunteers give for leaving their volunteer positions, aside from changes in an individual’s personal situation, are poor management and unsatisfactory volunteerism experiences (Brodie et al., Reference Brodie, Hughes and Jochum2011; Ganzevoort & Van Den Born, Reference Ganzevoort and van den Born2023). Similarly, our CSWs were most likely to report that their labor was not providing benefits when they perceived poor management at the agency.

While our findings, in concert with the limited research on the impact of court-ordered community service on communities and community organizations, suggest that CSW programs are providing some community benefit, it is unclear whether the benefit offsets the costs. Previous research focuses on citizen satisfaction with CSW services (McIvor, Reference McIvor, Miller and Wright1993b; Caputo, Reference Caputo1999) and evaluation of the value of CSW labor (e.g., McDonald, Reference McDonald1986) but does not consider the costs associated with that labor. Many of the managers we interviewed reported that it took considerably more of their time to manage CSWs than it did to manage regular volunteers, which reduces the benefit to the organization and, by extension, the restorative benefit to the community. The CSWs were mixed on their assessment of how much their labor was benefiting the community, further suggesting that CSW programs may not be meeting this intended goal.

7.3 Rehabilitation/Benefits to the Community Service Workers

The third major policy goal is to benefit CSWs through rehabilitation, and, relatedly, increased connection to the community (Bouffard & Muftic, Reference Bouffard and Muftic2006, 2007). Yet the academic literature has highlighted a dilemma related to the rehabilitative goal of court-mandated community service. As Bazemore and Maloney stated over thirty years ago (Reference Bazemore and Maloney1994, pp. 24–25), “a major problem with community service today is that it is ordered and implemented in a vacuum with reference neither to sentencing objectives nor to a theory of intervention with offenders.” There is little to suggest that anything has changed. Thus, community organizations remain unsure about the rehabilitative objectives, making it difficult to meet the goals of rehabilitation.

We saw this playing out in the community organizations in our study. While they use CSWs to help complete the work of their organization, they seem unclear about whether they are supposed to be punishing offenders or rehabilitating them. We saw a mix of management strategies and approaches within the organizations interviewed. Some managers were very hands-off and seemed to merely tolerate CSWs, while others went out of their way to coach and help them (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025). Similarly, while CSWs are often grateful to avoid jail time or use community service to pay off a fine, they don’t always recognize how or why community service can benefit them, probably because no one has ever explained it. There is often a mismatch between CSWs’ expectations for community service, policy goals, and expectations of the participating community organizations. The system is not designed to benefit the CSW or to provide transformative experiences for them.

Our findings also indicate that many CSWs face substantial hurdles in completing their community service hours, significantly reducing any potential benefit. First, few community organizations work with CSWs, limiting their options for completion, especially during weekends and evenings. Transportation was also an issue for CSWs, particularly those with DUIs and suspended driver’s licenses. Childcare presented another hurdle. Additionally, some CSWs have mental or physical disabilities that make community service even more challenging, especially when community organizations may not be able to accommodate various disabilities. Judges and courts do not seem to take these barriers into account.

Finally, a key way in which CSWs are meant to benefit is through experiencing personal growth and connection to the community, leading to a reduced likelihood of future criminal activity. This is most likely to occur, though, if the CSW feels positively about their experience and about the organization. As research on restorative justice programs shows, stigmatizing punishment experiences are less likely to lead to positive outcomes (e.g., Braithwaite, Reference Braithwaite1999). As we reported in earlier work (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025), some probation offices engage in stigmatizing practices, including requiring that CSWs wear a vest indicating their status as a probationer while working at a community agency, though not all agencies enforce this rule.

This policy is similar to the scarlet-letter type probation conditions that were imposed by courts in the 1970s and 1980s, such as requiring shoplifters to wear metal tap shoes, drunken drivers to place identifying bumper stickers on their cars, and child molesters to post warning signs (Brilliant, Reference Brilliant1989). Claiming that these conditions were too restrictive and cumbersome, Brilliant argued that they may not conform to probation’s rehabilitative goal and could also seriously violate the Constitution. While the stated goal of the CSW identification policy is to safeguard organization clients and volunteers, it is unclear whether this identification is necessary for all organizations, especially those that conduct extensive background checks. Based on our prior work, however, it is clear that open identification can make CSWs feel singled out and reduce their ability to connect to the agency and its mission (Nesbit et al., Reference Nesbit, Choi and Clay-Warner2025).

