Version Date: Jul 6, 2011 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Angela Hawken, Pepperdine University
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27921.v1
Version V1
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.
Export Citation:
none
A downloadable version of data for this study is available however, certain identifying information in the downloadable version may have been masked or edited to protect respondent privacy. Additional data not included in the downloadable version are available in a restricted version of this data collection. For more information about the differences between the downloadable data and the restricted data for this study, please refer to the codebook notes section of the PDF codebook. Users interested in obtaining restricted data must complete and sign a Restricted Data Use Agreement, describe the research project and data protection plan, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Secondary users should be aware that there may be differences between the data being distributed as part of this data collection and the analyses and findings published in the project's report (Hawken and Kleiman, 2009; NCJ 229023). Specifically,
The final report references additional race categories and specific drugs types for which probationers tested positive. This information is not contained in the Part 1 or Part 2 datasets.
There are differences in case counts between the Part 1 and Part 2 data being distributed as part of this data collection (1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available) and the size of the study groups in the final report (1,017 probationers including 940 HOPE probationers and 77 comparison probationers).
The final report references four secondary outcome measures (jail-days served, prison-days sentenced, recidivism, and revocation rates) which are not contained in the data for this collection.
Data from the court record analyses to study the number of court hours dedicated to HOPE are not contained in the data as part of this data collection, including data on the court time dedicated to HOPE Motions-to-Modify and the court time dedicated to warning hearings.
Stakeholder survey data from the 117 Adult Client Services probationers are not contained in the data as part of this data collection.
Information in the stakeholders survey data (Part 3-Part 10) indicate that the surveys were completed between September 2008 and March 2009, however the final report indicates that the surveys were collected between November 2008 and April 2009.
Data from the randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HOPE that was launched in October 2007 are not contained in the data as part of this data collection.
For Part 1 and Part 2, ICPSR created the CASEID "CASE IDENTIFIER CREATED BY ICPSR" variable, which is a unique identifier for each line (i.e. record) in that data file. The datasets cannot be linked using the CASEID variable or any other variable in the datasets.
Launched in 2004, Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program aimed to reduce crime and drug use among criminal offenders. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. Specifically, the study sought to test the efficacy of HOPE relative to Probation-as-Usual (PAU) on the probation-compliance outcomes of drug use and attending scheduled appointments. The researchers also aimed to document the successes and difficulties of implementing HOPE, through a process evaluation.
The Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program relied on a mandate to abstain from illicit drugs, backed by swift and certain sanctions and preceded by a clear and direct warning. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use.
For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from two administrative data sources: PROBER and the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). PROBER was the case-management system used by the probation offices in Hawaii (and in many other probation offices around the country) and included detailed records on probationer-supervision episodes, drug-test results, offenses, motions, and many other probationer interactions with the criminal-justice system. CJIS included comprehensive criminal-record data.
To ensure accuracy of data collection from the administrative data sources, a data supervisor from the research team was assigned to oversee quality control. Two data-consistency checks were implemented: (1) A random sample of probationer hard copy files was compared with PROBER to ensure that PROBER records were comprehensive, and (2) the records of captured data were double checked (by a separate coder also from the research team) against PROBER. Very few discrepancies were detected, but, when found, were corrected.
Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline.
Drug tests were conducted onsite at the probation office in Honolulu. Drug-testing protocols were quite different for HOPE probationers compared with those assigned to the comparison group. Comparison-group probationers were not randomly tested. Rather, testing was conducted on dates scheduled in advance, during routine office visits. HOPE probationers were subject to routine testing, but were also tested randomly (six times per month during their first two months and less frequently thereafter based on performance). Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline.
For the process evaluation of Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program, the research team collected survey data with survey instruments designed for each group of key stakeholders. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10).
In October 2004, probation officers at the Integrated Community Sanctions unit in Honolulu developed criteria to identify the probationers in their caseload who were at highest risk of failing probation through continued drug use, missed appointments, or reoffending. The criteria included LSI (Level of Service Inventory) scores and prior behavior on probation. When the Attorney General's Office selected study groups, the intent was for the HOPE group to be comparable to the comparison group (in terms of risk factors). Between 2004 and 2009, as part of the HOPE expansion, more probationers were added to the HOPE program. For Part 1 and Part 2, administrative records were collected on 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available.
For the key stakeholder surveys which were administered from September 2008 through March 2009, sample sizes were 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). All probation officers in the study had undergone training in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and motivational interviewing (irrespective of whether they managed HOPE probationers), and were given additional training covering the logistics and new paperwork required for managing a HOPE caseload. The project's report (Hawken and Kleiman, 2009; NCJ 229023) states that 211 probationers were surveyed as part of the process evaluation. Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 contain survey data on a total of 94 probationers. The stakeholder survey data from the 117 Adult Client Services probationers are not contained in the data as part of this data collection.
All male and female probationers over 18 years of age under community supervision by the Integrated Community Sanctions unit in Honolulu, Hawaii between 2004 and 2009 (Part 1-Part 2). All Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), probationers in treatment (Part 4), probationers in jail (Part 5), probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), public defenders (Part 7), prosecutors (Part 8), judges (Part 9), and court staff (Part 10) involved with the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program between September 2008 and March 2009.
Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS)
PROBER case-management system
Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics (gender, age, and race), and mean missed appointments scores for three periods: three-month period before the study start date (baseline), three-month period following baseline, and six-month period following baseline. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics (gender, age, and race), and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods: three-month period before the study start date (baseline), three-month period following baseline, and six-month period following baseline.
The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program. Other variables in the probationer data include length of time on HOPE probation and whether the respondent knew any probationer who, during an assessment, said that their drug use was either more serious than it was to get a referral to treatment instead of jail or less serious than it was to avoid being sent to a treatment program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables.
The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 also contains items about the HOPE hotline, job satisfaction, and training and Part 9 contains variables about HOPE court supervision. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.
Not applicable (Part 1-Part 2). For the stakeholder surveys (Part 3-Part 10), response rates for all groups were greater than 85 percent.
Several Likert-type scales were used.
Hide2011-07-06
2011-07-06 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.
This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
