Community Service Orders as Alternative to Imprisonment in Kenya: the Case of Kibera Probation Office

Abstract

Community Service Orders was introduced in Kenya by the community Service Orders Act No.10/1998. The study attempted to establish the use of community service Orders as an alternative to imprisonment in Kenya, and more specifically the use of community service as a substitute for custodial sentences. The study reviewed the type of offences and offenders for which Community Service Orders was imposed, frequency of use, duration of the orders and, the current practices in the implementation of the program. The study design was descriptive and used survey methods by which data was corrected from a representative sample of the study population. Both probability and non-probability sampling techniques were applied in the sampling. The data was collected from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data was obtained from the respondents while secondary data was obtained from the Probation Department case management records, such as case ledgers, attendance registers, periodical reports and, profile of the agencies hosting offenders serving community service orders. The study finds that offenders committed to CSO are grouped into two categories. One category consists of offenders sentenced to a one day community service order, referred to as „short term‟ and who are the majority, at 94.9%. Most offenders in this group are charged with very petty offences such as consumption of illicit liquor, playing pool, affray, among others. The notable feature in committal of such cases is that courts do not call for pre-sentence report, and are hence referred to as „direct placements‟. The other group consists of offenders mainly sentenced to between one month and 36 months. Most of these involve relatively serious offences such as stealing, possession of narcotic drugs, possession of illicit liquor and theft of motor vehicle. This category is referred to as „long term‟ and a pre-sentence report is usually called for by the courts. The study findings show that courts do make use of community service orders. However, with the greater majority of offenders receiving a one day community service order sentence, it may be difficult to determine that community service is being used as substitute for imprisonment. This is due to the probability that such offenders may have received other non-custodial and less severe sanctions, including, among others, small fines and discharges, rather than imprisonment. This kind of „duration‟ is also not likely to achieve any meaningful rehabilitative impact on the offender. This study recommends legislation of the lower threshold for Community Service Orders, and, sentencing guidelines, to reduce disparities in sentencing offenders to community service. In view of the variance between the offenders‟ personal problems that were discussed with the probation officer, which is scored highly by both the offenders and the officers, and assistance given to solve the problems, which is scored very low especially by the offenders, more need to be done in addressing both the personal and criminogenic needs of the offender, which is crucial for rehabilitation