1.5.1 Preparing for Community Service Workers

The first part of preparing for CSWs is that the organization needs to know why it is bringing in CSWs. Effective volunteer programs start with a rationale for volunteer involvement that describes why the organization uses volunteers and how they contribute to mission fulfillment (Connors, Reference Connors2011; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019). The rationale serves as a framework for setting goals for the volunteer program, getting staff buy-in, and developing a strong volunteer management infrastructure (Nesbit, Reference Nesbit, Renz, Brown and Andersson2024). Volunteers who understand their roles within the organization and know how they contribute to the organization’s goals are more satisfied and more likely to continue their volunteering (Hidalgo & Moreno, Reference Hidalgo and Moreno2009), so it stands to reason that CSWs who know their roles will be more satisfied as well. But the important precursor is that organizations must be clear about what they hope to accomplish with CSWs.

Because organizations “recruit” CSWs from probation offices, a second part of preparing for CSWs is building a relationship with a probation office. Court-ordered community service must meet the needs and interests of the criminal legal system in addition to those of the community organization, so this relationship brings with it a new set of rules and procedures the organization must follow. At the very least, community organizations will need to keep accurate records so that they can report how many community service hours a CSW has completed. They will also need to maintain an ongoing relationship with the probation office in order to be informed of changes in rules, procedures, and policies and to receive help and support throughout the process. Prior research has shown that community agencies appreciate support and advice from the bureaucrats managing court-ordered community service (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a). One survey of community agencies using CSWs found that they desired improved communication from the probation office and easier reporting procedures (Allen & Treger, Reference Allen and Treger1990). The relationship between the community organization and the probation office could have significant consequences for the success of court-ordered community service – it could either place additional strain on community agencies or relieve some of their burdens.

Next, organizations must design the jobs and tasks that CSWs will perform. A well-designed volunteer job description helps an organization plan how to train and support a volunteer in a specific position, and it communicates clear expectations to volunteers (Brudney, Reference Brudney, Renz and Herman2016; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019). Volunteers want to do work that they find meaningful, meaning work that contributes to the good of the organization’s beneficiaries or the organization itself (Dwyer et al., Reference Dwyer, Bono, Snyder, Nov and Berson2013; Grube & Piliavin, Reference Grube and Piliavin2000). Volunteers who feel their work is meaningful are more satisfied and continue longer in their positions (Hobson, Reference Hobson2007; Kulik, Reference Kulik2006), whereas volunteers who do general labor have higher turnover than those doing more skills-based work (Eisner et al., Reference Eisner, Grimm, Maynard and Washburn2009). Community service workers are not helping the organization voluntarily, so their primary motivation is to complete their community service hours. However, despite this motivation, it is likely that CSWs who have meaningful work will be more satisfied and might feel better about doing community service than those who do unpleasant manual labor.

The final part of preparing for CSWs is that organizations need to develop policies to provide guidance for onboarding and managing CSWs. Good volunteer programs have policies that guide volunteer behavior and staff behavior relative to volunteers (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019; Nesbit, Reference Nesbit, Renz, Brown and Andersson2024). Policies protect the organization and its stakeholders from unnecessary risk (Graff, Reference Graff and Connors2012; Herman, Reference Herman and Seel2021). Aside from basic criminal liability, this literature warns about potential harm to the organization’s clients and other stakeholders, property or assets, or reputation (Graff, Reference Graff and Connors2012). Prior research has shown that many community organizations refuse to accept CSWs convicted of certain crimes, such as violent crimes, sexual offenses, and crimes against children, due to the potential risk posed to clients and staff (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a). Liability is among the top concerns for community organizations receiving CSWs (Allen & Treger, Reference Allen and Treger1990). In response to these concerns, community organizations may adopt additional rules to mitigate risk, such as requiring open identification of CSWs while they are working onsite or limiting which offenses the organization accepts, what type of work CSWs perform, and CSWs’ interactions with clients.

1.5.2 Onboarding Community Service Workers

Onboarding new volunteers begins with screening potential volunteers and matching them to specific positions in the organization. Organizations use screening procedures to optimize the match between the volunteer, the organization, and the work the volunteer will do (Meijs & Brudney, Reference Meijs and Brudney2007). Screening helps organizations avoid common problems, such as unreliability or lacking the skills necessary for a particular job (Frenzel, Reference Frenzel, Seel and Bennett2021; Graff, Reference Graff and Connors2012; Kyrwood & Meneghetti, Reference Kyrwood, Meneghetti and Seel2010). Typical screening procedures include an application, interview, and background or reference checks. In one survey of community organizations using CSWs, over half of the agencies reported some type of problem with their CSWs, such as poor attendance and lack of punctuality, which can increase the amount of staff time needed to manage them (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a). Screening gives organizations an opportunity to screen out CSWs who might be difficult or unreliable workers.

The last part of onboarding is providing orientation and training. An orientation overviews the organization’s mission, programs, and policies while training teaches volunteers the knowledge and skills they need for their particular role (Frenzel, Reference Frenzel, Seel and Bennett2021; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019; Kyrwood & Meneghetti, Reference Kyrwood, Meneghetti and Seel2010). Familiarity with the organization shows the volunteers how what they do contributes to the organization’s mission. Orientations are perhaps even more crucial for CSWs who might not have any prior familiarity with the organization and its mission and might not know how the organization contributes to the community. Community service workers will also need training so they know what to do and how to complete their tasks properly.

1.5.3 Creating a Supportive Environment

CSWs – just like volunteers – need supervision, communication, and support from a manager in order to be successful. Managers need to be available to answer volunteers’ questions and provide them with feedback on their work. Volunteers want to know that they will be supported by their organization and that their time will be used effectively (Boezeman & Ellemers, Reference Boezeman and Ellemers2008; Hasselmann, Reference Hasselmann2013; Kolnick & Mulder, Reference Kolnick and Mulder2007). Effective communication leads to positive volunteer outcomes, such as reduced turnover (Alfes et al., Reference Alfes, Shantz and Bailey2016; Farmer & Fedor, Reference Farmer and Fedor2001; Hidalgo & Moreno, Reference Hidalgo and Moreno2009; Hobson et al., Reference Hobson, Rominger, Malec, Hobson and Evans1997). Indeed, ineffective management is one of the reasons that volunteers quit their volunteering (Brodie et al., Reference Brodie, Hughes and Jochum2011). It is also important that CSWs receive appropriate supervision and communication so that their time is used well, and they make valuable contributions to the organization.

Relationships between staff and CSWs heavily determine whether CSWs are working in a supportive environment. The volunteer management literature highlights the importance of good relationships between volunteers and staff for a successful volunteer program (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019; MacDuff, Reference MacDuff and Connors2012). Staff members’ negative experiences with volunteers lead to stress, decreased job satisfaction, and increased turnover intentions (Bittschi et al., Reference Bittschi, Pennerstorfer and Schneider2019; Rogelberg et al., Reference Rogelberg, Allen and Conway2010). Negative interpersonal relationships also increase volunteer turnover (Galindo-Kuhn & Guzley, Reference Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley2001; Kulik, Reference Kulik2006). Sources of tension between staff and volunteers can include different expectations, communication challenges, interpersonal issues, and job vulnerability (Rimes et al., Reference Rimes, Nesbit, Christensen and Brudney2017). Given that strained relationships between organization staff and volunteers are not uncommon (Rimes et al., Reference Rimes, Nesbit, Christensen and Brudney2017; Rogelberg et al., Reference Rogelberg, Allen and Conway2010), it is reasonable to expect some staff resistance to working with CSWs and that cultural stigma associated with offender status would amplify this resistance (Hirschfield & Piquero, Reference Hirschfield and Piquero2010; Uggen et al., Reference Uggen, Vuolo, Lageson, Ruhland and Whitham2014). Potential employers cited concerns about how staff and clients would respond to hiring and interacting with a formerly incarcerated individual and whether that individual had sufficient people skills to interact effectively with others (Giguere & Dundes, Reference Giguere and Dundes2002). It is likely that staff will project similar stigma and concerns onto CSWs. In essence, due to CSWs’ past crimes and due to the additional supervision burden already discussed, staff might be reluctant to work with CSWs, leading to strained relationships.

Finally, creating a supportive environment for CSWs means recognizing and thanking them for their contributions. The practitioner literature on volunteer management is replete with admonishments about the importance of volunteer recognition and methods for showing gratitude and appreciation to volunteers (Fallon & Rice, Reference Fallon and Rice2015; Graff, Reference Graff2005). Volunteers who receive some type of recognition are more satisfied with their volunteer work and more likely to continue their volunteering (Kulik, Reference Kulik2006; Wisner et al., Reference Wisner, Stringfellow, Youngdahl and Parker2005). While CSWs do not complete community service voluntarily, even a simple thank you or other types of recognition can make CSWs feel more comfortable in the organization and can make them feel valued. Recognition can help CSWs to feel that they are doing work that benefits their community rather than just being punished.

