Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:28 pm
Time: 9:28 pm
Results for project hope
4 results foundAuthor: Bartels, Lorana Title: Swift, Certain and Fair: Does Project HOPE Provide a Therapeutic Paradigm for Managing Offenders? Summary: This book presents a detailed analysis of Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program. Developed by Judge Steven Alm in Hawaii in 2004, this model of 'swift, certain and fair' justice has been widely adopted across the United States. The book argues that although HOPE has principally been viewed in terms of its deterrent impact, it is in fact best understood through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence and solution-focused courts, especially drug courts. Bartels presents a detailed overview of HOPE's operation, as well as a critical assessment of the evaluation findings of HOPE and other programs based on this model. Crucially, the book draws on observational research to demonstrate that much of the commentary on HOPE has been based on misunderstandings about the program, and Bartels ultimately provides much-needed in-depth analysis of critiques of the HOPE model. A rigorous study which concludes by identifying key issues for jurisdictions considering implementing the model and areas for future research, this book will be of special interest to scholars of criminal justice, recidivism and drug-related issues. Details: Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.237p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3125644 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3125644 Shelf Number: 150250 Keywords: Offender ManagementOffender RehabilitationOffender SupervisionProbationProject HOPE |
Author: Kiyabu, Richard Title: Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE): An Implementation Analysis Summary: The goal of this project is to identify the process of how Hawai'i's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) was implemented, and to understand that process using the a network approach model, the key strategies of which are aligning perspectives and managing interaction costs. HOPE's induction was a result of the coordination efforts of service-delivery, supervisory, and administrative level professionals who worked within the existing statutory framework to establish new procedures for the handling of probationers. In 2004, the Honorable Steven S. Alm of Hawai'i's First Circuit Court, implemented a new style of probation in an attempt to change the problem of violations and recidivism among Hawai'i's probationers. The existing style of Probation As Usual (PAU) had a poor record of individuals making it to their probation appointments on time, staying off of drugs, and refraining from criminality upon being released. In PAU, probationers repeatedly violated the terms of their probation for extended periods of time without consequences due to court dates deferred up to a year. In theory, individuals that experience immediate consequences were less likely to repeat offenses. Judge Alm incorporated this theory by creating a modified system of monitoring and sentencing probationers named HOPE. Individuals admitted into HOPE are more closely monitored than probationers in PAU. Initially, participants are randomly drug tested up to six times a month. As they demonstrate their ability to comply with the terms of probation, the frequency of random drug testing is decreased. When the terms of HOPE are violated, probationers are quickly apprehended and given expedited hearings that typically result in small sanctions of two or three days in jail, depending on the number of their previous violations. In as little as three months, the new system of probation has shown significant improvements in offender compliance with their terms of probation. At three months HOPE reduces the rate of missed appointments and failed drug tests by 75 percent, with the reduction peaking at 95 percent (Research and Statistics Office, Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii, 2009). Findings of the effectiveness of HOPE have been verified through independent research (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). Since HOPE was introduced, it has gathered national attention and other states have started similar programs and more are in planning. In our research we conducted interviews of key figures regarding HOPE's implementation. From the information gained from these interviews, as well as from available literature, we were able to compile a timeline of the process of how HOPE was implemented. Existing survey data conducted about the attitudes of the professionals involved in HOPE, its impact on their workload and perceived job effectiveness, and overall impression of the program were utilized to highlight areas deserving attention and assess the level of perspective alignment and management of interaction costs achieved. Using the network approach to examine the implementation of HOPE shows multiple examples of actions taken to align perspectives and manage interaction costs, and this is reflected in the surveys of the involved professionals. Our conclusion is that using the strategies of the network approach were successful in achieving buy-in from the necessary actors in the program, and that those strategies should be employed in future implementations. The survey data is used to identify some areas that could receive additional improvements in the perspectives of professionals that are involved with the program, and suggestions are provided for how that might be accomplished. Details: Manoa: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Public Administration Program, 2010. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2018 at: http://www.scfcenter.org/resources/Research/201005%20HOPE%20Implementation%20Analysis.pdf Year: 2010150566 Country: United States URL: http://www.scfcenter.org/resources/Research/201005%20HOPE%20Implementation%20Analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 0 Keywords: Offender Management Offender Rehabilitation Offender Supervision Probation Project HOPE |
