Abstract
California courts increasingly order community service for those convicted of nonviolent and minor misdemeanors or infractions, assigning unpaid work to be performed. While court-ordered community service has been used as an alternative to incarceration and the payment of fines, little is known about the monetary and personal costs for those completing it. A case study design is used to examine court-ordered community service performed in Southeast Los Angeles. Data were gathered from a quantitative dataset of 541 court files of those assigned to community service and 32 in-depth interviews with attorneys and court-ordered community service workers. While the quantitative data and Attorney interviews found that negative outcomes of community service can drive community service workers deeper into debt and result in new warrants that place defendants at risk for rearrest, individuals that completed community service appreciated the opportunity to pay off their criminal justice debts and stay out of jail.
Keywords
State and federal prisons and municipal jails incarcerate millions of people of color and poor people. In 2016, state and federal prisons held 1.5-million incarcerated persons (Carson, 2018); in county and city jails, another 740,700 incarcerated individuals were held at a single day in midyear (Zeng, 2018). California reported the second highest incarcerated population, at 129,593 (McDonnell, 2016). Los Angeles County alone incarcerated 16,163 per day in 2016 (McDonnell, 2016), making it one of the largest jail systems in the United States (Vera Institute of Justice, 2011). People who are unemployed and people of color have more frequent contact with the criminal justice system. Between 2012 and 2017, 43% of individuals arrested in Los Angeles were unemployed, the majority of whom were Latinx (43.9%) or Black (32.6%) (Zavala et al., 2018). Los Angeles County as a whole has a population that is 49% Hispanic or Latinx, 26% White, 15% Asian, and 9% Black (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Scholars and lawmakers across the country have extensively studied the disparate impacts and racialized harms of mass incarceration, and the various alternatives.
Alternatives to incarceration enjoy wide appeal as they are framed as a humane and less costly form of rehabilitation (Umbreit, 1981). However, recent research on the impact of alternatives, such as probation and monetary sanctions, found that they can increase the number of people under criminal justice control and perpetuate social inequities among poorer communities of color (Harris et al., 2010; Western, 2016). A related alternative is court-ordered community service. Court-ordered community service is an alternative sanction for people convicted of nonviolent and minor offenses who are ordered in criminal court and traffic court to perform unpaid work at nonprofit organizations and government agencies instead of serving jail time or paying fines (Umbreit, 1981). Although commonly used in Los Angeles County (Zatz et al., 2016), little research has examined the impact of court-ordered community service on individuals completing it (henceforth Community Service Workers). This study seeks to fill this knowledge gap by addressing the following questions: Who gets sentenced to court-ordered community service? Why are individuals completing or not completing court-ordered community service? and How do participants view the monetary and social costs of court-ordered community service in lieu of jail time and fees and fines?
Literature Review
Court orders to perform community service arise in traffic and criminal court as alternatives to jail time or court debt. Consequences for failing to complete community service ordered by a criminal court include probation revocation, a bench warrant, being sent to debt collection, or conversion of community service to jail time. Consequences in traffic court also include a bench warrant, as well as a new charge of failure to pay, debt collection, or driver’s license suspension (Herrera et al., 2019). Although court-ordered community service is intended as an alternative to incarceration and/or court debt, it can impede this goal by placing undue hardship on individuals with a limited income (Bender et al., 2015).
In Los Angeles County, orders to perform community service in lieu of jail occur generally as a condition of probation, for a wide range of misdemeanors including domestic violence, looting during an emergency (up to 240 hours), vandalism (up to 400 hours), graffiti on public buildings (up to 600 hours), graffiti on a freeway (up to 480 hours), and drug possession (Cal. Penal Code §§ 1203.097, 463, 594.6, 640.5, 640.8, 1210.1). In a few graffiti statutes, judges are required to mandate community service, either as a stand-alone component of the sentence or as a condition of probation (e.g., Cal. Penal Code §§ 594, 640.5[b]). Community service is performed at government entities like transportation and parks departments, as well as nonprofits like Goodwill, churches, and fraternal organizations. Common assignments require roadside maintenance, custodial work, kitchen duty, and graffiti removal (Herrera et al., 2019).
Community service arises most frequently from traffic-related charges including driving under the influence and vehicle operation offenses, such as speeding or illegal U-turns (Herrera et al., 2019). In traffic court, judges may permit community service in lieu of court debt that “would pose a hardship” (Cal. Penal Code § 1209.5[a]). In criminal court, no legal criteria govern community service in lieu of payment. Only a few criminal fines or fees (probation costs, some supplemental theft-related fines, and public defender fees) require an ability-to-pay assessment (Cal. Penal Code §§ 987.8, 1202.5, 1203.1b). Los Angeles County sentences over 100,000 individuals each year to community service to work off their criminal justice debt. This debt derives from two main sources: base fines from criminal and traffic court, and other court costs such as fees assessed in an effort to pay for the increasing costs of incarceration (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012; Herrera et al., 2019). For example, in addition to base fines set by the legislature for each offense, courts in Los Angeles County impose assessments for a State Penalty Fund, court security, court operations, alcohol abuse and prevention, and criminal convictions, as well as fees to fund night court, administrative screening, domestic violence services, laboratory services, installment payments and accounts receivable, emergency medical air transportation, and citation processing (Herrera et al., 2019; Nieto, 2006). Additional assessments and fines can increase the cost of a traffic violation in Los Angeles fivefold (Herrera et al., 2019; Nieto, 2006).