Rehabilitation is perhaps the most important goal of court-ordered community service. This goal is also the most difficult to evaluate, as it requires a careful experimental design, followed by rigorous assessment of recidivism over time. We are aware of no CSW program evaluation studies in the U.S. that meet these criteria. The handful of such studies conducted in Europe yield mixed findings (Bol & Overwater, Reference Bol and Overwater1986; Killias et al., Reference Killias, Gilliéron, Villard and Poglia2010; Spaans, Reference Spaans1998) and are not easily translated to the U.S. context, given differences in the criminal justice system and the social safety net. While our U.S. study does not attempt to measure recidivism, we contribute to research in this area by exploring how court-ordered community service affected CSWs’ connection to the community, a primary mechanism through which community service is expected to affect recidivism. While most CSWs did not report feeling a stronger connection to the community as a result of working in their assigned agency, there were a few who did indicate that the experience gave them a new appreciation for community needs and helped them develop a desire to give back. Further, the difficulties that many CSWs faced in completing their community service due to issues with transportation, conflicts with work and family responsibilities, and lack of available night/weekend opportunities did little to engender the CSWs to the agency and, by extension, to the community. This suggests that goals of reducing recidivism are unlikely to be met.

7.4 Implications for Research on Volunteer Management

Our study contributes to three areas within volunteer management research. First, we contribute to the literature on third-party volunteering (e.g., the government, educational institutions, and corporations that support and facilitate volunteering) (Haski-Leventhal et al., Reference Haski-Leventhal, Meijs and Hustinx2010) by moving beyond studies of organizational partnerships, such as corporate volunteering programs or student service-learning. We instead examine how a multi-organizational system – comprising courts, probation offices, and community organizations – shaped by a specific policy context structures the flow and allocation of volunteers. We show how this system influences who participates, where they are placed, and under what conditions. We then examine how these system-level dynamics influence important volunteer-related outcomes, such as administrative costs and volunteer retention, that are often treated as determined solely at the organization level (Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2004, Reference Hager, Brudney and Liao-Troth2008). Our results suggest that these outcomes are not determined by host organizations alone – as is often assumed – but by the alignment (or misalignment) across the broader organizational system.

Second, we build on prior work on volunteer management capacity (Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2004, Reference Hager, Brudney and Liao-Troth2008), which highlights the resources required to manage volunteers, by showing how the costs of volunteer involvement are distributed across organizational and policy actors rather than borne solely within nonprofits. Our findings highlight that these costs vary depending on the nature of the volunteer, including their motivation (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), their fit with the work and organization, and the length of their commitment. More broadly, we find that some of these costs are not simply organizational but are produced by the policy system and relationships among organizations within the system. Policy systems can shift administrative and supervisory burdens onto community organizations.

Third, we expand the literature on volunteer retention, which typically focuses on intrinsically motivated volunteers, by examining how sustained engagement emerges for volunteers who enter with external or limited initial motivation (e.g., CSWs, service-learning students). Consistent with prior research on volunteer retention (Cuskelly et al., Reference Cuskelly, Taylor, Hoye and Darcy2006; Hyde et al., Reference Hyde, Dunn, Bax and Chambers2016; Jamison, Reference Jamison2003), we find that quality supervision, a good match between the individual and the work, effective onboarding, and recognition are important for sustained engagement. At the same time, our findings show that the broader policy system can constrain or even override these organizational factors – an influence that is largely absent from prior retention research – and lead to disengagement. In this way, retention is shaped not only by what organizations do but also by the system in which they operate. More broadly, our results suggest that when organizations seek to engage extrinsically motivated or short-term volunteers over a longer period of time, meaningful experiences, such as supportive relationships and opportunities to contribute in visible and impactful ways, are especially important.

7.5 Study Limitations

As one of the few studies of court-ordered community service in the U.S., our research highlights several issues that may limit the success of CSW programs. However, it is exploratory. We collected data from CSWs and managers in two judicial circuits within a single district in one state, which limits the generalizability of our findings. One circuit includes a college town with organizations accustomed to managing an itinerant volunteer population. The other circuit, by contrast, is largely rural and lacks a college. Additional data from more jurisdictions are needed to better understand how community context shapes the operation and success of CSW programs.

A related limitation is the potential for selection effects. We interviewed only managers from organizations currently working with CSWs, meaning our sample likely reflects more positive experiences than those of organizations that discontinued participation. Similarly, because recruitment occurred through probation offices, the CSWs we interviewed were actively engaged in completing their service. Our findings may have differed had we included individuals who failed to complete or abandoned their service. Finally, the timing of data collection (2017–2018) is a limitation, as cultural shifts, declining engagement, and the COVID-19 pandemic may have altered the landscape of court-ordered community service in ways not captured here, underscoring the need for additional research.

