Improving probation effectiveness through the Hawaii HOPE program

Probation

We take a look at improving the construct and thereby the impact of probation in our criminal justice system in this paper.

Theory

The inmate population in the U.S.A. rose by 50% between 1990 and1999. The increase also accounts for recidivated parolees. Critics raised Issues about the allegedly ineffective parole system. The U.S.A. is known to have sent a huge number of people to its prisons in the past 40 years. A large chunk of those imprisoned are expected to return to their respective communities. Some of these inmates will return via accumulation of earned time credits or presidential clemency. However, it is observed that the luckier lot of the convicts is the group on parole. Probation has been around for many years in the criminal justice system. It is available in every state across the nation (Larkin). Although the architects of the probation program hoped to achieve a significant feat through it, it has not turned out as successful as expected. Data indicates that up to a third of convicts put on probation are either imprisoned or abscond the program altogether. Yet, there is still need to cut down on the cost of the criminal justice system and at the same time reform offenders by using a workable probation system. There is hope in the pipeline though, sometime in 2004, a court judge in Hawaii came up with a new working way of managing probationers. The approach seems to be achieving the noble intention of the probation program. The program code named HOPE (The Hawaii Opportunity probation With Enforcement) deviates from the traditional probation as we know it. The state and federal government wings should borrow from this landmark evolution (Larkin)

Collection of Data

With support from the bureau of Justice and Innovation, the center for court innovation has been researching the twists of innovation, successes and failure in the criminal justice system since 2007 (Robinson, 2005). They have sought to examine cases of failure or instances where the system has fallen short of expectations. They have conducted interviews with leaders in the criminal justice too. The objective is to establish a working environment that encourages honesty and reflection on well thought out risks by the leaders in the system. That is the central idea that drives the project.

Innovation efforts in the criminal justice System: The National Survey of Criminal Justice Leaders is a central activity in the multifaceted efforts to unearth innovation and criminal justice reform issues. It is conducted by the center for Court Innovation in liaison with the bureau of Justice Assistance and the bureau of Justice of the U.S. (Labriola, et.al, 2013). A questionnaire was designed to investigate the state of innovation in the area of Criminal Justice. Such fundamental questions as to whether innovation is a priority, whether leaders in the criminal justice are aware of new research, and whether their policy decisions are backed by research, arise all the time. The survey seeks to establish the obstacles that stand in the way of innovation. The study was conducted from June to August of 2012. Information was drawn from over 1000 professionals in the criminal justice field, 300 correctional officers, 300 team leaders from the office of the prosecutor, 300 sheriffs and other police officers and 102 chief judges. It included the chief administrators of courts from the 50 states and the District of Columbia (Labriola, et.al, 2013). The above method will be applied in this project also. The study has settled on the questionnaire method because it is thought to elicit the most helpful responses for the reform being examined (Writer Thoughts).

The scope covers leaders from high levels in the criminal justice system from five key segments;

1. The law enforcement units including state and local police sheriffs and chiefs

2. All prosecutors. This will incorporate county attorneys, state attorneys, city attorneys and district attorneys.

3. Community correctional teams including parole, juvenile services, probation, commissioners and directors.

4. Court administration officers including the chief judges and the chief court administrators of the state court systems

Data Analysis

The role of leadership in encouraging innovation in the criminal justice systems has been a central theme in the exercise. The center sought to file records of knowledge, practices, attitudes and the culture of the criminal justice sets in various areas and sections from the targeted samples (Labriola, et.al, 2013). We particularly aimed to understand how widespread innovation is and how evidence and data influences the practice. We also sought to understand how people respond to results that disappoint them, and the obstacles that suffice in the adoption of innovative practices in the justice system. In order to simplify our survey data, we studied whether combinations of similar responses could be combined into small sets of overarching measures. We applied factor analysis to find out if there were any sets of survey responses that converged in a factor; referred to as a "latent construct." For instance, just like a smile and looking someone straight in the eye is a sign of the latent construct of friendship, several clusters of survey questions sought to gauge the wider latent construct of applying evidence and data. The method of forming a latent construct relies on always based on correlation and doesn't point out an inherent or causal link among the various topics mentioned in the various survey questions. Yet, latent constructs are useful tools in the reducing concepts in the data for survey and making the analysis much simpler. The analysis was largely descriptive and gave varying answers to issues of attitude, practice perceptions and even the challenges to innovative efforts within the system. The responses elicited both convergence and divergence in the responses provided on the four criminal justice leader segments (Labriola, et.al, 2013).

We examined the results for each descriptive analysis by segment. In our reports on the findings, when we noted differences among the different groups, we noted the differences in text or in figures in table form. In cases where such a breakdown by tables or figures does not exist, it can be aptly assumed that there were no differences in the segments.