Honolulu prosecutor’s push for a different kind of probation has failed to win over critics — so far

Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Steve Alm, running uncontested for reelection this year, said one of his goals for a second term is to quickly reinstate HOPE probation — a model that ensures predictable and immediate sanctions, usually resulting in a few days or more in jail, for those who violate their probation conditions.

Alm started the program, which stands for Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, as a judge in 2004 with Cheryl Inouye, who is now his senior advisor. He swears by its strength at reducing recidivism and changing probationer behavior.

He called it “the greatest program I’ve ever been involved in” during a recent interview.

The state largely stopped using HOPE during the Covid-19 pandemic because of the court’s reluctance to place more people in jail where the virus could easily spread, he said. Alm is determined to bring it back, though, despite studies that have emerged in recent years showing varying results.

Some community activists also object to the program’s focus on using jail time as a sanction, no matter how short the sentences might be. And the state Judiciary in 2023 opposed a bill that would have re-established the program in the courts, citing in testimony the additional resources it would require and raising questions about whether it is still considered best practice.

But Alm says critics of HOPE are too focused on the sanctions aspect of the program and not on its rehabilitative effects. He also said places that haven’t seen success with HOPE likely didn’t understand the program fully before implementing it.

“The beauty of HOPE is it’s short but immediate” sanctions, he said. “Swift, certain, consistent and proportionate. Regular probation, it’s uncertain, it’s delayed.”

Studies Show Varied Results

Alm is passionate about HOPE and eager to talk about what he sees as its extremely promising results. He said the strategy behind it is similar to how one might raise a child.

“If you did something wrong, your parents did something about it immediately,” he said. “And then you could pair a bad choice with a consequence. It doesn’t have to be severe, but it has to be quick and consistent and proportionate.”

All too often under the regular system, probationers aren’t given any consequences for violations, Alm said. They’re let off after a positive drug test, for instance, with a slap on the wrist. So they continue to violate the terms of their probation until it eventually gets revoked, which can result in the imposition of their original prison sentence.

But under HOPE, violators are given less-severe sanctions quickly and predictably, he said. For example after a positive drug test, a probationer who admits to drug use will be arrested immediately and given two days in jail.

“You screwed up by using, but you didn’t run away, and you’re not lying about it,” Alm said. “So that’s progress. And what we’re trying to get them to do is make better choices. And unless there’s a negative impact for a bad choice, they’re never going to stop doing it.”

A study launched in 2007 and published in 2009 by researchers from Pepperdine University and the University of California Los Angeles, showed the program had positive results.

HOPE probationers spent an average of 112 days in prison compared with 303 days for a control group in regular probation, according to the study. The HOPE group had their probation revoked 9% of the time, versus 31% for the regular group.

HOPE participants also had large reductions in positive drug tests and missed appointments, the study found. And while they averaged around the same number of days in jail as regular probationers, they served more frequent and shorter terms and were less likely to be arrested at three months, six months and a year.

But a follow-up study of four iterations of the program in counties on the mainland did not produce such positive results.

The 2018 study by researchers with the nonprofit institute Research Triangle International and Pennsylvania State University looked at HOPE pilots in Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas; Saline County, Arkansas; and Essex County, Massachusetts.

They found 89% of HOPE probationers committed violations compared with 82% of those in a regular probation control group. They also found that 25% of HOPE participants had their probation revoked, compared with 22% of regular probationers, and 28% of HOPE participants were convicted again versus 26% of the control group.

There were some positive findings for HOPE — only 30% of those participants missed a probation officer visit versus 44% of the control group, and 40% of HOPE probationers were rearrested compared with 44% of the control group.

Researchers said overall the program didn’t reduce recidivism, despite high expectations.

“HOPE probation has been widely promoted and adapted as a means for substantially improving probation outcomes while generating cost savings,” the study says. “The findings of this rigorous, four-site randomized controlled trial suggest otherwise.”

Researchers also looked at cost and found the price of two-year supervision was significantly higher for HOPE probationers than regular probationers at all four study sites.

In Arkansas, the average cost of supervision for a regular probationer was $6,563 compared with $7,901 for HOPE; in Massachusetts, $13,425 per probationer versus $17,672 for HOPE; in Oregon, $14,588 for regular probationer compared with $17,564 for HOPE; and in Texas, the average supervision cost was $9,392 per regular probationer and $15,038 per HOPE participant.

Spokespeople from each site location either did not respond to requests for comment or said no one was available to speak who had knowledge of their county’s HOPE pilot.