Court-ordered community service arose as an alternative to incarceration in the 1970s, and in Los Angeles in 1975 (Herrera et al., 2019; Tonry, 1997). A seemingly attractive alternative to incarceration, little is known about the monetary and personal costs of completion or noncompletion of community service, and scholarship lacks the voices of individuals actually completing court-ordered community service (Zatz, 2020). The majority of research has evaluated community service’s impact on recidivism as compared to a typical jail sentence (Killias et al., 2006). Studies conducted in Australia and Finland found there to be no statistically significant differences in recidivism rates between people sentenced to incarceration and community service (Killias et al., 2010; Muiluvuori, 2010; Roeger, 1994). Focusing specifically on community service in the United States, one randomized control trial compared short-term incarceration with community service; results indicate no statistically significant difference in re-offending (Killias et al., 2010).
Recently, several studies have identified barriers to completing court-ordered community service in lieu of fees. Court debt often amounts to thousands of dollars, yet community service hours have historically been credited at subminimum wage rates, causing people to work many hours to pay down their debt (Bender et al., 2015; Herrera et al., 2019). A 2018 change in California law mandated that community service in lieu of court debt arising from the violations heard in traffic court must be credited at no less than twice the state minimum wage (Cal. Penal Code § 1209.5). Yet the court often gives mandated community service workers a short amount of time to complete their hours, forcing them to work up to 40 hours a week (Bender et al., 2015; Herrera et al., 2019). This becomes challenging for people who hold jobs, go to school, or care for family members. Finally, because community service workers are considered “volunteers,” they lack employment rights (Zatz, 2020) including discrimination protection, and individuals with disabilities or seniors might not be able to find a work site where they can successfully complete their assignment (Bender et al., 2015; Herrera et al., 2019).
Given Los Angeles’ high rates of incarceration as well as these barriers to completing community service, this study seeks to gain a more complete understanding of the risks and benefits of community service as an alternative sanction. The study will address three questions: Who receives court-ordered community service sentences? Why do individuals complete court-ordered community service, or not? and How do participants view the monetary and social costs of court-ordered community service in lieu of jail time and fees and fines? Through the use of an embedded case study, a quantitative database identified the general sentencing basis and outcomes of court-ordered community service. Qualitative methods provide perspectives of those completing community service as well as of attorneys who advise clients about it. The study expands existing research with evidence of the monetary and personal costs of completing court-ordered community service. Study findings can inform court-ordered community service policy and practice with the experiences of individuals directly impacted.
Shadow Carceral State
One can better understand court-ordered community through the theory of the shadow carceral state (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012). This framework holds that civil alternatives to criminal sanctions, though enforced by institutions outside of the criminal justice system, extend carceral power. These outside institutions can enact punitive sanctions that feed back into the criminal justice system, thus acting as a “shadow.” Miller (2014) conceptualizes this dynamic as “Carceral Devolution” in which carceral power is transferred from state-based institutions to local ones. Specifically, for court-ordered community service, carceral power is diffused to local government and nonprofit agencies; community service workers answer not to the judge but directly to their placement site supervisors.
Researchers and policymakers have advocated for alternatives to incarceration to address the high costs of incarcerating people, an outcome of “tough on crime” approaches originating in the 1980s and 1990s (Tonry, 1997). But alternatives to incarceration can have unintended consequences. In their groundbreaking work on felony convictions, Harris et al. (2010) found that monetary sanctions extend incarceration through the criminal sanctions derived from nonpayment and can lead to long-term legal debt that perpetuates poverty and inequality. The current study examines how widening carceral power causes alternative sanctions to reinforce social and racial inequities by diminishing opportunities to exit the criminal justice system (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012). Through this lens the study moves beyond conducting a typical cost–benefit analysis of alternatives that focus primarily on the outcome of recidivism (López, 2014). Instead, the study offers broader assessment that examines not only the initial decision to assign work instead of jail or monetary sanctions but also the experience of completing that assignment and the consequences of being unable to do so.
Method
Design
This study uses an embedded single-case study design (Yin, 2018) to examine a Los Angeles County Court’s use of court-ordered community service as an alternative sanction. As an empirical method, case studies provide in-depth investigation of a phenomenon in the real-world context that uses multiple sources of evidence to converge and triangulate data (Yazan, 2015). The case in this study is one of 10 nonprofit intermediaries (community service referral agencies) that the Los Angeles Superior Court uses to place and monitor individuals assigned to community service. The community service referral agency receives referrals through its office in the courthouse, one of 15 county courthouses that hears both criminal and traffic cases, and through a neighborhood office in Southeast Los Angeles that receives referrals from other courthouses throughout Los Angeles County. Three subunits of data were gathered and analyzed from court dockets, public defenders/traffic court attorneys, and community service workers (Yin, 2018). The methods applied include descriptive analysis of a quantitative dataset derived from court dockets, and from semistructured interviews.
The study uses a descriptive analytic strategy to answer the three proposed research questions (Yin, 2018). The descriptive framework is organized according to three topics regarding the monetary and social costs of completing court-ordered community service: (a) accepting/discouraging court-ordered community service, (b) factors that impact an individual’s ability to complete community service, and (c) the potential outcomes of noncompletion or nonpayment of court-ordered community service and criminal justice debt. The study uses qualitative and quantitative data to provide information that would not have been found in either method on its own (Axinn & Pearce, 2006). In the following sections, the procedures, participants, and analysis for the qualitative interviews will be presented first, followed by the court dockets.
