The following are reasons most often given in support of using community service:

• Community service adds a “punitive measure” to probation by restricting the liberty of offenders
• Offenders involved in community service tend to be less likely to recidivate (See more regarding recidivism in the Evaluation Research Section)
• Community service is more cost effective than prison
• Community service is not only more cost effective than prison, it also has the potential to decongest prisons, which helps avoid the violation of human rights that often occurs during incarceration
• Community service gives the offender the opportunity to repair the harm they have caused
• Community service avoids a criminalization effect by keeping offenders out of prison where they may learn more criminal behaviors
• Community service addresses rehabilitation by:

a. Fostering a sense of social responsibility in offenders
b. Helping offenders to establish better work ethic, as well as gain the skills necessary to be successful in the community
c. Allowing offenders who were previously thought of as failures to prove themselves

Unfortunately, the reasons given for community service are not always reflected in its actual use.  While justified as a way to repair harm, often little thought goes into what specific harms the offender’s behavior has caused the community (as opposed to the victim) and how the service helps repair that harm.  While supported as a method of rehabilitation, some programs at least, seem more intent on public humiliation of the offenders.  Although implemented as a means of reducing prison crowding and costs, insufficient care is put into ensuring that offenders ordered to perform community service would in fact have otherwise been sentenced to prison.

Part of the difficulty is that many of the reasons for using community service lend themselves to qualitative, rather than quantitative, evaluation.  Quantitative measures include hours worked by a participating offender, money contributed via the community service, and money saved through using an unpaid offender to provide services.  The qualitative measures are more value based, and include factors such as the improved identity of the offender, the recognition by offender and community that this does in fact settle claims the community has concerning the offending behavior, and the extent to which community service has in fact changed judicial sentencing behavior.