There are also efforts to expand alternative (or graduated) sanctions for violations, broadening officers’ tool-kits for responding to violations (Vera, 2013). These sanctions can include additional reporting burdens, participating in programming, attending “day reporting” centers, short-term confinement in violation centers, and extending probation terms. In many cases, these reforms are designed to intervene earlier in a supervisee’s history of violations, providing a mild sanction immediately following the violation rather than the pattern of ignoring a series of violations and then filing for revocation. Research suggests that such alternative sanctions can be just as effective in reducing future violations as jail terms, while ameliorating jail “churning” and easing local budgets (Wodahl, Boman, & Garland, 2015). One particularly salient example of a policy reform designed to reshape responses to probation violations is Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program, which uses “swift, certain, and fair” sanctions (typically a few days in jail) as an automatic response to all program violations (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009).