Procedures
Data were extracted from criminal and traffic court case files to assess the circumstances in which community service sentences are imposed and the frequency of post-sentencing outcomes such as completion of the assigned work. Los Angeles County Courts do not maintain publicly available data on their community service sentencing and outcomes, but study authors obtained a dataset from one community service referral agency in Los Angeles County (LA) in response to a Public Records Act request. Although not representative of the County as a whole, the dataset contained a roster of over 5,000 individuals, the entire population who registered for court-ordered community service at the same referral agency in Southwest Los Angeles during a 1-year period from 2013 to 2014 (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014). Any individuals who did not sign up to complete their community service at this referral agency are missing from the dataset. As the roster data contained the underlying court case number, a random sample of 600 cases was drawn for deeper analysis. Also, because entries with very high hours were of special interest, but relatively rare, all entries (36) with 400 or more hours assigned were also selected for follow-up. From the original 600 cases, 554 detailed court dockets that matched the case numbers, names, and time period from the roster were successfully retrieved. The remaining 55 cases yielded no match to the roster entry potentially due to data entry errors. Twenty seven of the 544 court dockets were excluded as they were identified as being from outside Los Angeles County, sealed, or erroneous entries. Observations in the resulting dataset were weighed to represent the referral agency’s Los Angeles Superior Court caseload, after adjusting for oversampling of high-hours cases and the inclusion of some non-Los Angeles cases in the roster. The final weighted quantitative dataset consisted of 541 cases, 290 of which were criminal docket sheets and 251 of which were traffic casefiles. The retrieved court dockets were coded, and data were imported into SPSS for statistical analysis. The data extracted from the court files were based on the descriptive framework to examine accepting or discouraging community service, barriers to completion, and consequences for not completing community service.
To assess how court-ordered community service impacts the lives of those completing it, 20 semistructured in-depth interviews with community service workers were conducted (Axinn & Pearce, 2006) from July to September 2018. Community service workers were recruited via criterion sampling (Rubin & Babbie, 2014) and met two criteria: (a) had started or completed community service hours and (b) had signed up to complete community service through the same agency from which the court dockets were derived. Both docket and interviews datasets originated from the same referral agency, but do not reflect the same cases, as the docket dataset contained cases from 2014. To the authors’ knowledge, there were no major changes to policies or practices of community service between 2014 and 2018, and thus the qualitative interviews reference a similar overall structure of community service as the quantitative data from 2014. Following IRB (institutional review board) review and approval, interviewees were recruited based on their community service status and interaction with the community service referral agency from which the quantitative dataset was derived. Interviews were conducted both over the phone and face to face and lasted an average of 30 min. Prior to the start of the interview, respondents gave oral consent, and no identifying information was collected to protect the anonymity of the respondents. The interview guide was developed to fill the identified gaps in prior research. After the first interview, several interview questions were reworded for clarity, and demographic questions were adjusted with more appropriate language. Data collection ended after 20 interviews were completed, the predetermined number identified by the research staff. Participants were compensated for their time with a $25 store gift card.
Next, to better understand how individuals are sentenced to community service and the outcome of their cases, semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted with public defenders (n = 9) and traffic attorneys (n = 3) from July to September 2018, who work within the criminal and traffic (infraction) courts in Los Angeles County (Axinn & Pearce, 2006). Participants were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling by first identifying known public defenders and traffic attorneys, and, following each interview, asking them to identify participants for further recruitment (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). While not all of the public defenders interviewed practiced at the courthouse that the referral agency for this case study was located, public defenders and traffic attorneys interviewed routinely work with clients who are offered community service and advise their clients on such matters. The interviews were conducted over the phone and recorded, and lasted an average of 47 min. Oral consent was provided, and any identifying information was redacted from the interview transcript. The interview guide was developed and reviewed by the authors and informed through prior research on court-ordered community service that identified the gaps in knowledge on the process and outcomes of community service. Upon completion of the first three interviews, the guide was adjusted to fit the experiences of those interviewed. Data collection with public defenders concluded once saturation was reached, meaning that no new data were being obtained (Fusch & Ness, 2015). On the contrary, only three attorneys who represent individuals in traffic court were identified and interviewed. This small number was expected as representation in traffic court is atypical.
Analysis
Data extracted from the court files were uploaded to and analyzed in SPSS version 24 (IBM Corp., 2016). As seen in Table 3, descriptive statistics, proportions, and medians were calculated to describe the three descriptive topics: (a) reasons for community service, (b) rates of completion, and (c) consequences of noncompletion. Descriptive statistics were generated to describe the relative prevalence of fees, fines, hours, and time given to complete for each docket.
For the qualitative data, interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and then coded with the assistance of Dedoose version 8.1.8. (2018; SocioCultural Research Consultants, Los Angeles, CA), primarily by the lead author. In addition to the lead author, a research assistant was trained and supervised to be a second coder. The initial analyses were based on grounded theory analytic methods (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Emergent coding was used to draw codes from the text (Atkinson, 2002) as the first author created the initial codebook by reading through the first two transcripts and creating the codes based on the text. This initial codebook was then used to train the research assistant. Coding was an iterative process conducted in several rounds by two coders to ensure intercoder reliability (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The coders met weekly to discuss any discrepancies in codes and any new codes that emerged. Following this, the codes were formed into categories which included similar and dissimilar properties (Daly, 2007). Core categories were identified based on the frequency with which they occurred in the text (Daly, 2007). Categories were then grouped together based on descriptive topic; Dedoose was then used to determine how many times a code appeared within each topic to identify the main themes. This method of coding followed systematic procedures to move the data from narrow units of analysis, the codes, to broader units, the themes (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Results
The results of both qualitative and quantitative data are reported below, including prevalence and trends. Findings are organized into three topics that comprise the descriptive framework: (a) accepting/discouraging court-ordered community service, (b) an individual’s ability to complete community service, and (c) the potential outcomes of noncompletion or nonpayment of court-ordered community service and criminal justice debt.
Court Dockets
Table 1 illustrates the demographic characteristics of the community service workers from the quantitative dataset. Sixty-one percent of the community service workers in the criminal dataset and 43% in the traffic dataset were between the ages of 20 and 30 years old. While there was about an equal split of males (56%) and females (44%) in traffic court, those in criminal court were majority male (78%). Of those with race identified in their traffic court documents, 81% were Latinx and 8% were Black. In criminal court, race was not measured, but 16% had an interpreter present at a court hearing.
