The Effectiveness of Community Service Sentences Compared to Traditional Fines for Low-Level Offenders

Date01 June 2007
Published date01 June 2007
AuthorJeffrey A. Bouffard,Lisa R. Muftić
DOI10.1177/0032885507303741
Subject MatterArticles
TPJ303741.qxd The Prison Journal
Volume 87 Number 2
June 2007 171-194
© 2007 Sage Publications
The Effectiveness of
10.1177/0032885507303741
http://tpj.sagepub.com
Community Service
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Sentences Compared to
Traditional Fines for
Low-Level Offenders

Jeffrey A. Bouffard
Washington State University
Lisa R. Muftic′
University of North Texas
Relatively little research in the United States has examined the effectiveness
of community service (CS) sentences among adult offenders, despite use of
this alternative sanction for nearly 40 years. What little research exists, pri-
marily from Europe, suggests that CS may not yield significant reductions in
recidivism when compared to incarceration; however, much of this research
suffers from important methodological limitations. This study employs a
more rigorous evaluation design and a more appropriate comparison sample of
offenders sentenced to pay traditional monetary fines. Results reveal that those
who participate in CS sentences are less likely to experience post-program
recidivism, controlling for several initial group differences. Limitations of
the design and suggestions for future research are also discussed.
Keywords:
community service; alternative sanctions; recidivism
Community service (CS) emerged as an alternative sanction in the United
States in the 1960s (McDonald, 1986) and was initially designed to
meet the goal of providing an alternative to imprisonment or fines for less
serious types of offenders, such as those convicted of traffic violations, petty
theft, and other nonviolent offenses. By contrast, in Europe, CS sentences are
more likely to be used as an alternative to periods of incarceration
(Muliluvuori, 2001; Tonry, 1998). In the United States, CS can also be used
171

172
The Prison Journal
in combination with other sanctions, for instance as an add-on to traditional
probation or in addition to the imposition of fines. When compared to a tra-
ditional criminal fine, the use of CS sentences has the added benefit of pro-
viding direct service to the community through the provision of unpaid labor.
Although the process of sentencing less serious offenders to CS work
has been employed in the U.S. criminal justice system for nearly four
decades (McDonald, 1986), relatively little research has been conducted on
the operation (including frequency, prevalence, and severity of CS sanc-
tions) or effectiveness of such programs. It is estimated that in the late
1990s there were 547 CS and restitution programs being run nationwide
(Development Services Group, 2006). However, there is a paucity of
research that examines these programs. Delens-Ravier (2003) hypothesizes
that the primary reason for the lack of evaluation research on CS programs
is “because the objectives of CS are so varied and diverse” (p. 152), making
the exact criteria against which CS sentencing programs are to be measured
unclear. In fact, unlike programs in Europe and Asia, which tend to employ
CS as one component of a restorative justice system, community service
programs (CSPs) in the United States tend to derive from wide-ranging
goals, including retribution, rehabilitation, and skill building and function
as an alternative sanction (Delens-Ravier, 2003; Harris & Wing Lo, 2002;
Wing Lo & Harris, 2004). In addition, the lack of consistent theoretical
grounding for the goals of CS compounds the inability to determine what
the programs’ outcomes are or should be. As such, there are few studies that
evaluate the outcomes of CSPs, in terms either of the likelihood of suc-
cessfully completing a CS sentence or of post-program recidivism, and
those that do exist offer little guidance on the effectiveness of CS sentences
in the United States, especially when compared to other community-based
(nonincarceration) sanctions.
Although CS has been employed as a sanction for relatively less serious
offenders in this country for nearly 40 years, it is still a comparatively new
and under-researched form of correctional intervention. Even considering
the relatively recent implementation of this sanction type, the number of
studies examining its impact on recidivism, especially in the United States,
is even smaller than one might expect given its use during the past several
decades. Tonry (1998), noting the lack of sufficient research on the effec-
tiveness of CS, suggests that it may also be the most underused alternative
sanction in the United States. He notes that although CS is often simply
used as a condition of probation in the United States, its use could be

