*The first violation leads to a stipulated agreement, and the second to fifth violations result in one to three days’ imprisonment. **The progressive sanctions in these jurisdictions include not only imprisonment but also variously changes to curfew, additional treatment requirements, additional reporting requirements, additional community service hours and extensions of the supervision period. Evaluations of HOPE and HOPE-like SCF programs There have been a number of positive evaluations of both HOPE and HOPE-like programs over the last decade. The Council notes, however, the recent publication of results from four evaluations of HOPE-like programs across the United States that have significantly shifted the evidence base for the effectiveness of HOPE-like programs. There is now strong evidence that, compared with ‘probation as usual’, HOPE-like programs do not necessarily reduce recidivism, rearrests, probation revocations or time spent in jail. HOPE itself has been positively evaluated several times. The first was an internal review of the pilot stage of the program in 2004. The second was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and process evaluation in 2009. The third was a 76-month follow-up of the 2009 evaluation. The results of these evaluations are outlined in Table 3. Table 3: Evaluations of HOPE Year Study Method Findings 2004 Comparison of outcomes for Probationers not on HOPE were significantly 940 probationers on HOPE more likely to have a positive drug test at with 77 probationers on both the three-month (28%) and six-month routine probation at three (15%) follow-ups.a and six months. 2009 Randomised Comparison of outcomes for After 12 months on the program, HOPE controlled trial 330 probationers on HOPE probationers were 55% less likely to be with 163 probationers on arrested for a new crime, 53% less likely to routine probation over 12 have their probation revoked, 72% less months. likely to test positive for illegal drugs and 61% less likely to miss appointments with their probation officers, and they spent 48% fewer days in prison.b 2009 Process Survey of stakeholders, Program implementation was rolled out evaluation including 211 HOPE largely as intended, variation between
*The first violation leads to a stipulated agreement, and the second to fifth violations result in one to three days’ imprisonment. **The progressive sanctions in these jurisdictions include not only imprisonment but also variously changes to curfew, additional treatment requirements, additional reporting requirements, additional community service hours and extensions of the supervision period. Evaluations of HOPE and HOPE-like SCF programs There have been a number of positive evaluations of both HOPE and HOPE-like programs over the last decade. The Council notes, however, the recent publication of results from four evaluations of HOPE-like programs across the United States that have significantly shifted the evidence base for the effectiveness of HOPE-like programs. There is now strong evidence that, compared with ‘probation as usual’, HOPE-like programs do not necessarily reduce recidivism, rearrests, probation revocations or time spent in jail. HOPE itself has been positively evaluated several times. The first was an internal review of the pilot stage of the program in 2004. The second was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and process evaluation in 2009. The third was a 76-month follow-up of the 2009 evaluation. The results of these evaluations are outlined in Table 3. Table 3: Evaluations of HOPE Year Study Method Findings 2004 Comparison of outcomes for 940 probationers on HOPE with 77 probationers on routine probation at three and six months. Probationers not on HOPE were significantly more likely to have a positive drug test at both the three-month (28%) and six-month (15%) follow-ups.a 2009 Randomised controlled trial Comparison of outcomes for 330 probationers on HOPE with 163 probationers on routine probation over 12 months. After 12 months on the program, HOPE probationers were 55% less likely to be arrested for a new crime, 53% less likely to have their probation revoked, 72% less likely to test positive for illegal drugs and 61% less likely to miss appointments with their probation officers, and they spent 48% fewer days in prison.b 2009 Process evaluation Survey of stakeholders, including 211 HOPE Program implementation was rolled out largely as intended, variation between