Hawaii Opportunity Probation With Enforcement - Case Study Example

Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Topic Introduction What is probation? It is a long standing trait in criminal justice system in many states where a criminal or offender is released from detention, subject to a period of good behavior under supervision. It is approximated that, a third of offenders in the probation end up in prisons. In 2004, the Hawaii state court judge had to come up with a new way of supervising probationers that has shown the promise of reforming offenders and dropping costs created by the criminal justice as well as the public. the project initiated was namedHawaii Opportunity Probation in combination with Enforcement, or rather HOPE—uses a basically different move to the customary probation direction. Federal government should take this programme as a great step in criminal justice reforms (Hawken & Kleiman (2009) HOPE was made with a hypothetical foundation that emphasizes visibly on distinct behavioral expectations for probationers. Use of quick sanctions when probationers are not successful in complying with those expectations, together with elements of procedural justice which enables clear probation officers and supervising judges. Objectives Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) is a communal control for people who abuse drugs and other substances. The main aim of his project is to decrease the rate at which drugs are abused. Another objective of the HOPE was to prevent probates from relapsing into criminal behaviors. Even after probation some people would go back to their previous criminal behaviors. To reduce crime, a large number of criminals will undergo probation and correctional prisons, this is intended to reduce the rate of crime The other was to make sure that after a criminal passes the probation term with positive urine and blood tests for drugs, a probate is confined in prison, and that is after passing through all court process. To make sure that a probate passes through all the blood and urine test to indicate the quatity of drugs in the body and choose the best procedure for his treatment. That after probation the person undergoes a free and fair hearing with a defense attorney to represent him and fair judgment. To prove that Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement is the best way to help criminals who are also drug addicts The final objective was to make sure that the project was cost effective. The project has to determine the finance used for implementing Hope was less expensive (Hawken& Kleiman 2009). Subjects for study The people who HOPE targets are the probates with a history of abusing drugs for a very long time who are also in crime and their probability of them returned to custody for failing to be corrected is too high. A person is given a notification hearing in the presence of a judge. The judge crerifys what the probate is supposed to do or know, like the rules of probation will be read out, and the probate will be warned against breaking any of the rules. Once the probate is selected, he will be assigned to a group that takes tests on the level of drugs in his body. He is given an emergency number which he can call every morning for the color tests before reporting to the court at 2 pm. The tests are done for six times every month and upon succeeding, the frequent tests are reduced and he will be assigned to new color blood tests with fewer visits to the laboratory. This will be reduced when he shows his level of commitment to the programme is high. (Hawken, 2010). . Ethical considerations The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement is so much different from the other drug court programmes and institutions because it does not force people to partake it. It does not impose treatment on people who don’t want to take part in the excircise. It relies on a systematic Behavioral Triage Model, rather than require the usual probation where all probationers receive drug treatment that includes those without substance abuse disorders.The need to treat an offender is purely based on a long time experiential behavior signals, . Data collection method In this study, there were different methods used to collect the Data –Interview; the willing probate is interviewed to enable drugs users and why he wants to be held in probation. The interviewer will make sure the probate is an adult and is not pressured to be a probate. Questioner- a participant is required to fill a questioner that includes his age, identity, residence, nationality, sex and other important information that indicates the probate is doing this willingly. Testing, to specify the types of drugs being used by the probate, he undergoes a series of testing. Urinalysis and blood tests are done. To be able to qualify as a probate, one has to test positively to drug usage. Counting-in this study, total number the number of the probates was taken, the days they would spend on probation, counting the number of re-tests done to see the level of drugs in the urine and if the probate qualified for recidivism or revocation. After counting, it was recorded that Surveying- Information in the stakeholders’ survey data shows the year the surveys did and completed in September 2008 to 2009, although in November 2008-2009 is the year it was collected.. Evaluation-Those, who participated in the study, included probationers both men and women of the age of over eighteen years. The probationers were under the community organization by the Adult Client Services probation unit in Honolulu. Measurement From this study was the project successful? The study had 100%original samples. Compared to the control group, 55% fewer probates from HOPE were likely to be rearrested. There was a much lower rate of failed drug tests as compared to when HOPE had not started. Members of HOPE group had an average of 53% likely to have their probation revoked. To provide the evidence of its existence in the real world, HOPE operates in Honolulu’s Adult Client Services probation unit. The study had no model attrition: Organizational records were used to measure outcomes for 100% of the first sample. it was measured HOPE’s short-term effects through one year thus limited, and that is the time when most of the group members were still on probation continuing with the programme. In a complete study, short term effects should not be relied on to predict a long term effects. The positive effects of HOPE like decreasing arrests, incarcerations, and probation revocations may not mean that the same is done to the probates because the program intentionally changed the threshold of probationer. Done on a single site, only Honolulu, when effects of drugs and crime are a general thing Analysis HOPE programme has gained popularity in recent years. It is now implemented in many jurisdictions. Its popularity comes from the name HOPE; the name suggests the goal of the programme which is having hope. Another source of its popularity is the use of ’tough love’, the use of certain amount of toughness while the same time is applying love.It has been made popular by the good leadership if the founder- Judge Alm, strong advocacy by researchers and gaining legitimacy by criminologists The use of randomized control trial has made look a less lethal way to correct a criminal. Also, other types of probationers can also benefit from this programme. Initially, the programme was meant for methamphetamine users but now it can be used by other substance abusers like alcohol. HOPE programme can also work in a restricted geographical condition but by using GPS monitoring devices. The legislature should form a HOPE foundation in their respective countries, to reduce drug use, crime and other benefits of HOPE programme (Hawken 2010) HOPE programme has also some failures; it has failed to identify the alternative explanation of its success. Also, it is very difficult to locate another centre other than in Hawaii because specific conditions led to its establishment there. The runners of the HOPE program are not clear in emphasizing what is driving them to be popular. They have also failed to give the alternative of HOPE effectiveness, if it doesn’t work what next? Conclusion From this study we conclude that after the structuring of the HOPE programmed, there have been effectual ways to correct criminals and drug addicts. The procedure from testings to conviction has simplified the process that always looked hard to achieve. The programme is beneficial to the participant because he stops taking drugs, reduce the chances of doing drugs again and his sentence may be shortened after the probation. It is also beneficial to the community and the government; it reduces the number of drug addicts thus increasing the number of productive people in the society. It is cost effective because all correctional procedures are done at one place. References A., S., T, F., & M, S. (n.d.). Federal Probation. Project HOPE, Volume 78 Number 2. Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE: Executive Summary. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. http://www. ncjrs. gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229023. pdf. Hawken, A. (2010). Behavioral triage: A new model for identifying and treating substance-abusing offenders. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 3(1).). Read More