Project HOPE

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12263
• Author: Daniel S. Nagin
• Date: 01 November 2016
• Published date: 01 November 2016

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

HOPE COLLECTION

Project HOPE

Does it Work?

Daniel S. Nagin

Carnegie Mellon University

Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, or Project HOPE, was con-

ceived by Judge Steven Alm and colleagues in 2004 in response to Judge Alm’s

frustrations with the failures of conventional probation (Alm, 2016, this is-

sue). A key element of the HOPE supervision protocol conceived by Judge Alm and his

collaborators in Hawaii’s Department of Probation was swift and sure but non-draconian

punishments for parole violations including testing “dirty” for drug use. Skeptics of such

zero-tolerance strategies would undoubtedly have predicted that still closer supervision of

probationers would backfire and only mire them still deeper in the criminal justice system.

A randomized trial of the HOPE strategy reported in Hawken and Kleiman (2009) found

just the opposite—not only did probationers in the HOPE condition have fewer parole

violations including positive drug tests, but they were also less likely to be arrested and

imprisoned for new crimes. The results of the Hawken and Kleiman evaluation set the stage

for the fast spread of HOPE-style programs throughout the continental United States from

its conception in far off rural Hawaii. Oleson (2016, this issue) reports that at least 160

HOPE-like replications have already taken place in the United States alone and that the

concept is getting much attention outside the United States.

In this special issue of Criminology & Public Policy, three recent evaluations of HOPE-

style probation supervision are reported. Twoinvolve randomized experiments. O’Connell,

Brent, and Visher (2016) report the results of an experiment in a small city in Delaware.

Latimore et al. (2016) report the findings of a major National Institute of Justice and

Bureau of Bureau of Justice Assistance–sponsored evaluation that supported experiments in

four U.S. communities from across the country. Neitherof these evaluations finds evidence

of HOPE’s effectiveness compared to probation as usual. A third evaluation conducted

by Hamilton, Campbell, van Wormer, Kigerl, and Posey (2016) is a quasi-experimental

Direct correspondence to Daniel S. Nagin, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue,

Hamburg Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (e-mail: dn03@andrew.cmu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12263 C2016 American Society of Criminology 1005

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 4