Demographics of Community Service Workers in the Traffic and Criminal Court Datasets (n = 541)
Race data were not collected in criminal court. While a noncomplete measure of race, interpreter is presented here as an alternative.
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics regarding the sentencing, barriers, and consequences of court-ordered community service for these individuals. Across our sample, community service arose primarily from traffic-related charges. Criminal court charges included vehicle-related charges, mainly driving under the influence (68%), property crimes such as theft (15%), violent offenses, including domestic violence (7%), drug charges (2%), and a broad array of other offenses (8%). In traffic court, these charges included vehicle operation such as speeding (53%), vehicle documentation (25%), vehicle equipment (6%), a handful of other charges like public intoxication and transit fare evasion (15%), and driving under the influence (1%).
Defendants Court-Ordered Community Service in Traffic and Criminal Court Sample Characteristics (n = 541)
Note. DUI = driving under the influence.
Across our sample, average base fines amounted to less than 20% of total court debt due. The average base fine at sentencing in traffic court was $100, but grew to $520 when fees were added. This increase becomes even more striking in criminal court where the average base fine at sentencing increased from $390 to $1,484 with fees. All community service workers in traffic court opted to perform community service in lieu of paying their fine; no jail sentences are imposed in traffic court. In criminal court, 59% of those performing community service were doing so in lieu of paying fees and fines. In both cases, they retained the option to pay instead of completing their community service. On the other hand, 40.8% of community service workers in criminal court were directly sentenced to perform community service by the judge. Of these, 30% of community service workers in criminal court had been directly sentenced to perform community service, independent of any monetary sanctions and generally as part of a plea deal to avoid jail time, including as a condition of probation. The remaining 11% of community service workers in criminal court were assigned to perform community service as both a distinct element of their sentence and, for additional hours, in lieu of paying court debt. The median total work assignment in criminal court was 100 hr, close to 3 weeks of full-time work. (Subject to the 2018 change in the law requiring infractions to be credited at a rate of no less than twice minimum wage, judges have broad latitude to assign the number of hours required to work off court debt [Cal. Penal Code § 1209.5]. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics defines full-time work as 35 hr per week, 2018.) In traffic court, the median assignment was 51 hr, or a week and a half of work. The average length of time given to complete community service was 276 days in criminal court and 89 days in traffic court.
Those assigned community service are required to go to community service referral agencies, which assign work sites for a fee. The referral agency from which the dataset is derived uses a sliding scale to determine fees based on the number of assigned hours. Agencies assessed community service workers from traffic court an average of $50 in fees, and $60 for those from criminal court. Placement sites for community service workers in Los Angeles County included local government agencies (chiefly city and county parks), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), nonprofits like Goodwill, fraternal organizations like Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and Elks Lodges, followed by churches, nursing homes, and a range of others. As seen in Table 3, of those sentenced from criminal court, the most frequent placement sites were split between nonprofits (49%) and the government (39%), and in traffic court the majority was nonprofits (83%).
Community Service Worker Interview Participant Demographics (n = 20)
Employment status is greater than 100% as employed and working >40 hr/week consists of those employed and actively looking for work consists of those who are unemployed.
Table 2 presents the rate of noncompletion consequences in both criminal and traffic court violations. Of those from traffic court, 74% submitted completion while 10% of the total cases resulted in a documented consequence imposed for late or noncompletion; most commonly, these people were sent to collections (9%) or entered “delinquency status” (4%). Bench warrants and failure to appear charges were observed among those who missed initial court appearances and were only later assigned community service. Of those from criminal court, just 54% of the cases submitted completion. Some of these individuals ended up paying their debt rather than completing their community service hours in lieu of fees and fines. Nearly, 19% received a formal consequence for noncompletion of community service. All told, 17% of people in the database with criminal sentences faced probation violation or revocation for failure to complete community service, 16% received a bench warrant for failure to appear and show proof of completion, and of those assigned community service to work off debt, 12% were sent to debt collectors. A few (2%) later converted their obligations to receive jail time.
Interviews With Community Service Workers
Table 3 contains the demographic characteristics of the court-ordered community service workers who were interviewed. All but two people interviewed identified as Latinx (90%) and 50% stated that they were foreign-born. Half of the respondents were in their 20s and 30s. Forty-five percent of those interviewed were unemployed and 40% made less than $25,000 a year. Seventy percent had successfully completed their community service hours. Three main themes emerged from the interviews with community service workers: (a) “I wasn’t working, Your Honor. I’m just getting unemployment”; (b) “I’m just extremely tired all the time”; and (c) “Any alternative is great if I’m incarcerated.”
“I Wasn’t Working, Your Honor. I’m Just Getting Unemployment”
Community service was often described as a way to be able to work off a fine that one would otherwise be unable to afford. Community service workers interviewed generally accepted community service in lieu of either jail time or paying monetary sanctions. Most of those interviewed chose community service in lieu of paying a traffic ticket. Some indicated that they asked the judge for community service because they could not afford to pay their fine. “I mentioned to [the judge] that I was laid off of my job, that I wasn’t going to be able to pay my ticket.” The remainder chose community service to stay out of jail so as to continue working and caring for their families. A community service worker sentenced in criminal court stated, [The public defender] fought for me and she brought it down to where I’m not in jail . . . I’m lucky, man. I think I’m lucky ’cause I have my own little business. I detail cars, so I’m still able to come here and still generate income.
