Like flies in amber, policies and programs that emerged from ways of thinking consistent with the crime-control politics of the 1980s continue to win support. Here is a popular example. More than 150 corrections programs have emulated Hawaii’s Project HOPE, a probation initiative based on “swift, fair, and certain” sanctions. Probationers are told that any breach of conditions will result in immediate sanctions, initially modest but progressing in severity with each subsequent breach, eventually resulting in revocation and a trip to prison for a period of years. An initial evaluation purported to show that probationers subjected to the program reoffended less often than others and were less likely to be imprisoned. NIJ funded a series of replications that were evaluated using randomized assignments of eligible offenders to treatment and control groups. The new evaluations concluded that the programs were ineffective.
Project HOPE was misconceived from the outset. “Swift, fair, and certain” is much more apt for conditioning dogs or horses than for dealing with disadvantaged low-level offenders, many drug-dependent or mentally ill, and most living socially disorganized lives. What they as a group need is structured access to diverse services and forms of support to help them address human capital deficiencies and establish pro-social patterns of living. Operation HOPE treated compliance with probation conditions as an end in itself.
HOPE is inconsistent with ways of thinking that are necessary if successful use of community punishments is to be greatly increased. HOPE is fundamentally punitive and indifferent to the complexities of the lives of the people it affects. A disadvantaged, socially inadequate person subjected to HOPE will remain a disadvantaged, socially inadequate person even if he or she successfully completes a probation term.