We use this conceptual framework of the three phrases of involving CSWs – preparing, onboarding, and creating a supportive environment – to understand how volunteer management best practices can be used with CSWs. We seek to understand community organizations’ experiences with CSWs, particularly through the lens of the volunteer manager – the individual responsible for onboarding and overseeing unpaid workers. We also want to understand how CSWs experience the community organizations and their community service work. We thus build on prior research to examine the management choices and dynamics within community organizations that accept CSWs while also exploring how CSWs feel about their interactions with these organizations. The primary research questions for this study are: What are local public and nonprofit organizations’ experiences with CSWs? How do the CSWs themselves experience court-ordered community service within community organizations? We conclude by suggesting ways that organizations can improve their operations to make the organization/CSW relationship more mutually beneficial.

3.2.1 Background in Volunteer Management

The volunteer managers also varied greatly in the amount of volunteer management training and professional development they received. One manager had received a certificate for volunteer services from the Georgia Department of Community Health, and another manager had achieved a volunteer management credential through a parent organization. None of the other respondents had received any specific credentials related to volunteer management, including certifications offered outside their organizations’ auspices, such as the Certification in Volunteer Administration.Footnote ¹ When asked about credentialing, several volunteer managers stated that they had other educational accomplishments that touched on volunteer management, such as a Master of Social Work, a Master of Public Administration, or a graduate certificate in Nonprofit Management & Leadership.

Several volunteer managers expressed their belief that managing volunteers does not require any specialized skills beyond general management. A quote from one volunteer manager, Aurora, sums up the feelings of these respondents: “Managing a volunteer isn’t much different from managing an actual staff member. You treat everyone respectfully. You try to find out what their set of skills is. You find out if something is not going well, you can try and correct it in the beginning, so you can have a relationship going forward that works (Aurora).” Several respondents had a lot of general management experience and believed that this experience and training were sufficient to enable them to manage volunteers effectively.

There was a great deal of variation in the managers’ management-related professional development. Seven managers reported that they had not received any professional development to enhance their skills as volunteer managers in the past three years. As one manager, Charlotte, put it, “I really haven’t had any [professional development]. It’s really been trial by fire.” Another seven respondents indicated that the only training they received regarding volunteer management was the required training offered through the probation office (which we describe in the next section). The remaining respondents had participated in a range of relevant professional development activities, including courses through a parent organization, courses through infrastructure organizations or other nonprofits (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, Nonprofit Resource Center), university or continuing education courses, related specialized training (e.g., conflict resolution, general management), or training provided by their organization.

When the managers were unsure how best to manage volunteers, they tended to depend on their own experiences or advice from a supervisor, other colleagues at the organization, or their peer networks. A few respondents reported that if they had a question or problem with CSWs, they would reach out to the local probation office. Some respondents indicated that they sought answers by referring to their organizations’ policies or procedures. Beyond that, very few managers would actively seek best practices in volunteer management or related information to help them with their work. The few who did would mostly consult websites or popular management books for advice. One manager, Nova, explained why these managers invest so little in professional development:

Given that volunteer management is a small proportion of their work tasks, these managers lack incentives to invest time in researching better processes and procedures.

4.1.1 Free Human Resource

Most of the organizations reported that the decision to accept CSWs was due to their need for free human resources. The managers indicated that they “needed more manpower” (Amelia), “need the help” (Elijah), or “needed some muscle” (Ella), or that they just wanted the “free labor” (Liam, Noah, and Harper). Several organizations commented on their small staff size and the need for CSWs in order to increase the amount of work they could accomplish. One manager, Sofia, reported, “We are only allowed a limited number of staff on the site, so without CSWs, we couldn’t get a lot of stuff done. We really expect them to come. They help us to keep the store going” (Sofia). Respondents viewed CSWs as helping them to get the organization’s work done.

Beyond the need for labor in general, the managers indicated that CSWs were valuable because they are mandated to do a specific number of service hours, and there are consequences if they do not complete the hours. As one manager said: “We love regular volunteers, but having court-ordered CSWs … They have to be there. We can schedule them in advance. That’s a big blessing to us” (Emma). Lucas stated, “there’s more of a set schedule you can do, so you can expect them at certain times. Whereas some volunteers, you can set up a schedule, and there’s no consequence for them if they don’t show up. Whereas the community service worker, there’s a little bit more of a consequence for them to show up.” These responses indicate that CSWs were more helpful than volunteers because organizations can put them on a consistent work schedule and CSWs have an extra incentive to show up for their assignments.

One manager also appreciated the experience and skills that CSWs bring to the organization. “Since a lot of the CSWs, in their regular jobs, worked for companies like landscapers or construction, they had the best background to do anything we needed related to building maintenance or repairs” (Ellie). The respondent went on to say that the organization’s young college student volunteers, in contrast, often didn’t have relevant skillsets, so the manager would have to show them how to accomplish a maintenance-related task.

4.1.2 Mission-Related

Not only do CSWs provide needed labor, but working with CSWs fits with the broader mission of many of the organizations in our study. As one manager stated: “It’s very much on mission for us to be able to provide a second chance opportunity for people in the community. It’s kind of overlaps into what we want to do” (Emma). Lucas indicated:

For these managers, CSWs were either part of their clientele or they viewed them as an extension of their clientele – another group of people who could benefit from the organization.

Additionally, the managers wanted to teach the CSWs helpful life skills. As one manager stated:

A second manager indicated that the organization hoped to teach individuals to be more responsible, especially as it relates to their mission. “Sometimes we have offenders who are in animal control violations, so we use it kind of like a teaching and learning experience for them on responsible ownership of pets” (Charlotte). Clearly, these managers hoped to influence the CSWs’ lives by providing a setting where they could learn things that would benefit them as employees or community members.

4.1.3 Community-Related

Other volunteer managers mentioned general community benefits as a rationale for working with CSWs. In the words of one manager: “I guess it’s just [our organization] figures it’s our way of giving back to the community. There’s not a lot of places to do community service” (Olivia). Another manager expressed an interest in just being an open place where anyone from the community could participate. “Well, we are definitely community open, and we want to accommodate anyone who wants to assist us in any way we can” (Levi). These responses indicate that these managers see their organizations as part of a larger community, and they want to be seen as welcoming.

Additionally, a few managers mentioned the reputational benefits of working with CSWs. They would “get the benefit of name recognition” (Isabella) and felt that “it does get us a lot more publicity, outreach into the community” (Mateo). One manager even mentioned it as an opportunity for people in the community to learn more about the organization and what it does (Aurora). These volunteer managers viewed working with CSWs as a way to build positive relationships with the community and to reach new audiences. “The only thing I can think of is it helps our stance with the community agency we are working with. If it’s [Dogwood Office’s] county police department or the sheriff’s office, it helps show our community spirit certainly. … But, we do it because we want to be a good steward and be a good co-agency in the community” (Aria). For these organizations, working with CSWs helps them to contribute positively to their community.

4.2.1 Probation Office Rules and Regulations

The Dogwood Office has a vetting and training process for organizations that desire to use CSWs. Specifically, the organization must complete a mandatory training session, sign a Memorandum of Agreement, and provide a copy of their 501(c)3 designation from the IRS. The required training covers the Dogwood Office’s rules for CSWs and the requirements that each participating organization must meet. The training also addresses the sanctions for CSWs and their supervisors who do not comply with the outlined policies. As part of the required training, representatives from each organization receive a handbook that describes the roles and responsibilities of each party – probation office, organization/supervisors, and CSWs – and examples of required documentation.

One important policy concerns timekeeping. Specifically, CSWs associated with the Dogwood Office are not allowed to handle their timekeeping document. As is commonly the case with organizational policies, this policy was developed in response to a problem, as suggested in what follows.

Additionally, supervisors are instructed not to allow proxy community service for a CSW, accept money or gifts from CSWs, or even credit a lunch break as community service time. The Dogwood Office instituted these rules because they had issues in the past with CSWs bribing supervisors to sign off on community service hours they had not performed. The Dogwood Office also asks to be kept informed about which individual is serving as their primary contact with the organization and the organization’s work locations and hours of operation.

Interestingly, the Dogwood Office also requires organizations to identify CSWs as community service workers to the organizations’ staff, volunteers, and clients. That identification typically involves some type of visual marker, such as a vest or t-shirt, that must be worn at all times while doing community service.

