Table Of ContentS W I F T ,
C E R T A I N
A N D F A I R
Does Project HOPE Provide a
Therapeutic Paradigm for Managing Offenders?
L O R A N A B A R T E L S
Swift, Certain and Fair
Lorana Bartels
Swift, Certain and
Fair
Does Project HOPE Provide
a Therapeutic Paradigm
for Managing Offenders?
Lorana Bartels
Head School of Law and Justice
University of Canberra, Australia
Bruce, ACT
Australia
ISBN 978-3-319-58444-7 ISBN 978-3-319-58445-4 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58445-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017943471
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein
or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover image: Pall Jokull
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to Tim, Maxie and Amelia
Foreword
Judge Steven Alm conceived the idea for Hawaii’s Opportunity
Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Program in 2004. The basic
premise is that offenders who violate the conditions of their probation
should receive a sanction that is modest, but swift and certain (SAC),
also known as swift, certain and fair (SCF). I first heard about HOPE
in 2013, when one of the program’s evaluators, Prof. Mark Kleiman,
came to speak about it at the Australian Institute of Criminology. As
soon as Kleiman described the program and, in particular, its impressive
results in reducing reoffending and substance abuse,1 I knew this was
unlike anything I had heard about before. I am used to reading about
programs that result in a 5% or 10% reduction in recidivism, but the
figures Kleiman presented were of a different order of magnitude alto-
gether.
At the same time, much of how the program works contradicted all
the things I took to be integral to the criminal justice system, such as
judicial discretion and individualized justice, both of which are hall-
marks of Australian sentencing law. The potential for net-widening (i.e.,
sending people to prison who otherwise wouldn’t have been likely to be
exposed to it) also loomed large. By the end of the presentation, I was
vii
viii Foreword
buzzing with both excitement and confusion. I had a brief chat with
Kleiman, but ultimately dismissed the program as a quirky model pecu-
liar to Hawaii, and gave it no further thought.
In 2014, I was engaged by the government in the jurisdiction in
which I live, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), to help advise
on what form of intensive supervised probation (ISP) it should adopt
to replace weekend detention. In my discussions with the ACT
Government, I mentioned that I had heard about the SAC model of
supervision, and we agreed that my report would include consideration
of HOPE. I later expanded the relevant section of the ensuing report2
into a stand-alone article3. I also published a short summary in a widely
read online Australian publication, gave an invited presentation to the
ACT Bar Association and discussed it on national radio.4
After I had written my report and my 2015 article was in press, the
American Federal Probation journal published an article by Duriez,
Cullen and Manchak,5 criticizing the model. This was followed in the
same issue by a reply by Kleiman, Kilmer and Fisher6 and a rejoinder by
the original critics.7 This only served to further pique my interest, and I
secured a book contract from Palgrave to explore the issue further. I also
decided it would be helpful to see HOPE in action, so I visited Hawaii
in January 2016 to observe court hearings and meet with Judge Alm,
as well as the lawyers, probation officers and court staff involved with
the program.8 Alm also organized for me to speak with a man who had
graduated from HOPE and took me to visit a drug treatment center
where 70–80% of clients are generally involved in the criminal justice
system. What I observed and my discussions with relevant stakeholders
indicated that many of the criticisms of HOPE are founded on misun-
derstandings about the program. In particular, its therapeutic and reha-
bilitative aspects have been undersold to date.9
In order to test the transferability and impact of HOPE in other
contexts, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) provided funding in
2011 for four so-called demonstration field experiment (DFE) sites
to implement programs based on HOPE and for these programs to
be evaluated by a respected research team. While I was drafting this
book, the long-term evaluation of HOPE10 was released. More sig-
nificant still was the release of a special issue of the American Society
Foreword ix
of Criminology’s Criminology and Public Policy in November 2016.
Entitled the ‘HOPE collection,’ it included Lattimore et al.’s11 negative
findings from the DFE evaluation and O’Connell, Brent and Visher’s12
negative results from another program based on HOPE, Delaware’s
Decide Your Time (DYT) program, as well as Hamilton et al.’s13
positive findings of a third program based on the HOPE model,
Washington State’s Swift and Certain program. These evaluations were
accompanied by several commentary pieces on the three evaluations and
‘Project HOPE’ more generally.14
This book attempts to distill the principal lessons from the evalua-
tions and analyses, but as Nagin acknowledged in his introduction to
the HOPE collection,
there is no easily implementable “silver bullet” whether in the form of a
punitive tactic or a treatment program that can materially reduce recidi-
vism…an effective strategy for managing probationers cannot be reduced
to a 30-second elevator pitch.15
Nevertheless, the evolution and rapid uptake of HOPE across the
USA, as well as interest from policy-makers in Australia, New Zealand
and the UK, suggest that the HOPE model is here to stay and there-
fore warrants detailed discussion. Properly understood, it also offers the
potential for a hopeful and therapeutic future in offender management.