Bouffard, Muftic´ / Community Service Sentences
173
expanded as a stand-alone sanction for both minor and some types of mod-
erate offenders, as it is in Europe. Tonry also anticipates that the public
might even appreciate CS as a “tough” sanction that can be readily scaled
to the severity of the crime, in addition to the fact that it is relatively inex-
pensive to administer and produces a valuable outcome in the form of
unpaid labor provided to the wider community.
Finally, Tonry (1998) points out that the existing European and U.S.
research (all of which compares CS-sentenced offenders to those sentenced
to some period of incarceration) suggests that CS does not reduce recidi-
vism when used in lieu of short-term prison sentences. This finding may
also suggest that some of these incarceration-bound offenders could be
safely managed in the community using a CS sentence (with no increase in
the likelihood of recidivism), thus reducing correctional crowding while
still protecting public safety. On the other hand, in the United States, incar-
ceration-bound offenders may not be an appropriate comparison group for
those receiving CS sentences because there is a greater tendency to use
incarceration as a criminal sanction, even for less serious offenses, than is
the case in many European countries (Langan & Farrington, 1998; Lynch,
2002; Tonry, 1998).
In recognition of this issue, the current study examines the recidivism rate
of offenders receiving CS sentences (n = 200) relative to that of a more appro-
priate comparison sample of offenders sentenced using a traditional commu-
nity-based sanction, criminal fines (n = 222). Specifically, this study expands
on previous research by asking three distinct questions. First, do CS offenders
recidivate at lower rates (post-sentencing) than do fined offenders? Second,
what factors are related to offending for offenders completing a CS sentence?
Third, what impact does sentence type have on post-program recidivism?
Previous Research on CS Outcomes
As noted previously, most if not all of the published outcome studies of
CS sentences examine their effectiveness compared to incarceration sen-
tences in European countries. A review of the published literature on the
effectiveness of CS sentences on recidivism revealed several such European
studies (Killisa, Aebi, & Ribeaud, 2000; Muliluvuori, 2001; Spaans, 1998).
Only one published study of a CS sentencing program in the United States
was located (McDonald, 1986), which also examined CS effectiveness
relative to incarceration.

174
The Prison Journal
Among the European studies examining the impact of CS sentences on
reoffending, Muliluvuori (2001), using a quasiexperimental research
design, compared the recidivism rates of 342 offenders receiving CS sen-
tences to those for offenders given a prison sentence (n = 342) of up to 8
months in Finland. Although the CS group had a lower post-program
recidivism rate (62%) than did the prison group (72%), the difference was
not statistically significant. In another of the European studies, Killisa and
colleagues (2000) used a similar design to compare the recidivism rates of
84 offenders sentenced to CS and 39 offenders given a short prison sen-
tence (i.e., 14 days maximum prison stay) in Switzerland. Using follow-up
interviews and official rearrest and conviction data, these authors found no
differences in recidivism rates between the two types of offenders, although
the small sample size limits the statistical power of these analyses.
Finally, Spaans (1998), using matched samples of offenders, compared
the recidivism rate of those sentenced to CS to those given a suspended
short-term jail sentence in the Netherlands (N = 1,200). Using official data,
she found that offenders sentenced to CS recidivated at a lower rate (60%)
than did offenders given a suspended jail sentence (80%) during a 5-year
follow-up period. However, this difference was not statistically significant.
In addition, using “seriousness scores” (i.e., scales designed to measure the
severity of the current offense), Spaans found that more serious offenders
were being sentenced to jail, whereas less serious offenders were given CS.
These findings suggest that those offenders receiving CS sentences (i.e.,
less serious offenders) should have had a lower initial likelihood of recidi-
vating than the comparison offenders, thus biasing the study toward finding
a relative improvement in reoffending among the CS-sentenced offenders
(a finding that did not materialize).
CS Outcome Research in the United States
A review of the published literature revealed only one U.S. evaluation
designed to examine the impact of CS sentences on adult offenders’ recidi-
vism (McDonald, 1986). This study evaluated the Bronx Community
Service Sentencing Project in New York. Using a quasiexperimental design,
McDonald (1986) compared 494 adult offenders who received a CS sen-
tence to a sample of 417 who had received a jail sentence. McDonald
reports that although the two...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT