ABSTRACT
In the early 2000s, the Hawaii Opportunity Probation With Enforcement program was implemented and widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration among drug-involved probationers. This program was overseen by a judge who conducted warning hearings advising participants that they would be required to strictly adhere to supervision requirements, including drug testing, and warned that all violations would be followed by hearings and jail sanctions. Substance abuse treatment was reserved for those who repeatedly failed random drug tests, and revocation was only for those who repeatedly violated conditions. Given promising findings in Hawaii, the National Institute of Justice in partnership with the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) that included funding for four competitively selected sites to implement HOPE, technical assistance to assure implementation fidelity, and an evaluation that included random assignment to either HOPE or probation as usual (PAU).
The Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement (HOPE) Demonstration Field Experiment (DFE) is one of very few multi-site, multi-method randomized control trial evaluations that have been conducted to assess the impact of highly specified probation practices on probation outcomes. Conducted between 2012 and 2017, the HOPE DFE collected extensive data on nearly 1600 individuals in four sites who were randomly assigned to either HOPE supervision or probation as usual (PAU). Findings from the DFE evaluation suggest that the HOPE program model was implemented with fidelity in the four sites. Outcomes were less favorable than in the earlier Hawaii study—HOPE probationers had many more violations that PAU probationers, recidivism outcomes were similar between the two groups, and HOPE costs were higher because of more jail days and more treatment days for those in the HOPE groups that were not offset by fewer prison days. HOPE probationers were less likely to test positive on oral swab drug tests conducted in conjunction with follow-up interviews. Interestingly, these findings have not dimmed the enthusiasm for HOPE (or Swift, Certain, and Fair—SCF—probation programs). As results from the DFE showed little improvement in recidivism outcomes over standard practice, ongoing endorsement of the HOPE approach should be based on other considerations such as a fairer and more predictable system or increased probationer accountability.
