This article seeks to understand Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program through a desistance framework. The article commences with a brief overview of the literature on desistance and HOPE. It then explains how HOPE works. The main section of the paper describes observations of HOPE in action and the extent to which these align with McNeill et al.’s (2012) eight principles of desistance. The paper concludes with some observations on the HOPE program as a pathway towards hope, desistance and the promise of better communities.
AlmS (2013) A new continuum for court supervision. Oregon Law Review91: 1181–1190.
2.
AlmS (2016) HOPE Probation: Fair sanctions, evidence-based principles, and therapeutic alliances. Criminology and Public Policy15: 1195–1214.
3.
BartelsL (2015) Swift and certain sanctions: Is it time for Australia to bring some HOPE into the criminal justice system?Criminal Law Journal39: 53–66.
4.
BartelsL (2016) Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program: Looking through a therapeutic jurisprudence lens. QUT Law Review16: 30–49.
5.
BartelsL (2017) Swift, Certain and Fair: Does Project HOPE Provide a Therapeutic Paradigm for Managing Offenders?London: Palgrave Macmillan.
BourgonGGutierrezLAshtonJ (2011) The evolution of community supervision practice: The transformation from case manager to change agent. Irish Probation Journal8: 28–48.
8.
BurnettRMarunaS (2004) So ‘prison works’, does it? The criminal careers of 130 Men released from prison under Home Secretary, Michael Howard. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice43: 390–404.
9.
CarnsTMartinS (2011) Anchorage PACE Probation Accountability with Certain Enforcement: A Preliminary Evaluation of the Anchorage Pilot PACE Project. Anchorage: Alaska Judicial Council.
10.
ChadwickNDewolfASerinA (2015) Effectively training community supervision officers: A meta-analytic review of the impact on offender outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior42: 977–989.
11.
ClarkeRCornishD (1985) Modeling offenders’ decisions: A framework for research and policy. Crime and Justice6: 147–185.
12.
ClearTFrostN (2014), The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America. New York: New York University Press.
13.
CookP (2016) Behavioural science critique of HOPE. Criminology and Public Policy15: 1155–1161.
14.
CowellADeMicheleMBarnoskyALattimoreP (2016) What does HOPE cost?Paper presented at the 38th Association for Public Policy and Management Conference, Washington DC, November.
15.
CullenFPrattTTuranovicJ (2016) It’s hopeless: Beyond zero-tolerance supervision. Criminology and Public Policy15: 1215–1227.
16.
CullenFPrattTTuranovicJ (2017) The failure of swift-and-certain supervision: Choosing a more hopeful future, PerspectivesSpring: 66–78.
17.
DeVallKLanierCHartmannD (2015) Evaluation of Michigan’s Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program. Lansing: Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Office.
18.
DowdenCAndrewsD (2004) The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: a meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology48: 203–214.
19.
DuriezSCullenFManchakS (2014) Is Project HOPE creating a false sense of hope? A case study in correctional popularity. Federal Probation78: 57–70.
20.
FarrallSHunterBSharpeGCalverleyA (2014) Criminal Careers in Transition: Charting Pathways Through Change. London: Willan.
21.
GiordanoPCernkovichSRudolphJ (2002) Gender, crime and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology107: 990–1064.
22.
GlueckSGlueckE (1937) Later Criminal Careers. New York: Kraus.
23.
GrahamHMcNeillF (2017) Desistance: envisioning futures. In: CarlenPFrançaL (eds), Alternative Criminologies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 433–451.
24.
GrommonECoxSDavidsonWBynumT (2013) Alternative models of instant drug testing: Evidence from an experimental trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology9: 145–168.
25.
HamiltonZCampbellCvan WormerJ. (2016) Impact of swift and certain sanctions: Evaluation of Washington State’s policy for offenders on community supervision. Criminology and Public Policy15: 1009–1072.
26.
HamiltonZvan WormerJKigerlA. (2015) Evaluation of Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) Swift and Certain (SAC) Policy: Process, Outcome and Cost-benefit Evaluation. Pullman: Washington State University.
