Study
To test the effectiveness of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) model, Lattimore and colleagues (2018) conducted a randomized controlled trial in four sites: 1) Clackamas County (Oregon City), Oregon; 2) Essex County (Salem), Massachusetts; 3) Saline County (Benton), Arkansas; and 4) Tarrant County (Fort Worth), Texas. The demonstration field experiment (DFE) was conducted in Arkansas, Oregon, and Texas in August 2012. It was conducted in Massachusetts in October 2012. One of the major goals of the DFE was to determine whether positive findings from a study of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement program could be replicated in new sites.
Cases for the HOPE DFE were identified in three ways. First, new probation cases were identified at the time of sentencing. After a person was sentenced to probation, the probation office administrator would collect basic information and refer the person on probation to either a HOPE probation officer or to intake/assessment personnel, who determined risk status (i.e., high, medium, or low) and eligibility to participate in HOPE. A study referral slip was completed, which included a sequential study identification number and the random study assignment (i.e., to the HOPE treatment group or control group), which was covered by a scratch-off label. If an individual consented to participate in the study, the label was then scratched off to reveal their random assignment. Second, some cases were identified for HOPE eligibility who were already on probation when the study started. These cases included individuals who were on probation less than 6 months but still had at least 1 year of supervision remaining. Third, in two sites (Arkansas and Texas), the HOPE program coordinator worked with the probation officer to generate a list of individuals sentenced to probation within the 6 months before the start of the DFE. Probation officers reviewed the list to identify HOPE-eligible cases. The referral slip was completed (as described above) for those eligible individuals and sent to the program coordinator.
Eligibility to participate in HOPE was based on the following criteria: 1) risk (risk assessment to determine HOPE eligibility was based on either risk screening or assessment, specifically The Ohio Risk Assessment System for Community Corrections, or a local variant, in Arkansas, Massachusetts and Texas, and the Level of Service Case Management Inventory for Community Corrections in Oregon); 2) substance use (although nondrug-involved individuals were also eligible); and 3) time parameters (HOPE eligibility was limited to individuals who had 1 year or more remaining on their probation sentences). Juveniles, non-English-speaking individuals, out-of-county or intrastate transfers, interstate compacts, and those assigned to some special caseloads were not eligible. Before random assignment to either the HOPE treatment group or the probation as usual (PAU) control group, all persons on probation were asked to complete a baseline audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI). A total of 1,504 individuals were randomized to HOPE (n = 743) or PAU (n = 761). The final sample sizes per site were 342 individuals in Arkansas, 392 individuals in Massachusetts, 394 individuals in Oregon, and 376 individuals in Texas.
The average age of DFE participants (across all four sites) at intake was 31 years, and the majority were male (81 percent). Most of the participants were deemed high risk (55 percent) or medium risk (24 percent), with the remaining classified as low risk (22 percent). Participants had been arrested an average of 7.3 times, with many showing prior arrests for person (56 percent), property (74 percent), drug (66 percent), and public order/other (77 percent) offenses. Of the participants, 69 percent were White, 16 percent were Black, 13 percent were Hispanic, and 2 percent identified as other. There were no statistically significant differences at baseline between the groups, except on individuals assessed as low risk. There were more low-risk participants in the PAU group (24 percent), compared with the HOPE group (19 percent).
The primary outcomes of interest were indicators of criminal recidivism, including any arrest charge, new convictions, and probation violations. Another outcome of interest was an indicator of substance use, measured as drug test results at the 12-month follow-up. Administrative data were collected from local and state agencies that provided information on compliance with conditions of supervision, drug test results, referrals to treatment, sanctions, arrests, jail days, and prison incarcerations. The ACASI interview was administered to study participants again at 12 months from baseline, in conjunction with an oral-swab drug test for a small subsample of the participants (72 HOPE probationers and 77 PAU probationers). The subsample was limited to only those who were interviewed and those who were asked to consent to the oral swab test. For roughly the first year of the evaluation, the study authors gave each site a schedule of random weeks during which study participants who were completing follow-up interviews could provide an oral swab, using a 50 percent random selection process. Toward the end of the evaluation, all participants were asked to provide an oral swab.
A comparison of outcome characteristics between groups (within and among sites) was analyzed using t-tests and analyses of variance. For the drug test outcome, analysis focused on those who participated in the oral swab drug testing, and the data were analyzed using logistic regression to examine the impact of HOPE participation on test outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted on the outcomes for recidivism for any arrest charge, new convictions, and any probation violations by site.