Although most individuals interviewed asked to be allowed to complete community service hours, their understanding of what community service entailed varied dramatically. This could be attributed by the level of representation individuals had in criminal court or the information that the judge provided in traffic court. No community service workers interviewed from traffic court had legal representation. All but one from criminal court had a public defender, meaning that they were provided legal representation by the state as they were unable to afford their own. Of those with a public defender, only one stated that their public defender explained community service to them. “Well, my public defender, she put me up on game as far as telling me that I was lucky to get that one versus the other one . . .” Two community service workers knew the details of community service from friends and one from prior experience. The remainder reported having no knowledge of community service before accepting it. It wasn’t until they got to the office to register, or to their placement site, that they understood what they would be doing and the expectations of them. “They just gave me [the] paper, but it wasn’t a lot of information.” In fact, one individual stated that they did not even know how many hours they were going to have to do before they accepted the option to do it: Well, you don’t really receive a lot of [information] . . . It’s either the judge that tells the amount of hours you’re going to do or he asks you to go to the window and they can you give you the amount of hours.
Community service workers typically accepted community service as a way to pay off their fees and fines and to stay out of jail, but without a comprehensive understanding of what community service would entail.
“I’m Just Extremely Tired All the Time”
Among community service workers interviewed, there was a shared sense that any hardship they might have felt while completing their court-ordered community service was one they had to endure to complete their hours. And while they identified various barriers to completion, they stated that they were able to manage the demands. “I guess I just have to adjust to it and get by and get it done.” When asked initially, community service workers stated that their ability to take care of their personal lives was not impacted by their community service hours. “No not necessarily. I could also do [my job search] after work, two hours don’t hurt or weekends.” In fact, two community service workers stated that community service actually helped them maintain their personal lives as they were able to continue working, which they would not have been able to do in jail.
Yet community service workers interviewed also discussed needing to overcome several barriers to completing their hours. First, some community service workers explained that their completion deadlines forced them to “work” full-time: “It was gonna be due on August 1st so I had a week to do it.” Others fit community service hours around full-time jobs. Just three had flexible placement supervisors and hours and experienced no negative scheduling impact. One community service worker indicated a harder time taking care of their children due to the required hours, and another indicated holding off on finding a job until they completed their hours. “On my last day, I used a vacation day to, just ’cause I wanted to complete it before I showed up to court, ’cause that’s very important. The judge sees me trying at least he’ll know.” Next, referral fees in particular frustrated community service workers, one of whom opined, “you have to pay to do community service. Pay to pick up trash.” Finally, placement site rules, particularly for government road maintenance or graffiti removal, posed barriers to completion. One community service worker stated, “First come, first serve, because the buses do get full,” referring to the possibility of being turned away despite showing up at a designated time and place for an assignment, because all seats had been taken. Nonprofits typically had more flexibility: “She explain[ed] to me that it was . . . seven days a week. It’s from 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. She told me, ‘You could show up, even late night if you want.’”
“Any Alternative Is Great If I’m Incarcerated”
Court-ordered community service is perceived by community service workers as a meaningful way to stay out of jail and pay off fees and fines. Every community service worker stated that, if they were in court and given the same options, they would complete court-ordered community service again.
I feel it’s a better way to pay off the fines, working. I mean, it’s free labor, but I feel like it’s better than paying all that money, and I feel like that’s a good opportunity for us low income people.
Those who completed their hours in lieu of jail cited their ability to not miss work and to stay out of jail. “I’ve been in jail, and that’s nowhere to be because I’m not really a criminal . . . I’m happy I didn’t go to jail.” Those completing their hours in lieu of traffic fines were thankful to be able to work off a ticket that they would otherwise be unable to afford. One claimed, I was so thankful because my fine was almost $500. So, I mean I understand community service is to do some kind of work and you work in your house, you clean your house so I thought there is not much difference and if it is going to pay my fine, perfect.
Many workers felt responsibility for the direct consequence of their actions. “I put myself there. It’s not community service’s fault . . . it’s my fault that I’m here.” One worker felt “good because I think that I have hurt other people.”
While all workers stated they were grateful to have the alternative, several community service workers voiced their concern about having to work without compensation. One worker described, “doing more work than the people getting paid”; another said, “community service is chill, but then you have to work for free.” Furthermore, community service workers felt the pressure of jail loomed over their ability to complete their hours. Of those interviewed, most worried that if they did not complete their community service they would have to go to jail. “If you wanna finish your hours, you can finish your hours. If you don’t wanna finish them, then you gotta get back in jail.” Notably, this worry extended even to the community service workers from traffic court where jail sanctions are not ordinarily imposed for noncompletion. Along with this, several of the community service workers in traffic court felt financial pressure to do whatever was necessary to complete their hours. One community service worker stated, I’ve always been concerned that if I didn’t jump through all those hoops and didn’t get those compliance documents for finishing, that it would cost me a lot of money. More than it was already costing me.
Some community service workers knew they were able to ask the judge for an extension but, of particular concern, others were unable to say what they thought would happen if they did not complete their hours.
Attorneys
Each of the public defenders interviewed worked in a different courthouse in Los Angeles County, and the traffic attorneys worked for nonprofits that represent clients throughout the county. The mean years of experience among the attorneys was 9 years. Data from the attorney interviews resulted in three different themes: (a) “It just creates the cycle of jailing people because of their poverty,” (b) “It’s always a burden the way that it’s set up,” and (c) “Consider other options because you might end up in jail anyway.”
“It Just Creates the Cycle of Jailing People Because of Their Poverty”
Public defenders in criminal court perceive court-ordered community service to be a debtor’s prison that frequently results in incarceration, and stated that they almost always discourage their clients from accepting court-ordered community service. In fact, the majority encourage their clients to take jail time instead of converting it to community service. “It’s ridiculous to think that you’d be in a position where you’d be encouraging someone to go behind bars, but it might be a better option.” One of the main reasons cited was that most clients serve only 10% of their jail sentences, making the actual length of jail time significantly shorter than the time it would take to complete community service. “If you get an offer that’s 20 days in the county jail or community labor . . . it sounds absurd but it’s actually easier to do 20 days in county jail.”