The only state from the study that appears to still be using a version of HOPE is Massachusetts, where the program is called HOPE/MORR (Massachusetts Offender Recidivism Reduction) Project. The program places high risk probationers under intensive supervision and “swift, certain, and measured sanctions” are given out to violators for missed appointments, failed drug tests and not meeting probation conditions.

As of 2015, 28 states had some version of HOPE probation or a comparable program, according to a study by the Maryland-based Institute for Behavior and Health. The study didn’t evaluate probationer outcomes in the various states, but rather surveyed them on how thoroughly they were implementing their programs.

Researchers found that, on average, states had adopted just 10 of 14 of the elements needed to make HOPE work. For example, just 13% were implementing consistent sanctions and 75% were holding swift violation hearings.

Alm said those sites that haven’t had success with HOPE didn’t collaborate with Hawaii to learn how to do it properly.

“It’s like if somebody heard about hula, never came out here or didn’t get a kumu hula to teach people,” he said. “Maybe they watched it on TV, and then they try to set up a hula halau in Nebraska or something. And then it isn’t as good, they’re going to say, ‘This hula stuff doesn’t work.’”

HOPE At Home

But not everyone in Hawaii agrees with HOPE’s premise, either.

In 2023, the Judiciary “strongly” opposed HB122, which proposed to implement HOPE probation statewide.

In written testimony, representatives of the Judiciary said the pre-determined jail sanctions for probation violations didn’t give enough consideration to individual defendants’ life circumstances and what could lead them to re-commit crimes. As a result, the pre-set punishments could be too lenient for high-risk offenders or unnecessarily harsh for others, they said.

The Judiciary acknowledged the positive results of the initial HOPE study. But it said more recent research has shown jail time is no more or less effective than community-based sanctions at addressing drug-related offenses, and it is not considered “evidence-based practice” to impose mandatory, uniform jail sanctions, as required by HOPE. Implementation of the program would also require an additional courtroom, more staff and added funding.

“In conclusion, a review of the numerous studies conducted subsequent to the 2007 Hawaiʻi HOPE study, the total lack of evidence supporting the use of a one size fits all solution for probation supervision, and a review of our own practices make clear that the proposed codified jail sanction program for technical violations is not the panacea it purports to be,” the testimony says.

“While the Judiciary believes in swift consequences, we also know from our experience and the most current research that it is far more beneficial to be able to use all options at our disposal to rehabilitate an offender and maintain public safety.”

Judiciary spokeswoman Jan Kagehiro said no one was available to discuss HOPE probation but sent a statement from the Judiciary saying it stands by its previous testimony.

“National studies of HOPE indicated a one-size-fits-all approach, that effectively eliminates a judge’s discretion, to reduce recidivism does not work, and is not in the best interest of many defendants,” the statement says. “The Judiciary’s own internal review was consistent with these national studies.”

The statement says Alm asked the Judiciary to reinstate a HOPE pilot program, but did not say whether the court system plans to do so.

“As noted in the testimony, the Judiciary remains committed to exploring all evidence-based options to reduce recidivism, increase public safety and rehabilitate offenders in collaboration with all our stakeholders,” the statement says.

But Alm said he already discussed plans with First Circuit Judge Ronald Johnson to bring back HOPE. He said he was disappointed in the Judiciary’s response and believes its evaluation of the program leans too much on data from the mainland where it may not have been implemented properly. He cited local data showing Native Hawaiians and women performed significantly better under HOPE than regular probation.

“Why you would not want to pursue that strategy is baffling to me,” he said. “It’s a little extra work. So what? I won’t give up.”

Multiple former participants testified in support of the 2023 bill, including David Makilan, who said he was unsuccessful on regular probation but succeeded under HOPE after a few initial violations for missed appointments and failing to call in for his random drug screening. He said the swift consequences helped open his eyes to the changes he needed to make.

“I did have to spend a couple of hours in a holding cell and I believe one weekend at” Oahu Community Correctional Center, he said. “Although this sounds crazy, I believe it’s a good approach, addressing the little things that can turn into big concerns.”

Some community groups, though, said they opposed the model for its emphasis on jail-based sanctions.

“It takes a very zero-tolerance approach to probation,” said Taylor Brack, staff attorney with the ACLU of Hawaii.

Kat Brady, coordinator of the state’s Community Alliance on Prisons, said any jail time can negatively impact a person’s mental health and derail their progress.

“We need to understand that even one, two or three days in jail can impact somebody’s life forever,” she said. “They could lose their job. Most times it’s the breadwinner of the family, so then we put families at risk because they have nothing to feed their kids.”

___

This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.