The Dogwood Office also provides guidance on the type of work CSWs should perform. “The type of work typically involves neighborhood clean-up, janitorial services, landscaping, maintenance, skilled labor, and clerical work. The needs and safety of the community and the organization, as well as the skills of the probationer, are taken into consideration when making placements” (Anonymized Probation Office, 2018). While discretion is given to individual organizations, they are encouraged to engage CSWs in manual labor of some kind. Community service workers are not allowed to have cell phones during community service hours except in case of emergency.

In addition, the Dogwood Office trains CSWs regarding the fulfillment of their service hours. They are required to read and sign a copy of the rules for CSWs and to sign a waiver of liability form. Community service workers are coached on appropriate behavior, such as not bringing drugs, alcohol, or weapons to their service site and interacting appropriately with other individuals.

In contrast to the Dogwood Office, the Azalea Office does not provide any formal training for partner organizations or a formal process for setting expectations for CSWs. The Azalea Office also has different rules and procedures for supervising CSWs. For example, the Azalea Office typically has CSWs perform their first ten community service hours at their office location so that the officers can assess their level of cooperation and compliance. Essentially, they prescreen CSWs before sending them out to work in community organizations. The Azalea Office experiences a high level of noncompliance with community service requirements, and they are mindful of the burden this can place on their partner organizations.

The Azalea Office is very sensitive to the needs of individual CSWs and the obstacles they face in doing community service. For example, the Azalea Office allows those with mental or physical disabilities to perform alternative services, such as picking up garbage. Additionally, the Azalea Office has a smaller number of partner organizations receiving CSWs than the Dogwood Office, and those organizations are spread across several rural counties. As a result, it is very challenging for CSWs attached to the Azalea Office to complete their service hours, especially those without reliable transportation, because they must often travel far to their service site. Fewer potential community service sites can also make it more difficult for CSWs to schedule community service around work and family commitments. These substantial barriers to compliance are reflected in the Azalea Office’s flexibility in working with CSWs.

Several of the community agencies in our study, however, also supervised CSWs from other probation offices. Sometimes, their CSWs were on probation in one jurisdiction but received permission to do their service in another jurisdiction because they temporarily reside there (i.e., college students). None of the managers received any training or guidance from the probation offices in these other counties. In fact, they rarely had any contact with these other offices because they permitted CSWs to handle their own time logs. Respondents particularly singled out private probation offices as lacking rules and regulations: “No, I’m going to say that unfortunately so many of the private probation companies seem to be winging it … I don’t know what their policies are. The governmental agencies tend to have some very specific requirements, whereas the private companies I have not seen that level of precision” (Elijah). It is very interesting how little regulation and oversight most probation offices provide for community service, particularly regarding timekeeping.

We found that volunteer managers appreciated the rules and procedures provided by the Dogwood Office, as it provided structure for the community service program. As Ellie stated:

Several managers indicated that they use the Dogwood Office rules and procedures for all CSWs regardless of the probation office that sent them because the Dogwood Office rules made sense and helped their work with CSWs to go more smoothly. “We think that [the Dogwood Office] has the best policies. They did the most recent revamp of their program and have … It’s up to the standard we like to keep. So, the rules they give us, we just apply to every worker. Just to keep it consistent but also because their practices are generally the best practices” (Emma). Clearly, there is wide variation in how different counties handle community service, including the level of oversight provided and the procedures and rules for working with CSWs. It also seemed that the managers in our study appreciated having more instruction, guidance, and support in working with CSWs.

4.2.2 Lessons Learned about Interactions with the Probation Office

Probation offices have a great deal of influence over how well court-ordered community service works, yet there is wide variation in how they implement community service. The two probation offices in our sample had contrasting approaches to managing community service. The Dogwood Office was unusually professional and proactive in its approach to community service, while the Azalea Office used a more flexible and accommodating approach. Our analysis hints at some important factors that affect how a probation office administers community service, such as the size of the geographic area served, the availability of public transportation, the number of community organizations willing to work with CSWs, and the abilities of the CSWs themselves (e.g., people with physical or mental disabilities).

Private probation offices were particularly challenging to work with. Though all of the CSWs in our study reported to either the Dogwood or Azalea probation offices, both of which were state-run agencies, some managers in our study had experience managing CSWs who reported to private probation companies. These managers reported negative experiences with private probation companies, citing a lack of guidance and oversight. This is consistent with research findings that the private probation industry is poorly regulated, and because of its profit motive, it is disinclined to spend money on programs that would improve the probation experience, such as officer training (Huebner & Shannon, Reference Huebner and Shannon2022).

Our results indicate that the managers preferred working with probation offices that provided them with clear policies and direction, such as the support and structure they received from the Dogwood Office. Consistent with prior research (Allen & Treger, Reference Allen and Treger1990), we find that many community agencies desire greater communication from the probation office. Given the paucity of research regarding the management of CSWs and the limited practitioner advice on the subject, community organizations relied on the probation offices to help them develop effective policies. In particular, community organizations desire that probation offices: communicate more effectively, train probationers on how to do community service, provide easy reporting procedures, help screen out difficult CSWs, and provide general advice and support (Allen & Treger, Reference Allen and Treger1990; McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a).

We suspect that the amount and type of support from probation offices affect the willingness of community organizations to receive CSWs – something that can be investigated in future research. Community organizations that have negative experiences with CSWs may discontinue working with them, further limiting opportunities for placement. A supportive probation office – especially one that provides training and screening for CSWs – can enable more community organizations to work with CSWs by helping to prevent and manage problems. Additionally, the probation office’s actions might also affect CSWs’ willingness to participate in community service and their success at completing their hours. For example, probation offices that have outdated lists of organizations willing to receive CSWs or that provide little support to CSWs in finding placements might have lower compliance with community service requirements.

4.3.1 Community Service Workers’ Perspectives on Their Tasks

We asked CSWs what type of labor they performed at the organization, and their responses mirrored the managers’ reports. Community service workers did manual labor (e.g., loading and unloading donations, landscape work, construction), janitorial service (e.g., cleaning, mopping, sweeping, dishwashing, laundry), and clerical work (e.g., note taking, filing documents, keeping an inventory of supplies). Community service workers reported that they were not allowed to do certain tasks, such as handling money. Community service workers were often excluded from direct service work, such as making contact with the clients of the organizations. In most cases, though, CSWs were assigned tasks based on the organization’s daily needs, such as cleaning, sorting donations, and other manual work, rather than regularly performed or scheduled tasks or responsibilities.

Unlike regular volunteers, CSWs are required to work for a specific number of hours – sometimes over 300 or more hours. This gave the staff time to get to know the CSWs and learn to trust them. For example, Ethan, who worked reliably in a thrift store for more than 300 hours, ended up being in charge of all tasks in the store, including sorting valuables and money-related tasks that were generally prohibited for CSWs. So, the amount of time a CSW has put in, their personal reliability, and work quality can lead organizations to give them more complex tasks or those involving more responsibility.

Many CSWs showed total indifference to the tasks they performed, regardless of how many service hours they were assigned. They expected that the tasks given to them would be either trivial or difficult and would be work that the staff or other general volunteers did not have time for or did not want to do. As one CSW, Lily, reported, “You just do tons of odd things they don’t have anybody else to do. … I have just started to do what they ask me to do. So, I haven’t asked an extra question or anything.” CSWs did not express their preferences or register complaints about given tasks; they typically just complied. As another CSW said, “There is a list that we go off for, so I don’t do others than outside the list. I don’t ask to do anything that is not permitted” (Gabriel).

While there was a high level of compliance with the tasks they were assigned, some CSWs noticed that their tasks were limited. One CSW said, “I guess there was a lot of stuff that was going on that I wasn’t allowed to do” (Wyatt). Another CSW who had done community service at multiple organizations indicated:

We asked CSWs which types of tasks they would like to do that they are not permitted to do, and they indicated that they wanted to engage with more people (especially the clients of the organization) (Layla and Avery) and have opportunities to understand the organizational operations and management (Hazel and Henry).

