Best practice principles

PART 4: MODELS AND BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES

Models of community service

Not much attention has been paid in the literature to the issue of identifying or determining effective models for the operation of community service schemes, possibly owing to the array of variations in program operation between jurisdictions. This has clearly been a challenge for researchers. Notwithstanding these variations, a 2002 review of the international use of community service in criminal justice, identified two main models of community service from a diversity of administration methods, as well as the inherent benefits and drawbacks of these models :

Independent model

The first model, which we have termed the ‘independent model’, was characterised by the separation and independence of community service schemes from mainstream probation services. These schemes were exclusively operated by community service coordinators . Major advantages of this model include its cost-effectiveness and limited potential for up-tariffing or net-widening, while the major disadvantage is the potential for problems with role clarity, related to worker responsibilities and the aims of probation and community service more generally. According to the authors of the review:

No major problems arise when community service workers work with offenders put under deferred prosecution, unsupervised probation, or compensation orders. However, when community service is used as a condition of probation or when offenders are sentenced to undertake both community service and probation, the lines of authority between probation officers and community service workers sometimes become blurred. Eventually, it leads to communication problems, cultural divide, and professional rivalry between the two parties, especially when they have contradictory objectives…

Interestingly, in their study of offenders on probation In Britain, including those on community service and combined orders, Mair and May observed that in the majority of cases, (71%), the community service order was managed by a specialist in community service and not the same probation officer who managed the probation order. Moreover, they found that while the community service components ran for between forty and one hundred hours, many offenders appeared unclear about the length of these, with over half claiming that the duration was longer than one hundred hours . Also relevant is the finding of a review of community service in the Jersey Probation and After Care Service (JPACS) that among the community service team, ‘there was a sense of ‘separateness’ from the rest of JPACS’ . The review noted that this was acknowledged by the staff, who suggested it might be related to different operational issues, such as different working hours . Moreover, feedback from staff and beneficiaries of community service, suggested that the implementation of ‘formal three way meetings (with client, Community Service Officer and Probation Officers) for those on Combination Orders could increase the sense that the scheme is part of the JPACS’.

Similarly, a relatively recent audit report of the Tasmanian community service order scheme identified a number of issues that stemmed from having separate roles for the management of the scheme in some regions, as follows:

• 
  as the management of community service orders mainly entails administrative tasks, the skills and expertise of offender managers are not being maximised;
  
• 
  staff held the view that working solely on community service orders is unchallenging, demotivating and deskilling;
  
• 
  as only a small number of people who have knowledge about the community service order scheme and the offenders, this poses a risk to the organisation if those staff members are unavailable;
  
• 
  there is no flexibility in the role of offender managers in the community service orders scheme to provide other facets of the service during period of higher work requirements; and
  
• 
  community service order learning opportunities are not available to new staff, due to the management of community service orders being separate from the core work of offender managers.
  

To address these issues, the reviewers suggest a number of changes to the structure and administration of the scheme, fundamental among which was the development a state-wide community service unit to provide a centralised, separate, but connected approach to the duties that are not ‘core business’ for offender managers . The reviewers justify this on the grounds that, compared to managing offenders on other orders, managing community service schemes entails a different set of skills. They suggest specifically that community service managers (or workers) require greater administrative and advisory skills (e.g. for the management of work placement sites) than their offender manager counterparts, who in turn, require greater skills and experience in the assessment and management of criminogenic risk and triggers for offending behaviour, than community service managers . Finally, the reviewers assert that, ‘Examples from the literature and from practice in other jurisdictions, illustrate that CSO schemes should be managed by separate, but integrated, groups of community corrections staff.’ Unfortunately, this is not supported by any references to research or other literature and no reference list is included in the report, so the veracity of the statement cannot be determined. It is noted that no such definitive evidence or preference towards a particular model of community service administration was found in the literature examined for this review.

Probation-dependent model

The second model, we have termed it the ‘probation-dependent model’, was characterised by domination from the probation services, which subsumed community service schemes. Offenders, required to undertake community service, were supervised in these schemes, either solely by a probation worker or by a probation worker with support from a community service worker or a staff member from a community agency, but never just by a community service worker . Therefore, when community service is a condition of probation, the probation officer, not the community service worker, holds supervisory responsibilities, including making breach decisions . The review’s authors suggest this is the model’s major advantage:

This helps ensure coherence between probation and community service components and minimizes professional conflict. Another alternative is that probation officers select suitable placements and make recommendations to the court. Offenders are administratively placed with the sponsoring organizations, which supervise the sentence. The probation officers monitor progress and take action if necessary. Both alternatives of the second model center on probation, but they manage to solve the inherited problems and interorganizational conflicts associated with the first one.

However, the disadvantages of this model include the higher cost, due to the qualification levels of probation staff, and its potential for up-tariffing and net-widening .

Notably, although McIvor and McWilliams have emphasised that it is important for community service offenders to have access to support for various practical and personal difficulties, McIvor makes it clear that, ‘This is not, however, a plea for the increased ‘probationisation’ of community service for this would…almost certainly reduce its credibility with the courts and lead to even greater inconsistency in its use.’ suggests that the way to achieve a balance is not by recognising community service as a distinct sentence, but by recognising it as a tariff measure where the number of mandated work hours corresponds to the seriousness of the offence. In addition, she considers that the schemes should operate according to social work values that allow offenders opportunities to make the most of their abilities, while maintaining or boosting their self-esteem and dignity .