Author: DuPont, Robert L. Title: The HOPE Probation Strategy and Fidelity to It: A Summary. A Comprehensive Summary of the HOPE Probation Strategy and a Brief Overview of a Variety of HOPE-Like Strategies Elsewhere in the United States Summary: In 2014, the Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. (IBH) received a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation for a one-year project to accomplish two objectives: 1) complete a comprehensive examination of HOPE Probation in Honolulu, Hawaii and, 2) briefly examine the fidelity to HOPE of the existent HOPE-like strategies that have proliferated within the criminal justice system across the United States. Two resulting separate reports, The State of the Art of HOPE Probation and HOPE-Like Probation and Parole: 2015 Survey Summary, directly correspond to these objectives. The first report, The State of the Art of HOPE Probation, defines the essential elements of the HOPE strategy and additional recommended, but not essential, elements that enhance HOPE and ensure its success. It describes appropriate sanctions used for non-compliance, the circumstances under which offenders are referred to treatment and to drug court, and when probation is revoked. Additionally, it describes in detail how HOPE Probation has evolved over 10 years of innovation and practice in Honolulu. Useful tools for practitioners interested in implementing the HOPE strategy in their jurisdictions include a needs assessment worksheet that corresponds to the Essential Elements and Recommended Elements of HOPE as well as a HOPE procedures checklist outlining specific issues that require strategic planning to successfully implement HOPE. Lastly, it includes open letters to judges, probation officers, law enforcement and treatment professionals from these respective leaders in Honolulu about their roles in successfully implementing the HOPE strategy. The second report, HOPE-Like Probation and Parole: 2015 Survey Summary, describes findings from an online survey of practitioners (i.e., judges, probation/parole officers, and coordinators) representing strategies that are similar to or directly based on HOPE Probation. This document is the final project summary report. It reviews the core components of the HOPE strategy, the findings of survey research conducted on HOPE-like sites and provides recommendations for further actions, including future extensions of HOPE. This report is intended to provide only a cursory review of the HOPE strategy; for an in-depth description, readers are referred to The State of the Art of HOPE Probation. Details: Rockville, MD: Institute for Behavior and Health,, 2015. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2018 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/575830e0b09f958d96b6e4df/t/5759aa83859fd0f1d9825558/1465494149226/The_HOPE_Probation_Strategy_and_Fidelity_to_It.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/575830e0b09f958d96b6e4df/t/5759aa83859fd0f1d9825558/1465494149226/The_HOPE_Probation_Strategy_and_Fidelity_to_It.pdf Shelf Number: 150567 Keywords: Offender Management Offender Rehabilitation Offender Supervision Probation Project HOPE |
Author: Lattimore, Pamela K. Title: Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE): Final Report Summary: Purpose: The multi-site evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles-beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherance to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions; treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity; tested outcomes, primarily recidivism; and estimated costs. Research Subjects: 1,504 HOPE-eligible individuals were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Most were male (81%), white (69%), and high risk (55%). On average, they were 31 years at study enrollment, with 7 prior arrests and 3.5 prior convictions. Subject characteristics varied across the sites. For example, study participants were younger at first arrest in Texas than Massachusetts (19 versus 27 years) and had more prior convictions in Massachusetts than in Arkansas and Texas (6 versus about 2). Methods: The evaluation team established procedures with each site for identifying HOPE-eligible probationers and implementing random assignment. Data collection included site visits and document review for the process evaluation, as well as analysis of fidelity data. For the outcome and cost evaluation, administrative data were collected from local and state agencies and three waves of interviews were conducted with study participants. Oral swab drug tests were administered during the second and third interviews for individuals in the community and who consented. A substudy was conducted that enlisted randomly selected subjects in a telephone component that asked