4.3.2 Community Service Workers’ Interactions with Clients

Despite limitations on their tasks, some CSWs also reported a rewarding experience with the clients at the organization. Six CSWs had the opportunity to interact with and help a client, and that experience made a strong impression on them. Typically, these types of experiences involved helping clients in a public environment, like finding clothing or items in a thrift store or preparing and serving food at a soup kitchen. One CSW, Aden, especially enjoyed his client interactions:

It was very interesting that even one meaningful interaction with an organization’s clients could be the most memorable positive experience for a CSW. Violet spent more than 400 hours doing community service in a variety of organizations. Her tasks at all these organizations varied from cleaning and manual work to feeding the homeless. Violet expressed great satisfaction with the opportunity to interact with the homeless clientele. She found it meaningful because she felt she had an impact on them. She described it this way, “From their eyes, I helped some … I can see it in her face that she really enjoyed it. She was very thankful for what I’ve done. … I realized that there are actually people in the world that do need help.” Few CSWs in our sample were permitted to have any interaction with clients, and those that did had limited opportunities to do so. However, when CSWs did have those opportunities, they tended to be positive and memorable.

4.3.3 Lessons Learned about Creating Meaningful Work for Community Service Workers

Today’s volunteers are very demanding and want to do high-quality jobs – work that they find meaningful and impactful (Dwyer et al., Reference Dwyer, Bono, Snyder, Nov and Berson2013; Kulik, Reference Kulik2006). Volunteers typically prefer not to do simple, menial tasks; they enjoy challenge and variety (Hobson, Reference Hobson2007; Jamison, Reference Jamison2003; Van Schie et al., Reference Van Schie, Güntert, Oostlander and Wehner2015). Yet, menial tasks typically get passed on to CSWs. Prior research also substantiates the fact that CSWs tend to perform manual labor (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a, Reference McIvor1993b). The nature of court-mandated community service results in CSWs doing work that most people would not find rewarding. This could be another missed opportunity. As long as CSWs only perform menial tasks, the potential for community service to change their lives is limited since the work will be seen as merely a punishment that does not contribute to a broader community goal. As Bazemore and Karp (Reference Bazemore and Karp2004, p. 20) state: “community service activity that is clearly directed toward meeting the needs of the less fortunate or young people will be more likely to change the role and self-image of formerly incarcerated persons than work which is perceived as irrelevant or punitive.”

While most CSWs in our sample were not permitted to work directly with clients, a few CSWs experienced some client interactions, such as serving food to the homeless. Community service workers described those as meaningful experiences. They tended to cite these experiences as among the most meaningful or positive experiences they had while doing their community service. This finding fits well with empirical studies that find positive effects of meaningful tasks on volunteer satisfaction and retention (Finkelstein, Reference Finkelstein2008; Hidalgo & Moreno, Reference Hidalgo and Moreno2009; Stukas et al., Reference Stukas, Worth, Clary and Snyder2009; Van Schie et al., Reference Van Schie, Güntert, Oostlander and Wehner2015). Perhaps community service would have a more powerful impact on CSWs’ attitudes, behaviors, and perspectives if it could be redesigned to include more meaningful work and client interactions. While we recognize organizations’ concerns about risk management, it is likely that many organizations could provide more structured, supervised, appropriate interactions between clients and CSWs. Research on community service in Scotland revealed that almost half of the organizations allowed CSWs a great deal of contact with their clients (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a), indicating that this can be successfully achieved. Positive client interactions can help CSWs feel that they are truly doing something to serve their communities and actually helping other people.

Good volunteer work design leads to greater satisfaction and intention to continue volunteering among volunteers (Hidalgo & Moreno, Reference Hidalgo and Moreno2009; Kulik, Reference Kulik2006; Van Schie et al., Reference Van Schie, Güntert, Oostlander and Wehner2015). Good work design could also lead to greater satisfaction and more positive outcomes for CSWs, such as continuing as a volunteer after their community service is complete. Prior research has shown that many organizations can retain CSWs as volunteers after their community service is complete (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a) – a phenomenon that can benefit both the community organization and the CSW. We stress that community service will not be likely to achieve its goals without providing CSWs with more meaningful opportunities to contribute.

4.4.1 Policies about Accepted Offenses

Typically, the decision about which offenses the organization would accept was up to the manager. None of the organizations in our sample would accept CSWs with a history of sexual crimes. All but two of the organizations would not accept probationers who had committed any type of violent crime. One exception is a faith-based human services organization where the volunteer manager said that receiving a violent offender “depends on what kind of attitude he comes in with” (Oliver). A few volunteer managers indicated that their organization would accept a CSW with a nonviolent felony charge on a case-by-case basis, but most would not. All of the organizations would accept traffic offenses, such as DUI, speeding, or reckless driving, as well as underage drinking. There was a great deal of variation in the acceptance of property crimes (e.g., theft, shoplifting) and drug-related charges (e.g., possession of controlled substances), although the majority of organizations would accept CSWs with those charges. Beyond violent and sexual crimes, most volunteer managers seemed fairly open to a variety of crimes. As one volunteer manager stated, “They just come rolling through the door, and we pretty much just take anybody” (Charlotte).

The rationale behind deciding which charges to accept typically centered on the working environment and the level of interaction with clients. One volunteer manager summed it up well by saying:

Several other managers made similar comments. Staff safety and comfort were important concerns, which is why few organizations accepted violent offenses and none would accept sexual offenses.

Client interaction was another factor affecting organizations’ decisions about which charges to accept. While most CSWs did not perform tasks directly related to client interaction, they sometimes performed tasks in the vicinity of clients. In these environments, the managers were typically more strict in determining which offenses to accept. “Based on the fact that we interact with the public, and we feel like the folks, even those who work us behind the scenes and may never come in contact with the public, are still a reflection of the organization” (Elijah). In one instance, a volunteer manager indicated that her CSWs had no client interaction, so she was willing to accept anyone (outside of violent and sexual crimes) (Aria). In general, organizations were cautious about the level of interaction their CSWs would have with clients.

Organizations with retail operations, like thrift stores, tended not to accept individuals with theft charges. Acceptance of drug-related charges also depended on the working environment and clientele served. As one manager in a health-related organization said: “because of HIPPA, you don’t want anybody who is a patient or connected to a patient. Because we have a pharmacy on-site and needles/syringes, you want to be very careful you don’t take anybody who is a shoplifter or who uses drugs” (Ella). To a certain extent, the organization’s mission and services shaped decisions about which CSWs to accept.

4.4.2 Community Service Workers’ Perspectives on Accepted Offenses

Organizational policies limiting accepted offenses were problematic from the CSWs’ perspectives. Community service workers already have relatively few options for community service, and this challenge is compounded by the fact that few organizations have evening or weekend service opportunities. The addition of screening based on offense made it very difficult for some CSWs to find workable placements. As Owen stated, “But because of my charges, I have drug offenses, so some places you can’t do community service for them.” Clear communication between the community organization and the probation office could alleviate some of this burden, as probation officers could then steer CSWs to organizations willing to accept their offenses. However, in some instances, CSWs did not find out until later in the process that they would not be accepted by a particular organization. “I was assigned a place originally, but that didn’t work. I had to find a different place. Finding a place that was going to take someone with theft by receiving was hard because the moment you mentioned theft, they didn’t want you” (Willow). CSWs with theft and drug charges were not accepted at every location, so they struggled more to find a placement than CSWs with traffic offenses. Community service workers with violent offenses had the hardest time of all because very few organizations were willing to accept those charges. This indicates a mismatch between what criminal offenses community organizations will accept and which individuals are sentenced to community service.

4.4.3 Policies about Open Identification of Community Service Workers

Another relevant policy pertains to openly identifying CSWs within the organization. We asked the managers whether the staff and volunteers at their organization know which individuals are CSWs. Seven of the organizations require some type of open identification that distinguishes CSWs from other staff and volunteers, such as a vest, wristband, or special colored t-shirt. This is not surprising, given that open identification is technically required by the Dogwood Office. As one manager said, “Oh yeah … Our CSWs are required to be identified as community service workers. That’s one of the [Dogwood Office’s] rules. They have to wear a [special] t-shirt, and they have to buy it. Whereas we give t-shirts or nametags to volunteers” (Emma). Some organizations that did not work with the Dogwood Office, though, also instituted this policy. For example, one recreation organization specified that the purpose of using special vests for CSWs was not to distinguish them from staff or other volunteers but to distinguish them from clients using the recreation areas. An additional five volunteer managers reported that everyone knows who the CSWs are because they are introduced as CSWs but are not required to wear any type of identification. One manager summarized this by saying: “Probably because I would introduce them, Hey this is Leanne. She’s going to be helping us today. She’s doing her community service work” (Amelia). Thus, 40 percent of the organizations in our study openly identify CSWs to staff, volunteers, and clients.

