HOPE Probation: Fair Sanctions, Evidence-Based Principles, and Therapeutic Alliances
HOPE Probation: Fair Sanctions, Evidence-Based Principles, and Therapeutic Alliances
复制标题
HOPE 缓刑：公平制裁、循证原则和治疗联盟
DOI：
10.1111/1745-9133.12261
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Steven S. Alm
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Steven S. Alm
夏威夷檀香山。我构想了夏威夷的机会缓刑与执行或 HOPE 策略的想法，并与我们的缓刑官员和其他刑事司法系统合作伙伴一起于 2004 年实施了它。因此，我阅读了司法部示范现场实验 (DFE)（Lattimore 等人，2016 年，本期）和特拉华州的决定你的时间 (DYT)（O'Connell、Brent 和Visher，2016 年，本期）饶有兴趣。尽管德克萨斯州取得了一些良好的结果，但其他的结果与正常缓刑 (PAU) 类似，我想知道为什么。近 12 年来，我们在檀香山以及其他司法辖区（例如，德克萨斯州 SWIFT [Martin，2013]、肯塔基州 SMART [法院和惩教部行政办公室，2013 年]、密歇根州 SSSPP [DeVall、Lanier 和 Hartmann，2011-2013 年] 以及华盛顿州 Swift & certain 司法管辖区的夏威夷 HOPE 战略取得了巨大成功[Hamilton 等人，2015]）也取得了独立的、经过评估验证的成功，我对在 DFE 和 DYT 评估中看到的混合结果感到好奇。在阅读这两项评估时，我意识到 DFE 和 DYT 研究中的评估者以及显然涉及的几位从业者不幸地对 HOPE 策略存在基本的误解。他们似乎认为 HOPE 只是一个仅限制裁的计划，只关心对缓刑犯实施监狱制裁，对他们的康复没有兴趣。事实上，这是对 HOPE 策略的一个常见但有缺陷且严重的误解，它忽视了法官、缓刑/假释官 (PO) 和治疗提供者在 HOPE 中所发挥的关键作用。这种误解解释了在确定 HOPE 模型保真度时使用/省略的指标，并且可能对 DFE 和 DFE 的结果产生重大影响。
Honolulu, Hawaii. I conceived of the idea for Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement or HOPE strategy and, together with our probation officers and the other criminal justice system partners, implemented it in 2004. I thus read the recent evaluations of the Department of Justice's Demonstration Field Experiment (DFE)(Lattimore et al., 2016, this issue) and Delaware's Decide Your Time (DYT)(O'Connell, Brent, and Visher, 2016, this issue) with great interest. Although Texas had some good outcomes, the others were similar to probation-as-usual (PAU) and I wondered why. As we have had great success with Hawaii's HOPE strategy here in Honolulu for nearly 12 years now, and as other jurisdictions (eg, Texas SWIFT [Martin, 2013], Kentucky SMART [Administrative Office of the Courts & Department of Corrections, 2013], Michigan SSSPP [DeVall, Lanier, and Hartmann, 2011-2013], and Washington State Swift & Certain [Hamilton et al., 2015]) have had independent, evaluation-proven successes as well, I was curious as to the mixed results I was seeing reported in the DFE and DYT evaluations. In reading the two evaluations, I came to the realization that the evaluators in both the DFE and the DYT studies, as well as, apparently, several of the practitioners involved, unfortunately have a basic misunderstanding of the HOPE strategy. They seemingly believe that HOPE is simply a sanctions-only program that is solely concerned with imposing jail sanctions on probationers with no interest in their rehabilitation. Indeed, this is a common, but flawed and serious, misunderstanding of the HOPE strategy, and it ignores the critical roles played by the judge, probation/parole officers (POs), and treatment providers in HOPE. This misconception explains the metrics used/omitted in determining fidelity to the HOPE model and could have had significant impact on the results of the DFE and