Promising - One study
Program Goals, Target Population
Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) is a community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The main goals of HOPE are to reduce drug use, recidivism, and incarceration. HOPE targets probationers who generally have long histories of drug use and involvement with the criminal justice system and who are considered at high risk of failing probation or returning to prison. HOPE begins with a warning/notification hearing in front of a judge, who makes expectations of compliance clear to the probationer: violation of probation conditions will not be tolerated, and each violation will result in an immediate brief stay in jail.
HOPE was designed with a theoretical foundation that emphasizes clearly defined behavioral expectations for probationers, the use of swift and certain sanctions when probationers fail to comply with those expectations, and elements of procedural justice that make it clear to probationers that courtroom members (probation officers and supervising judges) want them to succeed.
Once an offender is selected to participate in HOPE, they are assigned to a color group that corresponds to a required frequency of drug testing. HOPE probationers are required to call an automated drug testing hotline every morning, and if their color is selected for the day and announced on the hotline, they are required to report to the courthouse for drug testing before 2 p.m. that day. In the beginning, probationers are usually tested at least six times per month (about once a week). Over time, the frequency of drug testing may lessen: probationers are rewarded for compliance, and negative drug tests can result in an assignment of a new color associated with less-frequent testing.
The sanctioning process of HOPE happens quickly. If a probationers’ drug test is positive, they are arrested on the spot and taken to jail. If a probationer fails to appear for a drug test, a bench warrant is issued immediately and served by the police. As soon as a violation is detected, the probation officer completes a “Motion to Modify Probation” form and sends it to the judge. A hearing on the motion is usually held within 72 hours of the filing, with a probationer confined in the interim.
HOPE is different from most diversion and drug court programs in that it does not attempt to impose drug treatment on every probationer. Instead, it relies on a Behavioral Triage Model. Rather than require all probationers to receive drug treatment (even those without substance abuse disorders), an offender’s need for treatment is based on observed behavior signals, such as positive drug tests, rather than through self-reporting. Probationers are sentenced to drug treatment only if they continue to test positive for drug use or if they request a treatment referral.
Hawken and Kleiman (2009) found statistically significant differences between participants in Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) and in the comparison group. In terms of the primary outcomes, HOPE participants were 61 percent less likely to skip or miss appointments with probation officers than the comparison group. The HOPE group had an average of only 9 percent no-shows for probation appointments, while the comparison group had 23 percent.
Drug Use and Arrest
In addition, HOPE participants were 72 percent less likely to have a positive urine test compared to the comparison group. Comparison group members had an average of 46 percent positive urinalyses versus 13 percent of HOPE participants. Finally, HOPE participants were 55 percent less likely to be arrested for a new crime. Of comparison group members, 47 percent were arrested, compared to only 21 percent of HOPE participants.
Even with secondary outcomes, HOPE participants showed significantly better outcomes than the comparison group. HOPE participants were 55 percent less likely to have their probation revoked. The revocation rate for HOPE participants was 7 percent; the comparison group had twice that rate (15 percent). HOPE participants also spent an average of 48 percent fewer days incarcerated. They were sentenced on average to 138 days of incarceration while the comparison group had an average of 267 days’ incarceration.
A study by Hawken and Kleiman (2009) used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE). Participants eligible for the study included all probationers, men and women, who were over 18 years of age and under community supervision by the Adult Client Services probation unit in Honolulu, Hawaii. The study group was randomized to one of two conditions: HOPE (treatment group, n= 330) or treatment-as-usual (control group, n= 163). HOPE probationers were on average 36.1 years old and 75 percent male. They were 65 percent Asian/Polynesian; 16 percent white; 13 percent Portuguese, Puerto Rican, or Other/Unknown; and 5 percent African American. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment or control groups on these characteristics.
The primary outcomes included the percent of no-shows for probation appointments, positive urine tests for illicit-substance use, and rearrest rates. The secondary outcomes included the percent of revocation rates and the average days of incarceration. No-shows for probation appointments were calculated as the average percentage of missed appointments for each offender, giving equal weight to each offender regardless of how many appointments were scheduled. Positive urinalysis results were calculated as the percentage of positive urinalyses tests for each offender, again giving equal weight to each offender regardless of how many tests they were subject to.
Data was collected from two administrative data sources: PROBER, a case-management system used by probation offices in Hawaii, and the Criminal Justice Information System. The study used an intent-to-treat design so that all subjects assigned to HOPE were included in the outcome data, whether or not they appeared for their warning hearing. The randomization process took place in October 2007, which was the study start date for all participants. The follow-up period was 1 year later, October 2008.
There is no cost information available for this program.
Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:Study 1Hawken, Angela, and Mark Kleiman. 2009. Managing Drug Involved Probations With Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:Alm, Steven S. 2010. “HOPE for the Criminal Justice System.” The Champion, August 2010:28–30.http://www.hopeprobation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/alm_HOPE_sept-oct_p28-20.pdf Hawai’i State Judiciary’s HOPE Probation Program. N/d. “About HOPE Probation.” Accessed January 20, 2011.http://www.hopeprobation.org/ Hawken, Angela. 2010. “HOPE for Probation: How Hawaii Improved Behavior with High-Probability, Low-Severity Sanctions.” The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice 4(3). Accessed January 20, 2011.http://www.globaldrugpolicy.com/Issues/Vol%204%20Issue%203/Hope%20for%20Probation.pdfHawken, Angela. 2010. “The Message from Hawaii: HOPE for Probation.” Perspectives: The Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association 34(3):36–49.Hawken, Angela. 2010. “Behavioral Triage: A New Model for Identifying and Treating Substance-Abusing Offenders.” Journal of Drug and Policy Analysis 3(1).Kiyabu, Richard, Joachim Steinberg, and Minako Yoshida. 2010. Hawai’i’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE): An Implementation Analysis. The University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Accessed January 20, 2011.http://www.hopeprobation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/HOPE-Probation-final.pdf
Following are CrimeSolutions.gov-rated practices that are related to this program:Focused Deterrence Strategies
Problem-oriented policing strategies that follow the core principles of deterrence theory. The practice is rated Promising. The evaluation found that focused deterrence strategies (also referred to as “pulling levers" policing) can reduce crime.Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:
| ||Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types|