The remaining organizations limited identification in some way. In eight organizations, only other staff members know who the CSWs are. The managers in these organizations felt that no one outside of the staff needed to know this information. “Staff do. Other volunteers do not. And that’s a personal choice that I make. There’s no organizational policy to say that we should or should not disclose who the court-ordered workers are … I know that it’s not good to stigmatize people who are coming to help your organization” (Asher). In fact, in some organizations, the only reason that CSWs were identified to staff was that staff members signed off on CSWs’ time sheets. “In general, I try to inform them. Not because we treat them any differently but because of documentation purposes. Our volunteers sign themselves in and out. Our CSWs have to have a notation from a staff member” (Elijah). An additional four organizations limited awareness of CSW status to key staff members. Lucas described this process:

Volunteer managers in these organizations did not want CSWs to be stigmatized or treated differently because of their involvement in the criminal legal system.

This also explains why the remaining six organizations did not broadcast the CSWs’ status to staff, volunteers, or clients at all. As one manager said, “We treat them all the same” (Levi). The managers in these organizations did not see any compelling reason why CSWs needed to be identified as such and wanted to protect their privacy. However, a couple of these managers did admit that others in the organization might know who a CSW is based on the tasks the individual is performing or because the CSWs themselves reveal that information. One manager described it this way, “I think in rare cases, that might come up just because that volunteer who is court-ordered might say something about being court-ordered in the presence of other volunteers or staff. But, yeah, I try not to say anything about why anyone is volunteering” (Luna). This type of disclosure was more likely in the organizations that received many CSWs, especially at the same time. One manager at a thrift store described this phenomenon by saying, “Well, most people don’t make it a secret. They don’t seem to mind. We may have 2 or 3 in one day. … They work together, and they’ll discuss their problems and their cases with each other. I mean, they don’t seem to be bothered by it.” (Sophia). When several CSWs are working around each other, they feel less concerned about the potential stigma because others are having the same experiences.

4.4.4 Community Service Workers’ Perspectives on Open Identification

CSWs had varied feelings about being identified as CSWs within the organization. Nine CSWs reported that they felt embarrassed to wear a visual indicator showing them to be CSWs. They felt that people labeled or stigmatized them because of that identification. One CSW, Luca, who wore a different t-shirt to show he was a CSW, reported that he felt that the open identification caused others in the organization to view him differently. He said: It definitely comes in with a negative connotation from the start. People are like, “Oh, you’re here for community service.” There are also some negativities that’s like, “You’re not really invested here … you’re just here to put in hours and help out,” but it’s not like a personally demeaning thing. Another CSW, Hazel, who wore a lanyard indicating she was a CSW, felt stigmatized by the open identification:

These CSWs were uncomfortable with being identified in the organization as CSWs and were concerned about how others would react to them.

On the other hand, fifteen CSWs were indifferent to open identification. Gabriel, who wore a special CSW vest, reported, “It doesn’t bother me. It wouldn’t bother me if anyone knew I’m a recovering drug addict, and many people know because that is who I am.” An additional two CSWs did not necessarily like the open identification, but they felt that it was something they deserved. For example, Violet, who wore a vest, put it this way, “It’s fine with me. I mean that I’ve done wrong, and I’m trying to correct what I’ve done.” The CSWs in our sample varied greatly in their feelings about being openly identified as CSWs. Some CSWs did not like it and felt that they were treated differently as a result. Others were more complacent and just viewed the open identification as part of their punishment.

4.4.5 Lessons Learned about Risk Management and Open Identification

Just as working with volunteers can pose risks to an organization (Graff, Reference Graff and Connors2012; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019), working with CSWs can also bring risks. When working with volunteers, organizations are primarily concerned about harm to others, particularly clients, the loss or destruction of the organization’s assets, and damage to the organization’s reputation (Graff, Reference Graff and Connors2012). Likewise, community organizations also worry about any liabilities that might stem from working with CSWs (Allen & Treger, Reference Allen and Treger1990), particularly potential risks to the organization’s staff or beneficiaries (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993a). One of the primary ways that the community organizations in our study minimized potential risks was to screen out CSWs who have been convicted of violent crimes, similar to community organizations in other countries (McIvor, Reference McIvor1993b). Organizations also develop policies about which types of tasks CSWs are permitted to do, which can help minimize risk.

Another way that some community agencies minimize risk is to identify CSWs openly to agency staff and volunteers. While this policy may help organizations to mitigate risk, there are also tradeoffs. Many of our managers were uncomfortable openly identifying CSWs, even when directed to do so by the probation office. They felt that action was not congruent with the type of relationship they desired to have with their CSWs. The interviews with the CSWs also bear this out. While some CSWs were indifferent to open identification, about one-third of them felt embarrassed or stigmatized. This is not surprising given the known stigma associated with a criminal record (e.g., Hirschfield & Piquero, Reference Hirschfield and Piquero2010). Stigma toward formerly incarcerated individuals affects their opportunities for employment and civic reintegration (Uggen et al., Reference Uggen, Manza, Behrens, Maruna and Immarigeon2004, Reference Uggen, Vuolo, Lageson, Ruhland and Whitham2014). A similar stigma can also be projected onto CSWs, as evidenced by the fact that organizations perceive that their staff and clients might be uncomfortable around CSWs. Given this, open identification policies appear to be at odds with many of the intended goals of court-mandated community service.

Community organizations should be thoughtful and intentional when discussing an open identification policy. They should consider such factors as how many CSWs they have in the organization at a particular time, which offenses the organization allows, what tasks the CSWs do, how easy it is to supervise CSWs (depending on the physical layout, number of staff, etc.), and how much work it will be to enforce the open identification policy. For example, if an organization only accepts CSWs with traffic violations, then the risk of harm to clients is very low, and an open identification policy might do the organization and CSWs more harm than good. We argue that organizations that carefully think through these details will choose policies that are more supportive of their goals overall, both in terms of risk management and providing a productive, nurturing environment for CSWs.

In summary, preparing an organization to receive CSWs involves many important tasks, including understanding why the organization wants to work with CSWs, developing a relationship with the probation office, and developing policies to support working with CSWs. We find that community organizations often muddle through this phase, either through a lack of planning and vision or by developing overly strict policies that could be hindering their goals. We believe that community service programs would function better with more appropriate support and guidance from probation offices; many of the Dogwood Office’s procedures could be beneficial if they were used more widely. Community organizations could also use guidance to help management have more thoughtful conversations about how to develop policies that would support their intentions and goals for working with CSWs, such as how to create meaningful work for CSWs while balancing the need for appropriate risk management.

5.1.1 Organizational Screening Procedures

In addition to screening by offense, six organizations engaged in further screening by asking CSWs to undergo a background check. These organizations typically also require background checks for their volunteers. The argument in favor of a background check was that the individual might have prior offenses. “My understanding based on the orientation at the county probation office is that they have a very limited capacity on background checks they are able to perform, so even if someone is coming to us with, for example, a DUI charge, there’s nothing to say they don’t have another charge in their background, so that’s why.” (Asher). On the other hand, a couple of organizations excluded CSWs from their required background check, presumably because they already knew that these individuals had a criminal record.

The financial and time cost of the background check further hindered CSWs from being matched to a community organization. One manager indicated that the cost of the background check ($35, paid by the CSW) precluded some CSWs from being able to do their community service hours at that organization (Aria). The time required to complete the background check was also an obstacle for some CSWs. One volunteer manger described it this way:

Background checks not only screened out individuals based on their past offenses, but conducting background checks also inadvertently screened out CSWs who could not pay or who lacked the time to undergo the process.

Some organizations also prescreened CSWs on the phone by explaining how the community service process worked at their organization, including the necessary paperwork, what hours the organization is open and able to receive CSWs, and the organization’s policies. These volunteer managers indicated that this process was helpful in screening out CSWs who would not be available for daytime shifts or who felt that this organization was not compatible with their needs. It also helped screen out individuals who needed to complete an unrealistic number of community service hours in a very short period of time.

5.1.2 Community Service Workers’ Perspectives on Selecting an Organization

When an individual is assigned to a community service sentence and receives information about the process, their first concern is finding a good organizational placement. While the Dogwood Office and Azalea Office both maintain lists of local organizations that work with CSWs, in practice, many CSWs pursued their own arrangements for service opportunities. Eight CSWs in our sample selected one of the listed organizations, but sixteen CSWs searched for an organization themselves and obtained permission from the probation office to work there. One reason for this was that the list of organizations provided by the probation offices contained outdated or limited options, which was frustrating to CSWs. Ethan related his struggles with finding an organization:

The probation officers seemed sensitive to the difficulty of finding an organizational placement because they often allowed CSWs to do their community service hours at organizations that had not been previously vetted. This scenario fits Henry’s situation:

As Ethan indicated, though, it is likely that some CSWs would quit trying to find a placement if it proved too difficult. Individuals with physical limitations or injuries (Aden and Owen), disabilities (Eleanor and Kai), and certain criminal offenses (Willow and Owen) faced additional barriers in finding a placement, and that sometimes required more hands-on assistance from the probation office.