Canberra, Australia Lorana Bartels
Notes
1. A . Hawken and M. Kleiman (2009), Managing drug involved proba-
tioners with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE,
National Institute of Justice (NIJ).
2. L . Bartels (2014), Literature review on intensive supervision orders: A
report prepared for the ACT Justice and Community Safety Directorate,
University of Canberra.
x Foreword
3. L . Bartels (2015c), ‘Swift and certain sanctions: Is it time for Australia
to bring some HOPE into the criminal justice system?’ Criminal Law
Journal, 39: 53–66.
4. S ee L. Bartels (2015a), ‘Swift and certain sanctions—A new HOPE
for Australia?’ (Paper presented at the ACT Bar Association Annual
Conference, 7 March, Canberra); L. Bartels (2015b), ‘Swift and certain
sanctions: Does Australia have room for HOPE?’, The Conversation, 16
June https://theconversation.com/swift-and-certain-sanctions-does-aus-
tralia-have-room-for-hope-40158; See also A. Barraud (2015), ‘Hawaii
shows the way in swift and certain justice’, The Law Report, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation, 30 June http://www.abc.net.au/radiona-
tional/programs/lawreport/swift-and-certain-justice/6581718; J. Story
Carter (2015), ‘Could Hawaii’s ice solution give Australia hope?’ Radio
National Law Report, 2 July http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro-
grams/lawreport/could-hawaii-chrystal-meth-program-give-australia-
hope/6586738.
5. S . Duriez, F. Cullen and S. Manchak (2014), ‘Is Project HOPE cre-
ating a false sense of hope? A case study in correctional popularity’,
Federal Probation, 78: 57–70.
6. M . Kleiman, B. Kilmer and D. Fisher (2014), ‘Response to Stephanie
A. Duriez, Francis T. Cullen, and Sarah M. Manchak: Theory and evi-
dence on the swift-certain-fair approach to enforcing conditions of
community supervision’, Federal Probation, 78: 71–74.
7. F . Cullen, S. Manchak and S. Duriez (2014), ‘Before adopting Project
HOPE, read the warning label: A rejoinder to Kleiman, Kilmer and
Fisher’s Comment’, Federal Probation, 78: 75–77.
8. Th is project has approval from the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the University of Canberra, Australia (HREC 15–264).
9. L . Bartels (2016), ‘Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement
(HOPE) Program: Looking through a therapeutic jurisprudence
lens’, QUT Law Review: Special Issue on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 16:
30–49.
10. A . Hawken et al. (2016), HOPE II: A follow-up to Hawaii’s HOPE
evaluation, NIJ.
11. P . Lattimore et al. (2016a), ‘Outcome findings from the HOPE
Demonstration Field Experiment: Is swift, certain, and fair an effec-
tive supervision strategy?’ Criminology and Public Policy, 15: 1103–
1141.
Foreword xi
12. D . O’Connell, J. Brent and C. Visher (2016), ‘Decide your time: A
randomized trial of a drug testing and graduated sanctions program
for probationers’, Criminology and Public Policy, 15: 1073–1102.
13. Z . Hamilton et al. (2016), ‘Impact of swift and certain sanctions:
Evaluation of Washington State’s policy for offenders on community
supervision’, Criminology and Public Policy, 15: 1009–1072.
14. S . Alm (2016), ‘HOPE Probation: Fair sanctions, evidence-based
principles, and therapeutic alliances’, Criminology and Public Policy,
15: 1195–1214; P. Cook (2016), ‘Behavioral science critique of
HOPE’, Criminology and Public Policy, 15: 1155–1161; F. Cullen,
T. Pratt and J. Turanovic (2016), ‘It’s hopeless: Beyond zero-toler-
ance supervision’, Criminology and Public Policy, 15: 1215–1227; A.
Hawken (2016), ‘All implementation is local’, Criminology and Public
Policy, 15: 1229–1239; M. Kleiman (2016a), ‘Swift-certain-fair: What
do we know now, and what do we need to know?’ Criminology and
Public Policy, 15: 1185–1193; J. Oleson (2016), ‘HOPE springs eter-
nal: New evaluations of correctional deterrence’, Criminology and
Public Policy, 15: 1163–1183; V. Schiraldi (2016), ‘Confessions of a
failed “HOPE-er”’, Criminology and Public Policy, 15: 1143–1153.
15. D . Nagin (2016), ‘Project HOPE: Does it work?’ Criminology and
Public Policy, 15: 1005–1007, 1006.
