Outcome Findings from the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment

Abstract

P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Debbie Dawes R T I I n t e r n a t i o n a l Elaine Arsenault P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t yStephen Tueller R T I I n t e r n a t i o n a l Research SummaryMore than 1,500 probationers in four sites were randomly assigned to probation as usual (PAU) or to Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE), which is modeled on Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (Hawaii HOPE) program that emphasizes close monitoring; frequent drug testing; and swift, certain, and fair (SCF) sanctioning. It also reserves scarce treatment resources for those HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment most in need. The four sites offered heterogeneity in organizational relationships and populations as well as implementation that was rated very good to excellent-thus, providing a robust test of the HOPE supervision model. Recidivism results suggest that HOPE/SCF supervision was not associated with significant reductions in arrests over PAU with the exception of a reduction in drug-related arrests in one site. There were significant-albeit conflicting-differences in time to revocation, with survival models suggesting shorter times to revocation in two sites and longer times to revocation in one site. Policy ImplicationsHOPE-or the more general SCF approach to community supervision-has been widely praised as an evidence-based practice that reduces substance use, violations, new arrests, and revocations to prison. Substantial reductions in return to prison have been associated with claims of significant cost savings for HOPE/SCF over PAU despite the need for additional resources for warning and violation hearings, drug testing, and warrant service. Results from this recently completed, four-site randomized control trial (RCT) showed that recidivism arrest outcomes were largely similar between those on HOPE/SCF probation and those on PAU and are consistent with findings from the Delaware Decide Your Time (DYT) RCT reported in this issue. No differences in arrests between HOPE and PAU probationers suggest that HOPE can be implemented to provide greater adherence to an idealized probation in which violations are met with a swift (but non-draconian) response without compromising public safety. Nevertheless, the larger numbers of revocations for HOPE probationers in two sites, coupled with the additional expenses for drug testing, warrant service, and so on associated with HOPE, also suggest that overall cost savings may not be realized. Although additional research is needed to determine whether there are groups for whom HOPE may be more effective than PAU, HOPE/SCF seems unlikely to offer better outcomes and lower costs for broad classes of moderate-to-high-risk probationers.Volume 15 r Issue 4

Economic Evaluation of the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment

“…SCF, however, cannot be justified on other grounds as has been done, for example, by Kleiman, Hawken, and Halperin (). Or, as Lattimore and colleagues (: 29) have noted:

In many ways, HOPE/SCF probation is what many citizens envision as probation as usual—i.e., that individuals on community supervision are subject to a set of conditions to which they are expected to adhere. Failure to adhere to these conditions results in a response.

…”

“…Additionally, as pointed out by Lattimore et al. () and Drake (), both the effectiveness of an experimental intervention and any attendant cost savings are reflective not only of the intervention but also of the “compared to what”—the control or comparison condition. The DFE was characterized by both small variations in HOPE implementation across the sites and significant variation in PAU (see Lattimore et al., ).…”

“…For further information regarding HOPE DFE, including site selection, fidelity assessment procedures, eligibility, randomization, and the results of the outcome study, see Lattimore and colleagues (). A final report is by Lattimore, Dawes, MacKenzie, and Zajac ().…”

Benefits and Costs of “Swift, Certain, and Fair” Supervision

“…That is precisely the investigation that Alexander Cowell, Alan Barnosky, Pamela Lattimore, Joel Cartwright, and Matthew DeMichele (: 875–899) undertook, using a sample from the well‐regarded multisite demonstration field experiment, the Honest Opportunity Probation Enforcement program (HOPE DFE). The randomized controlled trial results showed no differences in recidivism for HOPE DFE participants compared with those in probation as usual (Lattimore, MacKenzie, Zajac, Dawes, Arsenault, and Tueller, ), and the findings from the benefit–cost analysis demonstrated no achieved criminal justice cost‐savings at three HOPE DFE sites, as well as a statistically significant increase in costs at one HOPE DFE site in the long‐run follow‐up. In her policy essay response to Cowell et al.…”

“…Interestingly, Lattimore et al. () and others have noted that some view SCF as what community supervision “should be” or “believe it to be” (Bartels, ; Lattimore et al., ). The TAU problem (Burns, ) has serious policy consequences by way of rejecting potentially effective programs like SCF (Hawken, ; Kleiman, ).…”