27.
HawkenAKleimanM (2009) Managing Drug-involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
28.
HawkenAKleimanM (2011) Washington Intensive Supervision Program Evaluation Report.
29.
HawkenAKulickJSmithK. (2016) HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaii’s HOPE Evaluation. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
30.
Institute of Behavior and Health (2015) State of the Art of HOPE Probation.
31.
KleimanM (2009) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32.
KleimanM (2011) Justice reinvestment in community supervision. Criminology and Public Policy10: 651–659.
KleimanM (2015) Substituting effective community supervision for incarceration. Minnesota Law Review99: 1621–1629.
35.
KleimanM (2016) Swift-certain-fair: What do we know now, and what do we need to know?Criminology and Public Policy15: 1185–1193.
36.
KleimanMKilmerBKleimanA (2017) Desistance mandates compared with treatment mandates in criminal justice populations. Addiction112: 748–750.
37.
KunkelTWhiteM (2013) Arkansas SWIFT Courts: Implementation Assessment and Long-term Evaluation Plan. National Center for State Courts.
38.
LattimorePMacKenzieDZajacG. (2016) Outcome findings from the HOPE demonstration field experiment: Is swift, certain, and fair an effective supervision strategy?Criminology and Public Policy15: 1103–1141.
39.
LeBelTBurnettRMarunaSBushwayS (2008) The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology5: 131–159.
40.
McNeillFWeaverB (2010) Changing Lives? Desistance Research and Offender Management. Strathclyde: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
41.
McNeillFFarrallSLightowlerCMarunaS (2012) How and Why People Stop Offending: Discovering Desistance. Glasgow: Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services.
42.
MarunaS (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
43.
MarunaS (2010) Understanding Desistance from Crime. London: UK Ministry of Justice.
44.
NaginD (2013) Deterrence in the twenty-first century: A review of the evidence. Crime and Justice42: 199–263.
45.
O’ConnellDBrentJVisherC (2016) Decide your time: A randomized trial of a drug testing and graduated sanctions program for probationers. Criminology and Public Policy15: 1073–1102.
46.
OlesonJ (2016) HOPE springs eternal: New evaluations of correctional deterrence. Criminology and Public Policy15: 1163–1183.
47.
RocqueM (2017) Desistance from Crime: New Advances in Theory and Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
48.
SampsonRLaubJ (1992) Crime and deviance in the life course. Annual Review of Sociology18, 63–84.
49.
SampsonRLaubJ (1993) Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. London: Harvard University Press.
50.
ShannonLHulbigSBirdwhistellS. (2015) Implementation of an enhanced probation program: Evaluating process and preliminary outcomes. Evaluation and Program Planning49: 50–62.
51.
ShaplandJFarrallSBottomsA (2016) Diversity or congruence: Sketching the future: An afterword. In: ShaplandJFarrallSBottomsA (eds), Global Perspectives on Desistance: Reviewing What We Know and Looking to the Future. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 282–293.
52.
SnellC (2007) Fort Bend County Community Supervision and Corrections Special Sanctions Court Program: Evaluation Report. Houston: University of Houston.
53.
Stevens-MartinK (2014) The Supervision with Immediate Enforcement (SWIFT) Court: Tackling the issue of high-risk offenders and chronic probation violators. Corrections TodaySeptember/October: 74–77
54.
Van GinnekenE (2017) Constrained agency: The role of self-control in the process of desistance. In: HartEvan GinnekenE, New Perspectives on Desistance: Theoretical and Empirical Developments. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 241–266.
55.
WexlerD (2001) Robes and rehabilitation: How judges can help offenders ‘make good’. Court ReviewSpring: 18–23.
56.
ZajacGLattimorePDawesDWingerL (2015) All implementation is local: Initial findings from the process evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement. Federal Probation79: 31–36.
57.
ZajacGArsenaultEDawesDBrumbaughS (2016) Implementation fidelity and experiences at four HOPE DFE site. Paper presented at the 38th Association for Public Policy and Management Conference, Washington DC, November.