subjects to call in weekly and answer a short set of questions to assess whether attitudinal changes occurred over the course of HOPE participation. Results: Implementation fidelity was good to excellent in the DFE sites, showing adherance to guidelines for warning and violation hearings, random drug testing, and responses to violations. Of the eleven metrics measured, the sites had the greatest difficulty bringing a violator to a violation hearing within 3 days of the violation, although three-quarters did have a hearing within 1 week. Overall, cooperation, prior experience with HOPE-like programs, and organizational linkages between probation and the court. Challenges in some sites included resource constraints-even with grant funding-and conflict with existing probation culture. HOPE probationers were more likely to have a violation and had more violations than PAU probationers, including more than twice as many drug-related violations accompanying the more than five-fold increase in drug testing for HOPE versus PAU probationers. HOPE probationers were less likely to miss a probation officer visit, to fail to pay their fees and fines , and to be violated for a new charge ; but were more likely to have a violation for failing to appear for court . Most sanctions for HOPE probationers were jail days; HOPE probationers were more likely to go to jail , to go more often ), and to serve more days total than PAU probationers. there was strong buy-in to the HOPE concept and implementation was facilitated by existing agency The HOPE model included treatment referral after repeated failed tests and HOPE participants were three times more likely to go to residential treatment . HOPE probationers were also referred to treatment more quickly (overall and in three sites). Drug tests conducted in conjunction with follow-up interviews showed fewer positives for HOPE than PAU probationers. Recidivism outcomes were similar for the HOPE and PAU groups: 40% of HOPE versus 44% of PAU had a new arrest; 25% of HOPE versus 22% of PAU had a revocation; 49% of HOPE versus 50% of PAU had an arrest or revocation; and 28% of HOPE versus 26% of PAU had a new conviction. There was some variation in rates across sites, but the general conclusions of no differences hold with two exceptions: (1) HOPE probationers were more likely to be revoked in two sites (PAU revocation rates in those sites were about 10%.); and (2) HOPE probationers were more likely to have a new conviction in one site. Lognormal survival models of time to recidivism events confirm the bivariate findings, but revealed one additional finding-HOPE probationers had longer times to revocation in one site. Cost analyses estimated costs of intake, warning hearings, staffing meetings, office visits, drug tests, violation hearnings, arrests, state and county corrections, and residential treatment. Six-month median costs were significantly higher for HOPE than PAU overall and in four sites and mean costs were higher overall and in three sites. Twelve-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in three sites. Twenty-four-month median and mean costs were significantly higher overall and in one site. Cost differences were driven by treatment and incarceration costs. Conclusions: Four sites that differed in organizational structures and populations successfully implemented HOPE programs-holding probationers accountable to their conditions of supervision and reducing drug use. Overall, HOPE did not reduce recidivism, as measured by arrest, revocation, and new conviction. More jail days, more residential treatment, and similar (or higher) recidivism resulted in higher (although not always significantly higher) costs for HOPE compared with PAU. PAU context is important as sites consider whether to implement HOPE or similar programs based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles. PAU revocation rates were low (9% and 13%) in two sites- suggesting limited ability to reduce revocations and that sites with low PAU revocation rates should consider whether to implement procedures to mitigate any potential increases in revocations that would accompany the increased surveillance of HOPE. In at least two sites, revocation could yield only short prison stays (90 days)-suggesting limited opportunities for "prison bed savings" even if revocations were lower with HOPE and a smaller incentive for individuals to comply. PAU was based at least somewhat on Risk-Needs-Response principles in at least two sites-suggesting an additional consideration with respect to the integration of HOPE with PAU. In addition, in one site, probation could use short jail stays on their authority (and did for PAU cases)-suggesting that a HOPE judge was not necessary to enforce conditions. Thus, the similar outcomes may hinge on the "compared to what" aspect of any evalution-in that findings suggest that HOPE worked as well as but not better than PAU. However, given the consistency of findings across four sites that differed in the administration of PAU, there is little to support a conclusion that HOPE or HOPE-like programs will produce substantial improvements over PAU when implemented widely. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2018. 268p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251758.pdf Shelf Number: 151019 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersOffender SupervisionProbationProbationersProject HopeRecidivismRevocations |