CSWs selected organizations based on a variety of factors. First, prior experience with community service work and/or volunteering and recommendations from family members or friends influenced their selection of a community service site. Previous volunteering experiences helped them to choose organizations where they had a prior relationship and already understood the work environment and tasks involved (Luca, Camila, Chloe, and Ivy). Jackson, for example, performed work for a church because of his father’s recommendation: “My dad goes to that church. He said that if I could just do volunteering work, that they had enough work around the church for me do.” Second, by necessity, CSWs had to select an organization that offered service hours that fit with their work schedule. Scheduling flexibility was a critical factor, as CSWs have a limited time period in which they must complete their service hours, making the process particularly complicated for those who were employed. “I’m getting close to the end of my probation period, and I still have quite a few hours to complete. [My organization] is not open Friday through Sunday, and they also close early in the afternoon on the days that they are open. It just conflicts with my work schedule a lot. So, I’m trying to supplement the hours.” (Hazel). The combination of scheduling challenges and the need to get a lot of community service hours done in a short period of time meant that fourteen CSWs in our sample performed community service at more than one organization.

The third factor influencing a CSW’s choice of organization was accessibility. When asked why he chose a particular organization, Ezra answered, “It was close to where I lived at the time, and it seemed like it would be easier duty.” Besides location, transportation was also an important part of accessibility. Ten CSWs indicated that they lacked transportation, which posed problems in completing their community service. For example, Maverick had his driver’s license revoked, making it hard for him to get to the community service site.

Finally, Wyatt, Henry, and Ivy indicated that they chose an organization because the tasks they would be performing fit their skills or interests.

To summarize, most CSWs sought out an organization for community service that was not on the list they received from the probation office. Typically, when they would look for an organization on their own, it was an organization that they or someone in their network had a prior relationship with. Community service workers were frustrated with the limited number of organizations where they could do community service, outdated lists of organizations, and few weekend and evening opportunities for community service. Community service workers with certain offenses were further limited in their community service opportunities.

5.1.3 Lessons Learned about Screening and Matching

Our results show the importance of screening to ensure that CSWs are matched with the right community organizations. This fits with prior volunteering research showing that effective recruitment, screening, and matching of volunteers to an organization can significantly increase volunteer satisfaction and reduce retention problems (Boezeman & Ellemers, Reference Boezeman and Ellemers2008; Cuskelly et al., Reference Cuskelly, Taylor, Hoye and Darcy2006; Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2008, Reference Hager and Brudney2011). The volunteer management literature highlights several reasons why screening volunteers is important (Connors, Reference Connors2011; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019). First, screening is part of risk management and helps protect the organization’s clients, staff, and assets. Screening techniques, including background checks, are very common among organizations that work with vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly. The second major purpose of screening is to find volunteers who are a good fit for the organization, its mission, and the work. Screening ensures that volunteers are capable of the work the organization needs to have done and that the organization meets the needs of the volunteers. When these conditions are met, volunteers are happier, and they stay with the organization longer (Boezeman & Ellemers, Reference Boezeman and Ellemers2008; Cuskelly et al., Reference Cuskelly, Taylor, Hoye and Darcy2006; Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2008, Reference Hager and Brudney2011), which reduces the burden of recruiting and training additional volunteers. Screening can also increase staff members’ willingness to work with volunteers because it can increase the overall quality of the volunteer corps.

Screening CSWs can serve similar functions. Screening can help reduce risk, ensure a better fit between the CSW and the organization, and increase staff willingness to work with CSWs. As previously discussed, the primary screening in our study is the screening out of prospective CSWs based on the offenses they committed. There is far more that organizations can do, though, in the screening process. For example, several volunteer managers utilized a prescreening phone call to set expectations for CSWs and to ensure that a potential CSW’s schedule would work with the organization’s schedule. Managers learned through experience that prescreening was important for avoiding problems of fit (e.g., scheduling, attitude). They also weeded out CSWs who procrastinated getting in their service hours and had an unreasonable number of hours to complete in a very short period of time. Several managers learned through their own experiences that there is value in the practitioner literature’s recommendations around screening (Connors, Reference Connors2011; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019). That said, screening procedures can also be taken too far and create unnecessary barriers that disempower CSWs and create more burdens for staff (Gaskin, Reference Gaskin2003). Therefore, we argue that screening should be approached thoughtfully and intentionally so that organizations adopt the least invasive screening procedures that help set their CSWs up for success.

Likewise, CSWs are also screening organizations. Whereas volunteers often choose their volunteering opportunities based on the organization’s mission or the type of work they will do (Brodie et al., Reference Brodie, Hughes and Jochum2011; Mitchell & Clark, Reference Mitchell and Clark2020), CSWs are much more pragmatic. They focus on finding community service opportunities that fit their schedule and are accessible and convenient. As previously mentioned, it is frustrating for CSWs to receive inaccurate lists of organizations from the probation offices, which forces them to broker their own community service opportunities. When CSWs felt that their opportunities were limited, they often became discouraged, frustrated, or disillusioned – and might stop trying to complete their service hours altogether.

Essentially, we found that the process of screening and matching CSWs to organizations is not efficient. Community service workers and community organizations have different expectations about the service experience, and it takes some time and managerial effort to align those expectations. This sometimes creates negative experiences for both the community organizations and CSWs. Probation offices could do more to ensure a smoother matching process for CSWs and community organizations, particularly helping CSWs to understand the expectations associated with community service, working with a broader range of organizations to provide more opportunities for CSWs, keeping organizational listings updated, and promoting better communication. Additionally, community organizations need to be clear about the goals of their CSW program and adopt those screening procedures that support their goals with minimal burdens to staff and CSWs.

5.2.1 Community Service Workers’ Perspectives on Orientation and Training

Though several managers reported conducting orientations with CSWs, few CSWs remembered any type of orientation to their community service work. In our sample, only four CSWs indicated that they attended an orientation at the organization. Henry provided a brief overview of his orientation: “The orientation lasted an hour. They talked about an overview of the organization and then an overview of the different ways to spend your volunteer hours, and then they gave us a tour of the place and then answered any questions we had. After that, I guess, we were able to start doing volunteer hours there.” The orientations focused mostly on informing CSWs about the organization, including information about how to record and report their community service hours. Aden’s description of his orientation highlights this focus: “Basically, the rules and regulations, rights, and basic information about the expectations they have of the community service worker, including punctuality, scheduling, and just general information about community service hours and how they’d be handled, where to sign in, and the process to send it to your probation officer.” These orientations were typically handled one-on-one between the manager and the CSW.

Despite the use of orientations, few CSWs remembered receiving any detailed information about the organization’s mission and how their work would contribute to that mission. Only three CSWs felt that the orientation helped them to understand the community organization and its mission. Ethan recounted the thoroughness of his orientation:

This experience of receiving information about the organization was not common among our sample of CSWs, however. The lack of a thorough orientation meant that CSWs did not fully understand or appreciate the work these organizations do in the community. For example, even after one CSW fulfilled forty hours of service in one organization, he still felt confused about what the organization actually does. He reported, “I didn’t really have any idea what the organization (a veteran’s organization) was about. I am a veteran, so I guess they expect me to know about it, but it’s not. … You figure it out when you are there” (Ezra). This is potentially a missed opportunity. The organizations either seemed to assume that CSWs would know how their labor was benefiting the community, or it didn’t really matter to them that CSWs understood their organization and its mission.

Additionally, few CSWs reported receiving any training; they mostly went straight to work. As Henry stated, “There was no [training]. I just started doing it.” When asked if she received any training before doing her community service, Hazel replied, “I didn’t get any actually. I showed up on my first day, and I was put straight to work. I was given a broom and told to sweep.” It is possible that the lack of formal training was due to the simplicity of CSWs’ tasks, such as cleaning. Nonetheless, failure to properly onboard CSWs is problematic.

5.2.2 Lessons Learned about Orientation and Training

The volunteer management literature indicates that providing volunteers with orientation and training will help ensure a smooth transition, increase the volunteers’ comfort and confidence, and ensure that volunteers understand the organization’s rules, policies, and procedures (Connors, Reference Connors2011; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Locke, Hogg and Lynch2019). Effective orientation and training increases volunteers’ satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2011). Unfortunately, structured onboarding procedures for volunteers have not been widely adopted in the nonprofit sector (Hager, Reference Hager2004; Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2008). We found the same to be true regarding CSW onboarding; community organizations did not put much time and thought into procedures that would prepare CSWs for their work.