7.6 Future Research

Because the results of this case study cannot be generalized to other jurisdictions, it is important to expand the study of court-ordered community service to other judicial districts and states in both urban and rural areas. Future research should also sample from a larger number of CSWs to improve representation. It is also important to expand research to community agencies that do not accept CSWs to learn why they have made that decision and whether it is based on an a priori cost-benefit analysis that incorporates factors that we did not uncover in our sample. As we noted, there is an inherent selection bias in interviewing only managers in agencies that currently work with CSWs, since their experiences will almost certainly be more positive than those of managers in agencies that no longer work with CSWs.

In addition, our research suggests several specific questions about CSW programs worth addressing. First, research should ascertain the actual financial costs of managing CSWs, especially relative to supervising volunteers, and the overall net benefits to the organization so that community agencies can make better decisions about involvement in court-mandated community service programs. This would provide a more complete picture of the true costs associated with CSW programs, which speaks to a key goal of court-ordered community service.

Second, if community service programs are intended to benefit the community, more research is needed on their impact on recipient organizations and the work they do. One of our most intriguing findings is that some CSWs continue with their assigned agency after completing their service, either as volunteers or staff, suggesting the importance of understanding the organizational practices that lead to this outcome. Future research could examine whether community service, combined with a direct invitation, can increase volunteering, particularly among under-represented groups. More broadly, research is needed on the organizational and individual characteristics (i.e., being a young, first-time offender) that shape CSW success and how these factors interact to influence program outcomes.

Future research should also incorporate the perspectives of probation officers and their supervisors on the conditions under which community service meets its intended goals. Probation officers occupy a key position within the system, linking the criminal legal system, CSWs, and community organizations. In enforcing court orders, they must also guide CSWs and organizations in overcoming barriers and capacity constraints that may undermine program success. Their insights could help identify where breakdowns occur and what supports are most effective.

Furthermore, given the increasing use of private probation (Phelps, Reference Phelps2020), it is also important to understand whether private probation agencies manage CSWs differently than government-operated offices. Because of their profit motivation, private agencies may shift more costs onto community organizations and have incentives to prolong supervision in order to increase fees (Huebner & Shannon, Reference Huebner and Shannon2022). Thus, it is not in their financial interest for CSWs to complete their service obligation in a timely manner. These dynamics may reduce the likelihood that CSWs complete their service in a timely manner and could undermine program effectiveness, though more research is needed to assess these differences.

7.7 Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the goals of CSW programs are not being met. Though some of these deficiencies may be idiosyncratic to the two districts studied, our research highlights several issues that apply to CSW programs more broadly. For example, community agencies generally lack personnel resources, making it difficult for them to manage CSWs effectively and reducing the benefit that CSWs provide to the organization, impacting the goal of restitution. This also relates to the cost-savings goal, as the costs associated with CSW programs are effectively shifted to the agencies, already under-resourced. Our findings regarding rehabilitation highlight the variability in rehabilitative potential across CSWs and agencies. On the basis of these findings, the next section suggests a number of improvements in CSW programs. We focus on needed changes within the criminal legal system, which forms the foundation of court-ordered community service, setting policies that community agencies must follow.

8.1 Recommendations for Courts/Judges/Lawyers

• Clarify the purpose of community service. Courts should state whether community service is intended to repair harm, punish, or rehabilitate the CSW, because that goal shapes organizational expectations and definitions of success. When the purpose is unclear, probation offices and community organizations send mixed signals that undermine outcomes.

• Refrain from using community service as a default sentence without assessing fit. Judges should be thoughtful and intentional when assigning community service, recognizing that it is not appropriate or effective in all cases and should not be treated as a one-size-fits-all punishment. Judges should be mindful of net-widening and of adding community service on top of other punishments.

• Acknowledge that community service places real demands on community organizations. Courts should understand that CSW placements create administrative, supervisory, and resource burdens for community agencies, especially in under-resourced areas.

• Consider the significant barriers many CSWs face in completing service. Judges should account for barriers such as childcare responsibilities, revoked licenses, transportation limitations, inflexible work schedules, disabilities, and rural geography, all of which can make completing community service extremely difficult.

  • ○ Community service should not be assigned to individuals with multiple barriers unless appropriate accommodations are provided.

  • ○ Judges should assign a realistic number of hours within a feasible timeframe, recognizing the limited availability of evening and weekend service, particularly for those with work or caregiving obligations.

