Community Service Outcomes in Justice-Involved Youth: Comparing Restorative Community Service to Standard Community Service

• Date: 01 September 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211008488
• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 9, September 2021, 1243 –1260.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211008488

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1243

COMMUNITY SERVICE OUTCOMES IN

JUSTICE-INVOLVED YOUTH

Comparing Restorative Community Service to

Standard Community Service

ABERE SAWAQDEH CHURCH

Washington State University

Orlando VA Healthcare System

DAVID K. MARCUS

Washington State University

ZACHARY K. HAMILTON

University of Nebraska Omaha

Traditional mandated community service (CS) typically consists of picking up trash or performing manual labor, distanced

from the community. Some juvenile justice programs have begun to implement restorative community service (RCS) pro-

grams that enable youth to complete meaningful CS projects in a shame-free manner alongside community members. This

study compared RCS with a standard community service (SCS) program in two counties in Washington State on psychosocial

outcomes, including attitudes, peer relationships, school conduct, academic performance, and substance use. Recidivism was

also examined. RCS was associated with reduced substance use and fewer school conduct difficulties compared with SCS,

and also positively influenced peer relationships and attitudes. These findings suggest that adding a restorative component to

CS may improve psychosocial outcomes for justice-involved youth, but there was no evidence that adding a restorative

component to CS led to reduced recidivism. Additional systematic studies are needed to determine whether these findings

replicate.

Keywords: community service; restorative justice; juvenile justice; probation; propensity score matching

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This article is based on a dissertation submitted by the first author, under supervision of

the second author, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral degree in clinical psychology. The

authors would like to thank Clark County Juvenile Court, Kitsap County Juvenile and Family Court Services,

and the Washington State Center for Court Research for their time and effort dedicated to this study. Abere

Sawaqdeh Church is now at the Orlando VA Healthcare System. The views expressed in this article are those

of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the

U.S. government. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Abere Sawaqdeh Church,

Orlando VA Healthcare System, 13800 Veterans Way, Orlando, FL 32827, USA; e-mail: abere.sawaqdeh@

gmail.com.

1008488CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211008488Criminal Justice and BehaviorChurch et al. / Psychosocial Outcomes of Community Service

research-article2021

1244 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Community service (CS) is one of the most common sentences for low-level offenses in

the United States (Wood, 2012), including for justice-involved youth (referred to as

youth throughout the article). Initially implemented in the late 1960s, more than 95% of

county courts use CS as an alternative to incarceration, either as a standalone or additive

sentence to probation and other alternative sanctions (Bazemore & Maloney, 1994; McIvor,

2016). Standard community service (SCS) programs require youth to engage in unpaid

menial work (e.g., picking up trash) either in isolation or with other youth (Bouffard &

Muftić, 2006). Individuals sentenced to SCS are often identified by orange vests or work

crews. Restorative community service (RCS) programs attempt to transform the use of CS

in juvenile populations by providing more meaningful work experiences and emphasizing

greater community involvement (Wood, 2012). Beginning in 2001, the Clark County

Juvenile Court (CCJC) in Washington State implemented one of the first RCS programs.

The court determined that work crews led to minimal benefits and sometimes created prob-

lems (e.g., conflicts between youth in work crews), and the court moved to a fully restor-

ative model.

RCS is based on the principles of restorative justice (RJ). In addition to addressing the

needs of the victims and communities, and providing opportunities for making reparations,

RJ interventions attempt to foster growth and reintegration into the community for justice-

involved individuals (Ryals, 2004; Strang & Braithwaite, 2017). Because youth are still

forming their identities and developing socially and cognitively, they are presumed to be

responsive to interventions that encourage the development of prosocial identities, which

has been a rationale for implementing restorative programs in juvenile courts (Suzuki &

Wood, 2018). A 3-year qualitative study that assessed the implementation of RCS in Clark

County (Wood, 2012) described three primary ways that RCS differed from SCS: engage-

ment in “real-work” (Wood, 2012, p. 19), defined as service with tangible benefits to the

community, frequently involving skill-based work; required interaction with mentors and

community members; and preservice orientation on the restorative approach. RCS is viewed

as the forum for youth to learn about the RJ approach and take action to contribute and

integrate back into their community. Other restorative programs typically included in

youth’s case plans (e.g., Victim–offender mediation, Making Things Right Program) com-

plement RCS by providing opportunities for those most directly affected by the crime to be

involved in the restorative process. For instance, victim–offender mediation enables victims

and youth to discuss the crime and its consequences to promote healing for victims and

awareness for youth (Hansen & Umbreit, 2018).

One of the primary functions of juvenile sanctions is to prevent future criminality. This

aim is often accomplished by influencing intermediate outcomes associated with criminal-

ity, including attitudes, peer relationships, school conduct, academic performance, and sub-

stance use (Elonheimo et al., 2009; Murray & Farrington, 2010; Tanner-Smith et al., 2013).

As Barnoski (2004) noted, “one of the most important and consistently identified factors

linked to criminal behavior is antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs” (p. 103). In addition,

almost 50% of justice-involved youth suffer from a substance use disorder (Chassin, 2008),

and substance use is associated with higher rates of academic problems (Bugbee et al.,

2019). Academic failure often precedes delinquency (Murray & Farrington, 2010), whereas

increased school attendance, positive academic values, and school activity involvement are

associated with decreased contact with the justice system (Farrington et al., 2012). These

psychosocial variables also influence other life domains, such as income and occupational