With close to half of prison admissions coming from probation and parole violations today, there is great potential to transform our criminal justice system through the re-examination and reform of parole and probation. Justice Reinvestment has already focused most of its attention on probation and probation revocations. One model that has gained much national attention is Hawaii's Oppurtunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Program, initiated by Judge Steven Alm of Hawaii.
Criminal justice scholar Mark Kleiman was recently invited to speak at Duke University on the matter of managing substance abuse in criminally-active populations. Kleiman spoke in favor of utilizing a model like the HOPE Program's, perking the ears of criminal justice policy makers, planners and practitioners.
The theory behind HOPE is simple, and its sucess is largely attributed to its simplicity: violation of probation and parole must be met with immediate and consistent punishment in order to sucessfully deter individuals from re-offending. Most commonly, this means several days in jail, which must occur promptly after the violation occurs. By enforcing a consistent and immediate response to violations, the HOPE program has proven to heighten the potential for offenders to successfully meet the terms of their probation or parole.
Kleiman contrasted HOPE with research based on California's Prop 36. In California, while 85% of offenders were getting assessed and 75% were entering treatment, the study found sporadic and unpredictable sanctions for violations.
Most of the treatment in California was low-intensity and the net completion rate (including those referred to treatment but never entering) was 25%. In other words, 25% of those the system intended to treat actually completed treatment. Prop 36 programs showed no reduction in rearrest.
By contrast, the HOPE program required:
*Abstinence
*Randomized Drug Testing
*Short, but consistent jail stays
*Prompt and reliable sanctions
*Formal treatment - usually residential - only on request or after multiple failures
One of Kleiman's conclusions from the research is that it's not a good idea to mandate treatment for every offender. This complements other research finding that targetting "low risk" offenders doesn't enhance outcomes.
One of the big differences in the HOPE approach, though, is that a triage system of treatment is established that is not based on assessment. It's based instead on failure in a structured and consistent monitoring program. Most people (80%) do well with such monitoring and when they consistently fail, there is a clear need for treatment.
Positive results from the HOPE program included:
*50% never tested positively or failed to show up
*Only 18% had a 4th violation
*There was a 50% reduction in new arrests
*No increase in jail days
*There was a 67% reduction in probation revocations
Carolina Justice Policy Center encourages thoughtful consideration across the community about the potential strengths and pitfalls of utilizing a model like the HOPE program. For more information, refer to a powerpoint from Mark Kleiman's presentation at Duke University. We'd love to know what you think as well. Send us your thoughts at info@justicepolicycenter.org. 