This underinvestment in orientation and training represents a missed opportunity. Prior research shows the importance of good onboarding for volunteer satisfaction and retention (Cuskelly et al., Reference Cuskelly, Taylor, Hoye and Darcy2006; Hager & Brudney, Reference Hager and Brudney2004; Prince & Piatak, Reference Prince and Piatak2022). Cable et al. (Reference Cable, Gino and Staats2013) believe that onboarding can be an opportunity to invite newcomers to express their best selves in the workplace and to identify the strengths they bring to their work. Onboarding also helps to align volunteers’ expectations with the organization’s expectations (Hager & Renfro, Reference Hager, Renfro, Anheier and Toepler2020). It is likely that strong orientation and training would not only ensure that CSWs transition more smoothly into the organization, but it could increase their satisfaction with their role. Additionally, orientation can provide a critical bridge to help CSWs see and understand how the work they are doing for the organization is benefitting their community. Without an understanding of the organization’s mission, CSWs might just feel like they are cleaning bathrooms rather than contributing to a greater cause. Onboarding is a way to help them see why the work they do is valuable because they will understand how the organization they are helping is benefiting and serving other people. Good onboarding might also help CSWs to get excited about serving their community and make them want to continue to contribute positively to their community in the future.

In a nutshell, the community organizations in our sample invested very little in good onboarding practices. Screening practices varied widely by organization and did not seem to be well-designed to support the organizations’ goals for their CSW program. The community organizations desired more help from probation offices to prescreen CSWs so that they could avoid getting CSWs who would be unreliable or difficult workers. While CSWs might not need much training for the type of work they are currently doing, a strong orientation could help CSWs to better understand these mission-based organizations and could help them to feel more positively toward the work they are doing.

6.1.1 Managers’ Assessments of Community Service Workers Compared to Volunteers

There were a variety of opinions among managers regarding how CSWs compared to volunteers. Seven managers reported that the CSWs at their organizations were really no different than the organization’s volunteers. As one manager stated, “Well, really, I can’t tell any difference in them. Most of them come in, do their hours, and they’re very polite. If you didn’t know which one was which, you really wouldn’t know” (Olivia). Another manager indicated, “All the court-ordered that I’ve had have been very pleasant. I don’t see any attitude difference between them and my regular volunteers” (Isabella). A couple of the managers indicated that part of the reason for this was their attention to management details. One manager acknowledged the importance of proper orientation in getting this result, “My court-ordered folks are very reliable. I wouldn’t give them 100%, but I’d give them a 90%. That’s what my regular volunteers get. Stuff happens. As long as I do the groundwork when I meet with them and tell them the expectations, they 80/20 usually live up to it” (Elijah). Good screening and onboarding practices helped to increase CSW reliability.

However, nineteen managers reported that CSW quality relative to other volunteers was very mixed and highly dependent upon individual personalities. One manager described it this way, “Sometimes they’re better, and sometimes they’re worse. They’re forced to be here; they don’t choose to be here, so that can kind of be a 50/50 shot. … They have some really good ones that try really hard and want to get their hours over with, and then there are others that drag it out” (Mateo). Several managers made similar comments – that some of their CSWs were great and either on par with or even better than their volunteers, but other CSWs were unreliable or difficult to work with. Managers’ complaints about CSW behavior typically focused on a lack of enthusiasm for the work, not showing up when they are supposed to, or shirking behaviors. One manager described the difference between CSWs and volunteers this way:

In Olivia’s opinion, CSWs were more likely to waste time or shirk relative to volunteers. Several managers acknowledged that due to these issues, they have to supervise their CSWs more closely than their volunteers. “They’ll stand around if you let them. They need more supervision than the others. There’s definitely a difference there” (Evelyn). Typically, those CSWs who demonstrated issues regarding reliability, attitude, or work quality would either self-select out of the organization or be told not to come back. “The ones that aren’t motivated usually don’t last very long” (Eva). So, while unreliability and shirking were issues for these organizations, they typically would not put up with those issues for long.

While these types of issues were common, particularly for those organizations that use large numbers of CSWs, several of the managers believed that these challenges were due to differences across people and not just the uniqueness of court-ordered community service.

Another manager, Emma, commented, “It’s hard because we get so many CSWs and have so many unique experiences with them. It’s hard to generalize.” A few managers were also quick to point out that their volunteers are not flawless and that they too can be unreliable and unmotivated, so issues of reliability and quality are not isolated to CSWs.

Thus, some managers see volunteers and CSWs as comparable, with variation in both groups.

What is particularly interesting is that several managers commented that, in some way, their CSWs were better than their volunteers. In particular, these managers rated CSWs highly in terms of reliability. “I think our volunteers who come on a regular weekly basis, they are reliable to a point where they’re gonna come. But, as far as making sure they’re here and tending to a required time, the CSWs are better at that” (Lucas). One manager pointed out that CSWs are more reliable because of the consequence of unreliability.

These managers also appreciated CSWs’ willingness and compliance. “Yes, they’re much more reliable. If they tell me they’re gonna be here, they’re here. I would underline that if I could. They are much more reliable. They’re more dedicated to the work. They’re more thorough with any task that I give. They’re more eager to please” (Isabella). Another manager backed up Isabella’s statement by saying, “They’ve been very much reliable, dependable, and usually perform tasks without having any issues or complaints about it. I’ve never had a court-ordered volunteer complain about anything they’ve done for me … I can’t say that about general volunteers” (Levi). For these organizations, CSWs were even more valuable than volunteers because of their compliance, reliability, and willingness. It is important to note, though, that this value is in large part a result of the negative consequences that CSWs face if they fail to complete their community service. Thus, there is an element of coercion involved in the high performance that CSWs deliver to community agencies.

6.1.2 Managers’ Orientation toward Management of Community Service Workers

Managers generally viewed CSWs’ work quality as comparable to that of volunteers, with some CSWs being more difficult than volunteers and others being easier. It is not surprising, then, that we identified two main themes regarding how the managers viewed their management role – either a professional orientation with strict enforcement of the rules or a more nurturing, accommodating, relationship-based approach.

Some managers worked to run a tight, yet still reasonable, operation through a focus on rules and procedures. They saw themselves as enforcing the organization’s and probation office’s rules and ensuring that community service hours were being completed.

A couple of managers (Oliver and Emma) said that they have to be strict with the CSWs in order to ensure their compliance with the rules. This style of management was often emotionally detached from the CSWs. Charlotte perfectly encapsulated this professional – yet impersonal – approach to managing CSWs. “Generally speaking, with our volunteers, we’ve developed personal relationships with them because we see them so often and have a common goal. Community Service we generally don’t build any kind of relationship with. They’re here to do a job. We leave it at that.” For these managers, a focus on enforcing rules was the way to successfully manage many CSWs so that they produced a net gain for the organization rather than being a drain on the organization’s staff.

Other managers took a more relational approach to their CSWs. They were interested in the personal growth and future success of the CSWs and sought to encourage and help them. Volunteer managers at these agencies tended to view the CSWs as people who could be enlightened through sufficient support, education, and positive experiences like community service. Oliver’s statement captures this management style perfectly:

Unlike the more professional managers who treated CSWs as temporary labor, volunteer managers with a more parental orientation made a deeper emotional investment in the workers. They saw themselves as helping to rehabilitate CSWs and encouraging them to make better choices, just like a parent. As Amelia said, “Everyone treated them like they were their own children. Our thoughts were these kids made a wrong decision and wanted to put it behind them. Let’s help them out.” This more parental management style was more common for managers who said that working with CSWs fit their organization’s mission.

These two orientations to management were not mutually exclusive. Managers would sometimes adapt to a more rigid or flexible style depending on the specific work environment, CSW, and situation. They would alter and vary their style as necessary to make their community service programs work effectively. Certainly, the choice of strategy would depend upon the CSWs themselves and how cooperative, responsive, and reliable they were.

6.1.3 Community Service Workers’ Attitudes toward Managers

Community service workers generally reported positive feelings about their managers. Several of them described their manager as “great” (Hudson), “good” (Eliana), or “amazing” (Penelope). Some CSWs even reported that they developed a strong enough relationship with their manager that they would continue to help them if they were asked to do so:

When CSWs had a poor relationship with the manager, however, it negatively affected their overall work experience, as Jackson describes, “At first, I really liked [my volunteer manager]. … She was really nice, and I could talk to her, and she was really relaxed and everything. I don’t know what changed, but at the very end, she kind of turned sour, so it was not a pleasant experience after that.” Due to the manager’s importance in supervising CSWs, they can have a disproportionate influence on CSWs’ experiences within the organization – either positively or negatively.

