RTI International, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State University (PSU),proposes to extend the ongoing HOPE DFE Evaluation from the current 42-month period of performance(October 1, 2011March 31, 2015) to 54 months (October 1, 2011March 31, 2016). This extension will support evaluation of four HOPE DFE sites funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to provide a rigorous, independent test of HOPEs capacity to yield reductions in appointment noshows,positive drug tests, rearrests, revocations, and jail and prison days.
Research Goals and Objectives: The DFE is (1) evaluating implementation and fidelity
through a comprehensive process evaluation, (2) determining the effects of HOPE on outcomes through a rigorous outcome evaluation, and (3) assessing HOPE cost-effectiveness through a detailed economic analysis.
HOPE evaluation results will inform policy and practice on the effect of swift and certain punishments on drug use and arrests and will identify lessons for replication and sustainability.
Subjects: Approximately 400 medium- and high-risk probationers in each of four sites who have been randomly assigned to either the HOPE program or to probation as usual (PAU).
Research Design and Methods: The evaluation consists of a randomized controlled trial
(RCT) in which 400 HOPE-eligible probationers are being randomly assigned to HOPE or PAU in each of the four sites. Random assignment began in August 2012 (three sites) and October 2012 (one site) and has continued far past the 9-month enrollment period anticipated in our original
proposal because of limited case flow in the sites. This supplemental request will provide funds to continue enrollment until the target sample size of 400 is achieved or through September 30, 2014.
The cross-site HOPE protocol includes (1) assessing implementation fidelity and lessons learned (stakeholder interviews; warning hearing and court observation; and review of court, probation, and HOPE project records) and documenting PAU practices; (2) acquiring and processing administrative data on outcomes; (3) collecting interview data at study enrollment and at 6 and 12 months after enrollment on measures to facilitate understanding of individual change; (4) conducting random drug tests at follow-up; (5) enrolling subjects in a study component in which they call in twice weekly to respond to questions that will allow us to assess changes in attitudes; and (6) combining process, outcome, and cost data to assess cost-effectiveness.
Analyses: Mixed-effects analyses of variance and growth curve modeling.
Products, Reports, and Data Archiving: Practitioner- and research-focused research
briefs, manuscripts, conference presentations, final report, and documented data sets.
nca/ncf