Traffic attorneys likewise advise against community service, instead attempting to negotiate a lower payment with judges. One stated they almost never ask for community service but rather keep trying to get the fee reduced or dismissed through other methods. Another stated they would only ask for community service as a last resort when defendants did not have the means to pay even the reduced fee. When speaking with their clients one traffic attorney commented, I just always tell [clients], “community service is an option and I can ask for it if you want me to but I strongly advise against it.” Additionally, because of the fines that they charge for it, I just think it ends up costing more to that person than it would if I can argue and get a reduced fine.
Both public defenders and traffic attorneys believe that barriers their clients face decrease the likelihood of completion, ultimately keeping them trapped in the criminal justice system.
While attorneys often discourage clients from accepting community service, the majority identified circumstances in which community service provides a beneficial alternative to incarceration. One public defender provided a list of situations in which they would almost always encourage their client to accept community service: Oftentimes my clients have never been to jail or that’s a safety issue for them or if they’re concerned about their wellbeing in custody, I’d urge them to take the community service . . . I mean any client that has any immigration status issues I try to avoid custody as much as possible period. By any means necessary. Immigration and health care . . . I would say gender as well, because I will tell you right now that my understanding of the women’s jail here in LA County is extremely substandard . . . . So, age, gender, health issues, immigration for sure.
All public defenders stated that concern for clients’ immigration status drove them to recommend community service. Others cited clients’ desire to stay out of jail or lack of prior experience with jail as drivers to recommend community service. Other considerations included the type of charge and/or prior convictions; domestic violence charges or gang priors, for example, increase the likelihood that their clients will have to complete at least 50% of their jail sentencing compared with the 10% that is typical. Public defenders and traffic attorneys stated that they only advised their clients to accept community service under these specific circumstances.
“It’s Always a Burden the Way That It’s Set Up”
For public defenders and traffic attorneys interviewed, the costs of completing community service are extensive and, in their experience, not often overcome. They identified five main barriers to completion facing their clients. First, every public defender identified the financial costs of community service as the main barrier to completion. This can include new clothes to comply with dress codes, like work boots, but always includes a registration fee based on the number of hours their clients are ordered to complete. One public defender declared, We are incarcerating people for being poor. Paying for community service and community labor is a bar to participation. A person is not willfully disobeying . . . if the reason why they can’t do it is because they can’t pay for it. And that’s criminalizing poverty. It’s a debtor’s prison situation.
Next, public defenders and traffic attorneys identified placement site rules and procedures as another barrier to completion. Some community labor placement sites’ hours make it impossible for community service workers to complete their hours while maintaining a job or finding work, and others fill up quickly.
Once they load up the van . . . then they head over to the work site. So if you’re not there on time you miss out, and if there’s too many people there you miss out, and if it’s a rainy day then they may cancel it altogether.
Finally, the identified tight deadlines to complete community service coupled with high volume of hours assigned as barriers to completion. Four public defenders and one traffic attorney stated that the number of hours assigned impacted whether or not a person was able to successfully complete. Several stated that more than 30 hr of service would be impossible, while one stated that anything more than 40 hr would result in noncompletion.
My clients, for the most part, work hourly jobs, they work late into the night, they work on weekends. If they choose to take off a weekend day they get fired or they risk not being asked back. Most of them have children or familial obligations . . . I’ve seen 45 days of community labor and I’m like literally in what world? Just give him the jail time. What are you doing? He’s going to spend 4 days in jail if you converted that to jail time.
Several public defenders described the impact of community service on people’s personal lives, observing that someone with a disability, school, or children was less likely to complete their work requirements.
“Consider Other Options Because You Might End Up in Jail Anyway”
Almost all public defenders and traffic attorneys interviewed advise against community service as it currently operates in Los Angeles County due to harmful consequences of noncompletion. Of utmost importance, courts exercise broad discretion over consequences for noncompletion. A common response throughout the interviews was “it depends on the judge.” Attorneys expressed dissatisfaction with judicial discretion over sentencing and consequences, as revealed by one traffic attorney: I think there are definitely some judges that get what’s going on and are with it so they’ll try to make it more reasonable. But then there are some judges that don’t care and are like fine, fine, fine, fine. And they don’t really give people the opportunity to explain their circumstances and to try to understand what’s going on in their lives.
On the other hand, attorneys stated that they have worked with judges who do “get it” and would provide opportunities for the defendants to complete their hours by providing extensions and fee waivers. This discretion prevented predictable outcomes, suggested by one public defender: Anything can happen. From “you get more time and get an extension,” to “I’m terminating your probation and you’re sentenced to the maximum on this case.” Anything in between.
Public defenders, who represent individuals in criminal court, stated that noncompletion would result in having to complete the jail time anyway, and depending on the judge, could result in a longer jail sentence. Similarly, traffic attorneys stated that their clients could be sent to collections for debt not worked off: They’ll get the failure to pay. The deadline will pass. They might have some additional fees tacked on. But usually then the fine is going to be sent over to the collection agency . . . and it’s going to sit over there and just pull on their credit score.
These perceived consequences of noncompletion lead most attorneys to advise their clients against accepting court-ordered community service, while, as reported above, those defendants who do opt for community service consistently would do so again.