6.1.4 Lessons Learned about Manager/Community Service Worker Relationships

Our findings make it clear that management matters. The relationship between the CSW and the manager is important and often contributes to what the CSWs report as either their most positive or most negative experiences. This is consistent with the volunteer management literature. Volunteers who feel that they receive adequate supervision and communication tend to give more hours and stay longer with the organization (Hidalgo & Moreno, Reference Hidalgo and Moreno2009; Huynh et al., Reference Huynh, Metzer and Winefield2012; Kim et al., Reference Kim, Chelladurai and Trail2007; Studer, Reference Studer2016). Once again, managers interested in working effectively with CSWs should be mindful of their supervisory techniques and ensure that they are providing adequate communication.

While we did not explicitly explore whether there was a relationship between assessments of CSW quality and the use of different managerial strategies, it is possible that the two are linked. On the basis of leader–member exchange theory and supporting evidence in the volunteer management literature (Mayr, Reference Mayr2017; Prince & Piatak, Reference Prince and Piatak2022; Schneider & George, Reference Schneider and George2011; Schreiner et al., Reference Schreiner, Trent, Prange and Allen2018), we postulate that managers choose their managerial strategies according to their past and current experiences with CSWs and their assessment of CSW quality. The manager’s own psychological needs, motivation, and previous working experiences (Rogelberg et al., Reference Rogelberg, Allen and Conway2010) can affect how the manager interacts and communicates with other staff and volunteers; this is likely true for CSWs, too. Managers who believe that most CSWs are lazy and difficult will adopt more rigid strategies and styles relative to managers who have more compassionate understanding views of CSWs and turn to more nurturing strategies. More research is needed to understand how managers’ backgrounds and experiences with CSWs inform their management strategies and styles.

6.2.1 Staff Attitudes toward Community Service Workers

We asked the managers to share their impressions of how the staff at their organizations feel about working with CSWs. Their responses were generally very positive. Eighteen volunteer managers indicated that their staff liked having CSWs (without adding qualifiers to that statement). In the words of one manager, “They enjoy it” (Noah). Another manager explained the staff’s feelings by saying, “I think we all think it’s a beneficial program. It’s good for the community service worker; they’re able to get their hours. We’re able to get extra help” (Harper). The managers cited several reasons why their staff liked working with CSWs. One reason is that it saved staff from doing tasks that they did not want to do. As one manager, Gianna, said, “They love them … they can say, ‘Hey, I don’t want to sweep that floor over there, can you do it?” In these organizations, staff generally appreciated having people helping with the work, and the managers encountered few problems between CSWs and staff. As one manager said, “Not once or ever [has there been a problem]. More than likely, it was because the ones [CSWs] we had were always so good, so polite, so willing to work, so willing to come and do whatever we needed with absolutely no problem” (Amelia).

Another six managers also responded that their staff liked working with CSWs, although they qualified their statement by saying that once in a while, they would have an issue. For example, the staff might get frustrated with CSWs when they slack on the job or during slower times when it is more difficult to find work for them. These volunteer managers also indicated that specific individuals or groups of employees might be more reluctant to work with CSWs, but the staff overall felt positive about it. The following response encapsulates this group well:

Still, despite small frustrations and specific employees being reluctant to work with CSWs, staff at these organizations were very willing to work with CSWs.

The remaining four volunteer managers described staff attitudes toward CSWs as a “mixed bag.” While staff appreciated the help and valued CSWs with good attitudes and work ethics, they viewed dealing with CSWs as burdensome, especially when they have a bad attitude, break rules, or do not show up when scheduled. One volunteer manager described it this way:

Another volunteer manager described this as the “growing pains” of trying to help CSWs learn responsibility and discipline (Emma). In these organizations, the staff viewed CSWs more as “hit or miss” (Charlotte) in terms of their behavior and contribution to the organization. Interestingly, all of the managers that describe CSWs as a mixed bag represent organizations receiving large numbers of CSWs, which suggests that it is the volume of CSWs that is posing the challenge.

Several volunteer managers emphasized their critical role in making staff relationships with CSWs work. They emphasized that staff were cooperative as long as they knew that the volunteer manager would address any issues that arose. As one manager said, “My staff trusts that I will not allow court-ordered volunteers that have any type of record that would cause a problem for us” (Ella). Another manager stated, “They work well together. They know if they have a problem that I’ll deal with it” (Oliver). Finally, one manager described this type of situation in more detail, saying:

Thus, the volunteer managers acknowledge the critical role they play in ensuring good relationships between CSWs and staff.

6.2.2 Community Service Workers’ Attitudes toward Staff

We asked CSWs how much they enjoy working with other people in the organization. Community service workers typically had far less interaction with other agency staff than they did with the volunteer manager, which made it difficult to develop relationships with the staff. The CSWs indicated that staff could be a bit mistrusting at first. Over time, CSWs could build trust with staff as they demonstrated their reliability and value to the organization. Ethan indicated how showing up consistently helped him to win over the staff:

At the same time, CSWs acknowledged that staff might not want to spend the time to get to know them since their time at the organization would be short. As Luca described, “You’re not there every day, and they know that there’s no longevity with it. Thus, the investment in internal relationships is less than what a normal staff would have. That makes sense to me” (Luca). Due to the temporary nature of community service and the number of CSWs coming through the organization, staff were reluctant to get to know them personally.

Despite this, several CSWs felt positively inclined toward the staff and felt that they were pleasant to work with. As Hunson said, “They don’t make me feel like I’m doing community service at all … I just feel like I’m there helping.” Another CSW, Hazel, worked in one human service nonprofit for more than a hundred hours and reported positive interactions with the staff: “They’re very welcoming and very attentive to the CSWs. I never feel like I’m left in the dark or I don’t know what I’m supposed to be doing. There’s always someone there I can go to and ask questions.” Some CSWs viewed community service as a positive experience because of their positive interactions with staff.

Yet some CSWs did not feel that they were treated well at their organizations, sometimes being marginalized by the staff. Henry recounted his experience, “Uh, there’s been one day of lifting stuff or moving heavy stuff for one of the people, and they wouldn’t look at me or even kind of address me. They would just like … that was it, used to go there … kind of like treating me like a servant, I guess.” Henry’s quote makes it sound like the staff was not friendly toward or inclusive of the CSWs. Some CSWs had some troubling conversations or interactions with the organization’s staff or clients, such as being pressured about their political views (Sebastian) or religious views (Mason).

6.2.3 Lessons Learned about Staff/Community Service Worker Relationships

Volunteer and staff relationships are crucial for the success of any volunteer program, and our results show the same is true for organizations working with CSWs. Our findings indicate that what is true for volunteers is also true for CSWs – positive social integration into the organization is key for positive outcomes (Cuskelly et al., Reference Cuskelly, Taylor, Hoye and Darcy2006; Einolf, Reference Einolf2018; Galindo-Kuhn & Guzley, Reference Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley2001). Positive relationships not only make the CSW happier and more likely to be pleasant and reliable, but it also supports staff willingness to work with CSWs. Some minor conflict between staff and CSWs is to be expected – just as it is in any arena of human interaction. The volunteer management literature provides ample evidence of tensions between volunteers and staff due to divergent expectations, communication challenges, job ambiguity, and personality conflicts (MacDuff, Reference MacDuff and Connors2012; Pearce, Reference Pearce1993; Rimes et al., Reference Rimes, Nesbit, Christensen and Brudney2017; Wandersman & Alderman, Reference Wandersman and Alderman1993). Unhealthy relationships between staff and volunteers are associated with lower satisfaction levels and increased turnover among staff and volunteers (Hobson, Reference Hobson2007; Kulik, Reference Kulik2006; Rogelberg et al., Reference Rogelberg, Allen and Conway2010). The same is also true for CSWs. Tension between staff and CSWs will lead CSWs to quit or become more difficult to work with and will cause staff to resist working with CSWs.

Organizations should not assume that good relationships between staff and CSWs will happen on their own. Good managerial support and thoughtful policies and procedures help to set CSWs and staff up for success. Implementing best practices for organizations that rely on volunteers could also benefit organizations working with CSWs, such as training staff to work with CSWs, facilitating open communication, and quickly addressing any conflict between staff and CSWs (Nesbit, Reference Nesbit, Renz, Brown and Andersson2024). Our results show the importance of having a watchful manager address concerns regarding a problematic CSW (or staff member) to maintain a welcoming culture for CSWs. Robust onboarding practices also support good relationships because it helps to clarify expectations for CSWs. Staff have a profound impact on CSWs’ perceptions of their community service experience, so it is important that community organizations intentionally support these relationships.