Project HOPE goals and program overview

¶ … Project HOPE

What is Project HOPE and what are the goals of the program?

In basic terms, Project HOPE according to the OPPAGA Report (2004) was "a pilot program in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties intended to break the cycle of prostitution and solicitation." The project was created by the Laws of Florida -- Chapter 2002-297. Made up of two components, i.e. prostitutes and johns (individuals soliciting prostitutes), those who participated in the program were requested to enroll into the same by "judges, state attorneys, public defenders, probation officers, and jail staff" (OPPAGA Report, 2004). It should be noted that as provided for by the law under which it was created, the program had its doors open to any individual convicted of prostitution. As the OPPAGA Report (2004) further points out, the program was mandated to "provide intake and screening, drug screening and urinalysis tests, psychosocial assessments, case management, short-term counseling, community referrals, and referrals to residential and non-residential drug treatment." From the very beginning, the project targeted not only prostitutes but also those who solicited their services as this was identified as a more effective way of curbing the prostitution cycle. Although based on a noble idea, Project HOPE experienced quite a number of problems right from start-up culminating with the vetoing of the program's funding for the 2004-05 fiscal year. It was this vetoing by the Governor that effectively ended the program.

Who are the target recipients of the program and are there any unintended benefits?

The project's target recipients in this case were both prostitutes and those who solicited their services. As the OPPAGA Report (2004) points out, it was believed that the prostitution cycle could successfully be curbed by bringing on board both prostitutes and solicitors of prostitution. The benefits of the project (both intended and unintended) in this case were many and varied. To begin with, withheld adjudication can be seen as a significant benefit from the participant's perspective. Other benefits in this case included but they were not in any way limited to enhanced spousal relationships (especially for johns), increased quality of life for both groups of participants, decreased exposure (and hence spread) of HIV, etc. The economy could also have benefited in this case as participants of Project HOPE sought to engage in more productive nation building activities. This is more so the case for prostitutes who benefited from the program's plan in regard to employment counseling, etc. In a way, the move to link prostitutes with other relevant agencies may have helped meet the participants' other unmet needs. Further, Project HOPE can also be taken as a lesson learnt especially in regard to the recommendations made by the OPPAGA Report should the program be resumed.

How was the program supposed to help johns? Was it successful at each site?

Classes in this particular case were tailored to address prostitution as a social problem from three key angles, i.e. The individual, family and community perspectives (OPPAGA Report, 2004). The program also helped johns recognize the thinking errors preceding their solicitation offenses. The identification of these thinking errors was the first step towards their correction. As the OPPAGA Report points out, program administrators at both sites reported that at the time of joining Project HOPE, most johns were angry. Their anger in this particular case was occasioned by a number of things including but not limited to their being caught, the expenses incurred (court and johns' school costs), etc. Further, most johns regarded paying for prostitution more of a moral issue than a crime. However, according to the OPPAGA Report (2004), most of those who enrolled in the program despite being defensive at first "eventually responded positively and engaged in the process." In my opinion, the program was successful at each site. This is more so the case given that "no johns who completed Project HOPE at either pilot site had been re-arrested for solicitation as of January 2004" (OPPAGA Report, 2004). The OPPAGA Report (2004) further points out that the educational sessions played an important role in helping shape the perception johns had of prostitution. Thus in the final analysis, Project HOPE was successful at each site.

How was the program supposed to help prostitutes?

Program administrators according to the OPPAGA Report point out that the treatment needs of prostitutes are in most cases multiple given that most of those who engage in prostitution lack housing conditions that can be regarded stable, are unemployed or have minimal education. Further, in addition to lacking a support system (at the social or family levels) most prostitutes also have substance abuse issues. In seeking to address these and many other issues, both pilots in this particular case came up with "individualized treatment plans for each participant" (OPPAGA Report, 2004). The providers each county settled on to provide services to prostitutes had program designs as well as philosophies that were significantly different. Tampa Crossroads, Inc. was the provider selected at Hillsborough. Here, project staff according to the OPPAGA Report (2004) "conducted a needs assessment with each prostitute and then worked with the client to design a treatment plan." Services in this case included but they were not in any way limited to employment as well as family and marriage counseling, substance abuse counseling, etc. Where appropriate, prostitutes were referred to other agencies for further assistance on issues to do with food, employment, education, etc. Operation PAR was the provider selected for the Pinellas pilot. In this case, project staff according to the OPPAGA Report (2004) "conducted a needs assessment for each prostitute, worked with the client to develop a treatment plan, and then identified programs and agencies that could provide the needed services and treatments." As needed, prostitutes were referred to various other programs which Operation PAR operated.

What recommendations were made should the program be resumed?