Burkina Faso
In February 1998, a community service plan of action was imposed in Burkina Faso.  At the end of June that same year, a seminar on community service was held in Ouagadougou.  Participants in the seminar included magistrates, social workers, officers of the judicial police, representatives from non-government organizations, as well as representatives from the Ministries of Public Works, Labour, Defense, and Territorial Administration.  The seminar provided an opportunity to discuss various bills drafted regarding community service as well as familiarize the various participants with all major components of a community service scheme.

At the end of the seminar, the following Declaration and Plan of Action for Community Service was adopted:

• Establish a National Committee on Community Service to draft a bill on community service
• Have a public awareness seminar on community service for magistrates and other concerned professionals
• Consider/examine the draft bill, re-draft, and transmit the bill to the government
• Promote public awareness with a campaign throughout the provinces
• Establish provincial community service committees
• Train members of the provincial committees, social workers, magistrates, heads of placement institutions, and judiciary police officers
• Set up pilot projects in various provinces
• Re-draft the bill taking into account the outcomes of pilot projects
• Examination of the bill by the cabinet

In November of the following year, an initial training took place.  The 15 training participants worked on implementing the community service modules and developed the necessary tools.  These training sessions were followed by awareness-raising and additional training seminars.

While the bill was awaiting adoption at parliament, the Minister of Justice requested that various magistrates try out community service in their jurisdictions, which constituted the pilot projects.  The trials fell under the Prisons Act and rested on the external placements and partial release provisions of the law.

Kenya
The law regarding community service orders was adopted in Kenya on December 31, 1998 and officially established on July 23, 1999.  The law provided for the creation of a National Committee on Community Service and gave the Probation and Aftercare Services department the responsibility of supervising the orders.  Probation officers were then trained to be community service officers, and in November 1999, a workshop was organized by Probation Services at which “Community Service Training Manuals,” “Minimum Standards Rules on Community Service,” and “Supervisor’s Manuals” were produced.

The official launch of the community service scheme occurred on December 29, 1999.  Between December 1999 and March 2001, over 60,000 offenders were sentenced to community service instead of terms of imprisonment.

Malawi
Community service was in the statute books in Malawi for years under the ability of courts to impose “public work” orders on offenders, but was not a firmly established sanction.  In November 1996, there was a seminar on community service in Blantyre, during which participants created a plan of action and nominated an Interim Steering Committee to further the process of establishing community service.  In July 1997, the Committee organized a workshop at which magistrates were introduced to the community service plan and arrangements were made on how the community service program would be implemented. 

In February 1999, the Penal Code was amended by parliament to allow community service and soon after the pilot projects began. Pilot projects included seminars held in Mzuzu, Lilonwe, Blantyre, and Zomba.  The seminars involved prison visits, discussions, and role plays meant to help each individual understand what their part would be in the case of a community service order.  The initial evaluation of the projects showed that magistrates were using the community service sentence and that overall it was successful. 

Some of the problems found were that the magistrates were not properly trained, there was lack of interest and confidence from the placement institutions and court staff, and there was confusion as to whether community service was a sentence in its own right or a default sentence.  Recommendations were made to provide more training workshops for magistrates and other court personnel, as well as seminars for placement institutions to establish more sensitivity and cooperation.

Uganda 
The introduction of community service to Uganda occurred at a conference in Kampala in November 1996, where the following documents were created: a plan of action for the introduction of community service, a police statement on community service, and the terms of reference for the National Committee.  The Interim National Committee consisted of representatives of prison services, the judiciary, police, the commission on law reform, relevant ministries, and some non-governmental institutions.  The Committee separated into sub-committees that focused on research, publicity, finance, training, legislation and the development of recommendations to various professional organizations.  Their goal was to establish more humane treatment and rehabilitation of offenders and to increase the use of non-custodial sentences in order to reduce prison overcrowding.

In April 1997, a group from the Zimbabwean National Committee on Community Service visited the Ugandan Committee.  They exchanged experiences and brainstormed possible solutions to problems encountered during implementation.
In 1998, various seminars were held to debate and discuss the implementation of community service in Uganda.  The Committee worked on public awareness campaigns, and in February of 2000 a bill on community service was adopted by Parliament.  By mid-2000 a planning workshop had taken place that produced a three year plan for the implementation of the community service scheme.

On November 6, 2001, the Deputy Chief of Justice announced that community service orders were officially implemented in Uganda.  This announcement completed years of organization and development, and added to initial goals was the ability of the program to provide for participation of victims and the community.  Benefits of the program include: reconciliation between victims and offenders, rehabilitation of offenders through community work, and increased community participation.

Zambia
Similar to the situation in Malawi, Zambia had a section under their Prison Act that allowed prisoners to participate in “public works” outside the confines of prison.  In December of 1996, a planning workshop for the expanded implementation of community service was held and a plan of action was adopted, as well as a bill to be presented to parliament and a public awareness campaign plan.

Serious setbacks in the implementation of community service occurred in June 1997 when the Transitional Committee lost their chairperson and founder of the program, Judge Ruth Zulu.  The members of the committee lost cohesion, and frustration with the fact that the law was not being introduced in Parliament increased.

In 1998, the government became worried about the increasing number of inmates, and a push for community service was made.  In December 1999, the Transitional Committee held another meeting, and the development of the community service plan continued.  In September of 200, the community service legislation was finally enacted by parliament. 

Unfortunately, this legislation listed community service as a condition of a suspended sentence rather than an alternative to custody, which many say is not true community service.  Prison Reform International and the Transitional Committee continue to support revision of the legislation to better support and provide a successful community service scheme.

Zimbabwe
The community service scheme of Zimbabwe was introduced in 1992, and after combined efforts of the European Union and the United Kingdom, the scheme was established in 1998.  The scheme consists of the following guidelines: community service orders must be given only to those whose offense would merit a sentence of up to 12 months imprisonment, or 18 months if the sentence were suspended; and magistrates must give solid reasons for not ordering community service when the alternative sentence is within those guidelines.  Zimbabwe has been found to have surpassed Britain and New Zealand in that Zimbabwe’s community service scheme overcomes the problems of missing an effect on the prison population and continuing to use “the facility” for minor offenders.  Instead, Zimbabwe has targeted the issue of those minor offenders overcrowding the prison facilities.