Swift–Certain–Fair

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12258
• Date: 01 November 2016
• Published date: 01 November 2016
• Author: Mark A. R. Kleiman

COMMENTARY

HOPE COLLECTION

Swift–Certain–Fair

What Do We Know Now, and What Do We Need to Know?

Mark A. R. Kleiman

New York University

Three new reports in this issue contribute to our understanding of the “swift–

certain–fair” (SCF) approach to enforcing conditions of community corrections

(Hamilton, Campbell, van Wormer, Kigerl, and Posey, 2016; Lattimore et al.,

2016; O’Connell, Brent, and Visher, 2016). Applied at full scale to the community-

corrections system in Washington State, an SCF program improved substantially on

previous practice after a midcourse adjustment in the sanctions formula to discourage

absconding (Hamilton, van Wormer, Kigerl, Campbell, and Posey, 2015). Results in

Delaware were much less satisfactory; “Decide Your Time” (DYT) must largely be judged

a failure (O’Connell, Visher, Brent, Bacon, and Hines, 2013). In the four demonstration

field experiment (DFE) sites, which attempted to replicate more or less exactly Hawaii’s

Opportunity Probation and Enforcement (HOPE) program that has proven so successful,

results were mixed; SCF did not consistently reduce new arrests or revocations, which are

two critical outcome measures (Lattimore, 2016). Its effects on other outcomes (e.g., drug

use and total days behind bars) are less clear.

A variety of previous reports have shown success in programs implementing SCF

principles: the original Operation Tripwire for pretrial releasees in Washington, DC

(Hawken and Kleiman, 2009); the testing-and-sanctions arm of the DC Drug Court

experiment (Harrell, Cavanagh, and Roman, 2000); SWIFT for probationers in Tarrant

County, Texas (Snell, 2007); the pilot trial of SCF with parolees in Seattle (Hawken

and Kleiman, 2011); and 24/7 Sobriety for alcohol-involved offenders in South Dakota

(Kilmer, Nicosia, Heaton, and Midgette, 2013; Long, Dupont, and Talpins, 2010).

Reported results have included better and more lasting effects on drug use than most

treatment programs and reductions in crime, in revocations, and in days behind bars.

The author wishes to thank Bret Bucklen of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Beau Kilmer of

the RAND Corporation for helpful suggestions, as well as Richard Hahn for research assistance. Direct

correspondence to Mark A. R. Kleiman, Marron Institute for Urban Management, New York University, 60 Fifth

Avenue, New York, NY 10011 (e-mail: markarkleiman@nyu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12258 C2016 American Society of Criminology 1185

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 4