Discussion
In this embedded case study, an analysis of available court-dockets provided an overview of the prevalence and trends of court-ordered community service in Los Angeles. These were expanded upon during the analysis of community service worker and attorney interviews, enhancing our understanding of the costs and benefits of unpaid community service. Findings build on research that has examined the impact of alternatives to incarceration and criminal justice debt (Austin & Krisberg, 1982; Beckett & Murakawa, 2012; López, 2014). The study sought to answer three questions: Who gets sentenced to court-ordered community service? Why are individuals completing or not completing court-ordered community service? and How do participants view the monetary and social costs of court-ordered community service in lieu of jail time and fees and fines? Desperate times call for desperate measures, and poverty and the threat of jail drive attitudes toward community service.
Consistent with countywide data that people of color are disproportionately targeted for arrest, the study sample is overwhelmingly low-income people of color (Zavala et al., 2018). Recent Los Angeles Times data show that the Los Angeles Police Department stops Black drivers at a rate more than 5 times their share of the city’s population, and searches Black and Latinx drivers 4 and 3 times more frequently than their White counterparts, respectively (Poston & Chang, 2019a). The data shed light on outcomes of these stops, as 78% of people in the study entered community service through a traffic stop. Furthermore, the majority of community service workers in the court file dataset opted to perform community service because they were unable to pay their court debt. Individuals’ inability to afford court debt is particularly troublesome in light of the drastic increase of amount owed to the court once additional court fees are added onto the initial fine at sentencing. This finding was expanded upon by public defenders and traffic attorneys who characterize community service in lieu of fines as a “debtor’s prison situation.” They report that if their clients were able to pay their criminal justice debt in the first place, they would not face barriers and ensuing consequences for failing to perform community service in lieu of that debt.
Attorneys and community service workers interviewed differed in the perspectives on community service sentenced as an alternative to incarceration. Although public defenders point out that it is often simpler and faster to complete a jail sentence than community service, community service workers identify being out of jail as creating a sense of agency over their lives. Several community service workers expressed that community service was a fitting punishment for their crimes. Most of the community service workers interviewed stated that community service did not have a major impact on their everyday lives and spoke positively about the role that community service played. This was a surprising finding as half of the individuals interviewed were working full-time which, previous research has indicated (Bender et al., 2015), would significantly decrease one’s capacity to successfully complete their community service hours. It is important to note here that the sample was recruited at the referral agency when receiving or submitting their hours, and as such may reflect a pool of people who faced fewer barriers than the population as a whole, as well as those who had already opted for community service at sentencing.
Contrary to what would be expected based on the interviews with the public defenders and traffic attorneys, the analysis of the court-dockets indicated that more than half of those ordered to community service submitted a completion. This is especially striking given the average number of hours assigned were well over 40 hr, the number that public defenders indicated would almost always result in a noncompletion. The average hours assigned for traffic court was about 51, but the rate of completion was 74%. In criminal court, which had an even higher assigned average hours of 100, the rate of completion was 54%. The attorneys’ warnings about the challenges of community service are consistent with the number who do not complete their assignment, especially in criminal court. However, analysis of the dockets did not find that completion of community service is virtually impossible. It is important to take into consideration the fact that the sample in the court dockets excludes people unable to overcome initial barriers to participation, including getting to the referral agency and paying to sign up for community service. As such, the completion rate in the dataset is likely higher than that of the total universe. Similarly, because interviewees were often identified at the referral agency, the qualitative sample is likely biased toward those who not only registered but were able to complete community service. Finally, anyone who took an attorney’s advice to avoid a community service sentence would not be included in our sample.
Along with the risk of noncompletion, most attorneys believe that accepting community service prolonged probation, increased jail time, or resulted in higher fines, functioning as further punishment and not as an alternative. However, the findings from the court dockets demonstrate that just 10% of traffic cases and 19% of the criminal court cases resulted in consequences that ultimately increased a defendant’s obligations to the criminal justice system. The low percentage of consequences could be why most community service workers interviewed credited community service for helping them bring about a swift resolution to their cases and identified community service as a helpful alternative.
Community service workers were thankful for the opportunity to stay out of jail and happy to not have to pay fines and fees that they could not afford. Community service workers interviewed were often content to work to avoid jail or debt, and none volunteered concern that the incarceration rates and fees and fines were so high to begin with. The perceptions of community service workers reflect that in their circumstance, individual community service workers did not seem to be focused on changing the system, but rather staying out of it. This was expressed in their fear that they would go to jail for not being able to complete their community service hours or pay off their fine. On the contrary, attorneys are in a position to push back against the dilemmas created by the criminal justice system as it currently operates, as they are repeat players who see how it operates cumulatively and over a range of cases, and whose work often involves efforts to change the system, not only to help their clients navigate it as it currently exists. The community service workers we interviewed, in contrast, were focused on the options available in their individual cases within the system as it currently exists. This creates an interesting tension between the perspectives of the attorneys and community service workers on some points. Each attorney interviewed provided examples of various barriers that their clients face while attempting to complete community service, some of which were echoed by community service workers. Some of these barriers come from within the system itself, such as the number of hours assigned, the fee to sign up for community service, and the length of time given to complete service hours. Public defenders and traffic attorneys believe consequences for noncompletion trap their clients in cycles of poverty and incarceration. Overall, the attorney’s perception of community service as an alternative to incarceration reinforces the idea that it does little more than change the face and name of the carceral state (Kewley, 2017). They believe that instead of getting people out of the system, court-ordered community service keeps their clients entrenched in it, reinforcing the idea of the shadow carceral state (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012). As community service workers and attorneys have different experiences with community service, and the criminal justice system overall, they are able to provide essential perspectives on the personal and financial impact of community service. Each perspective should not be considered in silo but rather combined to start to understand the role of community service as an alternative sanction to incarceration and paying criminal justice debt.
