Program Profile: Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE)

This is a community supervision strategy that includes swift, certain, and fair responses to probation violations. The program is rated Ineffective. The treatment group had a statistically significant lower likelihood of having a positive drug test at the 12-month follow-up, but a statistically significant greater number of probation violations, compared with the control group. There were no statistically significant effects on recidivism (any arrest) or new convictions.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals/Target Population

Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) is a community supervision strategy that includes close monitoring; random drug testing; and swift, certain, and fair sanctions in response to any noncompliance of the conditions of probation, such as positive drug tests, which are meant to deter persons on probation from violating. The HOPE model focuses on increasing the chances that probation violations are detected and immediately punished (increasing the certainty and swiftness of sanctions). The goals of HOPE include reducing recidivism of high- and medium-risk persons on probation and the costs of incarceration associated with revocations and returns to prison, as they change their negative behaviors in response to the sanctions.

The HOPE 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, which also employed random drug testing and imposed immediate graduated sanctions for violations.

Program Components

The HOPE program begins with a warning hearing before the HOPE judge, where expectations are outlined for persons on probation, including the drug-testing requirements and consequences for violations. The individual is warned that any violation of the conditions of supervision (such as a positive drug test or lateness to office visits) will result in a hearing with the judge and a response to the violation, which usually begins with a few days in jail and then increases with subsequent violations.

After the hearing, they call in daily to a drug-testing hotline to determine whether they must report to provide a urine sample. Initially, the random drug tests are conducted twice a week or between four and six times a month. If they have multiple clean tests, the number of tests is reduced through a schedule that is set by the program (although they still have to have at least one drug test per month). Positive drug tests result in immediate short jail stays, whereas missed drug tests result in warrants, arrests, and short jail stays. Those who repeatedly fail drug tests are required to begin drug treatment, either in a residential placement or in the community, to allow limited treatment resources only for individuals who are not able to stop using drugs on their own.

HOPE probation officers are expected to monitor compliance with all other conditions of supervision (such as office visits, community services, or payment of any fines or restitution). Any violators are referred for warning hearings. Violations are addressed through sanctions that are graduated, with each successive violation receiving a harsher sanction (for example, 5 days instead of 3 days in jail).

Although the four sites involved in the HOPE program implemented many components from the original Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement model, there were some variations. For example, while the sites followed prescribed schedules of drug testing, not all of the sites followed other aspects of the model such as targeting high- or medium-risk persons or ensuring a swift time to court hearings when they violate conditions of supervision (Lattimore et al. 2016). View the program profile on Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement.

Program Theory

The underlying framework of the HOPE model is based on helping persons on probation develop an understanding of the relationship between their behavior and official responses to that behavior. They learn that violations will be addressed through sanctions, even if the severity of those sanctions is low (such as a few days in jail). This approach incorporates elements of deterrence theory, as well as condition and learning theories, which aim to teach them that violations to supervision conditions have consequences and should result in changes in their attitudes and in perceptions of individual control over consequences, fairness, and legitimacy (Lattimore et al. 2016).

Additional Information: Negative Effects on Participants

Lattimore and colleagues (2018) found that across all four sites there were no statistically significant differences between those in HOPE, compared with those in the probation as usual (PAU) control group, in number of arrests for any charge and number of new convictions. Although individuals in the HOPE group had statistically significantly lower odds of a positive drug test, the findings also showed that HOPE probationers had a statistically significant greater number of probation violations, compared with PAU probationers.

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.

Cowell and colleagues (2018) conducted a cost analysis of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program using data from the demonstration field experiment (DFE) conducted by Lattimore and colleagues (2016). The study focused on 625 probation cases, which had 24 months of data. Of these persons on probation, 311 were in the probation-as-usual (PAU) group, and 314 were in the HOPE group. Costs included office visits, drug tests, violation hearings, arrests, jail time, prison time, and residential drug treatment. The results showed that the per-person costs of the HOPE program were greater than the PAU (within each site), and cost differences increased over time. The cost differences also varied by site. For example, in Arkansas, the average cost per person was $4,126 in the PAU group, compared with $4,630 per person in the HOPE group. In Texas, the average cost per person was $5,951 in the PAU group, compared with $10,693 per person in the HOPE group.

To assess the implementation fidelity of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) model that was implemented across the four different sites, Lattimore and colleagues (2016) broke down the program model into a set of fidelity items that represented the essential elements of HOPE. The authors then measured the extent to which each site put those elements into practice. The key program elements included 1) leadership, 2) persons on probation who were assessed as high (or medium) risk, 3) warning hearing compliance, 4) initial drug testing frequency, 5) stepped down drug-testing frequency, 6) exceptions for missed drug testing, 7) time to violation hearing, 8) sanction type, 9) sanction dosage, 10) sanction certainty, and 11) sanction swiftness. Data on these elements were collected by each site’s program coordinator. Based on prior implementation science research, the authors examined fidelity at a 60-percent level and at a higher threshold of 80 percent.

The findings showed that implementation varied by site. Each site met the 60-percent fidelity standard on at least 9 of the 11 items, and each site met the 80-percent standard on at least half of the items. This suggests there was moderate to high fidelity of the HOPE model across the four sites.

A process evaluation by Zajac and colleagues (2015) provided additional, detailed information about the implementation process across the four sites.

Subgroup Analysis

Lattimore and colleagues (2018) examined the outcomes for recidivism for any arrest, new convictions, and any probation violations by site. HOPE probationers had statistically significantly fewer recidivism arrests in Arkansas and Texas, compared with probation as usual (PAU) probationers. PAU probationers in Arkansas were statistically significantly less likely to have a probation violation than HOPE probationers. For new convictions, HOPE probationers in Arkansas showed a statistically significant greater likelihood of having a new conviction, compared with PAU probationers. There were no statistically significant differences in new convictions for types of offenses (person, property, drug, and public order/other offenses). HOPE probationers in Texas showed a statistically significant lower likelihood of having a new drug conviction, compared with PAU probationers. There were no other statistically significant site differences.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Cowell, A.J., A. Barnosky, Pamela K. Lattimore, J.K. Cartwright, and M. DeMichele. 2018. “Economic Evaluation of the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment.” Criminology & Public Policy 17(4):875–99.

Humphreys, Keith, and Beau Kilmer. 2020. “Still HOPEful: Reconsidering a ‘Failed’ Replication of a Swift, Certain, and Fair Approach to Reducing Substance Use Among Individuals Under Criminal Justice Supervision.” Addiction 115:1973–77.

Lattimore, Pamela K., Doris Layton MacKenzie, Gary Zajac, Debbie Dawes, Elaine Arsenault, and Stephen Tueller. 2016. “Outcome Findings From the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment: Is Swift, Certain, and Fair an Effective Supervision Strategy?” Criminology & Public Policy 15(4):1103–41.

Zajac, Gary, Pamela K. Lattimore, Debbie Dawes, and Laura Winger. 2015. “All Implementation Is Local: Initial Findings From the Process Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Demonstration Field Experiment.” Federal Probation 79(1):31–36.