Community Service and victim restitution

Victim service programs facilitate offender voluntary work for the victim during a specified period of time to repair or replace the damaged or stolen property. Community service programs mandate work for a community agency or organization for a specific period of time to symbolically repay the losses incurred by the community (Branham, 2013). Although three-quarters of formal restitution programs include a community service component, the function of community service as an effective sanction is still debated within the justice system. Despite continued questions about its function and effectiveness, community service programs are utilized in most justice systems and continue extensive use by judges and court officers. In this paper, I will address both community service and victim restitution of both the young and old offenders.

Restitution involves both the wrongdoer and the victim proactively in the repairing of the detriment caused to the victim. Compared to retributive responses to wrongdoing, restitution has the ability to repair both relational and monetary harm that the law-breaking may have left in its reverberation. The reason why restitution is preferable is that it aims at repairing the victim instead of increasing the harm suffered and makes the wrongdoer a productive person. When restitution is compared to punitive measures, it provides a clear sanction that is related to the offense. It serves to honor the good gesture of repairing and acknowledgment of law-breaking. Community service is a consent that can benefit the community, the offender and restore faith in the justice process.

Community service offers practical consent that can be used to punish or rehabilitate while holding the wrongdoer accountable to the community and the victim. As the restitution program comprises of monetary payments and service to the victim, community service programs require the offender to work for the community for a specified period of time to repay the damages caused to the community. Community service as a penalty or sanction for law-breaking has existed for a long time now. In the United States, it began in 1966 as a probation for female traffic offenders in California. Although there is an increase in community service programs, only a few courts order these sentences based on the agreed penal philosophies and objectives (Steggerda, & Susan, 2005). Because of that imprecision and multiplicity of objectives, the debate about its proper use continues.

The questions about the purpose of community service, the relationship between delinquency and work has been a topic of discussion and a focus for further research. Most of the correction efforts have focused on the offender’s labor and employment. Community service sentences can be of use in many penal goals. The basic habit of cooperating with team members, reporting to work on time, finishing a task following orders and accepting positive criticism can be adapted to live in the community. Research has shown that performing community service might strengthen the bond between the community and the wrongdoer by offering service to others. By working in the service voluntarily with other public-spirited people, the offender may be instilled with a sense of belonging and responsibility and thereby consolidating their social connection to the community.

These humanitarian benefits of the sanction make it appealing to the lawmakers and judges (McShane, 2003). Others see the rehabilitative value of community service in its restitution aspects. This community blaming loosely follows Braithwaite's ideas of reintegrates shaming which works as a deterrent in two ways; "social disapproval and pangs of conscience". A societal mandate to work at a particular job reinforces the community’s objection to offender behavior and elicits a desire to conform to the norms of society in order to obtain societal acceptance. For less serious crime where probation would be the sentence, community service is often added on and used as a deterrent. Paying the community back in unpaid labor and or in monetary payments can be seen as a deterrent for future crime.

In general, community service is capable of "delivering punishment because it involves significant deprivations of liberty and comfort, visited in a manner that conveys censure" (McShane, 2003). Using accountability and reparation as a rationale for community service under the justice philosophy reflects a shift from the traditional parens patriae perspective in that it emphasizes juveniles' individual responsibility and accountability for their actions (Steggerda, & Susan, 2005). This perspective holds the juvenile accountable to the victim/community in a way that is proportional to the damage done and to the offender’s level of responsibility for the offense. Unlike rehabilitation and punishment philosophies, those who promote a justice philosophy believe accountability is a goal in and of itself and is worth pursuing even if it achieves no other objective.

Also, the message to the youth is "you are responsible for what you did and you are doing this for the victim. " A compilation of the above philosophical objectives can be seen in a fairly modern paradigm called "restorative justice. Community service programs such as the Win-Onus Project, Earn-It, and the Minnesota Restitution Center are examples of model programs that incorporate many of these components and characteristics. Because community service programs in the United States are characterized by diversity there is no true "model" of a community service program. Descriptions of programmatic guidelines and operations have been based upon surveys of justice restitution programs through a Restitution Education, Specialized Training and Technical Assistance Program (RESTTA) grant in 1986 (Schneider, 2005). Too often, "program labels are substituted for clear program descriptions which give little information and understanding about the program structure and the relationships that underlie the program operations".

