All Implementation Is Local: Initial Findings From the Process Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation With Enforcement (HOPE) Demonstration Field Experiment

• NCJ Number: 249317
• Author(s): Gary Zajac, Pamela K. Lattimore, Debbie Dawes
• Date Published: June 2015
• Length: 6 pages
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored

Annotation

This article reports on the process evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Demonstration Field Experiment (DFE), which consists of four pilot programs funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Institute of Justice to test the effectiveness of programs that are replicating the Hawaii HOPE program.

Abstract

The HOPE model, which was developed in 2004 in Hawaii, is a probation program that emphasizes close monitoring of probationers, which includes frequent drug testing and certain, swift, and consistent sanctioning for violations. The HOPE model contrasts with more traditional approaches to probation in which multiple violations of conditions and positive drug tests are tolerated. Substance abuse treatment is included in the HOPE model, but is reserved for probationers who repeatedly fail the drug tests. HOPE also requires probationers to comply with all other supervision conditions, including appointments with probation officers. The process evaluation focused on the extent to which the pilot programs were implemented in accordance with the features of the HOPE model. The evaluation found that although there are common implementation themes across the four pilot sites, the administrative, political, and jurisdictional characteristics of each site emerged as a significant influence on the HOPE model’s implementation at each site. The full importance of these varying implementation procedures cannot be identified until the outcome evaluation is complete, which should enable researchers to link various implementation features of the HOPE model to specific program effects. As of the writing of this article, findings from the outcome evaluation were not yet available. The process evaluation methodology is described. 1 figure and 16 references