Limitations
Several limitations in this study must be considered. First, the study utilizes nonprobability sampling methods of snowball and criterion sampling (Dillman et al., 2014). Public defenders are a hard to reach population which warranted the use of snowball sampling for public defenders and traffic attorneys. While the quantitative dataset and community service workers interviewed cover one volunteer agency in Los Angeles County, not all of the public defenders interviewed covered this same agency. However, the public defenders outside of the courthouse in the quantitative dataset have similar experiences to those that work within the courthouse. The only notable difference in perspectives is the variance of judges at each courthouse. Finally, a limited number of attorneys represent individuals in traffic court, and the ones in the current sample work for various nonprofits and therefore do not reflect the views of for-profit traffic attorneys.
Second, both qualitative and quantitative datasets were restricted to individuals who had already started or completed community service hours, excluding individuals who were unable to access and pay for community service. This almost certainly results in selection bias (Dillman et al., 2014) and skews completion results as those who failed to register correspondingly failed to complete, but are not reflected in the sample. Similarly, it excludes those eligible for community service but not sentenced to it, potentially selecting for those most able to complete community service and thus most likely to seek it. In addition, the sample is limited to people assigned community service from only one of 10 referral agencies in Los Angeles county, and may not reflect the total universe.
Next, the database used for the quantitative analysis had several limitations. First, individuals who did not sign up for community service are missing from the dataset. Finally, the information contained in the traffic court case documents varied dramatically by case; some cases contained nearly complete information, whereas others just one or two documents. Not all barriers that were identified in the interviews were able to be tested as the database had limited information.
Implications for Future Smart Decarceration Research
Despite these limitations, this case study advances the field by widening the understanding and measurement of outcomes for community service as an alternative to incarceration. Instead of primarily measuring recidivism, the study sought to identify various outcomes of court-ordered community service and consequences for noncompletion, such as bench warrants, probation revocation, and debt collection, as well as outcomes that may not appear in court records, such as job loss, health compromise, child-care instability, and the like. Furthermore, it features the perspectives of people directly impacted, as well as system actors and court records. The findings provide preliminary evidence that can inform the future of court-ordered community service programs by addressing the identified challenges that community service workers face when completing community service. Regardless of these challenges, the findings indicate that community service can be a promising alternative to incarceration and criminal justice debt for the substantial fraction of those involved who complete it successfully.
The current findings, and the questions driving them, have broader implications for research relevant to efforts to reverse mass incarceration, a contemporary phenomenon rooted in histories of slavery, segregation, and inequality. The harms of mass incarceration go beyond the immediate experience of incarceration itself (Zatz, 2020), and so system transformation will require more than reducing incarceration rates. Existing alternatives to incarceration continue to disproportionately impact people of color and low-income individuals (Cloud, 2017). Attorneys identified that other consequences, such as being sent to collections, can affect credit ratings and keep workers trapped in the debt that community service is intended to prevent. Moreover, one’s inability to complete community service due to systematic barriers, such as lack of paid time off and access to reliable transportation or child care, can have detrimental results, particularly for people of color and economically disadvantaged communities overrepresented in the Los Angeles criminal justice system (Zavala et al., 2018). Findings indicate that while most community service workers are relieved to have an alternative to incarceration and criminal justice debt, those who fail to complete their court-ordered community service and pay their court-related debt face serious consequences, chief among which is (re)arrest. The authors suggest three main things to achieve more effective alternatives to jail or court debt: (a) threaten fewer people with incarceration, (b) decrease monetary sanctions, and (c) conduct more thorough evaluations of programs that are framed as alternatives to incarceration. We include the first two because part of what drives the conditions, and acceptance, of the “alternative” is the threat of punishment (jail or debt) from which it offers escape.
Future research on smart decarceration should broaden the lens from recidivism, to avoid or amend alternatives that actually perpetuate poverty and racism (López, 2014) by failing to evaluate the lived experience of those completing alternatives to incarceration. As community service becomes more prevalent (Herrera et al., 2019), it is necessary for research that reports data from all jurisdictions that assign community service; that includes consequences such as bench warrants, probation violation, or debt collections; and addresses judicial discretion in sentencing. Along with this, future research should seek to compare community service to other potential alternatives not currently available in Los Angeles County, including various forms of decriminalization, reduced jail sentences, lower fines and fees, additional alternative activities in lieu of jail or debt, or forms of labor that come with compensation and standard workplace protections (Herrera et al., 2019). Furthermore, a comparative study of the outcomes of otherwise similar cases not leading to community service should be conducted. This would include identifying comprehensive outcomes of individuals who opted for jail time and compare them with individuals charged for the same crime, but who took the community service hours.
Further research should explore the apparent tensions in perspective in this study by including people who were assigned to community service but had not already signed up to complete as well as individuals who were offered community service but declined to do so. In particular, future research would benefit from the perspectives of organizations engaged in criminal justice reform with a membership base directly impacted by the system, including community service workers and those who either declined community service or had not access to it. Like attorneys, members and staff of these organizations may have a broader framework to analyze the impact of community service, drawing on the perspective of repeat players who see how it operates cumulatively and over a range of cases, and in a position to question and change the range of options presented by the criminal justice system. This perspective would differ from that of an individual defendant who must select from the choices currently presented when mkaing an immediate decision about their own case. Along with this, future qualitative studies should interview judges for their perceptions and experiences of community service in both criminal and traffic court. Finally, as this is an embedded case study, it is unknown whether the results are generalizable to other cases without further inquiry. Future research should seek to replicate the study to build upon these findings.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note:
The authors would like to thank the public defenders and individuals completing community service who shared their time and experiences with us. We are grateful for the very helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers and the editor. This work was supported by the Arnold Ventures, the Open Society Foundations, and the UCLA Luskin Institute on Inequality and Democracy. The analyses presented here are the authors’ own and do not necessarily express the views of any funder.