• Strengthen pre-sentencing screening to assess CSW suitability. Community service should be reserved for individuals who are likely to succeed in such placements without overburdening receiving organizations. Allowing individuals to opt into community service rather than mandating it may increase the likelihood of a mutually beneficial placement.

  • ○ Screening should exclude individuals at high risk of noncompliance, volatility, or hostility to protect community organizations.

  • ○ At the same time, screening processes must guard against racial, socioeconomic, and mental-health–related bias by relying on clear criteria, transparency, and periodic audits.

• Recognize that not all organizations can accept all offenders. For liability and safety reasons, many nonprofits do not take individuals with violent offenses, reducing placement options; in such cases, judges should reconsider whether community service is viable.

8.2 Recommendations for Probation Offices

• Reframe community service as an opportunity for growth, not just punishment. Probation offices should adopt language and attitudes that position community service as a chance for CSWs to invest in themselves and their communities.

  • ○ Encourage partner organizations to assign CSWs meaningful tasks that foster a sense of contribution and human connection.

• Build and maintain strong, supportive partnerships with community organizations. Probation offices must treat community organizations as essential collaborators by fostering mutual trust, providing tools for success, and maintaining consistent lines of communication.

  • ○ Offer training and clear guidance to organizations on how to engage CSWs effectively.

  • ○ Share standardized policies, procedures, and practical tools (including contact information and photos of CSWs) to streamline onboarding.

  • ○ Establish routine check-ins to track CSW progress, resolve issues, and share updates, such as rearrests or service completion.

  • ○ Consider funding background checks when required.

• Invest directly in CSWs’ success through preparation, support, and encouragement. Equip CSWs with the tools and understanding they need to succeed, and structure their service in ways that reduce failure and build pride in their contributions.

  • ○ Offer CSWs a range of placement options aligned with their skills and interests.

  • ○ Deliver a formal orientation covering the purpose of community service, expected conduct, and logistics.

  • ○ Train CSWs in soft workplace skills such as punctuality, communication, and professionalism.

  • ○ Break service into clear, time-bound milestones – such as weekly check-ins or progress reports – to support steady progress.

  • ○ Recognize and celebrate the completion of service with a certificate or other form of positive acknowledgment.

• Modernize how service hours are tracked and verified. Shift from outdated paper-based systems to secure, automated reporting tools that strengthen accountability and reduce errors.

  • ○ Ensure that hours are submitted directly by the community organization liaison to reduce opportunities for misreporting.

8.3 Recommendations for Community Service Workers

• Find a good fit. Community service opportunities vary widely in work, location, and scheduling. CSWs should learn about available options and choose placements that fit their constraints – and, when possible, their interests.

• Treat community service like a job. CSWs are doing unpaid work for an organization and should expect onboarding and training. Planning ahead is essential; procrastination creates frustration for both CSWs and managers. Managers value reliability, punctuality, and respect for boundaries.

• Communicate clearly and early. Probation officers and community organizations want CSWs to succeed. CSWs should raise concerns, flag barriers, and solve problems proactively. Managers need advance notice when shifts must be missed or rescheduled.

• Take responsibility for the experience. Community service can feel punitive, but CSWs who build relationships, develop skills, and approach the work with intention have more positive outcomes. Attitude and demeanor matter and can meaningfully shape the experience.

8.4 Conclusion

Ultimately, this research reveals that while court-ordered community service carries potential to fulfill its tripartite policy aims – cost savings, community restitution, and individual rehabilitation – its success is highly contingent on the alignment between policy design and on-the-ground realities. Our findings indicate that although some community organizations derive labor and staffing benefits from CSWs, many also experience supervision burdens, capacity constraints, and inadequate support from probation offices. Meanwhile, CSWs’ experiences range from personally transformative to physically and emotionally draining, shaped by barriers such as work and family commitments, transportation challenges, and the drudgery of their assigned tasks. Both the rehabilitative and restorative dimensions of community service hinge upon the intentional design of placements, the quality of relationships with organizational staff, and whether CSWs are treated as contributors or as conscripted labor. Importantly, the role of probation offices, courts, and community organizations in setting realistic expectations and providing supportive infrastructure is critical to ensuring that community service becomes an opportunity for growth and integration rather than marginalization. Without careful consideration of these dynamics, community service risks becoming a hollow formality – burdensome to organizations, punitive for workers, and symbolically rather than substantively beneficial to the community. To truly realize its restorative promise, court-ordered community service must be reframed and restructured with attention to ethical labor practices, support systems, and a commitment to creating value for all involved.