Court-ordered community service, where a person convicted of a crime is ordered by a court to provide a certain number of labor hours to a nonprofit, community of faith or government agency. is common in the USA and, as an Internet search will show, is growing in popularity in other countries such as Malaysia, Ghana and India.

According to a 2019 survey of those involved in such sentencing in the USA, the potential to reduce the negative impact of monetary sanctions was the most commonly identified benefit of such mandated community service.

“When we asked courts to identify commonly recognized reasons for using community service mandates, the majority of participating courts responded that community service mandates should serve as an alternative form of payment for court fines and fees (76 percent) or as a means to reduce the imposition of court fines and fees altogether (54 percent). Another half (49 percent) of respondents endorsed the idea of “repairing harm to the community” as a reason for community service mandates, while 42 percent reported that community service mandates are, or should be, used as an alternative to jail sentences.” (See footnote at the end)

It’s worth noting that none of the respondents in this survey said that the reason for court-ordered community service was because nonprofits, non-government organizations (NGOs), religious groups and charitable organizations need the time and labor of such people, nor that these programs are asking for such volunteer placements.

For a court-ordered community service to be successful, in my opinion,

• the nature of the service and its completion needs to satisfy the court,
• the program must not be over-burdensome to those charged with administering it,
• the program must have written, well-communicated policies and procedures in place to keep it free of corruption (such as people ordered to do community service being able to make donations to the nonprofit in lieu of actually doing their community service hours),
• the program needs to have a variety and abundance of community service roles, so that a variety of schedules, availability and skills or limitations can be accommodated and the person can complete their community service within a reasonable time frame,
• the program needs to be done in full partnership with the nonprofits, NGOs and other organizations that are expected to engage these court-ordered volunteers, providing all the training that’s necessary, offering real-time assistance, not over-burdening host organizations with paperwork, etc.

In my opinion, to make all of the above possible, these are the keys to success in court-ordered community service programs:

• There must be clear guidelines on what a person that is sentenced to community service may, and may NOT do, as a part of that service. For instance, some jurisdictions prohibit people from performing court-ordered service with religious communities, while others allow it. Some allow online volunteering to fulfill court-ordered service and some do not.
• Those sentenced to court-ordered community service should be given a list of organizations they could contact about performing their service, and told explicitly if they are limited to only this list or if they could seek placement with other organizations not on the list, but that meet the court’s requirements.
• Those sentenced to court-ordered community service must be given ideas for community service that are easy to reach from their home or before or after work, that can be done at a variety of different times and on different days (as people’s schedules vary), and that provide childcare.
• There must be a way for an officer of the court to verify community service hours, in terms of where the service was performed, how many hours were performed, and what the person did for this community service. This verification takes more than a signature on a form: it also requires someone to call the agency where service was supposedly performed and confirm information on forms, as well as someone ensuring that the agency meets the requirements of the court for community service.
• Those sentenced to community service should be able to count hours where they are interviewed by the agency expected to involve them in community service and for any training they have to undergo for this service.
• The court must be explicit regarding whether or not someone who is to do community service can make a donation to a nonprofit, NGO, charity, community of faith, etc., in lieu of some or all of his or her hours. Is it allowed that someone sentenced to community service could pay the nonprofit or NGO $10 for every hour he or she needs for community service? This is a growing, controversial and unofficial practice in many parts of the USA, one that courts are struggling to address.
• If online volunteering is allowed to meet community service requirements, it must meet all of the same standards as onsite community service: there must be a way to verify community service hours, in terms of how many hours were performed, and what the person did for this community service. This verification takes more than a signature: it also requires someone to call the agency where service was supposedly performed and confirm information on forms, as well as someone ensuring that the agency meets the requirements of the court for community service. Someone needs to ensure it is real online volunteering and actual labor, not an AI automation doing the work, or a nonprofit or NGO that, in exchange for a fee and a claim that the person watched some videos and wrote some essays about them, gives a person a certificate claiming a certain number of hours completed.
• The nonprofits, charities, NGOs, communities of faith and others expected to engage court-ordered community service people must receive:
  • training in how to create volunteering activities for court-ordered community service
  • training in how to work with people doing court-ordered community service
  • training in the basics of volunteer support and engagement
  • support for their questions and concerns when working with someone doing court-ordered community service
• There should be a survey of nonprofits, NGOs and other organizations who engage community service volunteers for them to share their experiences with such with the courts, so that challenges can be identified and problems addressed.
• Nonprofits, NGOs, charities, etc. have the right to say no to court-ordered community service people, as they do with any volunteer. No organization has an obligation to engage with a court-ordered community service people, as they do with any volunteer, unless they have signed an agreement that they will do so. Organizations may say no because they don’t have time to supervise and support an additional volunteer, because they have nothing for that particular person to do as community service, or because of a negative experience with court-ordered community service volunteers.
• The best way to increase the number of organizations engaging court-ordered community service people is to fund those nonprofits, NGOs, charities, etc. to do so. Creating activities for someone to do takes time. Supervising and supporting someone takes time. Filling out paperwork takes time. That time should be funded.

I base all of the above on:

researching court-ordered community service since the late 1990s.

working with court-ordered community service folks myself.

You can see other things I’ve written about court-ordered community service here.

What would you add? Or what do you think is actually not that important?

(Footnote) Court-Ordered Community Service: A National Perspective. by Sarah Picard, Jennifer A. Tallon, Michela Lowry, and Dana Kralstein, July 2019, Center for Court Innovation, New York, New York.

If you have benefited from this blog or other parts of my web site and would like to support the time that went into researching information, developing material, preparing articles, updating pages, etc. (I receive no funding for this work), here is how you can help.