We consider the DFE a contribution to criminological research and therefore want its findings on HOPE clearly understood. The average effect of the intervention on criminal justice processing outcomes was zero, but site differences suggest that some outcomes varied by implementation success. And even with imperfect implementation at some sites, the DFE replicates a key finding of the initial trial, namely that HOPE significantly lowers drug use.
The DFE study also suggests that HOPE probation takes resources to implement, including sufficient time to create organizational buy in, simplify and smooth out procedures, and refine tactics for problematic situations. Of course, even once well-implemented, HOPE and SCF-type approaches more generally are still not always the appropriate approach for reducing substance use among people under community supervision. Indeed, as Kleiman et al. argued in this journal, there may be some individuals “whose substance-use disorder is so florid (or so entangled with serious mental illness) as to leave them with so little hope of success under a desistance mandate alone, or at so much risk of serious injury or death while on such a program”, that SCF would not be recommended. Rather than a panacea—that exist neither for addiction nor for crime—SCF is one effective tool that criminal justice agencies can use to help reduce drug consumption for those who use leads them threaten public health and safety.
We hope the DFE is just the beginning of a series of clinical trials focused on SCF. Indeed, many questions remain about the approach, ranging from the minimum level of sanction required to change behavior to the possible effect of combining these sanctions with the positive incentives typically used in contingency management studies conducted within addiction treatment programs. Future research should also compare the benefits and costs of SCF to other interventions common in criminal justice settings, like treatment mandates or drug courts.
