Amid extensive debate on public safety in recent weeks, one proven tool remains overlooked: community sanctions.

As researchers who explore how community justice reduces crime, we find it unsurprising, but no less troubling, that this approach continues to be sidelined.

Community sanctions: forgotten, but not gone?

Often described as the ‘forgotten part’ of the criminal justice system, the Probation Service, supported by a network of over 60 community-based organisations around Ireland, supervises and supports people serving sentences in the community.

In 2024, Probation worked with over 17,000 people on a budget of just €60m — barely over 10 per cent that of the Irish Prison Service. This month, the 2026 budget allocated an additional €39m to prisons, but only €6.7m to probation.

The 100 new probation staff this will fund are welcome. Still, we are concerned that Ireland’s over-reliance on prison, with the budget set to fund almost 1,600 new spaces by 2031, fails to make communities safer.

Study after study demonstrates that imprisonment does not reduce crime compared with community sanctions, and may even increase it. By contrast, community service results in less reoffending, especially compared with short-term prison sentences.

The latest Irish Prison Service annual report is striking. Of the 8,704 people imprisoned in 2024, 77 per cent of sentences were for 12 months or less. Of those in prison for under 12 months on a given day, around two-thirds were convicted of non-violent offences.

Short sentences are particularly counter-productive — long enough for people to lose jobs, housing, access to their children and live permanently with the stigma of imprisonment, without providing access to the scant drug services or psychology services in prisons.

Ireland has a range of sentencing options that can help people make amends and address the problems in their lives that led to offending.

But a recent study, which the Department of Justice commissioned two of us to conduct, found that many judges lack knowledge and awareness of community sanctions and their contribution to desistance.

There are also resource constraints, such as the availability of the reports required to assess people’s suitability for some options.

Community service as part of the picture

We welcome new legislation, which was before the Oireachtas committee on justice, home affairs and migration last month, aimed at promoting community sanctions.

The current law says that judges must consider imposing a Community Service Order of up to 240 hours when they would otherwise impose up to 12 months in prison.

The new bill doubles that threshold, requiring judges to consider community service in place of prison sentences of up to 24 months, with the maximum hours of community service rising to 480.

There has been some investment in community service in recent years in an attempt to improve access to placements across Ireland. Nonetheless, it remains drastically underused and, often, misapplied.

For example, judges frequently impose community service in cases where a person would not have been imprisoned, but received a lower sanction instead.

Community service should be a lifeline for those who would otherwise go to prison, giving them a chance to make reparations and demonstrate that they can desist from crime while remaining in the community.

Instead, the new provisions seem likely to result in the same people receiving more hours, rather than reducing the use of short prison terms. Proportionality dictates that the number of community service hours must be tied to the custodial sentences they replace.

Equally, many people are deemed unsuitable for community service, or cannot complete their hours, for reasons beyond their control.

Some placements cannot accommodate people with disabilities or health issues — a fundamental equality problem. Others, juggling work and caring responsibilities, become burnt out, unmotivated and unable to complete lengthy sanctions.

The rollout of ‘integrated’ community service, which provides access to education and services in lieu of a portion of these hours, is a welcome step. However, too many short prison sentences are still being imposed without fully considering the range of community sanctions available.

We particularly welcome the amendment requiring judges to give reasons behind their decision not to make a Community Service Order. This should encourage judges to consider community service in a deeper way.

Moreover, if judges give detailed reasons when they do not use it, the Probation Service could use this information to enhance their policies and practices.

Ensuring all options are on the table

Community Service Orders are not the only community sanctions available to judges. Equally, people who are unsuitable for community service may be highly suitable for other community sanctions.

Judges should be encouraged to explore, in every case, whether a person’s pathway to desistance is best supported by supervision and rehabilitation in the community.

To this end, an amendment could require judges to consider using a Probation Order whenever a person might be imprisoned, but a Community Service Order cannot be imposed.

Lasting up to three years, and with conditions aimed at supporting reintegration and reparation, Probation Orders involve extensive supervision and rehabilitation, without the harms caused by prison.

Probation Officers retain the flexibility to do what is most likely to help the person desist from crime — family interventions, referrals to community services, addiction treatment, education and training, or victim awareness — and help them person make amends to the community and victim through restorative justice.

More versatile than Community Service Orders, these orders could suit a broader range of people.

Asking judges to consider Probation Orders in cases where Community Service Orders are not imposed provides an opportunity to steer courts toward using community sanctions instead of prison.

To strengthen public confidence in justice and prevent prisons from collapsing under the weight of overcrowding, we need legislation and investment in the Probation Service to promote these evidence-based responses to crime.

Dr Ian Marder is an associate professor in criminology at Maynooth University. Dr Eoin Guilfoyle is a lecturer in criminal law and criminal justice at Brunel University of London. Dr Louise Kennefick is a senior lecturer in criminal law at the University of Glasgow. Dr Niamh Maguire is a senior lecturer in law at South East Technological University. Professor Nicola Carr is chair of social work and social policy at Trinity College Dublin.