Date:
This is a community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers, particularly those who have long histories of drug use and involvement with the criminal justice system and are considered at high risk of failing probation or returning to prison. The program is rated Promising. Participants were less likely to miss appointments with probation officers, use drugs, and be arrested, compared with the control group. These differences were statistically significant.
A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).
This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.
A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).
This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.
Notice: See also "Program Profile: Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE)"
In 2020, CrimeSolutions rated the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement model as Ineffective. That model was implemented in four jurisdictions (Saline County, Ark.; Essex County, Mass.; Clackamas County, Ore.; and Tarrant County, Texas) and is based on the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement program. Review the program profile.
Program Goals/Target Population
Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE), or Hawaii HOPE, is a community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The main goals of Hawaii HOPE are to reduce drug use, recidivism, and incarceration. Hawaii 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. Hawaii HOPE begins with a warning/notification hearing in front of a judge, who makes clear the expectations of compliance: violation of probation conditions will not be tolerated, and each violation will result in an immediate brief stay in jail.
Hawaii HOPE was designed according to 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.
Program Activities
Once probationers are selected to participate in Hawaii HOPE, they are assigned to a color group that corresponds to a required frequency of drug testing. Hawaii 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 must 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; as probationers are rewarded for compliance, their negative drug tests may result in an assignment to a new color group that is associated with less-frequent testing.
The sanctioning process of Hawaii HOPE happens quickly. If probationers’ drug tests are positive, they are arrested on the spot and taken to jail. If probationers fail to appear for a drug test, they are issued bench warrants immediately, which are 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, and the probationer is confined in the interim.
Program Theory
Hawaii HOPE differs from most diversion and drug court programs in that it does not attempt to impose drug treatment on every probationer but relies on a behavioral triage model. Rather than require all probationers to receive drug treatment (even those without substance abuse disorders), an individual’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.
Additional Information
In 2011, the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded four sites (Saline County, Ark.; Essex County, Mass.; Clackamas, Ore.; and Tarrant County, Texas) to replicate the Hawaii HOPE program in their jurisdictions. The program was rebranded as the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, and the evaluation of those replications was funded by the National Institute of Justice. The evaluation was reviewed and rated by CrimeSolutions; see the program profile on Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE).
Study 1
Arrest
HOPE participants were 55 percent less likely to be arrested for a new crime. Of comparison group members, 47 percent were arrested, compared with only 21 percent of HOPE participants. This difference was statistically significant.
Incarceration
HOPE participants spent an average of 48 percent fewer days incarcerated. They were sentenced on average to 138 days of incarceration, whereas the comparison group had an average of 267 days of incarceration. This difference was statistically significant.
Probation Revocation
HOPE participants were 55 percent less likely to have their probation revoked. The revocation rate for HOPE participants was 7 percent, compared with 15 percent for the comparison group. This difference was statistically significant.
Drug Use
HOPE participants were 72 percent less likely to have a positive urine test than the comparison group (13 percent average for positive urinalyses, compared with 46 percent for the comparison group). This difference was statistically significant.
Probation Appointments
Hawken and Kleiman (2009) found Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (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, a statistically significant difference.
Study
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 person, giving equal weight to each person regardless of how many appointments were scheduled. Positive urinalysis results were calculated as the percentage of positive urinalyses tests for each person, again giving equal weight to each of them 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. No subgroup analysis was conducted.
A guide on the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) probation model, with includes implementation information, is available here.
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Study
Hawken, Angela, and Mark Kleiman. 2009. Managing Drug Involved Probationers With Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
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.
Hawai’i State Judiciary’s HOPE Probation Program. N/d. “About HOPE Probation.” Accessed January 20, 2011.
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):1-5
Hawken, 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):1941-2851.
Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. 2015. State of the Art of HOPE Probation. Rockville, Md.: Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.
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.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
This practice (also referred to as “pulling-levers policing”) includes problem-oriented policing strategies that follow the core principles of deterrence theory. The strategies target specific criminal behavior committed by a small number of individuals who chronically commit offenses, such as youth gang members or those who repeatedly commit violent offenses, who are vulnerable to sanctions and punishment. The practice is rated Promising for reducing crime.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types |
The practice comprises supervision strategies used by community supervision officers to address violation behavior of drug-involved individuals on probation and parole who are being supervised in the community. The goals are to generate greater compliance with supervision terms and, as a result, reduce recidivism. The practice is rated Promising for reducing crime rates of drug-involved individuals supervised in the community.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
|
Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types |
This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
|
Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types |
Age: 18+
Gender: Male, Female
Race/Ethnicity: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Other
Geography: Suburban Urban Rural
Setting (Delivery): Other Community Setting, Courts
Program Type: Alternatives to Incarceration/Prison, Probation/Parole Services, Specific deterrence
Targeted Population: Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Offenders
Current Program Status: Active
Ka’ahumanu Hale, 777 Punchbowl Street 24255 Pacific Coast Highway
Steven S. Alm
Judiciary State of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96813
United States
Email
Angela Hawken
Associate Professor
School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University
Malibu, CA 90263
United States
Website
Email