Although no empirical studies distinguish and assert effectiveness or success in community service programs, these evaluative terms have been applied to programs that have attained longevity and received community support and recognition from justice professionals. Responses to the Department of Justice Program Inventory Survey conducted on 170 juvenile restitution programs showed that accountability was the most important goal of restitution programs, followed by offender services and finally, punishment (Schneider, 2005). Although restitution programs seldom specify a single goal or philosophy and adhere to it rigidly, accountability was the most cited philosophy. Community service, when sanctioned with the intention of holding juveniles accountable for their crimes, reflects a shift in thinking about youth, one that emphasizes juveniles' individual responsibility. An accountability philosophy differs from treatment philosophies where the court is doing this "for you," and punishment philosophies where the court is doing this "to you.

" In contrast, accountability-oriented programs stress the message given to youth is that "you are responsible for what you did you are doing this for the victim or community". Careful selection of work crew supervisors is also vital for maintaining a high-quality program. Virtually all effective community service supervisors are those that possess two basic attributes: First, they are competent workers, with a thorough understanding of the work to be done; second, they are sensitive to the needs of and able to communicate effectively with the youth workers. There also is a consensus that competency in organizing activities in a manner that best accomplishes program goals is a valued attribute (Schneider, 2005). To accomplish program goals, crew supervisors treat workers as essential resources needed to complete a job.

This is especially important when tackling tough jobs as staff conveys to offenders that they are genuinely needed to help solve a problem. In addition, judges freed up limited jail space for those offenders who posed an immediate and more dangerous threat to society as well as allowed an opportunity for some offenders to get a second chance. Results from the Two Year Report on the National Evaluation of the Juvenile Restitution Initiative show serious offenders (murder and rape excluded) make up less than 5% of restitution program referrals. This report also claims that serious offenders generally do well in restitution type programs and are just as likely to complete their restitution requirements as less serious offenders; their 12-month re-offense rates were no different.

Chronic offenders, those with many prior offenses, present a different problem. These youths will probably re-offend no matter what disposition they receive so it is worthwhile to place them in the program designed to prevent future offenses. A number of community service programs use community volunteer bureaus for assistance in developing work sites due to their experience coordinating volunteer efforts. Successful programs have little problem acquiring appropriate work sites and in fact, are frequently turning down agencies requesting their services. These programs understand that community needs and the needs of young people to learn and benefit from the work experience are essential. Model programs use two marketing concepts: the first one is emphasizing the public economic and value benefits of wrongdoer work and the second one is prioritizing stringent, reliable supervision to guarantee public protection and the quality of scheme work while promoting a more positive viewpoint toward wrongdoer’s capabilities.

When making contact with potential participating agencies, managers present informational brochures that highlight the mutual benefits of this agreement for the agency, youths, community, and the justice system. This intake activity is carried out by staff whose primary interest is ensuring only appropriate offenders are admitted into the program. Although many programs utilize individual work sites where one or two offenders can work off their obligation, it is more common for programs to use work crews. Matching offenders to work sites can make the difference between an effective sanction with long-lasting effects or a meaningless activity that perpetuates an ineffective juvenile justice system. Model programs usually employ two ways of matching offenders with work sites. First, efforts can be directed at placing offenders at work sites in which they are likely to have positive, pleasant experiences.

In all cases, potential conflicts between community service placements and the offender’s schedule are considered in making the assignment, but not in lieu of the placement philosophy. Supervision, an assertion on high-quality values of supervision has been a significant guarantee to agencies and the society for their participation within the program. Although program staff recognizes the significance of flexibility with offenders who are often unacquainted with the discipline of work, they say that it is better to live with a high abrasion rate than to sacrifice the honesty of the work program to put up with some unmotivated young people. Rules such as program end for three late arrivals, or two "no-shows" regardless of excuses, are common and are seen as significant to ensuring quality performance and adherence to program philosophies.